This post was inspired by @Vladimir_Nesov's insistence that "it's especially worth checking if you can actually articulate how you know what everybody knows, before you let yourself know it" in conjunction with @TAG's response to a previous post of mine, replying, "Says who?" to my statement that "your moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give you the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others". Here, I will attempt to articulate why one ought not to force their personal values (moral philosophies and religions are just sets of beliefs and values) upon those around them, even if they feel such intervention is justified.
It is easy enough to articulate why one's personal values are not justification to infringe upon the freedoms of others if one accepts that no set of personal values is (or can be demonstrated to be) objectively superior to another. If your values and another individual's values are equally valid, you have no justification for forcing your particular notion of morality upon that individual. If every set of values is equally valid, why would you even want to? You would simply act according to your values and allow others to do the same, perhaps attempting to convince others of your particular moral system in a non-forceful manner if you felt strongly about it.
Unfortunately, as the entirety of human history has demonstrated, not everyone thinks in such a manner. The notion that all sets of personal values are equally valid is itself a personal value, and not a particularly common one either. Most people ascribe some level of inherent superiority to their moral system of choice; after all, if you did not feel your beliefs were in some way justified, you would not believe them. Further, although few will outright declare that their particular set of values are superior to all others, just about everyone believes that there are some values which are inherently inferior. (Some value systems commonly held to be inferior at this point in history include those justifying social inequality, science denial, taking advantage of the weak, or tripling the national debt for personal amusement.)
So, you believe that your moral philosophy, personal values, or religion are objectively superior. Why shouldn't you use force to ensure that everyone is doing the right thing? Why shouldn't you do whatever is necessary to create the best possible outcome for everyone?
In order to illustrate why one's moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give one the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others, I will attempt a proof by contradiction; that is, I will assume that one's moral philosophy, personal values, or religion justify the use of force and demonstrate that this statement leads to an absurd or unstable society. Although I will use the word "religion" in this example, as religions are well-defined and commonly agreed-upon belief systems that people are more likely to hold as objectively superior (and therefore attempt to force upon others), the same applies to any moral philosophy or value that an individual holds.
A community contains two major religious groups, the Blues and the Greens. Blues believe that a single deity created the universe, but rarely interferes in its functioning. This deity is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, and laid out a moral system for all humans to follow that would result in the best possible outcome for everyone. Given that this deity must have given humans free will, people are physically able to disobey these commandments (which include helping the poor, wearing blue to honor the deity, and strict adherence to veganism), but do so at their own peril and to the detriment of society at large. Greens believe in a pantheon of deities created alongside the universe who constantly influence its functioning. While no one deity's actions and commandments are held to be perfect, the collective balance between the pantheon creates an ideal moral system for all humans to follow that would result in the best possible outcome for everyone. Given that this pantheon must not be able to restrict human action entirely, people are physically able to disobey these laws (which include helping the poor, wearing green to honor the pantheon, and the ritualistic sacrifice and consumption of animals), but do so at the risk of incurring the wrath of the pantheon and to the detriment of society at large.
Further complicating matters, both Bluism and Greenism are thousands of years old, drawing their tenets from similarly ancient texts (which have been subject to numerous copyings and translations of dubious accuracy) and the instruction of various individuals (some of whom may take advantage of the faithfulness and trusting nature of adherents), and are subject to infighting over the correct translation and interpretation of texts as well as the validity of various individuals' teachings. In all honesty, the specific details of the Blue's religion and the Green's religion are not particularly important; what matters is that they agree on a few basic things, disagree on a whole lot of others, and believe that anyone who disobeys their moral system will bring ruin upon themselves in this life, incur eternal damnation in the next, and cause societal strife for everyone else in the meantime.
