Daily Archive

There is a prevailing view within the “progressive” community that religious tolerance (RT) is a virtue necessary for a just, egalitarian society.  This is preposterous.  Not only does RT have horrific implications, it is an “ideal” that I seriously doubt is actually held by its proponents.  To begin with, lets take a look at what its advocates would like you to think RT means. RT means people are allowed to have whatever faith they want without fear of prosecution, persecution, or any other undesirable ‘ution’ and thus, RT would result in less hate crimes, violence, and a whole bunch of other nasty stuff we would rather be without.

The very first thing I’d like to point out is that all that nasty stuff that RT proponents say they’re trying to reduce can be dealt with much more efficiently.  Instead of saying, “You’re not allowed to lynch someone or burn down their house just because they hold to a faith that differs from yours,” it would be much better to simply say, “You’re not allowed to lynch someone or burn down their house at all, for any reason”.  The former of these maxims can be interpreted to mean that there are some circumstances which would allow one to lynch another, its just that differences in faith isn’t one of them.  The second, however, makes things pretty clear.  So this first short bit is just to show that basic protection laws make the common perception of RT irrelevant; if not a markedly inferior approach and a step in the wrong direction.  That is just examining the possible benefits of RT. Let us analyze the completely ignored and adverse ramifications of RT.

RT would be a restriction on society, but not on individuals.  This is very different from other egalitarian movements and why RT is dangerous.  For example, tolerance of alternative sexual orientations is a two way street.  Simply speaking, straight people are OK with gay people and gay people are OK with straight people.   If it was only a one way street, then the ideal of the freedom to be with the consenting adult of your choice, regardless of their physiology, would be undermined.

RT, however, can only be one way.  The community must accommodate the beliefs of the individual, but not the other way around.  If one is allowed to adhere to any faith one wants to (as RT says one is) then if someones faith does not include RT, then that feature must be allowed and respected as well.  Because RT is presented as a freedom of beliefs/values, and RT is itself a belief/value, proponents of RT cannot enforce RT on anyone without going back on the basic principles of RT.

So lets look at three people, each with very different faiths…

Read the rest of this entry »