Against Religious Tolerance

Leo Volont

Registered Senior Member
Against Religious Tolerance

One of the most damaging attacks that the prevalent modern secular atheism has imposed upon Religion – all Religions – is the insistence upon Religious Toleration. You see, nowadays, almost every cultural and intellectual influence comes from secular and atheist sources, and so even quite Religious People, who aren’t eternally vigilant in evaluating each and every one of their subtle mental and emotional assumptions are likely to pick up some pernicious secular and atheistic influences, not because they would consciously choose to believe such things, but only because such notions are ubiquitous and seem to creep in as though by a cultural osmosis. One assumption is that we should be Religiously Tolerant.

But we need to suppose that the primary philosophical basis that makes any form of Religious Tolerance possible can be only one of two things or both, and they are, firstly, that all Religions are equally False, or, secondly, that the Truth and details of any Religion is inconsequential.

Now, I can understand an armed truce, and an enforced suspension of violent compulsion being used as a factor in missionary outreach programs. But the notion of Religious Tolerance has been taken to the extreme of supposing that all discussion needs to concede that the Spiritual, Metaphysical and Revelatory Assertions of any Religion must be conceded by those of other Religions who hold quite different sets of Assumptions. Well, somewhere this must be perpetuating a lie. Now, logically, both sides of a contradiction cannot both be True, though they both may be false. If Discussions are left open, and dialogue allowed to continue for perhaps a century or two or three, then there is a chance that the Truth might eventually come out. But the habit of Religious Tolerance makes this impossible. The more insidious threat though, and one I have often noticed, is that people subtly stop believing strongly in their own Religion, or suppose that strong belief is no longer required. They take Tolerance as indicating that all Religions are equally True (when they should be more careful in their Logic which would show them that in fact Tolerance only supposes an equal falsity), and so they are sucked into considering the details of Religion as inconsequential. Take the Bishops mistake with Vatican Two which allowed that Protestantism was a valid form of Christianity – it garnered no reciprocal respect from the Protestants while throwing open the door for Catholics who saw Protestantism as more convenient than their own Church. They lost that sense of distinction for the Qualities that made their own Religion a tried and True Path to God, while blinding them to the deficits in Protestantism that would identify them as evil and essentially antichristical. Again, this entire cultural atmosphere of indoctrinated apathy induces a blasé spirit that is quite careless regarding the actual Truth of all of the matters involved.

Then there is another problem with Religious Tolerance, which is being demonstrated now most widely in Europe. Muslims wish to gain every possible benefit from having Secular Atheist Europeans grant them the widest Religious Toleration while they themselves decline playing by the same rules. Religious Tolerance to Muslims implies to them that now all of Europe must now live by Islamic Law straight from the Koran or be accused of not being tolerant enough. It quite disarms Europe in the face of this very serious Cultural Invasion. Now, if we had kept up the traditions of appreciating and allowing a serious Religious Discussion, where opponents are allowed to believe in their own arguments while being allowed to believe that those they oppose are false, then, although we might have suffered from some very uncomfortable dinner parties where the guest lists included a mix of Protestants, Catholics and Masonic Atheists, but at least we would not now be intellectually and civilly disarmed and helpless before the Muslims who now are intent upon using against us our now institutionalized habits of Tolerance.

If our hands were not tied, if our mouths were not gagged, we would be able to put forth cogent arguments demonstrating that Mohamed could not possibly be the great prophet he claimed himself to have been – we could point out the discrepancies in his career, his prevarications, his moral and religious wafflings, his ethical and spiritual compromises of principle, and the shortfalls of Islam as compared to the other Higher Religions. We would be armed to break the Confidence that is now being mobilized to destroy us as a cohesive Culture. But we have bound ourselves to silence, while they use the utmost duress on their own Peoples to suppress any discussion and to prevent even the most momentary of self-doubts.

Our Secular Atheists, by imposing Religious Tolerance upon us, thought they won their battle, but what they have done, in the long run, was to disarm us in our fight against a truly evil Religion. They destroyed any advocacy for the Good only to open the Gates for the Bad.
 
Leo,

The ultimate referee will be evidence (which may never be found) for the claims of any religious group – note that you have none just like Islam has none. Until then your religious fantasy has as much right to coexist in the world as the baseless fantasies of every other religion. Tolerance for the ideas of others must persist and be enforced if any semblance of peaceful civilization is to endure.
 
Leo Volont said:
...

But we need to suppose that the primary philosophical basis that makes any form of Religious Tolerance possible can be only one of two things or both, and they are, firstly, that all Religions are equally False, or, secondly, that the Truth and details of any Religion is inconsequential.

...

