05.20.05
Posted in faith, politics, philosophy at 11:47 am by
Mr. Brannon Howse, founder of Worldview Weekend, makes a great point. Tolerance is a bit of a myth. The article I’ve linked to is an expose about the myth of tolerance, from Mr. Howse’s perspective, of course.
Mr. Howse lays it out like this, and his minions of right-wing nut jobs follow mindlessly: Basically, the tolerant are hypocritcal cites Howse, and others like him, because they fail to be tolerant of people like Howse. And, as much as it stings to admit it, Mr. Howse is right. The tolerant praise their tolerance–just as long as they themselves are met with tolerance. That is, the tolerant are intolerant of intolerance. This, of course, puts them into a catch-22.
Stanley Fish, in a lecture he gave once upon a time at Michigan State University, cited just this quagmire in response to multi-culturalism. He argued, persuasively, that a person couldn’t unilaterally value multi-culturalism. The reason, he said, was that some cultures have mutually exclusive values. For example, in order to truly value multi-culturalism, it’s necessary to value and support Nazi culture (or at least it would’ve been when the German culture largely espoused this set of mores.) Unfortunately, a critical element of this culture was the murder and suppression of all but the ‘Arayan race.’ In order to truly value multi-culturalism, one must value Nazi culture (or any plethora of modern day examples), which means that you can’t truly value multi-culturalism because the Nazi culture is fundamentally opposed to other cultures. The same problem exists with other cultures such as the Tutsi and the Hutu in Rwanda.
The same logic should be applied to tolerance. Stanley Fish argues that because true multi-culturalism is unattainable, the answer lies in choosing the valuable parts of culture and learning about those. I think that if Mr. Howse would apply this logic to his bone about tolerance, he’d be coming to different conclusions about how persecuted he was. I fear, though, the farthest thing from the mind of a Worldview Weekender is trying to critically examine the value of gay culture, or the wisdom a Buddhist monk brings to the table, or the reasons terrorists may have done the things they did.
Mr. Howse is out to make little Satans out of anyone who doesn’t agree with him. By demonizing anyone who moderately disagrees with him, Mr. Howse belies his true values. He, and others like him, values INtolerance. It’s almost as if he’s made a god out of intolerance. According to their religious system, being INtolerant of the things they don’t understand, fundagelicals (thanks Ol’ Cranky) puts them just a little bit closer to the ’salvation’ they so desire to earn.
Unfortunately for the fundagelicals, there’s a pretty easy way to avoid hypocrisy. It’s simple: I’m not a tolerant person. I don’t claim to be universally tolerant, because it’s not possible (or at least VERY difficult.) I’m not tolerant of intolerance, I’m not tolerant of hate, and furthermore–I’m trying really hard not to be tolerant of sin.
Finally, I have a thought for Mr. Howse and his fundagelical following: Because it’s INtolerance that you’re shooting for, I’ve got some constructive criticism…some areas of tolerance that you’ll probably want to stamp out.
1. You’re quite tolerant of poverty.
2. You’re tolerant of racism.
3. You’re tolerant of sexism.
4. You’re tolerant of hate.
5. You’re tolerant of war-mongering.
But, probably worst of all…
6. You’re tolerant of ignorance.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/05/20/on_tolerance/trackback/
Posted in faith, politics, philosophy at 11:47 am by
Mr. Brannon Howse, founder of Worldview Weekend, makes a great point. Tolerance is a bit of a myth. The article I’ve linked to is an expose about the myth of tolerance, from Mr. Howse’s perspective, of course.
Mr. Howse lays it out like this, and his minions of right-wing nut jobs follow mindlessly: Basically, the tolerant are hypocritcal cites Howse, and others like him, because they fail to be tolerant of people like Howse. And, as much as it stings to admit it, Mr. Howse is right. The tolerant praise their tolerance–just as long as they themselves are met with tolerance. That is, the tolerant are intolerant of intolerance. This, of course, puts them into a catch-22.
Stanley Fish, in a lecture he gave once upon a time at Michigan State University, cited just this quagmire in response to multi-culturalism. He argued, persuasively, that a person couldn’t unilaterally value multi-culturalism. The reason, he said, was that some cultures have mutually exclusive values. For example, in order to truly value multi-culturalism, it’s necessary to value and support Nazi culture (or at least it would’ve been when the German culture largely espoused this set of mores.) Unfortunately, a critical element of this culture was the murder and suppression of all but the ‘Arayan race.’ In order to truly value multi-culturalism, one must value Nazi culture (or any plethora of modern day examples), which means that you can’t truly value multi-culturalism because the Nazi culture is fundamentally opposed to other cultures. The same problem exists with other cultures such as the Tutsi and the Hutu in Rwanda.
The same logic should be applied to tolerance. Stanley Fish argues that because true multi-culturalism is unattainable, the answer lies in choosing the valuable parts of culture and learning about those. I think that if Mr. Howse would apply this logic to his bone about tolerance, he’d be coming to different conclusions about how persecuted he was. I fear, though, the farthest thing from the mind of a Worldview Weekender is trying to critically examine the value of gay culture, or the wisdom a Buddhist monk brings to the table, or the reasons terrorists may have done the things they did.
Mr. Howse is out to make little Satans out of anyone who doesn’t agree with him. By demonizing anyone who moderately disagrees with him, Mr. Howse belies his true values. He, and others like him, values INtolerance. It’s almost as if he’s made a god out of intolerance. According to their religious system, being INtolerant of the things they don’t understand, fundagelicals (thanks Ol’ Cranky) puts them just a little bit closer to the ’salvation’ they so desire to earn.
