Religious Tolerance

[Mr.Spock]

Yes that is exactly what it is- a secular government with representatives from all religions.

Now do you see why I get so frustrated when people malign Islam or Mohammed ? This is the system of government set up 1400 years ago.

The only thing wrong with Islam is the people who practise it. :(


what do you think is the basis for religious tolerance? and why there are religious individuals that cant practice it?

[lightgigantic]

what do you think is the basis for religious tolerance?
an understanding of god's universal aspect that transcends issue of culture, geography etc

and why there are religious individuals that cant practice it?
... in short

SB 10.84.13: One who identifies his self as the inert body composed of mucus, bile and air, who assumes his wife and family are permanently his own, who thinks an earthen image or the land of his birth is worshipable, or who sees a place of pilgrimage as merely the water there, but who never identifies himself with, feels kinship with, worships or even visits those who are wise in spiritual truth — such a person is no better than a cow or an ass.

[Mr.Spock]

i was talking about religious individuals with no tolerance to other religious individuals of other religions.

[lightgigantic]

so was I

[Mr.Spock]

in that case, i do not understand your point.

[Adstar]

what do you think is the basis for religious tolerance? and why there are religious individuals that cant practice it?

It's a funny word Tolerance.

It is the varying definition of the word that causes problems when it is discussed.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance and respect people.

Tolerance means bearing with, putting up with, suffering something that they are against or offends them.

A holder of one belief can tolerate one who holds to another belief and at the same time work through words and discussion to reveal the falsity of the other belief in an effort to undermine the others belief. Not out of hate for the other but out of disagreement with what the other believes.

Tolerance is only needed when people are in disagreement. You only need to tolerate something that you are against when your main objective is to free the other from the belief that you disagree with. Otherwise you can forgo tolerance of the other and attempt to destroy a belief by destroying all those who hold that belief.

Therefore Christianity teaches tolerance in the true sense of the word, not in the recent twisting of the meaning of the word that has moved the word from it’s true meaning tolerance to acceptance and respect and even admiration. Things that it did not mean and does not mean.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[nova900]

in that case, i do not understand your point.


I believe the passage refers to people too enraptured with the material world and the immediate world around them and how this prevents them from acknowledging Gods universal aspect which would probably give them some sort of tolerance for other religous beliefs as most lead back to the one true source anyways.

[Cris]

Most religions assert a statement often referred to as the golden rule.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

Note that there are two main variations that are really quite significantly different.

1. Do to others what you would like done to you.

2. Don't do to others what you would not like done to you.

The first one is shared by Christianity and Islam and others and tends to promote the concept of inflicting on others what you think is good for them. It does not reflect tolerance but attempts to persuade and change, by force if needed it seems.

The second is one of true tolerance. It is the one of passivity, of live and let live. Let others believe what they like. E.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, Humanism, Wicca.

I personally like the Wiccan rede - An it harm none, do what thou wilt.

Religious Tolerance comes down to whether you are taught to inflict your views on others, meaning you think the others are wrong and hence a cause of argument and conflict. Or whether you are prepared to let others do their own thing and ignore them.

[stretched]

what do you think is the basis for religious tolerance? and why there are religious individuals that cant practice it?

Religious individuals, representing religions or beliefs (like Adstar) are intolerant of beliefs or faiths that differ from their own. They are under the absolutely certain belief that they, and only they (and perhaps their associated cult) have the key to the truth, and that everyone else is just plain wrong. All this certainty is based on an unseen and non manifested sky daddy. Of course there are innumerable religious individuals from innumerable faiths spread across the globe that hold this same view. How can there possibly be religious tolerance if superstition holds sway over logic and rational thought. Religions have caused and still cause profound division in society. A prime example of the total despicable lunacy in this regard is the Westboro Baptist Church. Their particular brand of hate and intolerance is based on superstition, indoctrination, myths, legends and interpretation thereof. Most other religions represent exactly the same hatred and intolerance.

In a nutshell, the basis for religious intolerance is irrational belief in indemonstrable superstition.

All praise the ancient of Daze.

[GeoffP]

Myuunitarianism accepts all followers.

If they have money.

