Posted By Stefan Monsaureus

A thought-provoking article in a recent issue of Science magazine (Science 2 November 2007, Vol. 318. no. 5851, pp. 812 – 814) discussed the evolution of two mechanisms of host defense against pathogenic infection. These two conceptually distinct components of host defense are resistance, in which the burden of the infection is limited through the erection of barriers or by elimination of the disease-causing entity, and tolerance, in which the detrimental consequences of the infection are minimized. Notably, resistance has a direct negative effect on the infectious agent, whereas tolerance does not.

In light of recent exhibitions of intolerance by Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and other Republican presidential hopefuls, this article took on a meaning that transcended its scientific merit, and I began to ponder the applicability of these two mechanisms –resistance and tolerance – for defending society against the stifling influence of religious fundamentalism. Perhaps this conceptual dichotomy could provide a useful framework for evaluating atheist and humanist action in the current “culture war.”

Resistance against the encroachment of religion into our secular democracy – in the form of buttressing the wall separating religion from government, promoting critical inquiry and freedom of expression, and supporting the application of scientific methodology, for example – has long been part of the arsenal employed by freethought activists. Those currently labeled as New Atheists (or more derisively as atheist fundamentalists and militant atheists) go further, taking the offensive and seeking to actively to undermine the faith in irrational, religious, and superstitious ideologies.

Tolerance, though, is a more difficult principle to apply. While religious tolerance is a virtue frequently touted by humanists, it is notoriously difficult to draw bright lines between actions we should tolerate, and those we should actively resist. It has been said that the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance. The American philosopher John Rawls, in his influential book A Theory of Justice concluded that a just society must be tolerant, and that the intolerant must be tolerated – but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions. Clearly, we would not wish absolute tolerance. And, of course, our criminal and civil statutes are full of acts we will not tolerate.

But, what is tolerance? That question was answered by the French author and philosopher Voltaire thusly: “It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly — that is the first law of nature.” In an Aristotelian sense, tolerance is a virtue that falls between softheadedness, on the one hand, and narrow mindedness, on the other. Helen Keller said that “The highest result of education is tolerance.”

In 1995, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), issued its Declaration of Principles on Tolerance. In defining “tolerance,” this declaration states, among other things, that “it involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism” and “it also means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others.” These two ideas are central to a humanist conception of religious tolerance.

Religious tolerance, or religious “pluralism,” would, in accordance with the definition proffered by UNESCO, hold that no religion can lay claim to the only or absolute truth. Religious fundamentalists, though – whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish – leave no room for such pluralism. And, thus, we see a fissure in contemporary American society, drawn along religious lines – not pitting one sect against another, but pitting those with an absolutist, dogmatic, fundamentalist view against those who, I would argue, have a more enlightened and tolerant view of the role of religion.

So, in surveying the religious landscape in America today, we must ask whether the ascendancy of fundamentalism has weakened our exercise of tolerance, and at what point we must refuse to tolerate the intolerant as they seek to impose their views on the rest of us.

While it is a simple matter to tolerate diverse (and even benignly absurd) beliefs, the matter of behaviors is more difficult. The situation has reached such an extent that atheists and humanists are effectively precluded from openly assuming public office. We are inundated with the chorus of God Bless America, and have seen patriotism and faith intertwined, and tolerance for divergent beliefs (or nonbeliefs) eroded. Religious fundamentalism has made an expression of faith an informal, yet important, prerequisite for holding positions of responsibility. Thus, although statistics tell us that many of our political and social leaders, being highly intelligent and well-educated, are likely to embrace a secular, humanistic worldview, these views are closeted for fear of repercussion. As in the most extreme Islamic theocracy, persistent attack on religious dissent can take its toll.

In a 2006 sermon from his church in Lynchburg, Virginia, the late Reverend Jerry Falwell cited evolution and same-sex marriage among the many challenges facing American culture today. In that same sermon, Falwell said he wants his “people to be the most intolerant people in the world” because he wants all people to acknowledge the superiority of Christianity, even if “to teach that one system of truth is superior to another is politically incorrect and it’s intolerant.”

Atheists and humanists are (of necessity, to a large degree) tolerant of divergent religious beliefs. Moreso, it seems, than many supposedly tolerant Christians. But, even the most open-minded and ecumenical humanist would become justifiably intolerant of dogmatism and absolutism, especially where these views are imposed on others. While there is a place for both resistance and tolerance in defending our society against religious extremism, it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue against those who have chosen a more direct, frontal assault on faith-based irrationality.

Thus, while we may be tolerant of parents and religious leaders inculcating children with biblical fairy tales that are at odds with reality, we must resist attempts to introduce the supernatural into public school science curricula lest we surrender to the frightening prospect of creating generations of Americans ignorant of essential scientific theories.

We may be tolerant of Christian fundamentalists who cling to a literal, simplistic understanding of the biblical account of the Creation, but must resist those who use a young-Earth, creationist theology as a premise to disavow scientific evidence for global warming or as an excuse to disregard concerns for loss of biodiversity, swelling global population, or deteriorating ecological systems.

We may be tolerant of the belief that marriage is a sacred covenant available exclusively to heterosexual couples, but must resist attempts to impose such patently sectarian views on the civil institution of marriage.

Balancing resistance and tolerance is not easy. Too much tolerance – to the point of being softheaded – endangers important civil liberties. Too much resistance – to the point of militancy – places a wedge between nontheists and liberal religious observers, deists, and others who are sympathetic to the humanist worldview but shun the label, and foments attacks by those who most fervently disagree with, or are most threatened by, a secular, rational outlook. A proper balance between resistance and tolerance will foster a robust defense against the intrusion of religious ideology into our society.