Keeping religion isolated from criticism
"Blasphemer" they used to cry, often followed with the more frightening "Death to the infidel" and "Stone him". Yet now, in New Zealand at least, when the religious believe their faith has been insulted they merely implore us to "Please respect my religion". What do they mean by this plea? How should we respond?
Introduction
The Decline of Religion
Respect Our Religion
Tolerate our Religion
Introduction
In NZ and in an increasing number of countries religion has a major problem on its hands — the majority of citizens are no longer ignorant and uneducated. Science and reason has replaced religion and faith. The battles have been fought, the war is over and religion has lost. Their power gone, they can no longer force our obedience. Having their primitive stories exposed as fictions mean they can no longer even persuade us to follow them willingly. Yet religion refuses to surrender. It struggles on mortally wounded, gasping and wheezing, attacking when cornered with the only weapons it has left: denial and isolation. For the first time in history it goes off the offensive and onto the defensive, and we get the pathetic plea of "Please respect my religion".
Is this a legitimate and fair request? Should we feel obliged to back down? Definitely not, and we'll explain why this request should not only be ignored, it doesn't even make sense. This is just another bogus religious statement, a subterfuge designed to keep reason at bay while religions attempt to protect their ill-gotten assets, reinterpret their myths and brainwash a new generation of followers.
The Decline of Religion
How did religions slip from the authoritarian "Stone him" to begging "Please respect my religion"? Let's recap on the way things were and what's changed to bring about this new wimpish approach from religious believers.
For most of recorded history persuasion and force, working hand in hand, has kept religion to the forefront in most societies. Persuasion worked mainly because it was very easy for an educated, literate priesthood to convince illiterate, ignorant and superstitious peasants of anything they wished. For those that could see the flaws in the religious argument, fear persuaded most to feign belief. Fear of divine punishment if religion was true and the very real fear of how religions responded to disbelief. Religions have never been backward in resorting to torture and execution. Torture would 'convince' non-believers that religion was obviously true after all, and execution would permanently remove their negative and unwanted influence from the scene. Either way, religion held its grip on the populace with an iron fist.
Of course many intelligent people throughout history have questioned religion, but most still found themselves concurring that while obvious flaws exist, the overall premise that a god created the world must be true. They reached this conclusion because there was simply no other alternative. If a god didn't create the world and life and the amazing way it all fits together, then what did? No one could come up with an answer that made sense. And so even in recent centuries, with science on the rise, religion was still able to persuade the great majority that religion was right, with science merely verifying the details.
Then in 1859 along came Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection. For the first time in history there was an alternative explanation as to how life evolved, and it didn't need a god. More than any other, this one event was the beginning of the end for religion's hold over society. Scientists, philosophers and anyone that was never completely comfortable with the 'God did it' solution finally had an alternative answer to 'Life, the universe and everything'. Darwin's success at explaining the evolution of life gave scientists new found confidence that the universe could be explained in a naturalistic way, without resorting to gods, demons, fairies or leprechauns.
As science advanced in leaps and bounds, religion found hallowed belief after hallowed belief being debunked. Of course religion vigorously attempted to defend its position in not only its churches, but universities, schools, governments and the media, but slowly and surely religion lost its grip and scientific answers took precedence over religious ones. Science and reason effectively and conclusively demolished religious dogma. Their holy books have been shown to be fictional, their histories mythical and their explanations of natural events fanciful magic. Religion has lost the enormous power it once held and has largely been relegated to a "private and irrelevant superstition practised by a minority". While admittedly the majority still holds vague religious beliefs, only a minority still holds a literal belief in religion as practised by their ancestors. They can no longer threaten us with torture and death. Even their threat of Hell and divine retribution does nothing but raise a giggle. The universe is a completely different place to what religions would have us believe, and their silly stories about vengeful gods and talking snakes persuade few. Religions have been marginalized and what power they still appear to have is largely symbolic. They are impotent. The days of an ignorant society cowing at their feet are long gone, their proclamations are ignored and their mystical explanations laughed at.
