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]

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