Tolerance

[Gavan]

Taken from the Peninsula 19/02/06

Addressing a US-Islamic World Forum which he opened here yesterday, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem said: “We must exert our best efforts to prevent provocation and respect beliefs and sacred religious symbols of people without discrimination.”

hxxp://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com
© 2001 The Peninsula. All Rights Reserved

Two years ago I was camping by myself at one of the state forests located about an hours drive from my home. It was early spring so it was still a little cold and the area I was in was notorious for its dense morning fog.

I woke in my tent early on the first morning to a loud, metallic, grating noise outside and being the investigative type I grabbed my torch and headed out to see what was happening. It was still dark outside and the fog had started rolling in, making it difficult to see with a torch. I cautiously walked around the campsite trying to see if there was any activity in the bushes beyond. I heard the noise again but this time it was much louder and was coming from the other side of a creek I was near. I crept over towards the creek and a figure appeared from the darkness. It seemed to float above the ground as it came closer towards me at a walking pace. An outstretched hand appeared from beneath a set of flowing white robes and pointed a finger at me. I was frozen to the spot. I heard a voice inside my head, a soothing, mothering tone that immediately set me at ease. The voice told me that she was now my new God and I was to prepare the world for her coming. I was not to seek converts to my cause as they were not needed for her influence to be exerted upon all people. She then told me that she would appear to me at another time when she thought the world was ready for her but in the meantime I was to consult the scripture she had left on the bank of the creek and follow its teachings. The next thing I knew it was midday and I woke fully clothed and there was a rolled parchment resting on my chest.

From then on I have followed these teachings. They may sound bizarre to you but I saw what I saw, and I believe what I believe, and I don’t think anyone has the right to tell me not to. Nor do I feel that they have the right to stop me from exercising those beliefs.

My religion has only two rules. The first is that it is a sin for anyone else to worship any religion whatsoever and that anyone who does is a heretic and will be punished in the afterlife. This includes believing in my religion.

The second is that at all times I must now only wear bright pink tutus with leopard skin leotards. This has caused some problems in my capacity as the maitre d’ at our cities largest hotel but I’ve advised them that they have no right to tell me that I can’t because this is my religion and they should respect that. I’ll be clogging up the courts with this discrimination case fairly soon.


Obviously, and especially from the last paragraph, this is a story but, relative to some of the claims made by other religions, not beyond the realms of possibility. For me it also raises a host of questions regarding the worlds current view on religious tolerance such as, is it intolerant to be intolerant of someone else’s intolerance? And who decides what should be tolerable?

My other questions follow and it seems to me that the answers to each change to suit peoples needs at the time, although I feel that a definitive answer to some of them at least would clear up a lot of subsequent questions I have floating around in my head.


When is an entity able to define itself as a ‘religion’?

What are the requirement’s to be met in order to justify this moniker?

For it to be a religion does it have to be accepted as a religion by others who do not believe in its precepts?

If a person holds a set of beliefs to be true, beliefs that no one else holds to be true, does this person still have the right to say that they are firstly, religious, and secondly that they belong to a ‘religion’?

If the answer to the last question is yes and the beliefs of this person are inherently ‘evil’ are we to still respect this persons beliefs because they belong to a religion?

If the answer is no what is the cut off point for the number of people subscribing to the religion for it to be accepted as being a religion and therefore qualifying it for protection from religious vilification?

Is the number of people who are members of the religion even relevant or is it the actions of those involved that satisfy the criteria? Are they required to attend organised meetings and if so at what frequency? Are they required to subscribe to all the beliefs or only a few? Do these beliefs have to be notated somewhere or just passed along verbally?

Yes I know there are a lot of questions but if I can get answers from anywhere it will be here.

Cheers.

 

[LostAngeles]

Hail Eris!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hail Caeser!

 

[Soapy Sam]

The default assumption is as follows.

1.One should respect the beliefs of others, however silly, nasty, disgusting or immoral, so long as they are religious beliefs.

2. Any beliefs which are not religious may be dismissed out of hand, even where supported by evidence.

Anyone questioning the above thinking is a heretic and subject to paragraph (2), may - indeed should be treated as badly as we like.

 

[rex]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3566031a2581,00.html

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

While this article supports what is probably just another rationalization (more important than sex), it founders on the common PC approach to tolerance.

Tolerance and respect for others are beginning, not end, positions. Begin in tolerance for other people and the world works ethically. When someone breaks that basic rule -- tolerance for all -- we are perfectly correct in slamming them. See a rapist committing his crime in an alleyway, and we cannot treat both rapist and victim with tolerance or respect. To respect one is to diminish the other. The same holds true for religious beliefs. We should be tolerant of them (we are not required to believe them, but we should be tolerant of them) up to the point where they begin to interfere with other folks lives.

Atheists sometimes (not often) commit the equally reprehensible act of insisting that no one be allowed religious belief because it is wrong and the very act of belief offends them. Mere offense is not grounds for reining in others. However, when someone wants to use their belief system to interfere with my belief system (primarily based on evidence) and insist that Intelligent Design be taught, then we have a problem.

