Toleration of Intolerance

[spudtater]

``I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!'' — Tom Lehrer

"Should intolerance be tolerated?" A question often asked in humour, but I wish to ask it seriously. The joke, as some people would describe it, is that once you decide not to tolerate the intolerant, you become the very thing you are opposing. But it's a workable position; it can be summed up — rather clumsily, granted — as "I do not tolerate any intolerance except towards intolerance itself."

Aside: Not that I'm advocating invading, say, Saudi Arabia. Sure, I'd like to change things, but violence is just the knee-jerk reaction of politics, and usually either doesn't work, or isn't worth the loss of life.

The thing that got me thinking (or rethinking) about this was the Richard Dawkins interview linked to in my last post. Religion angers him because of dogma. When you believe something so fundamentally that to even question it is a sin, it leads to intolerance; always divisive, and sometimes violent. I recently came across an article by an American Christian fundamentalist opposing multifaith schools. To even suggest that any other religion should be respected on a level with Christianity was sickening to her, as the purpose of schools is to teach truth, and to her it was without the shadow of a doubt that Christianity was true, a priori.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with the idea that we should always hold in our minds the possibility that we might be wrong, and to respect other people's opinions accordingly. But can we afford to give in to a person with sheer weight of conviction? Are we supposed to compromise on a compromise? "Religious beliefs should be respected equally... err, but perhaps some more equally than others."

There is little that angers me more than dogma. To rule out doubt on a certain belief is to limit your mind. The more you hold to be without question, the more damage there is to your rationality. The earth was created. Evolution didn't happen. The earth is flat THE GOVERNMENT FAKED THE PICTURES FROM SPACE!!!!111! Well, you see what I'm getting at. I should point out that science too has to be doubted. You cannot be a good scientist with a closed mind. If Einstein had held as immutable truth that time is independent of velocity, where would we be?

But to get back on track: I hold a position on intellectual debate that is tolerant of differing belief, but intolerant of intolerance. I shall be polite about, even interested in, your beliefs only if you admit that they might, just possibly, be wrong. Otherwise, they're not rational beliefs; they're the diseased ramblings of a brainwrong loony. As such, I claim my right to tell you to shut up and go away in no uncertain terms, without the slightest feeling of guilt.   8^P

Now, about the question asked in my last post: I justify my general everyday tolerance of religion by the fact that I have seen dogma; irrational belief; faith, in myself, and I don't believe that my (slightly) religious upbringing is to blame. Yes, religion is tainted by the blood of a million "heretics" and "heathens", but can we really blame this on the nebulous thing that we name "religion", and claim no part of it ourselves? If we somehow stomp out religion, throwing the many babies out with the bathwater, will all dogma magically go away? Or will it keep popping up again and again under different names and guises? I think the latter.

Now I must go watch Doctor Who.

Comments

[batswing.livejournal.com]

I haven't read your last post yet - just off to do so.

But of course I might be wrong in my religious beliefs! then again, I fully invite you to tell me to shut up when I talk about them, and I might even go away, as long as you send me with a hug instead of a poke in the eye.

But then my religion rejects dogma and pretty much demands acceptance.

And no, it's not an easy way out before anyone thinks that. It's a very hard thing to live by.

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

The Quakers are the only Christian group I know of who've come right out and said that the bible is just a book and as such may contain inaccuracies and falsehoods. I respect them very much for this, and their entire "no creed" position.

> But of course I might be wrong in my religious beliefs!

The "of course" heartens me. Not that I doubted your position at all!

There are, however, many people who would leave out the "of course". There are some people who would negate the entire sentence. And there are a handful who apparently think that to even utter a word of doubt on religious matters would be to doom themselves to fiery death...   8^P

[batswing.livejournal.com]

then they know a different god, and I think I'm scared of both person and deity!

[sigmonster.livejournal.com]

Unitarians hold doubt and the use of reason and conscience as fundamental principles, too, and many of us identify as christian (some identify as unitarian quakers, come to think of it). Not that I'm proselytising. (well, just a little. Most chapels are still far too goddy, so we need more atheists.) (I need to find a decent chalice, come to think of it.)

I find black-box thinking sometimes helpful; I care about acts, public political stances, and maybe ethical principles, and judge those. Anything else is private. (What you do think about hate-crime legislation? I've heard similar arguments made in that arena.)

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

Ah, I didn't even know you were unitarian!
Yes, the unitarians have always struck me as very sane. But I always thought they were an American movement... apparently not.

Hmmm... on researching, have just discovered the story of Thomas Aikenhead. Poor guy!

[sigmonster.livejournal.com]

Unchurched, atheist, unitarian and over here!

Needs work, I guess.

Beyond the forests

Imagine a remote part of Europe. Its very name is associated with a superstition so gross that bigotry itself would scoff at it. Suppose that, centuries ago, a public debate among scholars converted the king and people of the region to a rationalistic, tolerant, liberal and humane Christian heresy, and that this heresy persisted as the people's faith despite the persecutions of church and state, of nationalists and communists. Imagine this heresy - with its own churches and seminaries, clergy and congregations, saints and martyrs - being the unquestioned creed of generations, and surviving to this day.

It sounds like some alternate-history invention, but it's the true story of the Unitarians of Transylvania.
(Ken Macleod, 28/02/05)

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

Mwahahaha! I have come to grant you the right of free worship... and to suck your blood!!!

*flees*

[kropotkin29.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the Thomas Aitkenhead link. Very informative and a clear example of the barbaric intolerant nature of our recent ancestors and 'civilised' society.

I haven't read your previous post, will do so now, I agreeing with the points you make.

We should all be tolerant of others behaviour and beliefs, but I reserve my right not to tolerate whatever I choose. ;-)

anyhoo. Liked yer post. enuff verbage from me.