I have a question regarding tolerance and "The Little People Argument".

[Starboard Tack]

Does anyone here equate tolerance with condescension, whether it be about believers tolerating non-believers or atheists tolerating believers?
Apparently, some think that those atheists who don't criticize religion "sufficiently" are being condescending in some way and see believers as "the little people", who can't help themselves.

Let me say, personally, I find this notion highly repulsive.
Of course, I have no problem criticizing religion, especially organized religion, though I don't see that as reason to attack and insult believers for their faith. Mainly because I don't see faith and religion as the same.

Religion involves dogma, it codifies beliefs and serves to divide as much as it tries to unite. I see it as neither right nor wrong, good nor evil, though it has the potential to be a rallying point for any of those things. Religion, in itself is fair game for criticism, and often harsh criticism.
Believers, themselves, may subscribe to a particular religion or not, but I doubt many, especially around here, subscribe to every piece of dogma, or position that their particular religious leadership dictates, but rather they believe in the basic tenets of their faith and form their personal beliefs independently, to a degree, of dogma. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the feeling I get.

"The Little People Argument" is not new and is something that is very real, and raises its ugly head throughout history, from Marie Antoinette to Richard Dawkins, from Ayn Rand to Carl Marx. It is not an argument used by tolerant people, but rather by those who come from privilege and entitlement, be it social or intellectual. Be they Cardinals in their palaces or professors in the halls of academia, they look down, from their particular pedestals of privilege, upon what they perceive as the "ignorant masses". The same "ignorant masses" that they then either sell their opium to or accuse of buying.

[rug]

1. Tolerance and condenscension are entirely different things.

Tolerance is built on respect and condescension is based on disrespect.

It's difficult for those who thrive on disrespect to appreciate the difference.

BTW, Marx's critique of religion had nothing to do with the so-called "Little People Argument". He saw it as an obstacle to proletarian progress and never for a moment thought it a blanket that the "little people" needed to cling to because it gave them comfort. He was an extremely incisive thinker not prone to the glib, shallow polemics against religion employed by the otherwise economically privileged Myers, Harris, Dawkins et al. Although I do see why this type of argument would appeal to them.

[el_bryanto]

2. I think they are two seperate things

I can see the argument if it meant that they felt they had to hide their atheism to spare our feelings. That is somewhat disrespectful - I feel the same way about my faith - it's better to be open about it, and trust the people I know to be OK with it.

But that can go to far as well. There's nothing wrong with discussing belief but mockery and insults are obviously disrespectful. "It would be disrespectful of me not to acknowledge that I see believers as stupid sheep," is probably something you shouldn't say, for the same reasons one shouldn't say "You seem like a decent person, it's too bad you are going to hell."

Then again, your belief system requires it, I suppose there's not much one can do.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

3. Tolerance and condescension are two different things.

I find most people on this site to be tolerant of believers and non-believers. Just a few vocal people like to be condescending.

[okasha]

4. I suppose being the "little people"

is a step up from being the "deluded/psychotic people."

Actually both those memes make me think that those who employ them are in fact pathetic little guppies trying to pass themselves off as barracudas.

[hrmjustin]

5. Yes it is a step up I guess.

I am still not over last week and staying away fromreligion for a bit.

[goldent]

6. People use whatever argument suits their cause

and try to make it fit the best they can. The Little People argument is just another way to attack people indirectly when direct attacks fail.