I have a question regarding tolerance and "The Little People Argument".

[Starboard Tack]

Does anyone here equate tolerance with condescension, whether it be about believers tolerating non-believers or atheists tolerating believers?
Apparently, some think that those atheists who don't criticize religion "sufficiently" are being condescending in some way and see believers as "the little people", who can't help themselves.

Let me say, personally, I find this notion highly repulsive.
Of course, I have no problem criticizing religion, especially organized religion, though I don't see that as reason to attack and insult believers for their faith. Mainly because I don't see faith and religion as the same.

Religion involves dogma, it codifies beliefs and serves to divide as much as it tries to unite. I see it as neither right nor wrong, good nor evil, though it has the potential to be a rallying point for any of those things. Religion, in itself is fair game for criticism, and often harsh criticism.
Believers, themselves, may subscribe to a particular religion or not, but I doubt many, especially around here, subscribe to every piece of dogma, or position that their particular religious leadership dictates, but rather they believe in the basic tenets of their faith and form their personal beliefs independently, to a degree, of dogma. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the feeling I get.

"The Little People Argument" is not new and is something that is very real, and raises its ugly head throughout history, from Marie Antoinette to Richard Dawkins, from Ayn Rand to Carl Marx. It is not an argument used by tolerant people, but rather by those who come from privilege and entitlement, be it social or intellectual. Be they Cardinals in their palaces or professors in the halls of academia, they look down, from their particular pedestals of privilege, upon what they perceive as the "ignorant masses". The same "ignorant masses" that they then either sell their opium to or accuse of buying.