In order to have a functioning society, we need to agree on a common set of rules according to which we interact with each other. (I ranted on a bit about this in my ‘Dogged by Dogma’ post.) Some of these rules are codified into laws, others govern what we consider to be polite day-to-day behaviour. Though the rules change from country to country, the basic principle remains the same: without a common set of rules, there is no ‘society’.
We all, as humans, have the innate right to freedom of speech and thought. So, let’s start by agreeing to tolerate that. This means not denying it to anyone, even people we disagree with…or people who hold unpopular views.
From the freedoms of speech and thought flows the freedom of religious belief. That, too, needs to be respected. Most ‘western’ cultures are pretty good at protecting this one – usually, it is entrenched in the constitution. But while we may be free to hold every belief we want, and are free to worship every deity (or absence thereof) we choose to, it is essential that we all understand that only those actions and behaviours that are legal under the laws of the land may actually be performed, whether based on religious conviction or not.
It is essential that we recognize that being tolerant of a belief is not the same as tolerating each and every behaviour that stems from it!
If it were, we would all need to tolerate human sacrifice. And frankly, if we do tolerate illegal behaviour which stems from religious belief, in a very real sense, we WILL indeed be making a ‘human’ sacrifice!
Asma Jahangir, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, has on many occasions reported that she has seen over and over situations where minority groups within a society demand special rights onto themselves, in name of religious freedoms – only to use these special rights to then oppress its own internal minority. This kind of abuse of special rights is more common than we would like to think: Ezra Levan’t has actually posted photos of Robina Butt, a woman who was assaulted by intruders into her own home after she and two other women complained of the financial improprieties at her own Mosque. It is horrid!
So, let’s be clear. We must tolerate each other’s beliefs.
At the same time, we absolutely must not tolerate illegal behaviour, however motivated. This is as much for the protection of the greater society as for the protection of the individuals within any specific minority. If someone chooses to self-limit certain behaviours, good on them (provided they do not impact the society as a whole or diminish the rights of other individuals). If they choose to self-impose rules which preclude them from enjoying certain privileges (such as people who refuse to have their photograph taken must be prepared to give up privileges for which a photo-i.d. is required – say, a driving license), they MUST be also prepared to give up such privileges. Forcing them to comply with the conditions would be just as wrong as granting these privileges without compliance.
What is more: not respecting these rules, granting special privileges to some but not others, will mean that the most basic rule of society is broken. I may be repeating myself, but…without common rules, there is no ‘society’. Doing so would breed resentment and hostility among various segments of the population…and how could unequal treatment by law not result in just that?
We all need to keep this in mind the next time we are tempted to exempt one group or another from the laws which must apply equally to all of our citizens.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
February 20, 2008 at 15:02
ok, finally, I have a tiny toehold. A possible point of disagreement over which we can debate. What is your stance on civil disobedience.
Lets use a hypothetical country that outlaws the public display of toes. This hypothetical country requires its citizens to submit to a draft and makes no provision for conscientious objection. This hypothetical country also outlaws ethnocentric hiring practices.
Now there are three hypothetical people.
One person believes that toes cannot be covered and is consistently leaves toes exposed.
A second person believes in pacifism and refuses to submit to the draft.
A third person believes that all members of a culture other than that person’s own should not be allowed to work and as such publicly refuses to hire anyone who doesn’t share in the same culture.
Are all three of these people wrong? Should all three refrain from practicing in their respective illegal activites?
Now take the case of the first person with toes exposed: does it make any difference whether that person is on an alien resident (with a proper visa) or a citizen?
February 20, 2008 at 15:03
sorry, I don’t mean “on an alien resident” I mean IS an alien resident.
February 20, 2008 at 15:55
Civil disobedience…difficult and complex issue.
Yes, I have perhaps edited out WAY more than I should have…but my original draft was about 6x this length…and that was just for this section….
Back to the civil disobedience:
It is my opinion that in a society which protects free speech, we can engage in a constructive debate, evoloving our culture and our laws as we ourselves do. However, that is very idealistic, and I recognize it will not always happen ‘perfectly’.
I would approve of civil disobedience under the following conditions: it is done in full view of the public (like, say, at a pre-announced demonstration) AND the participants MUST be ready to accept any and all legal consequences that result from it. At the same time, I would hope that legal/judicial consideration be made that this was not a ‘normal’ or ‘sneaky’ type of law-breaking and treat it is as an extention of the freedom of speech, provided no violence or harm resulted from such a demonstration.
No, I’m not being ‘weasely’ (though I do sound so to myself right now)….it is hard to express … I am a VERY slow thinker – I have a finished concept worked out in my mind, the reasoning is done, but it takes me a long time to find the words to express it accurately. (I’m heavily aspergers…but how we communicate is an upcoming blog post)
So, let me re-asset:
Freedom of speech is the tool for altering social norms and laws. Civil disobedience is an extreme expression of it – and extremes can often ‘cross the line’ of acceptability, but they do not necessarily have to…
We are free to hold any and all beliefs we wish – but we must not break the laws. If we think the laws unjust, we must work hard to alter public opinion to such a degree that the law is changed. Until the law is changed, however, it must be obeyed – or the consequences of disobeying it must be accepted. (And yes, I participated in the discussions and demonstrations to strike down laws I thought unjust.)
As for alien resident vs. citizen: if a person is legitimately fleeing persecution, it is understandable that they might cross a border illegally. However, should they do that, it is essential that they find the nearest law enforcement officer and request asylum: there are international laws that kick in at that point that afford such a person some protection and legal status.
However, should a person fail to do this, then they are breaking the laws – and regardless of any other actions such people may or may not take, this undermines the very society they are hoping to join. So no, I could NOT ever condone illegal activity (such as non-legal residency), whether or not such a person bares their toes!
By the way – who told you about my personal, lifelong fight against socks? :0)
February 20, 2008 at 16:33
I dislike socks. I just chose what I thought would be a little bit of a ridiculous example that still got my point across.
Good answer, not weasley at all.
I thought I might be able to catch you off guard, but you have obviously thought this one through at least a bit. I’ll be reading along as you post. I’m really enjoying your blog so far!
February 20, 2008 at 17:30
Thank you!
I guess those pesky socks would interfere with them greek sandals…. :0)
April 15, 2009 at 06:38
Hey, nice tips. I’ll buy a glass of beer to the man from that forum who told me to go to your blog 🙂
April 24, 2009 at 06:12
If you ever want to see a reader’s feedback 🙂 , I rate this article for 4/5. Decent info, but I have to go to that damn yahoo to find the missed parts. Thank you, anyway!