You cannot simply impose 'tolerance' on a system which is constructed from the ground up on the foundation that one set of beliefs is privileged and holy, and that only people who hold those beliefs are truly human -- and that applies to Christianity just as much as Islam. Dismantle religion, and tolerance will no longer be an issue. But as long as religions exist and continue to perpetuate themselves, then the process of demonising non-believers and canonising believers will continue. Only education and affluence can loosen its grip.

JonJ,

As I suggested elsewhere to another OLOer, do, or read the study material for RELS !.

Dear Jon,

As usual, religion is being blamed for the acts of the non-religious.

When I was in school, a class-mate used to pretend to represent a charity, using a fake receipt-book to steal from shops. When caught, I was implicated and had a hard time having to prove to the principal that I wasn't even there and knew nothing about it.

If you had such an experience, you would know the feeling that I feel when religion is implicated of various crimes, including intolerance.

The culprits may claim to be "religious" and have organisations that claim to be forwarding religion, but if they are intolerant of others, then they are not. Yes, religion is intolerant, but only of the evil in our own hearts and the ignorance of God in our minds - never in the hearts and minds of others.

Religion is not about belief: belief is at times used by religion as a step, as a technical method on the way to attain God, but many religious people do not believe in anything particular, many just use other methods. In fact, those who reach the goal of religion do not believe in God - because they know themselves and all others directly to be that same God.

Churches and similar organisations could be dismantled, but religion itself cannot be dismantled because it is the only reason why we are here and why the world exists.

“Let’s bash a bogan, not a Muslim!” Now that is what I call tolerance!

It is one thing to tolerate religious beliefs and ideas but quite another to tolerate religious behaviour that impinges upon the rights of others. Ideas hurt no one - it is the behaviour that does the damage. It is that behaviour that religious people seek to protect and they are prepared to become violent in order to protect that behaviour. No one can get inside their head and change the way they think but the state and other citizens can frustrate their religious practices when those practises impinge on the rights of others.

A Muslim person who insists on his ‘right’ to take time out of the working day for his prayers impinges on the rights of his non-religious colleagues. When the Catholic Church takes over the city streets for a parade they impinge on others to be able to drive down the street unhindered. When church schools demand special funding it takes away from the rights of those who use the public system. Religious behaviour impinges in many ways. In extreme cases it makes slaves of women over whom it has power. None of these behaviours should be tolerated. It is not tolerance to allow the behaviour of one group to deny the rights of another – it is acquiescence.

Too often those who call for tolerance and a live and let live attitude are making a personal statement about their own acquiescence. They do not want to cause a fuss or upset anyone. They are too insecure to assert their own rights and fight for justice against the encroaching behaviour of others in their life. They want the rest of society to chill out and be like them. They do not like it when they see others assert their rights to push back against religious behaviour because it reminds them of their own weakness in dealing with the personal injustices they experience in their own lives.

Thanks, Ian, for your perceptive comments on tolerance. Too often it is sketched as a "soft option" and flabby flipflop. You argue for an active (even proactive?)tolerance which respects without being spineless.

yep and the most intolerant are the secular humanist. Heaven forbid anyone challenging their hopelessly flawed moral relativism and the rotten fruit that is evident for anyone with a brain to see what it has produced. You would go a long way to find such an intolerant bunch who use pseudo science to justify all their depravities.