Tolerance

[billydkid]

It seems to me that a lot of confusion is involved in this whole religious tolerance issue and with the notion of tolerance altogether. Is it tolerance to accept the intolerance of the religions of other cultures? Is that how far tolerance extends? Is it intolerance not to cow tow to religious intolerance of others? Simple courtesy aside, am I required to modify my behavior which fit the tenets of my cultural beliefs because it makes another uncomfortable? You could argue that just as I am following my beliefs, so are they, but there is fundamental difference - my beliefs don't tell others how they should live while theirs, in some cases, specifically do.

You could also argue that I am letting them be free to exercise their belief in their right to tell other how to dress or live - but that would be a lame argument. We had a cultural sensitivity class here some time ago where it was discussed how you were supposed to behave is you were sent to another country for a business meeting - say Saudi Arabia or Japan. The message to the women was, essentially, that women are expected to be subservient. Why wasn't the message to the Saudis or the Japanese that American women do not behave subserviently and should not be expected to?

Sunni man, for example, has very strong views about the way OTHERS must behave or what sorts of behaviors are unacceptable in others. My code of conduct applies to myself and I leave it to others to determine for themselves how they should behave. As long as their behavior doesn't interfere with my rights, why should I care? I hold that my code of conduct is superior to any that dictates the behavior of others. Of course the argument would be that the mere existence of, say, homosexuality in the world infringes on some people's happiness. Well, very obviously, that is their problem and no one else's.

I hold also that some social more's are superior to others and those that presume to tell others how to live are less humane and less decent and less honorable than my own and no one should be ashamed or embarrassed to say so. The attitude of the Saudi's toward women IS inferior and less humane than the western attitude toward women and it serves no good purpose to pretend otherwise. I have to add there are religious people in my own country who are similarly intolerant of others and their views are not to be respected to the degree they are intollerant. People are free to believe whatever they want. They are not or should not be free to tell others how to live. There are many who would like nothing more than to see their predjudices codefied into law.

[Giz]

I have the much the same attitude that you do. I haven't really thought about how to justify it philosophically (perhaps some appeal to utilitarianism would remove the objections from the cultural relativist crowd).

I think it is important to to differentiate between good tolerance... what is the quote , probably incorrectly transcribed from memory...
"I may not agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it" (Voltaire)
and silence in the face of outdated barbaric customs that morally require condemnation (where condemnation is sometimes presented as intolerance).

One of my favourite quotes on the limits of tolerance; General Napier in India, preventing a widow form being burned alive (suttee):

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

[Fiona]

I am also fond of Napier's stance. One of the problems seems to me to be that many who make demands for respect for their cultural or religious views do not extend the same courtesy. But to some extent this is because they genuinely do not realise there is anything to respect. I have the impression that many such actually believe that people like me have no values at all and this is understandable because the tolerance we extend includes a polite pretence that their behaviour does not offend. For example, I am mortally offended by seeing a woman veiled and covered from head to toe and walking behind the man she is with. However my being offended is neither here nor there, so I make no sign and let them get on with it. If I visit a country where they have a demand that I should cover myself to visit a church I do so, and again they might get the impression that I don't much care. At base I think that the difference between their stance and mine is that they are perfectly prepared to burn me for offending them and I am not prepared to burn them. So they think they care more. The defence of enlightenment values is important and I think perhaps we should be more strident in proclaimng active commitment to them than we generally seem to be

[Giz]

Agreed. It also seems that if you are not outraged on behalf of some old book then you can't really be that upset...

Something else that depresses me a little in society today is that seemingly a great many people simply do not appreciate the time and struggle that was neccessary to gain the liberties and free expression that we enjoy now.

It seems as if many people view our current status (rights/education/tolerance etc) as the natural order of things when it is in fact highly unusual, unprecedented in fact, and should be cherished and valued accordingly.

[fuelair]

IOne of my favourite quotes on the limits of tolerance; General Napier in India, preventing a widow form being burned alive (suttee):

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
:D:D:D that's the one!!! That's my idea of politically/culturally correct. And I would happily enFORCE it. As in you can believe whatever you want - but if you act on it.................

[CapelDodger]

I think it is important to to differentiate between good tolerance... what is the quote , probably incorrectly transcribed from memory...
"I may not agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it" (Voltaire)
and silence in the face of outdated barbaric customs that morally require condemnation (where condemnation is sometimes presented as intolerance).

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right to tell you so.


One of my favourite quotes on the limits of tolerance; General Napier in India, preventing a widow form being burned alive (suttee):

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

That's one of my favourites as well. And it seemed to do the trick.

[Silentknight]

It seems to me that a lot of confusion is involved in this whole religious tolerance issue and with the notion of tolerance altogether. Is it tolerance to accept the intolerance of the religions of other cultures? Is that how far tolerance extends? Is it intolerance not to cow tow to religious intolerance of others? Simple courtesy aside, am I required to modify my behavior which fit the tenets of my cultural beliefs because it makes another uncomfortable? You could argue that just as I am following my beliefs, so are they, but there is fundamental difference - my beliefs don't tell others how they should live while theirs, in some cases, specifically do.

