Anti-Quran film expected to test the limits of Dutch tolerance

[phoenix_fire]

I think that people often confuse "tolerance" and "acceptance".

[Chancellor]

Quote by: another day Tolerance does not entail a lack of criticism.

Some rabid homosexual activists and political correctness nuts seem to think it does entail a lack of criticism (unless you're criticizing groups that they consider "intolerant").

It means you tolerate it, put up with it. It doesn't mean you embrace it, or love it.

Actually, many on the "tolerance" and "political correctness" bandwagons seem to think it does mean to embrace or love something - to not merely tolerate or even accept but, instead, to celebrate.

If you were to go around assaulting muslims and harassing them and spraying slogans on their houses, that would be a lack of tolerance.

No, it would be assault, harassment and vandalism.

[another day]

Quote by: Chancellor Some rabid homosexual activists and political correctness nuts seem to think it does entail a lack of criticism (unless you're criticizing groups that they consider "intolerant").

And? They are wrong.

Actually, many on the "tolerance" and "political correctness" bandwagons seem to think it does mean to embrace or love something - to not merely tolerate or even accept but, instead, to celebrate.

So? They are deluded.

No, it would be assault, harassment and vandalism.

Stemming from a lack of tolerance.

[rmnunez]

Tolerance does not mean one must "celebrate" or embrace the 'other'.

Some measure of acceptance is all that's required. I wouldn't be sure how much acceptance must be evident for one to be deemed 'tolerant', but its a flexible term so some tolerance is enough.

I suppose some would find a measure of acceptance that was less than complete, which didn't fully embrace and celebrate, a manifestation of intolerance, but this is inaccurate.

[Winter wind]

Freedom of Speech Or Freedom of Hate?

the best way to ban something is just to choose not to watch it. Otherwise it gets more attention. That's freedom of speech.

[Dunfunkin']

Wilders naturally has as much right to express his opinion as anyone else.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Voltaire

The fact that he has the means at his disposal to do so in such a public fashion is at best unfortunate. (Don't you just love understatement?) Of course, his decision to broadcast what will probably turn out to be a most odious piece may be calculated to foment an aggressive and outraged response from certain segments of the muslim faith. Inevitably, it will.

If not, he should consider the bigger picture. The majority of the resultant protests will occur in Holland - it is he and his fellow citizens who will have to bear the brunt of the costs and burden for this. There will almost certainly be unrest in many other cities worldwide: if so, there is a wider bill to pay.

He might also like to remember that amongst NATO troops operating in Afghanistan are Dutch units. The expression of his opinions will not do them any favours.

Oh well. Light the blue touch paper and stand well clear.

[phoenix_fire]

It doesn't necessarily have to be intentionally incendiary or insulting. Even an objective look at the scriptures and how they are practiced would incite Muslim violence. Tell me it wouldn't.

[grandpa]

Quote by: phoenix_fire It doesn't necessarily have to be intentionally incendiary or insulting. Even an objective look at the scriptures and how they are practiced would incite Muslim violence.

It depends on which groups you're looking at. But generally this may be true.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

Should concerns over their reaction induce others to keep quiet over perceptions Muslims are rather intolerant?

Tolerance seems a rather 'western' value. In western capitals we find inclusive communities which are more than just tolerant, they welcome diversity. Such is not the case in most capitals of Muslim countries where laws restrict anything that doesn't conform with rather strict religious rules, there is no tolerance for other religions and very little acceptance of other social norms or patterns of conduct.

I can appreciate the need to allow Muslims in wstern countries to retain their cultural systems and religious practices, except this custom of intolerance.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez Should concerns over their reaction induce others to keep quiet over perceptions Muslims are rather intolerant? Tolerance seems a rather 'western' value.

Not necessarily, though I'm sure it depends on which group. The Quran calls Muslims "the people of the
'middle path'," saying "To you your religion and to me mine." So, depending on which parts you read and how you emphasize and interpet them, Islam can be tolerant of all human life. But people can always pick and choose.

Grandpa h.