So in the 21st century, how can religious leaders and devout believers — religion's eunuchs — ensure the survival of their faith?
With the option of force outlawed and their explanations ridiculed, religion is left fighting a rearguard action. The best they can do is attempt to retain what followers they do have by insulating their beliefs from analysis and criticism. For all their blustering about open discussion and debate, the intelligent and knowledgeable among them have rightly concluded that real debate would be disastrous for religion. While the church could easily fool ignorant and superstitious peasants, they know that if educated and open minded people are exposed to all the arguments of religion verses science, history, philosophy, ethics etc they will clearly come to realise that our origins are best described by science and not religion. That our laws are best formulated by the people and not Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah or Shiva.
Religion's realise they need to limit the damage that science and reason is inflicting on a daily basis. If they can't convince the rest of society of their views, they need to at least to shield their followers from alternative views. But how can they prevent public commentary, the publication of books and the screening of science documentaries, comedies and movies that expose and highlight the absurdities, contradictions and falsehoods contained in their faith? How do they stop rational, intelligent people picking on them?
They appeal to our sense of fairness, of justice and of equal rights. Put simply, they ask us to respect their religion, to respect their beliefs, as they respect ours.
Respect Our Religion
But this is nothing but a scam. Nothing but the latest ploy used by religions in an attempt to prevent criticism of their beliefs. Since no one wants to feel that they are being disrespectful, rude or discourteous to someone's personally held beliefs, this demand can stop debate in its tracks. It effectively prevents us from even discussing let alone challenging, ridiculing or criticising religious beliefs. But is it a valid demand or are we simply being silenced by religious arrogance? Is this demand merely a cunning ploy to prevent us showing up religion for the silly superstition that it is?
Yes of course it is, and we'll endeavour to explain why.
To start with, here are some quotes that show this ploy in action. In NZ the two main examples of recent times (2006) are the publication of the Islamic cartoons featuring Mohammed which offended Muslims and the broadcasting of 'Bloody Mary', an episode of South Park featuring the Virgin Mary, which offended Catholics.
A TV3 news item on a Muslim protest march in Auckland stated, "The [Muslim] organisers were at pains to say this was a protest about respecting all religions, including their own".The protestors carried banners that read:
"Stop offensive publication. Do not offend any religion."A Muslim woman went on to state:
"We Muslims respect our religion and we have to be respected as well."
"I think it's disgusting. They should respect our religion just like we respect them."Around the world Muslim leaders, community leaders and even Christian and Jewish leaders added their voice to the protesters, saying that while they didn't condone the violence or the threats that occurred in Europe, they did support the Muslim outrage at the disrespectful treatment of their prophet and their religion.
Roy Greenslade, a former newspaper editor in Britain was quoted as saying:
'You have to respect race, colour and creed, and that means not being gratuitously rude about religion.'Australian newspaper 'The Age' stated that:
'The Vatican yesterday appealed for mutual respect.'Raymond L. Flynn, National President of 'Your Catholic Voice', and Former Ambassador to the Vatican expressed his view:
'I sometimes don't agree with other peoples' religious positions either, but I respect them and don't criticize them or tell them what to do or believe…
Respect my religion as I respect yours.'
The Christian outrage over the South Park episode, like the Muslim cartoons, again centred on 'respect' and others also took up their cause. A commentator on National Radio's Media Watch programme stated that religions are not getting: 'the respect they deserve'.Even NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark commented on the problem saying,
"… but I think it is important to show religious faiths respect and tolerance… I think the critical thing is that we show respect for other people's beliefs."A Christian web site that was protesting the screening of the South Park episode stated,
"We value and respect a New Zealander's right to hold a religious faith without condemnation."So the general theme is: Respect the Prophet. Respect the Virgin Mary. Respect other religions. Respect all religion.
What's happening here, with conflicting faiths supporting each other? Each demanding that we not only respect their faith, but the faith of their adversaries as well?
Devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc are all utterly convinced that every religion but their own is false. Each would be ecstatic if the secular world would help them probe, analyse and convincingly debunk the false beliefs of other religions, relegating them to history. But at the same time they all realise that having eventually discredited all other religions, reason and science would turn its spotlight on them, and their foundations are just as weak and rotten as the others were. Once started, the search for the truth wouldn't stop. Science and reason would destroy all religion.
Actually much has already been lost and we believe every religion is already mortally wounded, lying in a persistent vegetative state with the ageing priests, mullahs and rabbis unwilling to pull the plug.
Realising that if they openly encourage criticism of other religions then this will eventually come back to haunt them, religions have tried to hold off their inevitable demise by forming a coalition with those that follow 'false' religions. They all recognise that free inquiry is a far greater threat to their existence than other 'false gods'. Thus the leaders of these many religions, but certainly not all their followers, have reached a fragile truce. They have agreed not to publicly challenge, ridicule or criticise the beliefs of other faiths. They have agreed to 'respect' each other's religion. They have agreed to 'respect' the lies and falsehoods of other religions, all in the name of self-preservation. But this is only the first step. The crucial step now is to stop the penetrating gaze of science and reason, thus the secular world must be convinced to abide by a treaty it was not a party to. The secular world must accept that if religions have agreed to effectively ignore each other, then science and reason must do likewise.
Sorry, but we in the secular world do not have to turn a blind eye to your silly little games. Truth knows no boundaries. Science and reason will not stop looking at religion just because religion is afraid of what it will reveal. Reason refuses to put on the blinkers that religion has provided.
This 'respect' ploy isn't new, remember the protests over the piece of art known as 'Virgin in a Condom', 'The Da Vinci Code' and even Monty Python's movie 'Life of Brian'? Christians bleating on about their right to have their religion respected. But this right is a myth. It doesn't exist. They are confusing it with their right to 'freedom of religion or belief'.
Section 13 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act states that:
'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference.'This guarantees them the right to believe anything they wish, but it does not promise in any way or form that the rest of us have to accept or even understand that belief, let alone respect it. They merely have the right to hold differing beliefs. We are not compelled to accept these beliefs and we most certainly don't have to respect them. I repeat, we are respecting the right to hold a belief, not the belief itself.
OK, so there is no law saying we must respect religion, but do we have a moral obligation perhaps? Is this what they mean, that some sense of fairness should cause us to respect religion? But does the demand, 'Respect our religion', even make sense? What does 'respecting' something actually mean?
My dictionary defines 'respect' as:
respectFor definition #1 it goes on to say that respect:
- To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
- To avoid violation of or interference with, eg respect the speed limit.
- To relate or refer to; concern.
'implies appreciative, often deferential regard resulting from careful assessment'.I believe it is correctly used in statements such as 'I respect so-and-so for the outstanding work they've done in their particular field', eg I respect Sir Edmund Hillary for his mountaineering achievements and his humanitarian work. However it is mischievously hijacked for dogmatic commands such as 'Respect your parents, Respect your elders, Respect your superiors' etc. As we all know, respect in this context must be earned. Why should a child respect a parent that abuses him? Why should we respect elders or leaders that are corrupt? Since most people know little if anything about the religious beliefs of others, there can be no respect, since there has been no 'careful assessment' of them.
Of course some people may truly believe that they have investigated and actually respect religions other than their own, but this is a naive. To have deferential regard for a belief system that insists that your belief or religion is false, your gods are false, you are deluded and you're destined for eternal torture because of your refusal to accept this, is stupid in the extreme. You can respect your own religion but you can't respect an opposing one, at most all you can do is tolerate it. More on this shortly.
'Respect all religion' they say. Not just 'our' religion but 'all' religions. But why? No doubt if I asked them if they would in turn 'respect my religion or belief', they would immediately reply with an emphatic "Yes!"
