When it all comes down to it, discussions about belief systems usually end up in the realm of relativity. In our politically correct world, we are told to at the very least tolerate our differences, at the most, celebrate them. However, the danger here lies in cultural relativism, which most people don't even think of.
Fundamentalists (of any kind) are scorned because they do not let others have their beliefs peacefully. If it doesn't agree with their own beliefs, its morally wrong and there will be dire consequences (hell's fire usually being among them). Liberals deplore this kind of black and white thinking because so much falls in that gray area of life. What we don't realise is that it's all about where the line has been drawn, and eventually, no matter what your beliefs are, you will have to draw it somewhere. Some people just draw them a lot sooner, but shouldn't we at the very least tolerate their right to be more intolerable than we are?
Some things are just morally wrong. There is no 'gray' about it. Just because a culture holds something to be true, doesn't mean we have to celebrate it. The subjugation of females (including things like female circumcision), the extermination of races (the Holocaust, Rwanda, and most recently in Sudan), the murder of innocents (Matthew Shepherd) and other acts of violence are all examples of things that some people value that should not be tolerated in a civilised society.
So where do we draw this ever present line, without stepping on anyone's toes? If we believe that we can do so without offending someone, we are being naive. For each holds onto their beliefs, thinking they have what is true and it is the other that is mistaken. Some even go so far to convince others of the error of their ways, to 'save' them because their belief system is hurting them unbeknownst to them. Do we let each figure out their own, and risk the devastation it might bring? And if we really knew the truth, wouldn't we act like our fundamentalist friends and pressure, if not force it on them?
6 comments:
Have you read - Maybe we need another burnin bush?
aus blog.
I'm not sure that is a fair judgment of fundamentalism. I'm certainly no fundamentalist, but I think one can be a fundamentalist and be far more tolerant of other views. The problem is that because many fundamentalists aren't that the two issues get conflated.
Take fundamentalist Christians for example. If you are, strictly speaking, a fundamentalist, you believe that there is no other way but Jesus. That is the actual literal interpretation, no ifs ands or buts. What awaits those who don't believe is hellfire. Not too tolerant in my opinion.
However non-fundamentalist Christians believe exactly the same thing. Indeed most Christians believe that. My point is that when you focus in on such things, it isn't the fundamentalism that is the problem.
My point is not whether or not there is a problem with fundamentalism. I did not say that fundamentalism is bad, merely that it is intolerant. I didn't say being intolerant is bad, in fact, I pointed out that there ARE things to be intolerant about, such as injustice. Too much tolerance is not a virtue.
"Tolerance is a virtue for those who do not believe much." -Chesterton
Everything does seem to come down to semantics, doesn't it? So tolerance can be defined "allow[ing] others their views and practices...not seek[ing] to interfere in them, so long as they do not interfere with yours."
However,
A)if you really were a fundamentalist Christian who believes that someone is going to hell if they do not share in your beliefs, you would care enough about that person to try to "intefere in their views and practices" to save their soul
B)the whole tolerance/fundamentalist debate misses the point of the blog, as I have previously stated in these comments (but it is an interesting debate in itself, isn't it?)
Post a Comment