Thursday, April 24, 2003
Which brings us to . . .
Here on the Left Coast, this is considered one of the prime Virtues. In fact, any remark that alludes to the background of anyone as a source for irritating thoughts/behavior under current discussion is trigger for immediate social censure. In other words, it is risky to even notice – out loud – that the person with whom one is talking is, in fact, black, Jewish, Islamic, even female. (Tho it is still quite in to bash white guys, the older the bashier.) The social pressure is so strong, in some circles as to insure shunning of one who would break the taboo with any regularity. Shades of communist ‘self- criticism’ groups. This is described as “tolerance.” Not as “acceptance” for it is not that.If I accept someone who is female “as is,” I can refer to her “girly notions” or “feminist leanings” when in conversation. If I accept that my friend is Muslim, I can give inquire as to my impression that her disinclination to wear crop tops may in fact, be based on her cultural Value of modesty. Not as judgement but as simple observation and acknowledgement of facts in evidence. But simply acknowledging these differences is verboten under the doctrinaire of “tolerance.” Although “diversity” is held up as a high Value, the opportunity to discuss the very things that make us different from one another is removed. Makes for a tippy-toe atmosphere.
Today I discovered Bernard Lewis’ discussion of religion based civilizations. Within it is this nugget about “tolerance:”
Tolerance is, of course, an extremely intolerant idea, because it means "I am the boss: I will allow you some, though not all, of the rights I enjoy as long as you behave yourself according to standards that I shall determine." That, I think, is a fair definition of religious tolerance as it is normally understood and applied.Well, he nailed that attitude dead on. His primary discussion is of the differences between triumphalist and relativist religious points of views described succinctly here:
For those taking the relativist approach to religion (in effect, "I have my god, you have your god, and others have theirs"), there may be specific political or economic reasons for objecting to someone else's beliefs, but in principle there is no theological problem. For those taking the triumphalist approach (classically summed up in the formula "I'm right, you're wrong, go to hell"), tolerance is a problem. Because the triumphalist's is the only true and complete religion, all other religions are at best incomplete and more probably false and evil; and since he is the privileged recipient of God's final message to humankind, it is surely his duty to bring it to others rather than keep it selfishly for himself.This article has helped me go further into understanding why there must be so much, uh, intolerance between the religious numbers in the American street and the Arab street. It still honks me off, but I geddit better.
Statistics
This page has been viewed 18348509 times
Total Entries: 5718
Total Comments: 4193
Total Trackbacks: 714
Most Recent Entry: 06/14/2011 06:44 am
Most Recent Comment on: 11/27/2011 05:18 pm
{/if}
