Religious Tolerance ( Or Intolerance, If You Prefer)

[Key]

Religions are all about belief and ideals. Doctrine, dogma, fatwa, decrees, whatever term one wishes to use, are all in place to "guide" any number of believers toward the end goal of that believe, Whether that is in communal with a Deity or to reach paradise of an afterlife, or other.

In general, their main purpose is to place a populace in line to a common mentality and cooperation as a society, in my opinion.

These rules also commonly apply bylaws ,so to speak, that disavow other religious rites and rituals as well opposing belief.

Therein lies the rub against religious tolerance. An ideal that dispels the myths that society would somehow be condemned if different religions coexisted in the same place.

The ULC comes closest, I think, in providing a model that allows humans to...well, be human. To be allowed freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of fraternization. Still, the old models of previous religious establishments have sway in the thinking and beliefs of members in such a way that at times those freedoms are contestable. Where even a reminder to practice tolerance toward others can be perceived as a threat or attack.

So comes the questions: Has it really come to such sensitivity that one must begin talking in code to avoid provocation or perceived slight? Is it truly possible to practice religious tolerance despite established protocols of major religions?

Often education is cited as key to battle religious intolerance, but how effective is that if those lessons aren't placed into practice?

These are thoughts that come to my mind through each thread of heated exchanges, or trolling tactics. So, I really want to know.

Your thoughts? (I suppose it's another can of worms, but may be worth exploring for the sake of knowledge. Let the battles commence. Eyes roll.)

[Brother Kaman]

One really must not call another person stupid for believing what he believes. TOS says so.

[Key]

Not exactly a response I was hoping for, but okay.

Anything or anyone else?

[cuchulain]

The problem with education as a battle against intolerance is...who is doing the educating? We are seeing in another area of life that people are starting to choose non union over union, but for decades to say a word against the union was perceived as somehow against workers. Who educated these people? Why good ole union teachers, of course, who absolutely had no agenda for the union by any means, right? In a similar vein, then, comes education about tolerance. If the people doing the educating have an agenda, then is the education going to be unbiased enough to support tolerance, or rather would that bias by nature rub off on those they are trying to teach? I have noticed that for the most part, this forum is unique in that many members think for themselves. I have stumbled upon other forums, and talked with other people in the "real" world, and for the most part they are sheep who go along with the party line, whatever the line might happen to be. These are the type of people who prefer to let others do their thinking, and so any education with bias would be heavily reflected in their every day lives, I think. Just my thoughts, though.

[Umbraedeus]

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any easy answers. Some people seem to enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing. Some people seem to be looking for reasons to feel insulted. Some people's belief systems require that they be unaccepting of other belief systems. Some people take things too seriously. Others don't take things seriously enough. We all, myself included, have our biases. Quoting the great philosopher Dave Gahan, "People are people so why should it be you and I should get along so awfully." I know these statements don't really contribute anything towards a solution, but my was burning a hole in my pocket.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Umbraedominus

[Key]

The problem with education as a battle against intolerance is...who is doing the educating? We are seeing in another area of life that people are starting to choose non union over union, but for decades to say a word against the union was perceived as somehow against workers. Who educated these people? Why good ole union teachers, of course, who absolutely had no agenda for the union by any means, right? In a similar vein, then, comes education about tolerance. If the people doing the educating have an agenda, then is the education going to be unbiased enough to support tolerance, or rather would that bias by nature rub off on those they are trying to teach? I have noticed that for the most part, this forum is unique in that many members think for themselves. I have stumbled upon other forums, and talked with other people in the "real" world, and for the most part they are sheep who go along with the party line, whatever the line might happen to be. These are the type of people who prefer to let others do their thinking, and so any education with bias would be heavily reflected in their every day lives, I think. Just my thoughts, though.

Thank you for your "thoughts", which is what I asked for.

I agree on the basis that tolerance might not be taught without certain biases. So really, that would place intent into question then, wouldn't it?

Therefore, if discernment is not encouraged or even implied, then, indeed, the sheep shall remain lead about from place to place without realizing any real choices.

[Key]

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any easy answers. Some people seem to enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing. Some people seem to be looking for reasons to feel insulted. Some people's belief systems require that they be unaccepting of other belief systems. Some people take things too seriously. Others don't take things seriously enough. We all, myself included, have our biases. Quoting the great philosopher Dave Gahan, "People are people so why should it be you and I should get along so awfully." I know these statements don't really contribute anything towards a solution, but my was burning a hole in my pocket.

I guess I'm not really looking for any real easy answers, just opinion of others for points of reflection.

Your two cents presents another question, as well. If a person's belief system requires that they be unacceptable of other belief systems, as you said, then why associate themselves here where acceptance of others with differing worldviews of religion and spirituality is encouraged and considered mutually beneficial?

