Re: Tolerance was Re: Hello !?

Date: Sun 16 Feb 2003 - 18:54:42 GMT

  • Next message: William Benzon: "Re: Sue Blackmore lecture Wednesday 5.15pm London"

    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <>
    > > We are talking about tolerating intolerance itself, and that is
    > > something tolerant people cannot in all tolerance do. A religious
    > > ideology that treats women like chattel and indulges in 'honor
    > > killings', that imposes the death sentence upon those who decide to
    > > leave it, and whos more radical members are hell-bent upon
    > > presenting a convert-or-die ultimatum to all the peoples of the
    > > world simply cannot be tolerated by people who truly care about
    > > freedom - theirs or others'. Period.
    > Hi Joe,
    > Yes, the starting point is that we don 't have to be tolerant towards
    > certain things, like intolerance itself. But thus tolerance has a
    > legitimate, lawful boundery attached to it. What you did desribed
    > above are some examples which are tres- passing those bounderies. " We
    > are tolerant, but....", " we are not racistic, but .... "; " we are
    > tolerant but not at the cost of our own security ", and " I have
    > nothing against immigrants, but too much is too much... " are those
    > examples giving when the boundery is crossed.
    Should we have been tolerant of Nazism, of Stalinism, of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge? NO. I am not discussing race, I am discussing memeplexes here; violent and virulent and cannibalistic and controlling religious ideologies. There is no such thing as the oxymoronic
    'absolute relativism' that could possibly equate such mind-slavery with a freedom, choice and democracy stance.
    > This does exclude tolerance as such, it confines it to certain con-
    > ditions. But the fact that a religious ideology is trying to get us
    > all convert- ted to it, peacefully or otherwise, is not, IMO, the
    > thing you have to cling onto if you talk about tolerance. Tolerance is
    > a common political/ social process made individualistic. Both parties
    > in the dispute made it very clear that the individual is to blame.
    > We blame them not to have the dynamics to adapt, they blame us
    > not to have the insight that the world has to be converted_ and
    > that the latter has to be an individual virtue on their behalf.
    > Both fractions blame the other to be weak, both blame the other
    > not to think for themselves.
    > It is within both parties their convictions that the other must be
    > personal blamed_ it is our personal fault that we are now faced, that
    > they present us the convert- or- die ultimatum.
    That's one of their problems; they believe that all that are not clones of them are damned, and that they, too, are damned, unless they force the convert-or-die ultimatum upon all nonclones. This is just Borgian. And that sin't good.
    > What I detect however is that the bias of the problematic is
    > somewhat moved from its individualistic bias to a certain
    > collective ground, in this case, religion against democracy.
    > Where did Islam because that is the religion you talk about here
    > moved away from its 'religious bias ' to become the major
    > opponent of democracy itself !?
    > The only things, sofar and at the present date I can come with
    > is the question of how the individual is treated, how the indi-
    > vidual is seen within both camps.
    No, one of the primary differences is the separation of church and state. In democratic countries people of many faiths, or none, may peacefully co-reside, and there is no official state religion to which all citizens' knees must bow - all are free to choose their owm paths. However, there is no distinction between church and state in Islam; the church IS the state, the government, and only one church and one path - Islam - is allowed.
    > We can do almost everything within the bounderies of demo-
    > cracy and those are IMO very slim and almost not- existented.
    > They have to express themselves within the certain bounderies
    > which their religion provided for them.
    > We can add notions of freedom within the memepool of what
    > is democracy, they only can interpretate what is already written
    > down and they can only see themselves within a certain per-
    > spective bound to the time they live in now.
    > We move at a different rate along a different way of evolution.
    > Why are they than so eager to move up to our me !
    The most radical among them are not interested in learning anything from us but how to use our technology to produce weapons with which they may kill us. They are trapped in a medieval mindset, which is much more dangerous than the Christian Dark Ages because it is coupled with the abilities to both produce weapons of mass destruction and to easily and anonymously travel the globe to wherever they desire to use them.
    > Regards,
    > 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:

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 16 Feb 2003 - 18:51:59 GMT