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. 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.)
We can disagree with someone strongly but still treat them in a civil manner 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. Instead we will 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.
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 your views are 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).
What's the solution to extremism?
Free speech and public debates.
The best thing you can do for
freedom of speech is to talk with those you most strongly disagree with (no matter how difficult you find this). By doing
this you will expose them to different points of view and evidence 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. The sociologist, 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. If there is no such thing as truth there is nothing to discover and therefore no reason to listen to others.)
When we fail to listen to others we will misrepresent their views which only serves to add to the tension. None of us like it when people misrepresent our beliefs.
As a Christian I think no one has misrepresented my beliefs more than Islamists. But rather than try and silence them I think Christians should take every opportunity to talk with them. (As Jay Smith is doing.)
(Unfortunately, Islamists have chosen to engage in ad hominem rather than addressing the issues which others have raised. Unfortunately, most Muslims have not had the chance to hear the other side.)
Debates are good, but consider listening to some debates where the proponent of your belief lost.
"Obviously, Muslim organizations make available only those
debates where they look good, and not those that they lost. We have yet to see
them sell the debates by Dr. Badawi, or Mr. Green against Jay Smith." (Quote, see more of Jay)
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 support that 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 is the exception regarding litigation.
