Thanks for the welcome. I’ll try to make the visits worthwhile. I read your comments, Jack, and I found echoes of your views in a previous blog. You are implying that those with a ‘naturalist’ world outlook are intolerant of those who don’t share the view. I’m not sure that’s true. (By the way, Daniel Dennett who founded the Brights uses the word ‘naturalist’ which is OK but reminds me too much of nudists; I prefer to use the word ‘materialist’, although I think we use the words in an identical sense).
There’s nothing wrong with being forceful in pushing your ideas and arguments. ‘Tolerance’ per se is not a good method in a polemical or debating environment. You have your point of view, your arguments, your facts and figures and you go for it. You want to convince the other person. Having said that, I work and associate (as we all do) with Moslems, Christians and people of other faiths and I am not intolerant of them in my day to day work. In most cases I respect them professionally and I get on with them personally. If I was to debate with them, however, I would not be inclined to water-down or adapt my opinions so ‘meet them half way’ as it were. I don’t think that makes me intolerant. It just means I’m fairly convinced of my ideas.
Looking around the world today I see the greatest intolerance coming from religious people – those who think women ought to wear a headscarf (and are beaten in the streets of Tehran if they don’t), those who think it should not be permitted for gay people to form legally binding partnerships or adopt children, those who think it oughtn’t to be allowed to drive cars on the Sabbath (so they throw stones at them), etc, etc. Think of these and many, many other cases and then think about, say, a campaign to make schools secular…a campaign to outlaw the teaching of religion in schools. Are these two ‘intolerances’ equivalent to each other? I don’t think so. I have no objection to anyone practising their religion in the privacy of their own home or temple (although certain religious practices could be banned, like female circumcision, animal sacrifice, child abuse) but I do not think that in civil society that religion should have any influence – by civil society I mean the legal system, local, regional and national government, the health system and in education. Religion has no part in these public functions.
I don’t think that is being ‘intolerant’ any more than it is intolerant to deny fascists the ‘right’ to intimidate and harass black people. Let’s have a civil society built on the principles of secularism, non-religious ‘neutrality’ as it were. Let religious people follows their practices at home and in their temples. What’s wrong with that?
April 20, 2007 at 7:26 am
You’re misinterpreting me – I am saying most definitely not saying naturalists/humanists/Brights are intolerant of those with other beliefs. I’m saying that some of them are. There is a key difference here. I’m critical of those who are intolerant, not of their belief or non-belief system.
In general I agree with you that most intolerance is religious – my mate Paul showed pictures of the intolerance in Iran – but I just think you need to be clear that because some religious people interpret their religions in a particular way does not mean that that religion as a whole, or other adherents to the religion who may not follow that interpretation, should be tarred with the same brush. There have been cases where religious people have been persecuted by atheists.
I think I’d agree with Calvin that the problem is not so much the belief system as the desire to maintain power:
In this sense however, I would warn the humanist community (my own preferred term) to be careful to ensure that they do not fall into the same trap that many (most?) major religions have…
And I don’t think a preferred religion should be taught about in schools; you should either teach all of the major belief systems (including humanism/atheism etc) or none; because people should be free to choose their own beliefs, and not have beliefs forced upon them.
…that’s not to say I would ban faith schools, because these cater for people who specifically want there children to go there. But I wouldn’t like to see the ’state system’ requiring religious belief…
I don’t necessarily agree that religion shouldn’t have influence; if the people writing or enacting the legislature are religious then the legislature will be influenced by this (just as it would be if people weren’t religious). This “by the numbers” influence would usually reflect the religious makeup of the country as a whole and therefore I don’t see this as a bad thing.
I would however suggest that religion (CofE in the Lords etc) shouldn’t have a formal role in the process.
And I think you’re getting into dangerous waters comparing two intolerances and asking which is worse. You’re creating a false dichotomy. By choosing between two evils, I could quite legitimately put the question to you – is it better to publicly hang a gay man, or to keep black people as slaves?
Neither are correct. And that would be my answer to your choice of two evils.
You say that it’s alright for religious people to be religious “in their own homes and in their temples”. Does this not exhibit precisely the same intolerance that many people exhibit about homosexuality (“I don’t mind them, I just don’t think they should be allowed to do it in public…”)?
The other question of course is whether you would want to allow atheistic belief to be propounded in public? If you were going to be fair, equitable and tolerant, you’d have to ban public atheism too, otherwise you’d not have a level playing field…
November 13, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Going well this blog isn’t it?
