Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

[Freethinker]

No, it's not. It's reasonable to ask atheists and agnostics whether atheism and agnosticism leads to nihilism and fatalism.

I think most atheists are pretty happy that they've figured it out. I know that I am a happier person without the constant nagging doubt about whether I was good enough to go to heaven, and the guilt over my failings. Unlike marginal theists, I can go through my life not worrying about going to hell.
Something that may surprise theists is that I believe I'm a better person as far as treatment of my fellow man than when I attended church. I don't judge people for how they fit the ideal of Christianity. I donate to charities, both time and money now that I'm not pissing it away to the church. I do good things because I've realized that this is it. We get one shot, and I don't want to be remembered as a jerk.

I don't agree with the analogy about virgins and sex though. More like asking an alcoholic what it would be like to quit drinking. You won't find many who think it will be good, but once they have it under control, they are happier.

 

[Complexity]

 

[ceo_esq]

Some religious may be physically healthy but they certainly are not mentally healthy. Living a long life as a superstitious, delusional believer is not my idea of a life well lived.

Whether it's a "well lived" life is a separate and more obscure inquiry. As for "mentally healthy", however, I don't think many mental health professionals would agree with you here. Most research in the area - which has been discussed from time to time on the forums - suggests that religiosity is, on the whole, positively associated with the customary indicators of mental health. That doesn't make a given religion true or even worthwhile, of course.

 

[Beth]

Some religious may be physically healthy but they certainly are not mentally healthy. Living a long life as a superstitious, delusional believer is not my idea of a life well lived.

Well, as CEO-Esq pointed out, your first statement is incorrect. Mental health is positively correlated with church membership, just as physical health is. As far as your idea of a life well lived, well...to each his own. You might want to keep in mind that one doesn't have to be a superstitious delusional believer to belong to a church (Ex: universal unitarians). Personally, I think it's a factor that could rationally be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to join a church.

 

[Meadmaker]

Some religious may be physically healthy but they certainly are not mentally healthy. Living a long life as a superstitious, delusional believer is not my idea of a life well lived.

But if you didn't know you were one of those things, there wouldn't be a problem.

Come to think of it, how do you know you are not one of those things?

 

[Meadmaker]

In thinking about this, I have decided that it isn't religion that is the problem. I do, however, think that excess devotion to any ideology causes unhappiness, for the believer and those associated. It doesn't matter if it's a religion, communism, environmentalism, atheism, skepticism, whatever.

If you just can't bear the idea that there are people running around who don't agree with you, you aren't likely to be a happy person, and plenty of religious and not so religious people have crusaded to inflict their vision of the perfect ideology on society, creating unhappiness for others.

 

[Euromutt]

There is no god-heaven-nirvana in communism but it certainly was used to justify the killing of millions of people.

It's called "the classless society," and it's pretty much the communist equivalent of heaven or nirvana, only on a societal rather than on an individual scale. Communist doctrine, in fact, contains many elements which are eerily reminiscent of religious ones: the infallibility of scripture (the oeuvre of Karl Marx), prophesized events (but without specific dates, e.g. the Revolution, followed by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and culminating in the aforementioned Classless Society), and infidels ("counter-revolutionaries") and heretics ("revisionists"). Sure, "Scientific Marxism" claims to be based on science, but then again, so does "Intelligent Design"; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.

That said, the aforegoing doesn't make communism a religion. Communism is an ideology, and if it bears similarities to certain religions, that is because religions are also ideologies. Which brings me to the OP. Religions are, when you get right down to it, ideologies, and like ideologies in general, some of them play reasonably well with others, while some (like communism and Wahhabism) do not. I'm not sure whether this was part of Cello Man's original point, but we have the incongruous situation in American history that (suspected) adherents of one admittedly ugly ideology, communism, have been persecuted by elements of government, while if the government were to attempt to subject Wahhabists to the same treatment, such an action would be blatantly unconstitutional.