Let us return to the community. There are a roughly equal amount of Blues and Greens, who dominate society. Each believe their moral system is objectively superior due to the support of one or more deities. Each are willing to force their moral philosophy upon others, because (if the benefits of following it aren't obvious enough to anyone with eyes, ears, or a brain) how could they allow nonbelievers to go into eternal damnation? Any "pleasure" derived from eating an animal, any "freedom of expression" to wear a green shirt, is finite, Earthly, temporal, and overall insignificant in comparison to unending suffering such actions incur in the hereafter. Less compassionate and more practical Blues and Greens might not force conversion on the grounds that unbelievers opting for eternal damnation made their decision and ought to face the appropriate consequences for it, but should not be able to act sinfully for the sake of the rest of society.
Now, let us assume, as the Greens and Blues do, that moral philosophy, personal values, or religion justify infringing upon the freedoms of others.
A citizen (let's say he's Blue) attaches very strong significance to his religion. He would find it intolerable to be forced to cease his religious customs or do things which he would consider sinful. He meets a citizen who has the opposite religious belief (in this case, she'd be Green), and sees her acting in a way that he believes to be wrong. This citizen is equally attached to her religion; she sees the man acting in a way she believes is wrong. They do not believe that the other's view is equally valid; each may want to save the other from the consequences of their sin out of compassion or save society from the consequences of their sin out of practical concern.
The pair have two options. If both citizens attempt to force their moral system on the other, the situation devolves into violence. If one citizen is tolerant, but the other attempts to force their intolerable way of living onto them, the victim will move to defend themselves, and the situation devolves into violence. Violence is always destructive and wasteful of energy. If one citizen is stronger, they may be able to force the other citizen to act in a manner that is intolerable to them at significant cost to themselves. If they are evenly matched, they must cease violence or destroy eachother.
At a societal level, two groups will emerge, each using some form of force to benevolently ensure the best outcome for everyone. The coercers are more benign; they still operate within the bounds of civilized society. They are in positions of power, and they are willing to wield it for maximum public good, which happens to include their religion. Maybe they work at a charity, and they'll only provide assistance after those in need listen to a sermon or agree to convert. Maybe they run a company (or hold some influence over a facet of one) and provide higher pay to those who share their religion, or refuse to hire those who don't, in the name of incentivizing good behavior and protecting workplace values and culture. Maybe they are an elected official, and they incentivize good behavior with subsidies and tax breaks. Maybe they are a parent, and they disown their child over said child's marriage to a partner of the opposite religion, out of fear that it's the only thing they can do to save their childhood and grandchildren from eternal damnation. Maybe they disown their child over a blue shirt. Their actions, and the damage they cause to the lives of nonbelievers, varies widely, but they hold societal power (or some valuable resource that confers it) and are able to use without resorting to physical force or violence.
The enforcers will. Government officials can use the pretext of civilized society to carry out the use of force; after all, a government's whole job is to criminalize behaviors that will harm society, and lock away those who break the law. At the very least, they could keep those undesirable individuals in their place, separate from the rest of civilized society. Compassionate government officials may opt to reeducate violators instead, releasing them back to society when they have renounced their sinful ways. In this particular community, where there are a roughly equal amounts of Blues and Greens, and neither group is particularly disenfranchised, such government directives are unlikely to target either major religion (at least not successfully), but minority religions and disenfranchised sects may be persecuted. Passionate Blues and Greens, therefore may take it upon themselves to correct perceived slights that the government will not punish, intimidating and assaulting those who violate that which they know to be right. If enough gather in one place, mobs form, multiplying the damage beyond what a single person can do. For most enforcers, it is less about saving nonbelievers from themselves and more about saving society from nonbelievers. Of course, some believe that the nonbelievers can be saved; that's where forced conversion comes into play.
Keep in mind, just about nobody is acting out of malice. While there are individuals who are prejudiced and hateful, they are a small minority. The vast majority of Blues and Greens are good people who want what's best for everyone. Nobody enjoys exercising or getting a vaccine, but we must endure a little unpleasantness to do what is best. After all, their moral system is objectively right, so they are justified in doing whatever is necessary to enforce it.
