Should tolerant people tolerate intolerence?

[Naffa]

As I am quite enjoying reading threads asking a philosophical question, here's another.

At what point does tolerance become self defeating? I'll use an example of an argument I had with Dolph sometime ago, and where I was accused of being a hypocrite (a charge I will only partially refute). When Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy got refused a double room at a Cornish bed and breakfast on the grounds that their were a homosexual couple, the owners got taken to court and subsequently lost their case. The law is such that the right of citizens to receive blind service, was placed above a Christian couple's want to run their business according to the teachings of their religion.

I actually believe that it's impossible to take an non-hypocritical position, on this question. I believe that the judgement was just, and fair. Excluding my known dislike of religion, my beef was with the fact two people were refused a particular service on the grounds that they were gay. I was subsequently accused of being a hypocrite, because my belief that somebody's sexuality should in no way have an effect on a business decision of whether or not to tender a service, naturally leads on to the conclusion that, in order to make that a reality, you have to curb the rights of certain groups (mainly religious) to do business as they wish. However, as far as I'm concerned, if it were the other way around, and the bed and breakfast owners were legally allowed to refuse service on grounds of sexuality, the personal liberty of the homosexual couple is then infringed, as they would not be free to operate in a 'free' society, as heterosexual people would be able to.

I have no problem with government being involved in a question like this, I'm not a libertarian as far as that is concerned.

But what do you think? I suppose it's a question of the balance between liberty and license. But it's also bigger than that, should a strong advocate of democracy support the democratic election of a fascist government? Should a liberal support the infringement of personal freedom, simply because they don't believe government should be involved in such questions?

A big first post, but I hope we have an even bigger discussion.

 

[Naffa]

As far as I am concerned, tolerance implies allowing a practice you actively disapprove of, to continue. I think it also implies the ability to stop, or inhibit it and choosing not to.

If you are ok with something, there is no toleration involved.

 

[Naffa]

ARTICLE 9

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I think that that is a pretty neat piece of text. My problem would be with what the definition of freedom of religion actually means. It's pretty well spelled out here, but if you had an unfettered right to 'practice' your religion, that could easily extend to the stoning of a woman for unveiling her hair, or something along those lines. I feel like religious freedom necessarily has to be limited, if one is to live in a free society.

I think it's impossible to be absolutely consistent, regarding this issue.

 

[Naffa]

Stoning Women for any reason is not something supported by Religion....it is justified by some extremist interpretations of Scripture to support a cultural and tribal tradition.

Any limitations should only apply to extremist viewpoints and practices not to justify the restriction of religious freedom in general. No Right should ever be absolute anyway.

An 'extremist viewpoint' is pretty difficult to define. I mean, if the Bible or the Qur'an explicitly says something 'bad', for example the part in Leviticus that states that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, she should be stoned to death on her father's doorstep, how could somebody reading that as it's written, be considered 'extreme'? Some things in these texts simply cannot be read figuratively.

I don't want to turn this into another debate on religion o), but how would you set the line? The only reason there is such thing as religious moderates today, is because so much of there various canons and scriptures have been thrown up, or rendered useless by rational conversation. But that doesn't mean those things are no longer part of a canon.

 

[Naffa]

Ok, I won't set off the same debate that we have had before. I would simply make the point that I think the only way you can determine whether or not something that's written in the Bible is 'extreme' or not, is to judge it by a prevailing social standard, that must, by definition, come from outside religion. So, again by definition, determining whether or not a religious view is extreme or not must result in the limitation of religious freedom.

But there, I have said it.

 

[Naffa]

Agree in part, and disagree in part, but duly noted in all parts.