CAN YOU BE A DEVOUTLY RELIGIOUS PERSON AND STILL BE TOLERANT

"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. "

Well, it's only a guess, but even though you didn't say those exact words, you did say some things from which someone could "come to that inference".

"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."

Snood

Absolutely npthing you quoted there can be construed in any way whatsoever to indicate that I have ever said that religion is ALWAYS bad.

The inference you are trying to draw is absurd.

Frank, all an inference is, is just an interpretation, based on a perspective. For you to call an inference absurd would be like being so completely self-involved and arrogant that you actually see other people's opinions as inferior to yours,...

uh, waitaminute...

What I mean is, for you to be derogatory like that, instead of saying "I can see why you might think that, but that isn't what I meant", you would have to be an incredibly pompous ass of a,...

oh, hold on...

nevermind.

Snood

Get a grip on it, man. You are losing it.

I defy you to show logically that anything I said can lead to the inference that I am saying "Religion is ALWAYS bad."

Sammy Sosa, do you hear that?

I use rosin next time. Baseball been beddy beddy good to me.

Sammy needs to wear a stronger helmut, next time he goes to bat.

I make touchdown next time. Beddy good touchdown.

Goodie! Me so glad for you!

religious tolerance
Just got here and havn't read much of the forgoing--and noting that the topic seems to have wandered. Oh well, here's a contribution to the original--and excellent--question: We might want to keep in mind when talking about the intolerance generated by fanatical states of religious fervor, that we are talking mainly of the so-called "great" world religions. This would include, of course, Christianity and Islam. Buddhism and Hinduism have been less inclined to proslytize, especially in the more vigorous forms of the Crusades and the Flaming Sword of the Desert--but in modern times Hindus have fought viciously with Muslims and vice versa; Buddhism has the best, but not perfect, record . Judaism has more or less remained a tribal (as opposed to a universal religion) and, as such, has not proslytized. That has not, however, rendered it tolerant of other religious expressions. My point, however, is that purely tribal religions, those, for example, that have helped the (hunting and gathering) pygmies to adapt psychologically to their dangerous jungle environment has not been something they've tried to impose on their Bantu (agricultural) neighbors. Each sees their religion as an intrinsic property of their people, and not something that humanity as a whole "should" adopt. At the same time, religions, like many group boundary-maintaining institutions, have been used by groups to define themselves in opposition to other groups. We have seen this as Catholics and Protestant versions of Christianity have detested and butchered each other. This statement is sloppy and requires qualifications, additions, and documentation.

We've wandered a bit here, makes me relate to Moses and his merry band, so here's where I am. The answer to the question as asked is yes. Anything is possible.
==
Of course, there's more.
I don't think this is the thread to argue the history of religion but since we had wandered there.
Our brains are wired to speak to us. I'm sure you hear yourself several times a day, so did early humans and it must have freaked them out, but they listened and, (we know about these things because Eskimo shamans can still do this) the inner voices could tell them things that they could not know in any other way. Where there was food, where would the caribou travel, what the weather would be. Critical information because the wrong information could mean death from starvation or freezing in a blizzard. Ancient man did this same thing, 100,000 years ago, talking with his brain.
Now was this God?? Um, nope, it was his brain going back over all the signs, the clouds, the winds, the way the light looked at sunset and the inner voice would speak and when they came to the valley, there the herd would be. (Kind of makes you wonder why we don't listen more and get more caribou, doesn't it?)
Religion got going from people trying to thank their inner voices, but for about 100,000 years it was an internal thing ... religion, worship, liturgy, the organized kind, not the inner kind, got going about two hundred miles from where the US Marines are presently headquartered, by then, 11,000 years bce, villages were becoming cities and the smart folks who were running things had a brilliant idea.
They told the other folks that the inner voice was really from outside, it was above them, outside of them, and (here was the best part) only the really smart, leader types and especially the leader's helper (the bishop, the shaman, the medicine man) could hear the right voice. Pretty good deal for them. And it has existed like that, or nearly like that, for the next 9000 years.
And for the most part it's been a good thing for individuals and a lousy way to run a government. Religious leaders always seemed to be hearing voices telling them all about who to conquer instead of who to love, and even after Jesus and Mohammed tried to get things straightened out, (render unto Caesar ....)the folks running the religions still didn't get it. In the west, they tried to stop the progress of science, (no operations, no blood transfusions, no vaccines, no earth orbit etc) luckily western kings ignored their princes of scripture. The middle east didn't do so well, the mullahs were able to hold the greatest scientific engine on earth (algebra, trig, geometry, chemistry, hydrology) to a ninth century standstill. They heard the voices differently and that was that.
There are other examples from everywhere, the Incas, the ancient isle of Japan, the official voices kept hearing officially about tabus the people didn't hear, didn't matter. Today, this is embodied in the discouragement of stem cell research. I had hoped our king would ignore the princes of scripture but .......
==
okay.
I don't believe religion can exist outside of a single individual,
the inner voice one hears exists only for the one hearing it
and the moment someone says
"Hey, guess what my voice is saying.?"
the voice gets distorted by all of the particular individual's burdens.

