The simple unspoken reality is that not all religions are equally good. Some in fact are downright bad. The problem we have as Americans, however, is that our fundamental attachment to tolerance makes it very difficult for us to say this. We typically confuse our absolute adherence to tolerance with relativism. But tolerance in fact is diametrically opposed to relativism. The relativist presumes that all religions and all ideas are equal. The American principle of tolerance on the other hand allows us to say, “Your religion is wrong, perhaps even bad, but my absolute adherence to tolerance means I will not try to squelch your bad religion.” We who adhere to tolerance as an absolute value are of the reasonable view that all people are morally required to tolerate what each of us considers the foolishness of others because each of us requires others tolerate what they may consider our own foolishness. This is an absolute principle, and a good one I think.
A fool tolerated, however, remains a fool despite our tolerance of his, or our own, foolishness. The only thing the adherent to absolute tolerance cannot tolerate, and must not tolerate, is intolerance, for intolerance is a rejection of our one absolute value: Thou Shalt be Tolerant. It is this strict adherence to tolerance that John Stuart Mill had in mind in his essay On Liberty. The marketplace of ideas certainly does not hold all ideas in equal esteem despite the freedom all should have to express them. In fact some ideas are just plain bad, despite the moral requirement that those who hold these bad ideas retain their right to express them. In a word, we have an absolute right to have bad religions and say stupid things, but it is immoral for us not to allow others their right to have bad religions and say stupid things. So lots of bad religions and stupid things abound in America, and our tolerance of this makes none of it less bad or less stupid.
Article comments
1 - Jim
One consideration with regard to BAD religions, as you pointed out in this article, is that they can be a public hazard - dangerous to the health, safety and welfare of any uninformed citizen who might be seduced, through use of misinformation by a BAD religion, into joining it.
Society does not tolerate dangerous products such as asbestos. If a BAD religion is potentially as dangerous to the public as asbestos is, should it be tolerated?
If a BAD religion is potentially as dangerous to the health, safety and welfare of the unaware citizen as cigarettes might be dangerous to that same uninformed citizen, would it not make sense for Government to protect the public, to investigate and verify the potential danger, study it and if found valid, disseminate warnings about the potentially BAD religion via mass media as public service messages?
Maybe, Government could call this program 'The War on BAD Religions', similar to the 'War on Drugs' or 'War on Crime'.
That adheres to the idea of 'Tolerance', it is informed tolerance. One way to look at the 'War on Drugs' and the 'War on Crime' is that these programs are intended to make the world a safer place for the average citizen. If a potential JonesTown could be avoided or the murder of a Doctor who performs abortions could be avoided wouldn't a 'War on BAD religions' be worth it?
The song could be, 'Bad religion, bad religion, what ya' goin' do, what ya' goin' do when the public knows more about you?'