Christians often make a big deal of the fact that the Church rarely persecutes people anymore (with the exception, of course, of abortionists and homosexuals). But, as Robert Ingersoll points out in “Heretics and Heresies,” it’s only because they don’t have the power to do so anymore:
Let it be remembered that all churches have persecuted heretics to the extent of their power. Toleration has increased only when and where the power of the church has diminished.
When the church had the power to kill heretics, they did. Now they don’t have the power, so they can’t.
Why do we live in a tolerant society? Because we have a secular government with a separation of church and state. If we had the Christian Government that many evangelicals dream of, toleration would swiftly decrease as they regulated their morality and beliefs.
God, save us from your people!
“When the church had the power to kill heretics, they did. Now they don’t have the power, so they can’t.”
To be fair, it should be noted that when individuals and governments have had the power to kill Christians, they also have done so — and are doing so to this day.
It seems to me that the toleration we have — such as it is — results at least partly from the rough balance of power that currently exists. That balance can tip either way.
I agree with the main point of the argument and I also believe there is also another more subtle problem with the language that religions use when referring to others behaviours. We always here how tolerant Christians are, yes I know this general doesn’t apply but for the sake of argument let’s assume they do, but what about how non-believers are expected to view Christianity. Do you hear the words that they should tolerate Christianity, no they must go further than that they must respect Christianity. I can respect someone’s right to believe in mumbo jumbo but that doesn’t mean I respect the idea of mumbo jumbo.
“Because we have a secular government with a separation of church and state.”
I think also because there is a fragmentation of religion into many subgroups which are too intolerant of each other to band together to persecute heretics, or even to agree on what constitutes heresy.
Church and state are not separate enough for me, by the way.
Even if you were to argue that power and intolerance don’t need religion to survive, it puts a lie to the idea that religion is some sort of salve to human nature, or indeed a better way to govern: when the religious have had far reaching powers, it has been shown over and over again throughout history that they are as intolerant as the worst of them. What better example that the gods did not create man: Man created the gods.
(I think actually that religion massively magnifies intolerance. It’s the nature of a religious world view to believe that only your view is correct, and that dissent is therefore a threat. It also strongly appeals to people who are inclined towards fanaticism. Only a secular society can accept multiple and often contradictory points of view. In a religious society, you toe the line for the good of your own health.)
There were two reasons why church and state were supposed to be separate and both of them had to do with authority.
Firstly, if the US government declared an official religion, it would be still subservient to the King of England because the king was the head of Church as well as head of State. After all the fighting and bloodshed to end up a pawn of the King’s religious council? No way!
Secondly, theocracy directly interferes with democracy. If there’s an official state religion with the power to declare laws, no balance of powers applies as religious law supersedes human laws according to all theology. Pardon the shameless blog plug, but here’s a bit where I explain exactly how a government based on secular principles would begin to break down when religion isn’t separated from the State:
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2008/10/27/scary-thought-of-the-day/
Basically, a theocracy would become either a form of dictatorship or monarchy depending on how content we are with our fate.
“Because we have a secular government with a separation of church and state.”
“I think also because there is a fragmentation of religion into many subgroups which are too intolerant of each other to band together to persecute heretics, or even to agree on what constitutes heresy.”
To these two, I would add a pluralistic society. It is not only secular government that keeps a restraining hand on the religous but other competing ideas. The ideas of the areligious and other religions are a moderating force on any one religion. It creates a market place of ideas where any singular religion has to compete. This applies to racial issues, women’s issues, science, gay rights. Where we now are voting on gay marriage, Christians would have prosecuted gay behavior – but they don’t even suggest certain Biblical things anymore because of competing, more compassionate, ideas. IMO, they would totally revert on these issues in absense of a pluralism.
Anyway, thanks for the website. :-)
This has inspired an interesting and (so far) rational discussion. I cannot actually blame solely religion for intolerance, but it is used as an excuse for that behavior. Without it, humans would only come up with another excuse. I agree with Jon and cello about fragmentation and pluralism. Secular totalitarian regimes can be as cruel in persecuting any deviation from their elected “norms.”
And I’m afraid that we who do not follow a religion should be more tolerant of those who do, peabrains though some of them might be. (Sorry about the torturous syntax.)
Christianity has a long history of becoming more tolerant (and ostensibly weaker.)
