I marvel at just how spot on he is when it comes to "tolerance".  Tolerance is almost always one-sided...and is very rarely reciprocated by those who demand it of others.  The sacreligious filth that some label as "art" is nothing more than a cowardly way of not only rejecting closely-held beliefs of others, but throwing it back into their faces and then DEMANDING they be tolerant of it.  I pity such people as they must be truly miserable in all that they do to allow themselves to be controlled by such compulsions and to be so insensitive to the things others hold so dear.

Now that Mr. Beck has taken the liberty (quite literally, actually) to display the same respect towards an individual and ideology that the disrespectful hold dear, how will they receive it?  With tolerance?  No, I think not.  Just give this a little while and we'll soon see that one-sided tolerance rear its ugly head once again. 

Beck made some very good points when he said that even though he doesn't always agree with what people decide to "express", he believes in the spirit of the Constitution and the reasons that such expressions should be allowed.  We have no right to try to prohibit those people SO LONG AS THEY DON'T INFRINGE IN THE RIGHTS OF THOSE AROUND THEM.  If a private "art" museum decides they want to display such images they have the right to do so, but when one takes the avenue of aggressively forcing themselves and their beliefs upon others, that's when the line is crossed.  For example, if I were to be walking down the street and one of these "artists" decides to step in front of me and hold something that they know most people would find offensive in front of my face so that I have no choice but to view it, then my rights have been violated.  Yes, I can close my eyes but I shouldn't have to.  This is much different than a person seeking out such things with hopes of finding them in places that they are most likely to be found...such as museums.  The object still exists, but it must be sought after and the rights of individuals are not violated. 

Now, do I think this interpretation is always in force and valid?  Not necessarily.  The biggest exception I can think of would be in the exploitation of children or when privacy is violated to produce such "art" and the reasons should be obvious:  personal rights have been violated.

To me, many things are black and white, right and wrong.  When the Constitution was created and approved by The Founders, they understood this and is the very reason why they said that it would only be suitable for a moral, God-fearing society who understand dignity and respect.  "It is wholly inadequate for any other".  Some folks think Beck went too far but, unfortunately, it is this very type of message that is needed to help others understand what "tolerance" and the Constitution really are about.  This is also why we should judge actions and not individuals: even though we can discern actions to be right or wrong, we don't know the hearts of the individuals nor what compelled them to commit such actions.