Date: Sun 09 Feb 2003 - 20:06:10 GMT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Grant Callaghan" <email@example.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
> 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.
> 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 09 Feb 2003 - 20:03:32 GMT