![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On tolerance
Jun. 16th, 2007 01:40 amI've been involved in a discussion on the nature of tolerance on HPOL, and I figured I'd repost my reply to someone, as I think it may be interesting. The post I'm replying to is in italics.
I think that it is possible to respect other religions and still disagree with them -- and disagreement doesn't make one a "bad" Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan, Jew, or anything else.
Respect them if you wish to, but there is nothing that requires you to do so. If, in fact, those beliefs are responsible for causing real harm to people who you care about, I think it would be rather asinine to respect them.
I had the opportunity to actually sit down semi-face-to-face with Billy Graham and Rabbi Schmuly Boteach in 1994 when I was auditing a seminar at (deleted) University for my PhD in Comparative Religions. Though I'd never been able to sit through one of his telecasts, he had some very wise things to say during the seminar. When the moderator asked him about his strong stance concerning issues like gays, non-christians, and abortion, he said [paraphrased] that his beliefs required that he speak strongly on things that (G)od considered "sins", and to water down his reproach just to satisfy non-believers and false prophets would make him as bad as they were in the eyes of (G)od.
I understand WHY Billy Graham feels the need to be so harsh towards those things. However, just because he has a so-called "principled" stand based on faith, is no reason to respect those beliefs. In my view, those are toxic beliefs to hold, as they are responsible for causing real harm to people, both physical and emotional, and are therefore deserving of nothing but utter CONTEMPT from me.
There seems to be a popular notion that having principles is inherently a good thing, even when those principles result in harmful action. I find this to be a ridiculous philosophical position. Muslims who hold to the principle that women should have no rights and be treated as property shouldn't be respected for the fact that they are acting on a principle. People who bomb abortion clinics or assassinate abortion doctors shouldn't be respected for the philosophical principle they are upholding. People who do everything they can to prevent people of an alternate sexual orientation (gay, bi, polyamorous, whatever) from enjoying the same rights and privileges as the "hetero-normative" shouldn't be respected because they're acting on some principle.
(I myself am pretty "hetero-normative", but I think that as long as no one is being involuntarily hurt (since I know some who are rather fond of being voluntarily hurt), people should be able to do what the hell they want.)
The religious people I can respect are the ones who know about the various bigoted positions that their archaic, primitive, outdated texts espouse and IGNORE those principles because they are cruel, bigoted, and evil. I have a hell of a lot more respect for a Christian who says "I don't give a damn what the Bible says about it. I know gay people (or people who had an abortion, or *fill-in-the-blank*) and I know they're not as bad as this 2000-year-old book make them out to be, so I'm going to ignore its edicts, and treat them like I would anyone else. Now, since they are NOT following the rules laid out in the book, I would argue that they are NOT True Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or what have you, because they reject the principles within. However, I view that as the only sane, rational response to those toxic, evil principles, and I applaud them for standing up for what their conscience tells them, in defiance of "the rules".
It's too bad that because of (primarily) social conditioning, they still feel the need to identify with the faiths that they disagree with in principle. I think if they took a reality check and called what they did believe by a different name, it would help a great deal towards
moving society away from those toxic beliefs.
I can understand that completely. I have very strong beliefs, too, and I also believe that it is important not to water down my commentary on my own beliefs (including truly respecting others rights to different beliefs).
One critical difference between my beliefs and Billy's beliefs is that I believe that people should be able to choose the religion that best matches their concept of and connection with the divine. Billy's beliefs require that everyone be of the same religion that he is. Because of this, if I am completely true to -my- beliefs, I can graciously accept that someone else's
beliefs are different, and I can honestly respect them for what they believe (even those who are atheists and don't believe in any kind of divine energy).
If Billy (or others like him) were to show the same flexibility, they would actually be -sinning- against their representation of the divine, who -requires- that everyone serve (Him) the same way.
When two faiths have diametrically opposed beliefs, such as the two you describe, conflict is inevitable. The tolerance you espouse will NOT be returned, and by your own description, CANNOT be returned if the Christian is going to remain true to Christian principles. If one would continue to exhibit tolerance in the face of such a situation, it seems that inevitably, the tolerant one will be at a great disadvantage, and eventually suffer the consequences. It seems to me, that a continued tolerance of those that are intolerant of tolerance is counter-productive, and should be discarded. Anything else is strategically unviable, and doomed to fail. Go ask the Albigensians.
Yes, he was obstructive, biased, belligerent, repressive -- but he was also faithful to his beliefs as he saw them, and if nothing else, I have to respect that, despite my staunch disagreement with him on just about every issue on which we could have faced off.
The respect you give, while obviously given out of a sense of tolerance, nobility and charity, is most likely unappreciated, unproductive, and most importantly, undeserved for those who are intolerant of you. It's a pretty thought, and one that I used to entertain myself. I laid out my former position of tolerance, much like your own, to several fundamentalist Christians of my acquaintance, and I found out that to them, that kind of tolerance is simply viewed as a sign of weakness, and a sign that one is not actually confident in one's own beliefs. Their belief is structured in such a way that the idea of different beliefs being suitable for different people is simply anathema. They're not real big on subjectivity. Their principles are such that there is a Universal Truth for everyone, where some are right, and everyone else is wrong, and if you are wrong (i.e., disagree with their interpretation of the Universal Truth) you are the enemy. That will not change.
Fundamentalist Christians like Billy Graham, (and I'm fairly confident that similar views are held by other fundamentalist devotees of monotheistic religion, like Islam and Judaism) simply don't care if you are willing to tolerate them, and your tolerance has no impact whatsoever on the fact they WILL NOT tolerate those who believe differently from them. That being the case, I therefore do not entertain any tolerance or respect for what I view as their toxic and evil beliefs, nor for those who act based on those toxic and evil beliefs.