But again, why? Shouldn't any reasonable person first ask, 'What is your religion or belief?'
What if I stated that my religion was Satanic worship involving human sacrifices, or that my belief was that magic fairies told me that to reach enlightenment I must sexually abuse small children. Would they 'respect' my belief and leave me alone to abuse small children as long as I 'respected' them in turn and left them alone? One would hope that given these answers they would refuse to respect my beliefs. They would probably insist that after due consideration of my beliefs they feel that they can't respect them after all. But why do they have this right to choose whether they will respect my beliefs, while demanding I blindly respect theirs? We can't enforce respect for all beliefs because it is impossible to respect beliefs you don't agree with. Do Christians have 'respect' for Islamists who slaughter infidels according to their deeply held religious beliefs? If they do then they should be viewed with contempt, if they don't then they are hypocrites. They can't demand that we respect and refuse to criticise their religious beliefs, while they freely condemn the religious beliefs of others.
Thus one can not blindly follow demands to 'Respect the Prophet' or 'Respect our beliefs'. If this is the meaning of 'respect' adopted by these proponents, then their plea for 'respect' fails and can be ignored.
However if religious proponents merely wish to prevent criticism of their beliefs, then definition #2 has more power when it comes to preventing debate: 'To avoid violation of or interference with'. This is a blanket 'hands-off' approach. Regardless of your view, you are being told not to challenge their beliefs. You must leave them alone. To violate in this context means: 'to do harm to (property or qualities considered sacred); desecrate or defile'. Thus to make statements that suggested their sacred views were false would be to violate their beliefs. Those that claim this defence, this definition of respect, knowingly do so to prevent any challenge to their belief.
Thankfully we no longer live in the Dark Ages. Unlike the dictionary example given above, 'respect the speed limit', there is no legal requirement that states 'Respect your parents', and there is no law that states 'Respect the beliefs of others'. In fact we have just the opposite, it's called 'Free Speech'.
The third definition of respect, meaning 'in relation to' or 'in reference to' doesn't apply when used in this context so can be ignored.
So, we have three options in the way we can respond to calls of 'respect my religion':
- We respect their beliefs by showing deferential regard for them.
This fails since having no knowledge of their beliefs means we have no reason to have esteem for them. In addition, gaining knowledge would still not guarantee esteem, anymore than learning about Nazis would increase our regard for their beliefs. It is possible that after due consideration some beliefs may be found worthy of our esteem, but this should change their initial claim to, 'Please examine our religion or belief'. They can't demand blind 'respect'. In this context, and in freethinking New Zealand, I will decide whether I will 'respect' something. I will not have this demand placed on me.
- We respect their beliefs by not violating or interfering with them, regardless of our opinion of them.
This fails since they have no authority to make such demands. The right of 'Freedom of religion and belief' merely gives them the right to hold different beliefs, not that those beliefs should be 'off-limits' to inspection and utter rejection or ridicule if deemed appropriate. Take NAMBLA (North America Man Boy Love Association), a real group whose belief it is that sex between men and young boys is appropriate. They have the right to hold this belief, but if we accept 'respect' in this context we must not attempt to interfere with or harm this belief in any way. After all, Muslims or Christians can't insist that 'respect' should only apply to their beliefs and not the beliefs of other groups. It's all or nothing. A genuine example of 'respect' in this context is: 'respect the law'. We may or may not agree with every law, but a condition of living in society is that we will accept them, and if we refuse to 'respect' them, a legal authority will punish us. In our society religions no longer have the authority to demand 'respect', unlike the legal system, anymore than do Neo-Nazi groups or NAMBLA.
- The final and correct option is to realise that religious proponents have given us no good reason to blindly respect their beliefs under either definition.
"They don't want my respect, they want my submission."Tolerate our Religion
Ok, so the demand that we 'Respect their religion, belief or whatever' fails, but others may claim that what the person should really have said was that we should be more tolerant of religion. They meant 'tolerate' not 'respect'.