You could also argue that I am letting them be free to exercise their belief in their right to tell other how to dress or live - but that would be a lame argument. We had a cultural sensitivity class here some time ago where it was discussed how you were supposed to behave is you were sent to another country for a business meeting - say Saudi Arabia or Japan. The message to the women was, essentially, that women are expected to be subservient. Why wasn't the message to the Saudis or the Japanese that American women do not behave subserviently and should not be expected to?

Sunni man, for example, has very strong views about the way OTHERS must behave or what sorts of behaviors are unacceptable in others. My code of conduct applies to myself and I leave it to others to determine for themselves how they should behave. As long as their behavior doesn't interfere with my rights, why should I care? I hold that my code of conduct is superior to any that dictates the behavior of others. Of course the argument would be that the mere existence of, say, homosexuality in the world infringes on some people's happiness. Well, very obviously, that is their problem and no one else's.

I hold also that some social more's are superior to others and those that presume to tell others how to live are less humane and less decent and less honorable than my own and no one should be ashamed or embarrassed to say so. The attitude of the Saudi's toward women IS inferior and less humane than the western attitude toward women and it serves no good purpose to pretend otherwise. I have to add there are religious people in my own country who are similarly intolerant of others and their views are not to be respected to the degree they are intollerant. People are free to believe whatever they want. They are not or should not be free to tell others how to live. There are many who would like nothing more than to see their predjudices codefied into law.

Exactly. I'm with Sam Harris on this. To tolerate something doesn't mean you have to agree with or accept it. You can still state disagreement with the basic tenets of Islam without being intolerant of the people holding the beliefs themselves. The important distinction is that a tolerant person will not take it any further than that. Suppose someone's car alarm accidentally goes off in the middle of the night. Tolerance is the difference between indignantly putting in ear plugs, and going out with a baseball bat to smash in the car's windshield.

Although it's hard for some people to see it this way, Sunni Man actually was met with a fairly tolerant reception. Despite his conduct, his beliefs, or the asinine way in which he expressed them, nobody even came close to reciprocating what he did. People stated their disagreements with him. Yes strong language and interrogatives were used, but the worst that happened to him was that his beliefs were mocked. That's it. Nobody threatened violence against him, nobody suggested that it be made legal to execute him, and certainly nobody caused any physical or psychological harm to him. Some would have us believe that his treatment was tantamount to launching a missile into his home and gunning down his family just because he's a Muslim, but anyone who honestly thinks that is none too bright.

People have given SM the benefit of the doubt, asked him sincere questions, and tried to reason with him. That's tolerance, and that's more than anyone could say for him. If he has a right to preach his bigoted beliefs at me and other people, then I have a right to tell him to his face that his beliefs are stupid. It works both ways, and one's person's rights are limited by when they interfere with another person's rights. He does not have a right to dictate how other people ought to live their lives, or to decide who deserves to live or die, based solely on his religion. Nobody does.

There is no good reason why, out of all the irrational beliefs in the world, religious beliefs ought to be the only ones that are afforded shelter from criticism in just about every aspect of our society. Religious beliefs are among the most dangerous, given what people do or want to do with them, and they have long encroached in areas of people's lives where they have no business at all. If someone, anyone, is willing to express 'controversial' beliefs, then they must be willing to answer questions and back up their claims.

Hiding behind the Banner of Heaven to avoid criticism is no better than wrapping oneself in the American flag for the same reason.

[Rufo]

To me, tolerance is all about trying to understand. If you understand your own culture, and how it has affected you, and other cultures, and how it has affected their members, and still can not get over your differences, then you have tried to be tolerant as far as can be demanded of you. Intolerance is condemning without attempting to understand. The tricky part is when you try to understand, but fail. That is when intolerance and tolerance begin to get difficult to tell apart.

One of my favourite quotes on the limits of tolerance; General Napier in India, preventing a widow form being burned alive (suttee):

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
I understand if it is the quote alone that you admire and not the man, but the fact that it comes from a colonialist does ruin it for me. Completely.

[CapelDodger]

My code of conduct applies to myself and I leave it to others to determine for themselves how they should behave.

I'm of the same mind. My mores are axiomatic, so I can't argue that they're better than somebody else's. I have more respect for people that broadly share them (which, of course, includes myself), but we're all free to make our own judgements.

I hold that my code of conduct is superior to any that dictates the behavior of others.

That's my judgement as well.

I hold also that some social more's are superior to others and those that presume to tell others how to live are less humane and less decent and less honorable than my own and no one should be ashamed or embarrassed to say so.