Regardless, the conclusion of such actions are highly destructive to society. If there is a majority group, moral totalitarianism, enforced through violence, is established. Such totalitarianism is rarely static; often, to display adherence to the dominant moral system and avoid being on the receiving end of violence, increasingly extreme opinions are declared and enforced, leading to increasing absurd restrictions with detrimental effects on society[1]. If there is not a significant majority, then violence will abound[2]. Violence, whether random or state-sanctioned, is destructive; societies that do not use violence will out-compete societies that do. Enforcers, therefore, have no place in a functional society; a community of Blues and Greens who are at war with eachother and violently repress minority groups will have less resources than a community of Blues and Greens who tolerate the existence of one-another. A successful society concludes that violently enforcing one's objectively correct moral framework is worse than tolerating an incorrect one[3]. Violent enforcement of ideology only occurs in a functional society of such enforcement is rare enough not to affect the community significantly.
Coercers may continue to exist in a functional society (after all, we cannot remove their freedom of association without some sort of force), but societies with many of them will be out-competed by societies with few. Those who refuse to work with the most competent individuals, sell to the most advantageous customer, or trade ideas with the wisest scholars on the basis of ideology will produce less than those who will. The most egregious and detrimental forms of coercion are often prohibited due to their deleterious effects on society; while nobody ought to force you to befriend someone of a different religion, anti-discrimination laws in regards to employment and public services are common in developed countries.
If our community of Greens and Blues believe that their religious differences justify the use of force, their community becomes plagued by violence. If they believe that their religious differences justify the use of coercion, their community may be functional, but it will be inefficient and plagued with animosity, which will eventually break out into violence or wither into tolerance. If they agree to tolerate one-another, they will maximize the efficiency of their community. Therefore, the Greens and Blues have two options: To tolerate a moral system they view as objectively inferior, or to invite violence.
Let's return to our two citizens, the Blue man and the Green woman. The Blue and the Green are both acting in ways that are unacceptable to the other. If either does something intolerable, violence, which is largely unsustainable, breaks out; to avoid violence, the citizens must adjust what they consider tolerable. If the man finds the woman's religious practices unacceptable, and attempts to forcefully convert her or otherwise prevent her from practicing, there is a high probability the woman will find his force unacceptable, and violence will break out. The same is true for the woman; they both must be able to tolerate the existence of one-another. Initially, they may test eachother's boundaries, and then back off when violence is threatened; eventually (if neither is a pushover) they will reach an equilibrium where the man and the woman may act however they please, as long as they do not infringe upon the actions of the other. Eventually, they may find that it is better to be friendly than hostile, and agree to shelve the issue of religion entirely. Members of successful societies choose tolerance, not because they believe that other's moral systems are equally valid, or even worthy of tolerance, but because the alternative is to have something intolerable forced upon themselves.
Therefore, one's moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give one the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others; if this is not true, then a society becomes inefficient, unstable, or outright dysfunctional.
The above reasoning, to a lesser extent, explains why politics, religion, and other emotionally charged and controversial topics are best treated respectfully or otherwise left undiscussed. Evangelists, whether they evangelize for a religion, moral philosophy, or personal value, do not use force, but they will take any opportunity available (or convenient) to advertise their beliefs. Some will take to street corners, preaching their doctrine of kindness and harmony or threatening nonbelievers with certain doom. Others will act friendly towards nonbelievers, but reach out with concern, relentlessly trying to save their nonbelieving loved ones until a conversation cannot be about anything else. And still others yet will ridicule opposing beliefs, using the worst-faith interpretations of influential texts, the example of the most obviously corrupt influential figures, and completely incorrect prejudices as a cudgel with which to shame nonbelievers. Evangelists severely limit their social (and occasionally professional) relationships, sometimes limiting themselves to isolated clades that undergo ideological shift similar to that experienced by totalitarian societies, but on a smaller scale. If someone feels strongly about a cause, they learn to advocate for it tactfully or lose any relationship or credibility they once had.
One ought to note that the above applies to any personal value or moral system, not just religion; even if one does not believe their moral system is objectively correct due to the command of a deity, they still may hold it as such due to their strong feelings on the matter, their lived experiences, or, in this community, confidence in their logical faculties. I do not ask that you cease to hold your moral system as correct and superior to all others, nor that you consider other moral systems to be tolerable in any meaningful way; I only argue that you ought not to use force for practical reasons. (I do not claim that I am above thinking my moral system is on some level objectively correct; I am a Christian, and I place my faith in God.)
