How much "intolerance" are we willing to tolerate?

It has been common practice for some time to treat the topic of religion with kid gloves. Whenever a discussion of that particular flavor arises, it brings with it a certain air of unease and overwhelming cautiousness. Since grade school, the key words have been "respect," "tolerance," and "conscientiousness." Intellectuals like biologist Richard Dawkins and author Christopher Hitchens have long been at the forefront of the campaign against faith and their respective books have sent shock waves throughout America in recent years. Not surprisingly, the books were lauded in Europe. Yet with the exception of a few university campuses (such as Berkeley, where I had the opportunity to hear Dawkins speak), Americans, by and large, have taken offense to such unapologetic repudiation of their religious beliefs.

When it comes to defending religion, there are several different strains of thinking. Conservative Americans, particularly of the FoxNews inclination, believe not that religion is inherently problematic. Rather, they see all current global conflict as a clash between Islamic society and Western, Judeo-Christian values - a conflict in which the West will eventually triumph because of its moral superiority and devotion to democracy. This neoconversative worldview was a major driving force behind the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those from the Left who defend religion do so on different grounds. Again, there is a hesitation to indict religion as inherently problematic. Instead, the Left often clings to the idea that when religious extremism, (particularly in the Muslim world) manifests itself, it is generally a lasting effect of European imperialism or a current response to economic, cultural, or military "neo-imperialism." This view, that past colonialism and current Western aggression galvanizes religious violence in the rest of the world is somewhat helpful in understanding the 9/11 attacks, for example (which mosts experts attribute mainly to the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil), but it leaves unexplained troubling elements of Islamic society such as honor killings, which occur in Muslim communities around the world.

Intellectuals like Hitchens and Dawkins go much further in their condemnation of religion. They believe that faith is not only irrational and delusory, but that is has been detrimental to humanity. Dawkins summarizes his assessment of religion in a 2001 Guardian interview:

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

Dawkins makes an insightful point - why do we generally consider religion to be a sphere immune from normal criticism? We don't give a second thought about challenging our friends' political views, fashion choices, or even sports team affiliations. Yet when it comes to discussing religion, we suddenly hesitate. It seems that principles of respect, tolerance, and conscientiousness apply only to this particular topic. And yet there is a gray area.

Religious "moderates" seem to concede that instances of fundamentalism and extremism are acceptable for criticism and condemnation. Almost everyone agrees that Baruch Goldstein's shooting spree in Hebron, Hamas' suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, and al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11 are inexcusable because the perpetrators of these actions killed in the name of god. This seems like a reasonable compromise. But why is this the only instance in which we free ourselves from the restraint that we are taught to practice? Why can't we bring ourselves to sit down with another religious person - be he/she Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Wiccan - and engage in an objective, frank discussion of his/her beliefs? Certainly, there is no shortage of criticism to draw from. Encapsulated in our right to freedom of speech is the right to openly object to the following:

- Muslim sheiks in countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia who condone honor killings, sentence female rape victims to flogging, and condemn homosexuals to death by stoning, citing the Koran as basis.
- Messianic nationalist Jewish settlers in the West Bank who believe that God promised every last inch of the Holy Land to the Jewish people, regardless of how inconvenient such a belief is to the almost 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who happen not to believe in the Jewish God or any God, for that matter.
- Evangelical Christians such as the late Jerry Falwell who proclaim that AIDS and Hurricane Katrina are part of God's retribution for homosexuality.
- Ultra-religious families in Israel in which the parents do not work, which raise families with 8 - 10 children, and which expect their fellow citizens to completely subsidize their livelihood through the Israeli government's redistribution of tax dollars.
- Members of Hezbollah and Hamas who use Israeli occupation as an excuse to launch rockets into Israeli kindergardens and blow up discotheques and cafes.
- Religious parents who are willing to watch their children die, while praying for divine intervention, rather than call for medical attention.
- The Catholic Church's willingness to tolerate millions of African victims of pediatric AIDS and its simultaneous devotion to banning contraceptives and outlawing abortion ("pro-life"?)
- The Catholic Church's exoneration of sex-offender priests and its refusal to admit that, perhaps, the life-long vow of celibacy may be problematically connected to the molestation of choir boys


I don't anticipate much reasonable objection to criticism of religious doctrine. Often, the ludicrousness of religious doctrine is so apparent that only a superficial examination of it is necessary to raise eyebrows. It seems that most people draw the line when it comes to criticism of religious people. This is a curious line to draw for several reasons. First, religous people are religious people because of doctrine. Second, religious people, themselves, generally criticize other religious people, whether or not they are aware. A devout Catholic would probably chastise a Native American for performing a rain dance in the hopes of ending a drought (secretly, of course) and then proceed to a confessional in order to save his soul, without thinking twice. From an atheist's perspective, both actions are mere superstition. Just as the rain dance cannot be, in any way, causally connected to the next week's storm, there is no way to verify whether or not revealing one's sins in a booth to a man with a white collar earns the benevolence of an alleged deity. And yet, the rain dancer and confessor, alike, will view his respective superstition as legitimate while discrediting that of the other without a moment's hesitation. So, why can't we discredit or, at the very least, challenge both?

Why do we hold religious credence to a different standard than any other type of ideology, belief, or opinion? If we have seen, first-hand, the frightening consequences of action driven by unfettered religious self-righteousness, why can we not bring ourselves to probe, examine, and challenge it? Why are we so damned respectful?