There is a 3rd option. People will naturally accept assertions as truth without considering evidence and will bind their sense of self / conceptual geometry to it. Religious tolerance enables these people to co-exist without attacking each other's beliefs (which preserves their sense of self and self worth - something that most people would die to do if challenged -). Various religions have means of attacking (destructively) others and religious texts tends to be ambiguous enough to be reinterpreted in terms of context and meaning so that those offensive strikes aren't applicable or are performed constructively.
 
But it would seem that many of the world's problems are entirely because of intolerance between oppossing religious groups. Achieving world peace seems unlikely all the time the fantasies of religions prevail - even Leo (a religious extremist) here seems to be in opposition to tolerance - and the downhill slide to anarchy will continue until we can find a way to correctly re-educate the religionists in the world.
 
The world's oldest living religion, Hinduism, is built around religious tolerance. It is not an exclusively secular concept.
 
Leo,
I am impressed by your attention to detail and language, as well as a properly developed comprehension of the philosophic ground. (If only I had as much patience with these folk, with whom one does not make much advance beyond "give evidence.")

I hope that you will keep your posts and write a book.

Please read my book if you like: www.lulu.com/MythicTome
 
Cris said:
Leo,

The ultimate referee will be evidence (which may never be found) for the claims of any religious group – note that you have none just like Islam has none. Until then your religious fantasy has as much right to coexist in the world as the baseless fantasies of every other religion. Tolerance for the ideas of others must persist and be enforced if any semblance of peaceful civilization is to endure.

You demonstrate my point... that Atheists, supposing all religions to be equally false, insist upon Tolerance between the Religions -- what do they care?

But the Religions, believing in their own Revelations, should hardly play along for the convenience of those who hate them.

With dialogue, Religions could sort these things out.

But the Atheists just want to put a lid on it. Why? So they can have all their Secular Wars and Secular Revolutions without Religious Interference. Just look at the 20th Century. The Bloodiest Century in History -- and all Secular and Atheist. Oh, unless one looks to the Mongul Conquests of the 12 Century, but that also was a Secular Barbarism unrestrained by the Religious Moralities that must be so repugnant to Atheists.
 
Lawdog said:
Leo,
I am impressed by your attention to detail and language, as well as a properly developed comprehension of the philosophic ground. (If only I had as much patience with these folk, with whom one does not make much advance beyond "give evidence.")

I hope that you will keep your posts and write a book.

Please read my book if you like: www.lulu.com/MythicTome

You are a Fantasy Writer?

Well, this kind of writing has kept me fairly busy, and I have a Day Job...
 
Crunchy Cat said:
There is a 3rd option. People will naturally accept assertions as truth without considering evidence and will bind their sense of self / conceptual geometry to it. Religious tolerance enables these people to co-exist without attacking each other's beliefs (which preserves their sense of self and self worth - something that most people would die to do if challenged -). Various religions have means of attacking (destructively) others and religious texts tends to be ambiguous enough to be reinterpreted in terms of context and meaning so that those offensive strikes aren't applicable or are performed constructively.

Yes, peace is great.

But as I pointed out, the great mass of people begin to believe that the Result of Tolerance IS the Truth -- that the differences are not just Tolerated, but indeed no longer matter. And since they don't matter, they can be ignored.

So Tolerance is the first nail in the coffin of a Living Religion.

As I stated before, the simple logic that where two contradictory propositions cannot both be True, they can both be false. Tolerance is a situation where two contradictory propositions are put together. The Inference is that they are both False. People might not understand this explicitly, but under the surface this enervating Logic has its effect, and people come to believe, by the logic of Tolerance, that their Religions are False.

Tolerance is destructive to Religion.

But, heck, what Tolerance is to Religion, Relative Morality is to Moral Secularists. As soon as everybody is willing to admit that each Society can pick its Rights and Wrongs, then Morality hits the same slippery slope, where it all no longer seems to matter, and Morality becomes as optional as Religion.

So, yes, while Truces may be occassionally useful, the best preference would be to fight it out in debate, or whatever, until one has a clear Winner -- a firm Religion and a firm Morality. Only then can Civilization reemerge.
 
Are you suggesting we should get rid of religious tolerance and then start another mass murdering of all unbelievers?
 
Provita said:
Are you suggesting we should get rid of religious tolerance and then start another mass murdering of all unbelievers?

Oh yeah, I'm sure that all Atheists would really step forward to die for their Atheism.

Look at the Islamic Conquest. How many Unbelievers did they really have to kill. I would guess not very many. Remember to what degree Catholicism would recognize and honor its "martyrs". I suppose this is true only because such martyrs were extremely rare and far in between.

But, no. Most of the really influential Mass Conversions in History were because of Miraculous Revelations. Look at the Mexican Conversion of the 16th Century. 10 Million Conversions in 10 Years and all because of a Native Saint's experience of an Apparition, and of course the Miraculous Icon She left behind.

