0
   

Religious Tolerance

 
 
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
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 09:08 pm
We don't have to appreciate beliefs and values unlike ours - -
jl nobody


In other words, you won't tolerate those whose views differ from yours. You see where I'm going with this?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 09:47 pm
he he he Razz
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 10:02 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 10:02 pm
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.
Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 10:07 pm
On the contrary,,,that was very well written !
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 11:06 pm
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. Confused
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 04:53 am
JLNobody wrote:
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.
Embarrassed



jl
I was merely attempting to make a point to another poster by making a [feeble] joke.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 09:18 am
Eorl wrote:
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. Confused


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.
0 Replies
 
Monolith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 11:19 am
fresco wrote:
"Religious tolerance" comes from the need for political expediency, not "respect".


Well said. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Monolith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 11:30 am
fishin wrote:

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?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 11:38 am
Monolith wrote:
Are they really so different?


Yes.

Quote:

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"?


Obvioulsy, as the question is worded, to my god. Which is exactly why I stated that person 1 was the one displaying intolerance.

Quote:

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.


And??? What exactly, does that have to do with the discussion? What they may or may not do doesn't change the meaning of the concept.

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?
0 Replies
 
Monolith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 01:43 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 02:01 pm
Monolith wrote:
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?


They might impact me directly (depending on who is involved) or they may impact someone that I have an explicit or implied social contract to protect from harm.
0 Replies
 
Monolith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 02:53 pm
How, then, is your position any more tolerant than person 1's? Both of you are tolerant of each other as far as your beliefs will let you. If you won't stand for someones beliefs to get in your way, then why should someone else do the same for you?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 04:03 pm
If I pick up a baseball bat and take a swing at your head as hard as I can and you duck (which causes me to miss) are both of our actions the same?

The concept of tolerance has NEVER precluded self-defense or the defense of another that is being violated.

The concept of tolerance/intolerance ONLY covers the range of activities that fall outside of someone elses rights/person/etc.. being infringed upon. This isn't a binary tolerant/intolerant concept that exists in isolation. It exists within the framework of the social contract being intact.

Let me see if I can explain this more clearly: Let's say we have a person that has fantasies of raping women in shopping mall parking lots. This person has these images in their head and has expressed them to you verbally but has never acted on them.

A tolerant position would be to leave them alone with their fantasies.

An intolerant position would be to harass them, call them names or post signs in their neighborhood or workplace proclaiming them to be a sexual pervert.

Mind you, up to this point the person hasn't acted on anything that affects anyone other than themselves (i.e. they haven't broken the social contrcat by breaking any law or infringing on anyone else's rights.)

Should that indiividual ever try to act on their fantasies and attempt to actually rape someone else then we are no longer in the realm of being tolerant/intolerant. You are then in the realm of a broken social contract and self defense or the defense of another is fully warranted.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 05:42 pm
fishin'

I agree there are several levels of intolerance going on in my example, and that it can be seen from various angles.

What I don't see is anything that invalidates this basic idea
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.

It seems to apply uniformly in all directions. The idea is mine (although I highly doubt it's original) and being a scientific type, I am expecting to see it undone so I can learn from it. Where is the flaw in my proposed law? Are my terms (acceptance and tolerance) wrong?

(Maybe I'm just being stubborn...it has been known to happen ! )
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 05:52 pm
I am an atheist. I deal daily with people who believe many basic concepts that I long ago rejected. My part time help of 4 years breathes Bible and constantly spouts ideas I consider ludicrous. He believes Bush is a good president, whereas I despise Bush and all he stands for. Yet, my helper remains a good friend and has even told people he views me as his father figure. My manager believes strongly in the Christian faith, and we remain a strong team and close friends, with no arguing or questioning of one another anyway. The list goes on and on, but no need to labor the point. I don't accept what they believe, but I accept the people. Intolerance is a concept for the contentious. The rest of us are busy living our lives instead of looking for conflict.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 06:01 pm
Well stated, Edgar.
I guess I don't really care what people believe (although I self-righteously pity some of them for it sometimes--as they possibly do me). I do not believe in the doctrines of Islam, but I was once invited by a student to his mosk. There his Imam and other parishioners were so nice to me I came away with a warm feeling for THEM, but not so much for their belief system. But that was before the rise of the islamists. Because of the latters' ACTIONS, I cannot even muster tolerance for them. If they only held their violent goals as never-to-be-expressed fantasies, then I would try to tolerate them
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 06:11 pm
I think you are using (in that single statement) the word tolerate to mean "put up with" as opposed to applying the larger concept of tolerance/intolerance.

It is a statement on the acceptance or rejection of views not on the concept of tolerance. It's a sort of apples/oranges thing. In the original concept of religious tolerance that was raised one can reject a view, have it be in direct opposition to their own views, and still be tolerant of it (which defies your statement).

For example (just to stay in the religous realm), there are people who beleive that a person must be "reborn" to reach eternal salvation.

I don't accept their belief and their view is in direct conflict and totally imcompatible with my own (Since I don't beleive there is any eternal salvation to begin with I see being "reborn" as a waste of time/energy.) yet I am tolerant of their beliefs. i.e. they are free to beleive whatever they'd like without any interference from me as long as they don't violate the social contract - the seperation of church and state - to try to force me to conform to their beliefs.
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
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/27/2022 at 09:40:46