Tolerance is not a good thing
Tolerance is not a good thing, in of itself. It is good only if it leads to more good, or avoids evil. Pope Benedict XVI ought to know that.
Pope Benedict XVI is in some hot water over his comments about Islam:
Pope Benedict said on Wednesday that his use of medieval quotes portraying a violent Islam did not reflect his views and were misunderstood, but he did not give the clear apology still demanded by many Muslims.
The leader of the world's 1.1 billion Roman Catholics, whose speech last week has provoked al Qaeda groups to declare war on the Church, Iraqis to burn the Pope's effigy and Turks to petition for his arrest, said he had not meant to cause offence.
Even sympathetic observers say the Pope was clumsy to quote 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus saying that everything the Prophet Mohammad brought was evil, "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
But the Pope, a former theology professor, invited his listeners to re-read his speech.
"For the careful reader of my text it is clear that I in no way wanted to make mine the negative words pronounced by the medieval emperor and their polemical content does not reflect my personal conviction," he said.
He added: "My intention was very different. I wanted to explain that religion and violence do not go together but religion and reason do."
Now the Vatican is getting ready to issue another apology. Why? Because Muslims are up in arms, ironically proving the point that Islam is violent. Maybe just Islam in its current form, but then that's the one we have to deal with, so what does it matter if it is being misinterpreted. Maybe not a majority of Muslims, but enough to fill public squares from London to Indonesia with placard-waving crowds demanding the Pope's death.
Does the Catholic Church have to put up with this? What are the limits of tolerance? Thomas Aquinas has an answer:
To justify ethically tolerance towards certain religious practices of heathen subjects, medieval theologians appealed to the principle that tolerance might be always exercised wherever either its refusal would cause more harm than good, or, vice versa, whenever the granting of it ensured greater advantage than disadvantage. Thus St. Thomas teaches (Summa theol., II-II, Q. x, a. 11): "Ritus infidelium tolerari possunt vel propter aliquod bonum, quod ex eis provenit, vel propter aliquod maum, quod vitatur" (Heathen worships can be tolerated either because of some good that results from them or because of some evil that is avoided).
He was talking about whether a Catholic state should tolerate other religions within its borders (he says they should be tolerated, and other Catholic philosophers have expanded on this), but the principle applies more widely. Tolerance is a good thing because it generates a good result. Tolerance is not in of itself a good thing. If I tolerate something that results in a evil act being committed, I cannot claim that tolerance was the virtuous thing to do, and so I cannot be held responsible. Tolerance is a means to a good end, not a good end in of itself.
Of course, for liberals, tolerance is the goal. Once tolerance is achieved, anything that follows is a separate problem. That is convenient, because all that is required to be tolerant is to do nothing. Moreover, tolerance interpreted this way is a shield against moral responsibility for the consequences.
How does this apply to this situation? I fear that if the Pope goes too far along this apologetic path, he will send the message that the Catholic Church is ready to tolerate far too much from the mobs of Islam. Burned churches, a murdered nun -- and the response from the Church is an apology and a promise to be more circumspect in future speeches. How can we tolerate that sort of violence? The intolerance comes from the other side, from the Islamists and their followers.
But then what evil is avoided by being tolerant of the violence and apologizing? More violence, it is hoped. But then all indications are that many Muslims are not interested in apologies. They see an opportunity to attack the Church. Like hyenas, they have spotted a sign of weakness, and are moving in for the kill.
Tolerance of the violence will not avoid the evil or more violence. Indeed, it will encourage it. If an evil is not being avoided, then tolerance is not a virtuous act. Then the Church has a moral obligation to be intolerant, to demand that the violence stop, to offer no further apologies for whatever offence Muslims feel that they have suffered, to insist that Muslims act with tolerance of others. That too, will lead to violence, but then it's likely unavoidable. But taking such a stand will mean that the Church will have drawn a line in the moral sand, and in doing so taken sides with such others as Salman Rushdie and Naguib Mahfouz who themselves were victims of those who tolerated extremism, and who themselves represent the marriage of Islam and reason which was the point of the Pope's speech in the first place.
