Tolerance is not enough
Tue 27 Nov 2007
Those of us with Facebook profiles will know that there is a space where you can, if you wish, display your religion. You can leave it blank, select one of the major religions or write anything in there - anything at all.
Up until yesterday, my religion box announced
“Tolerant of all; except the intolerant.”
I thought that pretty much encapsulated my belief that, as a species, we should not allow religion to divide us. Further, those who would use religion as a weapon to divide us are the most evil people on this planet.
However, yesterday, I learned from retiring High Court judge, Justice Michael Kirby, that mere “Tolerance” is not enough.
I’m a little bit suspicious of the word tolerance. It’s a rather condescending notion, isn’t it, that you tolerate somebody else. Acceptance is the notion that you just accept that people are different and have different views and we’ve all got to live together.
- Justice Michael Kirby in a Sunday Profile interview with Monica Attard on ABC Radio.
I share Michael Kirby’s belief that Australia is uniquely well placed as a multicultural society and a multi-religious society to find bridges between faiths and if we can do that we can make another contribution to the world, as a tolerant, accepting society.
As of yesterday, my Facebook profile announces that I am
“Accepting of all; except the intolerant.”
Could I have said that better?
November 29th, 2007 at 17:49
I think you said it perfectly, acceptance is a much less condescending way of describing your attitude towards religion. Personally, my Facebook religious status used to read simple “No.”, but I’ve since changed it to “Harry Potter and the Order of Dumbledore” following a discussion elsewhere in blogland regarding the argument that I should accept all Christian teachings based purely on the fact that it’s ‘written in the Bible’… my argument being that perhaps I could use any book for the same argument.
November 29th, 2007 at 21:25
Harry Potter and the Order of Dumbledore - Love it.
Some of my friends use the Religion space to profess their love of their favourite football team. One very religious lady (she’s an ex-Catholic nun) refers to her local football team as her “Earthly Religion”.
But seriously, what religion we profess to follow is nowhere near as important as how we actually treat other people - no, ALL people.
November 29th, 2007 at 23:31
Kirby’s knocking off my eccentric ideas!
Hear hear!
November 29th, 2007 at 23:45
You’re correct; you said it first. Henceforth, Stuart, I shall no longer tolerate you. Consider yourself understood & accepted!
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:45
Uncle Fitz on Facebook?? If I rejoin can I be in your top friends?
December 3rd, 2007 at 13:30
Hi Steph, of course you are a “Top Friend”. However you would know that without having to read about it on some sort of a league table.
Some concepts, like “Top Friends”, those eyeball-shattering glitter graphics and outlandish colour schemes are better suited to MySpazz.
December 3rd, 2007 at 14:22
I posted the mother of all religious / political posts on [ my site ] Mike…
I have not had one comment…
There is an argument to be made for who cares about religion…
My feeling is that faith is between you and God… everything else is window dressing…. (for God read Buddah… Allah… etc…)
I would read anything you post because of your pedigree… not your religion… Accepting of all is a brilliant concept.
Cheers.
December 3rd, 2007 at 18:20
G’day Wiley, you say the nicest things. *blush* You can consider yourself accepted, too.
Some people feel really uncomfortable talking about religion. It’s a bit like when you end up at a vegan restaurant and everyone else knows all about these meat substitute thingos and you don’t.
December 6th, 2007 at 17:50
I had a bit of a think about this and I’m not so sure I can accept the idea.
My belief is that a casual acceptance of differing views is the real mark of condescension because it means you don’t really give a damn about those views. The flip side is that anyone talking about acceptance clearly wishes their views to be accepted too. So it’s a bit of quid pro quo, which isn’t really very civil.
Tolerance, on the other hand, provides an environment where views can be discussed. It allows for the human habit of disagreement, even recalcitrance. Tolerance is achievable; acceptance strikes me as too much “let them eat cake” … and we all know where that lead. It’s very easy to be accepting of things that are far removed from us.
As far as religion goes, I am reminded of something Douglas Adams once said:
“If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’, you say, ‘Fine, I respect that’.”
By the way: your blog? Always worth reading, Mr Fitzsimon.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:36
G’day SNF and welcome.
Acceptance? Tolerance? Maybe the word I’m searching for is Respect?
I suppose the important thing is how we actually treat other people, both individually and collectively, both people who share our views and people who don’t.
When meeting people from other countries, other races, other religions, I find it is helpful to *accept* that there are differences - and then ignore them. Instead, concentrate on our similarities. We all have something in common.
As Sting said towards the end of the Cold War: The Russians love their children too. I bet this also applies to Sudanese refugees, Muslims, Israelis, Palestinians, boat people, even Collingwood and Pauline Hanson supporters.