Here are a couple of quotes from the piece--Addressing some recent issues in the Islamic world involving flagrant violations of women's rights, the authors asks:
- "For us, gender equality is a fundamental value. But we also profess tolerance for other people’s culture and religion. Which principle should prevail? Should we respond to these developments with tolerance?" To which he replies "We should not. Tolerance ends where harm begins."
He goes on to say:
- "Tolerance — live and let live — is a wise response to things that are morally neutral, that harm no one"
I recommend reading the whole piece, and even some of the commentary. It touches on a lot of topics that you all might want to comment on.
Tolerance, it seems, is one of those ideas, like pacifism, that requires all parties to ascribe to it in order to be effective. If only one side in a conflict practices pacifism, then my money's on the other guy. Likewise, it seems like the most tolerant societies sometimes host the most intolerant voices because no one is willing to say "shut up."Much of the discourse I see relating to tolerance consists of abjectly intolerant people demanding tolerance of their intolerance. I'm not the first to notice the irony.
I don't want to frame this issue as an indictment of Islamic society. Certainly we have our own tradition of religiously-rooted intolerance.
So, where should we draw the line? Should we defend free speech absolutely? Are there some ideas that are so dangerous that even discussing them should be outlawed? Should we tolerate behavior that we think is immoral, but that doesn't actually harm anyone?
Tolerance is a funny issue.
ReplyDeleteIn recent an addition of the Economist magazine there was an article claiming that, at least for Western societies, that the next generation usually prides itself on being more tolerant than the last, wherein in reality the next generation is simply intolerant of different thing: 'smokers, fatties and hummer drivers rather than homosexuals and black people' (that's a close, but probably not exact quote).
Also, I was listening to 'Wait Wait Don't Tell Me' on NPR a month or so ago and they had Congressman Barney Frank on. At one point he said that he was 'less tolerant of Sarah Palin than she was of him,' to which the crowd cheered loudly. From that cheering and the fact that the show is on NPR I gather that many of those attending the show would consider themselves to be 'progressive,' but here they were, cheering on intolerance.
The best point that the guy made was that 'tolerance' assumes a level of elitism. It also assumes that the ones doing the 'tolerating' have any power to change what we tolerate. Ever notice how if you use a word over and over it starts to lose it's meaning. Before we go all 'tolerating' on everybody, shouldn't we first make sure that they aren't morally superior?
ReplyDeleteWhat he's missing is that he doesn't have any power. The men is mightier than the sword? Only if it can inspire the guys that have the swords.
On the same note, words can't harm a person. Yell as loudly as you like and it will never cause a flesh wound. Controlling what speech is or isn't legal is akin to deciding what thoughts are or aren't legal. I get that now. When fire is yelled in a theater, it's a moron that starts running before he smells smoke or sees flames.
And now to contradict myself.
The American ideal of Freedom wasn't intended for the passionate, irrational man. Nor was it meant to give freedoms to a group that is immoral or even amoral. It only works when people have that internal gauge that says "Yelling fire might cause a stampede." The point here is censorship is horrible, but the lack of self-censorship is irresponsible.
Ha ha. I really should re-read before posting. "The *pen is mighter"
ReplyDeleteIn response to the 'The Limits of Tolerance' article, I ask: where does harm begin?
ReplyDeleteWomen in Afghanistan are made to cover up lest they harm the chastity of men.
If we limit harm to mean only physical harm, then forcing (or allowing) women to wear the burqa isn't harm. And if harm isn't limited to physical wounds, then is Western decadence, immorality, and 'neo-colonial' actions, which causes some Muslims to become so incensed that they fly planes into our buildings, actually causing harm to those that fly the planes (clearly their actions caused physical harm, but that's not the question)?
Love the comments, guys.
ReplyDeleteDane, are you suggesting that this discussion is difficult to frame because the meaning certain operative words, i.e. "tolerant" and "harm," are subjective? And that there will be a degree of irony in trying to define limits of tolerance? Am I also correct in surmising that you think there is a level of hypocrisy on the Left particularly with the issue of tolerance? I have to agree on all points.
However, I don't know that I agree with the causal relationship suggested in your last paragraph relating to terrorism. Using immoral behavior of one group to justify, or even to explain immoral behavior of another group is a pet-peeve of mine.
BTW, did you know you can download free podcasts of "Wait Wait...Don't tell me" on iTunes?
To Chuck:
If "The American ideal of Freedom wasn't intended for the passionate, irrational man," then we're all doomed. And while a lack of self censorship might be irresponsible, it is also inevitable, and perhaps we should act as such. Forgive the shameless rhetoric, but I imagine if your child was crushed in a stampede escaping a nonexistent “fire,” then you might feel differently.
Also, regarding free speech. It seems to me that most societies are simply one demagogue away from committing unimaginably atrocious acts, such as the holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and Darfur.
In free societies we need a good degree of tolerance. We simply can’t expect everyone to be just like us. We’re not North Korea. Conversely, we can’t be tolerant up to the point of becoming not-free by letting intolerant folks to bully and harangue their way to the top. Why did that sound like a quote from Zoolander?