[Bill Ferny]

You haven't addressed one of my hypothetical situations, though: what if someone's faith compelled them to ban the Bible, or to do everything possible to restrict access to it? Suppose there were a school system in which the people of this faith predominated. If they ban the Bible, or any discussion of Christianity, from public schools, is that fair to the Christian minority? Certainly not. How, then, is it different for a Christian majority to ban works based on their faith?

I’ve already said, banning is a form of censorship that is irresponsible, small-minded, and demonstrates a lack of intelligence or ungrounded principles. Also, I’ve already said that the will of the majority is not necessarily right, as is evidenced by constitutional government that imposes limitations to the will of the majority in all modern representative republics. So in response to your hypothetical I would, of course, respond that any form of banning is wrong no matter the majority or minority position.

While some forms of censorship are necessary, I do not support, nor do I think there is any good argument, for banning or book burning. The issue is how do you address those who argue for banning or undue censorship. In regard to a specific area, religion, we lack a language to do so. We can not in this day and age discuss religious principles without recourse to “rights language” which is inadequate in regards to issues that suggest absolute truth. I’m not going to attempt to explain this, but I do recommend the brilliant work of sociologist, Robert Bellah, who collected a group of fellow scholars and put together two excellent books, Habits of the Heart, and The Good Society, both of which are absolutely essential reads about modern American (and for that matter, western European) sociology and cultural anthropology.

There is a profound difference between imposing your view on someone and exposing your view to someone.

No doubt that there is. However, what one person considers mere exposure, another is inclined to think of as imposition. For many people the presence of a book on a teacher’s reading list is considered imposition, while from the teacher’s perspective is an attempt to expose the student to some form of literature. In a course on modern English literature, the appearance of The Hobbit {mandatory reference to Tolkien in order to avoid the censorship of the moderators} on a recommended reading list is an imposition of a demonic influence on their poor bible bred 17 year old daughter even though the teacher isn’t making it mandatory. In short, dealing with real people places a lot of grey area between imposition and exposure. [An aside: I can just see some people having a fit that their children are “exposed” to (fill in the blank).]

In the end, imposing a regulation, whether it be based on the difference between imposing and exposing or anything else, is inadequate. First, any regulation can be interpreted in as many ways as there are people who want to challenge it or bend it to their will. Second, such a regulation does not address the reasons why someone would be so intolerant of something that they would want to ban it. The only adequate solution is to argue against the primary principles upon which their position rests. I’ve already touched on why this is such a stumbling block for us when the principles are religious ones.

To me, tolerance means this: a willingness to accept any argument on its own merits and willingness to allow those with whom you disagree, if they are not persuaded by argument, to continue to disagree, so long as they do not cause clear harm to others in doing so.

Would you also hold that tolerance includes the willingness to decline any argument on its own faults? If you do, then we are in agreement.

If they are not persuaded by argument, that’s no excuse to stop arguing. The only bad debate is the one that comes to an end.

What are the principles that would determine “clear harm”? There’s a good reason why I ask this question. Within certain circumstances some things may cause harm, but given other circumstances they would not. Likewise, some things that in and of themselves do not cause harm, may be clearly harmful to the ends intended. For example, reading Tolkien during civics class is harmful to the ends intended, but there is no harm in reading Tolkien in and of itself. Does harm only apply to the physical well being of individuals? My racist neighbor, for example, doesn’t beat people up over his racist beliefs, but on a different level, doesn’t his speech and his display of a Nazi flag harm the community? For some people, fantasy literature is clearly harmful, whether it be religious reasons or not.

Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not saying your definition of tolerance is wrong. However, it is open to a vast array of interpretation. For this reason arguing that a form of censorship is wrong because it is intolerant doesn’t do the job.

That an unfortunately high number of teachers do not understand evolution properly does not mean that evolution itself, the proper theory, should not be taught.

This is a good example of censorship. Your stance that there is a proper theory of evolution implies that there are improper theories. That implication means that you have censured these theories, or, in other words, judged them as faulty or inadequate. It also implies a certain level intolerance for these improper theories, in as much as you would argue against them in favor of the proper theory. There’s nothing in the least wrong with your censorship and intolerance, unless, of course, some paleontologist comes along and proves your proper theory wrong.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]