h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The question of tolerance and intolerance is one that crops up time and again on h2g2. It is one I have pondered for many years. I used to jokingly say that I was intolerant of intolerance, pretty much as a get out clause. More recently my meditations on the subject have grown darker.

It is true that many of the world’s religions have certain points of similarity in terms of ethics and morality. Without such common lines it would be hard for them to attract worshippers/adherents. However, how they apply these morals and ethics, and why they choose to promote them are very different. These points of difference are critical if we are to seriously consider interfaith tolerance and cooperation.

As a druid it is part of my sacred role to apply the principles of fairness and justice in all I do. Right action is more important than fanatical adherence to a set of laws or statutes, no matter if these are secular or divine. A good friend of mine once said that in this society we have a hell of a lot of law, but precious little justice.

Beyond these two principles of fairness and justice though, my only guidance in dealing with my fellow humans is the little wisdom I have acquired through my life and in my relationship with the spirits of the land and of my ancestors, and my gods.

If we are to do as many say and “believe absolutely in absolute tolerance, of people, of beliefs and of religions” then that can lead us down a very dark path. For instance if you are tolerant of the Roman Catholic Church’s beliefs then you could be considered complicit in their attitude towards AID’s and birth control. Such a policy does not deserve tolerance, indeed it deserves the strongest approbation.

Another example. I believe in free speech, yet I abhor the beliefs of the British National Party and am highly intolerant of them. Such intolerance in not wrong for it is in response to the hatred, lies and bile they spew onto our consciousness.

To be intolerant towards certain practices and beliefs of the various world religions, where these beliefs are inconsistent with the sanctity of life or with fairness and justice is also, in my opinion, quite normal and acceptable.

The tolerance that is expected of us by the legislators of the European and British Parliaments only allows such unethical and immoral philosophies to flourish, especially where they are tied to the coat-tails of a world religion or particularly vocal ethnic grouping.

Personally I lay the responsibility for our society’s obsession with this false ‘tolerance’ and ‘equality’ firmly at the feet of the philosophers and politicians of the post-WW2 period. It was an over-reaction to the hell that war showed them. Unfortunately rather than lift everyone up to a utopian ideal it has, in practice, dragged many down to the lowest common denominator.

I think that we are perfectly within our rights to be intolerant, especially of the Abrahamic religions, many of whose beliefs and practices are clearly unethical and immoral. To rail against injustice and to introduce the principles of fairness, not equality, is a fine path for a person to walk.

In short, I think we should be intolerant, but allow our intolerance to be guided by your wisdom. Pretty soon the government will try to take that right away from us as well so enjoy it while you may.

Well with the cat firmly placed among the pigeons I await the storm

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Thanks for that, Math.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Yes, tolerance is too often blind. It precludes criticism and progress.

I have always disliked the way 'tolerance' is used. We are supposed to 'tolerate' homosexuality. Not accept it as a fact of life, not approve of the way two humans can love one another no matter their sex, but merely tolerate. It's seemingly ok to seethingly hate gay people, or jews, or hispanics, as long as you keep it to yourself and tolerate them. When a person proudly proclaims they have tolerance towards a group of people they are essentially saying 'I really don't like those people, but I put up with them'. That is the wrong approach.

If you don't like a group of people, come out and say so. Then in the light of reason and (hopefully) civil public debate these ignorant folk can be set to rights and the flawed reasoning and hatred can be exposed in public. Give others clear examples of what ignorance and bigoty is and why it is wrong, don't hide it away. 'Tolerance' gives them an out.

Whenever you see 'tolerate' used in this manner, replace it with the word 'suffer', it is more accurate and honest.

You're right Math, this does drag us down to the lowest common denominator. We should accept, love and embrace. 'Tolerate' sets the bar way, way too low. Thanks for bringing this up Math, it's also been on my mind for a long time.



Ste

Just as the word discrimination originally meant to actually choose based on education and thought but has now come to mean exactly the opposite, the phrase intolerance has been twisted into uselessness.
The opposite of intolerance is not tolerance.
The opposite of intolerance is discrimination in it's original definition.

I think that sheep-like behavior on the part of any group of people is wrong, regardless of religion.
But as with the rules of the road, if everyone did exactly what they pleased, there would be a lot more auto crashes.

Contrary to the racist oaf that I work for, who claims to be a "drood" by genetic right, I believe that the original Druids took wisdom where ever they found it and had the discernment and the discriminatory ability to separate business from pleasure, science from religion, and efficiency from stupidity.

Religions and politics often choose their "leaders" based on useless or non-existent criteria.
When these unqualified bozos are allowed to shape the policies for half a world, then the truly qualified can only do the best that they can.

Appeasing any ethnic or superstitious group purely for public relations or cultural reasons is the road paved with good intentions.
The age-old conflicts are not going to be settled quickly, easily or so expediently that within a decade the same brand of cornflakes, condoms and political outlook can be sold all over the world.

If you regard the planet as populated with individuals, all wishing to be a little happier, as opposed to blocs of groups of same-thinking, same-dressing, same killing gestaltic mobs, then you will have the beginnings of real "tolerance".

But to rail against groups that treat everyone else as just groups is just to perpetuate the behavior of the stupid, the mean, and the numerous.

This isn't directly in response to you, Math.
You just got me started... y'know?

Fairness means that no one has an unequal advantage.

Equality means that no sex or no age group or color has an unfair advantage over any other.

True wisdom means that every case or person is considered on it's individual merits, with the understanding that eventually, when you've paid enough attention, trends and similar characteristics do tend to allow you to treat copycats or victims of simultaneous development the same.

So, if you have two religious groups and they are both oppressing their people, then both are wrong.
If you have two warring factions and they both are engaging in the abuse of their soldiery and citizenry, then both are wrong.
If you have two cultures and both treat women like property and children like slaves, then both are wrong.
And if you have two political parties and both are full of prats who just want to further their agendas at the expense of the voters, then both are wrong.

Dealing with the world with fairness requires a strong sense of right and wrong. And those who are wrong are wrong regardless of which flag they fly or which team they cheer for.

There is a philosophy among some martial artists that the adept practioner should not be recognizable, thus, the final stage of their training is to learn how to look, walk and behave like a normal person.
Would-be adepts of politics and religion who have no intention of behaving like a normal person make fools of themselves and their followers.
As the O'Sensei, Morihei Uesheba (sp?) said, those who promote disharmony have no other creed or purpose. It is the duty of those who seek harmony to firmly, without unnecessary punishment, resist and correct the imbalance created by those who promote disharmony.

Funny, don't you think, that in this discussion on fairness and tolerance, much of what has been written concerns *un*fairness and *in*tolerance? I draw no conclusions, merely present an observation for consideration.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi PC

If you re-read the latter half of my opening gambit again I think you will find me talking about intolerance in particular and how I am becoming, through the application of what I call 'wisdom', intolerant.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

Hi Tonsil

Long time no see, glad to have you back in the thick of it

Can't say I disagree with much you said really. The racist oaf you work for is not druid by any definition I can remember in my contact with a broad range of orders and solitary practitioners of that philosophy.

I'd be happy to challenge him for you if you wish?

Overall a good rant

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

Yes, I forgot. Too many threads with similar subjects. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"