 

[Iacchus]

However, when someone wants to use their belief system to interfere with my belief system (primarily based on evidence) and insist that Intelligent Design be taught, then we have a problem.

Or, instead of Intelligent Design, how about if we were to teach kids that it's not possible to understand and/or believe in anything without a brain, and perhaps discuss the scenario of what it means to live inside The Matrix? At least it would provide the basis for understanding certain aspects of religion, without requiring the need to get into anything real specific.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not sure I understand your point. We can't understand anything without a brain. Turn off the brain and you turn off the person. That shouldn't be a problem for anyone who is religious. In fact, if you are a Christian, it means one thing in particular -- that resurrection in the body is a necessity, not just a line of scripture. Without resurrection in the body, there is no person to resurrect because consciousness doesn't exist in us without a functioning nervous system. That is perfectly clear to anyone who has much medical knowledge.

 

[Oolon Colluphid]

I'm not sure I understand your point. We can't understand anything without a brain. Turn off the brain and you turn off the person. That shouldn't be a problem for anyone who is religious. In fact, if you are a Christian, it means one thing in particular -- that resurrection in the body is a necessity, not just a line of scripture. Without resurrection in the body, there is no person to resurrect because consciousness doesn't exist in us without a functioning nervous system. That is perfectly clear to anyone who has much medical knowledge.

Well, the believers quite clearly don't believe this, because they are evidently convinced that, when they die, their 'soul' will ascend to heaven (and perhaps more importantly, that we unbelievers will descend into the fiery pit!). I've 'discussed' this with many christians, and they really think that they will be the same person they are now, when they get to heaven, but without all the base desires of their physical form. They simply cannot, or will not, accept their own eventual non-existence. It's rather sad, really.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah, I think it is the Neoplatonism talking.

With all of the problems inherent to substance dualism I have never understood why we don't try harder to jetison it. I think much of the problem stems from our particular language in which "mind" and "soul" are nouns, so that we tend to think of them as "things", as metaphysically separate categories from "body". If mind were only a verb, a situation that reflects reality much better, I don't think we would bother with this so-called mind-body problem.

 

[Iacchus]

It's rather sad, really.

How so? Do you think you will feel sad when you're dead? Sounds to me like there really isn't much to lose, at least not to a life which is based upon what one only thinks it means. If it's not that important, then who cares?

 

[Iacchus]

If mind were only a verb, a situation that reflects reality much better, I don't think we would bother with this so-called mind-body problem.

Unless of course there was something more to it.

 

[Tricky]

How so?

It is sad because people are so desperately afraid of total and complete death, that otherwise rational people will believe the most outlandish fairy tales in order to preserve the totally unsupported belief that they will somehow cheat nature.

Do you think you will feel sad when you're dead?

No it is pretty clear that he thinks he will be incapable of feeling anything when he is dead. In fact, he won't even "be".

Sounds to me like there really isn't much to lose, at least not to a life which is based upon what one only thinks it means. If it's not that important, then who cares?

It is important in that people who do not believe in an afterlife are apt to be more judicious in how they use the only life they have. Do you write letters to Santa Claus every year? If not, why not? After all, there is nothing to lose by it.

 

[Gavan]

See a rapist committing his crime in an alleyway, and we cannot treat both rapist and victim with tolerance or respect. To respect one is to diminish the other. The same holds true for religious beliefs. We should be tolerant of them (we are not required to believe them, but we should be tolerant of them) up to the point where they begin to interfere with other folks lives.

I totally agree with this but it also raises another question. You use the word 'interfere' but do you just mean physically interfere? Is something such as blasphemy, which is still punishable by death in some countries, acceptably intolerable? After all, no blood no foul. Once again where should we draw the line in the sand? Is the victim the only person really justified in defining what offends them? When do the rest of us have the right to turn around and say "Suck it up princess"?

If I found it offensive that someone printed, speaking hypothetically of course, some cartoons that depicted my prophet, when my religion expressly forbade such a thing, do I have the right to feel 'interfered' with? Should I have the right to expect that my government will step in and, as an ultimate conclusion, physically prevent others from doing this just because I am a member of a religion?

Following this logic should I not also have the same expectations if I were a person who belonged to a religion consisting of one person who believes that Mickey Mouse is the prophet and Disney are continually blaspheming by running his cartoons?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Unless of course there was something more to it.

Such as what? And how would one make sense of such a thing? A force that does not exist by virtue of the material world but interacts with the material world should leave evidence of non-deterministic forces surrounding us at the macro level. Where is this evidence?

