Tolerance of Intolerance: Rights of Parents vs. Needs of Children
Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:48:58 AM PDT
My anxiety and reluctance to post this has been overruled by a sense of obligation to be part of a conversation that I think many of us fear. I recently read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel, which I highly recommend. Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia to a Muslim family that went on to live in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya. She later escaped and became a member of the Dutch Parliment. Infidel is about her personal struggle with many of the teachings of Islam as well as her now very public stand against the religion she was born into and suffered (greatly) because of. Hirsi Ali's life is now in grave danger as she is seen by many Muslims as a major threat.
I think it is important, if not imperative, to have a discussion about the limits of religious tolerance, particularly where children and women are at risk of suffering abuse and subordination...
Here at MTs, we have recently discussed the role of religion in the preventable death of Madeline Kara Neumann. I have some experience in the court system with the often blind tolerance of parental religious beliefs in cases of abused and neglected children. These laws came from a place of good intentions, to protect religious freedom, but this can mean that the needs of children come second. It is worth noting that we may, hopefully, see a new legal precedent in the case of Ava Worthington.
I think Hirsi Ali makes the case that we must be more knowledgeable and precise as to what we mean by "tolerance" and we must have the courage to draw a line between religious freedom and basic human rights.
I was raised in a Christian home but have considered myself an atheist for most of my life.When I was younger, I directed a good deal of anger towards my family because I felt that they had imposed their beliefs on me and had thus subverted my autonomy. Of course, with age came perspective and my anger dissipated. I began to cling to the ideals of tolerance and the notion that as long as I am allowed to believe or not believe whatever I choose while allowing for the diverse beliefs of others then all would be well.
I fear the ramifications of stating this here, but I think that an unquestioning adherence to tolerance across the board can become cowardice in the face of abuse and death of children, women, anyone.
Please understand that it is not my belief that religion is inherently bad. I fully realize that countless people of faith have forcefully proclaimed their horror at the death of Madeline Neumann and the treatment of children in similar cases.
So, I submit these questions to you: Is this a conversation that we can even entertain within the shackles of our ideal of remaining politically correct? Is it better to remain silent for fear of rocking the boat? Religious freedom or human rights?
