CAN YOU BE A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS PERSON AND STILL BE TOLERANT

CAN YOU BE A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS PERSON AND STILL BE TOLERANT?
The question is too simple, although that appears to be the object of the writer. The answer is yes and despite the claim that history disproves that, all one has to do it find one example in order to answer yes.
Um. Mother Teresa. Gandhi That's two, and I'm sure there are examples outside of India.

What this question is about is our own perceptions of others. To show that merely punch your favorite belief system or member. How does each change the question? Isn't the answer always yes on an individual basis and yes for the entire faith unless you are subscribing something of your own onto it.? Can religions be tolerant of each other? Sure. Are they always? No. So?

CAN YOU BE A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS Buddist AND STILL BE TOLERANT

CAN YOU BE A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS Southern Baptist AND STILL BE TOLERANT

CAN YOU BE A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS Mullah AND STILL BE TOLERANT

CAN YOU BE A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS Protestant in Belfast AND STILL BE TOLERANT

CAN YOU BE A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS Jew AND STILL BE TOLERANT

CAN YOU BE A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS Reformed Jew AND STILL BE A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS Jew? oops. That's another question.

My point is this question is a set-up for our own intolerance to be displayed, and apparently take a well aimed and earned swing at Billy Graham's offspring. Okay, but say so in the beginning.
And Bi-Polar Bear is once again correct when she calls the writer on the definition of the terms. It is most certainly not an issue of is-is, being tolerant is a non-active state, the questioner tries to get us to stretch it's meaning into something active.

So.
The real question is this:

Has religion brought the world more love or less?


Joe

<<Has religion brought the world more love or less?>>

Infinitely more. I think you'd have to delve into the personal lives of millions (billions?) to find the full extent of it.

However, has religion been misused as an excuse for countless atrocities? Definitely. In most cases, I'd say the people who practice the religions are faulty, rather than the religions themselves.

Well, I understand the reason you added that final paragraph, Visitor, but it truly does not capture the reality of the situation.

As far as I can see, religion has brought hamanity more chaos, more hatreds, more divisions -- and has caused less love, less understanding, and less respect and toleration.

I think that religion is a net negative for humanity -- not a net positive. AND THAT HOLDS WHETHER THERE IS A GOD OR NOT!

It is my opinion that we do not know if there are gods -- and if there are, we do not know what those gods are like and what those gods expect of us. It is my further opinion that the world -- humanity in general -- would be better off if we simply acknowledged that -- and got rid of all religion.

Let's suppose that it never occured to the Cro-Magnons that there was a supreme being. That's what the question of this thread implies, that the follower of a religion is by definition incapable of toleration.

Suppose some early human said
"The water from the sky is a gift from a great god, Gaah!!!."
and the others laughed and said
"Yeah, and if you say the right words and beat a drum, more rain will fall? Don't make us laugh. The 'water' is a result of the positive and negative ions in the clouds acting upon the water molecules along with a corresponding drop in atmospheric pressure."
" Not Gaah??"
"No."
"oh....okay."
And they put their drums away (except for boogey-down stuff) and started living their lives as if their lives depended upon living in harmony with the world and it's inhabitants. Wouldn't they have managed better?
Killed each other less. Appreciated each other's differences more.

Suppose Jesus had shown up when He did and when He said,
"Love one another as I have loved you."
we said

"Been there. Done that. Doing that now."

Two excellent posts, Joe.

Whoa There! This is an awfully broad and far reaching statement. This is like saying that language or even *civilization* is a net negative. Religion has always been a core part of what it means to be human.

Pretty much every society has been built around a religion. The religion of the society is the basis of its values, morals and identity.

The impact of religion on our society is responsible for a wide variety of things we now take for granted. This is a list off the top of my head:

They include:
the incest taboo,
music (I would argue *all* types),
concern for the poor/ welfare
public health,
Marriage and Monogamy,
Astronomy,
Philosophy,
Our present view and love of individualism,
Our legal system (or pretty much any legal system),
Romantic love,
Civil Rights.

All of these things can be shown are deeply influenced if not a direct result of religious ideas. Other cultures, either historical or current, have developed differently becuase of different religious ideas. (Unfortunately cultures in the world are becoming more and more homogenous).

