In my blog entry yesterday I attempted tto locate some common themes on both sides of the so-called war on terror; I found two. Both sides are vehemently religious,, and both sides can be said to be ultra conservative. By conservative I mean restrictive, prescriptive, and intolerant of other views. I think these two stances are largely to blame for most of the world’s woes.

Yet, as a liberal, I have already contradicted myself: I should be tolerant of other peoples views, and try to protect their rights. This includes a right to be intolerant. I call this the Paradox of Liberalism, and it has been swimming around my head for years. Is there a point at which liberalism takes on the attributes of conservatism?

It brings to mind the old maxim: ”I do not agree with what you say, but would defend to my death your right to say it” I do not agree with religion – I think it repressive and judgemental. Yet people still have a right to believe what they will. This is why I think preventing the preacher in the states from burning the Koran is folly. My point yesterday, however, was to suggest that it was intolerance itself that was the problem. To ban an intolerant act is itself intolerant. I guess the problem stems from things being taken tto their extremes, as they are in ammerican religious conservatism.

I sometimes think it would be nice to be a conservative, and to see the world in such simplistic, binary terms. But the world does not work like that: it’s much more complicated. Things are never black or white but – as the cliche goes – shades of grey. There are points become tolerance becomes intolerant. All we can do, I suppose, is negotiate such philosophical eddies when we come to them the best we can.