But does the modified request that we 'Tolerate their religion or belief' achieve their desired outcome?
My dictionary defines 'tolerate' as:
tolerateLet's look at definition #2 first. If people take 'tolerate' to mean 'to recognise and respect the rights, beliefs, or practices of others', then this is just another way of saying, 'You should tolerate my religion, and by this I mean you should respect my religion'. All they've really done is redefine 'tolerate' as a synonym of 'respect', and we've already gone down that path. Religions can not demand our respect or our tolerance when it is used in this sense.
- To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
- To recognise and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
- To put up with; endure; reluctant acceptance despite reservations.
However, if by 'tolerate' one means 'to allow without prohibiting or opposing; to permit; to put up with; endure', we are again presented with a problem. As with demanding respect, who has the authority to demand that others tolerate something? One authority would be our legal system, and thus we must 'tolerate' the situation that women are allowed to vote, that homosexuals can walk among us and neo-Nazis can legally hold meetings to idolise Hitler. It matters not whether we agree or disagree with these things, we must permit them, we must put up with them, we must tolerate them. As the dictionary says, toleration in this sense means 'reluctant acceptance despite reservations'.
The only thing that we must legally tolerate about religion is the right of people to hold religious beliefs.
Do religions and other groups or organisations etc have any authority to demand that we do more than this? No. Can they demand that there is no analysis, criticism, satirising, lampooning or debating of their views? No. Thankfully religions have not had this authority for centuries, and neither do special interest groups such as Neo-Nazis, alien abductees or NAMBLA. Many religious groups, in their arrogance that only they are right, fail to realise that if this authority to demand toleration, in the sense of not challenging their beliefs, was granted to one group then it must apply to all, religious or otherwise. It's hypocritical to insist that people must tolerate your beliefs, but not those of others. If we have to tolerate Catholic views, we have to extend this courtesy to all Christian faiths, then to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and right down the line to New Age religions and Satanic worshipers. All religion, good or bad, popular or unpopular, would have to be tolerated. Then the paranormal wackos would want their beliefs tolerated. Everyone who felt picked on because they held some silly belief against all evidence would demand that society tolerated them as well.
Yes they have the legal right to hold these beliefs, we've already agreed on that, but they don't have the legal right to force us not to oppose, investigate or criticise these beliefs.
If society foolishly accepted that it must tolerate (and not oppose) all beliefs, then even objectionable fringe beliefs must be tolerated. People would have to tolerate groups that advocate slavery, racism or inequality for women or the execution of homosexuals and adulterers, likewise groups that practise female genital mutilation, child abuse and honour killings. Unfortunately there are religions and groups that still believe in all of these things. Accepting their demand that we tolerate their beliefs is little different from condoning them. We would have to agree that while barbaric and inhumane things were going on under our very noses, we wouldn't challenge or criticise them. We would agree to ignore them, to tolerate them.
But the fact is that we don't have to respect or tolerate any religious belief. If we did, slavery would still be a part of our lives, since for most of its history Christianity supported it, as did Judaism and Islam. The Bible and Koran go into considerable detail over how we should treat our slaves. Remember that when slavery in the West was finally outlawed that it was Christians who were trading in slaves and owning slaves. The American Civil War, the war that freed the slaves, saw Christian fighting Christian. Evidently slavery still existed in some Muslim countries right up to the 1950s. We refuse to tolerate Christian groups calling for the execution of homosexuals, adulterers and abortion doctors or Muslims that maintain that giving up or changing your faith is a death sentence. Even though these religious fundamentalists insist that we should at least tolerate their barbaric demands, people with any sort of decency refuse and actively oppose them. Enforcing tolerance would take away our moral right to oppose them.