So I have had really wonderful revelations,
I have had moving, life changing, mYstIcAl experiences,
just like they did 100,000 years ago
but that wasn't a God speaking to me, it was me.

Sometimes I can write a poem that truly speaks my inner voice.
And people say
Yeah, I hear that too.
and my inner voice smiles and goes to take a nap.

Joe

Welcome Back JL. As you see, weve wandered the fields and are sort of , not too far from the starting line. Ive poswed this as one completely disenchanted with the trappings of religions, and similarly , dubious about inner drives of "spirituality" so, obviously Im a bit jaded, but I believe Ive been fairly open about that point.
My own answers to the negative on my own post are based on my dealings with some intellectually dishonest people whove spoken from the point of a "universal truth" (ie Evangelisit Christian)

My recent experiences with religious "scientists" trying to influence major changes in schoolcurricula have not fostered,in me, a deep respect for their points of view . Even though theyve been nothing but gentlepeople in the chambers, theyve lobbied their religious points of views "ex chamber" to key legislators with the firm plan to have the legislators put pressure on the education board members. Their methods were less than scientific, they were rather condescending, and they were mostly lying.
Consequently,
Ive found myself on Evangelist "hit lists" for personal canvassing and phone calls that were almost threats. Weve had srticles written that impune some of our professional views. in the popular press, it has resulted in some rather nasty letters to the editor
that would really be funny if it werent obvious that some people believed their points deeply and are starting to foment some hate campaigns.

Need I say, I feel that Gods "scientists" have acted in a rather intolerant fashion to forward their own agendas. Weve won in most of the states where the issues have been properly debated and adjuticated in the open. However, that isnt stopping theless than tolerant Religious organizations from taking their issues down to local school boards to try to exhaust the shaky resolve of the legislatures.
If anyone has similar experiences Id love to hear of them.

It ALL depends on what you consider DEVOUT
to mean. Devout doesn't necessarily mean a
person who is out of their mind with extremist
attitudes toward religion. Devout - if you would
bother to check it out in the thesaurus - refers
to characteristics such as being earnest, deep
faithful, devoted, serious, sincere and so on.
There is not necessarily even the slightest
fragment of FERVENT religious insanity inherent
within the word "DEVOUT"; which is what you
seem to be trying to say. So, to this question
which you've posed farmerman - I MUST disagree
with your opinion completely, for I do feel it is
entirely possible to be devout - within meanings
of the word - and still find it completely possible
to have the utmost tolerance for the views and
the beliefs of others at the same time.

Babs-Thats a copout. Your entire point is circular, if, by your definition a person is intolerant of others beliefs, they are no longer devout, they are now fanatics? Cmon, lets quit this ploppin in definitions to suit your POV.
I didnt ever mention "fervent religious insanity" anywhere in my posts . The only other "dictionary diving" was where someone tried to reslant my point by trivializing tolerance.
If the devout are those who proselytize, does not the act of proselytizing mean that one belief is trying to supplant another"s (and implied inferior) belief?
PS- a secondary definition of one who is devout (a devotee) is a BIGOT

BOTTOM LINE:

Of course one can be devoutly religious and still be tolerant. But many, many are not.

I'm an agnostic -- and I am anything but tolerant to many things.

I have friends who are atheists -- and who are intolerant towards many things.

Humans are intolerant. And humans are tolerant.

Just depends of which human your are dealing with and when you are dealing with him/her.

Looking at it in another way- how do the devout define "tolerant" as a practical matter? Does that mean that they "put up" with another person's religious views, even though they believe that they are dead wrong? Do they "tolerate" that person in the workplace, but would not dream of inviting "that person" to their home, or country club?

As devout people, do they believe that the other person does not "get it", and that they will lose out when the time comes?

In other words, being "tolerant" can range from not burning crosses on another person's lawn, not attempting to show the other person the "right" (THEIR) way, to accepting that there are other ways of living than theirs that can be just as good and moral.

So toleration can be very relative.

I can neither argue against frank or phoenix's points. Therefore we have settled it.
PS frank , are you a devout agnostic?

propr answer-I dont know

tolerance
Good points about the relativity of tolerance, Phoenix.
To me, the critical characteristic of "religious intolerance" is that the objects of belief are moral objects. God's word, the church's precepts, religion-based moral principles, etc. To not accept these moral objects is not like disagreeing on some scientific generalization where you are merely intellectually right or wrong. In matters of religious belief you are either moral or immoral, not just right or wrong. And to my mind that breeds, or implies, a degree of intolerance. I might, if I were a religious devotee, put up with my neighbor's disbelief, but I would nevertheless perceive him as a morally defective being. I don't think I would want my daughter marrying him.

In another thread on this subject I talked about intolerance from a different perspective -- the perspective of tolerance being a virtue rather than a vice.

There are times when we cannot be tolerant -- or where being tolerant is the wrong or unethical thing to do.

One cannot in good conscience "tolerate" a Hitler.

So -- perhaps it is time to put this thing to bed.

Interesting discussion.

Farmer -- you got my reply correct. I don't know. But I sure as hell am an agnostic activist -- even though there are people who consider that an oxymoron. When they talk about me, they leave off the "oxy."

CAN I HAVE AN AMEN?