...about that last bit

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "...about that last bit" by rabbitpirate.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/philosophy/about-that-last-bit/

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The place where it becomes racism/bigotry is like in the case of the Ft. Hood shooting, where everyone is looking for terrorist links and the nation's media and government are all about the "terror threat." It might have something to do with Islam, it might not... and I'm leaning towards "might not" based on the evidence at this time. The point that it has crossed into bigotry and racism is where the response to the Ft. Hood shooting is compared to other shootings in the past year or two. When an abortion doctor is executed in his church on a Sunday morning, that's an act of terrorism... and no one treated it as such. When the Holocaust Museum was attacked by a white supremacist, terrorism wasn't mentioned. When a far-right anti-immigrant group went on what may have been a murder spree against Hispanics, it was not called anything but an isolated incident.

When white Christians murder people, in the name of being white or Christian, there's no immediate cry against white people or Christians. When an Arab or Muslim kills someone, they are called a terrorist immediately, no matter why they actually killed someone.

 

[Drfoolishit]

I'm from Canada, we practically invented multiculturalism, and nobody were i live (Alberta) gives a rats ass about what culture your from. As long as your not an asshole (or gay, Albertans are kinda conservative) and you work hard you should have no problem getting a job.

 

[Aught3]

From the information you provided I would say the seminar you attended gave out some good advice. I think it is a good idea to value an ethnically diverse society and tolerance for other people's beliefs is, in general, a positive attitude. But you are right that often two sets of beliefs can come into conflict and in this kind of situation toleration might not be the best option. I see no reason why criticism and discussion should count as intolerance though.

I don't know whether the Ft. Hood shooter was an Islamic jihadi terrorist or not. A terrorist act is usually carried out by a group with a political or social point to make and they try to make it using explosions. A lone gunman usually has a more personal grudge, but some of this guy's contacts are painting a more complicated picture.

 

[Ibis3]

The problem as I see it, does not rely on the words 'value' or 'tolerate' but rather what is being identified as the desired object of that 'respect' (another word often used in these kinds of discussion). We live (increasingly) in a multicultural society and the notion of valuing diversity rather than enforcing uniformity is not a bad one, as a general approach. That's not to say that every belief and behaviour is equally desirable (or tolerable).

Historically, and not so long ago even in Europe&colonies, the response to non-conformity, the response to non-belief or difference in belief (aka heresy) was inquisition, torture, execution, and holy war. The progress from that position has led to an advocacy of individual liberty.

We now say, we ought to respect people's beliefs. We value the benefits which are imparted by allowing people to have diverse cultures. What we're really saying is not that we must tolerate or advocate or respect the individual beliefs themselves, but that we should value

a) the freedom of others to have beliefs different from our own

b) the default position for looking at a cultural element should be acceptance and respect. If it can be demonstrated that such-and-such is harmful to society or its members, *then* we should fight against it.

If John Singh wears a turban, that's no problem. If accommodation can be made for John Singh to wear his turban instead of a beret when in uniform, sounds fine to me. If John Singh wants to go into a combat situation wearing a turban, thus endangering his fellow soldiers, that's no longer all right. If Jane Smith doesn't "believe in" gay marriage rights, then she's free not to marry a woman, or to get into a position where she'd have to officiate for a gay couple.* But she shouldn't have a right to force everyone else to follow the same dictates. Praying 5 times a day, I tolerate; genital mutilation I don't.

Moreover, tolerance and respect for someone's right to pray to a god, does not preclude me from criticising the belief that prayer is justified or necessary. One could even go so far as to say that we ought to see value in the prayers of Fatima and Sammy (as cultural expressions like music or art) even if we don't subscribe to their beliefs (of course, that is as long as the prayers are not somehow harmful in themselves).

This is a very nuanced approach and it's often easier just to make flat statements as in the PowerPoint talk. But in any case, I'd rather have multiculturalism and diversity lauded indiscriminately than to go back to a situation where only the beliefs of those in power were respected and tolerated and everyone else was condemned to suffering, fear, and death.

*I.e. Jane is free to avoid taking a job where she'd have to officiate over (or rent facilities to, or bake cakes for) marriages she deems to be "immoral". In other words, once you decide to be a pharmacist, you have to be prepared to dispense any legally prescribed drug including birth control and the morning after pill. You are always free to go into a different profession if that makes you uncomfortable.

P.S. I'm also from Canada, the land where multiculturalism was invented. I think this approach has served us very well, generally speaking.

 

[xman]

"The one thing I cannot tolerate is intolerance."
~ Oscar Wilde

When you consider tolerating intolerance you enter into a paradox and this must be discarded. We can tolerate Muslims who are not extremists just as easily as we can tolerate heterosexuals who are not homophobes.

X

 

[rabbitpirate]

Ibis3 I couldn't agree more. I think you pretty much summed up exactly how I think.

I am very much in favour of treating all people equally and I am a strong supporter of individual freedoms. If you want to believe in a god then I really don't have a problem with that. I think all people should be free to live their lives...to a point, and that point is where your beliefs interact with the freedoms of others.

I think that is where the problem lies. When a belief results in your discrimination against someone else, or trying to change the laws in an attempt to force your beliefs on others, then I think there is a problem and that is where this attitude of automatic tolerance of everything different causes problems.

I think there is a problem these days where people can't see the difference between respecting people and respecting ideas. I am all in favour of people holding whatever crazy and even bigoted ideas they want, that does not mean I have to respect those ideas, only their right to hold them. This whole idea of multiculturalism seems to have forgotten that it is possible to completely support someones rights to hold an idea while at the same time condeming that idea in the strongest possible fashion.

In the UK they often use the term "Islamaphobe" against people who criticize Islam. There seems to be this idea that if you criticize the ideas and beliefs of this religion you are some how being racist and intolerant of the people themselves. As such people are silenced from making legitmate criticizms of an idea by being accused of being intolerant of the person who holds them.

Don't get me wrong, there were some good bits on the training I went to. I simply objected to the way it seemed to be focused on being tolerant of ideas rather than people. I love the diversity I see around me and as I said I am all for complete equality for all, but if I think that a belief or idea that you hold is wrong then I think it unfair for me to be considered intolerant for stating that fact.

I work on an IT service desk and deal with people of all races, ethnicity and religious belief all day long. I do my best not to discriminate against any of them, instead I hate them all equally.

 

[hithere3387]

I doubt that Kant would agree with your assessment of the situation regarding lying and Nazis. According to Kant, there is a maxim not to lie because there is never a situation in which lying will always be proper (in that if everyone where to lie, then there would be little point in communicating). The author of those paragraphs would have been much more convincing, in my opinion, if he were to prove that lying is always wrong (he would have to establish a system as Kant did) than to try to confound the utilitarian thinker's perspective on such an issue. Personally, I have a hard time believing that I would tell the truth if I were in such a situation, but it is similarly ridiculous to assume that an individual has committed wrong by avoiding doing the wrong thing.