Tolerance not same thing as acceptance

In many ways the principles of a fully free society are the most hospitable to the great variety of faithful in a large society. The main reason for this is that in such a free society the right to private property is strictly protected.
 
Even more, the strict protection of the right to private property serves religion well because it establishes a culture of tolerance and non-interference among the different faithful.
 
Tolerance, of course, isn’t acceptance - I can tolerate your weird jokes or garb without considering them desirable. However, I will not do anything against you because you make such jokes and wear such garb. I’ll leave you be.
 
And in a free society members of a religious order must be tolerant toward those of another even if they disapprove of them so long as they carry on within their sphere, their private domain.
 
Some object, saying that such tolerance amounts to encouragement. But this is really quite wrong. If I tolerate your strange clothes, I by no stretch of the imagination encourage you to wear them. What I am doing is respecting your right to your life, liberty and private property - I refuse to interfere with you. Not at all the same as approving of what you do!
 
Most religions are relatively uncommitted to the kind of political system under which they can function and be practiced. As long as the government does not ban their rituals, there is no conflict between state and church. Obviously, if a particular faith demanded that every Sunday a young child be sacrificed to God, this would be prohibited in a free society.
 
But apart from such barbaric religious practices nearly everything adults might choose to do within the domain of their church can co-exist with the principles and citizens of a fully free society.
 
The few exceptions include religious faiths that demand that aggressive actions must be taken by the faithful toward some who are not among the faithful - that would be banned, not because of religious discrimination but because of the fact that everyone has the right to life, liberty, property, etc., and the violation of these rights constitutes illegal conduct in a free society.
 
The laws of a fully free society are based on human nature, not on particular, sectarian conceptions of human nature. These laws are to govern members of the community as human beings, not as members of some particular religion's faith.
 
Of course, those of a religious faith may find this frustrating, just as vegetarians are frustrated by the existence of meat-serving eateries and anti-gamblers by Las Vegas or Monte Carlo. But that is no justification for attacking those who do not embrace their edicts for proper living.
 
Human nature is such that it makes it possible for there to be millions of different proper ways to live, as well as some very improper ones. One needs to figure out which is which and fashion laws and public policy accordingly.


--
Tibor Machan holds the R.C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at Chapman University and is a research fellow at the Pacific Research Institute and Hoover Institution (Stanford). He advises Freedom Communications, parent company of this newspaper. His most recent book is "Libertarianism Defended," (Ashgate, 2006). E-mail him at TMachan@link.freedom.com.