Something that's long irritated me is the idea that one should respect others beliefs, as if that's a virtue. Bollocks to that. If beliefs are laughable, laugh at them; if they're vile, vilify them. If someone tries to dictate to you, dictate to them right back that they're not going to allowed to do it. Whatever it takes to achieve that.

[Rufo]

Something that's long irritated me is the idea that one should respect others beliefs, as if that's a virtue. Bollocks to that. If beliefs are laughable, laugh at them; if they're vile, vilify them. If someone tries to dictate to you, dictate to them right back that they're not going to allowed to do it. Whatever it takes to achieve that.
Again, this is about trying to understand. You may find beliefs laughable and vile even after you feel you have understood them completely, and then conflict is virtually unavoidable. But laughing and vilifying before understanding is all too common, which is why it's a virtue to have a certain amount of respect for others' beliefs by default. It goes for most other things as well.

[GreyICE]

My code of conduct applies to me personally. I'll offer advice if its wanted, and perhaps even if its unwanted, but would never presume to know how to live another's life.

My tolerance ends when someone decides they have a right to tell me what to do, or to spout nonsense at me and expect me to nod my head because its their belief, or to attack others because of some obscure, illogical precept of their belief system.

If you can't outright logically support your belief system in a rational manner, at least do us all the favor of hiding your irrationality like the badge of shame it is.

(I guess I just don't rate highly on the tolerance scale).

[CapelDodger]

The defence of enlightenment values is important and I think perhaps we should be more strident in proclaimng active commitment to them than we generally seem to be

The struggle and sacrifice and blood that's brought us the enlightened societies we've been blessed with is worthy of the utmost respect. Most people behave as if progress just sort of, like, happened. Well it didn't, and it's not inevitable that there won't be regression. "The price of Liberty is constant vigilance".

[CapelDodger]

Again, this is about trying to understand. You may find beliefs laughable and vile even after you feel you have understood them completely, and then conflict is virtually unavoidable. But laughing and vilifying before understanding is all too common, which is why it's a virtue to have a certain amount of respect for others' beliefs by default. It goes for most other things as well.

I respect anybody by default. There are three classes of people : those I know and respect, those I know and don't respect, and those I don't know and have no reason not to respect.

I try not to do anything without understanding. I will laugh at and/or vilify explicit beliefs, beliefs that get in my face. I don't go out of my way to find targets, and wouldn't even if we weren't presented with such a constant surfeit.

Laughing at beliefs is the better method of diminishing them in the minds of any audience. Vilification is best reserved for the truly egregious, such as throwing acid in women's faces in a god's name.

[Giz]

I respect anybody by default. There are three classes of people : those I know and respect, those I know and don't respect, and those I don't know and have no reason not to respect.

I try not to do anything without understanding. I will laugh at and/or vilify explicit beliefs, beliefs that get in my face. I don't go out of my way to find targets, and wouldn't even if we weren't presented with such a constant surfeit.

Laughing at beliefs is the better method of diminishing them in the minds of any audience. Vilification is best reserved for the truly egregious, such as throwing acid in women's faces in a god's name.

Indeed.

I kinda think of it as:

I respect your right to come to whatever beliefs you want, but I wont neccesarily respect the beliefs you came to.

[Giz]

I understand if it is the quote alone that you admire and not the man, but the fact that it comes from a colonialist does ruin it for me. Completely.

Really? However dislikable colonialism may have been, all he did in that account was stop a woman from being burned to death. Is it only OK for him to stop women getting burned alive when in England, as opposed to being a good deed wherever he is?

If it's that you dislike the fact that a imperial colonial type may have done some good (as well as oppressing the locals) and that makes you uncomfortable... well that's history for you, a bloody mess that could have used a good editor and proof reader, full of flawed characters who could be lofty one minute and bastards the next, and events that had both blessings and curses.

[Rufo]

Really? However dislikable colonialism may have been, all he did in that account was stop a woman from being burned to death. Is it only OK for him to stop women getting burned alive when in England, as opposed to being a good deed wherever he is?

If it's that you dislike the fact that a imperial colonial type may have done some good (as well as oppressing the locals) and that makes you uncomfortable... well that's history for you, a bloody mess that could have used a good editor and proof reader, full of flawed characters who could be lofty one minute and bastards the next, and events that had both blessings and curses.
I'm perfectly aware that people and types of people in the real world are not either completely good or completely evil. Of course I don't think this particular course of action was wrong. It's more the context of we are currently discussing - tolerance of other people's cultures. Colonialism seems about as far as one can get from what I consider cultural tolerance.

Personally, I have more problems with the quote than that. The entire attitude just completely lacks any attempt to communicate anything but simple threats of violence. "If you kill those innocent people, we will kill you, because we can." And because Europe doesn't have a history of burning women alive in the name of religion, right?

There is no attempt to understand, no attempt to reason or prove one's own argument superior. If Napier had not had the power to stop the burning by force, his words would have rung empty and would likely be forgotten today.

