by David Horton:
Here is one of those tests, I say a word, you say whatever word first comes into your head. Ready? 'Religion' 'Intolerance'. So, no challenge there eh. I know the religious are always saying that we liberals are intolerant towards religions, and I admit I do have occasional moments when it is too much for me.
But minor criticisms from me and Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris pale into insignificance when you look at the hatred that different religions have for each other.
At different times, in different places, you could lose your head, or your hand, or your balls, be disemboweled, burnt alive, buried alive, stretched on a rack, strangled, stoned, hung - could die in any one of hundreds of extremely, and deliberately, unpleasant ways, just because you believed in a different imaginary friend to the person who had the power to kill you. One day you could be the one in charge of boiling in oil, the next, under a new king or queen with a different religious belief, you could be the one being boiled.
This is not just a matter of old practices, it still goes on today, in parts of the world. And even if you are not being hung, drawn and quartered, you may still find yourself forced out of town, or subject to vilification, or, at best, simply not allowed to teach in schools, or run for public office, if you have a religious belief, or no religious belief, different to that of the majority in your country or community.
Strange business, isn't it? Why would you not, at most, feel sorry for someone who didn't share your beliefs, since you are confident yours are the best? Or, more to the point, simply ignore the difference, wave happily to others as you pass them on the way to a different church? No skin off your nose if someone believes something different is it? No reason to skin their whole body? But it is a process that is driving world politics, and politics in a number of countries, at present, and it puzzles me. The best I can come up with is that the belief in an imaginary friend is so irrational, and is based on so little evidence (well, in fact, no evidence) that it can only be maintained by absolute concentration, just like a juggler keeping many balls in the air, or a unicycle being ridden on a tightrope. And it can only be maintained if you think that all around you have the same belief. If, even for a moment, you recognize that someone else is holding, equally fervently, a totally different belief, then your whole set of religious convictions would come crashing down around you, the balls bouncing on the floor, the unicycle a twisted wreck on the ground.
So you suppress the other religions, kill their practitioners, permit no moment of doubt to interfere with your absolute faith that you possess the one true belief, the only real imaginary friend.
I was reminded of this in a different context when I saw that Phillip Cooney had emerged from under a rock to defend his distortion of science in relation to climate change. The way that the neocons have attacked science is exactly like the way that followers of a religion persecute non-believers. The neocons have the fervor that comes from any kind of religious belief. They believe that you can keep destroying the planet for profit and there will be no consequences, no bad outcomes. Scientists keep pointing out, or trying to, that there are limits to growth, limits to pollution, limits to tree clearing, limits to fisheries, limits to CO2. And if we continue to exceed those limits then dire consequences follow for this little planet and all who sail on her.
Scientists haven't yet been boiled in oil or disemboweled for this heresy, but they have been abused, silenced, sacked, for speaking out on global warming, or factory farms, or forestry practices, or rivers, or air pollution. Because you can't allow people to know there are alternative approaches to the economy other than the religion of pure market forces. Once people understand the scientific truth then the neocon balls would come crashing down. No wonder they hate scientists, no wonder that their intolerance resembles religious intolerance.
So I say the word 'intolerance' you say the word 'neoconservatism'.