Home » Religion » Why Tolerate Intolerance?

Why Tolerate Intolerance?

twomen_friends_catholic

“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali

A while ago, around December, I went to have Christmas dinner at my Mother’s parent’s house. After the food, crackers, and hats were all finished with my Grandmother leaned over the table, rested a hand on my Mother’s arm, and said – completely out of the blue – “I brought you up to respect other people’s beliefs.”

Now, as this somewhat hushed and accusatory utterance was so unexpected and random, my Mother was a little confused. I was too.

“What do you mean?” she asked.
“You’re always laughing at religious people, it’s not nice.”

Now my Mother knew what she was going on about. She crossed her arms.

“Mother, I refuse to ‘respect’ intolerant views. Why would I?”
“It’s just not nice, Victoria. My Father always said-”

At this point I chimed in.

“Oma [German for Grandmother], the point is that no belief – while belief itself is a right – should be exempt from reasonable criticism.”
“But it’s what they think. It’s mean to go around making fun of-”
“-Take, for example, the beliefs of the members of the Nazi Party. Did they demand ‘respect’, or criticism?”

My Grandfather didn’t like this point.

“That’s irrelevant! You’re changing the subject.” he said.
“No he isn’t.”, replied Mum, still confused as to why the whole subject came up in the first place,  “He used a fair example of a belief obviously not worthy of tolerance – and that’s my point! I refuse to tolerate intolerant views.”

There was silence as some people shook their heads.

“Now, who wants desert?” said Oma…

What I think I take from this somewhat tangential narrative is that some people seem to think that criticising religion is always wrong. Religious belief, I’m sure they will insist, is a human right – and opposing certain beliefs goes against the believer’s right to believe them.

Not so. A certain distinction must be made here.

I wholly believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of belief – without these values, there is only oppression. But I do not advocate and will openly oppose words which are hate-filled and beliefs which are dangerous. In other words; I respect every individual’s right to hold beliefs, but not necessarily the content of said beliefs.

But many forget this distinction. They see, say, opposing the Catholic Church’s views on gay rights as opposing each and every Catholic’s right to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe (perhaps about crackers).

And calling the beliefs nonsense is not a personal attack on each and every Catholic intended to hurt their feelings; it’s a criticism of the opinions they hold as facts. A significant handful of them may even act on their nonsense opinions – which would cause genuine ‘insult’ to, for example, potential HIV sufferers who are told that condom use is wrong (and doesn’t prevent the spread of HIV).

‘Insult’ and a death sentence, I might add.

Another one of the most odious criticisms of the public ridicule of religious beliefs comes in the form of labelling objections to bigotry, inequality and intolerance as racist.

What I’m of course referring to is the tendency for some Muslims to instantly brand an objection to some of the Qur’an’s ‘teachings’ as islamophobic. The problem is; non-Muslims do it too.

I don’t quite know if it’s out of fear or not, but when Ayatollahs (high-ranking Shia clerics) issue bounties on free-thinking people’s heads on a whim – with even a single Muslim happy to fulfil the deed as a perceived core element of their faith – fear is understandable. Being bullied into shutting up is therefore the fate of many public criticisers of Islam, which all stinks of the history of Christian burnings at the stake to me. Much of Islam is stuck in the dark ages with regards to specific beliefs and related politics, and it’s about time people more openly expressed this.

I understand that the ‘solution’ to such a problem (and it is a problem) is not opposition to Islam’s (or any other religion’s) beliefs in the form of conflict. The ‘solution’ is freedom of information.

Friendly discussion with the world of secular values is what major religions are really scared of. Once gender equality, rights to education, sexual equality, freedom of speech, science, and comedy (among other things) are glimpsed, there’s no going back.

Sadly, extremism will fight this every step of the way – and it should be openly ridiculed because of it. Nothing ‘demands respect’, and any belief system that claims to is both silly and dangerous.

Carnun :P

24 thoughts on “Why Tolerate Intolerance?

  1. I personally don’t understand the advocacy of the concept of tolerance of religion — as if that’s a good thing in any way. You’ve outlined why it’s detrimental to society; however, it’s also not even useful in the way it’s intended (to be kind to one another). In what other circumstance is the word ‘tolerance’ used in a positive way? My view of two people tolerating each other is deep down hating each other but just not physically or verbally lashing out at one another. Not a great virtue in my books. Better to get everything off your chest and know your true friends and enemies.