[Smackety]

I think tolerance applies to beliefs and not to actions. Sunni Man can believe and say whatever he wants, and anyone who disagrees can go ahead and tell him whatever they think. No action should be taken against Sunni Man for his beliefs, and likewise, Sunni Man should take no (unwanted) action against others based on his beliefs.
Tolerance does not mean allowing violence against women - unless the women themselves agree to the violence. I do not see how there can be any sort of tolerance towards or in a country without freedom of religion and speech. Without freedom, we have to assume that consent was NOT given.

[fishbob]

It seems to me that a lot of confusion is involved in this whole religious tolerance issue and with the notion of tolerance altogether. Is it tolerance to accept the intolerance of the religions of other cultures? Is that how far tolerance extends? Is it intolerance not to cow tow to religious intolerance of others? Simple courtesy aside, am I required to modify my behavior which fit the tenets of my cultural beliefs because it makes another uncomfortable? You could argue that just as I am following my beliefs, so are they, but there is fundamental difference - my beliefs don't tell others how they should live while theirs, in some cases, specifically do.

You could also argue that I am letting them be free to exercise their belief in their right to tell other how to dress or live - but that would be a lame argument. We had a cultural sensitivity class here some time ago where it was discussed how you were supposed to behave is you were sent to another country for a business meeting - say Saudi Arabia or Japan. The message to the women was, essentially, that women are expected to be subservient. Why wasn't the message to the Saudis or the Japanese that American women do not behave subserviently and should not be expected to?

Sunni man, for example, has very strong views about the way OTHERS must behave or what sorts of behaviors are unacceptable in others. My code of conduct applies to myself and I leave it to others to determine for themselves how they should behave. As long as their behavior doesn't interfere with my rights, why should I care? I hold that my code of conduct is superior to any that dictates the behavior of others. Of course the argument would be that the mere existence of, say, homosexuality in the world infringes on some people's happiness. Well, very obviously, that is their problem and no one else's.

I hold also that some social more's are superior to others and those that presume to tell others how to live are less humane and less decent and less honorable than my own and no one should be ashamed or embarrassed to say so. The attitude of the Saudi's toward women IS inferior and less humane than the western attitude toward women and it serves no good purpose to pretend otherwise. I have to add there are religious people in my own country who are similarly intolerant of others and their views are not to be respected to the degree they are intollerant. People are free to believe whatever they want. They are not or should not be free to tell others how to live. There are many who would like nothing more than to see their predjudices codefied into law.

IOW:
Shut and leave me alone, and I will return the favor?

Sounds good to me.

[Giz]

I'm perfectly aware that people and types of people in the real world are not either completely good or completely evil. Of course I don't think this particular course of action was wrong. It's more the context of we are currently discussing - tolerance of other people's cultures. Colonialism seems about as far as one can get from what I consider cultural tolerance.

Personally, I have more problems with the quote than that. The entire attitude just completely lacks any attempt to communicate anything but simple threats of violence. "If you kill those innocent people, we will kill you, because we can." And because Europe doesn't have a history of burning women alive in the name of religion, right?

There is no attempt to understand, no attempt to reason or prove one's own argument superior. If Napier had not had the power to stop the burning by force, his words would have rung empty and would likely be forgotten today.


I think it illustrates where tolerance ends. You can be of the belief that women should be burnt, and (beyond deserved ridicule) no-one forces you to change. However, step over the line, to trying to burn a woman, and you should be stopped.

And I think you are looking for a little too much depth from such a short quote. The British attempts to rid India of the practice of Suttee took a long time, and action by many people over a great expanse of the country... the quote is three lines of text relating to one event, not a full history of the struggle. In any event, sometimes people won't listen and force or, as in this case, the threat of force has to be used. Just because you have to resort to force when dealing with unreasonable people doesn't mean you fall to their level.

[Godwin/start] Chamberlain didn't fall to Hitler's level when he issued an ultimatum over Poland, and neither did Napier fall to the would be widow burners level when he threatened force against them [Godwin/end]

[Hokulele]

My tolerance ends when violence begins.

[Fiona]

It's more the context of we are currently discussing - tolerance of other people's cultures. Colonialism seems about as far as one can get from what I consider cultural tolerance.

Personally, I have more problems with the quote than that. The entire attitude just completely lacks any attempt to communicate anything but simple threats of violence. "If you kill those innocent people, we will kill you, because we can." And because Europe doesn't have a history of burning women alive in the name of religion, right?

There is no attempt to understand, no attempt to reason or prove one's own argument superior. If Napier had not had the power to stop the burning by force, his words would have rung empty and would likely be forgotten today.

