At some point we must make a decision not to allow the mere threat of charges of cultural or religious insensitivity to stop us from dealing with this evil.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In commendably seeking to protect freedom of speech, we must not lower our defences against the evil of racial and religious intolerance.
We had better dispense with the personification of evil, because it leads, all too easily, to the most dangerous kind of war: religious war.
I think the only choice that will enable us to hold to our vision... is one that abandons the concept of naming enemies and adopts a concept familiar to the nonviolent tradition: naming behavior that is oppressive.
As human beings we have the most extraordinary capacity for evil. We can perpetrate some of the most horrendous atrocities.
While religious tolerance is surely better than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities. Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive.
As long as anger, paranoia and misinformation drive our political debate, there are unhinged souls among us who will feel justified in turning to violent remedies for imagined threats.
Much that we call evil is really good in disguises; and we should not quarrel rashly with adversities not yet understood, nor overlook the mercies often bound up in them.
The idea that somehow or other you can deal with all the problems in the world by banning a particular religious group from entering the U.S.A. is offensive and absurd.
Is it not enough to know the evil to shun it? If not, we should be sincere enough to admit that we love evil too well to give it up.
In the real world in which we live, you always have to choose between evils. And in choosing between evils, you have to have moral criteria for how to make those choices.
No opposing quotes found.