In fairness, the left is out of options I guess. Grasping at straws?
Pete Hegseth: “Next to the communist Chinese and their global ambitions, Islamism is the most dangerous threat to freedom in the world. It cannot be negotiated with, coexisted with, or understood; it must be exposed, marginalized, and crushed.”
Well, I see some leftwing people post they can’t coexist with Nazism in contrast for example. Are you ok with coexisting with nazism or do you think it needs to be “crushed”? I disagree that islam needs to be “crushed” however authortarian variants may pose such a danger
I think the paradox of tolerance seems to be wildly misunderstood by the left
if a person cannot be tolerant of the intolerant, then they’re not a tolerant person; hence this “paradox” as interpreted by leftists, seems to advocate for shades of intolerance then, and against a tolerant society existing
yet, tolerance does not imply agreement, nor pacifism. Someone is still free to argue against someone with a view they disagree with, or if such a person uses violence against the person wrongly, they don’t have to “tolerate” the violence (although they are free to do so if that would be prudent) but are able to defend themselves with lawful self-defense
I suppose the word “tolerance” is probably ambiguous in this “paradox”
Additionally, the predominant American attitude seemed to be that such “intolerance” could be voluntarily argued against and overcome; it is legal to advocate for violent ideologies like Nazism or Communism alike, and usually such people were ignored or problems for example with their economics views were brought up and most people voluntarily agreed that such ideologies were not ideal.
So as I understand it, the “paradox of tolerance” is not really a justification for or argument for a necessity of “not tolerating the intolerant”
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5191413/peter-hegseths-tattoos-are-raising-some-eyebrows
But it is important to know that symbols and language tied to the Crusades are very present in some extremist movements. You know, this was a symbol on display on January 6. It was contained in the writings of neo-Nazi mass-shooter who killed scores at a summer camp in Norway in 2011. And it could signal a deep antipathy toward Islam.
They’re honestly just Christian symbols and not a problem
Read the article, or many from reputable news organizations instead of just whatever you find on Xitter:
CHANG: Do we have any evidence that Hegseth feels any deep antipathy towards Islam?
YOUSEF: So I attempted to contact Hegseth for an interview, and I haven’t heard back. But one group that has looked into this is the progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America. Now, they’ve highlighted his connections to David Horowitz, a prominent American Islamophobe. They’ve also highlighted passages from Hegseth’s own books, where he complains about growing numbers and political representation of Muslims in the U.S. And Hegseth has also spoken about rebuilding the so-called third temple in Jerusalem, which would involve destroying the third-holiest site in Islam.
CHANG: Oh, interesting. OK. Well, what else have you found, Odette - anything that might shed light on Hegseth’s religious beliefs or religious affiliations - anything?
YOUSEF: So scholars told me that Hegseth is what they would consider to be a Christian nationalist, you know, and, even within the spectrum of Christian nationalism, that he belongs to a movement that one religious scholar, Matthew Taylor, calls, quote, “the very militant end of the Christian nationalist spectrum.” Now, this is called the Christian Reconstructionist movement, and it seeks to reestablish Biblical law - namely Old Testament Biblical law. Now, Ailsa, this movement has lately been finding more popularity, specifically with young men in the U.S. They’re sometimes referred to as theo bros, in part because this is considered a very masculine expression of Christianity. Here’s Julie Ingersoll of the University of North Florida.
JULIE INGERSOLL: This tradition is deeply patriarchal. Men are in charge, and women exist for the purpose of assisting their men in their exercise of dominion. And their roles are very limited to home and family.
YOUSEF: The leader of the denomination that Hegseth belongs to has established a kind of theocracy in Moscow, Idaho. And some within this movement speak quite openly of repealing the 19th Amendment - you know, the right for women to vote. And so, you know, I think this adds some context around what Hegseth has said in interviews about wanting to remove women from combat roles.
Tattoo on arm: “Deus Vult” (God wills it, crusader motto… typically associated with Catholicism, although Hegseth is Baptist I think?)
Tattoo on chest: Jerusalem cross (multiple religious meanings attached to it)
Yeah, just tattoos related to Christian extremism.
Imagine he was Muslim and used jihad and ISIS.
I’m myself Christian and to me having tattoos like that is disgusting, definitively not something that Jesus would support.
not Christian extremism, just Christian symbols
I’m not really a fan of tattoos but they’re not necessarily morally wrong, I think some Christians have put small cross tattoos on when going in to combat for bodily identification if they died in battle for example