[another day]

Quote by: grandpa Not necessarily, though I'm sure it depends on which group. The Quran calls Muslims "the people of the 'middle path'," saying "To you your religion and to me mine." So, depending on which parts you read and how you emphasize and interpet them, Islam can be tolerant of all human life. But people can always pick and choose. Grandpa h.

It is entirely irrelevant as to what is the muslim "ideal" or what Islam has the potential for as a religion, based on scripture. What's relevant is the social reality, and the reality is that muslim countries are mainly fundamentalist regimes with no room for any concept of tolerance.

[phoenix_fire]

And ironically, other countries and cultures are bending over backwards to try to tolerate their intolerance.

[rmnunez]

Do the tolerant have an obligation to tolerate the intolerant? Can the culturally intolerant demand an accomodation, or must they manifest tolerance for others too?

Could it be argued a culturally intolerant group is entitled to an accomodation from a tolerant community despite lack of reciprocity?

[phoenix_fire]

Well, the toleration of intolerance puts a strain on tolerance. In the end, it is often self-defeating.

[rmnunez]

I wonder about that, its not like we have plenty of examples we can point to to show how tolerance of the intolerant has strained anything.

But this is an interesting issue in more ways than one. Tolerance itself is limited somehow. People may be tolerant to a certain degree, say in favour of racial integration, but prefer their daughters not date guys of a different race, feel gays are fine as long as they aren't fussing around with us, not mind other religious practices, just not accept those disputing the veracity of their 'true' faith.

Is a person who is tolerant, only to a certain degree, not tolerant enough? Is tolerance something that must reach that 'celebration' of the 'other' or else be deemed intolerance?

What happens when what we are called on to tolerate contradicts cultural values like animal sacrifices, politheism, multiple wives or gender discrimination? Intolerance for something culturally contradictory doesn't seem as bad, at least better premised.

Then there's this ultimate test of tolerance, to celebrate the intolerance of others as an accomodated cultural trait. This would seem to be the point where western societies are reaching.

[phoenix_fire]

The very subject of this thread is an example. We try to allow people their free expression, but at the same time, the government has to preserve some modicum of order. Most societies, for example, draw the line on tolerating ritualistic human sacrifice. The reason is that it severely caps the rights of others. I would think that creating an atmosphere where others fear for their life to make even the most objective of observations about a group or practice would qualify as an unacceptable limit upon the rights of others. Society is built upon a balance of rights. Sometimes, giving a right does not have to cost someone else. But giving the right to violent intolerance to a group means that you are robbing rights from other, usually tolerant and socially contributing groups.

[rmnunez]

Then you would subscribe to the notion tolerance must be reciprocal, that absent tolerance from one, none would be owed by the other. Presumably then we'd reasonably conclude its acceptable to be relatively intolerant of communties which are relatively intolerant -that no special obligation of tolerance arises due to a culture's particularly tolerant trait.

[phoenix_fire]

I think it's a decision that the society can't make for the individuals. You might, overall, believe in tolerance. But if some whacko firebombs your son's family home just because he drew a cartoon in the newspaper, then society can't expect you not to seek justice from the legal system. I've seen the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. They're not that bad. Society cannot reasonably demand that its contributing individuals look the other way in the name of tolerance when someone decides that it's part of his/her religion to harm others.

[rmnunez]

No, some of the cartoons were not so offensive, but this is the way a westerner would see it. You've got to consider how for a religion that forbids representing the human figure, cartoons of their prophet would be especially unacceptable.

I think Muslims should tolerate this sort of thing because Western 'infidels' are allowed to draw humans, the religious preclusion keeping Muslims from doing so does not apply. Caricaturizing their prophet was just insensitive, Muslims need to understand how their traditional Muslim precepts for hospitality might not apply to Western hosts.

[phoenix_fire]

The original injunction against images of Mohammed was to prevent idolatry. Obviously, non-believers would not be worshiping Mohammed. So they're trying to force others to effectively believe in an aspect of their religion. I have seen countless offensive representations of Jesus and other religious figures, and (especially in the former) it seems that people try to outdo themselves in just how offensive they can be. If these same Muslims were just as outraged about these incidents, then I might be a little more sympathetic. But as it is, it is not for them merely a matter of depiction. It is a matter of forcing their religion on other people.