Witch burning
Torture
White Supremacy (i.e. defense of slavery)
Anti-Semitism
Sexism
Crazy views on Psychological science
Crazy views on Medical science
These are all areas where the Church has risen up to defend “god’s way” then been beaten down by the strong arm of justice.
It will happen at least two more times:
Homosexuality
Abortion
Maybe when the church is finally tolerant of these last two things, they will be completely powerless.
I cannot actually blame solely religion for intolerance, but it is used as an excuse for that behavior.
True, intolerant people are always intolerant and even if they were atheists, they would find some other reason to hate others. But the uniquely religious toxin here is that not only do they find a justification to their hate, they find it as being a sublime good, something encouraged by no lesser authority than the creator of the universe.
Hate and intolerance are a common human trait. Religion may to a certain extent be suited to expel those, but at the same time it is also probably the most effective catalyst of those small-minded sentiments.
What better justification than divine endorsement? And since you can conveniently interpret the holy scriptures to mean almost anything, it’s easy to obtain this endorsement and thereby justify behaving like a jerk. In fact, by assuming the religious interpretation that best supports your bigoted views, you also automatically assume the moral high ground, and opposing views will default to being false and/or evil.
That’s one thing separating religious and non-religious people: the non-religious have a harder time justifying themselves when they’re being jerks.
As pleasing as it seems to imagine that a lack of Christianity equates to an increase in tolerance, I don’t think you (or anyone else I’m aware of) have established a convincing causal relationship between the two.
At its best, Christianity increases tolerance. At its worst, not so much :p
Beyond that, I shy away from labelling an entire religion based on the excesses of a minority.
Any religion that claims to be the one true path to salvation is intolerant by definition. The movement toward religious tolerance is often fueled by fear of domination by other religions rather than any moral stance favoring tolerance. Access to information has been the source of the movement toward tolerance. Tolerance is based on understanding which is based on free access to information. No religion I am aware of is truly in favor of free access to information because they all have ideas they wish to protect from rational discussion and criticism.
In other words, while modern enlightened christianity has some admirable aspects, those aspects are due to the enlightenment and not due to christianity.
I see you are also an Ingersoll fan! What a great set fo writings h left behind. Just found your blog via Pharyngula, and I must say I am glad PZ let me know you are here…
What’s ironic is that “separation of church and state” is actually a biblical idea. Dan thinks he’s pretty novel, though.
Tolerance is one of those words that has almost no use in debate because each side is going to define it differently. Dan whines that Christian’s don’t tolerate him, Christians whine that Dan doesn’t tolerate them.
What matters is what God tolerates. God doesn’t tolerate sin, and that’s why our laws should reflect His moral laws. (Yes, I said moral laws, not ceremonial laws.)
Also, I should note that most of Dan arguments assume that Catholicism is a form of Christianity.
Dan, what about the persecution that goes on today against Christians? Isn’t that a type of intolerance? Funny how only in nations with a Christian history have atheists and believers living together peacefully. Remember that atheist-run country where Christians lived peacefully? Neither do I.
gfish: “Firstly, if the US government declared an official religion, it would be still subservient to the King of England because the king was the head of Church as well as head of State. After all the fighting and bloodshed to end up a pawn of the King’s religious council? No way!”
Well, they could have chosen a religion other than Church of England…
@Keith:
And where do I do that, exactly?
Actually, I’m an equal opportunity iconoclastic. In fact, I rarely assume Catholicism as my starting point. Usually I take evangelical Christianity as my base. But if it knocks down Catholicism in the process, that’s bonus.
Of course it is, and I think it’s horrible. But it’s due to religion — usually Islam. I believe in freedom for people to practice whatever voodoo they want, as long as they can’t compel me to take part it in and it does not harm to other.
I don’t know why you’d think I’d be in favor of being intolerant to Christians. I remember thinking that way when I was a Christian — everyone calls for tolerance except for with Christians — but that’s not true. There is no reason to put CHristians to death anymore than to put Muslims or Atheists or Hindus to death. It’s wrong.
Thank goodness for the separation of church and state. I agree!
Gregory Boyd (pastor) has an amazing book called
“Myth of a Christian Nation” where it talks about how people use the name of God in the things that they do all of the time.
He says that you cannot have a Christian Nation anymore than you can have a Christian bicycle.
Half of his church left when he preached this sermon and published the book. I was very impressed that he went through with it.
Here’s an interview with him about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIWs_G4oJaA