Standing Up For Religious Tolerance
Sep. 11th, 2010 08:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsittingstillI 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.
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.
