The cancer of intolerance and how to fight it

So, I take it you agree then that even an intentionally provocative book (so long as it does not cross some kind of line of inciting people to illegal action) does not in any way interfere with someone's right to their personal belief?

The Bible, as offensive as some may find it, does not unacceptably interfere with the beliefs of non Christians and The God Delusion, though the title may provoke and offend some people, does not unacceptably interfere with the beliefs of Christians.

If a book is good, the most offensive thing about it may be that it is very persuasive. If a book is merely provocative and offensive, without being anything more, it is unlikely to stand the test of time. In 500 years, the Bible will still be in print, which is more than we'll be able to say about The God Delusion

 

And they can do that because this is a private, international forum with its own rules. In a nation such as America where there is a Constitutional protection of speech, that would be a Constitutional violation.

But you're not against all forms of intolerance. You are being intolerant towards certain forms of intolerance and not towards others, so you haven't "disarmed" anything.

Perhaps the inverse is true: because your personal experience of religion is good you assume all religion is good. History disagrees.

You seem to have missed LOH's point.

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are against intolerance, same as you. They just happen to believe that religion is the source of it. As you say below:

Dawkins and Harris "seek to cause conflict with what they find intolerant". So they are perfectly within your definition in the actions they take.

You genuinely don't see that you starting this thread is a prime example of exactly that?

But saying that ignores the fact that the "racism" and "land rights" issues stem to begin with from religious intolerance. If the Muslims and the Jews did not both believe that the

 

Really? You don't believe it's because people have realized that racial intolerance is totally irrational? You don't believe it's because people have actually come to accept people of other races? You actually believe they're just "embarrassed" to let their true colors show? That's cynicism on a level I've never heard before.

As an aside, it seems likely to me that a lot more people have been "embarrassed into silence" about their personal racial prejudices than have come to accept the illusory nature of "race" as a differentiating factor among humans. I can live with that.

 

Similarly, it must be answered that the answer is an absolute 'no'. The text says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and so is rather clearly a restriction on laws from the gov't, not the behavior of citizens or private organisations.

Here. It wouldn't be allowed here. And thats because there are rules put into place that all posters agree to when they join as this is a private forum paid for by the owners. They get to make the rules. It is very different from what should be allowed in general public discourse, and I'm personally EXTREMELY opposed to speech codes on public universities because I think they should be areas where free speech dominates.

 

Ah! Lowie's intolerant!
Intolerant of speech codes!

DorkmanScott's intolerant!
Intolerant of ignorance.

Nancy's intolerant!
... Intolerant of intolerance.

I'm intolerant.
Intolerant of this thread...

 

and PROUD of it

intolerance is like discrimination. The actual definition makes it a good attitude at points, but the connotation is becoming increasingly negative.

 

Yes, intolerance comes in many shapes and forms. Consider the following examples (in no particular order):

~Spike Lee suggested shooting gun-rights advocate Charlton Heston. Conservatives obviously made a stink about it. Did the libs?
~leftist writer Alexander Cockburn proposed dropping a nuclear bomb on anti-Castro Cubans in Miami. I don't recall him ever being criticized for this comment by the left.
~actor Alec Baldwin advocated the mass murder of Republican lawmakers' families. Never really called to task about this comment. Can you imagine the backlash if he said the same thing about liberal lawmakers? He'd be labeled a fascist.
~Washington Post writer Tom Shales said independent counsel Kenneth Starr was "pure evil." The comment went widely ignored by the media.
~Nina Totenberg, a National Public Radio reporter, said Sen. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican, would learn something if he acquired AIDS from a transfusion. Was never called to task for her comments by the general media or democrat leadership.
~former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo called the 1994 free election that gave the GOP control of Congress a Nazi-like event led by "Republican storm troopers." Again, not called to task by the democrat leadership.
~Intolerance of talk radio ? fairness doctrine. This one really scares me.
~Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, William Kristol, David Horowitz, and many others have all been assaulted by leftist students in recent years on college campuses. I couldn't find a single example of something similar being done to a liberal speaker on a college campus but there were countless examples of conservatives being attacked or shouted down by those who want to silence them. Doesn't this blatant fight against these people's freedom of speech concern you? It sure does for me, whether I agree or disagree with them is irrelevant.
~scientists that question global warming being silenced by those that disagree with them. Since when was science exact? Shouldn't all theories be examined? Not according to the American Physical Society which recently banned discussion of the opposing point of view. When science refuses to consider new theories, it becomes scary.
~McCain being silenced recently by the NYT. WTH?
~Political correctness
~almost Everything that Michael Moore says these days. [facE_tongue]
~Rosie - she hates everything except those who gush over her [facE_tongue]
~calls for Michael Savage to be fired for his comments about Autism (again, his being right or wrong really doesn't matter since he didn't promote an illegal activity nor is he a policy maker).
~Imus being fired for his comments about the Black cheerleaders. For the same reasons as wi

