A few words on tolerance and respect

By Heraclitus

Yes, yes, more on the Edwards bloggers, and I know how it must bore some of you. But, what can I say? You know how to use that scrolling thing on your mouse (which I still think is pretty cool). Meanwhile, I feel compelled to write this, because it's either this or do work, and we all know how I feel about the latter. Well, actually, you might not, but here's the "411," as the kids are saying (I suddenly feel so hip -- and yes, I know that's slang from like five years ago, and yes, that is part of the joke): I'm a lazy bastard. So, here goes.

Amanda Marcotte has apparently resigned from the Edwards campaign. Among other interesting things in that post, we learn that Frances Kissling, a well-known "liberal Catholic," wrote a letter to The New York Times criticizing Donohue. The Times, not suprisingly, was too cowardly to print it.

But I wanted to focus more on one of the posts that caused so much faux outrage from braying jackasses like Donohue. Oh, and by the way, it turns out Donohue probably violated federal tax law by using his non-profit to intervene directly in a political campaign (more here -- see especially this comment by the Dangeral One, and here). Anyways, whoop, here it is, as the kids as saying (yes, more irony -- oh, the full post is here, if you're interested in that context thing, you filthy commie bastard):

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

This is "obscene," if you like, and disrespectful. But in his apology post, Edwards called it "intolerant." That it simply is not. Toleration does not imply or require respect. In fact, that's the whole point of toleration. I don't respect the beliefs of Scientologists, New Age crystal enthusiasts, six-day Creationists, or libertarians (although at least one of these groups does seem more like a criminal organization than even the most wacked-out of cults). But I tolerate them, in the sense that I don't want to outlaw them. Others may not respect my sardonic and bored nihilism. But as long as they're willing to tolerate it, the question of respect is irrelevant. As long as they don't use the coercive power of the state to forcibly ship me off to Bible camp or the Cato Institute, I won't use it to subject them to repeated viewings of Don't Look Back until they go around intoning nasally, "I'm glad I'm not me," and "Oh, you're one of those."

This difference, between tolerance and respect, is pretty fundamental to the functioning of a liberal democracy, and it doesn't reflect well on Edwards that he doesn't seem to understand it (or is willing to ignore it for the purposes of pandering more effectively). In any case, having read several of Amanda's posts on religion, I think her point in using such "edgy" language is to make a larger or deeper point about the wellsprings of religious belief. I think her argument would be that religious belief, which tends to be rather heavy on the afterlife business, arises chiefly from our fear and trembling in the face of death, of which our mortal, organic, leaky bodies, these muddy vestures of decay, are a constant reminder. That's why physical mortification and asceticism is such an important part of so much religious practice. (This is either Amanda or Nietzsche, I don't really remember. In any case, I think she's onto something here, though I don't think this is an exhuastive explanation.) Teh sex is the messiest and most inexorable reminder, at least psychologically, of the reality of these damned bodies of ours, which insist on dying and rotting on us. Thus the "hot, white sticky Holy Spirit" line wasn't just intended to provoke offence and the various viewings-with-horror to which we've been treated over the past week or so. Amanda's purpose was rather to put her finger on precisely the impulse that leads to belief in a superhuman God, a God who transcends all physical reality and thus can save us from the ultimate and inevitable consequences of being enmeshed in that reality.

But then why couldn't she just make her point all wordy and boring, like you just did? Why did she have to make it almost obscene (although nothing in that quote is actually obscene in the sense of using cuss words or sexually graphic language; it's all implication or double entendre)? Presumably because it makes her point all the more effectively; the reaction of queasy outrage shows the above argument -- which, admittedly, I've more or less foisted on her -- to be much more compelling than simply stating it can.

But, apparently such criticisms/mockery of religion is verboten. One does wonder, however, if the offending passage is really less respectful, or even "tolerant," than saying that unbelievers will go to hell. Or, indeed, than teaching that homosexuals are inherently "disordered." I'm not suggesting that the government step in and start regulating religious speech -- far from it. I'm just pointing out the double standard, that two lines describing the Immaculate Conception as an organic process are somehow less respectful and more horrifying than pronouncing eternal damnation upon the souls of someone whose belief system you don't like, or whose sex life you disapprove of.

But, I suppose that's understandable. Religious people take their beliefs seriously, and those Catholics who have spent the past week squawking about a few irreverent words must be beside themselves with righteous indignation when they see politicians supporting the death penalty, a doctrine of "pre-emptive" war, uncritically embracing capitalism, and so forth. No doubt their rage knows no bounds, and they cannot sleep until anyone professing these views has been forced out of electoral politics. On the other hand, perhaps their indignation is rather more selective, due to their shockingly selective obedience to the teachings of the Magisterium. But in that case, these good people will have forgive to rest of us for not humoring their pretence to be nobly aggrieved at the insult to their piety, and instead recognizing the reality that they are just partisan hacks using their religion as a political weapon. Likewise, those harping on the political necessity of pandering to religious bigots will kindly acknowledge the crassly mercenary logic at work here, and spare us any further moralistic posturing.

But, just so you don't think I've lost my little mind, gentle reader (your concern, upon which I know I can presume, is truly touching), I'm not holding my breath while waiting for any of that to happen.