People that push tolerance or respect for religious beliefs that they agree with or those that they deem harmless, while condemning and opposing those that they disagree with or find reprehensible are nothing but hypocrites. Think of Christians that say we should respect their religion, but then criticise Muslims for wanting to stone an adulteress to death, or Muslims and Jews that insult Christians by stating that Jesus wasn't the Son of God. Why can they analyse and criticise other religions but we can't? With due consideration and free will they have decided which beliefs they will tolerate and respect, which is good and proper, but when it comes to us making a decision regarding their beliefs, they refuse us the same courtesy and make the decision for us: 'Respect our religion'.
| Then they should Not have such silly beliefs |
Rather than respect or tolerate religion we must be free to investigate, analyse, challenge, criticise, debate, satirise, lampoon, ridicule and mock any and all religious belief. We need to continue this until everyone that has the intellect to comprehend sees religion as the superstitious and dangerous nonsense that it is. We need to expose the terror that religion has evoked throughout history and that is poisoning our world once again, especially by Muslim terrorists, but also barbaric acts by Christians, Jews, Hindus and even Buddhists. We can't let our inquiry into these atrocities or even our curiosity about some silly religious claim like the virgin birth be stopped in its tracks by their demand to back off: 'Respect our religion'.
Religions correctly view science, reason and critical inquiry as instruments of their destruction, as an acid slowing eating away at their cherished beliefs, and it must not be allowed to come in contact with believers, especially those whose faith is weak, for they will be more easily persuaded to cross over to the secular 'dark side'. Religions know that many of their so-called followers lack the indoctrination and the required dullness of thought to resist reason and logic, and are seduced by the notion of thinking for themselves and living in a universe where they're not playthings of a vengeful and barbaric god.
Religions are putting up a smokescreen, a diversion, when they demand we respect their beliefs. By isolating their faith they are attempting to put their beliefs off-limits to science, reason and critical inquiry. They are trying to maintain the fog of delusion that envelops their followers. Their hope is that these god-fearing, gullible, ignorant, and usually poor and uneducated sheep will have lots of sex without contraception, preferably in the missionary position, to produce a new wave of children that can be brainwashed and mentally and physically fucked by the priesthood into continuing their crusade of ignorance. Religions have always seen childhood indoctrination as the key to their survival. They hope that by pushing the likes of 'Bible in Schools' and repackaging 'Biblical Creationism' as 'Intelligent Design' that their army of zombies will multiply until once again they're in control. But at the moment they're weak, vulnerable and ineffectual. Until their numbers swell they must stay unobtrusive and non-threatening, protecting their followers and beliefs from criticism. Gone are the days when they could force belief onto the multitudes and so new tactics are called for. Rather than instil terror, their beliefs now invoke laughter and incredulity. And so they meekly ask us, 'Please respect my religion'.
We need to realise that if groups have to demand that you respect their beliefs, rather than letting their beliefs speak for themselves, this is automatically a mark against them. If their beliefs and claims were true and just, they wouldn't need to demand that we respect or tolerate them, we would adopt them as our own.
Far better that one adopts the beliefs of science which doesn't demand respect or tolerance. On the contrary, it demands critical inquiry, debate and rejection of theories if the evidence doesn't support them. Religion should demand no less.
Dragonslav
05/25/12 10:03
| |
But this is old news. Tolerance means that I tolerate your lifestyle and culture to the detriment of mine. I must not only accept what and who you are, but I must celebrate it. When there is a conflict between your culture and mine, I must acquiesce for fear of being labelled a bigot. I must accommodate you in my home while you make no effort to accommodate me and criticize my home for not being like yours. When you seek my institutions and achievements, you do so with dishonesty and guile, but consider me the bigot for wanting to preserve my culture, heritage and institutions.
I don't think this applies to only Muslim issues but to other issues recently in the news.
| |
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
- Sir Karl Popper
Authors: John L. Ateo, Jason C.
Copyright © 2008, by the 'SILLY BELIEFS' website. All rights reserved
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
- Sir Karl Popper
Up date, 14 July 2012 Below the jump it a quick study of the Tolerance Trick
There is a wonderful and perfectly appropriate AXIOM about Tolerance that every American & European should learn by heart to confound the Politically Correct Left Liberal dim wits ~
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant,
if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant,
if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant,
then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
Karl Popper
Karl Popper
Hence we must NEVER Tolerate the Intolerance of Islam and Sharia nor allow them to soil our soil.
