Peter, it is totally permissible to criticize the ideas in religion, but a person’s religion isn’t the sum of their being. "And we want these people with these values to integrate into our society, but we can’t force them to give up any of these values, because that would be intolerant of us, right? " Those values you outline aren’t the values of most Muslims, just like they aren’t the values of most Christians, you point this out yourself kinda. All Abrahamic faiths have that rubbish in their religious texts, but we have no problems accepting Christians or Jews (and let us not forget, that we have plenty of right wing Christian violence as well). And yes, obviously we don’t need religion to be good people, and maybe people would be better without religion. But we don’t live in that world, we live in a world where people value their dumbass religions. So, whatever thing you are proposing when you say that you won’t tolerate the intolerant, imagine what concrete ideas you have in mind, and imagine how those policies would be carried out. I would wager that whatever the practical policy proposals are aren’t very good ones. It is fine to criticise religions in a theoretical sense or even in your personal relations, but concrete policy is a whole other bag of worms. That is the problem with Sam Harris and others that criticise Islam so uniquely. They start with the criticism, which is great, but then they issue vague statements and never finish by taking the next “what are you gonna do about it” step. That final step makes all the difference in the real world.

Does being intolerant of intolerance solve anything? I hear, see, read quotes from pundits who tell us, according to their specialty, why the latest shooter(s) murdered a lot of people. Who cares? We need to be asking for solutions from these analysts and experts.

I understand that these comments may be worded a bit harshly and can come across to some as confrontational, but watching all the politicians come out to raise their pet issues to blame for the latest mass shooting or bombing time and time again leaves me a little exasperated, and makes me wonder how many more innocent lives will have to die for someone else’s talking points, regardless of what the perpetrator said their actions were about.

Does being intolerant of intolerance make someone a bigot?

“But not all Muslims are like that!” — This is true, but if there are people that grew up to be fine, upstanding citizens with and without religious doctrine, did people really need religion in the first place to tell right from wrong? I can say the same thing about Christianity in the West as well.

“But it’s part of their culture!” — Are all cultures sacred cows? You probably also believe that we live in a “rape culture” in the West. I personally don’t believe that’s true, but a far stronger case could be made for rape cultures in Islamic nations, where women’s testimonies are only given a fraction of the sway that men’s testimonies do. Do you want to integrate this kind of culture into our own?

If we can assume that Omar Mateen was not affiliated with ISIS or any radical terrorists groups that he claimed to be acting on the behalf of, and was indeed acting alone, this leaves him as just an “ordinary” American Muslim acting on what the core tenets of his beliefs told him to do. We are making excuses for people that believe that women are second-class citizens, gays should be killed as an act of “compassion”, and the penalty for leaving this community as an apostate is death.
And we want these people with these values to integrate into our society, but we can’t force them to give up any of these values, because that would be intolerant of us, right? Shall we be tolerant of the intolerant? Perhaps we should, because this is the only remaining culture in the world that will murder you for criticizing it. Just ask the surviving employees of Charlie Hebdo.