The Problem With (Religious) Tolerance

Despite having grown up as a outspoken atheist/agnostic (I still haven't decided whether or not the difference between the two is trivial) who has spent a great deal of time around religious zealotry, I have always considered myself pretty tolerant when it comes to religion. Yes, I think pretty much every major religion is a big waste of time, bad for humanity, and almost comically retarded, but I don't advocate the compulsory destruction of them either.

That might seem like a pretty generous definition of tolerance, but I think it's the best people are capable of, and probably also the best most people deserve. I have long-since abandoned my moral relativism, although not because of lack of incompetence on the part of its detractors. Crazed bigots like Bill O'Reilly and smug philosophers who think they fucking invented the wheel with their stupid little refutation "U CANT BELEEV IN MORAL RELATIVISM CUZ HOW DO U NOE UR RIGHT IF EVREETHING IS RELATIVE LOLZ!!!!!" actually make moral relativism some progressive and intellectually rigorous. But of course it is neither. Tolerance isn't uncritically accepting all ways of life, beliefs, and cultures as equally valid. That's stupid.

The first important thing to do while crafting yourself into an upstanding, progressive lefty is to develop a sound worldview. If you're going to run around judging everyone else all willy-nilly, at least have some consistent, objective criteria with which to judge. I won't get into just what those criteria should be (and believe me, I know), because that would entail me pretty much outlining my entire moral and political worldview, which might take a while. I will however, talk about stage two.

DON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT! That's right, who cares about your fellow neighbors are acting in an unholy way that is completely incompatible with your lifestyle; it doesn't affect you. That's the problem: I may not personally agree with country music, or people who derive excessive pride from their heritage, but I'm not going to go on a personal crusade trying to prevent people from watching CMT or going on and on about their cultural pride or nationality. Of course, there are a few exceptions.

I'll will present you will two scenarios, and then you can go through the steps of tolerance, and then think about how you would respond.

Scenario #1: It is the mid 1930's, and a political movement known as fascism is sweeping Europe. Already, Italy and Spain have fallen to this menace. Its unique brand of totalitarian capitalism, coupled with fierce nationalism has influenced another, similar movement in Germany. Most of Europe seems nonplussed.

Scenario #2: It is the mid 2000's, and a political movement to afford to same rights, privileges and cultural acknowledgement to gay couples is sweeping the nation. Already, California and Massachussets have fallen to this menace. Its unique brand of equality, coupled with basic human decency is has influenced other, humane ways to look at fellow human beings. Most of Europe seems nonplussed.

(Aside: Ironically, I'm sure many of the people who are so up in arms about scenario #2 probably wouldn't have been all that concerned about scenario #1)

You see, there are a few, subtle differences between the two hypotheticals. One major thing to consider about most beliefs or customs that might make you uncomfortable is a) they don't effect anyone other than the people participating, and, more importantly, b) they're not harming anyone. Of course, those two examples are obviously pretty much as black and white as you can get. Most of the time, it's hard to tell if some cultural entity is crossing the line. This actually brings me back to what this post was originally supposed to be about, before I got distracted by tolerance and fascism (as is too often the case for me).

I was just reading an article about a kid with stupid parents. He got sick, and they decided to pray the disease away. Needless to say, it didn't work. He died ("coincidentally", he was the cousin of this girl). Now that in and of itself angers and depresses me. I found it on StumbleUpon and I decided to check the comments page. Here is a verbatim review I found:

Although I definitely believe in the power of prayer, I also believe that the medical "discoveries" that help to treat our various illnesses are provided to us by the good Lord too. I find myself in a quandary in a situation like this; where does one realistically draw the line in religion and the treatment of your children? These people have the same rights to their beliefs as any other religion, and the right to teach their children their own beliefs. By prosecuting the parents, nobody gains. But it does open up a can of worms as to the governments ever increasing interference of EVERY religions beliefs and practices.

That's almost exactly when I decided that if religious people can't start telling the difference between reality and fiction, I'm going to stop being tolerant of them. I have no problem with people praying. Hell, I have no problem with people praying for sick people. It doesn't do much, but fuck, why should that stop them? The problem is when the fun little stories they read about on Sunday start legitimately interfering with their actions in the real world. When prayer stops them from getting medical attention. When the story of Sodom and Gomorrah leads you to beat up gay people. That's stupid. People get pissed at the WWF when some stupid kid kills his friend cuz see saw somebody do it in the fictional sport of professional wrestling. Why don't people get pissed of at the Church when some stupid parents kill their kid because their pastor, represenative of the fictional being known as God tells them to.

I know that these people are part of a very fringe organization, and definitely don't represent mainstream Christianity. But you see much more mainstream christians letting the fictional world of the Bible color their real-life actions. The most prominent example of this right now is the so-called Intelligent Design, which is basically creationism (no idea why they felt the need to change the name, creationism sounded stupid enough as it was). Science and religion are diametrically opposed. Science emperically posits a falsifiable hypothesis, then studies the real world, using logical and consistent means, and then formulates a theory about the real world based on the previous observations. Even before the scientific method came around and helped revolutionize the world for the better, that was basically how human beings interacted with the world. Someone figured out the purple berries were poisonous because a bunch of people ate them, and they all died, not because a magical little invisible imp told her.

There's nothing wrong with believing the things that may or may not exist outside of the observable Universe. Feel free to believe in Heaven, Hell, or any other conceivable afterlife. Want God to be a trinity of three seperate entities that somehow combine to make one? Fine with me. But please, acknowledge that those inanities have no place in the real world. It's dangerous. There's a reason people are mildly afraid of Schizofrenics. They're acting like the crazy things that are going on in their head are real. When you start doing that, you become a danger to yourself and others. Until people can tell the differene between their religion and their reality, I'm going to treat them like that.