What is the most tolerant religion?

[McBell]

Anyone who had actually read the verses would see that there is no mention of BGLT in them, and therefore would know that what they were saying was an interpretation, not fact.

Thats it?
That is all the better you can come up with?

Semantics is a real good defense, unless the other person isn't in your chior.

But please explain how YOUR interpretation is so much better than mine.
And no, your semantics reply does not work.
At least not for me, but then, I am not in your chior.

 

[lilithu]

Thats it?
That is all the better you can come up with?

Semantics is a real good defense, unless the other person isn't in your chior.

But please explain how YOUR interpretation is so much better than mine.
And no, your semantics reply does not work.
At least not for me, but then, I am not in your chior.

I don't need to come up with anything "better." My only motivation for responding to you in the first place is that you completely overstated and misrepresented what the bible says. It does not say "kill all BGLT people on sight."

That may be how you choose to interpret those verses. But that's not what they say.

 

[gnostic]

Intolerant: all monotheistic Abrahamic religions.

Most tolerant: Teletubbism.

 

[lilithu]

Most tolerant: Teletubbism.

What? Have you already forgotten Dipsy's diatribe condemning all purple dinosaurs as immoral?

Not that I disagree with him, but it hardly seemed tolerant.

 

[gnostic]

What? Have you already forgotten Dipsy's diatribe condemning all purple dinosaurs as immoral?

I must have missed that sermon. Must have been quite fiery one.

But then again I have the tendency of following [SIZE=-1]Laa-Laa than the other teletubbies. With Laa-Laa, purple dinosaurs are ok-people.
[/SIZE]

 

[Quiddity]

Why the need to seperate doctrine?
There have been several posts in this thread that state something along the lines of "doctrinely I would say {insert religion here}."
Why the need to specify "DOCTRINELY?"
Doctrinely as opposed to what?

Because doctrine is the only thing that seperates us from any other religion or non-religious. It is the only thing we stand by as "unchangable" and without flaw. So if you can spot a flow in our doctrine, then the whole thing crumbles. Atleast for us, thats how it works.

What else are you to base it off of?

 

[Duke1985]

Pagans are a pretty tolerant group. There is an ancient middle eastern religion, dates back thousands of years, I believe they claim to be one of the earliest religions and they still exist today. One incredibly tolerant religion. They have a heaven, and everyone is going, you don't have do anything, you don't have follow any religion, you just get in.
Seems pretty tolerant.

 

[McBell]

Because doctrine is the only thing that seperates us from any other religion or non-religious. It is the only thing we stand by as "unchangable" and without flaw. So if you can spot a flow in our doctrine, then the whole thing crumbles. Atleast for us, thats how it works.

What else are you to base it off of?

That is my question.
The one that has yet to be answered.

When these people say "doctrinely I would say..." it indicates that there is something other than "doctrinely."
If there was not, then why the need to specify "Doctrinely?"

 

[McBell]

I don't need to come up with anything "better." My only motivation for responding to you in the first place is that you completely overstated and misrepresented what the bible says. It does not say "kill all BGLT people on sight."

That may be how you choose to interpret those verses. But that's not what they say.

The Bible flat out states to kill any man who sleeps with another man. Period. No ifs, no buts, no conditional modifiers, no exceptions, no excuses.

What is the term used for a man who sleeps with another man?
Homosexual.

Now I understand if you do not like what this means, I have met many a person who, like you, argue semantics instead of taking the Bible for what it actually says.
Prime examples are:

The trinity
Divorce
Remarriage
Women in positions of authority
Slavery
The creation of evil

​

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I do not understand what this whole "by doctrine alone" is all about.
IS a religion merely a doctrine?
Seems to me that seperating the doctrine from everything else is a strong indication that there are far to many members of said religion who do not follow doctrine.
I mean, why else would you feel the need to seperate it?
If they do not follow doctrine are they truly of that religion?
And what of a religion that has several different doctrines?
Which doctrine is the "one true path?"

