Is Religion Inherently Intolerant?

One outcome, and possibly the most relevant to me, that emerges from reading is that some of it actually causes me to rethink my position or view regarding anything at all. As I have referenced in prior blogs, I have come a long way from my adherence to a highly structured belief system to a point where I now view religion as inherently intolerant and essentially, a negative force.

However, I was forced to review my position when I read an interesting column by a rabbi who reported his experience with a "born again Christian" cab driver. The cab driver had two problems: (1) after finding out that the rabbi had such positive views of Jesus, he could not understand how the rabbi could then not see Jesus as Christians do, i.e., Son of God, and (2) his wife, who supported him through his history of substance abuse, did not identify with his new-found religious beliefs, causing him to question whether he could continue his marriage.

The rabbi was able to help the cab driver by focusing on a most tolerant view about beliefs. The rabbi summarized his view, as follows:  I don't believe that you have to be wrong for me to be right.

I surely do not have a problem with the rabbi's tolerant vision. My problem is that his views represent such a minority within the world of religious beliefs that his vision does not represent the general outcome of religious beliefs. What I am saying is that the rabbi's vision would be worth trying to replicate except for the reality that human beings tend not to tolerate what could be called cognitive dissonance. Thinking that another's world view, even if dramatically different from one's own, can be "right" for the other, and, at the same time, one's view which is at total variance with the other, is also "right", at least for the one holding the view.

Moreover, I am not sure that such a view makes sense. The difference between "religious" beliefs and other types of "beliefs", e.g., political, life-style, is that religion is not indifferent to the relationship between the "belief" and the "consequences". If it is possible for two radically different beliefs could both be right, then it is very hard to understand the sense of adopting one rather than the other.

If the rabbi had adopted a view that no one knows God and that all religions are inherently searching for understanding that is forever beyond the reach of humanity, I would have no problem. I have no problem that neither the rabbi nor the Christian had beliefs that were inherently true. All that they have are beliefs that assist them in coping with life as they experience it. Admittedly, the human experience is a trip that challenges everyone. That some people need "religion" to cope with life is human, even if it is not "true" or "real".

For the moment, then, I still conclude that religion is inherently intolerant, even if some adopt a tolerant perspective that is uncommon and virtually impossible to disseminate on any wide basis.