TOLERANCE IS NOT A COMPLIMENT IT IS RATHER "I WISH I DIDN'T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH YOU"
A thought: Tolerance is a big
virtue these days. It is insulting for it implies putting up with something
undesirable or immoral. Religious tolerance means one religion merely stomaching
the others that disagree with it. There should be no religion as there is enough
around to test our tolerance without it adding to the problems. Religion like a
lot of things that is going around is inherently sectarian. Intolerance always
starts with repressed hatred as signified by tolerance. Ecumenism - different
religions being friends as religions - is just snow over the manure heap. It's
good effects cannot last. And they don't!
Tolerance is putting up what
you consider bad. It is an offensive insult. And the insult is compounded when
you cannot provide evidence for your religious belief while you say you tolerate
other religious beliefs. Why is it offensive? For tolerance implies that the
tolerated are less than good or right and that sincere or not they do harm.
Every religion claims to be right and that the others are wrong so tolerance is
the best it can give. For somebody that cannot give sufficient evidence for
their religious faith to tolerate me is to insult me and they show how bigoted
they are.
Many humanists reject tolerance
for tolerance means putting up with something bad so it is quite insulting 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 for them and us.
Humanists hate spiritual opinions that look down on
Atheism and the scientific method.
Humanists hate it when religion tries to promote its teaching in a way that affects the public sphere and politics. 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.
If my religious group claims to be sure that its doctrines are all objectively true, then what if yours disagrees? Clearly religion has to undermine tolerance. If it acts tolerant it is being hypocritical. It may act tolerant but that does not change the fact that it is in essence intolerant. A dog that is trained to sing like a bird is still essentially a barker even if he never barks. It is his nature.
Anything that can be done
without such as religion that embodies intrinsic intolerance is bad no matter
how inconsistent it is with its intolerant nature.
Hating the sin is not just
about hating the fact that people chose to do wrong. It is hating the wrong
action. So you should hate it when an insane person has sex outside marriage
without knowing what they are doing as much as you would hate it if they did it
deliberately.
The hate sin love sinner tripe demands that society be
very strict indeed. If an unbeliever won't go to Mass, that person is still a
bad harmful person if going to Mass is right and good and God's law. It must not
be tolerated. Catholics are bound to hate this action whether or not it is
intended to be a sin. To complain that being compelled to go to Mass is against
one's rights will invite the retort: "But what about our rights as Catholics to
hate what you do?"
Suppose we pretend that it is
possible to love the sinner and hate the sin. The less evidence you have that an
act that somebody did is wrong or sinful the more you hate them. And the more
you think it is the sin you hate then the more you are in denial. You need proof
(in theory) to be able to say you love them. Christianity plods on without
proof. It has all these sins it cannot prove are really sins. Thus when it
claims to be the only right religion and the only way to learn what right is, it
follows that its morals should be enforced on people and those who say they
can't be proved must be silenced.
The Catholic Church did not
declare that the heretic had rights though errors have none until Vatican II
(page 7, Human Rights; page 6, Religious Freedom).
Christian doctrine says we are
all connected in Jesus so if somebody murders we are all part of the problem, we
are all to blame and we are all sinners. The terrorists and the political
movements that support them adore this message for it makes them feel good about
what they do. The terrorists in Northern Ireland consecrated their murderous
activities by prayer. Prayer is seen by sceptics as making yourself feel good
for doing nothing.
Also, against those who say
religion in itself never does harm but people do harm in the name of religion,
we have to point to the harmful doctrines of the Church. They said Jesus was
right not to walk away from his death to save us though God could have saved us
another way. They say a baby that isn’t baptised is like a bastard – not a
proper child of God. I could go on and on. And there is the small matter of the
Bible and the Koran commanding violence in the name of God.
Some Christians believe that
religion is a terrible evil thing that causes wars and general misery and they
say they do not offer a religion but a relationship with Jesus. But the Bible,
which claims to be the written word of God who is its author, is full of
religion. It was God the Bible says set up the religion of the Jews. Moreover,
every religion is composed of individuals who are their own religion unto
themselves for the beliefs differ in interpretation and are based on different
reasons. For anybody to claim to be a Christian who opposes religion is
seriously confused thinking at best. Any religion could say the same. For
example, the Mormons could say they are not a religion but a relationship with
God the Father. A Muslim might say that Islam is not a religion but a way to
Heaven.
The doctrine of God implies
that since God is the law and is not subject to the law, that people must agree
with him. The doctrine implies that they must not divorce goodness from God but
fuse the two. Since God is supreme, there can be no law over him to punish him
or reward him for what he does which raises the problem of how we know we can
trust him. Christianity says just trust him. But it is unfair and bigoted to
just trust a being that makes such serious and heavy demands on us: love me with
all your heart and do what I say and condemn what I condemn even if my rules
make no sense to anybody. It is like marrying somebody within seconds of meeting
them.
The God concept then is
inherently violent and intolerant and bloody.
Believers insist that we
Atheists have no business judging God and finding him guilty of abusing the
human race if he exists for we are not above God in order to sit over him in
judgement. It implies that they think that all who oppose the true religion or
philosophy must be stopped not to destroy freedom but to maintain it. People
have a right to the truth and those who plot against the truth are denying them
that right. But that does not mean it is necessary to force silence on people or
to persecute them for differing from the truth. If you think you are right you
have to work against other ideas by talking and by helping the promoters not to
be one-sided. They can refer you to something that gives you the evidence for an
alternative view. It is your duty to try and be right and anybody who is wrong
has not tried hard enough.
ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE
We need to start seeing that when we say, "Only God can judge" we are saying that if we could see into people's hearts we would judge too. We are saying that we only refrain from judging because we cannot see. In fact, saying that only God can judge translates as, "If you are being bad then I'd judge you if I could prove it." Christian love always comes with a but. Such teachings only lead to tolerance of homosexuality not acceptance. They make indirect bigots of people.
CONCLUSION
Information is the best antidote to religion and RELIGION AND SECTARIANISM AND BIGOTRY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. People like us are to blame when religion thrives so we cannot punish anybody for being wrong. We need to do more.