And/or are hot.

[PsychoticEpisode]

SB 10.84.13: One who identifies his self as the inert body composed of mucus, bile and air, who assumes his wife and family are permanently his own, who thinks an earthen image or the land of his birth is worshipable, or who sees a place of pilgrimage as merely the water there, but who never identifies himself with, feels kinship with, worships or even visits those who are wise in spiritual truth — such a person is no better than a cow or an ass.

Geezuz...is this a woman scorned, a jilted suitor or a pissed off priest? I see lots of places where the 'F' bomb would make it a little more emphatic. Also very gender specific.

[tim840]

Most religions assert a statement often referred to as the golden rule.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

Note that there are two main variations that are really quite significantly different.

1. Do to others what you would like done to you.

2. Don't do to others what you would not like done to you.

The first one is shared by Christianity and Islam and others and tends to promote the concept of inflicting on others what you think is good for them. It does not reflect tolerance but attempts to persuade and change, by force if needed it seems.

The second is one of true tolerance. It is the one of passivity, of live and let live. Let others believe what they like. E.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, Humanism, Wicca.


I believe you've misinterpreted the above-qouted verse (1). It does not mean that you are inflicting others with what you think is good for them. All it means is that you should behave towards people in a way that you would want them to behave towards you. If you wouldn't want something done or said to you, don't do it to someone else. That is the message of this verse.

And the version you cited isn't the greatest either.
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"

[tim840]

Essentially what I'm trying to say is, the intent behind verse 1 is the same as in verse 2.

[lightgigantic]

Geezuz...is this a woman scorned, a jilted suitor or a pissed off priest? I see lots of places where the 'F' bomb would make it a little more emphatic. Also very gender specific.
I take it religious tolerance isn't big in your books
;)

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic, you're still having to face relentless ad hominems?

Methinks your experience on Sciforums should count towards selfless duty for Krishna.

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic, you're still having to face relentless ad hominems?

Methinks your experience on Sciforums should count towards selfless duty for Krishna.
lol
all part of the service
;)

P.S
Welcome back

[Prince_James]

Thank you, my good man. Glad to see you again.

The Religion Forum - or - Ad Hominem Central.

[lightgigantic]

Thank you, my good man. Glad to see you again.

The Religion Forum - or - Ad Hominem Central.
some things in life never change
:o

[Prince_James]

As to my position of "religious tolerance" as addressed in the OP:

Religious tolerance consists of the willingness to put aside the option of force. That is to say, to keep disagreement (and indeed all honest religious believers in opposite viewpoints will disagree) from turning violent or to use political power to sanction prejudicial taxation or statuses.

In case you haven't noticed, the majority of the world's religious community are religiously tolerant. Accordingly, to speak of Zealots is almost inappropriate. But why do some of them exist? Because they are of a passionate nature that tends to get hot headed over issues which conflict with their view of the truth. A condition which is not at all common only to the religious, but found in many people who are excessively dogmatical.

[Cris]

tim840,

I believe you've misinterpreted the above-qouted verse (1). It does not mean that you are inflicting others with what you think is good for them. All it means is that you should behave towards people in a way that you would want them to behave towards you. If you wouldn't want something done or said to you, don't do it to someone else. That is the message of this verse.

And the version you cited isn't the greatest either.
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"Oh I know very well what they are meant to mean, I was referring to how they are implemented in practice.

Christians for example take it to mean they need to actively help people, and on the surface that seems like a good idea. But they believe the best way to help people is to introduce them to God, the ultimate good. This is what they have found for themselves and so must be good for everyone else. The result is proselytizing and preaching and creating governments in the way THEY think is best for others.

The key phrase - DO UNTO OTHERS.. It imposes a need for action. It is not passive and it inherently assumes you know what is good for others based on your own perception. I.e. it is not tolerant of what others think might be best for them.

True tolerance comes from not assuming what others want or what is best for them, but allowing maximum freedom to let others do whatever they wish, providing no harm is done.

This is why the Wiccan rede and its variations is superior to your version with regards to tolerance and a peaceful world.

