A response to "a quiet contemplation"

a paragraph contemplated

The often-invoked Hobbesian basis why we protect race and religion from dangerous speech is that we as society will suffer terribly if we do not do so. There shall be riots, it is said. Society will be lost. It shall crumble. This can be seen, some in power say, in our historical account. Hobbes had said it simply enough. Without these laws there will be “Bellum omnium contra omnes” – “the war of all against all”. That is a proposition I grudgingly accept (recognizing its potential as censorship rather than ensuring peace). In the debate about gay rights, such similar arguments have been offered. The argument is that removing 377A somehow will hurt the family unit especially children. I started writing this post because of a reaction to FearfullyOpinionated's ("FO") Post “A Quiet Contemplation”.

"What is our approach towards homosexual issues? What is our own approach towards our opponents in the homosexuality debate? Do you really think Christian-bashing will further your cause or actually cause your opponent to harden their stance? Do you think that since none of us are engaging in any physical violence, any and everything we say, we type and we blog is fair game? Do you think this issue will be solved by arguments, or even online petitions? Do you think the intolerance of the intolerant is in itself not guilty of intolerance?”


Let us first examine the last line of this paragraph where "intolerant" appear 3 times.

Do you think the intolerance (1) of the intolerant (2) is in itself not guilty of intolerance? (3)”

The (2) intolerant in this context clearly refer to those who oppose the repeal of 377A. Let us look closely at this. How are they "intolerant"? A basis by which conservative groups have argued that gay activity ought to be prohibited has often been the Hobbesian one (above). Such an argument will only be considered intolerant (2) if one accepts that tolerance should encompass the more modern and liberal notion that we should tolerate private choices and practices (377A practices in this instance) and that they ought to be legal. This means (2) intolerant must be judged from a liberal standard for that question to be sensible at all.

And if that is the case then - the question understood in this light will be:
Do you think the intolerance of the (illiberal) intolerant is in itself not guilty of intolerance? This is a circular question but not objectionable per se. But the preceeding lines in FO's paragraph suggest that "Christian-bashing", "type", "blog", "arguments", "online petitions" might be part of this "intolerance". From a liberal standard however, ‘arguments’, ‘online petitions’ and “mere speech” promoting the repeal of 377A does not necessarily count as intolerance of the intolerant.

The refusal to define what standard of intolerance one has adopted and what counts for intolerant in FO's opinion makes it impossible to argue cogently about the accusations made of those who sign petitions and argue online. In other words, when it is asked "Is it intolerance to be intolerant about the intolerant"?" - the reply should simply for from a liberal perspective should be "it is intolerance. BUT one is not intolerant by making arguments and online petitions per se from this perspective.

When liberals say "I am going to be intolerant (A) about the intolerant (B)" - I think they usually mean (B) intolerant to be intolerant of those inciting violence (See Karl Popper for the chief proponent of this view) which if you ask the average dude like myself, is not "intolerance" but simply humanity. The intolerance for intolerance (B) is a very serious philosophical issue altogether but not specifically relevant in this regard. Is anyone askin' for violence in our context? Increasingly though, liberals are asking for more than this but thats a huge topic.

(Karl Popper argued, "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.")

If there was “Christian-bashing” however (and one notes FO's emotive choice of word “bashing”) then it might fail the liberal tolerance that we should tolerate other people’s private choices. However, I think that almost everyone puts up in Singapore with religion in our lives although it is full of flaws because we know it’s none of our business. In fact, most of us positively celebrate it. In fact, I think the pluralism in our nation should be more widely celebrated and not confined to the state boring divisions. Nobody I think is asking from the Repeal-Camp that private religious choices be interfered with...

Unlike FO, I don’t see that there is “Christian-bashing” per se unless it is his opinion that religion should be accorded such a place that truth cannot be said of it – a position which will far surpasses the liberal notion of tolerance. There is bashing of "anti-gay" positions if you like. That is equally objectionable in the liberal schema. In other words, private choices do not necessarily differentiate religion and opinions about sandwiches (while admitting that we do care more about religion than sandwich usually). If religion is inconsistent etc, what is wrong with pointing it out under the liberal perspective? That sandwich might taste good to you but it cannot be blue and green at the same time, ya? But sure, you are free to choose to say and believe it is blue and green. But if it is the Hobbesian notion of tolerance that is really being subscribed to in the first place, then it will be 'rich' to go through the question of the “tolerance” of the intolerant in the first place.