Those who tolerate Evil are Intolerant of Good.
Those who tolerate Evil are Intolerant of Good.
The Tolerance Trick
Posted by prestodan "What an embarrassing bunch of raving lunatics you bigots are. Eric Allen is either planted, mentally unstable, or on bath salts - and his hateful tone directed at the author of this article is vaguely threatening, which should tell you something. Johnathan's topics always have a way of bringing out the intolerant hatemongers and whackos, but you guys are really outdoing yourselves this time around. Where does all this intolerance and hate come from? It comes from warped minds, who feed on fear, ignorance, and lies. How gross."Are being intolerant of what you perceive as intolerance, and bigoted toward those you think are bigoted? You have been fooled and brainwashed by the tolerance trick. Your just an intellectual coward who does not like to have his views challenged. Typical liberal!
Read this,, you might learn something, including the real, not redefined, definition of tolerance.
---------------------------------
One word can stop you in your tracks when you seek to “give an account for the hope that is in you” as an ambassador for Christ. That word is “tolerance.”
This idea is especially popular with postmodernists — that breed of radical skeptics whose ideas command unwarranted respect in the university today. Their rallying cry, “There is no truth,” is often followed by an appeal for tolerance.
The tolerant person allegedly occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each individual is permitted to decide for him or herself. No judgments allowed. No “forcing” personal views. That all views are equally valid is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism; but it’s a myth!
For all their confident bluster, the relativists’ appeal actually asserts two principles or “truths,” one rational and one moral. The first is the rational “truth” that there is no truth. The second is the moral “truth” that one ought to tolerate the viewpoints of others. Their stand, contradictory on at least two counts, serves as a warning that the modern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided.
The Tolerance Trick. As it turns out, by the modern definition of tolerance no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It’s what my friend Francis Beckwith calls the “passive-aggressive tolerance trick.” Returning to the classic understanding of tolerance is the only way to restore any useful meaning to the word. Allow me to give you a real-life example.
Earlier this year I spoke to a class of seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines, Iowa. I wanted to alert them to this “tolerance trick,” but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board. The first expressed the current understanding of tolerance:
“All views have equal merit, and none should be considered better than another.”
All heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here. Then I wrote the second sentence:
“Jesus is the Messiah, and Judaism is wrong for rejecting Him.”
Immediately hands flew up. “You can’t say that,” a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?”
“In fact, that happens to me all the time,” I pointed out, “including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I’m wrong?”
“It’s intolerant,” she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement also violated itself.
I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?” They all agreed.
Then I pointed to the second statement — the “intolerant” one — and asked the same question: “Is this a view?” They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them. They had been taken in by the tolerance trick.
If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than the Jews have is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than the Christians do; but this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because “tolerance” turns out to be gibberish.
Escaping the Trap. “Would you like to know how to get out of this dilemma?” I asked. They nodded. “You must reject this modern distortion of tolerance and return to the classic view.” Then I wrote these two principles on the board:
Be egalitarian regarding persons.Be elitist regarding ideas.1
“Egalitarian” was a new word for them. “Think equal,” I said. “Treat others as having equal standing in value or worth.” They knew what an elitist was, though, someone who thought he or she was better than others. “Right,” I said. “When you are elitist regarding ideas, you are acknowledging that some ideas are better than others; and they are. We don’t treat all ideas as if they have the same merit, lest we run into contradiction. Some ideas are good. Some are bad. Some are true. Some are false. Some are brilliant. Others are just plain foolish.”
