You cannot simply impose 'tolerance' on a system which is constructed from the ground up on the foundation that one set of beliefs is privileged and holy, and that only people who hold those beliefs are truly human -- and that applies to Christianity just as much as Islam. Dismantle religion, and tolerance will no longer be an issue. But as long as religions exist and continue to perpetuate themselves, then the process of demonising non-believers and canonising believers will continue. Only education and affluence can loosen its grip.

JonJ,

As I suggested elsewhere to another OLOer, do, or read the study material for RELS !.

Dear Jon,

As usual, religion is being blamed for the acts of the non-religious.

When I was in school, a class-mate used to pretend to represent a charity, using a fake receipt-book to steal from shops. When caught, I was implicated and had a hard time having to prove to the principal that I wasn't even there and knew nothing about it.

If you had such an experience, you would know the feeling that I feel when religion is implicated of various crimes, including intolerance.

The culprits may claim to be "religious" and have organisations that claim to be forwarding religion, but if they are intolerant of others, then they are not. Yes, religion is intolerant, but only of the evil in our own hearts and the ignorance of God in our minds - never in the hearts and minds of others.

Religion is not about belief: belief is at times used by religion as a step, as a technical method on the way to attain God, but many religious people do not believe in anything particular, many just use other methods. In fact, those who reach the goal of religion do not believe in God - because they know themselves and all others directly to be that same God.

Churches and similar organisations could be dismantled, but religion itself cannot be dismantled because it is the only reason why we are here and why the world exists.

“Let’s bash a bogan, not a Muslim!” Now that is what I call tolerance!

It is one thing to tolerate religious beliefs and ideas but quite another to tolerate religious behaviour that impinges upon the rights of others. Ideas hurt no one - it is the behaviour that does the damage. It is that behaviour that religious people seek to protect and they are prepared to become violent in order to protect that behaviour. No one can get inside their head and change the way they think but the state and other citizens can frustrate their religious practices when those practises impinge on the rights of others.

A Muslim person who insists on his ‘right’ to take time out of the working day for his prayers impinges on the rights of his non-religious colleagues. When the Catholic Church takes over the city streets for a parade they impinge on others to be able to drive down the street unhindered. When church schools demand special funding it takes away from the rights of those who use the public system. Religious behaviour impinges in many ways. In extreme cases it makes slaves of women over whom it has power. None of these behaviours should be tolerated. It is not tolerance to allow the behaviour of one group to deny the rights of another – it is acquiescence.

Too often those who call for tolerance and a live and let live attitude are making a personal statement about their own acquiescence. They do not want to cause a fuss or upset anyone. They are too insecure to assert their own rights and fight for justice against the encroaching behaviour of others in their life. They want the rest of society to chill out and be like them. They do not like it when they see others assert their rights to push back against religious behaviour because it reminds them of their own weakness in dealing with the personal injustices they experience in their own lives.

Thanks, Ian, for your perceptive comments on tolerance. Too often it is sketched as a "soft option" and flabby flipflop. You argue for an active (even proactive?)tolerance which respects without being spineless.

yep and the most intolerant are the secular humanist. Heaven forbid anyone challenging their hopelessly flawed moral relativism and the rotten fruit that is evident for anyone with a brain to see what it has produced. You would go a long way to find such an intolerant bunch who use pseudo science to justify all their depravities.

Who's "We" Ian?
Is the author talking about White, middle class,senior citizens like himself?
People under 50 have no memory of the "old ways" so we kind of resent this idea that we're anything but a tolerant and pluralistic mob.