I will now correct a possible misinterpretation of my words: I do not argue for tolerance of practices which harm others. Anyone who claims abolitionists should tolerate the practices of the slaveowner ignore the plight of the enslaved, who are also people and found their condition intolerable. When such injustices occur and are violently enforced (as slavery was), violence is necessary as self-defense. One who has views that justify harm to others ought to be permitted to keep these views, and to express them, but ought not to be able to force them upon others, and ought to accept the social consequences of admitting to socially unfavorable views. A misogynist has a right to be misogynist, and to have unfair expectations of the women he pursues; however, he does not have a right to force potential dating partners to follow these expectations, nor does he have a right to harass women when he and his expectations are rejected or ostracized. One who wants to triple the national debt for his personal amusement can harbor such a desire, but he cannot carry out this action without the consent of the nation, who will also be impacted by his actions.
In sum, one's personal values are not a justification for the use of force; even if one believes one's values are objectively correct, the use of force invites violence and destabilizes society. Functional societies do not practice tolerance because they believe all moral systems are equally valid, but because it is practical to do so. Tolerance is given for all behaviors to the extent that they do not affect those who did not consent to be involved; in other words, every (mentally capable) individual ought to have autonomy to act how they please, within the bounds of not harming others. In this post, I aimed to explain the principle of autonomy so that I can better argue for its application.
I apologize for any poor writing on my part; if my argument is inconsistent or unclear, please point out my error and I will be happy to explain.
This is significantly rarer, if only because ideologies usually become dominant before those who adhere to them become violent. Regardless, examples exist; see the French wars of religion.
I am not implying that this is the natural state of society; in Iran, for instance, a totalitarian theocracy persists; however, Iran has a lower standard of living and lower productivity/political power than more tolerant nations such as the United States.
This post was inspired by @Vladimir_Nesov's insistence that "it's especially worth checking if you can actually articulate how you know what everybody knows, before you let yourself know it" in conjunction with @TAG's response to a previous post of mine, replying, "Says who?" to my statement that "your moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give you the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others". Here, I will attempt to articulate why one ought not to force their personal values (moral philosophies and religions are just sets of beliefs and values) upon those around them, even if they feel such intervention is justified.
It is easy enough to articulate why one's personal values are not justification to infringe upon the freedoms of others if one accepts that no set of personal values is (or can be demonstrated to be) objectively superior to another. If your values and another individual's values are equally valid, you have no justification for forcing your particular notion of morality upon that individual. If every set of values is equally valid, why would you even want to? You would simply act according to your values and allow others to do the same, perhaps attempting to convince others of your particular moral system in a non-forceful manner if you felt strongly about it.
Unfortunately, as the entirety of human history has demonstrated, not everyone thinks in such a manner. The notion that all sets of personal values are equally valid is itself a personal value, and not a particularly common one either. Most people ascribe some level of inherent superiority to their moral system of choice; after all, if you did not feel your beliefs were in some way justified, you would not believe them. Further, although few will outright declare that their particular set of values are superior to all others, just about everyone believes that there are some values which are inherently inferior. (Some value systems commonly held to be inferior at this point in history include those justifying social inequality, science denial, taking advantage of the weak, or tripling the national debt for personal amusement.)
So, you believe that your moral philosophy, personal values, or religion are objectively superior. Why shouldn't you use force to ensure that everyone is doing the right thing? Why shouldn't you do whatever is necessary to create the best possible outcome for everyone?
In order to illustrate why one's moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give one the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others, I will attempt a proof by contradiction; that is, I will assume that one's moral philosophy, personal values, or religion justify the use of force and demonstrate that this statement leads to an absurd or unstable society. Although I will use the word "religion" in this example, as religions are well-defined and commonly agreed-upon belief systems that people are more likely to hold as objectively superior (and therefore attempt to force upon others), the same applies to any moral philosophy or value that an individual holds.