[PsychoticEpisode]

I take it religious tolerance isn't big in your books
;)

My tolerance wanes when confronted with religious philosophy, passages, parables and/or amusing anecdotes. I admit it.

As for your cutesy little proverb, I find it totally bogus and meaningless when we don't know who said it. I suppose if someone who is considered of high moral, spiritual or religious importance were to have first shouted it out that it would have more bearing than if for instance Joe the plumber had said it.

[lightgigantic]

My tolerance wanes when confronted with religious philosophy, passages, parables and/or amusing anecdotes. I admit it.
well that will be your achilles heel in all such discussions
Philosophy is the front door to all meaningful discussions, regardless of which topic is at hand

As for your cutesy little proverb, I find it totally bogus and meaningless when we don't know who said it. I suppose if someone who is considered of high moral, spiritual or religious importance were to have first shouted it out that it would have more bearing than if for instance Joe the plumber had said it.
with a little inquiry you can determine the context

[PsychoticEpisode]

well that will be your achilles heel in all such discussions
Philosophically speaking?

Philosophy is the front door to all meaningful discussions
I guess that eliminates religion.

with a little inquiry you can determine the context
The ultimate philosophical question....Why?

[GeoffP]

The key phrase - DO UNTO OTHERS.. It imposes a need for action. It is not passive and it inherently assumes you know what is good for others based on your own perception. I.e. it is not tolerant of what others think might be best for them.

Respects, but I think you're misreading this quote. The full quote is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, treat others as you would wish to be treated. I don't think it could be construed in a prosetylizing way, since it would mean that you yourself (as a Christian) would want other religions prosetylizing to you.

If we wanted to take a contrary point to your argument, it also implies that you should actively help others instead of ignoring them.

Geoff

[lightgigantic]

Philosophically speaking?
of course too much philosophy can be an insanity in itself, but if you transgress it, ALL discussion becomes impossible


I guess that eliminates religion.
given that it is practcially impossible to separate issues of philosophy from issues of religion, I don't see how


The ultimate philosophical question....Why?
to which there is the ultimate philosophical replu .... Why what?

[OilIsMastery]

Jesus hung out with whores and scum. I call that religious tolerance.

[iceaura]

Jesus hung out with whores and scum. I call that religious tolerance. Which illustrates a general point - whores and scum have more religious tolerance than most pious believers.
I don't think it could be construed in a prosetylizing way, since it would mean that you yourself (as a Christian) would want other religions prosetylizing to you. In practice, it means you would want others proselytizing as Christians to you. After all, you are proselytizing as a Christian - not at all the same thing as proselytizing as a benighted heathen. You aren't doing that, and you don't want others to do that either.

"I'm from the Inquisition, and I'm here to help you " - the Golden Rule in common action.

[GeoffP]

No it wouldn't, ice. It means "be nice to people as you would like them to be nice to you". You might make an argument for the Inquisition as a tool to 'help' others (although to be doubly fair the Inquisition was never so heinous as usually made out) but that very, very far from the actual intent.

Best,

Geoff

[OilIsMastery]

Which illustrates a general point - whores and scum have more religious tolerance than most pious believers.
Maybe most "pious" believers should convert to Christianity.

[Buffalo Roam]

“ Originally Posted by iceaura
Which illustrates a general point - whores and scum have more religious tolerance than most pious believers. ”

Maybe most "pious" believers should convert to Christianity.

Sounds like the Moslems need to take a lesson, they seem to have no tolerance for the social scum, Whores are Stoned, and Gays are Hung, and Converts to Christianity are under sentence of Death.

[PsychoticEpisode]

of course too much philosophy can be an insanity in itself, but if you transgress it, ALL discussion becomes impossible

Granted. My philosophy is about 180 Degrees from most.

given that it is practcially impossible to separate issues of philosophy from issues of religion, I don't see how

I have gained little or no practical knowledge or wisdom from religious script. No religious philosophy has ever opened my eyes, except the bizarre and absurd. I don't think I'll experience an epiphany of sorts from religious philosophy.

to which there is the ultimate philosophical reply .... Why what?
That answer is science's stimulant with religion merely being jungle science, a very common variety.

