Intolerance

I have been away for a few weeks, but there was an excellent post to the Globe and Mail comments section last night in answer to some rather... errr...illiberal...comments about the Canadian Government's funding of AIDS research.

This year, the International Aids Conference was held in Toronto, but it seems that our Prime Minister decided not to attend. Indeed, the Health Minister and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister were also scheduled to attend, but both bailed out at the last moment. These actions left a bad taste in a few people's mouths, and consequently a news story was born.

Anyway, Adam Mateyko from Calgary posted a wonderful manifesto on how religious fundamentalism can be the cause of a downward spiral into oppression. I have excerpted it here, and thank Adam for his thoughful post:


I will only repeat the comments about fundamentalists, like Harper stated by ex President Jimmy Carter to der Spiegel magazine recently: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made. nuff said - I think that about sums up Harpers modus operandi - it is clear to see it in action.. adamm

Well put, son.

Speaking of intolerance, has anybody noticed how the right wing of the blogosphere has exploded on Madam Justice Taylor, a Federal Court judge in Michigan who yesterday ruled that the President of the United States does not have the authority to undermine the Constitution? Now, Justice Taylor just happens to be black, and has some modest Democratic Party connections. She was also appointed a judge by President Carter. The gist of most of the comments is that Justice Taylor is a fool, a Democratic tool, an Al Qaeda tool, a radical left-winger, an enemy of America, and just about every other pejorative you can think of. To date, none of the right wingers have actually commented on Justice Taylor's judgment, which -- in my view -- takes particular concern to protect the United States Constitution.

Until recently, it seems, right wingers in the United States were quite keen on the Constitution. It was a perfectly respectable position for Republicans to say that executive power should be severely circumscribed by the Constitution. The most obvious example is their opposition to the faintest whiff of gun control legislation. When the President was Franklin Roosevelt or Bill Clinton, the Constitution was just dandy. Now that the President is Dick Cheney, the Constitution is, shall we say, a bit obstructive

Anyway, Justice Taylor appears to be the latest victim of the unfortunate tendency of spinmeisters to attack the person, rather than the idea. This technique is the basis for Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly's careers, but that does not make it acceptable in a society which used to value intellect and reason.