Is intolerance intolerable?

Scale: Acceptance (+1 = value free) - Tolerance (0 = negative evaluation) - Intolerance (-1 = condemnation)

Intolerance is the attitude of not accepting the differences between people or groups, motivated by an unnatural desire to live in a more or less homogenous society. Following this criteria, nazism was a „lighter" version of totalitarism, compared to communism, because it „only" tried to create a rasially, doctrinary and heterosexualy pure society, while communism aimed to create a substantially egalitarian and homogenous society. The desire to return to a golden age when there was no corruption is a myth. The ancient or traditional societies were actually more tolerant than the modern „progressive" societies. Absolute totalitarianism tried to equilize and absolutely homogenize its subjects.

Intolerance can be manifested implicitly, through exclusion and the refusal of dialogue, of explicitly, through condamnation and finally through violent actions. Hate, calomny, refusal of dialogue and militant dogmatism are tags of intolerance. Despite this, the formal acceptance of dialogue does not exclude the manifestation of intolerance. By refusing to discuss the objective arguments or motives for an exclusivist, condamning attitude, and sometimes by refusing to discuss certain ideas and principles turned into doctrines and dogmas, one „de facto" refuses the dialogue he or she formally take part in.

The refusal of dialogue can lead to the escaladation of the divergences and to the transgression from implicit or latent intolerance to explicit or manifest intolerance. Why must we claim we must understand those that have different oppinions when even the orthodox priests refuse to adopt Christ's comand / stand - „love your neighbour like you love yourself"? Why must we, the few people who are really open to dialogue and tolerance, be more catholic than the Pope?! Just because we are the tolerant ones, because we must give an example to all the rest, we must educate them! Analyzing carefully that round table, I came to the conclusion that it was a pozitive and applaudable action. The diversity of oppinions must be respected, appreciated, not „eliminated". Still, the acceptance / legitimation of intolerance must always be avoided, because their acceptance will generate even more intolerance. But here I am in a dillema: by not tolerating intolerance, the intolerace and violence might spyral out of control, because intolerance, be it ethically justifiable or not, breeds intolerance? But here is the sollution I came up with: „We must call things by their name!". Only by clearly defining the concepts we operate with, by identifying and de-legitimizing intolerance we will manage to keep our consistency and to deterr this attitude. And we can only do this by educating society in the spirit of tolerance, dialogue and respect for diversity. Otherwise, if the invitation to dialogue is constantly refused, or if the dialogue materiliazes into a dogmatic monologue, this does not mean that in order to remain consistent with our „tolerant" principles, we must accept the intolerant position as something legitimate! The unconditional acceptance of the other side's conditions is rarely a wise decision. The Munchen Treaty (1938) prooved it. Christian fundamentalism created the Crusades and the Inquisition. Islamic fundamentalism generated the „djihad" as an all-out war against all „infidels". This are examples of „dialogues of the deaf" (n.a. fara nici o intentie peiorativa la adresa celor cu probleme de auz). Just like ROC condamns homosexuality, the islamic fundamentalists condamn the judeo-christian civilisation. With no falsifiable arguments, with no rational justification, with no dialogue or attempt to solve the divergences. I have often wondered if the people promoting the different forms of intolerance (anti-semitism, homofobia, xenofobia, rasism, ethnic nationalism), are aware of the evident intelectual filiation between their ideas and those of the infamous Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot. Evidently, their answer would be either don't know or don't care... In the course of history, the groups of people with features visibly different from the majority, generated the hatered and intolerance of the majority. The genocide against the Armenians (1915-1917), the Holocaust of the Jews, Romas, homosexuals or disabled people (1940-1945), the Khmer Rouge genocide (1965-1967), the Bosnia-Hertegovina genocide (1992) or the Rwanda genocide (1995) give us the mesure of these facts. S.P. Huntington justly noticed that „the boundaries of Islam are bloody", but one could of said the same thing about the boundaries of the colonizing Christianity, some five hundred years ago.

I am not an intelectual relativist to claim that any principle can be negociated. But come to think about this, I am an intelectual relativist... in the sense that I am ready to discuss any of my principles. Public debate is an essential process for the liberal-democratic society, where there can be no „tabu" subject. And there are in fact many tabu subjects in the Romanian public debate... Can liberalism be the cause of such tabus? Well, yes it can! If you treat liberalism like an end-of-history doctrine, you can become quite intolerant. I say this because I claimed for a long time that intolerance is not tolerable, in the name of the liberal-democratic values. And I never spent to much time to justify this value judgement. But this round table I mentioned earlier forced me to analyze my position. Taking into account the fact that intolerance breeds intolerance and the fact that that in reality there are countless intolerant and dogmatic groups, I came up with the solution that militant, explicit intolerance is intolerable, while implicit, pasive intolerance must be tolerated, but never accepted or legitimized. The reaction to intolerance must be controled and proportional, meaning that violent, explicit intolerance must be confronted with proportional, coercitive means, while pasive intolerance must be „confrunted" only through dialogue. Of course, I am not talking here about hate-speech or incitement to crime of „holly war"! This way an explicitly intolerant actor must always be punished. Also, any intolerant actor must be welcomed at the dialogue table, despite the fact that he or she does not respect all the rules of the game. Everybody is entitled to a second chance. I will not try to offer this second chance to the criminals and murderous dictators, but I must accept this principle because I too benefited from this principle and its consequences. This does not mean, of course, that an actor that brakes the rules of the dialogue must not be penalized, and if the violation re-occurs, that he or she must not be desqulified. But it also does not mean that he or she must be refuzed „before-hand". Observed intolerance must always be named and condamned, and the democratic game must remain open to everybody who is interesed, even as „observers". Still, I must re-state this in a plastic form: the democratic game must tolerate players that faulted before, but the referee (that is any active citizen) must always whisle a fault when it sees one ... and must show the red card to the player that faulted! Intolerance must be tolerated and confronted, but never accepted as normal!