 

You mean this statement?

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

I believe that does not constitue "banning" discussion. Really, get the facts straight please.

In addition, the scientists who have called for global warming as a real threat have been silenced for several years by the Bush administration.

I think if people are going to cite instances of intolerance, they need either a link or backup of some kind.

Edit to prove link. APS statement on global warming

Edit to provide link on my statement about government suppression of scientist. NASA scientist

So who is being intolerant? Theories are made to be questioned. If scientists don't question, then they aren't scientists, imo. (I'm a scientist.) But after a time, some hypotheses prove to be questionable at best. That's when the scientific community moves on. That's not intolerance. That's reality.

 

Actually that's not what I was referring to. Please refer to this article. This is just one example that I've recently noticed but I've heard of and seen many similar incidents that have happened over the last few years. I strongly believe that the issue of man-made global warming is chalk full of intolerance and it's not just coming from liberals. IMO the entire issue has become far too political and I personally don't think that either side is truly giving us an accurate picture of what's really going on. What I do know is I don't believe global warming is the horrible disaster of our age that Al Gore is trying to tell us. I think he's out for personal money and fame.

Also, in regards to your comment, "So who is being intolerant? Theories are made to be questioned. If scientists don't question, then they aren't scientists, imo. (I'm a scientist.) But after a time, some hypotheses prove to be questionable at best. That's when the scientific community moves on. That's not intolerance. That's reality."

First of all, man-made global warming is hardly recognized so widely that it's worthy of being unquestioned. I'm surprised that you as a "scientist" believe that it is. Please refer back to my comments on how the issue has become far too political. Second of all, in the past the western world overwhelmingly felt that the idea of being able to sail around the world was ludicrous. Thank God some people had the guts to not jump on the band wagon and eventually they proved that things were in reality very different. I sincerely hope that you haven't been brainwashed into believing that global warming is a proven man-made issue. It seems that far too many people these days are.

 

Whenever I see people poo-pooh man-made global warming, I just think back to the beginning of Superman, where the foolish Kyrptons ignore Jor-El's warnings and findings.

 

I am not brainwashed and to imply that someone who accepts the reality of global warming is "brain-washed" is inappropriate. I looked over the data in detail and made my own conclusions. Global warming has many aspects some of which is man made. To ignore that is asking for trouble. However, this is not the thread for that discussion since it has its own thread.


Edit: As for the article you have linked to, it doesn't say anything that implies that the scientist is question was gagged or hounded or otherwise silenced. That's how it works in scientific communities. You have peer review of the article and then there is discussion. If there is interest, someone else will check on the data and make their own conclusions pro or con in regards to the initial article and publish their findings. Scientists have arguments all the time - don't think they don't. That's how things are settled, by bringing up alternative suggestions or ideas and seeing if they fit the reality of the situation. If they fit better than the first, the first is disgarded and the better fit solution remains.

It's not intolerence at all!

 

I'm glad that you've found such profound meaning in the Superman movie. I really am.

