SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0
WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren't conservatives. Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We're fine with people who don't look like us, as long as they think like us.
O.K., that's a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical. "Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black," he told me. "But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close."
I've been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.
"Much of the 'conservative' worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false," said Carmi. "The truth has a liberal slant," wrote Michelle. "Why stop there?" asked Steven. "How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?"
To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don't have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.
The stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren't at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zeigerpuppy on Monday August 29 2016, @04:54AM
The arguments used to bolster "conservative" discourse have been the same for centuries. What has changed is that the directions that societies has taken since the Enlightenment have de-powered religious conservatism. Now those who feel their authority (aparently given by God and handed down by the book and the sword) threatened want to legitimize their oppression of dissenting thinkers by turning the arguments of liberal thought to their advantage.
This more or less rest on the crux of "tolerance".
The religious believe in some pretty odd ideas and want the rest of us to be "tolerant" of their beliefs. However, they forget how intolerant religion has been of the rights of logical scientific thinkers, women and of other cultures.
Now that they're on the back foot they want to play the victim.
I'm sorry it doesn't work that way. When religions of all flavours have suppressed, incarcerated and killed dissenters (heretics, heathens, witches, infidels...) they really need to think what is broken in their ideology.
The rest of society has slowly woken up to the fact that the bile that religion spouts is not to be "tolerated". There is much to be gained from an enlightened point of view where a patriarchal vindictive God doesn't call the shots as far as social norms.
Now, they can certainly think whatever they like but we are justified in limiting religious power and calling out ill-thought and unsubstantiated theories (especially when they are an excuse for an institutionalized system of social control).
I firmly believe that society needs to move beyond religion for us to be truly civilized. That doesn't mean that we turn our backs on the history of group action and understanding that religion may have contributed to (when it wasn't just being used to justify war an oppression of women).
It does mean that religious ideas should be exposed to the full blinding light of logic and that we should see an appeal to tolerance as nothing more than a feeble defense.