FO wrote in his comments to a (my) question to show evidence of "intolerance":


"I suspect you want me to discuss at depth what I consider to be "tolerance" and "intolerance". I am unfortunately not prepared to, nor inclined to, have such a discussion at this point in time. I think it matters little to the point I was trying to make. I am not interested (in this post at least) in the truth-value of propositions used in arguments for or against the repeal of 377a, but the emotive effects these propositions have on their opponents. "

If one choose only to focus on "the emotive effects" without regard to what types of "tolerance" we are talking about and truth value - as I discussed earlier, one is reverting to a Hobbesian discourse (above). My analysis is that FO is simply arguing a Hobbesian-variety 'tolerance' in the very first place which is not markedly different from the position of what he calls "opponents" adopts. I don't like this splitting of camps thing but if there is a splitting of camps, can it be said rightly that they are "opponents" from FO's perspective. Or does FO simply belong to what he calls "opponents" but attempts to adopt an "objective" perspective?

If one wishes to clinically observes the emotive effects these propositions have on the "ultra-conservatives", I can assure you that feelings of outmost revulsion have been involved. It really depends on how one sees the real question. If it is, "Should people be free to choose their own sexual lifestyle without interference from the state?" it is less bad. "Should gays be allowed to do what they want and corrupt our children and family?" then one can surmise the reactions. And for crying out loud, if anybody will harm members of my family and children, I will be rather quick to insist that they shall not be tolerated.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other points which I wanted to talk about but will not fit properly in the article:
_______

For the argument about "hearts and mind" (See FO's article, link above), the usual argument is that the laws (377a) cannot change people's sexuality or the minds of people and that is why we should scrap it. (The argument used in FO's post comes from another angle)

I suggest that people read Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” if they are interested in Tolerance. And because Locke is a Christian, and one of the greatest Christians of all time, those who think that because they are Christians and should therefore oppose efforts to repeal 377A should read his letter and think about it seriously.

Here are some other links for those who rather not read that excellent letter:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_Concerning_Toleration

(Add: I realise I might be assumed to be a one who "accepts" what is said by Locke" or that I suggest that he is right. This is not the case because you should judge him for his merits. I suggest him because I think the letter clearly set out the one of the ideas of "tolerance" we have today. I will also like to think that Locke must be read as a person who wrote in the 17th century and we should forgive his flaws.)

------

In the interest of disclosure: I signed the online letter to the PM with my full name. I am embarrassed to say I did not sign the petition that is to be put to the Parliament. I had the occasion to. One gay friend said he will come to my house right away (and we do not stay that nearby) just so that I will sign his copy of the petition. But I told him, as I planned to, to go down to one of the locations to sign. Then I got lazy. I know there are those who "are disgusted" or "not impressed" that I signed the open letter online (yeah - i do know people like those) . I feel sorry for those who think like that - it is simply a belief I have that an archaic law that is hardly used that is unequal that is the constant battleground between liberals/conservatives should be abolished - and honestly, I know the petition won't work - but a lot of those people are upset because they think that gays are an aberration in the first place and desire that "morality" reign supreme and are shocked/displease that people actually come out and say they disagree. Please, we (and gays) do exist.

The retention of 377A is clearly a waste of time on everyone's part. The legislature if they were braver will have not attracted so much heat now. Now with another petition Keep 377A, it is becoming a political hot potato.

-------

I ask to be criticized not for my views, but for the reasons why I hold my views. And if those reasons are wrong and no longer support my view, then they naturally must change. But this is not the case for all. That is why I have not tried to change the views of those who oppose the repeal of 377A and I will not do it. Some of these opponents of the repeal treat with contempt discourse. That is not the fatal fault. Some will often rather you lose your liberty to speak. But even that is not their fatal fault. The fatal fault is that they will rather use propaganda and slogans, the power of the frown, the invocation of the "majority", loud-hailers and emotions, fear-mongering , appeal to emotions - rather than reason.