I thought for the purposes of the debate to refer to the written word of a religion's stance or declaration. OK, so technically, I'm guessing that UU's don't have any one single set of doctrines, so I am simply going by RF's overview of UU.



http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=490

Principles and Purposes

Although they do not have an official creed or dogma, the members of Unitarian Universalism operate from a set of base principles and purposes. The modern form of those principles and purposes was adopted in 1984 and this section presents an exact copy of the current principles and purposes, as published in church literature and on its website. Official permission was granted by the UUA to include them here:


The Principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association

"We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote"
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

"The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:"
Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

"Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support."

The Purposes of the Unitarian Universalist Association

The Unitarian Universalist Association shall devote its resources to and exercise its corporate powers for religious, educational and humanitarian purposes. The primary purpose of the Association is to serve the needs of its member congregations, organize new congregations, extend and strengthen Unitarian Universalist institutions and implement its principles.

The Association declares and affirms its special responsibility, and that of its member societies and organizations, to promote the full participation of persons in all of its and their activities and in the full range of human endeavor without regard to race, color, sex, disability, affectional or sexual orientation, age, or national origin and without requiring adherence to any particular interpretation of religion or to any particular religious belief or creed.

Nothing herein shall be deemed to infringe upon the individual freedom of belief which is inherent in the Universalist and Unitarian heritages or to conflict with any statement of purpose, covenant, or bond of union used by any society unless such is used as a creedal test.
Unitarian Universalism is often referred to by its adherents as a living tradition, and the principles and purposes have been modified over time to reflect changes in spiritual beliefs among the membership. Most recently, the last principle (adopted in 1985), "Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part" and the last source (adopted in 1995), "Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature" were added to explicitly include members with Neopagan, Native American and other Nature-centered spiritualities. This principle is often referred to as the "seventh principle."..............

I call this written and unified purpose of UU's as the most tolerant of all religious institutions. To me, religious tolerance is their GOAL. Going back to Buddhism, tolerance is hopefully the icing on the cake, but the Dharma holds as it's ultimate goal enlightenment.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Four.
Calling a tail a leg does not make the tail a leg.

I understand what you're trying to say, that doctrine alone shouldn't be the basis for an argument in this premise. If I am wrong with my focus on doctrine alone, I still stand by my argument that in principle and in practice, UU's are the most tolerant with Hinduism remaining a close second.



Peace,
Mystic

 

[lilithu]

I do not understand what this whole "by doctrine alone" is all about.
IS a religion merely a doctrine?
Seems to me that seperating the doctrine from everything else is a strong indication that there are far to many members of said religion who do not follow doctrine.
I mean, why else would you feel the need to seperate it?

I believe that Mystic was seperating doctrine from practice for the sake of simplicity. The reason why she stated "by doctrine alone" explicitly is because she knows that religion is more than doctrine. But if we are to rank religions by their tolerance there must be some measure. And if one tries to go by practice it becomes too messy because, as several others have pointed out, regardless of official doctrine there are people in each religion that are tolerant and there are those who are not.

So she chose to judge by doctrine. She's not saying that this is all that religion is about. She's saying that's how she's measuring it. And unless you are arguing that the adherents of some religions are signifcantly worse than others about adhering to doctrine, there is no reason to think this is a bad measure.

Specifically, I wonder if you are questioning her choice of Unitarian Universalism. Do you think that a larger number of UUs do not follow their faith than other religionists?

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Four.
Calling a tail a leg does not make the tail a leg.

Relevance?

 

[lilithu]

I call this written and unified purpose of UU's as the most tolerant of all religious institutions. To me, religious tolerance is their GOAL. Going back to Buddhism, tolerance is hopefully the icing on the cake, but the Dharma holds as it's ultimate goal enlightenment.

Hi Mystic, namaste.

I'd say that the Beloved Community is our goal. That is, a community where no one is excluded, where differences in race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, ability, and relgious beliefs are celebrated not merely tolerated, and where conflicts are resolved peacefully instead of through violence. This is what we strive towards.

Tolerance is essential to getting to the Beloved Community, but it is not the ultimate goal. We hope to move beyond even tolerance.

I am glad you gave me the opportunity to bring this up. Because while I picked UU as most tolerant, I was aware that highlighting our tolerance may be misleading.

Methinks that you and I are the only ones who agreed on UU and Hinduism. I was pretty much going by "doctrine" too. Tho I had to put "doctrine" in quotes because we UUs shy away from that word. Of course I know that in practice, the vast majority of Buddhists display a remarkable level of tolerance.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Mystic, namaste.