Here's a case study:

I took part in a round table hosted by SNSPA (The National School of Political and Administrative Sciences), on the topic „The Church and homosexuality", mediated by Mr. Laurentiu Stefan. Among the invited guests there was the orthodox priest Aurelian, who tried to explain that the ROC (Romanian Orthodox Church) does not condemn the homosexuals but „merely" the homosexual practice. Some of us may still remember the ROC's (Romanian Orthodox Church) campaign against the abrogation of article 200 that legaly / penaly punished homosexual practices. („NO to Homosexuality!"). And taking into account Mr. Aurelian's distinction, I really wonder if it is of any help to the disscution. If Mr. Pruteanu condamns „turbo-folk" music as a threat to culture, he also attacks those who enjoy this music and their life style. So if the ROC condamns a certain sexual orientation, which is a basic feature of any individual, it directly attacks that cathegory of people. So in my oppinion, this distinction Mr. Aurelian made is absolutely worthless. It is as if a nazi would explain the fact that Hitler had nothing agaist the Jews as people, but agaist the fact of being a Jew, agaist their identity, culture, origins, values, principles and life style. But what makes-up our individuality if not our very own specific characteristics?

By refusing to discuss the substantial resons and arguments of the ROC's attitude towards homosexuality and the ROC's dogmas, Mr. Aurelian actually refused the dialogue he was formally taking part in. Because what is a dialogue if not an exchange of ideas, oppinions and arguments between equals. When a person that formally engages into a dialogue, but he or she considers his or hers ideas and beliefs beyond any doubt or disscution, that dialogue is sensless. This kind of one-way-communication resembles more a species of propaganda. Mr. Aurelian refuses to discuss his possition, ask us to understand his stand and in the mean time feels free to attack the other oppinions presented there. And I am suppose to tolerate such an intolerant attitude?!

Romania is a laic state. The Church or the religious organizations in general have every right to take part in the public debate and to promote or defend their principles. From my point of view, religion opperates in the spiritual realm, and the normative interference of religious organizations in the pragmatic aspects of the political realm are pointless and even dangerous. ROC can „morally" condamn whatever sexual practice or whatever group it desires. The freedom of expression guarantees this. But the ROC's idea that homosexuality must be legally punished is unacceptable and a evident proof of intolerance.

Another participant to this debate, Mrs. Mihaela Miroiu - proffesor and femisnist activist profesoara, presented things in a different perspective. Through a construction that combined ethical arguments and apparently scientific arguments (from certain studies that later prooved simple pre-judgements), Mrs. Miroiu concluded that homosexuals should have the same rights as the majority. Still, she apreciated that for homosexuals „consensual union" is the optimum choice, not marriage! So, even though she suports the equality of rights and even though she would tolerate homosexual marriage, Mrs. Miroiu does not accept and support this idea! But in the modern society we are living in, marriage is a contract between two consenting adults (more or less). You can call me a conservative, but I say marriage is a basic social institution. Also, because I am a consistent person, I state that the right to get married is inherent to any adult and discerning person. By denying this right to persons of the same sex we are denying the equality of statute. From a pragmatic perspective, we are also denying them access to a series of rights and advantages that derive from the marriage contract. And this is not ethically or even morally justifiable! Because to state otherwise would be to use a double standard - marriage would be moral for heterosexuals but imoral for homosexuals...

In my opinion, the tolerant „middle of the road" perspective on homosexuality as a crime with no victims is in my opinion tolerable but unacceptable and undesirable. To exemplify this I will say that I tolerate such an opinion, but I will not accept it or promote it as legitimate. I must state that there is a big difference between the toleration of homosexuality as a minority practice that is harmless to the majority and the acceptance of homosexuality as a form of sexuality just like all the others. From the ethical point of view it is impossible to justify that being heterosexual is better that being GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual). Consequently, tolerance implies the positive valorisation of the heterosexual orientation while acceptance implies a „value free treatment" for all „identitary" options or the equality of all sexual orientations.

Untill next time, be the change you want to see and the inspiration the others need! Fight against discrimination and social exclusion!



PS: I expect your comments, questions etc at octav@apdr.ro.