[Aiwendil]

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.

Okay, I understand now. On this main point, then, we are in complete agreement.

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 sure how inadequate it is. You are right that one cannot make a rational argument against someone who holds onto a truth for non-rational reasons. Certainly, there is no system of rights that would not contradict some religious system. If a person claims that his or her religion requires, for example, the banning of books, there is no way to argue with him or her short of arguing against the religious principles. There are few religions, however, that explicitly demand such action. Certainly (as I'm sure you agree) Catholicism does not demand the banning of Tolkien. In the absence of such a clear demand, rights language may be succesful in arguing against an ultra-evangelical stance (by which I mean banning books, etc.).

However, what one person considers mere exposure, another is inclined to think of as imposition.

This is indeed a problem in putting the theory of tolerance into practice. I would argue, of course, that these people are wrong. But I know that doesn't help in practice.

The only adequate solution is to argue against the primary principles upon which their position rests.

Agreed.

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.

Then we are indeed in agreement.

What are the principles that would determine “clear harm”?

This is definitely one of the areas where it becomes difficult to apply theory to reality. I don't have a clear definition of clear harm, and I acknowledge that one is needed. Yet there are some situations where there are not so many shades of grey. Committing hate crimes causes clear harm. Arguing concerning the nature and role of tolerance (as we're doing) does not. Everything in between - that's where the theory is incomplete. But incomplete does not mean incorrect.

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 is censorship in that it is the rational censure of inadequate theories. It is declining an argument on its own faults. It is not banning. It retains the freedom to discuss ideas such as creationism, but it does not restrict the arguments that may be used to prove that creationism is false. To make an analogy: there is no ban on discussion of the idea that 2+2=5; but logical arguments can be used to prove that idea false.

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.

But you said yourself that we must be willing to "decline any argument on its own faults". You seem to be suggesting that we ban arguments in favor of evolution and thereby bring the debate to an end. Or perhaps I misunderstand you and you are in fact making a syntactical point about intolerance: in which case, I can only say that I have already defined tolerance, and that my definition allowed one to make arguments.

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.

Ah. I should have read ahead. You were indeed making a syntactical point. This depends on our different definitions of intolerance.

As for censorship: if censorship means making arguments and expressing opinions, then I'm completely in favor of it. It is more typically used to mean the opposite: the banning of arguments and the repression of opinions. I'm against the latter, not the former.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]