Tolerance

[Emproph]

Some food for thought in regard to the accusations of intolerance made by those who are intolerant themselves.

From the book American Fascists. The first chapter opens with this quote.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

– Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies)

This is the conclusion I’ve come to – what it comes down to in principle.

I can respect the honesty of a position that says; “I hate gays because they’re icky.” However, If one’s condemnation of homosexuality is based on the Bible, then this applies:

Leviticus 20:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13&version=31)
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Therefore, the promotion of the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is nothing short of a clarion call for genocide. Which I now refer to as “Genocide for Jesus.”

we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder...as criminal.

Hate crimes notwithstanding, the only difference here is that the incitement is not to murder directly, but ultimately to have laws passed that make our murder (execution) legal.

If genocide is not part of their Biblical beliefs about homosexuality, then their beliefs are not based on the Bible, they merely coincide with it. In which case they are lying about their morality.

I recognize the potential inflammatory nature of the way this is presented. Such a pungent portrayal of the truth is designed more for the political arena and discourse with those who are clearly and overtly intolerant and/or hateful – and NOT for your mother who heard it for the first time in sermon last week.. :)

[Steven E. Webster]

Some food for thought in regard to the accusations of intolerance made by those who are intolerant themselves.

From the book American Fascists. The first chapter opens with this quote.



This is the conclusion I’ve come to – what it comes down to in principle.

I can respect the honesty of a position that says; “I hate gays because they’re icky.” However, If one’s condemnation of homosexuality is based on the Bible, then this applies:



Therefore, the promotion of the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is nothing short of a clarion call for genocide. Which I now refer to as “Genocide for Jesus.”



Hate crimes notwithstanding, the only difference here is that the incitement is not to murder directly, but ultimately to have laws passed that make our murder (execution) legal.

If genocide is not part of their Biblical beliefs about homosexuality, then their beliefs are not based on the Bible, they merely coincide with it. In which case they are lying about their morality.

I recognize the potential inflammatory nature of the way this is presented. Such a pungent portrayal of the truth is designed more for the political arena and discourse with those who are clearly and overtly intolerant and/or hateful – and NOT for your mother who heard it for the first time in sermon last week.. :)

I have read the book "American Fascists." It's a good book, however I don't go along with limitations on free speech. Remember a few years ago American Nazi's marched through a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago. They were offensive, they hurt people who were actual survivors of the holocaust by their speech--but what they did was legal, protected speech. The Christian Right is trying to get mileage out of claims that gays are trying to deny them free speech--I think that's a lie and I don't want to give that claim any credibility by proposing that we criminalize the preaching of Leviticus as public policy.

I go with the old saying, "The remedy for bad speech is good speech." What we cannot tolerate is the implementation of intolerant policies and laws against gays or others. For the most part we've been moving in a positive direction in this country, despite right-wing reaction. Let's not lend any credibility to right-wing arguments.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Emproph quotes Chris Hedges quoting Karl Popper on limits of free speech. I don't believe that it is mentioned that Popper is British. Popper says something like "advocacy of revival of the slave trade is illegal." That may be the case in Britain, but in the United States it is not illegal to advocate the return of slavery--it's only stupid. The point is that in the U.S. we have a much stronger tradition of free speech rights than in almost any other country in the world.

All that said, Chris Hedges does make a very strong case that the Christian Right in this country poses a real danger of imposing a new "American Facism" on this country. I don't believe the answer to this threat is to make the expression of fascist ideas illegal.

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

I'm not suggesting limiting or criminalizing speech or ideas. That would not solve the problem, and would indeed lend credence to their persecution complex.

I'm suggesting that the criminal element - the unethical element - of their ideals is what needs to be exposed by our speech.

Our speech needs to expose their speech for what it is. The advocacy of genocide.

Whether intended by the speaker or not, it is the meaning of their speech.

It only sticks one way though, and as long as they.. adhere to the Bible, that question will never ever go away.

We just keep asking it and then wait for their true colors to come shining through.

Criminalize it? What you think I wanna miss this? ;)

[Alecto]

Let's not lend any credibility to right-wing arguments.

Steven Webster

I haven't read the book, and I'm not even going to comment so much on this particular instance, but I do have a major problem with the concept that, so far, EVERY ONE of our arguments are based on their terms. They say we recruit children, so for a long time gay rights groups would have nothing to do with anyone under 18 (or 21). That's coming away, more and more, these days, but I think it illustrates my point. They say it's a choice, so people get all kinds of up in arms about how it's genetic. I don't happen to think that in my experience my sexuality was a choice, but I won't swear it's genetic either. Aside from the false dichotomy, I think it ultimately comes down to the fact that it shouldn't matter. Even if it WERE a choice, it should be a choice we are allowed to make.

I'm not all about restricting free speech any more than necessary (I don't count in a workplace or school if it creates a hostile environment, and I don't count anything else that can be construed as a threat etc), but I guess I'm just saying I'm "not a fan" of your reason for that.