I would hope that clarity and inspiration that will come of it is a good thing, because with the way the Muslims are behaving, there is little chance for any other good to come of this.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Tolerance is the proven practice one uses to fan the popularity of bloodthirsty Jihadists into a full holocaust.
In 1983 Secretary Wineberger *tolerated* the bombing of 241 marines in their Lebanon barricks. This was in direct opposition to Reagan*s orders to do a smack-down on Hezbollah. Terrorism flames fanned vigorously.
No long detailed list here. Suffice to mention there were countless attacks tolerated during the eight year Clinton stint, and thereafter.
Tolerance worked. Now look at the mess we have to deal with. Putin and Russia full backing for Iran.
Pakistan signing agreements with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI02Df02.html
Things are moving so quickly now!
Is it too late to bring Liberals, NDP, and Democrats up to speed and on-side?
Nat. Dipstick Pty. leader Jack is asking that we abandon the children and teachers in Afghanistan to the Taliban.
Jack is OK with another Darfur.
The MSM can be proud. They have shielded the North American public from any clear picture or concept of our current emergency.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI02Df02.html
= TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at September 20, 2006 01:24 PM
One of the biggest problems we have here in the West is that we have no understanding or appreciation for 'face'. Of course we have the expression 'saving face' but for the most part that's as much as our culture has to say on the matter. Our leaders, intellectuals, and even common people on the street haven't grasped the simple reality that in other cultures, particularly in the Middle-East as well as in the Far East, face is everything. I'm not too familiar with the Muslim concept of face as I've had far more experience with the Chinese notion of face, but from what I gather the two are very similar.
When Clinton failed to respond to the Cole bombings this sent the signal that the West was weak, that on face value it had neither the inclination nor the stomach for a violent response to heinous acts of terrorism. The end result was that Clinton was able to avoid 'collateral damage' while Al-Qaeda was emboldened to 'take their game to the next level', if you understand my meaning.
Being raised Protestant I still have my own neuroses with regards to the Vatican, but here I can see the value in the Papacy. I think many Protestants and Catholics alike are still locked in a seventeenth-century mentality with regards to one another. I think it would be nice, if in the face of the threats posed by Islamism, Protestants and Catholics alike could work together (I was not at all impressed with Archbishop of Canterbury's comments in response to the Pope's speech). We can only hope that the Pope holds his ground here, while there are obvious religious considerations to take into account here, this is still a matter of free speech.
If the Pope were to give-in to the Islamists violence and rhetorical demands he would only show that on face value the leader of the largest Christian Church is weak and this will only encourage Al Qaeda and others like them. Then again if the Pope were to show weakness in this matter he would only confirm what many of us now know, that the West is INEED WEAK.
Posted by: TheDiggler at September 20, 2006 01:55 PM
http://www.diafrica.org/nigeriaop/kenny/Rationes.htm
Steve,
I think you are looking at the wrong document. You should be focusing on Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles and his Polemical On Reasons For Our Faith Against the Muslims.
Aquinas' distinguishes between defending and proving the faith to non-believers.
As well, in the ST, you really want to focus on STS I-II Q.96 A.2
As a final comment, let me note that the offences occurred in countries not ruled by either Catholic governments or professing Catholic legislators. Aquinas was writing his works from within a professedly Catholic monarchy. For the specific Thomist developments vis a vis Western Democracy, you should really be looking at the 20th century Thomist political philosophy of Maritain, Yves Simon or Heinrich Rommen.
Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at September 20, 2006 02:04 PM
Yesterday, Strategic Forecasting Inc published an essay by George Friedman, which I have captured at http://tinyurl.com/pxb9a - here's a short excerpt...
"Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. [...] Popes know how to play power politics.
[...] "From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti- Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard to anti- Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of Islam that was implicit in the dialogue.
"The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat.
"It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may be something he doesn't know himself yet."
Posted by: Vitruvius at September 20, 2006 03:58 PM
As my uncle says, "There is a difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head."