Again find myself having to agree with Jon J.
Religion/false belief by the bucket load, has caused more wars, and completely unnecessary deaths, than anything else in recorded history.
What may yet prevent more of the same, is a belief in irrefutable truth, rather than fondly held, but entirely impossible to prove, myth and legend!
Some of it clearly created by sanctimonious, puerile parsimonious pulpit pounding psychopaths, who would be at least treated with medicine today, or in some cases, interned for the rest of their natural lives?
When that terribly incessant insistent voice in your head, tells you to kill, it is clearly not the voice of God, who forbids it!
But rather, some much more malevolent, (the devil made me do it) miscreant!
It can be most disconcerting to hear a voice coming out of thin air, but even more disconcerting, when you actually understand what it is saying!
If you want access to irrefutable truth, then you need first to seek ye the kingdom of God within, or put another way, learn to meditate!
And chose a teacher who just does not include his or her dogma or false belief.
Just the nuts and bolts of meditation stripped of all dogma.
Once you have accomplished this task, you will find all your questions are progressively, replaced with a knowing and a certainty, that comes from a universal well of knowledge, that is as old as time itself and sometimes surprising common agreement.
The only people that can't meditate, are very small children, because their attention span is too short, and or, the criminally insane, who just can't empty their mind of thoughts/monkey chatter, and just learn to listen!
And those who just don't want to know the truth, given it conflicts with their former false belief system, a was the enunciated case for Edgar Casey, sometimes referred to as the sleeping prophet!?
Rhrosty.

Ian Nance "Muslim-bashing is the current fashionable practice."

For Muslims, infidel-bashing is always in fashion.

Australian Protestants versus Catholics.
And what was the death toll from that war?

"Let’s bash a bogan, not a Muslim!"

WTF!
You just lost any credibility you ever had.

Bogan. (noun) multiculturalist code word for White Australian.

It's all very well to "tolerate" those people already living amongst us.
But that doesn't mean we must "tolerate" the ludicrous political fairytale bringing that imposed "diversity" about.

We should tolerate irresponsible recklessness, treason and our own genocide?!

Jon J "Dismantle religion, and tolerance will no longer be an issue."

Oh, I'm sure people would find a zillion other things to fight over.

phanto "When the Catholic Church takes over the city streets for a parade they impinge on others to be able to drive down the street unhindered"

They pay a fee for that.
As would you if you wanted a parade of your own.

Ian, I'm not sure why you chose to use the example you did in your opening paragraph to set the tone of your article. It is actually incorrect on what happened and when.

But the notion of tolerance is a very interesting subject. Both the Right and Left side of politics have views on what is NOT tolerable and try to enforce these views on others.

Generally without being able to have a logical and rational discussion on why something would be tolerable or intolerable.

The Left is probably more prone to being 'tolerant' giving them the label of being moral relativists.

The Right is likely to be less tolerant as in their world view there are more clear descriptive notions on right and wrong.

Phanto
There is a difference between rights and tolerance; in fact, tolerance often means not exercising one’s rights. Rights are things one is entitled to assert regardless of others’ disapproval or inconvenience – e.g. my right to free speech despite your disagreement with what I say. Tolerance goes beyond entitlement and is extended voluntarily to another person.

Tolerance is a sign of strength, not weakness. It shows the person exercising it to be willing to show forbearance when confronted with something they disapprove of or are inconvenienced by. I tolerate my neighbour’s teenage son practicing drums in the evenings even though it’s against council rules. I tolerate learner drivers who drive very slowly and unintentionally break the road rules.

Tolerance is a social glue of mutual respect and empathy necessary to a civilised society.

Jon J,

>>Dismantle religion, and tolerance will no longer be an issue. <<

How true that is! For us who lived through a Stalinist regime (that had dismantled religion), tolerance was certainly no longer an issue. The issue was mere survival: cultural but for many also biological.

yvonne, slightly off target but I've been thinking a bit lately about part of the sentiment in "The Left is probably more prone to being 'tolerant' giving them the label of being moral relativists."

Not sure there whether the term Left or Progressive fits better but I hope the flow makes sense.

I've got the impression that for many its a different set of things that are tolerated rather than being more tolerant. If your cause is not an approved progressive cause then the intolerance from the Left/progressives or lack of concern/compassion is just as brutal as anything the Right or Conservatives can dish up. The compassion issue ends up in a different space but for me the divide on tolerance is not the Left/Right divide, rather around State control vs personal automomy views.

