Heidi asked Derek B. Miller:

It often seems that we cannot change situations, only the way we deal with them. Which leaves me wondering how you would answer the question in your book “…the very real question now haunting all of Western civilization—namely, How tolerant should we be of intolerance?”

Derek B. Miller I posted this on FB too, but I'll gladly repost it here:

There's an old Jewish proverb: Questions unite us and answers divide us. I rather like that one. In this case, I wouldn't want to rush to an answer before we've all had the benefit of some unity around the question.

I will say this, though: A world of universal tolerance strikes me as both inherently better and also safer than a world of universal intolerance. Certain socio-cultural systems favor and promote one and not the other.

Consequently, the pragmatic move is to work towards tolerance (a hard job) while remaining vigilant against those who would promote a way of seeing the world that does not allow for pluralism and liberty.

Naziism and Communism (i.e. not to be confused with social democracy) are Western versions of that intolerant culture. We had a civil war (WWII) to conquer the first and a Cold War to conquer the second (sort of).

Jihadist Islam is in a civil war with tolerant Islam (they stole the other-wise banal word "Jihad" which once meant a personal striving for goodness and was not evil like the new version is). We need to support one and fight the other. To do that WELL we need a more developed moral vocabulary in our societies (U.S., Germany, UK, France, etc.) and we need smarter politicians (don't get me started).

Thanks for reading!

dbm

flag