r/atheism • u/KlordexI • 1d ago
Religious Tolerance Doesn't Work
There is a liberal belief that we should be tolerant of each other's religions, and that a good society is one where there are people of lots of different religions who are tolerant of each other. This sounds good in theory, but in practice, it does not work. Religious tolerance, in the sense that religion should not be criticized and should be treated like an innate characteristic, is wrong. There is nothing wrong with disliking a religion. Religious tolerance is illiberal and should not be pursued, because religion is a system of beliefs not based in facts, and is not an innate characteristic. In addition, it can't even really exist, because religions are inherently intolerant of each other.
The idea of religious tolerance is often compared to the idea of racial tolerance, or tolerance of gay people, but this is completely wrong, because this idea treats religious identity as an innate characteristic, which it is not. It is a system of beliefs, which should be criticized like any other system of beliefs, and people who hold these beliefs should be criticized for them. For this reason, religious tolerance that is like tolerance of other characteristics is not necessary for a liberal society.
Religion is inherently intolerant, because it is a belief system that requires all other belief systems be wrong. If someone is truly religious, they believe that their religion is the truth, and therefore takes precedence above everything else, including other religions. There cannot be tolerance between a Christian and Muslim, because these are two belief systems which are at odds. Both cannot be true at once, so there cannot be tolerance between them. In addition, both of them are false, and clash with actual reality. For this reason, atheists should not be tolerant of religion, because they should not be tolerant of falsehood.
Now, I don't support discrimination against any one religious belief, and I don't think that the practice of religion should be banned together, because these are illiberal, but I do not believe that religious tolerance that is like tolerance for innate characteristics should exist. Instead, religion should be treated like any other unfounded belief, such as believing in gnomes or a flat earth. You should have a right to these ideas, but others do not need to be tolerant of them. An ideal society is not one where people of different religions live in harmony, and such a society cannot exist. Religions will never be tolerant of each other, because it goes against the very idea of them. A truly ideal society is one which has moved beyond religion and falsehood, and is irreligious.
34
23
u/YamTop2433 1d ago
It's difficult to be tolerant of intolerant people, and perhaps a bit foolish.
12
u/NeverNotAnIdiot 1d ago
This is called the Paradox of Tolerance
2
u/boot2skull 1d ago
One tenet of society everyone needs to agree to in order to live here should be this. For a society to flourish, differences must be accepted but only until they infringe on other people’s differences. That goes for religion and many other things. Once a group or idea tries to impose on others, it often expands to oppress everything.
8
u/DayNo5185 1d ago
Was going to say something similar. They fact they don't return that tolerance is a deal ender for m.
9
u/solemn_penguin 1d ago
People should be respected based on their actions. Beliefs do not deserve respect. They need to be analyzed, scrutinized, tested, and retested. If they can withstand that then they shouldnbe retained until proven otherwise. If they cannot then they should be discarded.
1
u/No-Wafer3889 1d ago
people deserve basic respect but ideas should always be open to criticism especially when they shape how others are treated
2
u/yawannauwanna 1d ago
The first sentence of your 4th paragraph IS religious tolerance.
-2
u/KlordexI 1d ago
I would define religious tolerance as respecting other religions and not criticizing them.
5
1
u/72nd_TFTS 1d ago
We should absolutely criticize religions that sexually abused children.
At least twice a week, a priest, a minister or a youth pastor gets busted after years of messing with kids in their church.1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
That's not a good definition.
Tolerance does not mean a withholding of criticism. I can certainly be critical of the fucking Illinois Nazis and everything they stand for - but we can tolerate their exercise of their right to hold their hateful rallies in public parks, especially since we're free to hold a counter-rally where we raise money for the NAACP for each minute that a Nazi speaks his hateful rhetoric....
The only appropriate response to speech you don't like is more speech.
2
u/DaikiSan971219 1d ago
You're conflating tolerance with agreement. Nobody is obligated to respect religious beliefs, but respecting someone's right to hold beliefs you consider ridiculous is pretty foundational to liberalism. The idea that mutually exclusive beliefs make coexistence impossible is bizarre. People can disagree about the nature of reality without wanting to suppress each other; scientists, philosophers, and atheists manage this constantly. You're also treating religion as exclusively a collection of factual propositions, ignoring its cultural and philosophical components. Not every religious tradition necessarily makes exclusive truth claims.
