On Tolerance.
There shall be no slavery of the mind." --- Victor Hugo
As the number of new religious movements continue to increase in membership, the necessity to defend the right of people to worship as they please, as long as they do not harm others, is also increasing. Religious bigotry stems mostly from ignorance, fear, and spiritual competition. None of these need be reasons for engaging in religious intolerance and bigotry. I'll address why this is so here. But first, I would like to write about "tolerance" itself. The word is defined here as follows:
TOL·ER·ANCE (n.)
1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2.a. Leeway for variation from a standard. b. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
As Robert Green Ingersoll pointed out, to "tolerate" someone is to make an "assumption of authority" and it is therefore invalid to say to another "I tolerate you" or "I tolerate your religion / beliefs." One does not have the authority to "tolerate" someone else's religious beliefs: that is the default condition, and requires no act or largesse on anyone's part. Therefore when I write about religious tolerance, I am speaking about the fact that one has no right to perform any wrongful act against a person or group based only upon that person's or group's religion, religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs. The default is if they cause no harm, leave them alone.
Note that harmful actions caused in the name of a church, religion, or religious belief are certainly open to criticism: it is not being intolerant or bigoted to castigate criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. Indeed, it is a human being's duty to oppose criminal acts regardless of who commits them. Crimes committed in the name of religion are still crimes, and must therefore be denounced.
Molko v. Holy Spirit (46 Cal. 3d 1092; 762 P.2d 46; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 236; 252 Cal. Rptr. 122) to wit: "However, while religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously motivated conduct is not." (Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398, 402-403 [10 L.Ed.2d 965, 969-970, 83 S.Ct. 1790]; People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 718 [40 Cal.Rptr. 69, 394 P.2d 813].) "Such conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." (Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, 310 U.S. at p. 304 [84 L.Ed. at p. 1218].)
Crusaders torturing Jews.
IGNORANCE. Discriminating against someone for their harmless religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) out of ignorance is probably the second greatest "reason" religious discrimination and bigotry occurs. People may believe they "know" something about a church, religion, or religious belief that they do not in fact know; what they believe they know may be inaccurate. It is often the case that the only sure way to know what a religion actually teaches is to watch how members actually behave: if they do no harm, and do not cost non-members their time, money, and other resources, then ignorance is not a valid excuse for intolerance and bigotry. Education is the cure for ignorance. That education must come from the church or religious individuals themselves, as well as from the community that church resides in. (However, it is very often the case that the best information about a church or religion comes from people who have once been members but are no longer members.) If the community is not being harmed by a church, one must TOLERATE THAT CHURCH. One has no moral or ethical reason to do otherwise.
FEAR. People trust what they know, and distrust that which they are not familiar with. If one encounters an unfamiliar church or religion, it is only fair, ethical, and moral to withhold judgment for or against that church or religion until it has demonstrated itself worthy of fear--- which the vast majority never do. When the "newness" of the church or religion wears off, the fear will diminish.
SPIRITUAL COMPETITION. The worse offenders against religious tolerance are members and leaders of competing religions. This is a shame, as those who are religious bigots have failed to understand the fact that to be accepted themselves, they must accept others. There are many reasons why people belong to the religions they do: the chief one being geography and familial tradition. If they are happy with their religion, and if they harm no one, there is no reason to object to their choice of spirituality.
If someone's religion "does not break your bones or pick your pocket," you are ethically and morally obligated to LEAVE THEM ALONE and thus tolerate them. It costs you nothing to do so, and it is wrong to do otherwise.
David M. Rice
Source:Holysmoke.org/tolerance
In all religions, beliefs, and practices there are fundimentalist, and fanatics, in time religions, etc, will police their own. Until then there will always be those who fan the flame of conflict.
