Huff Post: In my last post, I implied that one of the reasons we may wish to perceive religious choices to be solely about methodology — and not substantive theological and ethical concerns — is because it is much more uncomplicated thereby to accept the value of freedom of religion. If differences in religious practices are simply matters of style — how I do spirituality versus how you do spirituality — it is much easier for people to tolerate, even defend, any diversities between them. We can declare that what we are really doing is ultimately the same — pursuing the same goal — just going about it a bit differently.
Religious intolerance can thereby be compared to golfers hating bowlers and bowlers hating golfers. They could still argue over which sport is better, golf or bowling, but, in the end, they must surely recognize that the issue is really one of personal choice. Viewing religion in the same light makes it similarly easier to accept religious diversity. One is just making a personal choice — and I should be able to accept another’s personal choice, especially as it need not impact upon me. I can easily, thereby, advocate for freedom of religion — for people should be allowed to claim their own path.