There is no such thing as a tolerant religion. By its very nature, it cannot be defined as tolerant. Even those religions that claim total tolerance such as Buddhism cannot make such a claim. Instead, they redefine other belief systems to fit under the umbrella of their own. While a Buddhist can claim that each individual must “find” his own way and method to achieving and understanding Nirvana, the truth of the matter is such equivocation is simply a method of justifying the idea of a “one, true religion”: Buddhism. The only “religion” per say that is capable of achieving any kind of religious tolerance is a pure form of Taoism, which has now degenerated into a sort of witchcraft and magic-based belief system similar (in ways) to the so-called “Wicca”. Rather than religious tolerance, there is only the tolerance of religion.
Christians often claim that Islam is an intolerant religion whose motive and primary goal is to “take over the world” while at the same time Moslems claim that Islam is a religion bound to peace and prosperity for all. It is ironic however, that Christianity is infamous for its bloodshed and violence as well as its open claim that the “gospel of Jesus Christ” is to be spread throughout the world. It can be no surprise, nor is it a coincidence, that Islam is a very close sister-religion to Christianity: they both have the same aims and are not above the means to achieve their ends: namely violence, bloodshed and incoherent justifications concerning their “true motives”. Their true motives are not questioned by anyone who is 1) honest enough to look at the histories of these religions and, 2) honest enough to read the dogmatic doctrines of both of them. What Islam is doing today, that which is called “terrorism”, was done and continues to be done, by Christianity. In fact, Islam is nothing more than a continuation of Christianity, theologically speaking.
Most religions claim tolerance, but very few act upon their claims. Buddhism makes a Truth claim but if Buddhist history is to be taken into account, that claim does not coincide with what Buddhism is today. Traditional Taoism makes no claim, and in doing so can define itself as anything and call it Truth, making itself arbitrary. The same applies to Hindus, and in fact, to all religions. Christianity is a case in point. Christianity, especially fundamental Christianity, claims absolute truth, but in doing so it finds that it must redefine its claims to fit the world around it or make a concerted effort to redefine the world to fit its claims: tolerance is forced upon it rather than freely accepted. The first act is an act of liberalization and the second act is precisely what creationists have been trying to do ever since Aquinas and Anselm “Christianized” Aristotle. Neither methods work. In redefining a claim that is considered absolute, the claim becomes either an outright lie or mistaken at best, neither of which is acceptably tolerated by the religion. In re-modeling reality, even the most illiterate and ignorant of people can draw upon that very uncommon thing called “common sense”. Either way religious tolerance is either forced or leads to contradiction.
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam claims “Truth” in the form of revelation. The “Truth” is that all the above religions are based on nothing more than faith. Revelation is faith. Truth cannot be based on faith, or it becomes opinion. There is only one method of acquiring anything close to what Truth can be defined as and it is far from being absolute: science. Be that as it may, science does not rely upon faith, and does not make the claim that it is absolute. On the other hand, all religions do rely upon faith and do make the claim that they are absolute. In claiming to be tolerant, religions simply redefine a dogma, based on faith and believed to be absolute. The redefinition of dogma is not tolerance, and to redefine what was claimed as absolute is religious suicide. As it has been said: one cannot remove the spots from a leopard. It is dogma (unquestioned claims, true or not) that religion is defined by not tolerance.
To be tolerant, one must accept the possibility that one is wrong and that another is right. This is suicide to all religions and this is the basis upon which doubt is considered ignorance, pride, and/or sin by religions. Doubt forces honest questioning, and honest questioning demands honest answers. The redefinition of any religion is not the demand for honest answers. Rather it is a weak attempt to gain respect, one which is unfortunately accepted by ignorant and/or unwilling persons. Buddhism claims to “free the mind” by an attempt at realizing “what the world truly is”. Hinduism does the same but with is based on the acceptance of authority. Judaism claims that intellectual discussion is a form of “prayer” and hence that it is not a religion of faith. Christianity and Islam make similar claims, except now blatantly disapprove of any form of doubt. For all religions, the problems that doubt and honest questioning make are that they create the necessity for tolerance; and the necessity of tolerance demands honest questioning. The type of questioning that religions offer or allow is the sort that only leads to certain answers (those that adhere to their dogma): this is the basis of religious tolerance. That is, questioning is allowed but only if it does not contradict the dogma at hand.
It is only just that everyone has the right to believe or disbelieve what it is that they desire to believe or disbelieve, but it is not included in any form or definition of justice that religious belief must be respected. It is also not included in any form or definition of justice that we as disbelievers in any religion or religions must tolerate a religious belief that endangers the world, society, or intellectual freedom. Unfortunately, religious belief in most if not all its forms endangers all of the above. An example is the so-called “war on terror”, a religious war based on economic and natural desires, and it endangers the world. It is universally dangerous because of the nature of the two religions involved in it (Christianity and Islam), both of which openly claim world domination and neither of which ought in any moral sense be tolerated. The tolerance of such acts endanger society, especially when authority is claimed to be beyond question, which it is within both (if not all) religions.
John Stuart Mill said it most succinctly when, in his Two Treaties on Government, he claimed that if a government ceases to govern for the people that it ought to be removed from power. I would apply this sentiment to any religion that claims the right to govern society and more importantly the intellectual freedom of individuals. Every religion, including the so-called “peaceful ones” makes an intolerant claim: that they alone hold the absolute Truth. Any truth that is held as absolute becomes dogmatic, and all religions must by their very nature claim absolute truth and therefore every religion is dogmatic. There is no such thing as religious tolerance, and there is no authority in reality that can claim that we must tolerate religious belief in any of its forms. The fact that some of humanity continues to do so is either from altruistic slavery to tradition or simple-minded naivety if not plain stupidity.
Search This Blog
