Religious Tolerance ( Or Intolerance, If You Prefer)

[Umbraedeus]

Perhaps my comment was misunderstood. Jonathan said he could understand the being gay part, and I accept that. I was referring to the Vampire part when I said some things are hard to understand without experiencing them. I was not suggesting anyone go have sex with a same sex partner to see what it's like to be gay. I also was not suggesting Jonathan go out and try to feed on someone like a Vampire. I was simply acknowledging that being a Vampire is something he does not understand as himself he had posted. Homosexuality is different because everybody is capable of experiencing love whether for the same sex or a different sex. Empathy is helpful when situations are similar, but it can only go so far in situations outside the realm of the ordinary.

As far as cannibalism being less immoral than homosexuality, l guess I could start referring to myself as a cannibal instead of a homosexual. I am just eating my partners while they are still alive and very, very slowly without chewing

Thank you, Jonathan for your respect. I agree it is preferable to tolerance.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Umbraedominus

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I have often had gay men hit on me, and then get mad at me when I said I was straight and tell me "don't knock it till ya try it". This is one of my pet peeves. My usual response at that point is to ask them if they have ever jumped off the empire state building, then say don't knock it till ya try it. I agree with Johnathan, I can reasonably infer that I would not be interested in homosexual intercourse from the fact that I have no interest sexually or romantically in men. I don't need to try it to know it isn't for me.

I can certainly understand the concept that some things must be experienced to really understand, but I personally find it a flawed concept. As humans, we are capable of empathy. Not all of us use that empathy, and some of us use that empathy to get things we want, such as telling someone, don't knock it till ya try it. I can feel empathy for people who are homosexual being discriminated against, not because I am homosexual, but because I have suffered different forms of discrimination, much as we all for the most part have.

In terms of spirituality, I see nothing at all wrong with telling someone about your faith, beliefs, etc... The problem comes in when ANY particular group starts singling out those who don't belong using acts of violence. Tolerance should end at another persons rights, in my opinion, and I am fairly convinced that witches should have the right to not have their heads cut off for any reason, same as free masons, Christians, Muslims, and others. Just my opinion, of course

I think my intent here has been misconstrued. I have been hit on by gay men. Also by straight women who I was not attracted to. This is not a matter of sexual orientation. It is a matter of rude people who don't understand that "no" means "no."

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I hit quote instead of edit. Sorry about the confusion.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[emalpaiz]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2015 at 8:15 PM, Dan56 said:

But doesn't your religion, at least in part, still practice sacrifice? I think that was Pete's point? Similar to the Christian God, who once ordered animal sacrifice, Hinduism has also had its episodes. http://people.opposingviews.com/hinduism-beliefs-sacrifice-4262.html

Somewhat late at answering this question.  I follow an ancient teaching of Hinduism that is closer to Buddhism in many ways.  Some Hindu temples in India still sacrifice a lamb or a goat on certain days.  I am opposed to the sacrifice of animals in the name of religion.   I am a vegetarian. 

Hermano Luis

[scottedward]

On 7/30/2015 at 3:05 PM, Key said:

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.)

I keep thinking about how some Christians in the United States have somehow taken the country's enhancement of civil rights (gay marriage, etc,) as an attack on their freedoms of religion**.  I don't have anything intelligent or perceptive to say about it, except to suggest that intolerance is only a word.  It is only how we react to change, and what we do as a response to it.

**Yes, I watch too much CNN. 

[scottedward]

On 8/2/2015 at 0:14 AM, Umbraedeus said:

You know, I always thought declaring I was a god or stating I was a Vampire might be offensive to certain religious groups, but apparently just my being gay presses more people's hot buttons .

Being a god or vampire doesn't cause others to confront their sexual insecurities.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I have come to regard religion as being like ice cream.  There is a flavor for every possible taste.

[cuchulain]

And, if you don't like any of the available flavors, you are free to invent your own, or abstain altogether.

[Atwater Vitki]

On 1/24/2016 at 3:55 PM, scottedward said:

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

Good point. I know people that refuse to read anything but publications produced by or endorsed by their religious synod. From home schooling curriculum to world news, periodicals and magazines to weekly supermarket ads. This is one method by which the intolerance grows to such egregious levels. In some cases even if an outright lie (i.e.; gay is a choice, marijuana leads to heroin 100% of the time, all Islam supports terrorism etc etc) is endorsed as "truth" by their synod, they will emphatically hold that as absolute truth.

Trying to dispel or change those type of lies only leads to argument and slanderous innuendo. Even in the rare case the leadership acknowledges a misspoken line or retracts a previous statement it is often dismissed with little more than a sheepish grin. Even more rare is an apology given to those harmed by the earlier statement or actual accounting for the official stance ignorance.

Education is indeed the key to many things but how can it help subvert intolerance when the educational material is flawed? I mean in some cases (a World™ magazine article on public schooling) I might as well have read that Columbus discovered the moon and was a gay Muslim!   But seriously though, when it's impossible to get truth in the education then intolerance, ignorance and manipulated morality follows.

Blessings Be,

[Key]

On 1/24/2016 at 3:55 PM, scottedward said:

I keep thinking about how some Christians in the United States have somehow taken the country's enhancement of civil rights (gay marriage, etc,) as an attack on their freedoms of religion**.  I don't have anything intelligent or perceptive to say about it, except to suggest that intolerance is only a word.  It is only how we react to change, and what we do as a response to it.

