Freedom of religion was a bad idea all along
Societal well-being depends on intolerance done well.
In the west, and perhaps, in particular, the United States, we tend to be very wary of expressing intolerance of another person’s religion or culture. And this fear is codified in our legal system, in particular, in the First Amendment, which establishes freedom of religious practice for all citizens.
But there’s also a popular idea that’s been making the rounds, especially over the past few years, which is that, if taken too far, we can bump into a “paradox of tolerance”, which is that, if we tolerate everything, then we also tolerate intolerance. It’s basically a question of whether we can have too much of a good thing.
And indeed, if we think of tolerance as a good thing in itself, then we do bump into a paradox. It’s like writing ourselves into a corner.
But there’s an easy way out, and it requires recognizing one obvious truth: tolerance is not a virtue, and intolerance is not a crime. True virtue lies in demonstrating tolerance for good things, and intolerance for bad things, and acting out our intolerance in contextually appropriate ways.
For example, if we see someone attacking another person, we might rightly show intolerance of that behavior by physically intervening, or by calling the police.
And if we see someone express an idea that we think is wrong or dangerous, although it would be wrong of us to express our intolerance of that idea by physically attacking the person, it should be seen as perfectly appropriate (and in fact, encouraged) for us to express our intolerance merely by engaging in a civil discussion in which we explain our opposing viewpoint.
How did tolerance become a virtue?
Many of North America’s first European immigrants left their home countries as refugees from religious persecution. And it is in this context that the First Amendment was written. The authors of the Amendment wanted to avoid the type of intolerance that many of their families and constituents had faced back in Europe.
But they made the same mistake that many people still make today, which is that they thought of tolerance of religion as a good in itself, and they didn’t realize that intolerance of certain religious beliefs would be necessary in order to prevent paradoxical legal scenarios down the line.
And the reason for their oversight is simple: the framers were mostly Protestants or Deists who all believed basically the same things. The differences between their religions were small enough that they thought they could be safely ignored by the legal system, if the legal system simply turned a blind eye to the differences.
But the problem is that a religious belief can be anything.
“Freedom of religion” is paradoxical
We tend to think of a person’s religion as simply a place they go on the weekend, or a set of claims to which they pay lip service, but which often fall to the background in public life.
But a person’s true religion is the set of beliefs that they would bet their livelihood on. And in that respect, the type of person who thinks of the Bible as a metaphor belongs to an entirely different religion than a literalist. They may both believe that Jesus is “the son of God”, but their similarities end after that.
And that’s how you can get some nominal Christians who basically share all the same values as any far left liberal, while you get other Christians who do all they can to outlaw gay marriage, abortion, and trans rights. And that’s just Christianity. There are, after all, other historical religions that have endorsed human sacrifice.
But what should be the glaringly obvious takeaway is that freedom of religion is an overwhelmingly paradoxical idea. The only reason why it has lasted this long without even more issues is because, deep down, most people do hold pretty similar values, and just want to be happy.
But we need to stop letting “freedom of religion” be a potential excuse for people to participate in behavior that would otherwise be considered illegal, for instance, businesses trying to deny service to gay couples. Update (June 30, 2023): for example, the Supreme Court’s ruling today on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, allowing a web designer to choose not to make a website for a gay marriage.
Traditionalism versus secularism
Michelle Goldberg wrote an opinion in the New York Times last week about how conservatives have recently gone from demonizing Muslims to teaming up with them. And in the article, it talks about how, prior to 9/11, American conservatives had previously founded a group called the “World Congress of Families” in an effort to “unite pious traditionalists from across the globe against the forces of secular modernity”. According to the article, the Sept. 11 attacks temporarily derailed these types of efforts, but 20 years later, the same kind of alliance is starting to form again in order to prioritize “traditional” family values over gay, trans, and woman’s health rights.
Of course historical events often give rise to strange bedfellows, but the thing to realize is that, in between any other momentary battles, the struggle of “pious traditionalists” against “secular modernity” is the one true battle that global society will always return to. And in this battle, the biggest liability for the secular modernists is the freedom of religion established by the First Amendment.
In other words, we need to abolish the freedom of religion established by the First Amendment, because we need the freedom to show intolerance for religious practices that conflict with other citizens’ pursuit of happiness.
But as I said towards the beginning, intolerance is only correct if done correctly. Intolerance of trans- or homophobia doesn’t mean we attack Christians, throw them in jail, and force them to close their businesses. It only means we refuse to let their ideas prevent us from protecting other people’s right to pursue their own happiness.
Long-term pluralism isn’t a helpful assumption
I said earlier that a person’s “true” religion is the set of beliefs they would bet their livelihood on. I think that’s true. But what muddies the waters a bit is that a person’s well-being often depends on how well they are accepted by their group. And a person’s group acceptance often depends on what they claim to believe.
But if we take away the group tribal dynamics, I think what we’d find is that humans all share a much more common set of beliefs than most people realize. If you strip everyone bare of their ancestral and local and niche group identities, you’ll find that everyone all values the same fundamental things (i.e. happiness for themselves and their loved ones), and that everyone has the same basic heuristics to decide what’s true and what’s false.
In other words, if you take away peer pressure, everyone has the same religion. And tribal peer pressure is not a good reason to encourage divergent belief systems.
If we start with the assumption that we can all get on the same page, then indeed we can get on the same page. But if we start with the belief that we should encourage people to believe anything that their “religion” tells them, then we will never, ever, get out of this mess that we’ve been in since the dawn of civilization.
Abolish the freedom of religion. Set the expectation that people can find common ground if we don’t excuse arbitrary divergence. Show appropriate intolerance of beliefs that can’t coexist with other citizens’ pursuit of happiness. Good will follow from there.