No tolerance for the demonstrably intolerant. Fuck 'em.
I think that it is possible to respect other religions and still disagree with them -- and disagreement doesn't make one a "bad" Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan, Jew, or anything else.
Respect them if you wish to, but there is nothing that requires you to do so. If, in fact, those beliefs are responsible for causing real harm to people who you care about, I think it would be rather asinine to respect them.
I had the opportunity to actually sit down semi-face-to-face with Billy Graham and Rabbi Schmuly Boteach in 1994 when I was auditing a seminar at (deleted) University for my PhD in Comparative Religions. Though I'd never been able to sit through one of his telecasts, he had some very wise things to say during the seminar. When the moderator asked him about his strong stance concerning issues like gays, non-christians, and abortion, he said [paraphrased] that his beliefs required that he speak strongly on things that (G)od considered "sins", and to water down his reproach just to satisfy non-believers and false prophets would make him as bad as they were in the eyes of (G)od.
I understand WHY Billy Graham feels the need to be so harsh towards those things. However, just because he has a so-called "principled" stand based on faith, is no reason to respect those beliefs. In my view, those are toxic beliefs to hold, as they are responsible for causing real harm to people, both physical and emotional, and are therefore deserving of nothing but utter CONTEMPT from me.
There seems to be a popular notion that having principles is inherently a good thing, even when those principles result in harmful action. I find this to be a ridiculous philosophical position. Muslims who hold to the principle that women should have no rights and be treated as property shouldn't be respected for the fact that they are acting on a principle. People who bomb abortion clinics or assassinate abortion doctors shouldn't be respected for the philosophical principle they are upholding. People who do everything they can to prevent people of an alternate sexual orientation (gay, bi, polyamorous, whatever) from enjoying the same rights and privileges as the "hetero-normative" shouldn't be respected because they're acting on some principle.
(I myself am pretty "hetero-normative", but I think that as long as no one is being involuntarily hurt (since I know some who are rather fond of being voluntarily hurt), people should be able to do what the hell they want.)
The religious people I can respect are the ones who know about the various bigoted positions that their archaic, primitive, outdated texts espouse and IGNORE those principles because they are cruel, bigoted, and evil. I have a hell of a lot more respect for a Christian who says "I don't give a damn what the Bible says about it. I know gay people (or people who had an abortion, or *fill-in-the-blank*) and I know they're not as bad as this 2000-year-old book make them out to be, so I'm going to ignore its edicts, and treat them like I would anyone else. Now, since they are NOT following the rules laid out in the book, I would argue that they are NOT True Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or what have you, because they reject the principles within. However, I view that as the only sane, rational response to those toxic, evil principles, and I applaud them for standing up for what their conscience tells them, in defiance of "the rules".
It's too bad that because of (primarily) social conditioning, they still feel the need to identify with the faiths that they disagree with in principle. I think if they took a reality check and called what they did believe by a different name, it would help a great deal towards
moving society away from those toxic beliefs.
I can understand that completely. I have very strong beliefs, too, and I also believe that it is important not to water down my commentary on my own beliefs (including truly respecting others rights to different beliefs).
One critical difference between my beliefs and Billy's beliefs is that I believe that people should be able to choose the religion that best matches their concept of and connection with the divine. Billy's beliefs require that everyone be of the same religion that he is. Because of this, if I am completely true to -my- beliefs, I can graciously accept that someone else's
beliefs are different, and I can honestly respect them for what they believe (even those who are atheists and don't believe in any kind of divine energy).
If Billy (or others like him) were to show the same flexibility, they would actually be -sinning- against their representation of the divine, who -requires- that everyone serve (Him) the same way.
When two faiths have diametrically opposed beliefs, such as the two you describe, conflict is inevitable. The tolerance you espouse will NOT be returned, and by your own description, CANNOT be returned if the Christian is going to remain true to Christian principles. If one would continue to exhibit tolerance in the face of such a situation, it seems that inevitably, the tolerant one will be at a great disadvantage, and eventually suffer the consequences. It seems to me, that a continued tolerance of those that are intolerant of tolerance is counter-productive, and should be discarded. Anything else is strategically unviable, and doomed to fail. Go ask the Albigensians.
Yes, he was obstructive, biased, belligerent, repressive -- but he was also faithful to his beliefs as he saw them, and if nothing else, I have to respect that, despite my staunch disagreement with him on just about every issue on which we could have faced off.
The respect you give, while obviously given out of a sense of tolerance, nobility and charity, is most likely unappreciated, unproductive, and most importantly, undeserved for those who are intolerant of you. It's a pretty thought, and one that I used to entertain myself. I laid out my former position of tolerance, much like your own, to several fundamentalist Christians of my acquaintance, and I found out that to them, that kind of tolerance is simply viewed as a sign of weakness, and a sign that one is not actually confident in one's own beliefs. Their belief is structured in such a way that the idea of different beliefs being suitable for different people is simply anathema. They're not real big on subjectivity. Their principles are such that there is a Universal Truth for everyone, where some are right, and everyone else is wrong, and if you are wrong (i.e., disagree with their interpretation of the Universal Truth) you are the enemy. That will not change.
Fundamentalist Christians like Billy Graham, (and I'm fairly confident that similar views are held by other fundamentalist devotees of monotheistic religion, like Islam and Judaism) simply don't care if you are willing to tolerate them, and your tolerance has no impact whatsoever on the fact they WILL NOT tolerate those who believe differently from them. That being the case, I therefore do not entertain any tolerance or respect for what I view as their toxic and evil beliefs, nor for those who act based on those toxic and evil beliefs.
No tolerance for the demonstrably intolerant. Fuck 'em.
