Standing Up For Religious Tolerance

[catsittingstill]

I support freedom of religion, and recognize everyone's right to worship in the way they see fit or not at all as long as they don't harm others. Nor do I think people should be penalized for their religious beliefs, any more than they should be penalized for their race or gender or sexual preference.  People should be judged based on what they do and say, and on any harm their actions cause in the real world--not on beliefs about characteristics of a group they belong to.

Yet religion is different from race, gender, and sexual preference because the latter three are, at least partially inborn, not chosen. Religion is an idea. On the one hand, I would expect people to be able to pick and choose between ideas, and thus to be responsible for the ones they hold. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that the vast majority of people are consciously choosing to happen to believe the same things their parents believed about religion. Nor do I think I could choose to be religious—only to pretend to religion; my choice is whether or not to be honest about what I believe, not whether or not to believe in the first place. So logically at least some religious people probably don't choose their religion.  And if they don't, how fair is it to hold them responsible for what they believe?

However, religions are sets of ideas. If you think some of the ideas in the set are wrong, you think that religion is partly, or completely, wrong. It kind of stands to reason that since the sets of ideas in different religions include at least some that are irreconcilable (“Jesus was the son of God” vs “Jesus was a human prophet” vs “Jesus who?” for example) people are going to think that religions other than their own include wrong ideas.

How worked up should we get over wrong ideas?

It seems to me that it's appropriate to get worked up over a wrong idea that causes harm in the real world, but real world harm comes down to the ability of the people holding the wrong idea to still perceive the real world, and their ingenuity and good will to shape how they act on the wrong idea so it doesn't cause harm in the real world. And perception, ingenuity and good will are not limited to one group of people or withheld from another. People of any religion, or none, can have them.

On the other hand, if you think a wrong idea causes harm in the metaphysical world?  Logically that seems different to me.  People's perceptions of the metaphysical world are inconsistent, so they can't be trusted--certainly not to the point of allowing harm in the real world to correct what is perceived by some people as harm in the metaphysical world.

I think religions are wrong. I think they have ideas about magic and magical beings that have no supporting evidence. As long as those ideas don't lead their holders to behave badly in the real world, though, I shouldn't care. (Which is not quite the same as “I don't.” Someone is Wrong on the Internet! But I recognize that I shouldn't, which is progress of a sort.) After all, it's not like I've never held a wrong idea. I'm probably holding some now, though I'm not sure which. So it's in my own self-interest not to throw stones.

And maybe that's what tolerance comes down to. Not throwing stones. Treating other people's wrong ideas the way you would want your wrong ideas (if you had any) to be treated.  Telling people “we don't agree with you, but of course you can build a building like anyone else.”  Telling  people, even people who are in the minority “we think your ideas are wrong, but we respect your right to hold them anyway, as we ask you to respect our right to hold ours.”

Sure, "we want to understand more about your ideas so we can learn from and be inspired by the good parts" would be better.  "We rejoice in diversity" would be better.   I would totally be thrilled if we could get that far, as a nation.  But we haven't even made it to tolerance yet, so let's start with baby steps.

Mine is, perhaps, a rough-and-tumble version of tolerance. I will feel free to criticize wrong ideas, especially ones that I think cause harm. If I make an error of fact, or logic, I expect to be called on it--I would rather be set right than continue wrong unquestioned. You are similarly free to criticize my wrong ideas, but expect to be called on it if you make an error of fact or logic. 

And in the meantime, you can wear your religious gear around me and I won't complain--and I will call others on it if they do. You can follow your religious dietary rules around me and I won't mind--and I will call others on it if they do. You can build your church next to my backyard, and I will not try to push you out--and I will call others on it if they do. I will, however, bitch freely if your bells wake me up on a weekend morning.

Other Points of View:
Smallship1 (and a followup)
Keris
Tom Smith
Smoooom
Technoshaman
Mandelbear
Admnaismith
Janeg
Pocketnaomi
Thnidu
Tigertoy
Msminlr
Peteralway
Judifilksign
Catalana
Sffilk
Randwolf
Sibylle
Patoadam
Starcat-jewel
Pbristow

All those who posted, and any I have missed, have turned this into something larger than I dared to hope.  Thank you.

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Wups. smoooom's post is locked. Dunno if zie intended that or not.

What I hear you taking is Voltaire's position, summarized by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (and incorrectly attributed to the French master himself): “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Oooh. Subtle difference. Voltaire "disapproves." You *disagree*. But I submit that you Kant get out of your head to Objectively Know. I *choose* to believe, and that's a value judgement, based on my perceptions, which aren't yours and can't possibly be, and I'm ok with that. But in any system of logic there are Axioms, things taken as given, from which proceed all else. And if we Kant get out of our heads to examine the base of these Axioms, how do we know whether the Earth really is floating in space, or whether space is an illusion, and it's turtles all the way down?

But there's something neat about atheism... in that, because, for you, there's no afterlife, no backsies, no Saving Grace at the end of your days, all life becomes, for lack of a better word, sacred... because that's all you have. (taking from J. Michael Straczynski here...) And from that, many things of beauty flow. Five-year stories full of archetypes and elements from stories all over the world.. and music (http://www.echoschildren.org/).... which is why I, a believer, celebrate people like you, who do not. People like me, who believe there's something beyond here, sometimes get lazy, and don't create all we could. People like you believe we get one shot... and thus are driven to do the best you can in the time you've got. This is beauty.

And that is why I celebrate you. :)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

all life becomes, for lack of a better word, sacred... because that's all you have

At its best, yes. This was something I took from my mother's death. Wake up, be up and doing; this chance is all you get. If you put things off you may never get to do them at all.