  2. Perhaps your label of “extremism” has little discernable meaning without a reasoned and valid moral baseline. At least Christianity and Judaism share a moral baseline which is consistent over about a 7,000 year period; while tradition and doctrine have developed over time, core truths have not changed – the baseline remains and is reliable and credible. Many, many millions have attested and continue to attest to this. There are the micro-few who take issue.

    If one does not believe in God or a Creator who made humans and creation the way we are meant to be – who gave structure to nature and society for specific reasons, then one’s arguments very easily evaporate into words which are interesting to read but which can not help anyone reach their full potential.

    Without rules and structure, there is chaos. If there is chaos, then meaning is lost and reason is discarded as invalid.

    Yes, we must tolerate errors and differences, and not for the sake of the error or difference itself, but out of compassion for helping cure those suffering from the error or suffering from perceived disunity.

    Remember:
    There are those who are ill and who do not seek to be well;
    There are those who are ill and seek to be well;
    There are those who are hurt and who do not seek to be healed;
    There are those who are hurt and seek to be healed;
    There are those who seek to hurt others;
    There are those who seek to heal others;
    There are those who see healing as hurting, and who seek to stop the healer while the hurt continue to die in their woundedness.

    The last group tend to be those who just think that we should allow chaos to rule – that we should sit quietly and “tolerate” and take no action to heal a wounded brother or sister. They are like the one who charges and convicts the doctor of a crime because he caused pain while seting another’s broken bone – saving his life and restoring him to his full capability. Their ability to reason and judge appropriately has been clouded.

    And so we must ask the one who calls for the “tolerance of chaos.” What has clouded your judgment? You see the baseline quite clearly in 99.99997% of humanity, yet you deny it. How is that possible?

    Whatever the case, a blind man is not allowed to drive a vehicle. That is the well-reasoned, morally-based rule, and it guarantees the safety of everyone else, including the blind man.

    • With your permission, I’d like to dedicate an entire post to discussing the points you bring up in this comment.

      As you spent so much time, I’m sure, formulating your response, I think it’s only fair that I give you an honest, well thought out, structured reply of my own.

      Of course, I don’t really need your permission at all, as you commented on this post knowing full well that this is a public space. It’s not as if you sent me a private message, after all…

      Carnun :P

      • Dear Carnun – I don’t understand. I am having an intellectual interaction with you for your benefit – to help with understanding. There is no need for a lengthy response. Peace to you.

      • It’s settled then.

        I can’t possibly leave such patronising false sincerity without proper response. Don’t attempt to squirm away from it (because that’s what it seems like you’re doing).
        You wrote me a novel, and then say that there’s “no need for a lengthy response”? Pathetic.

        Insulting.

      • That is true. You were not angry, only blissfully unaware of your own subtle (in language, not that it was hard to discern) hostility.

        And just so you know, for future reference (and your own understanding), playing the “you have verbally assaulted me” card so early on is just not cricket. It shows such intellectual insecurity, especially when it’s asserted without due provocation.

      • Thank you. You have directed the dicussion to your view of my weaknesses again, and this in light of the fact that you don’t really know me at all. I recommend that in future interactions, try to be more charitable and focus on the issue instead of on attacking the individual who simply has a different opinion.

      • Look, I only know of you as far as you have chosen to present yourself to me – that’s your doing.

        But don’t worry. My post will focus on the issues you bring up, not you as a person.

    • “”Yes, we must tolerate errors and differences, and not for the sake of the error or difference itself, but out of compassion for helping cure those suffering from the error or suffering from perceived disunity.”

      The problems lies in when what you perceive to be suffering & in need of a ‘cure’ – e.g many religions stance on homosexuality, marriage equality etc – is an affront to the many who do not judge others on such matters, which IMO, are completely irrelevant when the bigger picture should be of whether that person is kind & empathic.

      Morals are not the sole preserve of the religious & certain human behaviour – that of acting in a compassionate way – has been happening thousands of years before the current crop of religions took hold. Prehistoric human bones have been found that show evidence of disabled humans being looked after & cared for by those around them.

      So, as we move into the future, with all the knowledge of the world past & present we currently have, there is now no longer room to or need to ‘tolerate’ those views which are odious to many right thinking people & cause harm & suffering, whether intentionally or not.

  3. It’s always perplexing to me when someone has said something deeply wrong & they damn well know it’s a controversial thing to say unless they are that stupid – e.g being gay is an abomination – and when you call them out on it it is them that then acts all offended, and that you have hurt their feelings by not respecting their beliefs. I have very little ‘tolerance’ for that kind of behaviour. Just don’t say offensive things if your feelings are that easily hurt when you are rightly taken to task about your odious views.