I do take your point about colonialism in general. However one thing that is often missed in this kind of debate is that everybody has a culture It seems a little disrespectful to confine the application of the word to those who do not share your own culture. That is why this particular quote from Napier is important. As I said, in most cases those with enlightenment values draw the line at burning people who disagree. However it is a deeply entrenched part of western culture that one must defend women and children ( do not misunderstand, I am not naively saying this is always implemented or that the same value does not exist in other cultures: only that it is a strand in our story about ourselves and particularly about our soldiers). Napier showed that if we are genuinely to respect all cultures then that includes not conceding the importance of our own values. Note he did not say he would stop them: only that he would act once they had. It is a challenge to the depth of their commitment and they turned out not to be the stuff that martyrs are made of. Anyone who will burn someone else in the name of his beliefs but will not risk death to do so is remarkable stoical in the face of other people's misfortune: and this is so often the proof that we are not talkng about principles at all. You say he stopped them with threat of force "just because he could": what else were they doing?

[fuelair]

I'm perfectly aware that people and types of people in the real world are not either completely good or completely evil. Of course I don't think this particular course of action was wrong. It's more the context of we are currently discussing - tolerance of other people's cultures. Colonialism seems about as far as one can get from what I consider cultural tolerance.

Personally, I have more problems with the quote than that. The entire attitude just completely lacks any attempt to communicate anything but simple threats of violence. "If you kill those innocent people, we will kill you, because we can." And because Europe doesn't have a history of burning women alive in the name of religion, right?

There is no attempt to understand, no attempt to reason or prove one's own argument superior. If Napier had not had the power to stop the burning by force, his words would have rung empty and would likely be forgotten today.
Sometimes force is the only thing your audience can understand Once you have their attention you can apply logic/reasoning.

[CapelDodger]

Personally, I have more problems with the quote than that. The entire attitude just completely lacks any attempt to communicate anything but simple threats of violence. "If you kill those innocent people, we will kill you, because we can." And because Europe doesn't have a history of burning women alive in the name of religion, right?

There's actually a great deal more in that quote. It's a structured argument, starting from his antagonist's premise that traditions are paramount, even when lives are at stake. Napier sets one tradition against another. True, Napier can enforce his, but Indian men were enforcing theirs on Indian women. The argument (framed in a Classical manner that reflects Napier's education) is essentially "you can do that to them, I'll do this to you, and with exactly the same justification as you".

The men he was arguing with were themselves well-educated and adept at argument; they'd gone through rational justifications, such as the widow's strain on society without a husband to support her. It didn't wash. What they fell back on was "tradition", the usual last refuge from modernity.

There is no attempt to understand, no attempt to reason or prove one's own argument superior. If Napier had not had the power to stop the burning by force, his words would have rung empty and would likely be forgotten today.

Napier's quote comes from a meeting at the end of an extended argument. He didn't just ride into town one day and demand a stop to it. There were plenty of men in the Imperial service that saw no good reason to interfere. Their women weren't involved, after all, so why irritate the locals? Land taxes and customs duties were already doing that, and to some useful end.

It was men like Napier that had the moral gumption to force it into Imperial policy, and to enforce it if necessary. As far as I know it never had to be. Nobody thought he was bluffing.

[CapelDodger]

As I said, in most cases those with enlightenment values draw the line at burning people who disagree.

Instead they hang them humanely.

However it is a deeply entrenched part of western culture that one must defend women and children ...

You're being far too specific there, IMO. The distinguishing feature of western culture is that the principle of the weak being protected from the strong has made so much progress. We're well ahead in the war against tyranny, but we can't be complacent. Look what happened in just the last century, after all. Constant vigilance is called for, and action when necessary.

( do not misunderstand, I am not naively saying this is always implemented or that the same value does not exist in other cultures: only that it is a strand in our story about ourselves and particularly about our soldiers).

Our professional soldiers are like professional soldiers generally. No better, no worse. Warfare is its own unique environment.

[Fiona]

Instead they hang them humanely.

No I do not think we hang people for disagreeing with our values. Do we?



You're being far too specific there, IMO. The distinguishing feature of western culture is that the principle of the weak being protected from the strong has made so much progress.

Yes I think you are right

We're well ahead in the war against tyranny, but we can't be complacent. Look what happened in just the last century, after all. Constant vigilance is called for, and action when necessary.

Yes, I agree. That is why I think we need to defend those values vigorously



Our professional soldiers are like professional soldiers generally. No better, no worse. Warfare is its own unique environment.

I think that is not quite true. In some circumstances at least it matters what the underlying values are: and although they are often forgotten it is probably better to instill them in soldiers than not.

[CapelDodger]

In any event, sometimes people won't listen and force or, as in this case, the threat of force has to be used. Just because you have to resort to force when dealing with unreasonable people doesn't mean you fall to their level.

Cromwell's "You have sat here too long for any good that you may do" just before his troops marched into the House of Commons springs to mind. Our enlightened cultures had to be imposed on our own pre-existing societies before we could start doing it to anybody else. That's what makes Napier's words so timeless (quite apart fom the fact that they're very well-crafted).

