The Many Faces of Intolerance

It seems common knowledge at least in some circles that somehow religion and intolerance go together. Christians, for instance, have had bitter experiences in the past. They have fought not only "heathens" or members of other religions, including Jews and Muslims. They have also divided and even persecute other Christians who thought differently. Cuius regio eius religio. Little did it matter that nothing in the content of the Christian religion itself authorised members to kill, abuse or persecute each other. Love of neighbour and of the enemy was put on hold many times. Little did it matter, this is, if political motives used religion (or lack of it, or differences about it) as a pretext. Even today Christianity, especially some branches of it, still enjoy of labels that bring memories of dogma, intolerance and imposition. Think of the term "Inquisition". 


Many historians, it is true, have gone into the issue to clarify it, to caliber it, to determine the different kinds of inquisition that arose in the early centuries of the second Millenium, their contexts, the number of "witches" burned or scientists silenced or not. But some of that there has been. Not for nothing the leader of one branch of Christianity, Pope John Paul II, asked for forgiveness just in the past decade, in the name of his church, for the wrongdoings of the past. Yet several branches of Christianity have adopted similar  attitudes even up to very recently. In fact not only Christians have been intolerant or dogmatic. Otherwise the problem would be easily solvable: get rid of Christians and the world will be tolerant, inclusive and understanding. In fact it would be unfair not to say that there have been Christians notorious for their openness and work for harmony and peace in society. 


And then there are other religions too, whose members may become, like some Christians, highly intolerant, fundamentalist. Think of some Muslims who kill and destroy in the name of their religion. Lately in Europe and "the West" there is a popular tendency to label Muslims as the new found intolerant ones. Many Muslims living in European countries bear that experience everyday. Regardless of who you are, if you, say, wear a headscarf, you become suspicious. Then, again, you can find Muslims as prominent as Benazir Bhutto who have done so much for reconciliation and harmony in the social sphere, even at the cost of their life. Again, the slippery category of intolerance and dogmatism cannot be just dumped on Muslims.  It would be easy, but unfair and wrong. 


Intolerant and dogmatic people who think themselves in the right of imposing their views to others -even when the others are not convinced- can be found as well beyond the fields of religion. Again, labels don't fit with "-isms" easily. Certainly secularists can be that kind of people. But all of them? To be accurate "secularist" has to be defined. It can be a statecraft to organise the polity and stop religious groups and government interfering in each other's respective spheres. It can also be an ideology, even a militant one, which in the extreme considers religion in general as a great hindrance to progress, a bad thing for society, a sickness of dark ages who are gone or should be gone. Yet as easily a counter-example can be given: just think of Habermas. He is an example of secular thought amazingly reflexive, open and tolerant. He is actually a worker of communication, understanding, a philosopher in a very proper sense. 


And so we could analyse more segments of society, more groups with different beliefs, more ideologies, in search for one that could bear the label without place to controversies. But exceptions will continue to jump in and defy the labeling. Could it be, perhaps, that intolerance, dogmatism and imposition is not an elaborate question of "-ism", an abstract phenomenon for the learned to interpret, but rather an event that can happen to human beings inasmuch as they are human? In other words, could it be that all of us, any of us, can become intolerant, dogmatic, "persecutor of heretics", of those with "the wrong" belief (or just the absence of belief), if we are not careful? This seems to be the case. Atrocities can be committed in the name of lots of things: a Cross, a Prophet, a secular state, the environment, you name it. But why does that happen?


Unless someone is completely out of her mind, she will become enthusiastic about what she thinks is right, or good, or true, or beautiful, or all of those together. And it may actually be good, or true, or the other characteristics. It may be a great idea. It may be something that could change many lives for the better, that could save the environment, or peoples souls in the afterlife, or the political life of a country, or a nation's culture. But what is so human about intolerance and dogmatism, is to jump from realising something is good to imposing it on others, even against their will -or their better judgement.


Nevertheless, if the idea is so good, or true, or right, can other people not come to see them as well? Are they not capable to become convinced? Should they not be respected in what they believe, and instead of forced, won over to the idea? The test of the "true believer" in any cause is how serene he is about it. If he is really sure about his "-ism" he will be happy to hold it even if nobody else did. Most importantly, he would be ashamed at the very consideration of forcing someone else into his "creed". It would be like cheating in school. It would take all the merit from his action. 


Our world has become very complex. Western societies, particularly European ones, face enormous challenges. The one thing that our societies do not need, certainly, is intolerance and dogmatism of any kind. At stake is people's freedom. And with it deep satisfaction -or the opposite- in daily coexistence. It is easy to stick labels. It's deeper and braver to recognise that intolerance is a tendency all of us can suffer, because we are human beings, capable of great achievements and profound mistakes at the same time. Because none of us is perfect, in a similar fashion in which we like our politicians to be held accountable, so we have to keep ourselves accountable all the time too. 


The limit, in the end, is freedom. If an idea or belief or ideology or "-ism" is good and true, other people should be able to realise it too. Conversely, when someone by force of weapons, intimidation or similar means, seeks to impose his views on others, he has at that very moment lost credibility, and should be firmly resisted. Freedom is an immense value. Nothing and no one -not even one who seems or claims "to know what's better for you"- justifies its violation.