Criticizing the Views of Others

I am continuing to read examples of people who claim that a general tolerance of religion is required, and that some atheists also do terrible things.

However, I have noticed a particular structure to some of these claims. Ultimately, many of the writers actually say, "The harms done by religion should be tolerated, because some atheists have done terrible things."

Yet, taken at face value, this would be a lot like claiming, "My crimes of murder, rape, and theft should be tolerated because I am not the only person guilty of murder, rape, and theft." It is a poor defense.

So, I want to make a deal. I agree that some atheists in the bast have done terrible things - and some atheists in the present and the future might also do terrible things. However, I want to make it clear that nobody should, in any way, feel obligated to 'tolerate' any evil that any atheist is or will do. Never, will I argue, that any evil that an atheist is doing or will do should be tolerated in the name of tolerance.

However, following the principle of universalizability, on these same grounds, I hold that it is permissible to condemn any evil done by a non-atheist as well. The non-atheist who threatens the life, health, and well-being of others, in the name of God, shall be subject to the same condemnation as those who do harm to the life, health, and well-being of others by somebody who does not believe in God.

The idea that, because some atheists have done evil in the past, that no current or future evil done by a theist may be condemned, shall be just as freely disregarded as the idea that, because some theist has done evil in the past, that no current or future evil done by an atheist may be condemned.

Sound fair?