Olbermann speaks for me! I feel like the light is starting to break through every time I hear him speak.

Does the situation in Israel ever bother you? Could we have someone in State who cares as much about the Palestinians and Arabs in Israel as they do about everyone else?

Let's say Rev. Warren was notorious for his comments critiquing the Jewish community. Would everyone be defending Obama's idea to include him then? I think not. Why is it not okay to be anti-Semitic, but somehow more understandable to be homophobic? Is Obama seeking to have a dialogue with anti-Semites? Will he invite Aryan Nations and Christian identity ministers to his event?

Until the the gay community makes being a homophobe as toxic as being an anti-Semite, these strange incongruities and contradictions will continue.

Aren't the opponents of these Christians trying to shame them right back? I don't understand how shaming people for being homophobes isn't using shame too.

I think the questions is who gets to choose who is being "tolerant" and who is being "intolerant." The Christians say that the people attacking them are intolerant of their views. I never see liberals being able to understand why others see them as self-righteous, but I think we can all find examples of that, right? You seem to be suggesting that intolerance is okay when you feel it, but not okay when others feel it about your positions. Isn't this sort of hypocritical?

Do people choose to be hate filled homophobes? Or are they trained to become them from resentments and circumstances which they have very little control over? Why should they be held accountable for their ingrained beliefs and why should they automatically be expected to be enlightened liberals? Seeking to "naturalize" your morality or ideology is what they try to do too, don't they?

So you're tolerant, but you want them to treat the students in their school in accord with your values and not their values? That doesn't seem too tolerant to me. Demanding that everyone share their values is what intolerant people do, right? If you everyone to obey certain fundamentalist Christian dogma, you're intolerant. But if you want everyone to obey PC dogma, you're not. This seems like a contradiction and it points to the blindness those on the left have when it comes to the way their accusatory postures are seen as hypocritical.

Are Israeli's supporters who view any criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic "intolerant" too? I'm curious when Salon's "tolerant" readers will start loudly making that case.

Your citation of Jesus in this context points to the way that many liberal values actually derive from Judeo-Christianity in the first place. This may explain why the people holding these secularized religious values are just as vehement, when it comes to insisting on them, as the religious types they do battle with seem to be.

I think that the unyielding vehemence of this response reveals how close you are - in many ways - to the people you think you are attacking. They think they are right and you think you are. I think both sides look pretty "intolerant."

"Whoever sets up a value, takes a position against a disvalue by that very action. The boundless tolerance and the neutrality of standpoints and viewpoints turn themselves very quickly into their opposite, into enmity, as soon as enforcement is carried out in earnest. The valuation pressure of the value is irresistible and the conflict of the valuator, devaluator, revaluator and implementor, inevitable."

- Carl Schmitt

If he was really invested in "blasphemy" he'd go into detail about all the hideous ethnocentrism and chauvinism in the Talmud. That kind of emphasis is guaranteed to be more upsetting then the "I'm so quirky" approach we see on display here.

Since the Birchers opposed the war in Vietnam, and weren't on board for a total state at home to combat communism, they were summarily booted out of the "conservative movement" presided over by William F. Buckley.

The anger directed at them always seemed to me to be suspect in and of itself - no matter who it was coming from.

I think people may be missing the best part of this argument. If abortion really is like slavery, then why hasn't the GOP devoted more time and money to fighting it? If the Huckster really believes what he says, then he is indicting himself and his own party for paying mere lip service to a cause they should all be willing to fight and die for.

Will Salon next be focused on the "controversial" life of Martin Luther King, and Ceaser Chavez? Didn't they have a lot critics too, at one point?

I doubt it.

See, the American Civil Rights movement is like a secular religious icon - it can't be touched or critiqued. But Palestine is a different matter. Arabs are not as "innocent" as American blacks. Does anyone else smell the double standard here?

Every group is as capable of being oppressive bigots as any other group. Salon is, at the this point, utterly unable to come to terms with this simple fact. Whose agenda does this truth disturb or thwart?

Zionism = racism. Dry your tears and admit it.

The NYT has been practicing its double standard for years regarding Israel.

Didn't Glenn see the connection?

The GOP has done very little for the anti abortion people. The general idea is to use this issue as a handy football and then abandon any work that might entail real sacrifices or risks. Sooner or later they are going to get called on refusing to "walk their talk" and that day of reckoning will be brutal.

Cary, you are one of the main reasons I joined and stayed with Salon. Thanks for letting us know and of course you'll have our support until you're all recovered!