Hello,

I have found a concept floating around more and more. It is usually called "tolerance." Some world-views say "love your neighbour," while others say, "eat your neighbour." The idea of tolerance is that we can all get along and everyone's religion or lack thereof is of equal value.

I happen to believe that not all paths lead up the same mountain. It seems that those of the "tolerance" camp in the media and elsewhere find it fashionable to tolerate everyone who embraces tolerance, and bash everyone else. However this behavior is nonsensical as to be truly tolerant ("Of course it is ethical to have sex with dolphins and cream cheese!") one must also tolerate the choice of others who follow a philosophy of orthodoxy, ie. that there is truth and lie when it comes to religion.

There are similar ideas being expressed as well. For example, Arnold Schwarzeneggar recently commented on stem cell research, and said that people should leave their religion out of state policy. That might sound good, but at its basic level religion means an idea of faith in which adherents must do or not do certain things.

Arnold believed he should leave his Catholicism at home when serving the state. I know there are problems with "state-sanctioned" religion and I am not arguing for theocracy. But we could just as well say "leave your atheism at home." The point is that whether one particular religious tenet is true or not, every world view has equal potential to prove valuable or not. So an atheist may believe certain things, without question that will influence his decisions while in office. I don't have a problem with that. What is wrong with someone being a Christian, Jew, or Muslim and their faith affecting their decisions in the same way?

I feel sometimes we are forced into Atheism's strictest "orthopraxy" (correct practice--which is making sure not to do anything that could be seen as religious) which is perhaps the strictest religion of all.

Next to emacs, of course ;-)