An extremist is someone who
demands that his or her views be heard while trying to silence others through violence or the threat of litigation.*
By that definition of extremism communist
and Islamic countries immediately come to mind, but what about people in the
west? Are there liberal extremists as well as right wing?
There are those who claim to be
morally neutral who try and silence the views they don't like--make no mistake,
such people are extremists.
If a religious leader or political leader is asking his or her followers to take the law into their own hands, then the government has grounds to intervene. But calling for someones death is very different to criticizing a belief or ideology. If someone says Christianity is an intolerant violent religion is that encouraging people to take the law into their own hands? No it is not. If someone says Islam is an intolerant violent religion is that encouraging people to take the law into their own hands? No. Neither is saying homophobia is wrong, or homosexuality is morally wrong, or abortion is wrong encouraging people to take the law into their own hands. If someone is not encouraging people to take the law into their own hands then it is a mistake to try and silence that person no matter how repulsive we find their views.
Now you may think that moralists should be denounced. But by what morals do you denounce the moralists? As Chesterton pointed out, "All denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind." If you do not wish the law to be used to silence those who hold your values don't try and use the law to silence those you disagree with. (We are all free to try and change the law, but using the law to silence others is a very serious issue.)
Some extremists are unable to use violence or litigation so they attempt to silence others through name calling. That's just there way of telling others to Shut Up! Any person who reverts to violence or name calling should be labelled the loser in all debates. (One can only dream!)
But it is not surprising that those with the weaker arguments have to use lies, intimidation, threats and violence.
'Let us not forget that violence
does not and cannot flourish by itself; it is inevitably intertwined
with lying. Between them there is the
closest, the most
profound and natural bond: nothing screens violence except lies, and the
only
way lies can hold out is by violence. Whoever has announced violence
as his method must inevitably choose lies as his principle....' --
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn knew what he was talking about. He knew what was happening in the Soviet Union. He nearly died in a gulag. (See Holodomer)
So what's the lesson? Without the truth there is only manipulation.
The truth is not oppressive, it is lies which ruin lives. Niether is spreading the truth spreading fear, it is an opportunity to face a problem and develop courage.
There can be neither personal or national freedom without truth. For those who don't believe there is such a thing as truth, read what James Allan wrote in the Australian Newspaper about the importance of free speech. See Free Speech is truth's best hope.
Our only hope is if civilized
people take a stand by determining to act in a civil manner and by
speaking the truth.
We can disagree with someone strongly but still treat them fairly even if they are saying things which we find offensive. If we try and silence them through coercion we will only add fuel to the fire. If we really do want to make this world a better place we should neither ignore them or try and silence them through force. (It's not the individuals role to take the law into their own hands.) Instead we should talk to them in a civil manner without compromising our position; we will try to win them over by the force of our arguments and the depth of our character. (And we should be willing to change our minds if we are proven to be wrong on a particular point.) If we do not use freedom of speech in the way it was meant to be used we will lose it. (See The Case for Civility by Os Guinness)
Do you want to win over the radicals?
Then listen to Ravi Zacharias' advice.
"Without the undergirding of love, the possessor of any conviction becomes obnoxious, and the dogma believed becomes repulsive to the one who disagrees with it" (Deliver Us From Evil).
You won't win someone over if you make your views repulsive to them.
On the 21st of Nov
2006 SBS aired "The State of the Union" on
Cutting Edge. It was a show about the polarization of American
politics. Both sides are talking to each other less and
less. As a result they do not encounter views outside their little
circle. Both sides are becoming more extreme; this is not only happening in the
political seen in America it
is happening all over the world, it happens when Islamists in Hyde
Park try to silence others because they cannot defeat them in
debate. (Bob Dylan said we shouldn't
criticize things we can't understand. Can we understand things from the
outside? I think we can, sometimes clearer than those on the inside. But Bob does
have a point; we shouldn't criticize things we don't attempt to understand.)
