• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Religious Tolerance A Bad Idea?

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
comprehend said:
of course I could not hold that position, I was just giving you a hard time. I agree with you that there has been terrible things done by religious people in the past, (no sane person could deny it). I was trying to speak to the overall trend of things. But it seems to me that the only thing that communism in Russia, China and Cambodia was athiesm. Russia and China had such vastly different ideas about communism that they hated each other for a long time. It was common though in all of the athiest societies that human beings lost their value. The society as a whole was all that mattered but the individual was worthless. If they believed in God, it would not be very likely that a people would accept that a human being was worthless. Anyway, I am sorry for wrecking your thread and thanks a lot both of you for the good natured discussion. I will delete these posts in the morning to clean up.

Don't bother deleting the posts, Comprehend! It's been an interesting digression and you've put your points in a very articulate and thoughtful way.
 

Revasser

Terrible Dancer
comprehend said:
I know you will disagree and I also know this is probably off topic so I apologize and you do not need to respond unless you feel like it.

You know it. :D

It is off-topic, but it's a good discussion. Go ahead and start a new thread about it, if you like. I'd be happy to participate.
 

Pah

Uber all member
comprehend said:
...I agree with you that there has been terrible things done by religious people in the past, (no sane person could deny it). ...
And relative present. How can you deny Bosnia or Ireland?
 

Kay

Towards the Sun
Revasser said:
You know it. :D

It is off-topic, but it's a good discussion. Go ahead and start a new thread about it, if you like. I'd be happy to participate.

I thought about doing it myself, so I would participate if you started one Comprehend. :yes:
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
comprehend said:
If they believed in God, it would not be very likely that a people would accept that a human being was worthless.

That is a nice idea, but it is just not true. It is easy to see many people throughout history who believed in “God” also accepted the idea that human beings are worthless. Or at least they accepted the idea that other human beings were worthless. Clearly just the idea of “God” or “not God” does not determine peoples ethical actions. We have to look at their belief systems as a whole, and not just the theism/atheism component.

And to try to get this back to the OP, I think it is ok to be intolerant of the idea that human beings have no inherent value. And that applies regardless of whether this idea comes from an atheistic philosophy or a theistic philosophy. We should feel free to criticize it either way.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
It's not the supernaturalism or the naturalism, the capitalism or socialism or communism, it's not the nationalism or the name-your-religionism, it's the...

'everyone must.'

An insistance of intolerance of religious tolerance is just as 'everyone must' as religious fundamentalism.

Same mistake Dawkins makes. Too bad.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
I believe very much that I am to love everyone as my brother/sister, regardless of their beliefs, religious or otherwise...so, in that regard, I should be tolerant of individuals but I do not have to tolerate beliefs/ideals.

I can be respectful to others in response to their beliefs/ideals but I do not have to tolerate the belief. I have every right to despise a religion...to despise ideals...

But...I should treat the individual...with love.

Those are my thoughts.
 

Pah

Uber all member
retrorich said:
Tolerance of religions is never a bad idea, unless the religions are forced on those who do not believe in them.
The "forcing" is usually, in pluralistic societies, sometimes quite subtle. A fairly open religious intrusion can be seen in the religious effort to pass marriage amendments.

I don't know why I should respect or tolerate blatant religious suppression.

The question comes why should this "toleration" become extended to those of moderate or liberal religiousosity?
 

Pah

Uber all member
lunamoth said:
It's not the supernaturalism or the naturalism, the capitalism or socialism or communism, it's not the nationalism or the name-your-religionism, it's the...

'everyone must.'

An insistance of intolerance of religious tolerance is just as 'everyone must' as religious fundamentalism.

Same mistake Dawkins makes. Too bad.
What you are seeing here is the "in-your-face" stage. I feel that is entirely natural when the tolerance, (read that "privilege"), demanded or expected is so pervasive and entrenched as tradition.

Quietly saying "Ahem" is not a good substitute for awakening the oblivious. It is more effective to say "PARDON ME" than "pardon me".

I make no apology for it.
 

Pah

Uber all member
If I show intolerance to an anarchist, that would be understandable. Why should I not show intolerance to religion that has the same capacity to destroy society?

