Tolerance, On All Sides

This meme is currently circulating on the internet. Gleep!

 

        My goodness, the current wave of refugees/immigrants, along with "permission granted" by the antics of the alt-right in the USA, has certainly brought the bigots out of the woodwork! Most Canadians would be inclined to smile when they read this tongue-in-cheek supposedly humorous statement. I'm pretty sure, though, that many Christians, Jews and Hindus would also object to the shops and entertainment establishments mentioned here being next door to their places of worship, and would be hammering at the doors of their city council chambers for allowing such insensitive zoning. 

There have always been "jokes" about other cultures (the Irish, Italians, Native Americans) and jokes about religion (Catholics, Jews, and now predominantly Muslims), and I've belly laughed right along with everyone else when I heard them. This meme is a form of sarcasm, saying one thing while implying another. Sarcasm tends to be a thinly veiled form of insult. It blasts away at perceived political, religious and cultural inequities, stupidities, injustices, oddities. People will either smile in agreement or become insulted or angry at a sarcastic message. Sarcasm's place is to point out beliefs that would otherwise remain in the shadows. It is a mechanism of social change.

Canadians often take pride in our multi-cultural society and smugly claim we are not prejudiced. Now it seems we feel threatened by the influx of middle eastern refugees and tolerance is taking a hit. And, yes, when we see all the terrorist acts committed in the name of Allah, justification is easily found for our rising fears. Though moderate Muslims claim theirs is a religion of peace, radical Muslims keep negating this claim.

In my opinion, all religions, because they set themselves aside as the one true path to salvation, have a tendency to lack tolerance for any beliefs other than their own. They promote intolerance. If you believe you are the chosen people, that God is on your side, that your doctrines are correct, then you are likely to believe that you are superior to a non-believer, that unbelievers are less valuable in the eyes of God.

Those who claim that the laws of God supersede the laws of man believe they have the right to commit all sorts of atrocities in God's name, regardless of the fact that civil law forbids such acts. Those who believe the "holy books" (Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon...) are written by God through man, and who interpret these books literally, have a good chance of behaving counter to Canadian law. This kind of belief, in my opinion, provides one reasonable argument for our current feelings about Muslim immigrants.

Civil laws take into account thousands of years of knowledge gained since these religious books were written. They are created by man for the common good of the people. They are an attempt to apply a practical common sense approach making it possible for people with differing beliefs to live together in a reasonable amount of harmony. As a result civil law may differ from religious teachings. For example, deliberately harming another person is forbidden under civil law. But violence against women or unbelievers is acceptable in some ideologies.

A civil law that has become outdated and does not adhere to current norms can, though it often takes a lengthy process, be changed or thrown out. "God's laws", however, are literally written in stone.

Any person living within a country must respect its laws or be held accountable in its courts. The practice of religious beliefs which run counter to civil law should not be tolerated. But beliefs or outward signs of a  religion that are simply different, that cause no harm to others (such as wearing a hijab, a turban, a yarmulke; attending services on Saturday rather than Sunday; celebrating the New Year on a different day) should be tolerated in a country that claims to be multi-cultural. Specific beliefs of one religion, however, should never be imposed on those who practice another religion or on the non-religious. For example, the belief that pork is unclean and should not be consumed is not a belief shared by all Canadians. Imposing a ban on serving pork in a public venue to satisfy the minorities who adhere to this belief would do harm to pork producers and deprive others of a delicious meat variety and a good source of protein. A multicultural society, in deference to its citizens who have this belief, should provide another meat (or a vegetarian dish) along with pork when pork is the main course at public gatherings or in publicly funded institutions. Without forcing everyone to adopt one religion's dietary restrictions, a person who does not believe in eating pork would simply not eat the pork. At the same time, even though most Canadians would claim to adhere to some form of Christianity, Canada is not a theocracy. In deference to non-Christians and the non-religious, Christian religious symbols should not be displayed in public buildings and Bible readings should not be a part of morning exercises in public schools.

Those who seek asylum are leaving intolerable conditions. They are seeking survival, a better life. Countries that open their borders and hearts to asylum seekers have every right to expect them to assimilate at least to the extent that they learn to communicate in the language spoken in that country, become productive, law abiding, and, even though they may keep many of their own traditions, tolerant of the customs of their adopted country.