State of Protest

What tolerance is and what it should be are two vastly different things in the world today. Tolerance is currently perceived as giving someone a free pass to act unethically if that person’s religion in any way supports that activity. Britain, for example, has made itself a prime target for this misinterpretation. By establishing such an obsequious policy, it has set a precedent that will make it more difficult to reverse the trend. For example, Sharia law has been becoming increasingly popular as an alternative to British criminal law,¹ and Britain’s top judge has recently been slammed for remarking that Sharia law in the UK is unavoidable.² Women in Britain have increasingly been wearing the traditional Muslim niqab, creating a disturbance to some (which shouldn’t really be a problem in itself) and a hindrance to others. For instance, an attorney who was wearing a niqab was told by a judge that she could not represent her client because the judge could not hear her through the veil.³ Even prominent atheist author Richard Dawkins asserts that teachers in British schools are afraid not to teach religious points of view, lest they be seen as racist.⁴

British citizens have raised a ruckus over the idea that the Muslim women who wear veils are segregating themselves and causing strife, while the Muslim women defend their right to wear the garments on the basis of faith and solidarity. Some argue that Britain has been too tolerant. Others argue it has not done enough to establish tolerance and multiculturalism. The problem is not whether Britain has been tolerant enough. The problem is that Britain and others have mangled the idea of what the concepts of tolerance and multiculturalism ought to mean, and in doing so, have sacrificed freedoms in the name of a god in whom they do not believe, and have established a dangerous precedent that threatens to mingle Islamic law with British law, creating an acceptance of cultural and religious customs that demean women and hold religious ideals higher than anything else.

If a third of British Muslims believe it is justified to kill in the name of religion, in order to defend that religion,⁵ what does that say about the Muslim respect for secular law?

Tolerance is not blind acceptance of all the characteristics of others. Tolerance is, or should be, accepting the cultural characteristics that do not create a material harm or potential harm to others. I don’t include “being offended” as a harm. If you’re an attorney, and you cannot do your job because your religious-based garb is getting in your way, it’s perfectly justifiable for a judge to tell you that you cannot continue in that state. If a raging drunk attorney tried to practice law, and had an honest and fervent belief that Dionysus was his personal god, would it be tolerable for a judge to allow him to continue?

Tolerance should be based on observable evidence of this potential to cause harm. In the blind acceptance of the acts and desires of the religious, there is a tacit acceptance that the unsupported claims of the religious are true and that anything that their deities “approve” of should be considered “good.”

However, on the flip side, we should not reject others for their choice of outerwear if it doesn’t have an actual, tangible, negative effect. Certainly, people will speculate and gossip about how the wearing of the burqa is an affront to our western way of life. But that’s pretty much how, fifty years ago, the dissenters in America saw Elvis, and in Britain saw The Beatles. Now those rockers are icons. Instead of just accepting what can be accepted, and rejecting what should be rejected (e.g., any form of law that is established based on a belief that a higher power created and imposed such law, or any inhumane treatment of women or others based on that law or culture), Britain is accepting everything, lest it appear intolerant, and establishing a state of paranoia and a culture of fear.

One might argue that it is the nature of our society to mingle religious and secular law, so why specifically target Islam as an undesirable influence? Although it is arguable that some Abrahamic religious ideals have been infused into western law by zealous religious lawmakers, that does not justify further deviation from secular government in the name of tolerance. We are slowly uprooting those “blue” laws, and the benefits of doing so reach across multiple beliefs as well as non-belief (because those laws tend to favor one narrow-minded point of view). We cannot blindly accept all religious opinions, lest we create impossible situations when two claims of “divine rightness” clash. Which “belief” will prevail? Tossing more religious-based law into the pot is counter-intuitive. We should, instead, worry about filtering out religion from our existing laws.

UPDATE:

Muslim quits over bare arm policy

A Muslim radiographer has resigned from a Berkshire hospital over the NHS’s “bare below the elbows” hygiene policy.

The unnamed agency worker claimed she was being discriminated against over her religious beliefs by the policies at Reading’s Royal Berkshire Hospital.

This included the Islamic teaching that women should cover the body in public.

The NHS dress code was introduced in January to combat superbugs such as MRSA. The trust said the policy was explained when she first began work.⁶

UPDATE II:

Banning of Geert Wilders from the UK is another example of blind tolerance.

A member of the Dutch Parliament who has compared the Koran to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and blamed Islamic texts for inciting the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and other terrorist atrocities was detained by immigration officials at London Heathrow Airport on Thursday and forced within hours to board a return flight to Holland.

His deportation had been ordered by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith on the grounds that his presence in Britain would be a danger to public safety.

The lawmaker, Geert Wilders, 45, had been invited to a showing at the House of Lords later Thursday of his 17-minute film, “Fitna,” which caused outrage in wide areas of the Muslim world last year after it appeared on the Internet.

[Article written by Procrustes and Velkyn]

1. Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes, Telegraph.co.uk. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/ Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html [<]
2. Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’, BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm [<]
3. Muslims’ Veils Test Limits of Britain’s Tolerance, The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/world/europe/22veil.html [<]
4. Atheist Richard Dawkins blames Muslims for ‘importing creationism’ into classrooms, Fiona Macrae, Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041089/Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-blames-Muslims-importing-creationism-classrooms.html [<]
5. One third of British Muslim Students: Killing in the name of Islam is acceptable, Religion News Blog. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21867/one-third-of -british-muslim-students-killing-in-the-name-of-islam-is-acceptable [<]
6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/7593827.stm [<]