    • Dear Vix – I understand your response. All men are pemitted by God to sin as they please. God does not give them Grace in order that they may sin. When men disobey God and act out against His Will, men lose Grace; men give up their battle against concupiscence and exhibit a desire to act without God’s help – God takes it back. This leads to a sort of spiritual blindness. My Church (the Catholic Church) does not condemn gay people as “an abomination;” in contrast, the Catholic Church is compassionate with men (I mean men and women) who suffer with same-sex attraction. The homosexual act is classified as a mortal sin (which has ripple effects such as exclusion from some Sacraments), but being gay is not a sin; suffering from same-sex attraction is more akin to having such a deficit of Grace that it is extremely difficult to avoid falling prey to temptation and concupiscence. Some men (I mean men and women) who are married find themselves in a similar plight: because there is something wrong in their marriage, they act out against God’s Will and begin entertaining extra-marital affairs; they enter into that affair and begin losing Grace. They think they have found happiness; but they do not know they have been blinded by emotion and a certain euphoria similar to what one my get from taking a drug. In a sense, they become addicted to that bad “drug” and begin dying in their mortal sin. Their marriage deteriorates and begins a rapid death because God has been dismissed. At some point, God returns and offers His Grace again because He desires that all be saved. Men have the choice to refuse God’s Grace though. And in the end, man will be judged in Truth by God Himself. But God does not desire to catch man in the midst of His disobedience. This would be very sad.

      Sometimes, the Truth will be “offensive” to those who need it the most for the sake of their well-being. For example, the concept of “obedience” would be offensive to a person who absolutely disdains authority. And so what does that mean? That means that the concept of the Highest Authority – God – would also offend them. That is a serious problem since no one can escape God’s righteous Judgment and no one can escape the option to receive His Love either. And so, if being obedient to God offends those who disdain authority, that perception can change with the building of trust between two parties, but the Truth (which may offend) can not be changed.

      • All I can see is blah blah God blah blah God blah blah..’the catholic church is compassionate’ (well that is one big fat, laughable,lie) Mate, I’ll leave it to Carnun to respond in a more ‘tolerant’ & bothered fashion. You can’t bring up your concept of an imaginary being as proof in a conversation with people who have no regard for your particular brand of blind faith (or any faith for that matter)
        The fact that you still say that being gay is suffering and a sin kills any discourse between us. You are fundamentally wrong. Your pathetic church is also wrong & maybe one day you will all come out of the dark ages & actually practice this so called “compassionate values” of acceptance of all whatever background.
        simple philosophy is this – do what you want as long as you harm no others. So don’t insult those who think different sexually (or any other way) to you by saying it is they who are sinful when you are guilty of the ‘sin’ of being a complete bigot.

  4. Carnun – be wary of the passive-aggressive, manipulative types. They either a) actually believe the bullshit they espouse, in which case they are verging on mad so nothing will get through or b) know & like the game they are playing clearly & enjoy the goading/trolling. Avoid either unless you like banging your head against a brick wall.

  5. I’m going to play devil’s advocate, in the interest not of controversy but of friendly discussion.

    Here’s what I think: no belief should be free from criticism and from evaluation by critical thinking. At face value, most religious beliefs are absurd and they deserve derision. If you believe a virgin gave birth to a child, for example, you should try studying basic biology. If you believe the earth was made in 7 literal days, 6000 years ago, you could use some basic astronomy and geology, etc., etc. If you keep those beliefs as a matter of personal faith, a cultural system you are attached to, and don’ try to impose those beliefs on others, then I’m going to leave the person alone. The person. Not the belief. I will not confront them personally or ridicule them personally, nor attack them. Now, if you believe gay people should not have the same rights as straight people, or if you believe women should not be able to decide what to do with their own bodies or lives, or if you believe that you should kill infidels because Allah has virgins reserved for you in outer space, well, then, I’m not only going to ridicule these people, I’m going to FIGHT them, because their beliefs oppress and endanger others. So yes, in that sense, intolerance does not get a free pass and should be combatted.

  6. Mr Philip: ‘suffer same-sex attraction’?!isthat really how you see it? Really? Truly? Nonsense. It really is. The only thing ‘suffer’ from is silly little ignorant views like yours. Views that hide behind your personal interpretation of a book.

    • Kaffee – your response is angry and seeks to belittle. Do you notice this? I did not seek to belittle. Also, in obedience to authority, I do not rest on my own, personal interpretations of the Bible. I seek obedience to God first and to those God has given authority to interpret.

What do you think? Leave a reply. Comments and feedback are much appreciated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s