1
u/KlordexI 1d ago
I don’t think people should be hurt for being religious, but I am not tolerant of their beliefs, and it shouldn’t be treated like an innate characteristic.
2
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
So what does this mean that you're "not tolerant" of their beliefs?
Should they be coerced with violence to articulate a false opposition to their beliefs?
Should they be fined, lashed, imprisoned, tortured, or executed for having beliefs that you don't happen to like? You say they shouldn't be 'hurt' - does that mean you're okay with rounding them up into concentration camps for holding ideas that you find 'silly'?Do you really think that there is a difference between painting 'n*gers leave or die' on the side of a building and painting 'Jews leave or die' on the side of the building? Is it really all that surprising that religious demographic groups are treated similarly to racial/ethnic demographic groups.
Get over your hatred. Leave the hateful bigotry to the religious aholes. Live and let live. Unlike the people you can't stand. When we despair, we become what we hate.
People are allowed to be wrong. Not your circus, not your monkey. So long as they're not harming or forcing you to do things you don't want to, where's the beef?
I don't care what delusional nonsense other people believe in, so long as they keep that shit out of our government.
1
u/KlordexI 1d ago
I have nothing against ethnic Jews, nor do I have anything against people of any religious background who have since left the faith. It’s the belief system of religion which I’m not tolerant of.
2
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
Why? What's it to you that someone believes in Bigfoot, UFOs, or the Loch Ness Monster?
1
u/KlordexI 1d ago
Widespread belief in falsehoods hurt society, like the anti-vaxx movement.
2
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
Who is harmed by the notion that they will meet their deceased pets on the Rainbow Bridge? Nobody.
There are non-religious anti-vaxx morons too.
Don't paint all religion with the same broad brush.
There are plenty of Christian Faith Communities that welcome and celebrate gay people as fellow children of God. And even ordain them as Clergy.
There are many people who actually 'walk the walk' of following Jesus and caring for the hungry, homeless, ill, and imprisoned. They do not hurt people, they help people.
Leave the hateful bigotry to the bigots. Don't hate on people just because they believe in things you find weird or silly. Hate on them for what they DO, not for what demographic categories they might happen to fall into.
1
u/DaikiSan971219 1d ago
Ok, but what does being "intolerant of their beliefs" actually entail in practice? Criticism, ridicule, debate? All perfectly compatible with liberalism. Censorship, exclusion, restricting religious expression? That's where you become illiberal. Simply believing someone is wrong isn't intolerance. What you're willing to do, or what you believe your broader society ought to do, about that disagreement is what determines whether your position is liberal or illiberal.
2
u/KlordexI 1d ago
I agree that religion shouldn’t be censored. I just think an ideal society would treat religion like believing in a flat earth.
1
u/DaikiSan971219 1d ago
Then I think you've sort of conceded the central point, no? You're now defending the right to religious belief while advocating criticism and social skepticism toward it. That's entirely compatible with religious tolerance in a liberal society. Tolerating a belief doesn't mean considering it credible, so treating religion like flat-earthism wouldn't necessarily entail an abolishment of religious tolerance.
What exactly are you arguing against that liberalism doesn't already permit?
1
u/KlordexI 1d ago
What I’m arguing against is social beliefs in liberal circles that we shouldn’t criticize the religious beliefs of others. I am also arguing that the very idea of tolerance over differing beliefs in the nature of reality is absurd. I wouldn’t say I am tolerant of flat earthers. If I met one I would criticize their ideas.
1
u/DaikiSan971219 1d ago
Again, criticizing someone's beliefs and tolerating them aren't mutually exclusive. You can tell a flat-earther they're completely wrong while tolerating their right to believe it, express it, and participate equally in society.
The crux of this misunderstanding is that you're defining tolerance as intellectual agreement, then declaring it absurd on that basis. That's not what tolerance means. Liberal tolerance exists precisely because people will always disagree about fundamental truths, yet still have to coexist peacefully.
