Religious Tolerance

[Mister Agenda]

How far are you willing to go to be legitimately be tolerant of the beliefs of other people (instead of trying to make a show of it as I suspect many of you do here)? Would you accommodate their needs, respect their beliefs, join in their ceremonies?

Accomodate their equal rights in the eyes of the law? Of course. Mind my own business regarding their beliefs as long as they mind their own business about mine (or the lack thereof)? Sure. Join in their ceremonies? Seems a bit much, implies that I share the beliefs the ceremonies are about, doesn't it? I keep my mouth shut when people are praying and such, why would they want me to pretend I belong to their religion? Scratch that last, I know why.

I remember in the earlier days of Facebook, I created a page advocating for religious tolerance, but when someone mentioned it should be instead religious acceptance, I could not answer. I am willing to accommodate the needs of Moslems (provide tax funding so their children can religiously bath for their prayers in public schools so much better than the taxes I pay for American football), but I am unwilling to accept their religious beliefs.

You shouldn't be willing for taxes to go to pay for their religious accommodation either. Donate your own money if you think it should be supported. I don't have an issue with it if it's paid for with private funds.

I also cannot stand the tenets of Buddhism...it seems like a sentence of Hell to live through their cycle of rebirth.

They pretty much agree with you. The goal of Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana, which includes getting out of the cycle of rebirth.

If religion means so much to someone, who are we to look down on their beliefs if it does not harm others, which let's be perfectly honest, does not for more than 99% of believers?

We shouldn't look down on them. Their beliefs are another matter, though it's too aggressive in my opinion to to complain much of them if they don't make a big deal about it. We at least have a right to openly critique beliefs that result in actions that affect people who don't share that faith.

People are often not in a good position to evaluate their religous beliefs objectively. I don't blame them for that. But I expect them to not violate the spirit or letter of the law of the land for religious reasons.

---

No.

http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2014/08/...-soldiers/


Fuck 'em.

And how many have you fuckers killed?

Are you asking how many Syrian soldiers freethinkers have killed, or how many Americans have killed or what?

'Fucker' is a useful word used correctly, but is too ambiguous to use carelessly.

---

I'd like a citation on that.

It's true enough, if you count deaths from economic mismanagement. Communist regimes have backed off dramatically from the mass murders, except for N. Korea, so if you were to go with, say, the last 40 years, the answer would be theists again. There's a reason why, with thousands of years of human history to draw from, Polaris picked the last 100. It includes the communist revolutions in Asia and subsequent purges and blunders. Of course the deaths attributed to theists don't include blunders, just deliberate murder, so I'm not so sure the last 100 years, which include the Rwandan genocide in the nineties, the 3.8 million killed in the 2nd Congo War (mostly from starvation and disease), the million who died in Bangladesh in the seventies due largely to government mismanagement of grain stocks, maybe three million lost (mostly to disease and starvation) during the Nigerian Civil War. If you count pretty much every avoidable death that resulted from the actions of theists the way Polaris does with the actions of atheists, it's not so lopsided, and frankly, an historical aberration.