If you look at my comment more carefully you'll notice that I said, "I sincerely hope that you haven't been brainwashed into believing that global warming is a proven man-made issue." I applaud your desire to look at the data and come to your own conclusions. However I stand by my statement that I hope you haven't been brainwashed into thinking that man-made global warming is a proven fact because it quite frankly is not. If you think it is, I question your credibility as a true "scientist". It has not been proven yet and there is still plenty of valid questions being asked by many, many scientists who doubt what supposed "experts" like Al Gore are trying to get us to believe. The problem is that the opposing point of view is being labeled as being motivated by the "evil" oil companies, the "fascist" Bush administration, radical, unprofessional, idiotic, or at best "misguided". Again, I find this to be very scary since science should not be so politically motivated but rather open to analyzing new theories and coming to more realistic conclusions.

Except for his article was peer reviewed and they suddenly decided to claim it wasn't. I think Monckton's response to them was very appropriate:

"If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?"

He makes some very good points and I'm interested to see how this plays out. Their actions don't seem to be very scientifically or professionally motivated. Again, I smell politics and I get really nervous when "intolerance" of opposing points of view such as this happen.

Edit: grammar corrections

 

Sorry but the denial of man-made effects of global warming is politically motivated and the political bias is quite clear.

But that is NOT appropriate to this thread. It belongs in the global warming thread and I really, really suggest that you take it there where it belongs.

In addition, questioning my credibility as a 'true scientist' isn't appropriate either. You are supposed to be attacking the idea, not the person.


This thread is about intolerance. You stated that the APS banned discussion.

The APS did not ban discussion. In addition, the scientist has not been silenced. I point to your own quote as evidence of that.

How then is that intolerance? Intolerance would have the man banned from publication, would have his job stripped from him and him hounded out of physics.

This example is not about intolerance. It's a fight among scientists on how to view a very public, very important topic.

This is an example of how easily the general population can be mislead on what scientists do and how science works and how the politicos can manipulate something so straightforward for their own agendas. But this issue is not about intolerance!

 

Those Kryptonians were foolish, weren't they?

 

First of all, my intention was never a personal attack and if you took it as such, I apologize. However I must point out that my comments about you were no less a personal attack, based on what seems to be your opinion as a personal attack, than the comment directed toward me in which you said, "Really, get the facts straight please." You seem to, in a condescending tone, imply that I haven't also looked at the data and drawn my own conclusions. Do you assume that I'm an imbecile or something? I could have considered that a personal attack but I let it slide. I still hold no ill will toward you and I hope you aren't holding any towards me and my opinion.

However if you aren't willing to admit that there aren't two valid sides to an argument or to even admit that the liberal position is just as politically motivated as the conservative side, then there truly isn't any use in continuing this discussion with you. Anyone who isn't willing to submit to evidence from an opposing viewpoint is not worth having a rational discussion with, IMO. I submit that your position seems to be very "intolerant" of my viewpoint and you are providing a great example of exactly what I'm talking about with this issue. I fully expect you to claim that I am personally attacking you again but that's ok since I've decided to not spend any more time in this thread. It's one of the reasons that I rarely post in the senate any more. It's far too often too difficult to have a civilized discussion without getting flamed for my opinions and I've chosen to just not allow myself to become a target. I guess you could say I don't like the "intolerance" that I see sometimes around these forums.

I will admit that I used a poor choice of words when I said "banned". I should have rather said "discouraged". IMO the APS is being intolerant of an opposing viewpoint based on the argument that it was "...in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions." As I've already stated, the world scientific community is hardly "overwhelmingly" in agreement with each other on this issue. If their statement is not trying to convince people that they should ignore this theory based on political motives, then I don't know what is. I call that "intolerance" of another viewpoint. I'm sorry if you think that this discussion is off topic but I respectfully think it is very much on topic.

That's certainly one form of intolerance but there are many other forms, such as what I have explained in this post. Let's pull out the old dictionary, shall we? The definition of intolerance according to dictionary.com is "lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc." which as you can see is hardly limited to "[having] the man banned from publication, would have his job stripped from him and him hounded out of physics."