**Yes, I watch too much CNN. 

Ah, it may be just a word, but it is the reason we react to change or respond to it oftentimes.

Nothing wrong with CNN, btw. So long as that's not your only news source, methinks.

[Key]

On 1/28/2016 at 8:52 AM, Atwater Vitki said:

Good point. I know people that refuse to read anything but publications produced by or endorsed by their religious synod. From home schooling curriculum to world news, periodicals and magazines to weekly supermarket ads. This is one method by which the intolerance grows to such egregious levels. In some cases even if an outright lie (i.e.; gay is a choice, marijuana leads to heroin 100% of the time, all Islam supports terrorism etc etc) is endorsed as "truth" by their synod, they will emphatically hold that as absolute truth.

Trying to dispel or change those type of lies only leads to argument and slanderous innuendo. Even in the rare case the leadership acknowledges a misspoken line or retracts a previous statement it is often dismissed with little more than a sheepish grin. Even more rare is an apology given to those harmed by the earlier statement or actual accounting for the official stance ignorance.

Education is indeed the key to many things but how can it help subvert intolerance when the educational material is flawed? I mean in some cases (a World™ magazine article on public schooling) I might as well have read that Columbus discovered the moon and was a gay Muslim!   But seriously though, when it's impossible to get truth in the education then intolerance, ignorance and manipulated morality follows.

Blessings Be,

Really? I never knew that about Columbus. Who knew?

[Gruffydd y Dryw]

14 hours ago, Key said:

Really? I never knew that about Columbus. Who knew?

I did, being a high ranking member of the Illuminati through my association with various Druid orders, but I was sworn to secrecy. If you look at the original painting of The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci it will become clear. Peter has a grey beard like Santa. The Santa Maria was the largest of three ships supposedly used by Columbus to discover "America." Jesus and the disciples are all eating bread. It is white bread in the form of dinner rolls which are round. White and round like the full moon. They are all obviously Muslim terrorists because most of them have beards but don't have blonde hair and blue eyes. The final clue is that all of them are wearing dresses. Clearly being gay is to be inferred since not one of them has the decency to wear pants. Mystery solved. I'm just glad this finally came to light so I didn't have to take this secret with me to my grave

Edited January 30, 2016 by Gruffydd y Dryw

[Key]

4 hours ago, Gruffydd y Dryw said:

I did, being a high ranking member of the Illuminati through my association with various Druid orders, but I was sworn to secrecy. If you look at the original painting of The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci it will become clear. Peter has a grey beard like Santa. The Santa Maria was the largest of three ships supposedly used by Columbus to discover "America." Jesus and the disciples are all eating bread. It is white bread in the form of dinner rolls which are round. White and round like the full moon. They are all obviously Muslim terrorists because most of them have beards but don't have blonde hair and blue eyes. The final clue is that all of them are wearing dresses. Clearly being gay is to be inferred since not one of them has the decency to wear pants. Mystery solved. I'm just glad this finally came to light so I didn't have to take this secret with me to my grave

Hmm...well, unfortunately for you, you've revealed all of this under a pseudonym. Meaning no one knows it's you unveiling secrets, thereby you (your alter ego) will still take the secret to your grave.

[Gruffydd y Dryw]

But the plot thickens. My pseudonym is just the Welsh spelling of my real name combined with the Welsh word for Druid (y Dryw)  

Although I guess the grave thing doesn't really apply since I am a Druid. I should be able raise myself from dead without too much effort. If that doesn't work I just have to wait until Halloween when dead Celts have their get out of the Underworld free card

[Key]

5 hours ago, Gruffydd y Dryw said:

But the plot thickens. My pseudonym is just the Welsh spelling of my real name combined with the Welsh word for Druid (y Dryw)  

Although I guess the grave thing doesn't really apply since I am a Druid. I should be able raise myself from dead without too much effort. If that doesn't work I just have to wait until Halloween when dead Celts have their get out of the Underworld free card

Ah, so you've figured all the loop holes, did ya?

[Gruffydd y Dryw]

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 5:46 PM, Key said:

Ah, so you've figured all the loop holes, did ya?

Well, I'd like to think so. Of course in my religion no one is perfect, not even our gods

[Umbraedeus]

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 9:38 PM, scottedward said:

Being a god or vampire doesn't cause others to confront their sexual insecurities.

You make a very valid point  

People can dismiss Vampires and gods as myths or legends, but it is not as easy to deny the fairy that makes you question what might be lurking in your own cupboard

 

[scottedward]

On 1/29/2016 at 3:54 PM, Key said:

Ah, it may be just a word, but it is the reason we react to change or respond to it oftentimes.

Nothing wrong with CNN, btw. So long as that's not your only news source, methinks.

No, I mean that intolerance IS the reaction or response to change.  It's only a label, and it is the response that gets labeled.  It isn't the cause, it's the end result.  The cause is basic ignorance. 

[Cornelius]

8 hours ago, scottedward said:

No, I mean that intolerance IS the reaction or response to change.  It's only a label, and it is the response that gets labeled.  It isn't the cause, it's the end result.  The cause is basic ignorance. 

Intolerance is not always a bad thing.

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

Intolerance is not always a bad thing.

Especially when your intolerant of bad things.