[fuelair]

Ah Cromwell - a damned shame his head wasn't hung out to dry on London Bridge.

Early on in his career.

[Giz]

Ah Cromwell - a damned shame his head wasn't hung out to dry on London Bridge.

Early on in his career.

I always had a soft spot for Cromwell, not because of the man but because of what he helped achieve; Parliament's supremacy, a permanent end to the possibility of an autocratic monarchy in Britain, and a King who'd sought to be a tyrant executed for treason.

A lot of his faults; religious mania and bigotry, sacking of towns, etc; were normal in his day... he was a product of his age. Remember, tolerance is what this threads all about!


ps Capel; my fav. Cromwell quote would be:
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
Beautiful, powerful use of language. And one I am always tempted to use when a theist says something dumb around me...

[dahduh]

I am mortally offended by seeing a woman veiled and covered from head to toe and walking behind the man she is with.

In the bad ol' days of guerilla war between South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, a lot of landmindes were planted under paths over the mountains between Moz and Zim. Guess where the women got to walk then?

[dahduh]

1. Anyone can choose to be as offended as they like, so the basis of tolerance can't rely on another person's personal perception of acts you do that are not intrusive and cause no harm (apart from offending their 'personal sensibilities').

2. If you believe you are somehow 'superior' to other humans, then you are a threat to all those humans you consider 'inferior', and you will be combatted as a threat. The only social systems free of such adverserial tensions are those in which everyone is treated equally. If you do not a priori know into which segment of society you or your children will fit, then the safest system to opt for is obviously a system which does treat everyone equally.

3. Consequently, you want to apply the ethical principles of reciprocity (it's ok if you treat me the same way, basically the Golden Rule) and universality (it's ok if _everyone_ does it) as tests to decide whether actions should be tolerated or not.

4. If Sunni Man thinks different rules should apply to men and women, and he attempts to enforce them against other people's consent, then his actions should not be tolerated. If he says something that offends your personal sensibilities, and is engaging in nothing more than an expression of opinion in conformance to the forum rules we have all agreed to, then suck it up.

[Rufo]

I do take your point about colonialism in general. However one thing that is often missed in this kind of debate is that everybody has a culture It seems a little disrespectful to confine the application of the word to those who do not share your own culture. That is why this particular quote from Napier is important. As I said, in most cases those with enlightenment values draw the line at burning people who disagree. However it is a deeply entrenched part of western culture that one must defend women and children ( do not misunderstand, I am not naively saying this is always implemented or that the same value does not exist in other cultures: only that it is a strand in our story about ourselves and particularly about our soldiers). Napier showed that if we are genuinely to respect all cultures then that includes not conceding the importance of our own values. Note he did not say he would stop them: only that he would act once they had. It is a challenge to the depth of their commitment and they turned out not to be the stuff that martyrs are made of. Anyone who will burn someone else in the name of his beliefs but will not risk death to do so is remarkable stoical in the face of other people's misfortune: and this is so often the proof that we are not talkng about principles at all. You say he stopped them with threat of force "just because he could": what else were they doing?
There's actually a great deal more in that quote. It's a structured argument, starting from his antagonist's premise that traditions are paramount, even when lives are at stake. Napier sets one tradition against another. True, Napier can enforce his, but Indian men were enforcing theirs on Indian women. The argument (framed in a Classical manner that reflects Napier's education) is essentially "you can do that to them, I'll do this to you, and with exactly the same justification as you".
I think these cleared it up for me pretty well. There is actually a good point to make not to consider oneself morally superior, but only to clarify that it would be better if your enemies' and your own barbaric customs did not have to clash (I'm not being sarcastic - I really think it is a good point). I understand much better now why you consider the quote memorable.

On the flip side, I think this is also part of the reason why I'm bothered by it. There is no questioning of the original principle that anyone who has the power can and should force their cultural brutalities on others. Granted, Napier's brutality is less inhumane and more justified, and granted, I'm sure the final result was not that the widow was burned and the men were hung, but the same principle, applied in many other contexts, would have niether of those qualities.

My tolerance ends when violence begins.
Ironically, violence generally begins where tolerance ends.

[fuelair]

I always had a soft spot for Cromwell, not because of the man but because of what he helped achieve; Parliament's supremacy, a permanent end to the possibility of an autocratic monarchy in Britain, and a King who'd sought to be a tyrant executed for treason.

A lot of his faults; religious mania and bigotry, sacking of towns, etc; were normal in his day... he was a product of his age. Remember, tolerance is what this threads all about!


ps Capel; my fav. Cromwell quote would be:
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
Beautiful, powerful use of language. And one I am always tempted to use when a theist says something dumb around me...

I, on the other hand, would have happily stood by Lady Charlotte defending the Eagle Tower against the assault of Cromwell's slime. Preferably with a .50 cal. machine weapon (I am a firm believer in education.). They called her Babylon. http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B0001KJO38001005

[fuelair]

Oh, the fact that they were slightly political but mostly out to ram what they laughingly called religion down real people's throats (or just cutting same) also affects me some on the matter.

