The paradox of acceptance vs rejection in secular settings

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I feel I do. Because we are not intolerant and close-minded. We accept people, and as we are all fundamentally humanists, we want the well-being of society that only pluralism can provide.

[genkaus]

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

So, conservative, tight-assed theists find themselves more comfortable in the company of other conservative tight-assed theists than liberal atheists? Wow, that's not expected at all.

If I had to choose between eradication/forced exile/forced conversion to atheism and pluralism, I would choose pluralism.

And I think most atheists would.

[genkaus]

If I had to choose between eradication/forced exile/forced conversion to atheism and pluralism, I would choose pluralism.

And I think most atheists would.

And if you simply had to choose between atheism and pluralism?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

If I had to choose between eradication/forced exile/forced conversion to atheism and pluralism, I would choose pluralism.

And I think most atheists would.

And if you simply had to choose between atheism and pluralism?

I don't. Atheism and pluralism are not mutually exclusive.

Pluralism by definition includes various faiths and non-faiths, including atheism.

Your question betrays your lack of understanding of the concepts at hand.

So an atheist can be a pluralist, and disagree with other beliefs, but respect their existence, the existence of their adherents and their rational or non-rational bases for believing.

[genkaus]

I don't. Atheism and pluralism are not mutually exclusive.

Pluralism by definition includes various faiths and non-faiths, including atheism.

Your question betrays your lack of understanding of the concepts at hand.

So an atheist can be a pluralist, and disagree with other beliefs, but respect their existence, the existence of their adherents and their rational or non-rational bases for believing.

Your response betrays your lack of understanding of the question at hand. Which is strange, considering you brought it up. You attempted to create a false dichotomy where forced atheism and pluralism are the only two options. The third option, which a lot of atheists actually choose, is disagreeing with other beliefs and not respecting them or their adherents, while at the same time not not trying to forcefully convert them either.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I don't. Atheism and pluralism are not mutually exclusive.

Pluralism by definition includes various faiths and non-faiths, including atheism.

Your question betrays your lack of understanding of the concepts at hand.

So an atheist can be a pluralist, and disagree with other beliefs, but respect their existence, the existence of their adherents and their rational or non-rational bases for believing.

Your response betrays your lack of understanding of the question at hand. Which is strange, considering you brought it up. You attempted to create a false dichotomy where forced atheism and pluralism are the only two options. The third option, which a lot of atheists actually choose, is disagreeing with other beliefs and not respecting them or their adherents, while at the same time not not trying to forcefully convert them either.

No.

The point in the OP was that secularism treated some people like garbage while flying the flag of tolerance, pluralism and humanism. At least, a significant portion of the world's culture felt that way. Women, Muslims, minorities. The original post called for an examination of the notion of "conservative secularism", where these kind of people might be accepted without feeling like secularism treats them like shit.

[genkaus]

No.

The point in the OP was that secularism treated some people like garbage while flying the flag of tolerance, pluralism and humanism. At least, a significant portion of the world's culture felt that way. Women, Muslims, minorities. The original post called for an examination of the notion of "conservative secularism", where these kind of people might be accepted without feeling like secularism treats them like shit.

No.

The point of the OP was how the religious foreigners felt more comfortable around religious domestics. That "secularism treats them like crap" was never brought up. And the argument given did not cover "a significant portion of world's culture", it covered deeply religious foreigners. It certainly did not cover three separate categories of Muslims, women and minorities, it covered one specific minority of Muslim women.

So, to summarize, you found an article about how foreign Muslim women feel more accepted and comfortable in religious environment like Catholic colleges and instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that this may be due to similar conservative values and less of a culture shock (something which was explicitly stated in the article), you thought that it was something wrong with secularism. The fact is, it is precisely due to the pluralist, secular environment, that they feel uncomfortable and rejected. Being in such an environment means coming across wildly differing ideologies and since they are not used to it, they are not comfortable with it. If they feel like they are being treated like shit, it's their problem.

And please try to remember the arguments you make.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

[genkaus]