I doubt that civilizations could have developed at all without religion. Look back at the early civilizations (Egypt, Greece, Mayan etc.). All of these cultures depended very heavily on religion to establish their societies.

I challenge you! Give me one counter example. Has there ever been a culture that hasn't *depended* on religion?

eBrown

You seem to think that many of the things that develop supposedly from religious ideas and ideals -- would not have developed without religion.

I respectfully disagree.

In another thread recently, I indicated that there were cultures that developed -- without using religion as the basis for their laws.

Greece and Rome are two examples.

Now this is not to say there were no religions in Greece and Rome -- but that the ethics and morality they developed (such as there was) were not specifically derived from their religion.

Fact is, the gods of Greece and Rome did not have made many demands of the citizens of those two entities -- but rather were simply there to be propitiated.

You mentioned a few things as items derived from the gods. Let's take a look at them.

"the incest taboo" -- When I first saw this, I though for a moment it was an indication that you were just poking fun at religion. Apparently not. But how on Earth could humans possibly derive the incest taboo from the gods when almost all of the early gods taught the exact opposite lesson??? The incest taboo, eBrown, was derived despite the teachings of the early gods, not because of them.

"music (I would argue *all* types)" -- Where do you get this from? How can you possibly determine that music derives from religion -- rather than that music derived from natural tendencies and was applied to religion??? How could anyone?

"concern for the poor/ welfare" -- Can you cite some of the gods who taught that the poor must be ministered to?


"public health" -- As this list goes on, you seem to be fixing on the god of the Jews, because I can think of almost no other gods that concern themselves with these features.

I'll give you this. Jews seem always to have had a high sense of responsibility. I've heard some interesting theories about why this is so -- but the bottom line is that the Jews seem to have incorporated their theories of ethics and morality into the person of a god they almost surely invented.

In that sense, the religion did some good. But I suggest that if you look at the entire of what occurs to humanity at the hands of the god they (apparently) invented, it becomes a net negative for humanity -- not a positive.

"Astronomy" -- Please! If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a theists giving the gods credit for all things good. If anything, the science of astronomy was given a thousand year setback from religion -- not a boost.

Pray tell how do we owe astronomy to religion

"Philosophy" -- Most of the very early philosophers were agnostics and atheists.

"Our present view and love of individualism" -- I'll leave love alone, although as mentioned by several people in this thread, religion seems more often to teach divisiveness and separation than true love. But individualism, we probably owe more to deists, atheists, and agnostics. Individualism is one of the last things religion teaches.

"Our legal system (or pretty much any legal system)" -- Most of our legal system is derived from what humans perceived to be the common good. We truly do not have laws against murder because some god supposedly told us murder is wrong. Society cannot operate effectively if murder is rampant. Same goes with stuff like stealing, adultery, and the rest.

"Romantic love," -- No way!

"Civil Rights" -- eBrown, most civil rights are obtained despite religion, not because of it. The leaders of most religions do not want civil rights. Take a look at almost any theocracy on the planet. The slaves in this country were freed despite the dominant religion of the country -- not because of it.


On second thought, perhaps you were just being sarcastic and ironic with these items. Perhaps you were trying to show just how destructive religion can be.

Frank(ly), I am not joking.

You are quite wrong abot the Greeks and the Romans. Their ideas of identity and right and wrong were given to them by the gods as was fire and most other things. Read classic literature if you doubt this. The gods gave the ancients everything from law to reason to fire.

My people (at least the European part of my ancestry) have the incest taboo (as well as many other of the taboos of our culture) *because* of the triumph of the Judeo/Christian ethic. Europeans did not have this taboo until they were "Christianised". This part of American culture is certainly from our European roots. (Incidently I put this becuase I researched it as part of my study of sociology in college.)

Civil Rights in this country is *certainly* based on religeon. The basis of civil rights is a religious passage that I am sure you will recognize:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This religious core of the American ideal was quoted in similarly relgious statments by President Lincoln and Rev. Martin Luther King (a baptist minister). Read the "I have seen the mountaintop" speech if you doubt the role of religion in the Civil rights movement.

