Does Religious Toleration Exist?

I've been giving some thought to the concept of religious toleration and I'm not convinced that it really exists. In this post I'm going to express some of my thoughts on the matter. But first I ought to begin by attempting to provide an accurate definition of religion.

I think that when most people speak of religion they speak of organized institutions of religion. In other words, religion to most people is something that has outward attributes that can be clearly identified. It must have meeting places, ministerial officers, a clearly defined creed, and a distinctive label. Religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., fall under this concept of religion, as do all of the various sectarians who claim to be adherents to them (e. g. Baptists, Presbyterians; Orthodox and Reformed Jews; Shia and Sunni Muslims, etc.)

But of what does a man's religion really consist? Is it reasonable to think of a religious person as only someone who belongs to an institution which bears the aforementioned attributes? What about people who don't belong to any "religious" organization, don't appear to have a fixed religious creed, and don't have a particular religious label that can be applied to them? And what about those who call themselves atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, undecided, non-religious, etc.? Do they have a religion?

I say that they do all have a religion. And I think they are all equally devout in their respective religions. It seems obvious to me that the essence of religion does not consist in externals, it consists of beliefs. It's absurd to think that a man has no religion just because he doesn't participate in the functions of an organized institution. Religion rightly defined is the total of all the beliefs that guide a man's actions. And no one has these beliefs to a greater or lesser extent than anyone else.

So there is not, and never will be, a man without a religion. Everyone has beliefs about God, the origin of the universe and all things therein, what is right and wrong, and man's purpose and destiny. These are the things which constitute a man's religion, and his beliefs concerning these things will guide his actions. Even if a man says that he does not believe that there is a God, does not believe that we can know how the universe came into being, does not believe that there is any right and wrong, and does not believe that there is any purpose to life, he cannot say that he does not have religious beliefs because these very things are his religious beliefs.

Of course, there are those who claim that their beliefs are based only on facts and things which can be proven. And an atheistic Darwinist, for example, would say that his beliefs are not religion but science. But this is a ridiculous claim because neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proven through scientific methods (and doesn't need to be). And concepts of right and wrong, which everyone has, cannot be reduced to mathematical formulas. Even the theory of evolution, because it is a belief about the origin of things, is a religious belief, regardless of the fact that those who hold the belief claim that it is backed up by science.

So everyone has religion and most would claim to be tolerant of other religions. But are they? I don't know. It seems to me that most people are only religiously tolerant to the extent that they must be. In fact, I have found that even those who claim to be champions of religious toleration are themselves quite intolerant. Take, for example, the website at religioustolerance.org If you read through several of their pages, it won't be long before you notice that there is an anti-Christian tone to the site. Of course, you won't find anything denouncing phony "liberal" Christians because the people behind the site are quite obviously humanists and the liberals are really only humanists with a pseudo-Christian veneer. But you will find much criticism of what they call "conservative" Christians (i. e. professing Bible-believers).

What these people really mean when they speak of religious toleration is that they will be tolerant of any religion as long as it remains subservient to their religion, which is humanism. As long as the religion of others is kept in a little compartment where it doesn't come into conflict with the humanists' concepts of right and wrong, and they are willing to make the morality expressed in their religion yield to the moral principles of the secularists, then they will be tolerated.

This is made obvious at religioustolerance.org from the treatment of the Christian Reconstruction movement, which advocates an eventual civil institution of the capital punishments contained in the law of Moses. Of this idea they seem quite intolerant. But how can one be intolerant of a certain set of religious beliefs while simultaneously claiming to advocate religious toleration? Perhaps they would answer that they must speak against those who advocate violence toward others. But in judging the capital punishments of the biblical law to be wrong and advocating that the institution of them be opposed, they show that they believe in religious toleration only as far as it agrees with their concepts of morality.

I'm not surprised that the heathens at religioustolerance.org are intolerant of anyone who takes a dogmatic view of the law of God. As A. W. Tozer said: "the most fervent devotees of tolerance are invariably intolerant of everyone who speaks about God with certainty." And I'm in doubt as to whether the religious toleration of which they speak even exists.