A community contains two major religious groups, the Blues and the Greens. Blues believe that a single deity created the universe, but rarely interferes in its functioning. This deity is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, and laid out a moral system for all humans to follow that would result in the best possible outcome for everyone. Given that this deity must have given humans free will, people are physically able to disobey these commandments (which include helping the poor, wearing blue to honor the deity, and strict adherence to veganism), but do so at their own peril and to the detriment of society at large. Greens believe in a pantheon of deities created alongside the universe who constantly influence its functioning. While no one deity's actions and commandments are held to be perfect, the collective balance between the pantheon creates an ideal moral system for all humans to follow that would result in the best possible outcome for everyone. Given that this pantheon must not be able to restrict human action entirely, people are physically able to disobey these laws (which include helping the poor, wearing green to honor the pantheon, and the ritualistic sacrifice and consumption of animals), but do so at the risk of incurring the wrath of the pantheon and to the detriment of society at large.
Further complicating matters, both Bluism and Greenism are thousands of years old, drawing their tenets from similarly ancient texts (which have been subject to numerous copyings and translations of dubious accuracy) and the instruction of various individuals (some of whom may take advantage of the faithfulness and trusting nature of adherents), and are subject to infighting over the correct translation and interpretation of texts as well as the validity of various individuals' teachings. In all honesty, the specific details of the Blue's religion and the Green's religion are not particularly important; what matters is that they agree on a few basic things, disagree on a whole lot of others, and believe that anyone who disobeys their moral system will bring ruin upon themselves in this life, incur eternal damnation in the next, and cause societal strife for everyone else in the meantime.
Let us return to the community. There are a roughly equal amount of Blues and Greens, who dominate society. Each believe their moral system is objectively superior due to the support of one or more deities. Each are willing to force their moral philosophy upon others, because (if the benefits of following it aren't obvious enough to anyone with eyes, ears, or a brain) how could they allow nonbelievers to go into eternal damnation? Any "pleasure" derived from eating an animal, any "freedom of expression" to wear a green shirt, is finite, Earthly, temporal, and overall insignificant in comparison to unending suffering such actions incur in the hereafter. Less compassionate and more practical Blues and Greens might not force conversion on the grounds that unbelievers opting for eternal damnation made their decision and ought to face the appropriate consequences for it, but should not be able to act sinfully for the sake of the rest of society.
Now, let us assume, as the Greens and Blues do, that moral philosophy, personal values, or religion justify infringing upon the freedoms of others.
A citizen (let's say he's Blue) attaches very strong significance to his religion. He would find it intolerable to be forced to cease his religious customs or do things which he would consider sinful. He meets a citizen who has the opposite religious belief (in this case, she'd be Green), and sees her acting in a way that he believes to be wrong. This citizen is equally attached to her religion; she sees the man acting in a way she believes is wrong. They do not believe that the other's view is equally valid; each may want to save the other from the consequences of their sin out of compassion or save society from the consequences of their sin out of practical concern.
The pair have two options. If both citizens attempt to force their moral system on the other, the situation devolves into violence. If one citizen is tolerant, but the other attempts to force their intolerable way of living onto them, the victim will move to defend themselves, and the situation devolves into violence. Violence is always destructive and wasteful of energy. If one citizen is stronger, they may be able to force the other citizen to act in a manner that is intolerable to them at significant cost to themselves. If they are evenly matched, they must cease violence or destroy eachother.
At a societal level, two groups will emerge, each using some form of force to benevolently ensure the best outcome for everyone. The coercers are more benign; they still operate within the bounds of civilized society. They are in positions of power, and they are willing to wield it for maximum public good, which happens to include their religion. Maybe they work at a charity, and they'll only provide assistance after those in need listen to a sermon or agree to convert. Maybe they run a company (or hold some influence over a facet of one) and provide higher pay to those who share their religion, or refuse to hire those who don't, in the name of incentivizing good behavior and protecting workplace values and culture. Maybe they are an elected official, and they incentivize good behavior with subsidies and tax breaks. Maybe they are a parent, and they disown their child over said child's marriage to a partner of the opposite religion, out of fear that it's the only thing they can do to save their childhood and grandchildren from eternal damnation. Maybe they disown their child over a blue shirt. Their actions, and the damage they cause to the lives of nonbelievers, varies widely, but they hold societal power (or some valuable resource that confers it) and are able to use without resorting to physical force or violence.
