Religion is a good to be embraced and defended--not an evil to be put up with. No one speaks of tolerating chocolate pudding or a spring walk in the park. By speaking of religious "tolerance," we make religion an unfortunate fact to be borne--like noisy neighbors and crowded buses--not a blessing to be celebrated.[1]
Rev. Thomas D. Williams, L.C. writes that in part of a lengthy and cogent argument against tolerance as a civic virtue and history of the ideas that lead to its acceptance as one. I highly recommend reading it. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the idea of religious tolerance originated with the idea that religion was the cause of suffering in society, that it was, in fact, an evil and not a good. Also of note is the fact that John Locke, whose writings significantly influenced Thomas Jefferson and some of the other Protestant founding fathers, did not include Catholics in his ideas of those who could or should be tolerated.
As Rev. Williams writes, tolerance has come to mean something unrecognizable from its original definition of allowing a percieved error to persist. It has been transformed by relativism, and become something that an intelectually honest person cannot practice universally, especially not when looking at important matters. For if we are not right, if the Church does not teach Truth, why do we follow her? If we profess that we cannot know, we call Christ and His apostles liars when they (should that be capitalized?) claimed they knew.
- Rev. Thomas D. Williams L.C. "The Myth of Religious Tolerance" Crisis Magazine (online). 2006-06-19. http://www.crisismagazine.com/feature1.htm