Respecting beliefs and the right to opinions

About a month ago there was an ethicist on Hack talking about people's right to opinions (about asylum seekers, as it happens, but the argument is general). She agreed with the general principle that everyone has the right to their opinion, and the right to express it if, and only if, those opinions are not based on fallacies - especially fallacies designed to inspire hatred. In other words, no-one actually has the right to spread hate-filled lies. I tend to agree with her.

Yesterday I was accused of being a bigot, on the basis that I show a "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from [my] own". I'm pretty confident that I tolerate, and indeed respect, a lot of beliefs that I don't agree with, but it's also fair to say that there are some beliefs that I have absolutely no respect for. Those are beliefs that internally inconsistent.

I've argued and debated all sorts of positions. I know that the belief that underpins my world is that there exists an observable universe, and that we are able to observe it. There are inherent assumptions there that people have challenged, but at this stage I'm running with it. I try to keep the rest of my world view consistent beyond that assumption. When I get caught out in an inconsistency, I have to change my views.

I've known a number of people holding various flavours of religious beliefs who have argued with me over the years, and while they start with some differing assumptions, their beliefs have also been internally consistent. I utterly disagree with them, but I respect their integrity.

None of this is the point here, the point is that I really don't respect, or even tolerate, internally inconsistent beliefs. People who claim, for example, that they believe that personhood starts at conception (thereby making abortion murder) but also support the death penalty. People who claim that any religious text is infallible, and then ignore inconvenient bits of it. People who understand how science works, and yet still claim its results are free from subjectivity. And, well, people who believe we were populated by space aliens and that Good People get a planet when they die.

There has to be some measure by which any person's beliefs can be assessed, or we will all have to respect the beliefs of the Sacred Sect of Brownie Worshippers who honour the Almighty Kodak Box Brownie through the sacrifice of chocolate brownies every Wednesday (who have registered as a religion for tax purposes). I doubt that anyone, actually, respects ALL beliefs. There may be other measures besides internal consistency, and if you have some other rule of thumb, let me know. If you think you respect all beliefs, I suspect I either don't believe you, or don't respect your beliefs.

Incidentally, this was sparked by my utter disrespect for Tony Abbott. I have no idea what his beliefs are, since he changes them so often it makes my head spin. A man that can't even own his religious convictions doesn't meet the criteria for respect.

Fred Nile makes it all clear

The burqa is understood as a controversial thing. In many ways, it represents the oppression of women in the more conservative brands of Islam, but somehow the idea that men with political power could ban its wearing altogether does not look like the liberation of women.

Still, it might not be obvious which is the lesser evil - allowing men as private citizens to dictate what women may wear or allowing men in power to dictate what women may wear.

But now, Fred Nile has shown us the way. Fred wants to introduce a bill to ban the burqa in NSW.

So if you've been wondering which is the lesser evil, I say follow Fred - if Fred supports it, it's a Bad Idea. Fred has made it clear - the path is to encourage and effect cultural change such that women are never coerced into in wearing clothing that makes them uncomfortable. Legislating away one side of the choice doesn't redress cultural removal of the other side.

Education minister

A while ago a wrote to the (acting) Education minister to growl about the Shine program being used in public schools, as pointed out by Mim. I finally got this reply:

I write in response to your correspondence of 26th July 2008 to the Acting Minister for Education and Training, the Hon John Hatzistergos MLC, regarding the Shine program in NSW high schools. The Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf.

Recent media attention has focused on the Shine program and its use in NSW secondary schools. Shine is a program that claims a "preventative, solutions-based model, committed to seeing females connected to positive pathways in their lives and encountering their true value". Shine is one of many externally available programs that schools may choose to conduct ti complement the school's teaching and learning program.

The Department of Education and Training does not recommend or endorse these programs. Decisions about which resources to purchase are made by school principals who are best placed to determine what adds value to the curriculum, based on the needs and interests of the students and the ethos of the community. Consultation with the community should occur. Participation in the Shine program is to be voluntary and with parental consent.

As the Shine program is not designed as a program for special religious education (SRE), to be delivered by approved providers, it should not be offered to students during time set aside for SRE. Schools offering this program during time set aside for SRE are in conflict with the Religious Education policy, Section 3:11.

I hope that this clarifies the situation for you.

It is signed by Robert Randall, R/General Manager, Learning and Development.

Well, no, it doesn't clarify the situation for me. I pretty much knew all that. What I want to know is why something that does have religious intentions is not regarded as religious education, and why something which is just plain wrong is allowed to be chosen by any principal. Does the DoE have no opinion on what rubbish can be delivered in our schools?

Also, what does parental consent entail? Does it mean informed consent? Because I think it is pretty clear that unless parents know what's in it, it isn't informed consent.

It seems pretty clear to me that the damage that this kind of crap can do to teenage girls doesn't make it on to the radar for our state pollies. Then again, our state pollies are so unbelievably incompetent, this is probably no surprise.

Arrrgggg... I am paralysed by exasperation.

Lectures on Theology

My lessons in Christianity continued this afternoon. Ben informed me that he saw what God looked like. He then went on to add a whole new dimension to the immaculate conception.

Ben told me that God has white wings and a white dress and that she came down and found Mary. Yes, that's "she". She told Mary not to be afraid and that she would have a boy child. Joseph would be the father. Perhaps it wasn't so much an immaculate conception as a donor sperm arrangement?

It's hard to remember the name "Mary" when you are almost five, but that's ok, because you can just ask Mum who that person was that had a little lamb. I wonder if he has ever heard "Mary Mary quite contrary"?

Oh yes, and in case you thought he might have just confused God with an angel, not so. Angels, I am reliably informed, also have wings, but theirs are purple.

Comparitive religion for the under 5's

Tonight at dinner, Ben kicked off the conversation with "Did you know Jesus is our king?". Clearly the Christmas season has begun at his Uniting Church pre-school. I responded with "That's what Christians believe, yes." and then went on to give a cursory definition of religion and attempt to discuss Buddhism and a very vague notion of the rest of the Judeo-Christian family.

He told me that he believes it (exactly what "it" is remains slightly obscure), and I told him that's fine. I also warned him he wouldn't be seeing much mention of Jesus at our place around Christmas. Jesus is not the reason for my season. He informed me (very importantly) that Jesus is what Christmas is, and I told him that it has been other things to other people both before and after "Christmas" came along, but didn't push the point.

I don't want to create a monster for the pre-school, I'd much rather he lecture me than his teachers or (even worse) the very lovely minister who spends a lot of time with the kids. So for now, it will be a very gentle message that there are other beliefs out there (I haven't tackled atheism yet), without any suggestion that he should hold them. I figure he should at least get to kindergarten scripture before he starts lecturing his teachers. It seems to me that an element of respect for other people's beliefs is not sicking a self righteous nearly-five year old armed with my opinions on them. :)