The enforcers will. Government officials can use the pretext of civilized society to carry out the use of force; after all, a government's whole job is to criminalize behaviors that will harm society, and lock away those who break the law. At the very least, they could keep those undesirable individuals in their place, separate from the rest of civilized society. Compassionate government officials may opt to reeducate violators instead, releasing them back to society when they have renounced their sinful ways. In this particular community, where there are a roughly equal amounts of Blues and Greens, and neither group is particularly disenfranchised, such government directives are unlikely to target either major religion (at least not successfully), but minority religions and disenfranchised sects may be persecuted. Passionate Blues and Greens, therefore may take it upon themselves to correct perceived slights that the government will not punish, intimidating and assaulting those who violate that which they know to be right. If enough gather in one place, mobs form, multiplying the damage beyond what a single person can do. For most enforcers, it is less about saving nonbelievers from themselves and more about saving society from nonbelievers. Of course, some believe that the nonbelievers can be saved; that's where forced conversion comes into play.
Keep in mind, just about nobody is acting out of malice. While there are individuals who are prejudiced and hateful, they are a small minority. The vast majority of Blues and Greens are good people who want what's best for everyone. Nobody enjoys exercising or getting a vaccine, but we must endure a little unpleasantness to do what is best. After all, their moral system is objectively right, so they are justified in doing whatever is necessary to enforce it.
Regardless, the conclusion of such actions are highly destructive to society. If there is a majority group, moral totalitarianism, enforced through violence, is established. Such totalitarianism is rarely static; often, to display adherence to the dominant moral system and avoid being on the receiving end of violence, increasingly extreme opinions are declared and enforced, leading to increasing absurd restrictions with detrimental effects on society[1]. If there is not a significant majority, then violence will abound[2]. Violence, whether random or state-sanctioned, is destructive; societies that do not use violence will out-compete societies that do. Enforcers, therefore, have no place in a functional society; a community of Blues and Greens who are at war with eachother and violently repress minority groups will have less resources than a community of Blues and Greens who tolerate the existence of one-another. A successful society concludes that violently enforcing one's objectively correct moral framework is worse than tolerating an incorrect one[3]. Violent enforcement of ideology only occurs in a functional society of such enforcement is rare enough not to affect the community significantly.
Coercers may continue to exist in a functional society (after all, we cannot remove their freedom of association without some sort of force), but societies with many of them will be out-competed by societies with few. Those who refuse to work with the most competent individuals, sell to the most advantageous customer, or trade ideas with the wisest scholars on the basis of ideology will produce less than those who will. The most egregious and detrimental forms of coercion are often prohibited due to their deleterious effects on society; while nobody ought to force you to befriend someone of a different religion, anti-discrimination laws in regards to employment and public services are common in developed countries.
If our community of Greens and Blues believe that their religious differences justify the use of force, their community becomes plagued by violence. If they believe that their religious differences justify the use of coercion, their community may be functional, but it will be inefficient and plagued with animosity, which will eventually break out into violence or wither into tolerance. If they agree to tolerate one-another, they will maximize the efficiency of their community. Therefore, the Greens and Blues have two options: To tolerate a moral system they view as objectively inferior, or to invite violence.
Let's return to our two citizens, the Blue man and the Green woman. The Blue and the Green are both acting in ways that are unacceptable to the other. If either does something intolerable, violence, which is largely unsustainable, breaks out; to avoid violence, the citizens must adjust what they consider tolerable. If the man finds the woman's religious practices unacceptable, and attempts to forcefully convert her or otherwise prevent her from practicing, there is a high probability the woman will find his force unacceptable, and violence will break out. The same is true for the woman; they both must be able to tolerate the existence of one-another. Initially, they may test eachother's boundaries, and then back off when violence is threatened; eventually (if neither is a pushover) they will reach an equilibrium where the man and the woman may act however they please, as long as they do not infringe upon the actions of the other. Eventually, they may find that it is better to be friendly than hostile, and agree to shelve the issue of religion entirely. Members of successful societies choose tolerance, not because they believe that other's moral systems are equally valid, or even worthy of tolerance, but because the alternative is to have something intolerable forced upon themselves.