Astronomy was invented by religious "astrologers" to find the will of the gods. This was true in Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Persian and Mayan civilizations who all used astronomical events to dictate religious festivals etc. Look at the names given to stars, constellations and planets if you doubt this.

Modern astronomers owe much to the astrologers of the past who studied the stars dilligently with religious goals. The zodiac still keeps the names given by ancient religious scholars. Many other modern astronomy terms still have religeous names including "celestial sphere" and "solstace". The early astronomers (Kepler and Copernicus et al.) were deeply interested in the religious import of their work.

Look at the early legal codes from Moses to Hanurrabi to the law-givers in the native American cultures (I am sure there are many more example but these are the three I am aware of.) All early legal systems derive their authority from a divine source. Our legal code (including laws against incest and bigamy) is based on public morality that (as I discussed) stems from religious ideas.

Look at the history of public hospitals in our culture (both in the US and in Europe). Early movements to provide public health are exclusively championed by people who are motivated by religios beliefs - whether Europeans Catholics or Muslims.

The view of romantic love is greatly influenced by religious ideas in a culture. Contrast our ideas from either ancient Hindu or European ideals. Monogamy for instance is considered an ideal by our culture (that doesn't mean all of us) because of our religious identity. (Other religions celebrate arranged marriages with are based on duty rather than love, and having multiple spouses.)

There are many more examples.

What I am saying is that like it or not, religion is a part of human experience. It defines the values and morals of a society, for better or for worse.

The fact is is that these things were not developed without religeon. Actually the societies without religion didn't seem to last long enough to even be recorded by history.

ebrown_p
Great posts!

A reference and a link (from Rev. King):

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

Complete text:
http://www.afscme.org/about/kingspch.htm

Frank and e brown. I love it when it gets like this. OF COURSE ITS A SIMPLISTIC QUESTION>(e brown) As witness, most of the posts havent even gotten out of the starting gate. You and Frank are arguing on pure speculation. We need acquiunk to settle the anthropological /archeological thread
IMO Religion was a consequence of free-time . As free time became more available, myth and legend grew more complex and new ideas traveled about in measured paths.
Please dont link the sciences and math as a consequence of religion or even spirituality. You HAVE NO EVIDENCE.
Most sciences grew out of needing to solve problems for daily life. Simple machinery like the shadoof were possible when weight/counterweight and fulcrums were understood. etc etc
Its not a matter of someone challenging you, you must support your own theories, not merely wait to be disproven.

Was stone projectile typology a consequence of spirituality? I think not. When you take your ideas back to their basics , there doesnt seem to be any connection.
For example, if you say cave paintings show a definite linkage to the spiritualism of the hunt, I may agree with you. BUT, stone tools go back more than a hundred thousand years and developments of the tools predate the cave paintings by 60K years, so by mere evidence I believe youre wrong

joe nation , let me take 2 religions youve mentioned since they are on a head butting path. Lotsa devout Christians and Muslims out there, both busy proselytizing
. Early in Islam , Christians would convert and go back and forth. Islam was , initially a world of tolerance and acceptance of the outside Then with the late 9th century and the resurgence of dominion of the church, Islam and Christianity became headed on a collision course. One reason, among many others, Ive been told by religious scholars, is how Islam and Christianity define ones responsibilities in the presence of "good and evil"

Christians are admonished to "do good and avoid evil"

Muslims are admonished to COMMAND good and DESTROY evil"

Thats not me, that is Mercya Eliadi (sp)

Both are equally devout and both are relatively intolerant of the others beliefs.

Funny you bring up Ghandi.How had his pacifism helped religious tolerance??Seems to me that all he did was foment rebellion, even though he never intended it. The problem was like the sandal scene from "The Life of Brian" how different mindsets can interpret the same act differently and viciously. Ghandi wasnt a problem, neither was Jesus, or Muhammed, or Sidarta. The followers , invested with a personal revelation , ahhh theres where the problem starts. If the leader (or the focus of the cult) isnt around to explain what he means, others will set up their own traditions and scriptures etc.