I'd say that the Beloved Community is our goal. That is, a community where no one is excluded, where differences in race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, ability, and relgious beliefs are celebrated not merely tolerated, and where conflicts are resolved peacefully instead of through violence. This is what we strive towards.

Tolerance is essential to getting to the Beloved Community, but it is not the ultimate goal. We hope to move beyond even tolerance.

I am glad you gave me the opportunity to bring this up. Because while I picked UU as most tolerant, I was aware that highlighting our tolerance may be misleading.

Methinks that you and I are the only ones who agreed on UU and Hinduism. I was pretty much going by "doctrine" too. Tho I had to put "doctrine" in quotes because we UUs shy away from that word. Of course I know that in practice, the vast majority of Buddhists display a remarkable level of tolerance.

I like that term, Beloved Community, Lilithu. I had never heard it before but it immediately conveys a sense of what I think is the goal of religion as well. I really like the idea of a religious community as a magnet with Love drawing people in, rather than doctrine putting a fence around the outside.

I am really struggling right now with the idea of how do I work toward a loving community while at the same time making some kind of significant stand against hate and intolerance. At another forum I've recently just left because in spite of attempts at dialogue and search for common ground coming from one side (progressive or liberal Christianity), the rejection coming from the other side is so strong it seems that there is no place to come together. And that seems to be purposeful on the part of the fundamentalist Christians. "No Compromise" (with other Christians, whether they be liberal Protestants or Catholics) is a motto, and a certain resignation to (or even positive anticipation and embracing of) persecution and even martyrdom, combine to make it impossible to talk. Very frustrating, and a dangerous attitude IMO.

So now I'm asking myself, if I'm intolerant of intolerance, does that make me intolerant too? And if I'm tolerant of intolerance, does that make me culpable in actions that I think are harmful and dangerous?

Hehe, sorry if much of this is off-topic. Kind of getting it off my chest.

 

[Stairs In My House]

What is the term used for a man who sleeps with another man?
Homosexual.

Are you saying that a man who desires to have sexual relations with another man (and, for the sake of argument, not women) but does not act on those desires, is not a homosexual?

 

[Quiddity]

That is my question.
The one that has yet to be answered.

When these people say "doctrinely I would say..." it indicates that there is something other than "doctrinely."
If there was not, then why the need to specify "Doctrinely?"

How does it indicate something else? You lost me....

You mean to say that it doesn't come from them personally?

 

[Stairs In My House]

So now I'm asking myself, if I'm intolerant of intolerance, does that make me intolerant too? And if I'm tolerant of intolerance, does that make me culpable in actions that I think are harmful and dangerous?

I think there really is an intolerant approach to intolerance that I've seen in the form of condemning a particular person or group's intolerance without seeking first to understand it. Being tolerant toward intolerance does not mean having to condone it. Rather, I would say that a truly tolerant person will seek to understand another's intolerance and work to help that person overcome it.

In my own life, that's something I strive for but do not always achieve, but part of tolerance is also recognizing and accepting the limits to one's own tolerance, while striving to push them further. Like all ideals, it's something we orient toward even if we will always fall short of it.

 

[lilithu]

I like that term, Beloved Community, Lilithu. I had never heard it before but it immediately conveys a sense of what I think is the goal of religion as well.

It's a term made well-known by Dr. King, tho he isn't the one who originally coined it. (I don't remember who did.) UUs use it a lot, especially in the context of racial equality but it really means more than that. It is God's kingdom realized here on earth.

I really like the idea of a religious community as a magnet with Love drawing people in, rather than doctrine putting a fence around the outside.

My senior minister calls it "ever widening circles of love." We try not to put up fences but even religious liberals have limits to who we consider to be within our community. And if you just try to jump immediately to "everyone is in my community" it's only an abstract concept, not a lived reality. So we start with our circle, those with whom we genuinely feel love, and then push the boundaries out farther, always trying to feel genuine love for more and more people. (Reminds me of a certain Buddhist meditation on compassion.) But in the meantime, as you say, drawing people in as well. If someone comes through our doors, we do not turn them away even if they're not yet part of what we perceive to be our community. We welcome them and then work on ourselves to make it so they are. Does that make sense? The Beloved Community is hard work! but also joyous work.

