Protect the UK, please sign.

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Dean wrote:

I'm neither disagreeing with you nor defending Maher. The only point I question (thou' not entirely disagree with) is the view that he has little tolerance of all religions (just) because he is critical of them. His views on islam are extreme and (as Reza Aslan pointed out) he is not very sophisticated in the way that he thinks. The question is: when does holding extreme views or being hyper-critical become intolerance? Which leads into the second, third and fourth questions: Is his criticism of intolerance in other people's views in itself intolerance? Are our criticisms of his views also intolerance? And can we counter intolerance with intolerance? [and my answer to those last three are a reserved "no"].

In my view criticism, however extreme, only becomes intolerance when it deems to interfere with the belief or view it is critical of. The so-called militant atheists (of which Maher states he is not, thou' the distinction is somewhat blurred and a little lost on me) are openly critical of beliefs that impose themselves on a secular view of a free society. Defending a [secular] free society from the imposition of religious beliefs is not intolerance of those beliefs. Where I (to coin Madan's phrase) part ways with those 'militant' atheists is when they turn that defence from the imposition of religious beliefs into an attack on those those religious beliefs that deems to interfere with the 'right' to hold those religious beliefs. [I'm not a 'defender of rights' in the same sense that some appear to be in internet discussions, I do not feel obliged to (thou shalt...) defend anyone's right to hold a view that I disagree with. I could never bring myself to defend anyone's right to be a racist for example.]
The key point here as how you and I define fanatical intolerance in opposition to views like those held by Mr. Maher. As I stated before, but not in great detail, is that to me fanatical intolerance of Mr. Maher's views would manifest itself in people calling for the censorship of Maher and his views by means of either boycotting his TV show, requesting for the cancelation of his TV show, calling for his network to fire him, etc. 
This IMO is the manifestation of fanatical intolerance as it is an attack on Maher's right to free speech because in effect it would be an effort to silence him. This is my own personal stance as others would feel justified in calling for the censure of individuals with these types of views. Although their call for censorship is totally understandable to me, I personally disagree with it as the need to protect an individual's rights and freedoms, as guaranteed under the Law, is and will always be my overriding concern.

So to me, any other reaction or overreaction to Mr. Maher's views, whether real or perceived, does not concern me as long as Mr. Maher's right to free speech as well as any other of his constitutional or civil rights is not threatened. Hence, these views to me would not be fanatical.

Simply put, it is up to your own judgment, as well as the judgment of others (whether good or bad) to form an opinion as to whether an individual's views concerning a fanatic are themselves fanatical. And to re-emphasize, to me a fanatical view is one that places an American citizen's civil rights in jeopardy of being violated.

Edited by RayRo - November 21 2015 at 12:49

Protect the UK, please sign.

Government responded

Government responded