My question and opinion still is valid, no matter how Bi Bear (BTW, its a he bear- )restates as my question. Tolerance as the opposite of intolerance has a quality of respect and disrespect already there. Its a word that, if you look into its scholarly usage you will see phrases like "religious intolerance". So I dont wanna water down your excellent posts with rummaging for unintended meanings or bifurcating what is a not-too-difficult question


Im sorry, my shots at Tim Graham were cheap shots but they came as a consequence of the thread rambles , I obviously didnt plan it from the beginning as youve proposed. Im not that devious, gimme some slack here man .

Nonsense. Show me anything that has the Greek or Roman gods giving any standard by which humans had to abide. I've read plenty of classic literature -- so telling me to do so really doesn't cut the mustard. But if it is as prevalent as you infer -- just give us five or six examples.



My point exactly. While it may be a part of the Judeo/Christian ethic -- it certainly was not part of the teachings of most religions. And we are not disscussing just the Judeo/Christian culture here. Most of the gods were incestuous to a fault -- and if they taught anything, they taught that it was okay.

In any case, since you cite the Judeo/Christian teaching of the evils of incest as an example of what religion does for humanity -- why not discuss some of the hundreds of other "lessons" in how humans should behave which is taught by the god of the Bible? Stoning homosexuals to death for their abominable behavior is something you think helps humankind? Stoning adulterers to death for their behavior helps humankind? Stoning disobedient children to death for their behavior helps humankind? Teaching that slavery is acceptable helps humankind? Putting all inhabitants of conquered cities to death helps humankind?

There are so many more, but we'll leave this for now. But I dare say for every citation you have from the god of the Bible that is a positive for humanity, there are five that are a negative.



Yeah, that is from the Declaration of Indendence. And it was a smart way to word that thought. The people writing that document were in contest with the King of England -- and Kings supposedly ruled with divine right. So the people who wrote the Declaration simply decided to invoke this god in their favor.

Fact is, the kings invoked the divine right out of thin air -- and the people who wrote the Declaration picked it out of thin air also.

If religion -- especially the Judeo/Christian ethic were to prevail (which it did for a while) -- women and slaves, for instance, would have absolutely no protections.

So even though this is a contrived attempt to tie in individual rights with religion -- it doesn't work on that level.

Besides, most religions, as I mentioned earlier, are anything but for individual rights. The call their flocks "sheep" for a reason -- because that is what they want, sheep.

By the way, that is what they get.

I won't even go into the rest of your post, because it represent mostly wishful thinking -- not reality.

But at the end you did say something else I'd like to comment on:



Aha -- so you can tell what would have happened without religion. How convenient! I can't do that, so I can't actually refute what you say, but I can say that I think you are full of soup for suggesting that you know that to be the case.



Then how, may I ask, do you know that they existed?

Farmerman, please read my posts before trying to dispute them. I said nothing about science math, flying stones or anything else. I spoke specifically about astronomy. I gave plenty of evidence including ancient astronomy (i.e. astrology), the zodiac and current astronomy terms with relgious roots. I believe that I have given ample support for my arguments to anyone with reasonable education.

I do like your cave painting example though. I didn't think of that one.

Frank, I am not sure that I understand what you are saying.

You seem to be saying "religion is always bad".

Besides being a very religious statement, It is not supported by the facts.

1) Many people opposed slavery, some with their lives *because* of their religious faith. The fact that others used religion to justify slavery does not take away from that fact.

The Quakers (a "deeply religious" group of Christians) were at the forefront of the abolition movement.

Please see this link about the early Quaker religious reasons for the anti-slavery stance.

http://www.qhpress.org/texts/oldqwhp/wool-496.htm

(If I must I will supply other sources when I have time.)

2) Many (perhaps) most of the forefathers of our nation were religious. They were not "Christians" (I hate having to argue both sides of this) but they *were* without question religious. They were mostly deists. George Washington was a mason. This is also well documented. Discounting the religious tone of the Declaration of Independence is unsupportable.

3) Many Americans are still "deeply religious" including those of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition. They find it deeply fulfilling. Many of them strongly continue to strongly support civil, homosexual and woman's rights.

4) Most Jews and Christians do not stone homosexuals, adulterers or their children. (Yes I know about the Bible passages. Have the decency to let people interpret their own religion. Don't presume to tell people how they should practice their faith.)