Unfortunately for the fundagelicals, there’s a pretty easy way to avoid hypocrisy. It’s simple: I’m not a tolerant person. I don’t claim to be universally tolerant, because it’s not possible (or at least VERY difficult.) I’m not tolerant of intolerance, I’m not tolerant of hate, and furthermore–I’m trying really hard not to be tolerant of sin.
Finally, I have a thought for Mr. Howse and his fundagelical following: Because it’s INtolerance that you’re shooting for, I’ve got some constructive criticism…some areas of tolerance that you’ll probably want to stamp out.
1. You’re quite tolerant of poverty.
2. You’re tolerant of racism.
3. You’re tolerant of sexism.
4. You’re tolerant of hate.
5. You’re tolerant of war-mongering.
But, probably worst of all…
6. You’re tolerant of ignorance.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/05/20/on_tolerance/trackback/
ol cranky said,
May 20, 2005 at 7:56 pm
fundagelicals (thanks Ol’ Cranky)
I thought you made the word up (I know I got it from you).
Brandon said,
May 20, 2005 at 8:09 pm
I thought I liked it…maybe I did…I really don’t remember!!!
Brandon said,
May 20, 2005 at 8:12 pm
Upon further review…and a bit of searching, it would appear that I did, in fact, make up the word fundagelical. Unless anyone else wants to claim it…I could swear I got it from somewhere…but i’m happy to claim it.
Resident Atheist said,
May 21, 2005 at 4:50 am
It’s remarkable that they use “tolerance” to refer to being treated courteously. I tend to think of tolerance as, first off, not killing people just because they’re from a different place or look a little different or their ancestors killed my ancestors (or vice versa); second, doing what we can to work together to look out for each other’s interests, even if we don’t particularly like one another; third, not acting against their best interests without a damned good reason.
I really think it’s only because we’ve grown up for so many generations without really worrying about our physical needs that we’ve come to attach such vital importance to such a stupid little thing as knee-jerk courtesy. Reading up on viruses in my spare time and realizing that we’re just a few good epidemics away from extinction, it’s easier to tune out this crap and focus on what’s important. I don’t care if people speak nicely about me. It would be nice if they consulted me before making decisions that involve me, but I really don’t expect it. There are so many more important things to be concerned with. Playing the victim isn’t one of them.
BlondebutBright said,
May 21, 2005 at 9:21 am
Tolerance is impossible when a group devotes their lives to a narrow interpretation of reality. Although I don’t agree with the mindset in any way, it is quite a necessary evil if one is to follow the fundagelical religion. My favorite line from Howse: “…we will become a nation that welcomes…a host of moral aberrations so bizarre they’re still hidden in the darkest reaches of the Internet.”
Apparently not tolerant of the Internet, either. Then why so many fundagelical blogs?
Danny said,
May 21, 2005 at 11:47 am
I like to think that being biased against bad ideas helps to counteract that. I’m all for censoring fans of censorship, hating hatred, and not tolerating the intolerant. If they really wanted to be tolerated, they wouldn’t be claiming tolerance is evil all the time. It may be hypocritical, but it’s not like they’re not.
Donna said,
May 21, 2005 at 5:18 pm
tolerance
1412, “endurance, fortitude,” from O.Fr. tolerance (14c.), from L. tolerantia “endurance,” from tolerans, prp. of tolerare “to bear, endure, tolerate” (see toleration). Of authorities, in the sense of “permissive,” first recorded 1539; of individuals, with the sense of “free from bigotry or severity,” 1765. Meaning “allowable amount of variation” dates from 1868; and physiological sense of “ability to take large doses” first recorded 1875. Tolerant is recorded from 1784. The verb tolerate is attested from 1531.
In engineering terms, tolerance is the amount of variation allowed, and we speak of things being “in tolerance”. I would simply say that those who are “intolerant” are out of my acceptable amount of variation. All of us are accepting or intolerant based on a conitnuum of what we accept or reject, and to label someone as “intolerant” when their range of acceptance is wider than your own is simply ludicrous. What those people are actually saying is that those who reject them are less tolerant than they themselves are, which is ridiculous.
There isn’t a dalism when speaking about tolerance. It is not that one is or is not tolerant, it is that one maintains a range of tolerance in one’s viewpoint. If you are more accepting of a wider range of viepoints, you are more tolerant. If your viewpoint is narrower, yu are less tolerant.
Get around these kind of people by clarifying your language, and their own, and perhaps, in good circumstances, you can even shock them out of their real problem, which is viewing everything as a duality of “right” and “wrong”, “my view” and “your view”, “good” and “evil”, etc. That is the real difference - being able to perceive that life is more than a dualism, but a fascinating range of variety.
Digger said,
May 22, 2005 at 2:14 am
I remember when talking to a friend who calls himself a ’spiritualist’ about fundamentalist Christians and his bad experience of them telling him he was going to hell for not believing the same as them. This is not an approach I would take, nor viewpoint I necessarily agree with.
Tolerance was his big thing, we need to be tolerant of each others view and beliefs and religions, and open ourselves up to the possibility we don’t have all the answers.
Which was all well and good until I posed him with the dilemma that these Christian fundo’s might be right (which I don’t think they are) on their views of hell etc.
He was all up for tolerance up until he had to consider that he might ultimately be wrong. Very interesting stuff.