But basically I am against Tolerance because Silly People think that Tolerance means that One Religion is the Same as Any Other. And that simply is not true.

Tolerance asserts an Effective Equality that does not exist.

But, yes, I must admit that I cannot see how it could help a Civilization if the Pillars of its Morality, its Religion is erroded by the tolerance for contradictory Religions. Or if its Morality is erroded by other Relative Moralities.

When the Rules and Religions of Civilization are erroded, what is left is a resurgent Barbarism.

Welcom the Republican Party.
 
Leo,

You demonstrate my point... that Atheists, supposing all religions to be equally false, insist upon Tolerance between the Religions -- what do they care?
Yet it is not atheists that are driving these demands it is the politicians who can see from past history that rival religions when left uncontrolled are a considerable nuisance.

But the Religions, believing in their own Revelations, should hardly play along for the convenience of those who hate them.
That is indeed a problem humanity faces when dealing with irrational religious institutions.

With dialogue, Religions could sort these things out.
You have no precedent for such a claim. Every indication is that the current religions will continue to fight each other as they have done for past millennia – such is the nature of irrationalism.
 
Well, Chris, allow me to remind you that Religion has a better track record for maintaining Civilizations then do Secular Atheists. Take a look at things since your precious French Revolution and the Institutionalization of Atheism. Wars, Revolutions, Wars, Revolutions, Wars, Wars, Wars.

The 20th Century -- the Atheist's Century -- was the bloodiest in Human History.

where Rationalism excludes Morality, where is the net benefit?

We can all be Rational and Dead. We can all be Rational and enslaved by your Totally Liberated Barbarians.

Religion brings with it Social Cooperation and Morality. Secular Atheism brings us Guiltless Exploiters, Pillagers, Rapers -- Laughing at anybody powerless to stop them.

Might makes right -- that is the God of Rationality. Your God is Numerical Superiority.

Remember what Thomas Hobbes had to say about Secular Atheism -- it would reduce society to lives "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

And that is what you want so badly that you will curse every Religion... even the Good Ones.
 
Cris said:
But it would seem that many of the world's problems are entirely because of intolerance between oppossing religious groups. Achieving world peace seems unlikely all the time the fantasies of religions prevail - even Leo (a religious extremist) here seems to be in opposition to tolerance - and the downhill slide to anarchy will continue until we can find a way to correctly re-educate the religionists in the world.

Education is only part of it. Finding a concrete way to fulfill human behavioral needs without relying on fantasy will be necessary.
 
Leo,

But, yes, I must admit that I cannot see how it could help a Civilization if the Pillars of its Morality, its Religion is erroded by the tolerance for contradictory Religions.
But religions are not the pillars of morality. Major religions like Christianity and Islam are viruses that undermine human progress and growth. Morality is separately determined by rational thought as it always has been.

When the Rules and Religions of Civilization are erroded, what is left is a resurgent Barbarism.
The rules of religions are not the rules of civilization. These are becoming increasingly divergent and rightly so as we see real needs and problems to solve.
 
Leo Volont said:
Yes, peace is great.

But as I pointed out, the great mass of people begin to believe that the Result of Tolerance IS the Truth -- that the differences are not just Tolerated, but indeed no longer matter. And since they don't matter, they can be ignored.

So Tolerance is the first nail in the coffin of a Living Religion.

As I stated before, the simple logic that where two contradictory propositions cannot both be True, they can both be false. Tolerance is a situation where two contradictory propositions are put together. The Inference is that they are both False. People might not understand this explicitly, but under the surface this enervating Logic has its effect, and people come to believe, by the logic of Tolerance, that their Religions are False.

Tolerance is destructive to Religion.

But, heck, what Tolerance is to Religion, Relative Morality is to Moral Secularists. As soon as everybody is willing to admit that each Society can pick its Rights and Wrongs, then Morality hits the same slippery slope, where it all no longer seems to matter, and Morality becomes as optional as Religion.

So, yes, while Truces may be occassionally useful, the best preference would be to fight it out in debate, or whatever, until one has a clear Winner -- a firm Religion and a firm Morality. Only then can Civilization reemerge.

What's so important about religion having a victor or even surviving?
 
Leo,

But atheism has barely had a say in the affairs of the world these past few millenia, even now atheists only account for some 14% of the world population and has only recently begun to cope with the past several millennia of persecution.

No - religious beliefs have ruled the world for most of human history. And those in power have made their warlike decisions usually in the name of God and King. Most combatants in world war two on both sides held religious beliefs and mainly Christian and assumed God was on their side. Every German soldier had a belt buckle whose primary inscription was Gott Mit Uns (God With Us) http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

I’m not aware of any wars fought in the name of atheism or for atheist principles.
 
Back
Top