Religious Tolerance

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.

Eorl wrote:

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.

If my statement demonstrates that I have misunderstood then apparently you have expressed your point poorly. It seems everyone else got the same impression from it that I got.

Edgar, my idea was badly written. What I meant to say is that "tolerance" does not imply appreciation, indeed the opposite. If I appreciate a "different" perspective, I don't have to tolerate it. But if I accept the plurality of the world, the inevitability or reality of differences, that by itself is the basis for tolerance. I'm aware that I must "put up" with things I don't appreciate.
That wasn't written much better.

fishin wrote:

Eorl wrote:

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.

If my statement demonstrates that I have misunderstood then apparently you have expressed your point poorly. It seems everyone else got the same impression from it that I got.

Perhaps. If so, I apologize.

I'm can't quite see how to word it more clearly, but I'll try if I can.

Let's keep it simple. One person says "We must pray every night, we must go to church on Sunday, we must never eat meat"

The second person says "I agree we must pray every day (accepted), I didn't think I had to go to Church....but you know what, you're right! (accepted), but I don't really agree with the meat thing....I believe we must we eat meat every day....but to each his own (not accepted but IS tolerated - does not conflict with and is compatible with his own).

Then the first person says, "Well, a god commanded me to prevent people from eating any meat "

Second person will not tolerate this as it conflicts with his own veiw that he must eat meat every day.

A third person says " I am tolerant of both of you, as long as I can eat meat whenever I want."

Person 3 accepts none of the beliefs, and only tolerates those that don't conflict with his.

Is that clearer? I doubt it.

"Religious tolerance" comes from the need for political expediency, not "respect".

Ok. You are confusing the concept of social tolerance with conformity though. The two are very different concepts. The person that is not being tolerant in your example here is person 1.

The concept of social tolerance is that you allow others to practice their beliefs as they choose without interference.

Person 1, by attempting to force their god's command is the one interfering with the beliefs of others - not the other way around. Person 2 and 3 aren't attempting to force person 1 to do anything. They are allowing person 1 to believe as they wish - refusal to conform to person 1's beliefs does not make them intolerant.

Are they really so different?

Person 1 is being as tolerant as his god allows him to be. If you were a devout follower of person 1's religion, would you first give in to the demands of your god, or to an "unbeliever"?

Expecting a person who believes this world is only a pitstop on their way to eternity in the afterlife to bend to the moral obligations of a "tolerant" society is absurd. They bend as far as their god allows them to, and no further, else they jeapordize their eternal soul.

Further, what are your feelings on incest and pederasty? Negative, i assume? What if someone is a devout follower of a religion that includes those two things. Are you being intolerent if you dont allow them to practice such things?

Quote:

Further, what are your feelings on incest and pederasty? Negative, i assume? What if someone is a devout follower of a religion that includes those two things. Are you being intolerent if you dont allow them to practice such things?

What part of "...until it interferes with..." and "...negatively impacts..." from my earlier posts did you miss?

fishin wrote:

Quote:

Further, what are your feelings on incest and pederasty? Negative, i assume? What if someone is a devout follower of a religion that includes those two things. Are you being intolerent if you dont allow them to practice such things?

What part of "...until it interferes with..." and "...negatively impacts..." from my earlier posts did you miss?

So would those two things interfere/negatively-impact you?

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.