Contemporary Religious Tolerance and Intolerance

The anti-Muslim/Islam rants in Germany are sickening. Here are some thoughts on tolerance (how do you spell that in German?) from a paper.

Contemporary Religious Tolerance and Intolerance

Dr. Dion Peoples
College of Religious Studies,

4 April 2018 Mahidol University, Thailand

Excerpt:

Philosophical discussion:

Teaching about tolerance or intolerance can fall into the trap of political correctness which suspends free-reflection and doesn’t allow for independent thinking. Teaching about tolerance then becomes an exercise in value-casting through whatever indoctrinating concepts our society is built upon.2 There are four types of tolerance: tolerance by permission (authority gives permission to minorities as long as peace is not disturbed), tolerance by coexistence (this is the avoiding of conflicts in a neutral perspective), tolerance by respect (when different groups respect the other groups and there is no general favoritism), and tolerance by esteem conception (this is like having the esteem, or high-regards for the other group, even though it is different from the individual’s belief).3 Most Southeast Asian nations probably, reluctantly – from the acknowledgement of diversity within national borders, give lip-service to tolerance by permission, and in a more multicultural setting – tolerance by coexistence.

Karl Popper noted that there was a paradox of tolerance, which ultimately collapses upon itself. Unlimited tolerance to various externalizations afflicting oneself or the society will ultimately lead to collapse or destruction. At what point is a defense-mechanism allowed to be initiated? Popper suggests, perhaps ignoring anything violent, to use rational-means and public-opinion as tools of suppression. This is similar to the Kesi Sutta which implies the silent treatment or exile as an effective tool against deviants and deviance. It’s when someone no longer able to use rational means, then violence becomes an option. Buddhists would suggest that hatred doesn’t end by hatred against whatever is creating the hate – otherwise there is a complete cycle of hate from everyone. Popper suggests then that there is the right to not tolerate the intolerant. Some people claim that even the intolerance against the intolerant, still makes a society intolerant, so even the intolerant must be tolerated – as a reflection of justice.

Slavoj Zizek wrote, “The rise of so-called ethnic and religious fundamentalism is a rebellion against this thick network of mores which anchors our freedoms in a liberal society. …I am not against tolerance per se; what I oppose is the (contemporary and automatic) perception of racism as a problem of intolerance. Why are so many problems today perceived as problems of intolerance, rather than as problems of inequality, exploitation, or injustice?

Why is the proposed remedy tolerance, rather than emancipation, political struggle, or even armed struggle? The source of this culturalization is defeat, the failure of direct political solutions…” Later, Zizek suggests respect for another demonstrates the form of the appearance of the opposite, of patronizing disrespect.

Elie Wiesel suggests tolerance is learning. Someone links compassion with tolerance, but the origin of this idea cannot be immediately sourced. Elie Wiesel later said the Talmud has a statement: “come and listen”, this sounds similar to the Buddhist slogan, of: “come and see”, equally remarkable, as a demonstration of compassion and tolerance in the structure of the dominant-discourse. Wiesel reminded the audience that when Jews were taken into captivity or sold into Roman slave-markets, the only items that were brought with them were books which taught them tolerance, or to be indifferent. He thinks tolerance teaches him the art of fighting indifference, that everyone has the right to be equal.

Again, for Popper, tolerance is intolerance; for Zizek tolerance is disrespect, and it’s seen that tolerance is a mere coping mechanism. Is the new social-religion called tolerance, tolerance as a nice social-character trait? What is the supreme authority that is supposed to be respected so that there is tolerance towards that or tolerance away from that, and if it is not respected, how much conflict can be expect to endure? Think about how to end arguments by an antagonist. Do you just say: “Whatever!”, or put a laughing-emoji in a comment-section on social-media-posts? Are you a moral coward for not engaging deeply into the conversation, such as not speaking to someone who is closed-minded? Speaking while using some traumatic language could incite the antagonist towards violence; while tolerance presupposes that it’s language is therapeutic as if responding to a disease.

Intolerance, for some religions, is a virtue; as if it is a badge people wear within a brotherhood. People are taught to be intolerant towards those who have not yet converted into the religion, leave family and companions behind, since they have not seen the new path towards the newly contrived conception of alternate peace. Join the religion and be a part of the tolerant brotherhood – within there is tolerance, without there is intolerance, in some respects. In some sense, then is tolerance a luxury or a rhetorical [convincing] gesture, designed to cause pain or convince the antagonist? Is it better to give wrong opinions, and then have others argue against it – as a test towards those speaking? It seems that generations after generations of our societies have to have these same arguments or similar in regards to the content but with reflections upon new technologies or other advances – but generally the fundamental issues remain.

Conclusion:

Religions once dominated societies before the advent of modern nation-states, and now many religions are intolerant towards impositions from the nation-state in areas where their control has overlapped. Religions teach tolerance but are opposed to the control by the nationstate. Nation-states now regulate religions as something that the people just believe and seem unwilling to give up, despite all of the functions of the state and programs offered by the state. People of some religions think they have special status over others, and impose their ideology even upon the state which was designed to originally treat everyone equally, but to avoid conflict must acquiesce to the cries of the oppressed who demand exemptions, or otherwise feel disrespected. This goes back to the term civilized, perhaps religious people have not become civilized. Modern civilization might be the new civilizing factor for the previously religious who are unable to cope with diversity. A society by definition is a collection of individuals, and likely there are many individuals that compose a society, a society where there is many traditions, or some with minority and majority factions – seldom is something monolithic, although a national party may aspire to such grandeur as equally as a religion supposes it can qualify as a universal truth. Some people have said: “Are you a religious person?”, and if the response is to the affirmative, a reply is: “How cute! You are unable to be an independent thinker.”

This article as seen many characteristics, functions, and manifestations of tolerance and intolerance, and the proximate causes also show that perhaps such thinking towards this issue is primitive, and there are higher-ideals to tend towards, such as our sufferings across societies. Our attentions should be towards improving our conditions, not fighting for some supreme ideal that ineffectively responds to conditions the tradition-founders could never fathom.