[Ladewig]

To me, tolerance is all about trying to understand. If you understand your own culture, and how it has affected you, and other cultures, and how it has affected their members, and still can not get over your differences, then you have tried to be tolerant as far as can be demanded of you. Intolerance is condemning without attempting to understand. The tricky part is when you try to understand, but fail. That is when intolerance and tolerance begin to get difficult to tell apart.

I disagree with your definition. There are fundamentalist Christians who work to change the laws to outlaw homosexuality. If one of them says "I have worked hard to understand Christianity; its culture and implications; and how it has shaped me, other believers and disbelievers my country. I have also worked to understand what homosexuals profess and what their agenda entails. Those reflections have convinced me more than ever that we should outlaw gay marriage, prevent gays from adopting or even teaching children, and work to convert them to heterosexuality" then I cannot believe that they have been, in your words, "as tolerant as can be demanded."


. . . . . .
ETA: Furthermore, if some new religion were to come along and require men to dress in burkas, I could be tolerant of those folks without even trying to understand what their beliefs are.

[Rufo]

I disagree with your definition. There are fundamentalist Christians who work to change the laws to outlaw homosexuality. If one of them says "I have worked hard to understand Christianity; its culture and implications; and how it has shaped me, other believers and disbelievers my country. I have also worked to understand what homosexuals profess and what their agenda entails. Those reflections have convinced me more than ever that we should outlaw gay marriage, prevent gays from adopting or even teaching children, and work to convert them to heterosexuality" then I cannot believe that they have been, in your words, "as tolerant as can be demanded."
Did you miss the last two sentences in my post? When someone tries to understand, but fails, tolerance and intolerance are difficult to tell apart. I would say that someone who thinks that homosexuals have an "agenda" and that they are harmful to society and should be deprived of certain rights has failed to understand. From their viewpoint, they have been as tolerant as can be demanded, from ours, they have not.

. . . . . .
ETA: Furthermore, if some new religion were to come along and require men to dress in burkas, I could be tolerant of those folks without even trying to understand what their beliefs are.
If you don't interfere, you can't really be intolerant, so understanding doesn't matter as much.

[CapelDodger]

Ah Cromwell - a damned shame his head wasn't hung out to dry on London Bridge.

Early on in his career.

Hell hath no fury like a monarch scorned.

[CapelDodger]

No I do not think we hang people for disagreeing with our values. Do we?

Napier would have :). Sorry, I was being a bit glib back there. To Napier, humane and efficient killing would have seemed the enlightened positioned. The unenlighted position would be an eye for an eye, a burning for a burning. To Napier (and his contemporaries) that would have appeared uncivilised.

I think that is not quite true. In some circumstances at least it matters what the underlying values are: and although they are often forgotten it is probably better to instill them in soldiers than not.

There are many examples in history of attempts to introduce Laws of War for exactly the reason of introducing normal social values to warfare. In that regard the values of a society are indeed important, but in the heat of conflict soldiers revert to their fundamental types. Most don't become monsters, fortunately, but some always do. War is horrible, there's no getting away from that.

The reason, to my mind, that civilised armies perform better is mostly down to supervision and discipline. Constant vigilance, in other words.

[CapelDodger]

In the bad ol' days of guerilla war between South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, a lot of landmindes were planted under paths over the mountains between Moz and Zim. Guess where the women got to walk then?

I heard exactly the same story when I was a kid, but with reference to the North African battlefields of WW2. Methinks it smells a bit.

[Ladewig]

Did you miss the last two sentences in my post? When someone tries to understand, but fails, tolerance and intolerance are difficult to tell apart. I would say that someone who thinks that homosexuals have an "agenda" and that they are harmful to society and should be deprived of certain rights has failed to understand. From their viewpoint, they have been as tolerant as can be demanded, from ours, they have not.


If you don't interfere, you can't really be intolerant, so understanding doesn't matter as much.

I can be tolerant of people I understand (Jews) and of people I don't understand (Sikhs). I can be intolerant of people I understand (KKK members) and of people I don't understand (people who think murdering children is the appropriate solution to the Hutu/Tutsi conflict). Therefore, I fail to see how trying to understand is related to tolerance at all.

[CapelDodger]

I always had a soft spot for Cromwell, not because of the man but because of what he helped achieve; Parliament's supremacy, a permanent end to the possibility of an autocratic monarchy in Britain, and a King who'd sought to be a tyrant executed for treason.

He was clear-sighted, no doubt about, and he had the moral gumption not to accept a fatal compromise. Kill a King? Oh the horror ... But if it hadn't been done the US Constitution would never have been written.

A lot of his faults; religious mania and bigotry, sacking of towns, etc; were normal in his day... he was a product of his age. Remember, tolerance is what this threads all about!