Therefore, one's moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give one the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others; if this is not true, then a society becomes inefficient, unstable, or outright dysfunctional.
The above reasoning, to a lesser extent, explains why politics, religion, and other emotionally charged and controversial topics are best treated respectfully or otherwise left undiscussed. Evangelists, whether they evangelize for a religion, moral philosophy, or personal value, do not use force, but they will take any opportunity available (or convenient) to advertise their beliefs. Some will take to street corners, preaching their doctrine of kindness and harmony or threatening nonbelievers with certain doom. Others will act friendly towards nonbelievers, but reach out with concern, relentlessly trying to save their nonbelieving loved ones until a conversation cannot be about anything else. And still others yet will ridicule opposing beliefs, using the worst-faith interpretations of influential texts, the example of the most obviously corrupt influential figures, and completely incorrect prejudices as a cudgel with which to shame nonbelievers. Evangelists severely limit their social (and occasionally professional) relationships, sometimes limiting themselves to isolated clades that undergo ideological shift similar to that experienced by totalitarian societies, but on a smaller scale. If someone feels strongly about a cause, they learn to advocate for it tactfully or lose any relationship or credibility they once had.
One ought to note that the above applies to any personal value or moral system, not just religion; even if one does not believe their moral system is objectively correct due to the command of a deity, they still may hold it as such due to their strong feelings on the matter, their lived experiences, or, in this community, confidence in their logical faculties. I do not ask that you cease to hold your moral system as correct and superior to all others, nor that you consider other moral systems to be tolerable in any meaningful way; I only argue that you ought not to use force for practical reasons. (I do not claim that I am above thinking my moral system is on some level objectively correct; I am a Christian, and I place my faith in God.)
I will now correct a possible misinterpretation of my words: I do not argue for tolerance of practices which harm others. Anyone who claims abolitionists should tolerate the practices of the slaveowner ignore the plight of the enslaved, who are also people and found their condition intolerable. When such injustices occur and are violently enforced (as slavery was), violence is necessary as self-defense. One who has views that justify harm to others ought to be permitted to keep these views, and to express them, but ought not to be able to force them upon others, and ought to accept the social consequences of admitting to socially unfavorable views. A misogynist has a right to be misogynist, and to have unfair expectations of the women he pursues; however, he does not have a right to force potential dating partners to follow these expectations, nor does he have a right to harass women when he and his expectations are rejected or ostracized. One who wants to triple the national debt for his personal amusement can harbor such a desire, but he cannot carry out this action without the consent of the nation, who will also be impacted by his actions.
In sum, one's personal values are not a justification for the use of force; even if one believes one's values are objectively correct, the use of force invites violence and destabilizes society. Functional societies do not practice tolerance because they believe all moral systems are equally valid, but because it is practical to do so. Tolerance is given for all behaviors to the extent that they do not affect those who did not consent to be involved; in other words, every (mentally capable) individual ought to have autonomy to act how they please, within the bounds of not harming others. In this post, I aimed to explain the principle of autonomy so that I can better argue for its application.
I apologize for any poor writing on my part; if my argument is inconsistent or unclear, please point out my error and I will be happy to explain.
See the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the Cambodian Khmer Rouge, and various attempts of authoritarian regimes to suppress science, most notably Nazi Germany's rejection of physics as "Jewish science", which likely cost them the nuclear bomb and potentially the war.
This is significantly rarer, if only because ideologies usually become dominant before those who adhere to them become violent. Regardless, examples exist; see the French wars of religion.
I am not implying that this is the natural state of society; in Iran, for instance, a totalitarian theocracy persists; however, Iran has a lower standard of living and lower productivity/political power than more tolerant nations such as the United States.