The problem with tolerating religion is that, as Dawkins pointed out, it has received too much tolerance already. One reason religion is so widespread and obnoxious is that it has been so off limits to criticism for so long.
A good solution to this is to have some diversity of rhetoric. Some people can be blunt, others openly contemptuous, and others more friendly and overtly tolerant. There’s room enough for all of these.
The less tolerant people destroy the special immunity to criticism that religion has long enjoyed, and get to be seen as the “extremists”. Meanwhile they make the sweetness-and-light folks look more moderate by comparison, which is a useful thing. A lot of people reflexively reject extremism, which they define as simply the most extreme views that they’re hearing expressed on a contentious issue. Make the extremists more extreme, and more moderate versions of their viewpoint become more socially acceptable.
The problem with tolerating religion is that, as Dawkins pointed out, it has received too much tolerance already. One reason religion is so widespread and obnoxious is that it has been so off limits to criticism for so long.
A good solution to this is to have some diversity of rhetoric. Some people can be blunt, others openly contemptuous, and others more friendly and overtly tolerant. There’s room enough for all of these.
The less tolerant people destroy the special immunity to criticism that religion has long enjoyed, and get to be seen as the “extremists”. Meanwhile they make the sweetness-and-light folks look more moderate by comparison, which is a useful thing. A lot of people reflexively reject extremism, which they define as simply the most extreme views that they’re hearing expressed on a contentious issue. Make the extremists more extreme, and more moderate versions of their viewpoint become more socially acceptable.
Someone has to play the villains in this story.