Should we tolerate the religious?

Should We Tolerate the Religious?

Toleration of all forms of unfounded belief and the strange practices those beliefs give rise to are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions of the virtually all democratic countries. Why?

What is it about the irrational beliefs we know as religions that makes them different?

If people have unusual and irrational beliefs we usually treat them as mentally ill, or dangerous, untrustworthy or misguided. But there are whole classes of irrational beliefs that we treat entirely differently. Instead of marking out their adherents as strange and dangerous we conspire among ourselves to value their absurd beliefs. We actually come to value the people who hold these absurd beliefs, often above the ordinary people with more rational beliefs. Some people are actually jealous of people because they succeed in believing more outlandish things, people actually envy the minds that can more fully suspend their innate resistance to believing absurdities. Holier than thou, more faithful than thou; more credulous than thou.

What have they done to us? How have they managed to engineer this absurd situation? Not only do people with irrational beliefs not suffer the scorn they clearly deserve but they have built up a notion within the wider community that the toleration of the religious is the greatest test of any society or state. If there was a country with no unemployment, no crime, no disease and no religion too they would call it a tyranny, and we would probably believe them.

Do the religious tolerate?

All religions demand that we tolerate them and their practices. Do they reciprocate? In a kosher pig's eye.

Religions are profoundly intolerant of other beliefs and especially of those with no such absurd beliefs. The atheists and agnostics are tarred with the same brush as the devil worshipers and dupes of the powers of their hell. They spread the idea that only through their own brand of self-lobotomy can a human being become whole and worthy.

Most religions have a huge list of insults they use to describe the out-group and pour scorn upon them. Some of these words and phrases have been so widely used that we have forgotten what they mean and the baggage of hate that they carry:-

Heretic

Idolater

Barbarian

Primitive

Profane

Sinful

Diabolical

Blasphemer

Infidel

Pagan

Heathen

Sacrilegious

Impious

Evil

and last but by no means least that little word gentile.

They all come down to us and them, sheep and goats, saved and the damned. Is it just a coincidence that it is always the outsiders that get the bad name and the roasting in the hells of the in-group's own devising?

Some religions try to put up a facade of toleration, but usually only when they are in the minority. Sikhs, Moslems and even Christians are very big on talk of toleration when they are surrounded by people of other faiths and none, but when in power the history of religions seems to be the same, absolute power leads to intolerance. Religious persecution has been a justification for genocidal killing throughout history. There is no distinction to be made between Catholic and Protestant, sun worshipers, Moslems or the gods of Rome. When a religion has the ear of the state it uses that influence to persecute the out-group; only lack of absolute power keeps religions from persecuting their enemies. The claim of the universal plea for religious tolerance comes only from a community that is resigned to pluralism.

Religions press for tolerance for all religions as long as they are not in the overwhelming majority or in control of the civil power, in that case they discriminate only in favour of their own cause.

Do religions deserve an even break?

Given that religions hypocritically call for tolerance only when they see themselves as beneficiaries should the rest of us listen to their special pleas?

My answer is that they should be allowed an even break, but no more. They should be allowed to continue to operate but that does not give them any special concessions. They do not deserve charitable status and special tax status. They should be free to advertise just as any political or commercial cause is free to do so, that is, subject to law. Coca Cola is not allowed to claim that drinking its products will bring you everlasting life, to allow a Church to make such a claim without evidence would be inequitable. People who sell diet supplements are not allowed to make outlandish claims for them, why should we allow religions to make outlandish claims without some cautionary note added similar to the "can help weight loss only as part of a calorie controlled diet".

How about

“Believe in me and have everlasting life” Jesus

CAUTION

This message is classified as religious according to the
Religious Messages Act. No proof is required or available for such an assertion.
Making life changing choices based on such assertions is not rational.

Putting such a caution on religious messages would not stop the religions from advertising just as compulsory health warnings do not stop cigarette companies advertising. They might even wear those cautions as badges of honour, just as rappers display the cautions about explicit lyrics with pride, often way beyond the covers of their records. Such messages may do everybody a favour. If a religion can't be compulsory the next best thing is for it to be mildly persecuted, it gives it some rebel-chic.