From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun 09 Feb 2003 - 20:06:10 GMT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Grant Callaghan" <grantc4@hotmail.com>
> Hi there, the hello- bit was one more out of amazement, because there
> were no entries whatsoever for the last couple of days, but anyway,
> thanks for the reply!
>
>
> > What do you do, for example, if the muslim kids you talked about in
> > your last post think that everyday behaviours by you are a sin that
> > must be put down? That tolerance itself is a sin?
>
> I may think that is just the problem. We are so convinced of the fact
> that everybody wants freedom, equality and democracy; is in equal
> terms tolerant as we are, that we take this ideology ( and that's what
> it is) for granted. We take it as it was something ' natural ', but (
> like R. Barthes says) noone sees that those aspects serve the needs/
> in- terests of a certain few in/ and of society. Freedom, equality and
> tolerance are getting ' mythical '!
>
> Within myths history is transformed into ' nature '_ in the case of
> the kids I see religion, religious thought and tradition pre-
> eminently as the mythical aspect. What was within the myth the
> historical background is touched up. The same aspect can be seen in
> the behavior of the teacher or in a wider range in the behaviors of
> the whole of the people. There too the historical background is
> transformed. The ' why- question ' is never been asked. ( Why some
> people are racistic is a question never asked ).
>
> But to comment your remark, I do believe they indeed think
> our everyday behaviors are sins, in the same ways we believe
> their behaviors are all explicit motivated by religion.
> Both sides of the argument are IMO results of our ( meme-
> tic) history_ that is to say, either side holds its own orthodoxi. We
> hold freedom and democracy, they hold religion. Both are in a sense
> fundamentalistic.
>
> We, on our side of the water, we live our lives within what
> Rawls called " negative freedom ", they live their lives within
> the contours of what is known as " positive freedom " ( the
> manners whereby the human being is supposed to be ' real '
> free are dictated ( here it is religion )).
> So, in their view, yes tolerance would be a sin because it
> would mean that other religions ( beside Islam) can hold a/
> the key to personal freedom.
> You can 't be tolerant towards tolerance if this denies what
> you stand for.
>
> We are tolerant towards their intolerance, they are intolerant
> towards our tolerance....
> They hit the streets, we do nothing....
> They think we ignore them, we don 't understand....
>
It is paradoxical, but nevertheless true, that they only thing that the
tolerant person must find intolerable is the intolerance of others.
>
> Kenneth
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 09 Feb 2003 - 20:03:32 GMT