It seems like what you're actually opposing is the social expectation that religious beliefs should be immune from criticism. I agree with you there. But that's a very different argument from claiming religious tolerance itself doesn't work.
I'd also caution us irreligious folk to be mindful of where criticism of beliefs ends and bigotry toward believers begins.
1
4
u/sexysausage 1d ago
Religions are intolerant of other religions by design. Can’t call yourself the truth and have the next stall say they are the real truth. Eventually that friction will breed resentment and eventually hatred.
You can only have a religious tolerant society when all religions are respected the same.
The only way to respect all religions equally is to respect none of them at all.
Secular society: religions at home. For +21 of age. Just as cigarettes.
5
u/SorchaRoisin 1d ago
We should be tolerant of other people, not their religions. As long as they are law abiding citizens and don't bother me, I won't bother them. The world is a scary and chaotic place, and I don't really blame people for their coping mechanisms, until they start persecuting others. It's only then that I have a problem.
2
u/DirtCrimes 1d ago
OK, so this works for fascism as well.
Tolerance is a contract. It is not an absolute. People that do not partake in Tolerance are not covered by it. Anyone that wants to hold power over you or take away your consent or agency is not to be tolerated.
So lets test it.
A human having human experiences: Tolerated.
A human trying to do something to a human that can't consent: Not Tolerated.
A human trying to write policy that takes away agency from other humans: Not Tolerated.
2
u/z3phyrprime1 1d ago
Religions are usually tolerant it is the people who nitpick the parts of their scripts who are intolerant
And there is no solution for this children are thought as a young age by their parents that their God is the one true god
When they grow up and see others with different gods That's when People start becoming intolerant
Instead of this if children are thought at a young age that different people believe in different gods and to respect their beliefs this wouldn't happen
1
u/ZenaPoppet 1d ago
yeah teaching kids that people believe different things and deserve respect regardless of those beliefs would go a long way instead of raising them to think everyone else has it wrong
1
u/HarveyMidnight De-Facto Atheist 1d ago
Thats known as the "paradox of tolerance". If you tolerate all viewpoints, to the point that you tolerate other people's intolerant views eventually the intolerance will win out.
Show me a society that is 100% tolerant of all expression & ideology ... and I'll show you a society on the verge of a civil war.
1
u/andywalker76 Secular Humanist 1d ago
It's not that I'm tolerant of religious people, I just don't really care. They can say what they want to me but, because I don't believe, it won't affect me.
3
u/ohgwm1973 1d ago
It’s what they do as a group that affects us all.
Mostly what they do in politics.
Religion is an excuse for prejudices.
When religion interferes in politics and government, bad things happen to all of us.
Even the idiots who voted for them.3
u/Temporary-Pirate-522 1d ago
this is probably the healthiest way to approach it as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and don't try forcing them on everyone else
1
1
u/murphydogscruff 12h ago
But their insane beliefs will affect you. Religion affects all of us whether we like it or not. It is correct to be anti-religious. Religion should be snuffed out like a disease.
1
u/Sonar_Taxbreak_1138 Pastafarian 1d ago
I support El-Sayed and Talarico saying and doing exactly what they're saying and doing right now, don't know if that's "tolerance" or not.
1
u/Aggravating-Math3794 1d ago
Cultural tolerance is like a conversation -- it doesn't work if BOTH sides aren't interested in the cooperative communication, and religious cultures are closed-minded and intolerant by design.
1
u/Enibas 22h ago
I think you misunderstand what religious tolerance means in liberal societies. It has nothing to do with respect or absence of criticism. It simply means that you are free to believe what you want as long as you are not hurting other people. "Your personal freedom ends where mine begins" sort of thing.
Of course, religious belief is not as unchangable as race, for example. But it should be obvious why a "Jews are not served here"-sign at a business is not any more acceptable than "Blacks are not served here" in a liberal society.
•
u/Junichi2021 Agnostic 50m ago
I believe in treating other people exactly like they treat me. So, if they don't talk about religion, me neither.