Listen you've clearly got issues with religion, but just understand.

Religion has been and continues to be a major force in our culture (and probably all other cultures as well) for at least the past 6,000 years (and probably before). It has influenced our society in countless ways, some good and some bad.

I will let you figure out which is which based on your own beliefs.

eBrown, I have not yet read the rest of this post, but I want to interrupt my reading to respond to your opening statement.

At no point have I ever said "religion is always bad" -- and I cannot conceive of how you can come to that inference from what I have said.

I have said nothing remotely like that -- and I never would, because it would be stupid. I am not stupid.

I'll respond later to anything else that I come up with as I continue my reading.

e-brown, again, evidence. Lets not forward a conclusion without some evidence. We know from Sumerian pictographs that astronomy/astrology had agricultural significance. It still doesnt invalidate my "free time " parallel. It took someone who was invested with some free time to thin k about how all these data were interrelated and how could they best be used. Religions/ etc carvings of deities were an outgrowth but so were engineering feats and I still havent seen a cause and effect relationship that you espouse.

Im more attuned to a theory that religion, like fancy cooking was an out growth of the advance of civilization, it wasnt a driver. (I believe thats what underlies your points, even though Ill reluctantly pull back my points that you were comparing science as consequence to religion or mythology)
I think that if you were to look at prehistory in timelines (what happened when) you might come up with a more compelling line of making your point.

E brown I read your posts to Frank and Im now on the main point of my thread. You give examples of socially advanced philosophies like the Quakers. If I get back to my original post, you are sort of making my point. You are searching for examples of religion and "tolerance" and youve come up with the Quakers. A minority religion that was probably the only non-separatist non_Anabaptist religion in the Colonies that could be given a resounding "well done" by us all.
Maybe we have to resolve my question by statistical inference.
"It is possible to be devout and tolerant' but youd be in a minority

Remember , the punative colonial raids between the Pennsylvania and MAryland border Counties seemed to follow a CAtholic v Non-CAtholic cluster of people.
Most of the initial American colonies were, in reality , a special haven of tolerance toward one belief or another. Entire British colonies were set up in an intolerant caste system. Spain and Portugal subjegated the "poor Godless wretches ", if they werent successful at Conversion, theyd try a little fire to stoke their new converts into seeing it a "new enlightened way"

Conquistadores always had a well armied batch of priests doing the work of the Lord. Etchings of the Conquistadores show the hanging of hundreds of conversions that "didnt take"

OK farmerman, we've come full circle. You keep coming back to all of the bad deeds done in the name of religion (and I am not denying that there have been many).

I have given you many counter-examples that extend further than the Quakers including the Baptist leadership of Dr. King's Civil rights movement and the primarily catholic roots of the public health system in Europe and the U.S.

But my main point is that religion is much more than an "outgrowth of civilization like fancy cooking". Religion is an integral part of society that encompasses our language, our customs, our holidays and our laws. Congress starts each day with prayer and we keep references to diety in our sacred documents and our currency.

Religion has been with us in both our greatest triumphs and and our gravest injustices. You can't deny either one.

We agree about Franklin Graham, the Quakers and the Conquistadors. Other than that your broad statements about religion are not based on fact and are ah ... well ... a good example of intolerance.

CHEAP SHOT ALERT ON E BROWN


not a bad try but, youre the one who was arguing for religion and how it represented "the best in us" not me. So by trying to turn it around to make me the proponent is truly the "art of ad hominem "
How can I be the intolerant one ? Youre the one taking a position not I. Ive easily countered every one of your points without breaking a sweat. You feel that something is the way the way you"feel it is" not by support with any evidence. Im gonna hold you to the evidence.
You want to discuss the S BAptist Conference? really?

Like you, I must ask , where, in my posts do I deny that religion is not an important force in various cultures? Not the point.
My point is, simply stated
"Is it possible to be devoutly religious (whatever yer flavor is) and be tolerant (... "of others beliefs")

By having religions occupy such a central point of our cultures may actually be the problem, not evidence of "the best in us" IMO.
Youve actually done more to harden that point because youve not come up with a universality, youive shown nothing more than fine exceptions.