So how come it's not okay to advocate the undermining of American society if you do so out of communist conviction, but it's perfectly acceptable if you do it as a Wahhabist? There is a double standard, in that one set of ideologies receive protections not granted others, simply because they invoke some supernatural entity.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Whether it's a "well lived" life is a separate and more obscure inquiry. As for "mentally healthy", however, I don't think many mental health professionals would agree with you here. Most research in the area - which has been discussed from time to time on the forums - suggests that religiosity is, on the whole, positively associated with the customary indicators of mental health. That doesn't make a given religion true or even worthwhile, of course.

And how often is religiosity also associated with mental illness, the sort of thing like this "jesus told me to steal the purse", or hearing demonic voices kind of thing

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, as CEO-Esq pointed out, your first statement is incorrect. Mental health is positively correlated with church membership, just as physical health is. As far as your idea of a life well lived, well...to each his own. You might want to keep in mind that one doesn't have to be a superstitious delusional believer to belong to a church (Ex: universal unitarians). Personally, I think it's a factor that could rationally be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to join a church.

This is actualy distinct from what CEO-Esq said, that was that religiosity was positively correlated with mental health, not church membership. Those are very different statements.

 

[ceo_esq]

This is actualy distinct from what CEO-Esq said, that was that religiosity was positively correlated with mental health, not church membership. Those are very different statements.

Yes, they are distinct, but let's not overstate how different they are. Church membership positively correlates with religiosity, and indeed, it is one factor (among others) not infrequently considered an indicator of religiosity in the social science literature.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, they are distinct, but let's not overstate how different they are. Church membership positively correlates with religiosity, and indeed, it is one factor (among others) not infrequently considered an indicator of religiosity in the social science literature.

But profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than being really active in church.

 

[ceo_esq]

And how often is religiosity also associated with mental illness, the sort of thing like this "jesus told me to steal the purse", or hearing demonic voices kind of thing

So far as I am aware, there is no real causative association. Religious people who are mentally ill are more likely to have delusions that are subjectively experienced as religious ones; nothing earth-shaking there. If you believe in Jesus and Satan, your conscious mind might explain a compulsion to steal or kill in terms of those things. If you don't, you might persuade yourself that the CIA or your neighbor's dog is directing your actions.

 

[ceo_esq]

But profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than being really active in church.

Are you saying that (1) profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than with being really active in church, or (2) profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than being really active in church is associated with mental illess?

Either way, what makes you think such a thing?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So far as I am aware, there is no real causative association. Religious people who are mentally ill are more likely to have delusions that are subjectively experienced as religious ones; nothing earth-shaking there. If you believe in Jesus and Satan, your conscious mind might explain a compulsion to steal or kill in terms of those things. If you don't, you might persuade yourself that the CIA or your neighbor's dog is directing your actions.

My point is that standing on a street corner telling everyone who Jesus told you to castrate youself, is an act of religiosity. So that I would be supprised if there was a high level of correlation between religiosity and mental health.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are you saying that (1) profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than with being really active in church, or (2) profound religiosity would be more associated with mental illness than being really active in church is associated with mental illess?

Either way, what makes you think such a thing?

2. Because alot of mental ilness can express as religiosity, and I see no reason to think that having an increased support network would not have some correlation with mental health.

 

[Beth]

Yes, they are distinct, but let's not overstate how different they are. Church membership positively correlates with religiosity, and indeed, it is one factor (among others) not infrequently considered an indicator of religiosity in the social science literature.

My impression (could be wrong) is that church membership and activity is what is typically measure. How is religiosity measured separate from belonging to/being active in a church?

 

[ceo_esq]

My impression (could be wrong) is that church membership and activity is what is typically measure. How is religiosity measured separate from belonging to/being active in a church?

Largely by answers to questions regarding the nature and strength of personally held religious beliefs and attitudes, as far as I know.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Should I be tolerant of people who are intolerant of others?

By this logic, shouldn't you not tolerate yourself?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Religious tolerance is not necessarily a good thing. I don't advocate extreme mindless bigotry such as running mini-vans with Jesus-fish stickers off the road, but permitting religion to place their version of morality on a higher pedestal than human life cannot be excused.

What nobody quoted my hero yet?

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken, in American Mercury (March, 1930)

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
-- H. L. Mencken, Minority Report (1956), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Insulting Quotations

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.
-- H. L. Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)

His opinions are pretty much mine.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Too bad we can't nominate Mencken for the Language Award.