[iceaura]

No it wouldn't, ice. It means "be nice to people as you would like them to be nice to you". You might make an argument for the Inquisition as a tool to 'help' others (although to be doubly fair the Inquisition was never so heinous as usually made out) but that very, very far from the actual intent. The Inquisition was every bit as heinous, and more, as it is ever presented. And its justifications were the best of intentions, Golden Rule and all.

Who would not want their soul cleansed by fire, and free to ascend to heaven ? Who would not want the blessings of forgiveness that can only come from confession of sins?

I don't want the pious being nice to me as they have deluded themselves they would want someone to be nice to them, if they were me, which they aren't. The Golden Rule in the hands of a true believer is a threat.

[GeoffP]

Actually, no, it really wasn't as severe as made out. It wasn't nice in any way, but it wasn't Belzen-Belzen either.

I don't want the pious being nice to me as they have deluded themselves they would want someone to be nice to them, if they were me, which they aren't.

Care to explain that? Let's not try to warp common interpretation of doctrine here.

Geoff

[Buffalo Roam]

The Inquisition was every bit as heinous, and more, as it is ever presented. And its justifications were the best of intentions, Golden Rule and all.

And in the end the Protestants denounced the Catholic Church for those excess, there are more than a few antecedents of mine who died under the Catholic Inquisition, for having the temerity to tell the Church it was full of Shit, they called them Heretics, and had special executions lined up for them, everything from the Garrote, to Drawing and Quartering, to being Broken on the Wheel ,and lets not forget the special bar-b-ques, Martyrs at the Stake, flame broiled, or if you recanted they just might take pity on you and only Hang You, no drop.

Protestants, never agreed or partook in the savagery of the Catholic Church, and the Inquisition, we were the one to finally bring them to heel.

[Prince_James]

Buffalo Roam:

And in the end the Protestants denounced the Catholic Church for those excess, there are more than a few antecedents of mine who died under the Catholic Inquisition, for having the temerity to tell the Church it was full of Shit, they called them Heretics, and had special executions lined up for them, everything from the Garrote, to Drawing and Quartering, to being Broken on the Wheel ,and lets not forget the special bar-b-ques, Martyrs at the Stake, flame broiled, or if you recanted they just might take pity on you and only Hang You, no drop.

Protestants, never agreed or partook in the savagery of the Catholic Church, and the Inquisition, we were the one to finally bring them to heel.

You seem to forget that Protestants were just as vicious to those who they denounced. Thus burning witches at the stake in the PUritan colony of Salem, Massachusetts...

Or the 30 Years War in Germany...

Or the Protestant "Cromwelling" of Ireland.

The Protestants add to this utter doctrinal indefensibility and error. At least Catholics get Christianity correct.

[lightgigantic]

I have gained little or no practical knowledge or wisdom from religious script. No religious philosophy has ever opened my eyes, except the bizarre and absurd. I don't think I'll experience an epiphany of sorts from religious philosophy.
It wouldn't be at all difficult to trace whatever philosophical assertions you hold back to their theistic origins

No prizes for guessing where even science picked up these 5 foundational assumptions from
(http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71900&page=3)

That answer is science's stimulant with religion merely being jungle science, a very common variety.
given the inherent limits of empiricism, it certainly becomes a leap of faith when it is used as an absolute vehicle for the contextualization of all phenomena .... at the very least there is no (empirical) evidence for your claims

[PsychoticEpisode]

It wouldn't be at all difficult to trace whatever philosophical assertions you hold back to their theistic origins

That wouldn't surprise me. I'm happy not to be swayed by religious philosophy. I find nothing profound in it. Perhaps myself and others who think like me are the vanguard of some new natural progression towards the extinction of religion. Religion has had a long run, hasn't really accomplished much, time for it to go.

given the inherent limits of empiricism, it certainly becomes a leap of faith when it is used as an absolute vehicle for the contextualization of all phenomena .... at the very least there is no (empirical) evidence for your claims

I've replaced religious philosophy with common sense because they mirror each other. Common sense is...... well.....common to all, just need to know you already have it. That's as philosophical as I can get.