Speaking of those two two cents, I hope you have good darning skills for that whole. Or do you just go out and buy another garment?

Edited July 31, 2015 by Keystrikr

[Dan56]

Monotheism doesn't allow for much diversity or open-mindedness, but neither does atheism. Its really impossible to accept or respect something that you don't believe in. I personally hate Islam, so I can't respect it even if I wanted to because it goes against everything that I do believe in. So while I can be completely intolerant of Islam in my own life, I can't infringe upon the right of others to believe what they choose, nor can I demand they accept what I choose. Public tolerance yes, personal tolerance no. And no society should be forced to live by any religious creed or law, which is why I accept gay marriage for the general public, but reject it personally.

True freedom demands tolerance and recognition of everyone's right to choose for themselves, no matter how crazy we may deem it to be. Intolerance is only necessary when a persons belief becomes harmful to others or is forced on others. I don't mind if some here hate Christianity or think its foolish, because its a reflection of my own dislike of Islam. If something is contrary to everything you hold sacred and true, its difficult not to revile it. But in the end, manners must prevail, because tolerance is a 2-way street. jmo

[Brother Kaman]

Monotheism doesn't allow for much diversity or open-mindedness, but neither does atheism. Its really impossible to accept or respect something that you don't believe in. I personally hate Islam, so I can't respect it even if I wanted to because it goes against everything that I do believe in. So while I can be completely intolerant of Islam in my own life, I can't infringe upon the right of others to believe what they choose, nor can I demand they accept what I choose. Public tolerance yes, personal tolerance no. And no society should be forced to live by any religious creed or law, which is why I accept gay marriage for the general public, but reject it personally.

True freedom demands tolerance and recognition of everyone's right to choose for themselves, no matter how crazy we may deem it to be. Intolerance is only necessary when a persons belief becomes harmful to others or is forced on others. I don't mind if some here hate Christianity or think its foolish, because its a reflection of my own dislike of Islam. If something is contrary to everything you hold sacred and true, its difficult not to revile it. But in the end, manners must prevail, because tolerance is a 2-way street. jmo

[Key]

Monotheism doesn't allow for much diversity or open-mindedness, but neither does atheism. Its really impossible to accept or respect something that you don't believe in. I personally hate Islam, so I can't respect it even if I wanted to because it goes against everything that I do believe in. So while I can be completely intolerant of Islam in my own life, I can't infringe upon the right of others to believe what they choose, nor can I demand they accept what I choose. Public tolerance yes, personal tolerance no. And no society should be forced to live by any religious creed or law, which is why I accept gay marriage for the general public, but reject it personally.

True freedom demands tolerance and recognition of everyone's right to choose for themselves, no matter how crazy we may deem it to be. Intolerance is only necessary when a persons belief becomes harmful to others or is forced on others. I don't mind if some here hate Christianity or think its foolish, because its a reflection of my own dislike of Islam. If something is contrary to everything you hold sacred and true, its difficult not to revile it. But in the end, manners must prevail, because tolerance is a 2-way street. jmo

Excellent contribution, Dan. I find no point to counter with my reasoning.

Thank you for the entry.

[cuchulain]

I can agree with Dan as well, but I have to ask...what if the religion in question has a religious tenet of intolerance? Do we tolerate the religion and their views, even though they are intolerant of several other groups, if not all? Clearly, I don't think allowing them to cross legal boundaries is a good thing, so things like assault and the such would be just out altogether, I don't view that as needing to be tolerated personally. But what about hate speech? I suppose a person has to break it down into public and personal views, like Dan has. Hate speech in public is protected, hate speech in a personal manner, such as on a forum like this one, is guided by the rules of the owner, and not allowed. Almost a paradox, though...allow all religions, but do not let anyone be intolerant, whether their religion says so or not. Just some thoughts, again.

[LeopardBoy]

Religions are all about belief and ideals. Doctrine, dogma, fatwa, decrees, whatever term one wishes to use, are all in place to "guide" any number of believers toward the end goal of that believe, Whether that is in communal with a Deity or to reach paradise of an afterlife, or other.

In general, their main purpose is to place a populace in line to a common mentality and cooperation as a society, in my opinion.

These rules also commonly apply bylaws ,so to speak, that disavow other religious rites and rituals as well opposing belief.

Therein lies the rub against religious tolerance. An ideal that dispels the myths that society would somehow be condemned if different religions coexisted in the same place.

There are many polytheistic religions that are centered on praxis, not orthodoxy, and thus allow for a multitude of individual beliefs and philosophies.

[Umbraedeus]

I guess I'm not really looking for any real easy answers, just opinion of others for points of reflection.