The first principle, what might be called “civility,” is at the heart of the classical view of tolerance. It can be loosely equated with the word “respect.” Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think are false. We respect those who hold different beliefs from our own by treating such people courteously and allowing their views a place in the public discourse. We may strongly disagree with their ideas and vigorously contend against them in the public square, but we still show respect to their persons despite our differences. Classic tolerance requires that every person be treated courteously with the freedom to express his or her ideas without fear of reprisal no matter what the view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.
These two categories are frequently conflated in the muddled thinking created by the myth of tolerance. The view that one person’s ideas are no better or truer than another’s is simply absurd and inescapably self-contradictory. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance.
Topsy-Turvy. The modern definition of tolerance turns the classical formula for tolerance on its head:
Be egalitarian regarding ideas.
Be elitist regarding persons.
If you reject another’s ideas, you’re automatically accused of disrespecting the person (as the coed did with me). In this new view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed — even if done graciously — without inviting the charge of incivility.
To say I’m intolerant of the person because I disagree with his or her ideas is confused; ironically, it results in elitism regarding persons. If I think my ideas are better than another’s, I can be ill-treated as a person, publicly marginalized, and verbally abused as bigoted, disrespectful, ignorant, indecent, and (can you believe it?) intolerant. Sometimes I can even be sued, punished by law, or forced to attend re-education programs.2
In this way, tolerance has gone topsy-turvy: Tolerate most beliefs, but don’t tolerate (show respect for) those who take exception with those beliefs. Contrary opinions are labeled as “imposing your view on others” and quickly silenced.
This is nonsense and should be abandoned. The myth of tolerance forces everyone into an inevitable “Catch-22,” because each person in any debate has a point of view he or she thinks is correct.
Catch-22. Classical tolerance involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process. Notice that we can’t truly tolerate someone unless we disagree with him or her. This is critical. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing with which we need to put up. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat decently and with respect.
This essential element of classical tolerance — disagreement (elitism regarding ideas) — has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant no matter how you treat the person.
This presents a curious problem. In order to exercise true tolerance, one must first think another is wrong, yet saying so brings the accusation of intolerance. It’s a “Catch-22.” According to this approach, true tolerance becomes impossible.
Intellectual Cowardice. Most of what passes for tolerance today is little more than intellectual cowardice — a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word “intolerant” are unwilling to be challenged by other views or grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It’s easier to hurl an insult — “you intolerant bigot” — than to confront an idea and either refute it or be changed by it. In the modern era, “tolerance” has become intolerance.
As ambassadors for Christ, we choose the more courageous path, “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5; NASB). Whenever you’re charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition. When tolerance means neutrality, that all views are equally valid and true, then no one is ever tolerant because no one is ever neutral about his or her own views. Point out the contradiction built into the new definition. Point out that this kind of tolerance is a myth.
by Greg Koukle
http://www.equip.org/articles/the-myth-of-…
Dymphna on May 7, 2013 at 4:13 pm said:
Tolerance is valuable, important and good…but tolerance at the expense of truth is a total stupidity…
“Tolerance” is a virtue of limited value. Unless it is yoked in equal tandem with the virtue of discernment it disintegrates into, as this man says, “total stupidity”.
OTOH, our politically correct overseers find it a useful tool for keeping us in line. Refusing to bow to the gods of Tolerance and Equality with Discernment excluded entirely makes one a Racist, simply by virtue of that refusal.
Notice he discusses the mortal wrong of asking “Why?” in response to received doctrine. This fear of questioning, endemic to all totalitarians demonstrates how fragile are the foundations of this ‘faith’.
The double-faced “public truths” for outsiders and “real truths” for the inner circle can be a powerful tool for creating strong bonds among believers.
That this man managed to break the bonds and make his way out of that murderous cave bespeaks a strong, resilient character. He is free, but the price he pays is to spend his life never again feeling truly at home. I wish our admiration were enough to heal what this journey has cost him psychologically, spiritually, and intellectually.
His interview is important for understanding those others, weaker than he, who don’t have the characterological strength to break free of such total preparation for a life dedicated to death as the greatest value.
