Religious Tolerance

[jonb]

In britain, the scales are rather unbalanced, friend.

I am not pointing at any particular religion, they are all tarred with the same brush. But because of the category 'religion' some philosophies are given prescience in britain over others. Every morning in the media, like 'thought for the day on radio 4' religious leaders can spout their nonsense, but atiests are bared from the programme. Religion is part of the curriculum in schools, and is taught without reference to any atheist position. Now that is not an even field.
Now if we replace the term religious toleration with pylosophical toleration, so my position is given the same creadance as any other I might go along with it, but for the fact that philosophy advances through argument so to limit agument would adversly afect the whole area.
So my position is have whatever views you want, but you cannot claim privalage because you have those views. A follower of Abraham, and a follower of Hitler are both nut-jobs and I will say so whenever, and wherever I want. Now if you disagree argue with me don't tolerate it. Don't sweep things under the carpet, that is the sure fire way to turn a belief into a desire for physical attack.

[KichigaiNeko]

I'm inclined to go with the Scandinavian POV

[kılıç_mehmet]

Every morning in the media, like 'thought for the day on radio 4' religious leaders can spout their nonsense, but atiests are bared from the programme.

Well, maybe this radio programme was a radio program specifically for religious people, made by religious people. I really don't know, but such programs also exist in Turkey. No one really cares, and no one really bothers to call these programs unless they have something to ask related to the religious topic in question.

Religion is part of the curriculum in schools, and is taught without reference to any atheist position.

It's the same here, however I'm not sure how it can be taught with references to the atheist position. The atheist position seems to be crystal clear as it needs little explanation. But if you are really bothered by this, I'd say that it's best to abolish classes regarding religion, or make them optional for students who wish to take it.
For example, when I was in Germany, I did not attend religion class, for it was for christian students, although I certainly could if I wanted to. And the class was given for two different denominations: one for protestants, and one for catholics. Catholics went to the one, protestants went to the other. We Turks took the time off.

Now if we replace the term religious toleration with pylosophical toleration, so my position is given the same creadance as any other I might go along with it, but for the fact that philosophy advances through argument so to limit agument would adversly afect the whole area.

Well, when I think of religious tolerance, I rather tend to think of this: is a person of a different religion, creed or thought, treated badly, barred from society, or killed/maimed in the UK, just for belonging to that creed or thought? Are there any laws that affect these people in a negative way? Are there any laws that go against secular politics regarding the people? If not, religious tolerance exists there.

So my position is have whatever views you want, but you cannot claim privalage because you have those views.

Indeed, that's what secularism is all about, friend.

A follower of Abraham, and a follower of Hitler are both nut-jobs and I will say so whenever, and wherever I want.

And you want to say this on TV? It's okay if you talk of this amongst your like-minded peers, however I really don't understand why you'd proclaim this in front of people who you do not know. I personally think that one's religious conviction or lack thereof should be a personal thing, and kept there. I say this to the people who are devout, to keep their devotion inside their mosques, churches and synagogues, where religious differences should not be a matter of discussion within public, for unity and harmony's sake.
Whenever I want and wherever I want is a type of thinking that leads men to their downfall.
Everyone ought to be careful with their words, and to whom and where he speaks them.
Your approach is a fool's approach, and will be met by public in that way, even if there are people who might approve of your thoughts, they won't approve of your way of saying them.

that is the sure fire way to turn a belief into a desire for physical attack.

Well, could be, if you get under their skin a lot.
I also sometimes think of doing the same to others whose thoughts I deem to be hostile towards my thoughts and my being. I also sometimes think of burning their newspapers(not the paper itself, the building) and bombing their party centres. But I'm a man who believes in harmony and order. I also know that doing this won't get me anywhere(but jail). Therefore I use my words to fight them, however once again, in a respectful fashion, so that I have the upper hand in where they resort to vulgarity and disrespectfulness.

[jonb]

I also sometimes think of doing the same to others whose thoughts I deem to be hostile towards my thoughts and my being. I also sometimes think of burning their newspapers(not the paper itself, the building) and bombing their party centres. But I'm a man who believes in harmony and order. I also know that doing this won't get me anywhere(but jail). Therefore I use my words to fight them, however once again, in a respectful fashion, so that I have the upper hand in where they resort to vulgarity and disrespectfulness.

Would you feel the desire to attack something physically, if you could discuss your differences openly?

[KichigaiNeko]

[kılıç_mehmet]

I also sometimes think of doing the same to others whose thoughts I deem to be hostile towards my thoughts and my being. I also sometimes think of burning their newspapers(not the paper itself, the building) and bombing their party centres. But I'm a man who believes in harmony and order. I also know that doing this won't get me anywhere(but jail). Therefore I use my words to fight them, however once again, in a respectful fashion, so that I have the upper hand in where they resort to vulgarity and disrespectfulness.

Would you feel the desire to attack something physically, if you could discuss your differences openly?

It's a very complicated matter, friend, but I have my reasons in wishing harm upon them.

[Brunitski]

Ahh, Joh. Politics just isn't the same without him. Isn't it funny, tho, how Barnaby Joyce seems to be slowly turning into him?

Indeed, just as I'm not the same without chronic diar,dior daihore ,ah fuck it, the shits.


Joyce? Yes, but the difference is that Joyce really IS as stupid as he seems and probably not nearly as corrupt (not bright enough)

...and doesn't have the hilarious turns of phrase - remember the Jana Wendt one?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Would you feel the desire to attack something physically, if you could discuss your differences openly?

THAT would depend entirely on whether I could talk some sense into them.

...and doesn't have the hilarious turns of phrase - remember the Jana Wendt one?

No, but I remember that obnoxious prick Gordon Ramsay being sorted by Tracey Grimshaw.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBqdGG2N4U0

[jonb]

It's a very complicated matter, friend, but I have my reasons in wishing harm upon them.

Right, so you have choices, you can tolerate your grievance, and it festers unspoken, or you can take a physical action, but the consequences of that would not solve the problem, and would adversely affect you. This I take it is where you are.

Neither of the above I think you will agree will lead to a harmonious solution, which you said of yourself is what you seek.

What you need is a place of equality to openly speak and seek a resolution, not just tolerate your situation.

[KichigaiNeko]