Your two cents presents another question, as well. If a person's belief system requires that they be unacceptable of other belief systems, as you said, then why associate themselves here where acceptance of others with differing worldviews of religion and spirituality is encouraged and considered mutually beneficial?

Speaking of those two two cents, I hope you have good darning skills for that whole. Or do you just go out and buy another garment?

I seem to be awfully good at damning but not so good at darning. Being Southern, I am quite proficient at danging when the need arises. When I have a hole in my pocket, I just don't wear pants. Oddly enough, this seems to inspire others to quickly find garments to hide my nakedness . (If I weren't a god, it would probably affect my self esteem )

Edited August 1, 2015 by Umbraedominus

[Dan56]

I can agree with Dan as well, but I have to ask...what if the religion in question has a religious tenet of intolerance? Do we tolerate the religion and their views, even though they are intolerant of several other groups, if not all? Clearly, I don't think allowing them to cross legal boundaries is a good thing, so things like assault and the such would be just out altogether, I don't view that as needing to be tolerated personally. But what about hate speech? I suppose a person has to break it down into public and personal views, like Dan has. Hate speech in public is protected, hate speech in a personal manner, such as on a forum like this one, is guided by the rules of the owner, and not allowed. Almost a paradox, though...allow all religions, but do not let anyone be intolerant, whether their religion says so or not. Just some thoughts, again.

If a religion chooses to be intolerant of something, its none of my business as long as its kept within the religion itself, But if a Muslim wants to remove my head for not accepting Allah, I'd find that somewhat difficult to tolerate. Hate speech is usually protected as long as it doesn't insight violence. The bible or the koran could be considered hate speech, but no one is forced to read them or listen to those who do. I personally hate asparagus, but the people who like it refused to allow me to have it removed from the grocery store shelves.

https://youtu.be/cA2j-npWsp0

Edited August 1, 2015 by Dan56

[Pete]

If a religion chooses to be intolerant of something, its none of my business as long as its kept within the religion itself, But if a Muslim wants to remove my head for not accepting Allah, I'd find that somewhat difficult to tolerate. Hate speech is usually protected as long as it doesn't insight violence. The bible or the koran could be considered hate speech, but no one is forced to read them or listen to those who do. I personally hate asparagus, but the people who like it refused to allow me to have it removed from the grocery store shelves.

https://youtu.be/cA2j-npWsp0

I am mostly with Dan on this. However I recall a woman who was to be stoned for being raped some while ago saying if it is right for this to happen as all is the will of Allah. Now I know most Muslims would not agree with the women but it shows to me the ability of fanatical societies to corrupt the think of all and not allow diversity. Now what I am going to say is, I believe it is right for others to challenge the thinking of others to allow them to be able to think more flexible. It is not a case of saying that I should just say this is their faith and not get involved. I also think of the intervention of Gladys Aylward in her protest against the culture of of breaking womens feet and binding them. Was she right to challenge the culture. I think so. It is not always a right in my opinion to never intervene in the ways and thoughts of another even if that does not directly affect you.

[cuchulain]

I agree with that Pete, except for it being right to challenge others. I believe it is right, under the right circumstances of course. But, under the wrong circumstances, such is inadvisable at best. Some people do not want to be exposed to the thinking processes of those who don't believe like they do, and I believe it is their right to be left alone if they so choose, and if they acknowledge the right of others to be left alone from their beliefs as well. Lots of Christians seem to be drawn to me, can't honestly say why. They like to come up and preach at me, hopeful that I will convert I suppose, and I cannot fault their good intentions. But they always, without exception, have taken offense when I preach back. Seems to me if someone wants me to be willing to listen, they should be as well.

[emalpaiz]

My parents were Roman Catholics, but my father was also a Freemason. Religion was never a topic at home. By the age of 14, I started to take an interest in religion. I read the Bible and other religious scriptures of the world. I became interested in Hinduism and Buddhism, and in mystic Christianity.

I have nothing against any religion; I believe that every religion is a different path to an inner understanding. I eventually became initiated in a modern Hindu spiritual tradition.

Once and a while missionaries come around my house to preach their stuff, sometimes I listen and sometimes I don't. I have no hatred for any of them. I respect their paths, even though I know that they do not respect my path. I have taught my children to respect other religious way, and to find their spiritual path in life.

Hermano Luis

MorivivíHermitage

[Pete]

What if it involves animal cruelty or cannibalism. Luis I have the deepest respect for yòu but surely some do need challenging?

[Brother Kaman]

A lot of that would depend on who's for dinner.

[Pete]

Another example. To me it is sickening and yes I would challenge him:-

http://www.aol.co.uk/video/six-people-stabbed-at-a-gay-pride-parade-in-jerusalem-518980941