Both the Left/Right or progressive/conservative camps (and I don't see them as quite the same thing but thats another complexity) are quite capable of using the power of the state brutally to enact intolerance on those deemed to be out of line with approved causes. Individuals on both sides are capable of great personal compassion as well.

As to the article itself, whilst intolerance drives a portion of the anti-muslim sentiment I think there are also some good reasons why some are concerned about the growth of that faith. Christianity has had its horror periods but for most its had its reformation. There are still some utterly vile christians around but for the most part at this point in history there does not seem to be any broad acceptance within christianity of the extremism that seems to mark islam.

There are also issues of cultural fit and the impact on others of some cultural habits/practices that rightly concern some. Dismissing all that as intolerance does not further the debate at all.

R0bert

George -- for the record I am quite happy to regard Stalinism, and Marxism in general, as a religion which was and is just as irrational as any traditional faith. It wasn't the absence of religion which resulted in the tragedies that took place under Communism; it was the attempt to shore up and justify a political philosophy which had no foundation in actual human behaviour. And allowing paranoid psychopaths to occupy positions of power wasn't a terribly good idea either. ANY system where your status is determined by the purity of your faith, rather than your administrative competence, is going to throw up similar abuses.

Jon J,
>> I am quite happy to regard Stalinism, and Marxism in general, as a religion<<

This is the point : you are “quite happy” to redefine terms to suit your prejudices. I do not know what personal experience you had with the reign of Marx-Leninism, but I can assure you that they certainly did not consider the world view they forced upon us as religious. Theirs was explicitly and proudly atheist; “scientific atheism” was the name of the subject we all had to go through with. Of course, if you redefine religion as anything that is bad, then saying that doing without it is a good thing becomes a tautology.

I did not live under the Nazis, so I would never try to explain to a Jew who had that experience that “I was quite happy” to redefine his experience as something else from what he experienced, and quite common in human history.

Robert
I agree. In political matters tolerance is not defined by the things you agree with or approve of, but how you deal with things you disagree with and disapprove of. Both left and right, progressive and conservative are capable of intolerance.

It is one of the things that makes me uncomfortable with “political correctness”. While I agree with most of the causes it espouses – racial and gender equality, multiculturalism etc – I am very uncomfortable with the way it tries to silence or delegitimise dissenting views.

yvonne "The Right is likely to be less tolerant as in their world view there are more clear descriptive notions on right and wrong."

Less tolerant with regard to fewer, but more important matters.

The left are tolerant of anything they know will undermine tradition and less tolerant about a million trivialities, like the absence of a woman on a company board or an "offensive" Facebook comment nobody ever read, until they made a big fuss about it.

Jon J "Communism... a political philosophy which had no foundation in actual human behaviour"

Like multiculturalism.

How many *persons* actually live their lives in multiple cultural realities?
And how many practice and identify with *one*?

Yet we are to believe what is *not* true of 99% of individuals (a multicultural person) can be and *should* be true of nations ("a multicultural country"), even countries with a relatively homogenous history.

George "you are 'quite happy' to redefine terms to suit your prejudices"

Sock it to 'em, George.

Rhian, that was very well put.

R0bert

Robert, so glad to see you are still posting! You often make interesting points that get me to reflect.

on the intolerance of both sides of the fence, I agree with you. I'm generally of the view, that any law that curtails anybody's freedom deeply troubling. But, the debate around the racial discrimination law has really made me think about how much a society can and should tolerate.

The reason why I asked the question about the video clip was that it was a completely incorrect explanation of what happened. It had nothing to do with Islam as such. The man in question was not the conductor, but a mentally ill person who managed to get past security and onto the stage. I did not think it added anything to the debate of tolerance.

