Is Religious Tolerance A Bad Idea?

[lunamoth]

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.

Hi Brightness,

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying here.

luna

 

[lunamoth]

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.

Well, Dawkins' rhetoric here really is quite silly. We could just as well say that in tolerating science we are also giving our tacit agreement to the pollen transfer of recombinant genes into the environment and to the destruction of the world through nuclear war, and that by tolerating democracy we are giving our assent to the tyranny of the majority and utilitariansm; etc., etc. etc.. Any human endeavor 'harbors' the potential for abuse.

And once the moderates and those inclined to tolerance have been silenced and we are left with two highly polarized fundamentalist extremes vying for the upper hand, will we really be closer to a society of peace with time and resources available for the pursuit of knowledge and truth?

luna

 

[arielmessenger]

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

God! I get so tired of this b.s. Only with religionists do we give the kind of slack that ignores death and human misery caused by wrong ideas.

People are people. If a prophet of God cannot foretell how his teachings from God are going to be used, then that prophet is no prophet-he is as blind to the future as everyone else.

When we use an instruction manual for making something do we blame ourselves when the thing we've built from instructions doesn't work right?
Is GM to blame for your car's defective steering column crushing your chest in an accident or are you to blame for using a defective product?

Time to stop giving a free ride to awful theologies and ideologies that have and still do inspire violence against others. Won't get a peaceful world as long as religious warfare instructions are condoned tacitly or explicitly.

 

[Random]

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.

What are you awakening them to, though? Is it merely your version of the "Real World" or is it another previously unexperienced layer of the illusory one? A true Bright would know the answer...

 

[fantome profane]

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

God! I get so tired of this b.s. Only with religionists do we give the kind of slack that ignores death and human misery caused by wrong ideas.

People are people. If a prophet of God cannot foretell how his teachings from God are going to be used, then that prophet is no prophet-he is as blind to the future as everyone else.

When we use an instruction manual for making something do we blame ourselves when the thing we've built from instructions doesn't work right?
Is GM to blame for your car's defective steering column crushing your chest in an accident or are you to blame for using a defective product?

Time to stop giving a free ride to awful theologies and ideologies that have and still do inspire violence against others. Won't get a peaceful world as long as religious warfare instructions are condoned tacitly or explicitly.

I agree. Of course people should be held accountable for their own actions. But at the same time we can and must be critical of the teachings and philosophies that tend to lead people to such actions (or justify them).

 

[Pah]

What are you awakening them to, though? Is it merely your version of the "Real World" or is it another previously unexperienced layer of the illusory one? A true Bright would know the answer...

Obliviousness to the reprocussions of having faith and understanding that faith, whatever good can come of it, has a terrible social consequence. That there is commonality with moderate, liberal, conservative and extreme religions that provides "cover" for the extreme. That the extreme and exclusionary will never be controlled from within the religion as long as it is allowed to call upon a supernatural entity, the same entity all the others may put to good social order.

It takes a secular view. Slavery was not abolished by persuasion that scripture could be wrong. Nor were humanistic princples emplyed by the religious slave masters. It took a political war - a secular fight to preserve a country and enfranchize all it's (male?) citizens.

 

[Pah]

Hi Brightness,

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying here.

luna

It justifies blunt debate

 

[lunamoth]

It justifies blunt debate

Sure, no need to pull punches or soften criticisms in debate. I have plenty of criticisms myself (towards religions in general and certain aspects of Christianity in particular) although it's not usually my cup of tea to debate them online. I agree with whoever said above that religions should not be immune from being held accountable for their views, teachings or actions that affect the world. By their fruits you will know them.

Right now we see post after post lamenting the sad state of our locked into two parties system in the US. Well, how did we get so polarized that any alternative, any middle ground or different approach can't get a seat at the table? I think it's because of polarizing rhetoric that encourages people to fear the 'other' who has been labled with all the tags that push our buttons: pro-gay/anti-gay, pro-God/anti-God, pro-life/anti-life. When you've got to brain-stem it to prevent the extreme pole you fear from getting any power you are not going to have the courage to support an alternative view that just might be better.

Polarizing rhetoric, whether it's coming from a secular atheist or a religious fundamentalist is only doing this: promoting fear and discouraging rational thought.

2 c,
luna

 

[Pah]

I don't know a middle ground is possible at the belief level. I do know that at the secular level, there is the middle ground of separation of church and state but it would of neccesity be a complete separation and a loss of Christian privilege. The recognition of privilege and the rejection of it would go a long way to enhance a social debate. I see no action, today, from moderates or liberal religions to bring that about. It would be a tremendous battle against the entrenched but it is essential to avoid to a polar solution.

By the way, a monistic religion is polar in character.

 

[lunamoth]

I don't know a middle ground is possible at the belief level.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by middle ground here. Perhaps you mean that one can either believe in God or not believe. When I think of religious moderates, I think of people who have found a way to trust their religious path without forcing it on others. I'm sure there are lots of ways to dice this particular phrase though.

I do know that at the secular level, there is the middle ground of separation of church and state but it would of neccesity be a complete separation and a loss of Christian privilege.

I agree with the separation of church and state as well. Deciding what is or is not 'Christian privilege' would probably be a long, difficult and in the end unresolvable discussion. You and I would probably agree on a lot of things there anyway.

The recognition of privilege and the rejection of it would go a long way to enhance a social debate. I see no action, today, from moderates or liberal religions to bring that about.

Well, one thing about moderates is they tend to be moderate. Not likely to get the attention of politicians or the media both of which rely upon that fear factor thing for ratings. I'm tempted to ask 'what privilege?' not because I don't see such as existing but because I'm a rather simple person and need to look at things one at a time. Tax breaks? Christmas creches on the Court House lawn? Pushing amendments against gay marriage? IMO these are not religious but social and political in nature. (By the way, I would say that the Episcopal Church is not exactly sitting quietly on the sidelines of the gay marriage issue, for example. And there have been political/think tank type movements by Christian 'progressives' in an attempt to have more political clout on behalf of moderate and liberal Christian views.)

It would be a tremendous battle against the entrenched but it is essential to avoid to a polar solution.

Who are the entrenched? There is no way liberal or moderate Christians are going to change the minds of conservative Christians, any more than moderate Muslims have any influence over radical Muslims. The extremes are extreme because they are not moderate, right? Exactly who are the moderates going to battle against and how? And how likely are Christian moderates going to want to partner up politically with non-theists when the figureheads for non-theism are like Dawkins, telling them they are just as much a problem as those who want to teach Creationism in biology classes?

By the way, a monistic religion is polar in character.

I had to look up 'Monist' to be sure of what you meant by this. I'm still not sure how monistic religion is polar . I'm also not sure that I'm a Monist or how this relates to the discussion.

Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is of one essence, principle, substance or energy and that there is one, universal, unified set of laws underlying nature.
Monism is to be distinguished from dualism, which holds that ultimately there are two kinds of substance, and from pluralism, which holds that ultimately there are many kinds of substance.

cheers,
luna