Posted by: Walrus at September 20, 2006 04:38 PM
Well, Vitruvius, I hope he's that clever. Right now he just looks like he's looking for a way out. And that's keeping the Muslim radical screaming for more.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 20, 2006 05:35 PM
Israel's foray into Lebanon in July may have done the west a big favour. It may bring to an end the use of the west's "Proportional Response" to violent acts. If any group believes that the response to their violent act is a major attack on their personnel and infrastructure of their group as well as their supporters, they may think twice. Even if it does not act as a deterent, it forces the group to spend time and money rebuilding rather than plotting and attacking.
Posted by: Ian Bailey at September 20, 2006 07:02 PM
Walrus: LOL!
...your uncle was a wise man...
"There is a difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head."
Posted by: tomax7 at September 21, 2006 12:18 AM
I look at it this way: There is no such thing as tolerance of intolerance. That's an oxymoron. Like a square circle. Utter nonsense. Tolerating intolerance IS intolerance (by proxy).
And the pope didn't blunder. What he did is brilliant. And I'm no fan of his or the Church's, but he and the Curia know exactly what they're doing.
Posted by: Possum - At the Zoo at September 21, 2006 10:45 PM
"There is no such thing as tolerance of intolerance." Indeed.
And this statement demonstrates the fallacy of the rightwing assertion that for "liberals", tolerance is an end in itself. Case in point is the intolerance of the bigotry and intolerance of the right on the gay sex issue.
Posted by: henry at September 22, 2006 10:52 PM
henry, What intolerance of the right are you speaking of; can you cite specific examples? You are an example of those that say there is a MORAL EQUIVALENCE between the barbarism of those who kill, maim innocents and plot the overthrow of western civilization, and, say, those religious conservatives - and some liberals - that don't believe in same sex marriage, who are peacfully going about their business, paying their taxes and otherwise being good citizens in their community. I'm just using ssm as an example here, but I've not yet seen religious conservatives riot and cause general mayhem over that cause. If I see anything at all from you and your travellers on the left is its tolerance of intolerance, as in the polite response given to the former leader of Iran, Khatami, who spoke on the Harvard U. campus, one of the most liberal institutions in the US.
Posted by: Harry at September 23, 2006 12:39 AM
henry, What intolerance of the right are you speaking of; can you cite specific examples? You are an example of those that say there is a MORAL EQUIVALENCE between the barbarism of those who kill, maim innocents and plot the overthrow of western civilization, and, say, those religious conservatives - and some liberals - that don't believe in same sex marriage, who are peacfully going about their business, paying their taxes and otherwise being good citizens in their community. I'm just using ssm as an example here, but I've not yet seen religious conservatives riot and cause general mayhem over that cause. What of the stunning silence, on one of the most liberal universities around, when Khatami from Iran defended the death penalty for homosexuals?
Posted by: Harry at September 23, 2006 12:55 AM
The point I was trying to make is the one posted at 12:55; that's what I get for not paying attention to what I am doing.
Posted by: Harry at September 23, 2006 01:00 AM
Whoops. I mean't to say gay MARRIAGE issue. Those who oppose SSM, when criticised as intolerant, label their critics hypocrites for calling for tolerance (for gays) while at the same time being intolerant of SSM oppositionist intolerance. To tolerate the bigotry of a Coren or a Sommerville, just because we enjoy free speech in this country, would be exercising moral equivalence.Speech may be free, but that does not mean it is free of consequence.
I am only saying Janke's assertion about so-called "liberal" tolerance being an end in itself is specious.
Relatively mild Christian conservative intolerance and extreme Islamic conservative intolerance are both reprehensible, but I wouldn't say they are equivalent in their reprehensibility.
Posted by: henry at September 23, 2006 04:57 AM
"Those who oppose SSM, when criticised as intolerant, label their critics hypocrites for calling for tolerance (for gays) while at the same time being intolerant of SSM oppositionist intolerance. "
I'm not sure what you're saying, above, and I'm not going to be posting here over the next few weeks, but my suggestion would be to read "while Europe slept" by Bruce Baure(i may have his last name spelled wrong, but he writes from first hand experience) Hopefully you will seee clearly what we mean.
Posted by: Harry at September 23, 2006 10:03 AM
 
|
|