I am really struggling right now with the idea of how do I work toward a loving community while at the same time making some kind of significant stand against hate and intolerance. At another forum I've recently just left because in spite of attempts at dialogue and search for common ground coming from one side (progressive or liberal Christianity), the rejection coming from the other side is so strong it seems that there is no place to come together. And that seems to be purposeful on the part of the fundamentalist Christians. "No Compromise" (with other Christians, whether they be liberal Protestants or Catholics) is a motto, and a certain resignation to (or even positive anticipation and embracing of) persecution and even martyrdom, combine to make it impossible to talk. Very frustrating, and a dangerous attitude IMO.

So now I'm asking myself, if I'm intolerant of intolerance, does that make me intolerant too? And if I'm tolerant of intolerance, does that make me culpable in actions that I think are harmful and dangerous?

This is akin to the disagreement that Dopp and I had. If being intolerant of intolerance makes your intolerant so be it. Tolerance is not the ultimate goal here, the Beloved Community is. In situations where tolerance promotes the Beloved Community, then be tolerant. In situations where tolerance does not promote the Beloved Community, then do not be tolerant.

It doesn't mean we need hate those who hate. We only need to oppose the actions that harm others. I still like what you said in that other thread, "bearing witness to suffering." If we always remember to focus on love - loving the oppressed, not hating the oppressors - then I think we'll be alright.

The trick is that it's very easy to forget that and to start hating the oppressors. And it may seem justified at the time but when we act from that type of motivation, in the end we are no better than the haters.

But luna, I have a really hard time seeing you make that mistake. Not for longer than a few seconds at any rate.

 

[YmirGF]

Actually I think UU's are tolerant to the point of it being a fault.

Most intolerant? I am going to curve ball this one and state that Scientology is perhaps the most intolerant of any other religion as outside beliefs are targetted for extermination, lol. (Obviously that is a theatrical way to put it, but it is fairly accurate nonetheless.)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Hi Mystic, namaste.

I'd say that the Beloved Community is our goal. That is, a community where no one is excluded, where differences in race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, ability, and relgious beliefs are celebrated not merely tolerated, and where conflicts are resolved peacefully instead of through violence. This is what we strive towards.

Tolerance is essential to getting to the Beloved Community, but it is not the ultimate goal. We hope to move beyond even tolerance.

I am glad you gave me the opportunity to bring this up. Because while I picked UU as most tolerant, I was aware that highlighting our tolerance may be misleading.

Ah, OK. Thank you for pointing that out. I love the UU ideal of the Beloved Community. :bow:

Methinks that you and I are the only ones who agreed on UU and Hinduism. I was pretty much going by "doctrine" too. Tho I had to put "doctrine" in quotes because we UUs shy away from that word. Of course I know that in practice, the vast majority of Buddhists display a remarkable level of tolerance.

*mutters about the spreading-around-frubals-rule before giving lilithu some more.........*


I try my best. It'd be nice to see Buddhism up there on the tolerance chart, but I know too much about the nature of the Dharma and it's established intolerance of delusion, ignorance, and egoistic grasping.



Peace,
Mystic

 

[lilithu]

I think there really is an intolerant approach to intolerance that I've seen in the form of condemning a particular person or group's intolerance without seeking first to understand it. Being tolerant toward intolerance does not mean having to condone it. Rather, I would say that a truly tolerant person will seek to understand another's intolerance and work to help that person overcome it.

This may be semantic but I don't understand the bolded line. Tolerance literally means allowing or permiting. Perhaps that's not the same as condoning, but functionally it becomes so. In my view, if I am tolerant of racism, for example, it means that I tolerate it, literally. It means that I do not speak up when someone says something racist. It means that I do not act when someone does something to hurt someone else based on race. Because I am tolerating racism.

I can't do that. (And I'm sure neither can you. )

I can refrain from hating the person who demonstrated racism. I can seek to understand why the person feels the way he or she does. I can feel compassion. But nevertheless I will still be working to change that person or at the very least minimize that person's impact on others. That, to me, is acting in love, but it is not tolerance.