The line between freedom and fear
Why I refuse to hold back my criticisms of bad systems
The culture of a time and place is far more potent than any other factor in shaping outcomes. In 2012, I worked as a police trainer in Afghanistan. In Kabul, we had to be hyper-aware of the consequences of our presence on the locals. One time someone threw away a piece of paper written in Dari. The next day a mob tried to storm our police compound because we had accidentally discarded some Islamic religious tract. We were called blasphemers and heretics, and the mob shouted that they would kill us. Had they successfully broken down the compound’s gates, they would have murdered us. That is how infidels deserve to end. That is intolerance of tolerance.
Intolerance of intolerance
My default position in life is to be intolerant of intolerance. Those who attempt to defend beliefs and cultures and nations that are intolerant of the other earn my utter intolerance. That is because they are a toxic danger to themselves and others. Intolerance can be born from many belief systems, but in my experience, fundamentalist and conservative viewpoints allow the least room for anyone who practices a different lifestyle from those fundamentalist/conservative ideals.
I practice a philosophy that does not tolerate sacred cows. I will not allow anyone to censor me. I will not acknowledge any religious honorifics. You are not a reverend, a father, your holiness, or any other title you and your friends agree on. I am not going to pretend to respect your particular god or gods. It is that simple. You don’t get to tell me what I can or cannot think and, most importantly, what I can or cannot criticize about what you are peddling. I do not have any boundaries on criticism of my own thoughts and written stories, poems, or essays. Please fire away as you feel emotions and ideas!
The bigger picture is to move past the kind of society where indoctrination into obviously wrong narratives is no longer possible. I’m willing to fight hard for that. In fact, I am willing to give my very existence to further that cause. The intolerant cause a great deal of pointless, unnecessary suffering. Humans don’t need to exist in varied states of pain and punishment. That god died a long time ago, but it clings to our brain stems, clawing and destroying like the parasite it is. Our imaginations are both our best friend and worst enemy.
We simultaneously pretend that respect for bad ideas is required for civil society to function while we wring our hands and tut-tut when religious zealots attack and murder those who question the tenets of their faith. Islam is the religion of peace. Christianity does far more good than it does harm. Orthodox Jews should be free to live in insular communities where women and children are abused. The list of preventable tragedies we tolerate goes on and on. Allowing any type of rigid religious dogma to flourish always leads to extremes of intolerable behavior. This is why I argue that tolerance of intolerance is a red line for me.
Living in a world where anyone who questions the beliefs of a certain group can be subject to a blanket order permitting their murder is intolerable. Salman Rushdie lost an eye for doubting dogma. What are you willing to lose?
I am unafraid to criticize what I believe are harmful thought processes and power structures based on fantasies and made-up rules of conduct. Anyone who claims authority from a deity is suspect, and I will both dismiss and mock their beliefs as I see fit. Any entity or organization that cannot accept robust criticism deserves to be dismissed without deep scrutiny, as it invalidates its own claimed authority.
The phrase intolerance of intolerance is both ironic and apt.
While this essay focuses upon religion as an institution contorted into serving the egos and limitations of man, I'd point to other institutions that are equally troublesome (certainly in the US): the Constitution and unbridled capitalism.
Americans are stridently protective of the 1st Amendment, which has fairly limited exceptions to what can be stated or published. Our free speech is so broad that there is a chance that a proven propaganda network could potentially escape defamation liability for non-stop broadcasting of 2020 election lies. The case will likely succeed or settle, but it's a rare case where broad impunity among Fox executives, producers, and anchors implicated them by their own words.
The EU countries have substantially greater limitations on the propagation of lies re public health, elections, hate speech, etc. As a consequence, we see far more stable democracies in the EU vs the US. But suggesting changes to the 1st Amendment is widely considered blasphemy.
The bastardization of the 2nd Amendment, the insanity of Scotus judges appointed for life terms with no code of ethics or accountability, the woefully ineffective Electoral College, unrestrained federalism which permits states to limit or eliminate basic civil rights, the lack of any qualifications (even background checks) to serve in Congress, etc.
Where a government exists, corruption follows, but the US government has no real checks and balances as we've seen. Impeachment is basically an empty word. The DOJ was corrupted by Barr and neutered by Garland.
Unrestrained capitalism (yet another near religion in the US) has destroyed industry after industry: healthcare, transportation, agriculture, textiles. Workers are disposable, the few safety regulations teeter on a knife's edge, the environment has been polluted beyond measure, global warming is too advanced to be stopped.
I don't hold out hope that either the Constitution or capitalism can be reformed before they fully destroy our democracy.
I think that the phrase “intolerance of intolerance” is very apt and it is a good guiding light for life. However, in my own life, I draw the line at ignoring honorifics. I am an ex-Catholic, partly because I am aware of the terrible abuses, especially here in Canada, propagated under its protective umbrella. However I feel inclined to respect any priest as a matter of practice. Therefore I have no difficulty addressing him as “Father”. And I am endlessly curious about the fountainhood of his faith. So I’m quite willing to ask questions if we get into a discussion with a sense of humility. I’ve met more priests than not who are in that role out of a deep sense of faith. Refusing to call such a person “Father” feels like it would diminish me as a person who strives to be courteous. Now if the priest is antagonistic or prejudiced or haughty, then I will just avoid talking to him.
I make a very small point here. I am quite in agreement with the range of valid points you made.