CAN YOU BE A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS PERSON AND STILL BE TOLERANT

Actually, Bear, it is a Catch-22 situtation.

Those people who are intolerant of people who are intolerant -- really don't have a leg to stand on.

i hate bigots

Some of the most deeply religious people I know are also completely tolerant of other religions. As has been said before, the religions that proselytize tend to be the least tolerant.

"Hate the sin, love the sinner", is often used to attempt to 'change' a behavior. My cousin, a fundamentalist Christian, uses that term quite often, once using it to tell me of the successful mission to cause a gay man to denounce his behavior. To me, they succeeded in taking away the man's identity, maybe even his soul.

As far as 'tolerant' is concerned, don't you think context should be taken into consideration? English is always evolving, with slight nuances changing regularly.

IMHO, organized religion is very dangerous when mixed with politics. (I am a recovering Presbyterian--very boring).

I don't hate bigots. They do have their Consititutional rights, you know.

Well, now you know, if you didn't know before this post. God love the Supreme Ct and the US Constitution.

Farmer: As I a Jew, I respect your opinion.

As far as settling down, why be mute?

"i hate bigots" is the most irony laden phrase i could think of, sorry if it went over a few heads.

New HAven, you and Frank seemed to be on a path with no satisfactory end, thats all.
Dys, my undergraduate' college had a motto of "lux et lex", really stupid motto. I always liked the one from the HAt Creek CAttle Company in Lonesome Dove.

I havent been convinced that devout (add religion name here) are full of true spirit of tolerance and maybe a more powerful phrase would be a philosophy of acceptance and advocacy. (Non judgemental, live and let live). Nobody has bitten on anything about Franklin Graham (Billy Jr and his pronouncement that Islam is an "evil" perversion of religion. )
That should win the coalition a nice fuzzy place in the collective hearts of Islam.ther, to me goes a bigot,. DAvid Duke used to wear a uniform with the cross and a drop of Jesus Christ blood on the KKK uniform.

New Haven, why does your religion form the basis of whether you respect anothers opinion.? Ive worked with Israelis in Israel and found them to be the most argumentative people ever. They never leave you with a dull moment. We would fight over what wed want for supper and it was the most fun Ive ever had in foreign services. Cuz it was always done in fun and with grand humor.
Now , if you wish to get on my good side, sing the words to Gilbert and Sullivans "I am the very model of a modern Major General"

Farmerman, on another thread (can't remember which one right now) there was a link discussing a group of evangelical Christians gathering to go into Iraq after the war with medical supplies, ready to help injured Iraqi's. Asked if they would try to convert Iraqi's, they said that they were sure the Iraqi's would ask them why they were helping, thus giving them the opportunity to talk about their religion. Franklin Graham and the leader of the Southern Baptist church were involved, both of whom had said that Islam didn't worship the same God as Christians. Their purpose in going appeared to be focused as much on spreading the word than helping Iraqi's.

The following link is one I used for a thread that went nowhere. To me, it shows that most very religious people are intolerant and nearly fanatic in amassing power. It clearly shows what the dangers can be when they are involved in govenment. It is quite long, but worth the read if you have time.

Here is the link:
Misc: Jesus Plus Nothing--from Information Clearinghouse
http://www.harpers.org/online/jesus_plus_nothing/jesus_plus_nothing.php3

First to address New Haven: I am a Jew, and my wife is half Catholic, half Muslim, so, not only am I tolerated, I feel entitled to speak on behalf of all sides.

dyslexia, I hate bigots too, and some of my best friends are black

farmerman: Imagine that, I agree with you on a very potent point...religion is so politicized, and people so mislead by their so-called religious leaders and their 'values', that a modern definition of a 'devoutly religious person' does indeed, far more often than not, include bigotry and intolerance, despite whatever the 'true' meaning of religion is. If we knew what religion really meant, in our hearts, we would have no need for it.

And as a PS: Franklin Graham is an f--ing naive asshole...and so are his converts. Why not just invite more terrorism? WTF, do these people not study history? The Crusades have not been forgotten in the Islamic world.

Why, oh why are you linking me with New Haven. I am 180 degrees out of phase with him/her.

I feel a lot of love and tolerance in the room.........

Bi-Polar Bear said:
If you love someone as Christ did, whether you believe the Biblical Christ to be a person or an ideal, then tolerance is not necessary, because love trumps the need for tolerance. Tolerance is embodied in actual love.