Why should I be tolerant of thoughts that form a context for extremism?
 

Pah

Uber all member
comprehend said:
....The biggest reason I dislike his idea is that it would need to be a totalitarian police state in order to inforce it. 1984 anyone?
We already have in place the concept of sepraration of church and state. Would that concept be fully implemented there would be no "police state".
 

Random

Well-Known Member
Bright-ness said:
We already have in place the concept of sepraration of church and state. Would that concept be fully implemented there would be no "police state".

I don't concur: au contraire, political ideologies can be every bit as dangerous as religious ones. ;) Just as you don't have to have God for people to be good to each other, you don't need have to have no-God for people to be bad to each other.

Money? Power? Dominance? Corporatism? Greed? Social stratifaction? You don't think vested interests will protect themselves potentially by any means possible, even including a global version of Naziism or a Police state?
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Sunstone said:
Has Harris committed a slippery slope fallacy of logic here? If so, why? If not, why not?
I think so. I think rationality should not be the mark by which we tolerate a belief or not, but rather, whether or not the belief is harmful.

I've posted this before:


UUs are not tolerant of all religious philosophies, nor should we be. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
We believe the theology that you hold is good for you when it gives you peace and a purpose and causes you to live in harmony with your neighbors and the universe. But if your theology causes you or others harm, or causes enmity to others, or damages the world we live in, then it is not a good and acceptable religion for you or anyone else, and we will oppose it.

The Reverend Cliff Reed, a British Unitarian minister has written,
“Human beings are infinitely varied. So too are their cultures and the conditions in which these evolved. … …. Unitarians recognize the inevitability of many diverse expressions of faith. Unitarians do not say that all religions are the same. Nor do we say they are of equal worth. What we do say is that no honest and sincere expression of belief should be discounted out of hand. …. All true expressions of the religious impulse come from our encounter with the wonder and mystery of the universe. All result from the joy and pain, the highs and lows of our life-experiences in this world.

Thus Unitarians afford respect to all sincere believers of whatever faith. We seek to learn from the witness of all spiritual traditions, but we do not do so uncritically

UUs need only to look at our principles to find what is unacceptable in some religious theologies.

We believe in the search for truth. Therefore we cannot accept for ourselves theologies that tell us not to search, theologies that claim to have a lock on the truth.

We believe in the democratic principle. Therefore we cannot accept the denigration of women or minorities, or by leaving them out of the democratic process, or the imposition of hierarchical decrees that are not subject to questioning.

We believe in the interdependent web of existence. Therefore we cannot accept animal torture or the destruction of our environment.

We believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all. Therefore we cannot accept a religion that teaches that unbelievers be put to death. We cannot believe in original sin. We cannot accept the abuse of children.

I believe there is much good to be found in most religions. But when a theology or belief is harmful to others, society, the world or goes against our UU principles then I feel I must actively oppose it and cannot accept or tolerate it. As a Unitarian Universalist, I am not only called upon by our principles to give honor to beliefs and religious practices of others, but to also oppose them if they cause harm.
 
I will say that if you have a spiritual relationship with the Creator it is impossible to sit idly by when confronted with religious beliefs that historically inspire believers into acts of violence against their neighbors.



No one should pander to apologists of theologies or ideologies that historically inspire killers killing innocents in the name of God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pah

Fluffy

A fool
I heard Richard Dawkins express this in a slightly different way but I shall have to paraphrase because it was in a video interview.

Essentially he argued that we are all taught to tolerate faith and, in doing so, we create an atmosphere in which outlandish beliefs, including potentially dangerous ones, can grow and spread. More importantly, it encourages conviction in these beliefs.

He said that clearly there was a need to differentiate between the moderate/liberal theists and the extremists but that in tolerating faith, moderate and liberal theists were in a sense harbouring extremism.

I would say that he is right. However, I still think we can tolerate religion whilst putting it in its place. Dawkins feels, and I agree, that if you wish to believe in God then you are welcome to that belief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pah

Pah

Uber all member
Godlike said:
I don't concur: au contraire, political ideologies can be every bit as dangerous as religious ones. ;) Just as you don't have to have God for people to be good to each other, you don't need have to have no-God for people to be bad to each other.
Of course - you are right. I think it goes to a personal life rather that the ruling authority of state. The authority of state, when in the hands of religion has a much broader history than that of purely secular violence

The state should address criminal behavior and not criminalize or otherwise restrict sinful behavior.


