Fundamentalism

I am fundamentally a liberal, in the old sense of the word, on most issues. While I stretch this on economic issues, my position on free speech can only be described as a radical worship of it. That's why this Reason article pleased me so much. I completely support freedom of religion, and I do not really distinguish between any religion insofar as it does not seek to suppress the rights of others. But when it does, whether it be fundamentalist Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism, I dislike it and feel that I cannot really see those who follow it as anything but enemies of everything I hold dear. This does not mean I seek to suppress them. Instead, I think they should be given the rights everyone else has so that I may ridicule the silly things they say. See, for instance, the latest issue of Harper's for a fatwa from a Saudi Cleric condemning soccer:

3. If a player falls during the game and breaks his hand or his foot, he shall not say 'foul' and hsall not stop playing because of his injury. The one who caused his injury shall not receive a yellow or red card but rather the case shall be judged according to Muslim law. The injured player shall exercise his rights according to the shari'ah, as stated in the Koran, and you must testify together with him that so-and-so tripped him intentionally.
4. Do not set the numbers of players according to the number of players used by the Jews, the Christians, and especially the vile America [no one really plays soccer in America, you fool!]. In other words, eleven players shall not play together. Make it a larger or a smaller number (26)

Here is a further translation. These fucking people are crazy. This fatwa caused three players to quit from the Saudi National team. But would I want to suppress their speech? No, thank you. You see, even if you don't support free speech and other rights on principle, you can see that they enable all of the best things in life. Sometimes I think to myself, "Gee willakers, if only those unhappy muslims would just have one night of dancing or drinking or reading non-Islamic literature or sledding or ice skating or skiing or horeseback riding or hiking or good conversation, they would stop being so angry at everyone,". Whether this is true or not, the point is that fundamentalists cut themselves off from all joy in life. What was the most fun and free-spirited night of your life? Did it involve earnest conversation between men and women with humor and music, or singing, or dancing , or kissing, or hugging, or a drop of alcohol, or anything immoderate? Fundamentalists, Christian, Islamic, or Jewish, sustain their radicalism by cutting themselves off from emotions or thoughts that run counter to their beliefs. They depend on an a priori rule against these thoughts or emotions and live by this rule while condemning those who do not.
This is why it is so important that we not only allow them free speech but allow ourselves free speech as well, and utilize that freedom in order to force thoughts that aren't allowed. Is this domination? Perhaps. But it is the kind of domination that forces you to dominate yourself--it forces the mind to consider something that doesn't fit in its enclosed worldview. It is not evil because it allows you to think about the idea as you wish, and generally you are able to prevent exposure to these ideas by remaining away from the public sphere. But within the public sphere we cannot fail those who should be allowed to think thoughts not enclosed by structured religion.
We should seek to provoke new thought and force others to think about the world from new and foreign perspectives. This is the aim of art and literature and science and everything else in the world of ideas. We cannot let this go.