In response to Meredith Jones' column "Students need more lessons in religious tolerance," Oct. 13: We need less religious tolerance, not more. On humorous critiques of religious belief, note that these jokesters never assigned your beliefs to you, you chose them.

An observance that allows people to believe snakes can speak or a weekly communion that allows millions essentially to practice cannibalism is funny. And if there weren't many priests sexually assaulting children, there would be less fodder for the cannon.

Only on matters of religion do truth seekers enjoy such levels of courtesy. Why do we never hear pleas to respect others beliefs on biology or physics? It's because we don't respect their beliefs; we evaluate their evidence for it. There is no such thing as political correctness in mathematics. So why should something like religion, which purports to be the unifying theory of the world, not be held to the same objective standards of truth?

Respecting all beliefs devalues respect itself. If you believe the reason people die is not because we are organic beings who decay over time but because 5,000 years ago one of our ancestors ate an apple, your belief is a product of ignorance, delusion or stupidity and not deserving of respect.

The religious intolerance I'm advocating is not of a violent/bigoted form. It's a request for an honest appraisal of our world. Holding beliefs that lack all rationality and empirical evidence invites criticism and deservedly so. In an age where beliefs kill indiscriminately, tolerance must be sacrificed for both our intellectual and physical survival.