A truly mature person can talk to anyone on any subject, no mater how controversial, without feeling threatened. If they don't know much about the topic they regard the conversation as a learning experience, if they do know something then why should they feel threatened? Unfortunately most people only give an appearance of being mature. They avoid the difficult issues because they know they cannot talk about them in a civil manner. They claim to be tolerant but the fact that they make every effort to avoid talking to certain people about certain things shows that they are actually bigots.
"Prejudices are divergent, whereas creeds
are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep
out of each other's way. A creed is a collective thing, and even its sins are
sociable. A prejudice is a private thing, and even its tolerance is
misanthropic. So it is with our existing divisions..." (G.K.
Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World, 1910).
The solution to extremism is to allow free speech and talk with those you most strongly disagree with (no matter how difficult you find this). By doing
this you will expose extremists to different points of view which will challenge them to think. You will also find yourself agreeing with some of the things they say which will help safe guard you from becoming an extremist. (By the way, don't let those who decide what the "labels" are determine what you believe. Sometimes it is appropriate to believe what others call extreme. Saying you believe something does not make you extreme; trying to silence those you disagree with by force does.)
Unfortunately most people engage in criticizing others
without having made any real attempt to understand the other side from the best
proponents of their ideology or faith.
Perhaps you are so hostile to certain beliefs you can find no good reason to listen to and talk to them? If you are then take note of these words of wisdom.
For the sincere
controversialist is above all things a good listener. The really burning
enthusiast never interrupts; he listens to the enemy's arguments as eagerly as
a spy would listen to the enemy's arrangements. --G.K. Chesterton
If you are to defeat their views you must have a very clear understanding about what it is they believe.
"Without the truth we are all vulnerable to manipulation." --Os Guinness
Truth is necessary for personal freedom as well as national freedom. Os Guinness has given an excellent talk about the necessity of truth at the University of California, the lecture is entitled "Time for Truth." It is available for free on the video library.
Once you have accepted that truth is necessary for freedom you are in a position to start looking at the evidence. For if there is no such thing as truth there is nothing to discover and therefore no reason to listen to others.) Those who believe their is no such thing as truth often misrepresent others as what is there to misrepresent?
None of us like it when
people misrepresent our beliefs. When we fail to listen to others we will misrepresent their views which only serves to add to the tension. If you are of the opinion that religious extremism is a very big problem, then be very careful not to misrepresent the views. of religious extremists. This really is adding fuel to the fire and makes them less likely to listen to you.
Sadly, some people justify not listening to those with religious beliefs in the name of science. But science should not lead to close mindedness; a true scientist is willing to look at a theory and the evidence to see what supports the theory. Science is the search for truth. Refusing to look at the evidence because you disagree with someone's beliefs is just an excuse to be close minded.
But aren't science and faith complete opposites? As Greg Koukl points out "it depends what you mean by faith and what you mean by science."
Science is the search for truth. We all believe what we believe because we think it is true. A scientist should not say that this world was or was not created on the bases of what he or she wants to believe. The real issue is this, "Is there evidence that this world was designed or does all the evidence suggest this world came into existence by chance?" The honest person will at least have a look at the arguments for intelligent design before making up their mind. (Neither will a scientist reject miracles as impossible without first investigating the issue; science is the quest for truth. An honest person will say, "I don't know if miracles are or are not possible, but I'm willing to look at the evidence and follow it where ever it leads." That's science. If someone says, "Science has proven miracles are not possible." Ask them, "How have scientists proven miracles are not possible, using the scientific method?" People often quote Hume but fail to see that his argument was circular, he stated that miracles are not possible and therefore claimed that no miracles have happened. A wise person would look at the evidence for miracles before making such a claim. If you are willing to look at the historical evidence for miracles then a good starting point would be the resurrection of Jesus.)
Help those who are extreme by talking to them; if they hear other views there is some hope. If you choose to ignore them and walk the other way; they will grow more extreme.
Avoid becoming an extremist by listening to and talking to those you disagree with.
See also this insightful article (by an atheist) about extremists in government.
*Defamation and racism are the exceptions regarding
litigation. And by the way, for those who are wondering, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam are not races. People from many races belong to these three religions. A person cannot change their race but they can change their religion.