 

Attacking the person in a personal way is not acceptable. Asking to get the facts straight and that meant facts backed up with linkage is attacking the idea, not the person.


Disagreement =/= intolerance.

I think this argument goes to the heart of what intolerance is and what people think of when they are discussing intolerance. I saw disagreement on this thread and in the question about the APS, not intolerance. People tend to come to a consensus based on disagreement. They look at all sides, decide on what seems reasonable to them and then make a judgment. IMO.


So the question then becomes and continues to be asked, what is intolerance?

Mr44 - LOL.

 

Per DorkmanScott, I suggest avoiding the word intolerance entirely and focusing instead on what constitutes an acceptable/unacceptable level of interference with someone's beliefs or practices.

 

Makes sense. Problem is the title has intolerance in it so it may come up again.

I'll be on vacation for a week so have fun talking about interference.

 

I'll write a post concentrating solely on intolerance later, but reading through there is a lot of off topic discussion that could well be worth looking at. I'll just make one comment about this, that may well lead back into intolerance. The gutting of religion that we see here seems to follow the hateful and inaccurate script written out by Richard Dawkins' determination that it must not be allowed for there to be a God or religion, page by page by page. Given how closely they mirror Lenin's views of religion that should be frightening for anyone who can honestly claim they are in support of freedom rather than a totalitarian state, because Lenin, you see, very much supported taking away religious freedom, and the idea of supporting freedom only not for the religious is honestly a bridge too far.

 

Lenin was an atheist therefore all atheists are communists? Look, totalitarianism comes in far more theistic than atheistic flavors. Why do I get the uneasy feeling that if the U.S. resembled "The Handmaid's Tale," you would not be complaining.

 

Lenin wasn't really in support of removing all religious freedom, he just didn't want religion to be associated with the State at all - he thought religion should be a private matter, it shouldn't interfere in the runnning of government and the government should not subsidise the church.

From his own words:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen?s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated . No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men?s consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

 

I would complain, loudly, because it's just another form of intolerance. Are all atheists followers of communism? No of course not, that is as foolosh as labeling all Christians as gay killers. What I'm saying is those who are dogmatic about Dawkins and The God Delusion may or may not know how closely his views are to Lenin's, who sanctioned methods to eradicate religion, including violence, and that is something that very much needs to be brought out into the open.

 

I guess the big question is: have you actually read "The God Delusion" beyond the front cover and have you actually read the works of Lenin in order to draw this apparent comparison?

Does Dawkins sanction violence against religious followers?

Lenin's views on Jews and anti-Semitism:

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

The Tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organized pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. ? Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews. ? It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters and capitalists, just as there are among the Russians, and among people of all nations? Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers? Shame on accursed Tsarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.

Here's another link:

http://sfr-21.org/lenin-religion.html

Socialism and Religion

Marx, Engels and Lenin all agreed that there should be complete separation of church and state and that the state should never make laws about religious belief, either to support one religion or to ban another. All three were opposed to arguments that religion should be banned under socialism . Lenin agreed with Engels when he wrote in The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion: "Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who desired to be "more left" or "more revolutionary" than the Social-Democrats to introduce into the programme of the workers' party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion. Commenting in 1874 on the famous manifesto of the Blanquist fugitive Communards who were living in exile in London, Engels called their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out."

Doesn't sound like a feral anti-religious fanatic out to "eradicate all religion" at all to me.

 

As I argued in the atheism thread, Christianity is dying on its own, from neglect, and doesn't really need active intolerance to move it along. Nor does it suffer any real intolerance in the U.S., where it remains in the aggregate a dominant social force.

In 200 years, Christians may well have to fear intolerance, because there will be few of them left on the planet.

 

Nancy: read The God Delusion before you start trying to talk about what it/Dawkins claims or espouses. You clearly haven't, because what you're saying bears no relationship to the contents of the book. He has never once said that God/religion "must not be allowed" -- very much the opposite, in fact -- so I don't know why you keep claiming this.