0
   

Religious Tolerance

 
 
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 09:12 pm
How do you guys and gals feel about religious tolerance?

I am asking this not from a legal point of view as we should all be legally free to think and believe what we want. This is more about the social acceptance of religious beliefs. Should religious beliefs be tolerated socially?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,075 • Replies: 41
No top replies

 
Chaplin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 09:31 pm
Religious tolerance is an oxymoron.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 10:02 pm
So you are intolerant of the intolerant?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 11:14 pm
I think people only accept views that are the same as their own, and tolerate other views only to the extent that they are compatible with, and do not conflict with, their own.

(If they accept the other view as possibly valid, then it becomes part of their own view anyway)
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 04:49 am
I tolerate all belief, unless said belief targets me or commits unsavory and or immoral acts.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 08:03 am
Eorl wrote:
I think people only accept views that are the same as their own, and tolerate other views only to the extent that they are compatible with, and do not conflict with, their own.

(If they accept the other view as possibly valid, then it becomes part of their own view anyway)



I don't see being "tolerant" as something that requires accepting validity. I can be tolerant of someone else's views (i.e. I don't interfere with or crtiticize their practice of...) while still dismissing their beliefs. If someone chooses to believe something and it doesn't negatively impact me there is no reason for me to be concerned with it.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 10:11 am
fishin wrote:


I don't see being "tolerant" as something that requires accepting validity. I can be tolerant of someone else's views (i.e. I don't interfere with or crtiticize their practice of...) while still dismissing their beliefs. If someone chooses to believe something and it doesn't negatively impact me there is no reason for me to be concerned with it.


What if it does "negatively impact" you?

For example someone insisting you convert to their religion and you don't want to.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 10:25 am
CerealKiller wrote:

For example someone insisting you convert to their religion and you don't want to.


I don't think this has to do with "religion" but with "missionary".

I had lunch yesterday with (my wife and )my wife's friend. The latter is Jewish, has been advisor to the Isaraelian government, journalist with a leading European newspaper, Israelian diplomat, member of the Central Council of Jews in Germany ... and now she's adviser for Jewish questions with the German Catholic Bishop's Conference, the Evangelical Church in Germany and co-ordinates seminars about Judaism at Catholic and Evangelical academies in German-speaking countries.

According to her, questions about "religious tolerance" never arise .... because they aren't there = with people, she's contact with/knows.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 11:45 am
CerealKiller wrote:
fishin wrote:


I don't see being "tolerant" as something that requires accepting validity. I can be tolerant of someone else's views (i.e. I don't interfere with or crtiticize their practice of...) while still dismissing their beliefs. If someone chooses to believe something and it doesn't negatively impact me there is no reason for me to be concerned with it.


What if it does "negatively impact" you?

For example someone insisting you convert to their religion and you don't want to.


I'd call that more of an irritant than a negative impact but if they were persistant I'd tell thenm where to get off.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 12:26 pm
We should kill all the Catholics and Protestans and Chirstians and Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Rastafarians and Spiritists and Chinese Tradionalists and Deists and Scientologists and ESPECIALLY the agnostics and athiests! THAT should solve the problem!
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 12:44 pm
"Religious tolerance" comes from the need for political expediency, not "respect".

Quote:
The lion may lie down with the lamb, but the lamb wouldn't get any sleep.
Woody Allen.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:48 pm
Eorl wrote:
I think people only accept views that are the same as their own, and tolerate other views only to the extent that they are compatible with, and do not conflict with, their own.

(If they accept the other view as possibly valid, then it becomes part of their own view anyway)


I disagree with the last paragraph. It doesn't necessarily follow that if you accept something else as possibly valid it becomes part of your own view. I accept Roman mythology as possibly valid today as any other faith and yet I believe none of them, which is my own view.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 06:03 pm
Mame, to accept it as "valid as any other faith" when you accept no faith as valid, is the same as not accepting that faith as valid.

To clarify: by "valid" I mean that it seems like truth to you.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 06:06 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I tolerate all belief, unless said belief targets me or commits unsavory and or immoral acts.


in other words, you tolerate all beliefs to the extent that they do not conflict with your own?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 06:08 pm
fishin wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I think people only accept views that are the same as their own, and tolerate other views only to the extent that they are compatible with, and do not conflict with, their own.

(If they accept the other view as possibly valid, then it becomes part of their own view anyway)



I don't see being "tolerant" as something that requires accepting validity. I can be tolerant of someone else's views (i.e. I don't interfere with or crtiticize their practice of...) while still dismissing their beliefs. If someone chooses to believe something and it doesn't negatively impact me there is no reason for me to be concerned with it.


Your first sentence demonstrates that you misunderstand my first sentence. Nothing you have said makes my statement untrue.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 06:08 pm
Eorl wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I tolerate all belief, unless said belief targets me or commits unsavory and or immoral acts.


in other words, you tolerate all beliefs to the extent that they do not conflict with your own?


Wrong. I tolerate them until they attack me or do something immoral or unsavory.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 06:13 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Eorl wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I tolerate all belief, unless said belief targets me or commits unsavory and or immoral acts.


in other words, you tolerate all beliefs to the extent that they do not conflict with your own?


Wrong. I tolerate them until they attack me or do something immoral or unsavory.


Which means your view is that people should tolerate the views of others so long as they don't attack other people or do things you define as immoral or unsavory. See where I'm goin' here Edgar?

The aspects of others beliefs you won't tolerate ....are those that conflict with your own views.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 06:14 pm
Eorl wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Eorl wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I tolerate all belief, unless said belief targets me or commits unsavory and or immoral acts.


in other words, you tolerate all beliefs to the extent that they do not conflict with your own?


Wrong. I tolerate them until they attack me or do something immoral or unsavory.


Which means your view is that people should tolerate the views of others so long as they don't attack other people or do things you define as immoral or unsavory. See where I'm goin' here Edgar?

I see where you are going, but you are fishing with no bait.

The aspects of others beliefs you won't tolerate ....are those that conflict with your own views.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 06:18 pm
I accept that humans are seekers and land at different views in different places and over different times, within themselves and the world around them. I've done a 180 degree myself, as have many people done in the opposite direction I did - see Thomas Merton.

I am tolerant as long as my rights - and, key item, others' rights, aren't impinged on. Given the overriding of rights throughout history, one should watch one's back.
Given my rights are impinged on, religion becomes politics. (Yack, would that that would go away.)

All tricky when religion and rights conflict, say with the polygamists in my country - the female children are swept into connections I feel are imposed with their own rights overrun. But others may be fine with all that.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 06:41 pm
The world is a plural phenomenon when it comes to cultures (values, morals and philosophies). To be at all above Mayberry hicksville we must recognize that fact. We don't have to appreciate beliefs and values unlike ours, but we must accept the fact of their inevitability--tolerance.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Religious Tolerance
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 05:23:15