As to the Islamic religion. I agree with you that there are some deeply, deeply troubling facets and movements. I was lucky enough to grow up in countries with either Islam as the predominant religion, or the second largest. There are currently, many 1000's of Muslims being killed by other Muslims. Wish there was more focus on the effects of wealthy Saudi Arabia's evil Wahhabism on Islam in other countries. Unfortunately Saudi Arabia is still viewed as a friend of the West by many. Wahhibism is a particularly nasty form of Islam and all the Maddrassas the world over are funded by the Saudis.

'Bogan", now that is an interesting word;
one wonders how many Bogans go through Bogan Gate*?

It would appear that the word is of Aboriginal origin and its current use surely shews a lack of tolerance of Indigenous culture.

* A town in NSW.

yvonne nice to see you back. I tend to be more sporatic in my posting now days, I think its because debates seem far more polarised than they used to be but thats subjective, perhaps I've moved a bit.

I do get bothered by the assumption that those with different views are necessarily less caring, less intelligent, more selfish etc. Often its about different ways of seeking similar outcomes. There certainly are those who's views ar dangerous when put into action, there are those who either because of uncaring attitudes or selective blindness don't really care about the harm the things they advocate for do to others but I hope they are mostly in the minority.

R0bert

Is Mise
“It would appear that the word is of Aboriginal origin and its current use surely shews a lack of tolerance of Indigenous culture.”

It also shows a lack of tolerance of people that the author may think he is ‘cooler’ than. There is no need to call others names with a view to belittling them and suggesting they are in some way inferior to oneself. Judging a person by how or where they live or by their social status or lack of ability to articulate something shows the height of arrogance and a deep sense of insecurity.

What if all bogans began to agitate for the government to create laws that make it an offence to abuse, vilify or discriminate against someone based on whatever characteristics make up a bogan? Surely they too have a right to such protection or is it only racist abuse that causes offence?

Laws that seek to protect only one type of offence are in themselves discriminatory. Who can tell what type of offence hurts and what does not? It is also the height of arrogance for one group to say their pain is worse than someone else’s. How do you measure these things? Laws should be based on the level of pain experienced in the same way they are in regard to violence. If you cannot measure these things then abolish these laws and look for a rational way to deal with this problem.

Laws should protect all human beings equally and not just those who are able to shout the loudest and bully the most effectively

phanto "Laws that seek to protect only one type of offence are in themselves discriminatory."

Where is the "protection" for those treated to a daily barrage of "Sissy!", "Geek!", "Teacher's pet!", "Mummy's boy!", "Brainiac!", "Loser!", "Fatso!", "Dimwit!", etc.

To Ian Nance

"Tolerence"s is not a moral absolute. If you tolerate everything, you stand for nothing. However tolerant I am, I do not tolerate a religion which claims that ecclesiastical law should over ride secular law, that the state and religion are inseparable, or that its religion should be spread through military force.

I am intolerant of a religion which states that husbands have a right to beat their wives, or that females are minors subject to guardian male control, unable to even leave the house without male permission.

I am intolerant of a religion which insists that critics of their religion, as well apostates, blasphemers and homosexuals, should be murdered.

I am intolerant of a religion which accepts child brides, female genital mutilation, that women should have no say in whom they marry, and that a marriage can occur without the consent of the woman.

I am intolerant of a religion which declares that men are subject to "uncontrollable lusts", and that women, by their behaviour and dress are responsible for keeping these lusts contained, and blamed for it if it occurs. I do not tolerate a religion which insists that allegations of rape must be validated by four male witnesses of the Islamic faith, and that a raped woman should be punished.

I am intolerant of a religion which says that a man may marry outside of his faith, but that a woman may not. And that a man may divorce a woman, simply by reciting 'I divorce thee", three times, but does not give equivalence to women.

I am intolerant of any religion which accepts marriage between first cousins specifically to keep property in the family.

Where do you stand on these concepts Ian? Do you tolerate them, or not? If you oppose them, then you are intolerant of Islam and an "Islamophobe" like me. If you tolerate Islam, then you are tolerating a religion which advocates these concepts, which as a liberal person you are supposed to oppose.