Dear Editor,

I write in reference to a letter to the editor written by Pete Delisser, entitled ‘Don’t use religion to control others’. It was published on January 4, 2016 in response to articles written by Helene Coley Nicholson.

Delisser is demonstrating the very intolerance of which he accuses Coley Nicholson, for he is himself intolerant of the views of Christians. Indeed, he seeks to control the thoughts and actions of Christians and to keep them silent.

But how does an opinion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech amount to intolerance? All views should be able to contend in the public sphere. To be tolerant means to be able to agree to disagree; and to disagree should not merit the label intolerant.

The view which most supports the best outcomes for human life should be chosen to direct public policy. Delisser thinks that secularists and atheists should make the final decisions about what is consistent with morals and to decide what facets of culture and society determine rights. If we did as he has suggested, we would simply be swapping one group of another.

A group is always going to determine morals and what we tolerate or not. Delisser admits to this even while not being cognisant of it. Thankfully, while Jamaica has a Christian foundation, we are also a plural democracy in which all views can contend. No atheistic State can make that claim, and Delisser’s philosophy provides no logical basis for grounding human rights or for distinguishing good and evil.

Delisser is intolerant of Christians while pretending to be bastion of tolerance. We note he is also intolerant of Sharia Law, and Christians would agree with him. Like all other belief systems, including atheism, Christianity is intolerant of some ideas and behaviours. Christians have never pretended to be tolerant of wrong. The 10 Commandments, all persons will agree, teach good values — though atheists are intolerant of the first and greatest of these. We should notice these ‘thou shalt nots, these commandments’ are the great intolerances.

Everyone has ideas and behaviours about which they are intolerant, even while not recognising or admitting to it. Why are people intolerant of thieves? Why should sexual behaviour be sacrosanct, be exempt from criticism, but other behaviours not? Why should sexual behaviours be tolerated, but not lying and violence? Should all sexual behaviours be tolerated, then, and on what basis? There is no society in which all views enjoy equal standing. Note the failure of multiculturalism in Europe and now the UK. So rather than bemoan the attempts of Christians to establish moral guidelines, Delisser must show the public why his philosophy should replace the Judeo-Christian one.

Kay Bailey

glowilone@gmail.com