WHY BE VERY CAUTIOUS WITH TOLERANCE?
Acceptance celebrates who the person is or
what they do. Tolerance lets them do it but does not
celebrate. It implies putting up with what you think is evil
or wrong in the hope of the person doing it seeing the light.
Tolerance implies that the tolerated are less than good or less than right if
not bad or wrong. When you say you tolerate other beliefs your tolerance is an
offensive insult to those who hold those beliefs when you cannot provide
evidence for your own belief. Every religion claims to be right and that the
others are wrong so tolerance is the best it can give. When they have no
evidence or only insufficient evidence, we cannot be blamed for saying that the
religionist’s tolerance is an insult to followers of other religions and leads
to bigotry and division.
Tolerance is a paradox. We often tolerate in others what we find intolerable.
This shows the importance of trying to be as non-judgemental as possible. There
is a risk that our tolerance will collapse in the face of what we find
intolerable. In other words, if somebody is promiscuous or something else that
society looks down on, prove that the person's deeds are bad. If you can't, then
it is evil and dangerous to find their behaviour intolerable even if you do
tolerate it.
Nobody is allowed to be offended by being tolerant. The tolerant don't allow it.
How tolerant of them!
Many humanists reject tolerance for tolerance means putting up with something
bad so it is quite slighting and grudging. If people believe what they are doing
is good we should encourage them to do it even if it is contrary to our
principles. But nevertheless we have to try and win others to our way of
thinking because it is the only way to certainty and joy.
Can we encourage a person to commit murder if they believe murder is right? We
have to encourage them to do what they think is right but invite them to think
more about it first. We are not encouraging murder for we are concerned only
with them doing what they believe in. Nevertheless we want them to see the
abhorrence of murder by themselves.
If you encourage a Muslim to go to the Mosque though you do not approve of
Islam, you are not being a hypocrite or intending to further Islam but you are
furthering a different and separate thing, the autonomy of the person. People do
often make logical mistakes.
Humanists hate opinions that look down on Atheism and even religion for trying
to promote its teaching.
Humanists hate spiritual opinions that look down on Atheism and the scientific
method. Humanists hate it when religion tries to promote its teaching.
Humanists know that Humanism is the method of getting to the truth. Religion opposes that method thus for religion to promote itself at all is for it to damage
Humanism and the majesty of its ethos that we believe
nothing until we learn the case in its favour. An objection to our stance is a
gift and leads us to ways to improve our arguments and show that we are the true
servants of reason. It helps us to know that Humanism is the truth.
We can respect the people who have wrong beliefs and be sensitive with them but
we cannot respect the beliefs for we oppose them and want them destroyed. We
seek to destroy them not by antagonising or upsetting anybody unnecessarily but
with understanding and patience and good-will. We politely challenge their
beliefs with questions and they will doubt. They cannot expect us not to work
against their beliefs for that is denying us the right to be people of integrity
and we cannot expect them to not work against ours. They should if they think
they should. Never argue. Talk and discuss and do it nicely even under the worst
provocation. Atheism is love and only being happy and spreading that happiness
to others can spread Atheism.
Does Tolerance Exist?
Tolerance means letting something you disapprove of be. The trouble is, suppose
John will be sacked unless he listens to his bosses' verbal abuse directed at
him. If John cannot leave his job as he really has no choice, then is John being
tolerant? No. His intention is not to put up with the abuse. He simply has no
choice. He may look like he is acting tolerant but he is not. We all put up with
things for we have no choice. If tolerance exists then it is uncommon. We cannot
then be judged tolerant just because of appearances. The worry about that is
that we are essentially intolerant most of the time. Thus it is downright
vicious to invent a faith or religion or anything that gives us more to be
intolerant about.
People say, "I cannot change your opinion of me as a member of a particular
religion or what you think of me or it. You have to do that yourself." So they
conclude that it is none of their business what you think of them for they can
do nothing about it. This contains the hidden idea that if they could do
something about it they should and it is a pity they can't. This is not tolerance
but being forced to put up with it. To force a person to be tolerant is as
impossible as forcing them to be loving. It cannot be done. You may manage to
make them seem to be tolerant but that is all. It follows then that, strictly
speaking, there is no such thing as tolerance. Tolerance is just the label we
put on people being unable to give free rein to their hate.
Fake Tolerance
Fake tolerance is disguised intolerance.
Fake tolerance can be a problem. Here is an example of fake tolerance. John says
he will write a book debunking the Catholic Church. Jean the Mormon urges him to
be tolerant. But she is being intolerant for she is ordering him what to do. She
is preaching a principle at him instead of guiding him in such a way that he
adopts the principle as if it were his own idea if it makes any sense. And it is
none of her business - she is a Mormon. Also, it is his right to author the book
as long as his intention is to enlighten those who are open to being
enlightened. If Mormonism is true the challenge to its teaching will only
accentuate that. How dare she!
Another example of fake tolerance is asking for your opinion to be accepted as
something that should be protected from encouragement to revise it. "I have a
right to my opinion" is how it is phrased. It will be used against somebody who
helps you see that your opinion may be wrong. It's euphemistic for, "I don't
respect you for I want you deny you the right to encourage me to re-think. My
opinion is more important than you or the truth." Saying you have the right to
your opinion is fine when nobody knows or can know the best thing to do. But to
use it to silence somebody is an abuse. If something really is your opinion you
will welcome any challenges to it. An opinion is about what you think is true
but because you are not sure of it being true you will be willing to give it up
when you get further light. If you won't hear it being challenged or debated you
are really degrading yourself for the sake of what you call your opinion.
The person who knows how to deal with an opinion will use questions in order to
help the other person rethink it. Using "I have a right to my opinion" to stop
the questions is really just saying, "I am a bigot where you are your questions
are concerned. My opinion comes first even before truth. I am addicted to my
opinion."
Finally
Tolerance is putting up with what you consider bad. It is best to be as tolerant
as possible because tolerance implies a judgment that something you are doing is
bad. Tolerance is compatible with helping a person to see through their
religious faith. It demands it if the faith is too controlling or
anti-truth.
Saying things like, "Frankly, I couldn't care less about
any one's religious delusion as long as they are law abiding, do no harm to
minors (deny health care based on faith healing) and don't want to impose via
public policies their religious strictures on my personal life" forgets what
happens if people are wrong and errors lead to more errors. And if you are in
error you are unsafe in the sense that there could be risks involved that you
have not met yet.
Do you really want a Christian world if the Bible is actually no more divine
than a book of nursery rhymes? We challenge each other day in and day out and
there is nothing wrong with that. Those who say faith is fine as long as it is
law abiding and they don't care are trying to protect religion and faith from a
challenge. They are just selfish and lazy.
I would argue that tolerance is based on pretending that lies and untruths don't lead to worse lies and untruths. Sooner or later the tolerant will turn on you.