tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post1627462239527829914..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Tolerating the intolerantRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36911086279058184272007-11-01T00:57:00.000+11:002007-11-01T00:57:00.000+11:00What scares me is that religionists will disguise ...What scares me is that religionists will disguise intolerence very well until they aquire secular power and then WHAM!<BR/><BR/>I sometimes feel like asking them (our Islamic neighbours) to either sign up to our western values or otherwise to leave the country. <BR/><BR/>But are the moderates really speaking out effectively?clodhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08055899083327712482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36486048545717826302007-10-29T14:50:00.000+11:002007-10-29T14:50:00.000+11:00I think we have to be realisticabout something lik...I think we have to be realistic<BR/>about something like this. We're just not going to go down the path of persecuting certain sects for not being sufficiently tolerant - there will always be sects, or individuals, that try to test the envelope. One thing we can do is be very strong on hard-won political principles such as freedom of speech, maintenance of the harm principle (insist that actions be significantly and directly harmful before action is taken to suppress them - if the harm is insignificant it should attract regulation at most; if it is merely indirect, it is usually just a matter for amelioroation or education).<BR/><BR/>However, what we can also do is insist that tolerance, freedom of speech, etc., do not entail that all views must be equally respected and given weight in the democratic process. Manifestly intolerant views can be allowed, but discounted. If there is immediate danger that they will be acted on, some stronger action might be justiable (banning Nazi organisation in the 1930s and 1940s may have been needed in those circumstances).<BR/><BR/>More generally, we need strategies that all moderates can live with. I wouldn't go closing Muslim schools <I>holus bolus</I>, but I do question why we are funding religious schools, I have no problem with the idea that liberalism forces the sects to soften, as well as allowing them all to survive, and if we must take steps to assure that all children are exposed to tolerant ideas, thus offending the most intolerant and dogmatic sects, then so be it, I think. It does seem to me that there's a lot we can do short of bringing backl the bad old days of the Thirty Years' War.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-85991831162243524372007-10-27T22:51:00.000+10:002007-10-27T22:51:00.000+10:00They are justified on the basis of compromises rea...<I>They are justified on the basis of compromises reached and lessons learned; they are not locked in stone forever, however much circumstances might ever change.</I><BR/> And this is the possibly the problem we face. We've been tolerant, tolerance has worked, so we tolerate the next applicant to society or a group that feels confident in expressing its muscle. The trouble is when the group doesn't agree to the deal. Then we risk problems. <BR/> This is not to justify some jingoistic pogrom or say damn them for their (perceived) intransigence. I just don't think you can have a (Lockean) deal, unless all agree to the deal. I think that we can demand that a group who partakes of society abides by the deal. But how to do that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-47044296619292769752007-10-27T15:51:00.000+10:002007-10-27T15:51:00.000+10:00Spotlight it is - but it's a good example.I guess ...Spotlight it is - but it's a good example.<BR/><BR/>I guess my overall point is that not everything is solved even if we do identify some particular sect as intolerant, and as standing, by choice, outside of the magical Lockean circle. We can't suddenly abandon religious tolerance just because of that; we wouldn't want to go back to a 17th-century free-for-all to see who get so persecute everyone else, just because some sects turn out to be intolerant. <BR/><BR/>Mind you, if enough significant sects were intolarant enough, in the new 21st-century reality that we face, all bets might be off. Though I disagreed with Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "war with Islam" point a couple of posts ago, she does make one very telling point in her <I>Reason</I> interview: our constitutional provisions and political principles all have histories. They are justified on the basis of compromises reached and lessons learned; they are not locked in stone forever, however much circumstances might ever change.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-44612335321713046792007-10-26T13:15:00.000+10:002007-10-26T13:15:00.000+10:00Yes, the exclusive Bretheren. My attempt at humour...Yes, the exclusive Bretheren. My attempt at humourous intrigue didn't probably come across well. It seemed cute at the time. :)<BR/> I agree with your suggestion. I reckon that we need to keep the spotlight on them and the politicians who gladly, but clandestinely, accept there supportAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-29085354761961467142007-10-26T11:42:00.000+10:002007-10-26T11:42:00.000+10:00Well, obviously we are. I don't know that there's ...Well, obviously we are. I don't know that there's really a lot we can do about that particular fraternity except keep the glare of publicity on them.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-11189307576895026672007-10-26T11:40:00.000+10:002007-10-26T11:40:00.000+10:00We're talking about the Exclusive Brethren here?We're talking about the Exclusive Brethren here?Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-79619830012423644312007-10-25T09:34:00.000+10:002007-10-25T09:34:00.000+10:00Imagine a sect which for the sake of discussion we...Imagine a sect which for the sake of discussion we call fraterni exclusivi* that didn't vote (a grey area legally, you have to enrol, but if you aren't then you don't get prosecuted) but had the ear of some of the highest politicians of the land and ploughed money into getting politicians to their liking (re)elected. And spread negative propaganda against candidates they see as not holding their view, even spreading lies. This group may be small, but have a disproportianate amount of power or influence in a democracy where supposedly one person = one vote. Some serious consciouness raising would need to be done then. Also some serious election donation law changes too.<BR/> I wonder if such a group, which eschews voting for religious reasons and yet buys power is a danger to democracy and should be made to vote and be barred from greasing up politicians. As much as politicians don't want their dodgy money declared. I don't think it would be good to persecute them though only apply an equal standard.<BR/>*Terrible latin I know :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com