Money? Power? Dominance? Corporatism? Greed? Social stratifaction? You don't think vested interests will protect themselves potentially by any means possible, even including a global version of Naziism or a Police state?
I agree for a police state but not in the application of Naziism. That violence was based upon Liberstrum of territory and elimination of Jews in that territory. The "Jewish problem" demanded a "solution" for Liberstrum. The "problem" and "solution" places Naziism squarely in the religious camp regardless of the faith expressed or implied within it.

Atheism was simply not a part of Naziism but support for Naziism, even in context of "protecting" Christians, was given by the Catholic church.
http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/storydetail.cfm?ID=378

Kertzer clarifies Pius XI’s famous statement made in 1938, in an audience with Belgian pilgrims, that “Anti-Semitism is inadmissible. We are all spiritually Semites.” These words, apparently uttered with genuine feeling, were cited in the 1998 Vatican report “as evidence of the pope’s constant opposition to anti-Semitism,” notes Kertzer. He finds, chillingly, however, that they were originally spoken in the context of a terrible rider—papal approval of anti-Semitic laws, already enacted in Germany and other European countries. “We recognize everyone’s right,” the pope had already assured the pilgrims, “to defend themselves, to take measures to protect themselves against all who threaten their legitimate interests.”
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/20-Nov-2006.html
In a recent hearing in the case of Alperin v. Vatican Bank, Pope Benedict's personal attorney admitted the Vatican was involved in the genocide committed in Croatia during World War II, killing more than 500,000 Serbs and Jews.

It is also undisputed that the Vatican worked hand-in-hand with the Nazi Party to accomplish this horrendous mass murder, as attorney for the genocide victims, Jonathan Levy, is now trying to get financial reparations for his clients, accusing the Vatican Bank of post war money laundering of genocide profits.

What's incredible about the case being argued in a San Francisco federal court, besides the media keeping the case away from the public eye, is the Pope's attorney had the audacity in a November hearing to claim the Vatican was justified in partaking in mass murder as it was "permissible under international law."

Although the Pope's attorney stopped short in saying the Vatican is above the law, his outlandish arguments fit nicely with Canon Law, stating the Roman Catholic Church has the right to kill heretics without the killings being a violation of Church or international criminal law.
 
The traditional Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have caused far too much damage to the world to let them continue on without protest. These religions have each polluted the worship of God by dragging in territorial conquest and control agendas having nothing to do with one's personal relationship with God.

Because the Abrahamic religions became vehicles for territorial expansion ambitions of men, they became weapons of war against other religionists and they still are. And still inflicting thousands of needless deaths per year as well as becoming a real possibility for the start of World War III, a religious war between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

When secular humanist ethics exceed Abrahamic religious ones, then we know it's time for a change and God has heard. Because in order to change the Abrahamic religions it will take a new prophet bearing a new revelation for Abrahamic believers to change course. Even then it may take generations but the process has been started with the introduction of the Religion of Peace, a truly universal Abrahamic religion that all who worship God as the Source of Peace, Love and Harmony can join in together as One. :)
 

Gentoo

The Feisty Penguin
arielmessenger said:
The traditional Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have caused far too much damage to the world to let them continue on without protest. These religions have each polluted the worship of God by dragging in territorial conquest and control agendas having nothing to do with one's personal relationship with God.

Because the Abrahamic religions became vehicles for territorial expansion ambitions of men, they became weapons of war against other religionists and they still are. And still inflicting thousands of needless deaths per year as well as becoming a real possibility for the start of World War III, a religious war between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

When secular humanist ethics exceed Abrahamic religious ones, then we know it's time for a change and God has heard. Because in order to change the Abrahamic religions it will take a new prophet bearing a new revelation for Abrahamic believers to change course. Even then it may take generations but the process has been started with the introduction of the Religion of Peace, a truly universal Abrahamic religion that all who worship God as the Source of Peace, Love and Harmony can join in together as One. :)

Careful not to blame the religion for deeds of the followers...
 
Top