But it's not like I live life at this pitch all the time--I can't. I doubt anyone could; we all have to rest sometimes.

But yes, there's only so much time, and no way to live beyond my death but to leave my mark on the world and the people around me. Since that mark will stand in for my "soul" let it be as positive as possible.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

What I was taught by Judaism about an afterlife (it's an iffy subject for Jews; some believe in a literal one and some don't, and it's not a piece of required doctrine either way) was that one lives on after one's death in one's children (if you have any), in the good things you have done during your lifetime, which can never be erased even if their effect may fade, and in the memories of those who loved you. That's a definition I can get behind. It still leaves me, in terms of my own conscious ability to think and act and experience, with one shot; and I'm still not real happy about that. I'd much prefer reincarnation; I'm less interested in a different universe of endless bliss than I am in more chances to try different ways of living right here in this one. But just because I'd prefer it doesn't mean I think it's true.

Probably my atheism and lack of belief in an afterlife (they're not synonymous; I know people who have either without the other) are partially responsible for my fighting so hard to have an active, thinking, doing, experiencing life of it despite the disability. It'd be so much easier sometimes to just give up and stay in bed and let this broken body have the rest it demands, but I would find myself at the end of the one lifespan I've got having not really gotten anything out of it or given anything while I'm here. I don't want that. So I rest when I must (I'm doing it now, despite having hoped to go with mnemex to the Puyallup Fair today), but I get up as soon as I can and do something else. I experience as much of life as I can, and I do as much for other people as I can, and when I have to stay put in bed, I try to keep my mind functioning and communicate with people through my computer or my telephone.

Because I want to leave behind well-raised children, and good deeds that affect the world, and good memories in the hearts of people who loved me. Being crippled doesn't change that. And I want to have as many experiences in the short time available to me as I can get.

[mdlbear]

My post is at http://mdlbear.livejournal.com/1261217.html

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Gotcha covered :-)

Thanks.

[mdlbear]

Thanks. Here's one you might have missed: http://thnidu.livejournal.com/663397.html

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the pointer; I had missed it. I have added it now.

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

Boy, you're fast! Thanks.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-) LJ can be incredibly fast.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

There are enough studies which suggest that a sensation that there is something Other is genetically wired into most, but not all, people, to make me think that on some level religion is also at least partially genetic, much the way sexual orientation or gender perception is. It doesn't affect what religion one believes in, or even if one chooses a religion at all rather than believing in ghosts, or something else, but either a spiritual sense or the lack of one does appear to be genetically predisposed. (We've talked about this one before, so I won't repeat myself at length about it.)

It's possible that what the people who perceive something Beyond The Mundane are having a genuine perception that I don't have, as if I were color blind. It's possible they're having a false perception that I don't have, as if they were hallucinating. I know which one I believe, but I don't have proof of my own accuracy. All I know for sure is that, whatever it is they're sensing, I don't sense it.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, if it is partially genetic, all the more reason to tolerate it then, in my opinion. I mean, it would logically be harder to change.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Yeah. See previous conversation about what it would be like to have schizophrenic hallucinations and try to refuse to listen to them as an act of will. Some people have done it, but it's really hard.

I think some people's chosen ways to express the general perception of Something Else that they may feel are more okay than others, depending on how they affect other people who didn't sign up to be affected. But as I said, I'm realizing that my legitimate beef is with what they do, not what they believe. Even if the latter influences the former, it's only what they do that I have a right to object to.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I do think the Not My Business paradigm is a functional way to handle it. I will have to give that some more thought.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I'm glad if I could offer you a way of looking at things which you may find helpful.

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

My response is now up, short and sweet:

here (http://sffilk.livejournal.com/65369.html).

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting; I will link.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

BTW, "starcat-jewel" as did one, perhaps because I mentioned your project.

http://starcat-jewel.livejournal.com/585368.html

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thanks for letting me know.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I think perhaps all current religions are past their "use-by" dates. They made sense, once, in their time and place. Look: In 1796, Georges Cuvier argued that extinctions had occurred, thereby showing us deep time. In 1828, Wholer synthesized urea, thereby showing that living systems were not required to synthesize organic chemicals. In 1838 Bessell determined the distance to 61 Cygni, showing us deep space. But prior to those discoveries and their acceptance, for all we could prove, we were living in a universe with one solar system that was created in 4004 BCE[1]. That is not so very long a time in terms of the history of ideas: two centuries only. We are still responding, transforming our institutions and creating new ones. But the discoveries have not stopped. The press for change is enormous: as 20th century philosopher and anthropologist Gregory Bateson observed, our new technologies in the hands of our old institutions acting on our old philosophies is terribly dangerous.

Does this mean, then, that I believe it would be wise to attack those institutions? No. I regard that as a betrayal of our own ideals. But it is important to insist on truth as we now understand it, to look towards the future, and work to bring it into being.

(All of which does not help very much when the fundies unwrap some new awfulness, alas.)

[1] The idea of deep space was re-introduced to Western thought by the hermetic philosopher Giordiano Bruno in the 16th century. (The Church burned him for this, as well as other heretical ideas. He was that period's version of a neo-pagan.) The idea was widely accepted by philosophers (I am not sure when the term "scientist" came into use) by the end of the 17th century.

& Charlie Stross weighs in...

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

...with an analytical piece. Not sure where he got the idea; he doesn't credit a source, but he reads you sometimes.

Re: & Charlie Stross weighs in...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

An interesting piece; thanks for the heads up.