There's a good deal of exaggeration about Cromwell, of course.

I noticed a long time ago how tiny a part the English Civil War plays in the British National Myth. It seems to be an embarrassment instead of the defining event it was - not just for Britain but for the US.


ps Capel; my fav. Cromwell quote would be:
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
Beautiful, powerful use of language.

Absolutely. In those days Rhetoric was a highly respected University subject. Check out the King James Bible, it's magnificent. I think we've lost something.

"For God's sake, go." Call it a sound-bite if you like, but it's a powerful one. It's even credited with finishing off Chamberlain's premiership. Then came Churchill. Now there's a man who'd studied Rhetoric.

And one I am always tempted to use when a theist says something dumb around me...

Only tempted? Is it the "bowels of Christ" that gives you pause? I can understand that :). Of course "bowels" had a different meaning in those days.

[CapelDodger]

I think these cleared it up for me pretty well. There is actually a good point to make not to consider oneself morally superior, but only to clarify that it would be better if your enemies' and your own barbaric customs did not have to clash (I'm not being sarcastic - I really think it is a good point). I understand much better now why you consider the quote memorable.

It's a succint and striking exemplar of an argument that's been made every time enlightened principles are imposed on bonehead traditionalism.

A less well known example is from Napolen : "If people reject thier own happiness they are guilty of mutiny, and must be punished". (No sign of Rhetoric in there, but every sign of the military man :).) That was in a letter to a brother that was ruling part of the Lower Rhineland on behalf of L'Empereur. That the principles of Imperial France are enlightened is taken as a given, and its imposition was a moral endeavour. And we have to face it, many of the principles spread by that Empire were indeed enlightened.

On the flip side, I think this is also part of the reason why I'm bothered by it. There is no questioning of the original principle that anyone who has the power can and should force their cultural brutalities on others. Granted, Napier's brutality is less inhumane and more justified, and granted, I'm sure the final result was not that the widow was burned and the men were hung, but the same principle, applied in many other contexts, would have niether of those qualities.

The painful truth is that enlightened values have always had to be imposed from the centre on firmly-established traditional communities. There's an enormous inertia in tradition, even for people who would benefit from change.

Ironically, violence generally begins where tolerance ends.

Violence generally begins when the intolerant gain the capacity for it. That's why we have to keep them down, frankly. I'll tolerate any beliefs in those who can't do anything to further them.

[CapelDodger]

Oh, the fact that they were slightly political but mostly out to ram what they laughingly called religion down real people's throats (or just cutting same) also affects me some on the matter.

At the risk of this thread being hi-jacked by the English Civil War (which would at least be a novelty) ...

Religion was going to be imposed, the question was would it be Catholic imposition on a heretic community, or something else? Check out what was going on in mainland Europe at the time; the Thirty Years War, the wars in Italy. Religion was absolutely mapped to politics : Catholic absolutism, Protestant republicanism. Unenlightened, and enlightened. Backward and falling further behind, prosperous and getting more so.

It wasn't Cromwell's troops besieging the romantic lady, it was Parliament's troops.

[billydkid]

Of course "bowels" had a different meaning in those days.Did it? What did it mean?

[GreyICE]

Did it? What did it mean?http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bowels
Archaic. feelings of pity or compassion.

Nowadays we'd probably say 'in memory of' or 'love of' instead, but both don't fully share the meaning that the word used to have.

[CapelDodger]

Did it? What did it mean?

What GreyICE said. There was a medieval French Count, I forget exactly of where, who was known as "Fulk the Bowelless", as in " the pitiless". Given the standards of the day he must have been a right bastard.

I think "bowel" originally meant something deep-down, but (like fundament) became associated over time with intestinal matters.

[GreyICE]

What GreyICE said. There was a medieval French Count, I forget exactly of where, who was known as "Fulk the Bowelless", as in " the pitiless". Given the standards of the day he must have been a right bastard.

I think "bowel" originally meant something deep-down, but (like fundament) became associated over time with intestinal matters.

Or perhaps it was color commentary by people like Fulk on those sorts of feelings :D

[CapelDodger]

Or perhaps it was color commentary by people like Fulk on those sorts of feelings :D

As in "Don't start with that mercy' crap", do you mean?

It was Fulk III of Anjou, also known as Fulk Nera (Fulk the Black).

Fulk of Anjou, plunderer, murderer, robber, and swearer of false oaths, a truly terrifying character of fiendish cruelty, founded not one but two large abbeys. This Fulk was filled with unbridled passion, a temper directed to extremes. Whenever he had the slightest difference with a neighbor he rushed upon his lands, ravaging, pillaging, raping, and killing; nothing could stop him, least of all the commandments of God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulk_Nera

See The Empire and the Papacy 918-1273 by T. F. Tout for mention of "Fulk The Bowelless". 'Tis a fine thing to own a good library :).