-------------------
Well said.

A larger answer to the thread question--'devoutly religious' doesn't connote Christianity. The Pharisees were devoutly religious, and Jesus consigned them to Hell on several occasions... OBL is said to be a devout Muslim, and I judge him as intolerant.

Depends on the religion,... 'Devout' members of any religion may be tolerant or intolerant.

I feel the need (for the sake of tolerence) to stand up for those who proselytize. By my definition you can proselytize and show tolerance at the same time. Proselytism is simply promoting a viewpoint. This does not mean that you do not respect the rights of others to hold their own viewpoints.

I have been proselytized by evangelical christians that I consider tolerant of my agnostic theology. They were respectful of my viewpoint and we were able to have a rational discussion. I have had similar discussions with mormons, buddhists (yes, I have a friend who is an evangelical buddhist), republicans and people promoting blue green algae. All of these people I would consider "tolerant".

It seems that anyone with a strong opinion on anything will proselytize. I certainly make my anti-war views known (respectfully of course) whenever I get the chance. And, unabashedly, I do want to change your mind about this if you will listen to me..

This is not to say that Franklin Graham and his ilk don't leave a very bad taste in my mouth. What they stand for and the way they promote it is, to my mind, harmful.

I still don't see how the label "tolerant" means anything...

I guess you most of you are unaware of how much I tolerate the majority of you. Don't think most of you have seen me try to convert, proselytize, or condemn ya, all but Frankie Doodle. You can lead a horse to water but ya can't make it drink. Unless………………
So chew on that tabacca fer a while. (try redman like yer bigot necks)



























now do you think I was serious in the last part - had ya going!!

frank, I know where you stand. You and New Haven were Mixin it up. I wasnt linking you , I was caling timeout, neutral corner.
Thats why the written word is never adequate . I asked this question in a sense of Id like to feel your opinions about devout (as opposed to occasional) and tolerant (as opposed to ... well... intolerant) Its amazing that we wind up turning a simple question into debate of the words, when we all certainly know what the words mean. this proves the Meyers Briggs personality types. Those of you that have ever gotten into it, Im an INTJ. We try to simplify, and get to an answer, and were fairly single minded. The ones like Bear and sofia are another type who seek to bring more and more information into their decision making process.
that has nothin to do with nothin other than Practice and devotion to whatever religions we profess often leaves us unable to secure empathy with those of differing faiths.
AND as cav had so eloquently stated, also IMHO, Franklin Graham is a douche bag, and one whos been embraced by the present government, you know, the government thats trying to fullfill The book of Revelations.

Heh heh, I am so often less 'eloquent' here...but thanks for the opening...lol

So, if I may summarize and try to capture a consensus.
A One batch of you feel that the concept of tolerance and devotion can coexist nicely within one person or group ( I think that a brief review of history is all you need to change this view point)

B One batch feels many, if not most, deeply religious people are rather intolerant of beliefs that dont parallel their own (History seems to support this view, and s, since I asked the question, obviously I lean this way)

C Another , smaller group, argues that the question is irrelevant in its use of terminology ( To those people, it all depends what the definition of "is" is.. )

D Many of us think that Franklin Graham is a dangerous hypocrite., and, if I might extend a possible solution to this man"s missions, we collect the many pronouncements of this guy and let AMerica know what seems to be openly aligned with the Executive Branch

Very interesting question Farmerman and leaving aside the semantics I'd like to add my pennyworth.

I was brought up as a catholic and have found generally that people that have been brought up as catholics have serious issues concerning blame and guilt. However it was never apparent to me at upwards of 12 or so churches that I have belonged to (terrible expression but you know what I mean) as a catholic that catholics in general did not tolerate Jews. However it was very apparent from many of the older generation priests that we is right and anyone else is wrong.

Personally I found this offensive to to other people and religions and nowadays I am as close to a buddhist viewpoint on most things in that I do not personally believe in killing any living being if I can help it and I try to practise compassion for all living beings.

It seems that holy wars and the like have given religion a bad name and labelling people " Jew ", " Catholic ", " Muslim " etc does not help as it just helps to segregate and differentiate us even more when probably we have more in common than not, of course there will always be the extremists in any religion which gives that religion a bad name. I no longer attend church as I try to practice what is preached rather than going to a building and muttering.

I think it is possible to find tolerant people that are deeply religious and on that count would disagree with Farmerman whilst extending my tolerance and compassion for his views.