Tolerance Thoughts from the White Board - March 31

When I went to log in to Blogger this morning, I used Google Search.  When I did, I typed in "blogger."  And underneath this blog host's weblink, there was a news article about a blogger in Bangladesh who was murdered last week.  What makes this case especially relevant, along with at least one other one I have noted in this forum semi-recently (the Saudi blogger who was flogged for his writings), is the fact that the blog writer in question was attacked because of speaking out on religious topics.

Blogger hacked to death in Bangladesh

I myself have declared on one occasion, via this blog, on religious matters.  I did it in what I felt was the defense of my own faith.  I don't speak up on such things often.  I suppose in some people's eyes, I might be viewed as a coward for this.  I'd prefer to say I feel disposed to keep my religious affiliations and personal experiences to myself.  There is an oft-quoted line from the Bible about "casting pearls before swine."*  My religious practices are a somewhat private matter to me, and not for mass consumption or possible mass abuse.  But you decide for yourself what I really am.

*Editor's Note: The author of this blog in no way intends to call his audience, small as it may be, "swine."  Unless they are, in literal fact, pigs.  In which case...  I didn't know pigs were online.  Cool. 


Be that as it may, I take time here to speak again on the subject of religion, and specifically on religious tolerance.  I do it in a way that I think any level-headed and well-meaning soul might do, when faced with circumstances such as those I see growing in the world today.  And at the same time, I do it as a sort of brother to those bloggers who are persecuted for speaking their thoughts.  For if we are the independent voices of the modern world (some, myself included from time to time, would replace the term "independent" with the more apropos "crack-pot"), fundamentally unconstrained by "The Man" (i.e.: network affiliation, shareholder values, corporate pressures, etc), then we should stand together when one of our own, whether we agree with his views or not, is censored in such a tragic manner.

As the basis for my argument, I will state that the Internet has allowed some of the freedom of speech that citizens of the United States of America have been so uppity about for so long (and with good reason, in this man's opinion) to become so much more accessible to the rest of the world.  This is a good thing.  Sure, you get some people who will spread some pretty crazy stuff (see my earlier comment on "crack-pot).  But there is, I believe, a little-known common sense corollary to that Speech clause of the First Amendment.  This is that the responsibility of the Speech clause falls as much upon the listener as on the speaker.

What I mean is, a person is theoretically free to say things without fear of being censored unjustly (that's the idea anyway, despite the fact that it takes a beating from time to time just like all the rights and privileges the citizenry of this nation lay claim to).  But the listener has the responsibility of using their head and not taking as gospel every word from every person who opens their lips, or, in the manner I'm referring to here, flapping their fingers on the keyboard.  Freedom of Speech requires that the audience use good judgement.  It goes back to "you can fool some of the people all of the time or all of people some of the time..."

Now Freedom of Speech may tacitly allow the concept of disrespect, but it does not enjoin it.  It seems to me that there is a growing disharmony, brought about by the openness of everything that comes from so many vocal folks being empowered to rant and be oft-times disrespectful to the whole world as they like, that is helping to push people farther and farther apart.  This is especially true on the subject of religion.   And I'm here to say that I believe that people, wherever they may be, need to keep trying to be tolerant on matters of religion.  Of course you don't have to buy into everything everyone else is pitching.  But disagreement and disrespect are two different boats.  You can jump quickly from the one into the other, but not so quickly back.  And polemics are not the way to mutual understanding.

Indeed, it is truly ironic to me that we live in a time when so much information is available to us, at almost a moment's notice, and yet so often some people can be so small-minded that they use all that wonderful information with only the narrow preconceptions developed in the formative years.  Many would argue that by knocking on anothers' faith, they are only expressing their freedom to speak.  But you only have the freedom to speak, not the freedom to choose how your audience will take your words.  And the hearer has the responsibility to take what they hear with a grain of salt.  Because the more we offend overtly, or allow ourselves to be offended without considering the source, the more we form voids between us of misunderstanding and suspicion.  The more we all splinter off into our own factions, then we risk the modern equivalent of barbarian tribalism.  Yes, that is an alarmist sentiment.  But in turn, tell me where sectarianism ends and universal enmity begins?

What does all this talking I'm talking mean, in a real-world application?  Well I'll tell you just that.  The blogger who was killed may have said some things that ticked some people off.  But does ticking people off merit death?  Shall we raise Socrates from the grave and then sentence him to die again, simply for making a public nuisance?  The very idea is ridiculous.  So instead, why not use both reasonable judgement - i.e.: I don't agree with this person's words so I won't listen to them and I'll tell everyone I know not to listen to them - and not cause a further rift in an already troubled world by putting the blood of another upon your hands? 

And in counter, the speaker who speaks their mind should be aware that their words have consequences.  For instance, I can say "Mary smalls funny."  Most people will take this to mean that this Mary person has an unpleasant odor.  But perhaps my meaning was that Mary smells like something that I relate to be humorous/brings to mind a time I laughed about something quite merrily.  It's a matter of judgement, and intent.  But we have to live with our words.  Forgive the earthy analogy, but unguarded words are like unprotected sex.  They can have a lifetime of consequences.

Now I know being "middle of the road" leads to getting run over by people going one way or the other.  Heck, I didn't say I was going to give up my own personal beliefs and just be a "universalist."  Can you imagine me with a flower in my hair, singing about how "everything is beautiful," and "the oneness of all?"  But on matters such as these, where the world continues to slog down the same path of repression, oppression, violence, and counter-violence, you'll find me here in the middle, saying that if we don't have anything constructive to say/do, then we should just shut up and find something better to say/do.  Because when unrestrained criticism begets systemic negativity and that negativity begets hate and that hate begets violence, then even the person or persons who thought they "showed the other guy" lose something.  The loss is our true humanity.  It is our ability to entertain opposing viewpoints without self-destructing and without lashing out in primal fashion at others that makes us - can make us - higher beings.  And after all, isn't the point of religion to raise a man or woman from the dust and make something more of them?  The real point of faith in a Higher Being or Greater Good, I mean?

Or maybe I'm just another crackpot, singing off-key and dreaming of a better tomorrow.

Divide and rule, a sound motto. Unite and lead, a better one. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Don't find fault, find a remedy. - Henry Ford

Never wrestle with a pig, you get dirty; and besides, the pig likes it. - George Bernard Shaw

What if you're a really good person, but you get into a really, really bad fight and your leg gets gangrene and it has to be amputated. Will it be waiting for you in heaven? - Bart Simpson

The parting comment:

Source: LOLSnaps.com

The point is over-elaborated here, but the idea is still correct.  You never know what people might do or become in this life.  Could be good, could be not so good.  So like them or don't like them as you choose, but tolerate them as best you can.  It may pay you back amply in he end.