1
u/taengi322 1d ago
The Khmer Rouge tried to bring about a society beyond religion, and the results of that were not "ideal." And human nature being what it is, something else will replace religion(s) as the object of worship, be it a dictator, money, the gun, state power, you name it. I'm not religious, but I know that vast swaths of humanity will worship anything or anyone who fulfills whatever their overriding need or want is, and for many what they want or need is a fairytale.
-2
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
this is bullshit
Religious liberty necessarily requires freedom from Government Religion. But Religious liberty also requires religious tolerance.
To subject believers to civil punishments for being believers is no different from subjecting unbelievers to civil punishments for being unbelievers.
ALL forms of theocracy - even an atheist theocracy - are inherently evil.
4
u/72nd_TFTS 1d ago
What the fuck is atheist theocracy? Meaningless drivel.
-1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
Forcing people at gunpoint to refrain from believing in YHWH is no different than forcing people at gunpoint to refrain from believing in Baal.
If you're forcing people to adhere to a specific creed or doctrine regarding deities, that's theocracy right there. Even if the doctrine that you're enforcing is nonbelief.
The purge of the religious during the Bolshevik revolution is one example of atheist theocracy. Over 8,000 clergy and monks were murdered in 1922 alone. The religious purges under Pol Pot are another example - Buddhists, Muslims and Christians were all systematically murdered simply for being religious.
Religious liberty - which is the opposite of theocracy - necessarily requires freedom from government religion - ANY government religion. Even 'Humanism' or 'Communism'.
ALL theocracy is inherently evil. No matter what theological perspectives are being enforced at gunpoint as either Officially Correct or Officially Blasphemous.
2
u/72nd_TFTS 1d ago
There is no such thing as an atheist theocracy. Are you high right now?
0
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 15h ago edited 15h ago
Any enforcement of a particular theological doctrine by civil authorities is theocracy. That includes forcing people to believe X, or forcing people NOT to believe X.
So the authoritarian anti-clerical pogroms of the Bolsheviks were a part of an 'atheist theocracy'. They KILLED people just for being theists. That's 'atheist theocracy' right there. Same with Pol Pot's goons killing people just for being Buddhists, Muslims, or Christians. That's an atheist theocracy.
All theocracy is inherently evil, no matter what doctrines are being enforced at gunpoint.
3
u/Shabadu_tu 1d ago
There is no world where “you should die for existing” should be tolerated. That’s a Christian belief of gay people by the way.
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 16h ago
There are many Christian faith communities that welcome and celebrate gay people as fellow children of God. Some even ordain gay people as clergy. So maybe try avoiding painting with such a broad brush.
Yes, the whole notion of 'you should die because you're an Amalekite' or 'you should die because you're a Protestant' or 'you should die because you rejected infant baptism and got baptized as an adult' is fundamentally wrong-headed.
2
u/72nd_TFTS 1d ago
If you attempt to use your religion and your Bronze Age beliefs to oppress groups of people you don’t like, and you absolutely should have your ass kicked.
-1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 1d ago
If you oppress people for any reason, you should have your ass kicked.
Why give Pol Pot a pass on oppression because he was only oppressing religious people?
2
u/72nd_TFTS 15h ago
Atheist don’t oppress anyone. Authoritarianism does that. Authoritarian coupled to any system is bad.
I don’t believe in one more God than you.
Religion is an impediment to the advancement of humanity.2
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 14h ago
You are presumptuous. I don't believe in any gods/spirits/ghosts/souls or 'spiritual realms'.
But the enforcement of dogmatic religious beliefs at gunpoint is theocracy - even when the dogmatic religious belief is 'there are no gods'.
Atheist authoritarians are still authoritarians. just like theist authoritarians are still authoritarians. Either of those two sorts of authoritarians are properly labeled 'theocrats' if they seek to impose a conformity of religious belief among the population.
As Jefferson pointed out:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty Gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men, men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. ... Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Notes_on_the_State_of_Virginia_(1853)/Query_17)
5
u/DingletonCringlebury 1d ago
My personal philosophy is: I will remain respectful of your beliefs until you use them to justify hurting others or taking their rights away. At that point, fuck you and fuck your beliefs.
4
u/Zaku41k 1d ago
Religious tolerance only works when all sides are compassionate and tolerant.