Many people have had spiritual experiences, for instance, that prove to them the existence of spirits or God. Theresa of Avila had a very strong spiritual experience, for instance, but she was not sure what it represented. She asked St. John of the Cross how to interpret the experience and they both agreed that her experience of the divine as being blue was given directly from God. But Theresa and John considered only two possible categories to explain the experience -- God or the devil. There are many more possible explanations that one should consider, however, from mere random hallucination to expectation of seeing the divine with wish fulfillment as possibilities. The existence of spiritual experiences cannot be doubted. The problem comes when one tries to understand what those experiences mean. Each experience must be interpreted within a conceptual framework. Choose the wrong framework, and you reach the wrong conclusion. There is nothing in the experience itself to demonstrate anything beyond brain function as the cause for each and every experience we have. We know what happens when the brain does not function -- there is no experience. We know what happens when the brain functions improperly -- mental illness, or delusions, or hallucinations, etc. We even know where many of the "religious experiences" such as "near death" derive -- misfirings in the temporal lobe under stress (hypoxia or decreased blood flow from being in a centrifuge) or as a result of temporal lobe epilepsy. There is even a well-recognized (but I think vastly over emphasized, at least by psychiatrists) condition associated with temporal lobe epilepsy described by Norman Geschwind that includes hyper-religiosity as one of its components.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Is something such as blasphemy, which is still punishable by death in some countries, acceptably intolerable?

One may find blasphemy intolerable, but death as the punishment is more intolerable. In other words, one need not tolerate the blasphemy in ones congregation, but that does not give anyone the right to retaliate against the blasphemous beyond removing them from the arena where their blasphemy proves a problem. The least force necessary to return the situation to proper ethical functioning is what we need.

So, examples. If you see a rapist doing the deed in an alleyway, you are not properly justified to put a bullet in his heart if you have another means of stopping him. I think a great movie example of using the least force necessary can be found in Witness where Lucas Haas' character tolls the church bell to call the community together. John Book need not shoot the bad guy because another solution that did not require force was provided. Another example from Sam Harris' book "The End of Faith" -- he reports intervening between a man and woman where the man was trying to push her into a car in a foreign country. He acted the fool allowing her to escape. He interpreted that as a failure on his part, but I think it was a perfect example of avoiding force where it was not necessary.

I think we are perfectly justified to hold other communities responsible for overstepping the bounds when it comes to ethical action. Honor killing does not respect the individual right to life. It is wrong. I don't particularly care that calling it wrong shows my intolerance to a particular social custom. We must start somewhere with our moral systems. I think starting with individual respect is the proper place. Honor killing does not respect the right to life, whatever the perceived transgression.

If I found it offensive that someone printed, speaking hypothetically of course, some cartoons that depicted my prophet, when my religion expressly forbade such a thing, do I have the right to feel 'interfered' with? Should I have the right to expect that my government will step in and, as an ultimate conclusion, physically prevent others from doing this just because I am a member of a religion?

Yes, you have every right to feel interfered with. You have every right to feel upset. You have every right to complain about the cartoons and actively remove them from your sight. You have no right to over-react and kill others because of your offense.

 

[Gavan]

Yes, you have every right to feel interfered with. You have every right to feel upset. You have every right to complain about the cartoons and actively remove them from your sight. You have no right to over-react and kill others because of your offense.

Once again I agree with everything you've said but I wasn't really trying to concentrate on the death aspect. My poor choice of words. Whilst I also agree with your description of the need for an escalation in force appropriate to stopping a particular act causing offense, I was trying to focus on the expectation of an individual to be in receipt of this protection.

Yes, you have every right to feel interfered with. You have every right to feel upset. You have every right to complain about the cartoons and actively remove them from your sight. You have no right to over-react and kill others because of your offense.

So do I have the right to expect government officials will stop them from publicly airing their cartoons? I know I have the ability to "remove them from my sight" (I can just close my eyes) but when does that line begin where its someone elses responsibility (ie. government and courts) to remove them from my sight for me, or to stop someone from calling me a religiously offensive name? After all I can't be expected to go around with my eyes closed all the time. People may think I'm religious or something.

I think it comes down to numbers in the end. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

 

[Iacchus]

It is sad because people are so desperately afraid of total and complete death, that otherwise rational people will believe the most outlandish fairy tales in order to preserve the totally unsupported belief that they will somehow cheat nature.

No it is pretty clear that he thinks he will be incapable of feeling anything when he is dead. In fact, he won't even "be".

It is important in that people who do not believe in an afterlife are apt to be more judicious in how they use the only life they have. Do you write letters to Santa Claus every year? If not, why not? After all, there is nothing to lose by it.

Do you know what would really be sad? If we had to endure things unto Eternity. So my sense of pity, in the genuine sense, beats yours hands down any day of the week.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So do I have the right to expect government officials will stop them from publicly airing their cartoons?

OK, sorry, I think I read too much into it.

I can see two ways of looking at this. In one we can call up the old "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" idea and say, yes, they have the right to expect the government to intervene. There are certainly people being harmed by this.

On the other hand, is this really a crowded theater in which someone has shouted "fire"? This whole fiasco started slowly and is buliding. There is certainly time for folks to adopt other behavioral responses. It isn't a life or death scenario where immediate action is called for as in the crowded theater. So I think I would have to say no. They have no right to expect local governments to suppress the cartoons. The government does not need to intervene.

 

[Oolon Colluphid]

Do you know what would really be sad? If we had to endure things unto Eternity. So my sense of pity, in the genuine sense, beats yours hands down any day of the week.

"IF" being the operative word. Fortunately, that's not something I expect to have to deal with.


PS Thanks, Tricky. That is precisely what I would have said, though perhaps not quite so eloquently as the way you put it.