Description
(Text)
This is analysis of the fallacious logic, unsound premises, hidden premises, and inconsistent word meanings in jurisprudence questioning "Why Tolerate Religion?". It will then argue that this question is essentially gloating because in Western Technological Society the law does not tolerate religion in any sense but a nominal one and most certainly not in any normative or pragmatic sense, the only senses that matter for either law or religion. Western Law has negated and displaced Western religion to become the only normative power in Western Civilization. Thus there is nothing left to tolerate of Western religion with only law remaining with a monopoly on violence to enforce its norms. The realistic question that should be asked is why tolerate law qua law: what principled argument is there for tolerating law with its special monopoly on violence? This essay also examines the philosophy that is the foundation for modern philosophy of law giving it the delusion it ought to negateand displace Western religion. Western law is ignoring the pragmatic importance of separate but equal religious normative power as a counterbalance to the by necessity violent normative power of law.
