Channeling anthropologist Clifford Geertz, Timothy Taylor offers this advice.
- What effort do you make to see yourself as those from the other sides of the partisan divides see you?
- Do you have the “merest decency” to see those with other political beliefs as sharing a nature with you?
- Do you see yourself and your political beliefs “as a local example of the forms human life has locally taken, a case among cases”?
- To what extent is your objectivity a matter of self-congratulation?
- To what extent is your tolerance a sham?
In a similar spirit, I wrote,
I wish that people could treat their political beliefs the way that they treat their religious beliefs: as ideas and values that they find appealing, but which are by no means the one true way.
The problem is that politics deals with laws that others are obliged to obey. Obeying those laws is, de facto, the “one true way.”
But sometimes the law is instantiated in a way that avoids a “one true way.” Free speech for instance. Blasphemy laws are its opposite.
It is one of the great troubles of life that we cannot have any unmixed emotions. There is always something in our enemy that we like, and something in our sweetheart that we dislike.
William Butler Yeats
You are asking for people to conceptualize their moral beliefs as mere preferences. This is essentially radical moral skepticism, and a tough pill for most to swallow as evolution has created us to sense moral truth everywhere
I have always found it amazing that Americans are able to say, “This is what I believe, but I’m not going to force you to believe it. You can believe whatever you want.” For the reason you state in your comment. Perhaps there was an underlying moral agreement, so the theological details didn’t seem so important. Religions haven’t been “fighting faiths” in America for years.
But of course “social justice warrior” suggests a fighting faith, not a mere preference.
” as ideas and values that they find appealing, but which are by no means the one true way.”
You do realize that this is not true of religious fundamentalists dont you? They truly regard their beliefs as the one true way. It is why I am leery about having those people hold office. They have the one true belief, and their God has placed them in a position of power to help carry out those beliefs. Look at the problems that fundamentalism has caused throughout the world and history.
Steve
This was my first thought as well.
Clicked through to make a similar comment. The obvious contemporary example is Islamic fundamentalism in the vein of IS. In previous centuries I believe some groups of Christians were responsible for major religiously-motivated aggression. I’m no historian, though, so maybe these events have become mythologized and overemphasized in my worldview. Maybe someone more knowledgable than me could elaborate.
Anyway, my gut reaction is that people treating religious beliefs as merely appealing ideas or values does not seem to be the general case, or at least there is a serious asymmetry in the effects of fundamentalists vs non-fundamentalists’ religious and political activities that makes it seem that way.
“This is pluralism: not a synonym of relativism, but rather an antonym. Pluralism accepts the moral reality of different kinds of truth, but rejects the idea that they can all be placed on a single scale, measured by a single value.”
― Timothy Snyder, Thinking the Twentieth Century
The email I get from Conversable Economist is always received with pleasure and anticipation despite the fact that I disagree with his politics quite frequently. So in this way, I suppose I can flatter myself that I too ascribe to the values implicit in the queries.
And in this vein, I should observe too that Tyler Cowen paid homage to pluralism in his latest.
Right. Classical liberal types aren’t so much relativist as they are skeptical of the notion that even a shared system of morality can be applied by law at a certain scale in a way that isn’t counterproductive. This can sure look like relativism to people who don’t share their unusually bourgeois economics-informed style of political thinking.
The Temple Mount is important to Muslims because it is from where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to God. But Muhammad was not the first, nor the last, to ascend. Here, as recorded in the Babylonian Talmud, four Jews make their ascent:
FOUR ENTERED AN ORCHARD
“Our Rabbis taught: Four entered an orchard and these are they: Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, Aher, and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva said to them: “When you reach the stones of pure marble, do not say: ‘Water, water!’ For it is said: ‘He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes’ [Ps. 101:7].” Ben Azzai gazed and died. Of him Scripture says: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” [Ps. 116:15]. Ben Zoma gazed and was stricken. Of him Scripture says: “Hast thou found honey? Eat as much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it” [Prov. 25:16]. Aher cut down the shoots. Rabbi Akiva departed in peace.”
“stricken” – went insane
“cut down the shoots” – became a heretic
Rabbi Akiva’s grave in Tiberias, Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi_Akiva#/media/File:Akivakever.jpg
So let me get this straight. Everyone should sit around the campfire and sing “kumbaya” with people that have totally different political views than themselves. As to not do so means you are not logical.
Wrong.
You fight for what you believe in, and if that requires animosity with those you disagree with, so what?
And “tolerance” is limited to following the law of the land and accepting the leaders we are given. And even that does not mean stopping the fight.
I cannot imagine a more despicable person than our current president. That opinion of him goes back decades. Still pay my taxes and follow the law. Even though he doesn’t do either. That is “tolerance”.
The responses to this post are scary.
Everyone should sit around the campfire and sing “kumbaya” with people that have totally different political views than themselves.
Uh, yes. Rejecting people for their political views is wrong as rejecting them for their race or religion. If your politics make you hate, you need new politics.
Amen. Politics should be a very small part of life for almost everyone. Not sure how we get back to that at this point.