Freedom Of Religion

If tolerance is not absolute, then it is inconsistent, and yet it is logically impossible for even consistent tolerance to be a positive moral thing to begin with.  If there are no values, then no one has a right to do or believe whatever he or she likes, because they have no right to anything--rights cannot exist if values do not exist.  If there are values, if some things truly are right or wrong, then no one has a right to do or believe whatever he or she likes, since some things should not be done or believed.  Thus, it is impossible for tolerance to be right or deserved by any person.  If people do something good, they do not have to be tolerated; if they engage in irrationality and evil, they cannot deserve any toleration.

There is something that quickly becomes apparent about practically every person who advocates tolerance of various religions: they want a selective toleration rooted in their own preferences.  Has there ever been a person who truly endorses absolute, universal tolerance of all religious ideologies?  I have yet to meet a single one!  Those who approve of freedom of religion do not actually support freedom of religion, only a partial, narrow "freedom."

People who cling to the fallacies of tolerance do not want genuine freedom of religion; they want freedom of specific religions or specific religious behaviors.  This is in part because consistent religious tolerance would lead to the eradication of tolerance in society altogether.  Likewise, people who adhere to religions which involve some degree of intolerance (spoiler alert: many of them) do not truly want freedom of religion for all religious people, as that, too, would undermine their own goals.

It is apparent that the very concept of tolerance cannot be good or obligatory due to its inherent logical contradictions.  But logical contradictions of the concept aside, those who espouse freedom of religion rarely, if ever, mean what they say.  They do not want freedom of religions with values contrary to tolerance.  And anyone who advocates true, full freedom of religion must by necessity contradict another tenet of their own religion or other ideology.  Either they will be intolerant of intolerance or they will encourage behaviors and ideas that are hostile towards tolerance.  In both cases, they undermine their own position.

What if a person follows a religion with a core tenet of intolerance towards religious freedom?  What of a religion that prescribes human sacrifice, severe torture, or sexual abuse?  Those who support freedom of religion don't seem to actually want freedom for all religions, meaning they are not supportive of freedom of religion at all (of course, there is no basis for moral systems in conscience, tradition, or consensus, so anyone who labels a religion evil and therefore deserving of opposition on those grounds is delusional).

Again, I have never met people who actually want true religious freedom, only hypocrites who oppose and practice intolerance simultaneously.  In every case, they have qualifications, and many of them are often arbitrary--though they are  occasionally legitimate.  The solution is not for them to be tolerant of all ideologies, but to only be "tolerant" of that which is true or defensible.  Tolerance is not and cannot be legitimate as a moral concept.  Intolerance of stupidity and evil is a virtue in a world where values exist, and it needs to be recognized as such.  After all, intolerance is an inescapable part of living out rationalism.  Logic grounds and exposes the exclusivity that the tolerant despise.