Lunch Today

I raised the subject today at the lunch table, and I need to tell you a little about the audience I raised it with. My audience was all liberals, voting and thinking in remarkably similar fashion. I myself am strongly conservative (one who actually believes what Thomas Jefferson said, "That government which governs best governs least."
I raised the question about the pictures of Mohammed which had been posted recently, and the carefully choreographed rebellion against them some five months later in other countries than where the pictures were even shown. I was interested to think what others thought about it who think quite differently about many matters than I do. I was not surprised to hear them all proclaim that the pictures should not have been drawn, so as not to offend someone else.
I have read many conservative editorials about this matter where conservatives feel the same way. It seems as if the underlying tenet is that if it had not been done, we would have not had so much trouble. I find trouble with believing that we ought to do anything else because of someone else’s belief. I myself am an ardent Christian, and yet I think it is so wrong to force my belief on others. Neither would I abrogate other’s right to speak what they believe. I hope that most Americans would agree with this view of tolerance; it is the only we can exist with each other in such a differentiated world. Why is it that when we come to a third world religion that we no longer believe in this tolerance? Again and again the “Piss on Christ” sculpture funded by the NEA was used as an argument for Christians having put up peaceably with much controversial stuff. I cannot possibly tell you how morally offended I was when that sculpture first appeared. Yet where were the people of the US defending my right to be free of offense? I find it intriguing that some of the same people who would argue for the insult sculpture, but argue against simple Dutch cartoons.
As I was thinking about it I began to wonder what my friends would think if Moslems suddenly demanded that all women be covered with a veil because they believe that it should be so. It is entirely their right to believe and treat their women the way they do; just as it is my right to disagree with it. It, however, is not their right to insist on others who do not believe as they do to act within the confines of their private religion. Moreover almost no civilization would be able to last which chose to give freedom from offense. The very idea of diversity implies that we have to tolerate ideas which we disdain. This lack of tolerance on the part of our neighbors scares me; we must deal with our neighbors, but it is their lack of tolerance which leads to closed societies, one thought, and one banner to march under. It has already been proposed of course under the guise of the final solution. As I look forward to the future I would hope that fellow humans would shudder at any more governments daring to suggest anymore final solutions.
I have been reading much Churchill these last months, and I remember one story which might be pertinent. I wish I could have found the actual piece again, but in going over my 3000 pages of recent reading, I could not find the actual passage again. At any rate, Churchill is traveling somewhere in the Moslem world and has a chance to meet an Arab prince. In negotiating their formal dinner the prince sent notice that his customs prevented any use of alcohol at all, and that alcohol was not allowed to be in his presence. To which Churchill made a famous rejoinder that his customs demanded the use of alcohol before, during, and especially after dinner, and that he expected others to respect his custom. By all accounts they had a successful dinner, with each respecting the customs of the others.
This is the meaning of tolerance; it is one thing for Moslems to ban other Moslems from drawing their religious leader. It is quite another thing for them to expect non-Moslems to respect all their customs. The problem, it seems to me, is that we have one group here who knows not tolerance. But they should be at least aware that the world is somewhat larger than tenets of their own religion.