[lightgigantic]

That wouldn't surprise me. I'm happy not to be swayed by religious philosophy.
If you think there is something profound about the universe being rational, you have already been swayed I'm afraid

I find nothing profound in it. Perhaps myself and others who think like me are the vanguard of some new natural progression towards the extinction of religion. Religion has had a long run, hasn't really accomplished much, time for it to go.
for as long as death maintains a hundred percent success rate, religion will thrive in some shape or form



I've replaced religious philosophy with common sense because they mirror each other. Common sense is...... well.....common to all, just need to know you already have it. That's as philosophical as I can get.
even philosophers can see the inherent short falls of relative moralism

[PsychoticEpisode]

If you think there is something profound about the universe being rational, you have already been swayed I'm afraid

Admittedly, religious philosophers are part of the universe.

for as long as death maintains a hundred percent success rate, religion will thrive in some shape or form

When did life die? Oh-bla-di oh-bla-da!

even philosophers can see the inherent short falls of relative moralism

Absolutely, they see lots of things:D

[SnakeLord]

for as long as death maintains a hundred percent success rate, religion will thrive in some shape or form

Absolutely, it is the one thing you've ever said that I agree with completely.

Beat death and your god becomes some meaningless piece of old poop not worth the paper its printed on - even for the most ardent theists.

[lightgigantic]

Absolutely, it is the one thing you've ever said that I agree with completely.

Beat death and your god becomes some meaningless piece of old poop not worth the paper its printed on - even for the most ardent theists.
sure
and since you can't beat death, I guess that makes all the post dated cheques issued under the banner of "one day we will by the glory of science" meaningless poop

[lightgigantic]

Admittedly, religious philosophers are part of the universe.
sure



When did life die? Oh-bla-di oh-bla-da!
coming soon to a body near you I assume



Absolutely, they see lots of things:D
particularly the glaring faults of declaring common sense being commonly common

[SnakeLord]

and since you can't beat death, I guess that makes all the post dated cheques issued under the banner of "one day we will by the glory of science" meaningless poop

What cheques are those then? However, your rather odd phrase aside, I would be inclined to disagree. Aspiring to accomplish things you currently can not is far from being meaningless, indeed it is the opposite.

[PsychoticEpisode]

coming soon to a body near you I assume

Whatever happened to the 'body is a vessel' philosophy? Is it still preached?

particularly the glaring faults of declaring common sense being commonly common

Common sense tells me to avoid provocation and that I am not really attuned to philosophy like the true philosopher you aspire to be.

[lightgigantic]

What cheques are those then?
the one you offer at the end of your post for eg


However, your rather odd phrase aside, I would be inclined to disagree. Aspiring to accomplish things you currently can not is far from being meaningless, indeed it is the opposite.
keep on truckin buddy
;)

[lightgigantic]

Whatever happened to the 'body is a vessel' philosophy? Is it still preached?
sure
but if deep down you don't think the body is a vessel, issues of death will really spoil your day



Common sense tells me to avoid provocation and that I am not really attuned to philosophy like the true philosopher you aspire to be.
thats ok ... even admirable
in fact ahimsa (or avoiding provocation) is a religious principle
the only hitch is that it is a subreligious principle so it doesn't grant perfection (or ultimate satisfaction) by it's mere practice alone

[xvortexbladex]

Basis for religious tolerance...well, we might have to look at history. In the past, when one civilization takes over another, they annihilate the religious beliefs and force the others to convert. Eventually, someone from the religion being purge will go out and martyr himself. Then, everyone else rallies around the religion and fights back which creates domestic problems with the ruler and quashing rebellions is a waster of time and resources. When rulers began to assimilate the different religions into the ruling cultures, they saw less and less of the fanatics and martyrs. As a result, other rulers began to adopt religious and racial tolerance. In fact, it makes it easier to recruit them into your army. The mongols for example, did not just scare others into their military, they also assimilated the conquored into their culture. The defeated accepted the assimilation and joined ranks with the Mongols.

some religious individuals cannot practice it because they have been brainwashed into it. They only see their holy texts as the word of their personal "God". That is why politicans who are able to go outside of the "box" usually have less problems dealing with religion within their practiced regions.