Religious Tolerance

[Esquilax]

As regards the initial question, I'm happily tolerant of religious belief, so long as you don't mistake critique for intolerance. I'd never dream of forcing someone out of their beliefs, but I'll offer up criticisms in the context of a theological discussion readily, up to and including dismissals due to poor argumentation. There's nothing intolerant about arguing.

What I won't tolerate is intrusive religious beliefs: people looking to enforce their beliefs as law based solely upon religious conviction and not commonly held facts, or seeking special exemptions for those. I won't tolerate those any more than I'd expect the religious to tolerate secular attempts to intrude upon their ability to worship. Our common society is a shared space, after all.

[Dystopia]

Religious tolerance, such a controversial topic... You see, if religious people kept their beliefs to themselves and didn't try to dictate public/legislative decisions I wouldn't give a damn about them - Sure, I may not agree with them, but still I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. If the catholic church stop trying to hint the state on legislating X or Y I would be a lot happier.

I respect the right people have to believe, after all I'm a law student and I reckon freedom of religion is one of the fundamental pillars of society, it's an essential right, people need to be able to believe as much as we atheists are able to not believe, IMO freedom of religion, to either believe or not is sacred (not in a religious sense, but in a constitutional/legal one) - I also respect the fact people think differently from me, I respect that there are people out there who believe in god unlike me and I'm not forcing my disbelief in gods on them.

Do I respect their beliefs? That's an entirely different question. I accept them and tolerate them, but respect is a too strong word to describe my feeling towards. I am legally able to criticize religious beliefs and that's not an infringement upon others' rights, in fact they are just as able as me to make critics, they can criticize my atheism if they wish to - My critics never go in the way of banning religion or restricting individual liberties.

Regardless, I would never agree on banning religion or legislating restrictions (unless strictly necessary) on the right parents have to educate and teach their knowledge to children.

I plan to become a judge and I would, no doubt about it, decide in favour of someone's right to believe/to worship if I felt like it was being violated, even if the adversary was an atheist/secularist - Impartiality - And I'm saying all this as an anti-theist.

EDIT - Hey polaris don't bring up the Marxist governments' bullshit - They were most certainly not secular but anti-theistic, and a very strong anti-theism I must say - They killed people because communism as any political ideology has dogmas - At most that will prove communism kills if it is implemented by force, therefore if any society ever becomes communist it should be done trough democracy. If Stalin was a Christian, do you think it would be fair to blame atrocities on Christianity?

[ManMachine]

I probably already posted this thread already (judging by the fact my computer remembered the title), but we need to be more tolerant to all religions, so whatever.

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?

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

You are conflating the issues and missing the point.

Whatever system of belief people buy into they will still behave like humans always do, badly. Every time I see an argument about how badly Christians behave, or how badly Muslims behave or how badly atheist behave etc. I can't help but feel a little exasperated. Humans will always find some excuse to behave badly to each other, being tolerant of the excuses used to justify this behaviour is not the answer, it never was and it never will be.

If anyone gives you cause to consider their behaviour, it's not their religion you should be questioning.

MM

[Tobie]

I'm of the opinion that anyone can choose to believe whatever they want, as long as they keep them to themselves, or among their group, unless asked. I don't care if someone privately believes that I should be punished for eternity for not sharing their beliefs, unless they start acting on that opinion or trying to make other people share that opinion. Similarly, if you don't believe in (the scientific fact of) evolution, don't try and stop other people being taught about it.

I also don't think any religions should get special treatment from the government, and that includes tax cuts (unless the church/mosque/whatever is running support groups for addictions, or group therapy sessions etc, if they are open for everyone to attend).

[Losty]

No.

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


Fuck 'em.

And how many have you fuckers killed?

I haven't killed anyone. I've never heard of anyone killing in the name of atheism.

---

About religious tolerance. As an atheist, I have celebrated Hanukkah and Yom Kippur several times. I have attended mass once. I have gone to various churches with religious friends. I think I look pretty damn cute in hijab (I know that's not exactly the point but it's still true).
I don't have any problem being tolerant of the average religious American. Most of them just follow the fun traditions and don't really observe many of the icky rules. As long a you're not harming anyone with your religion then I couldn't care less what you believe.

To be perfectly honest I always feel a left over urge to flinch and be offended by what I was raised to believe weren't "real Christians", but it's just an automatic reaction. The only people I will not accommodate are Fundies. I will tolerate them to an extent from a distance. They're still people I don't think they intend to be so awful. I will not be close friends with them though. I don't want them around me. Their religion is harmful to other people. Especially people like me.

[Diablo]

I think people's beliefs should be tolerated as long as they don't interfere in government or schools, and don't break the law. All governance should be strictly secular - no bishops in the Lords for example, and no state funding for faith schools.

The other issue is the persecution of women and minorities. Everytime someone says that gay people are evil or will go to hell, some moron somewhere will be listening and think it's OK to find a faggot and beat the shit out of him. If they don't like gays they should shut up about it.

Respect religion? No way.

[coldwx]

I'd like a citation on that.

That ciation.

That study does not mention "secular" or "atheism" at all. It only references religion three times. You also claimed the last 100 years. That study only looks at 1945-2000. Please point out where in that citation it concludes that "secular" or "atheist" societies are responsible for the "most deaths"? Then explain why that government is secular with citations.

I agree though that there is no sense in killing for a government just because you were born there.

[Ravenshire]

Tolerate religious beliefs? Sure, as long as no one is trying to legislate them.

Respect them? Oh, hell no. I'll never respect anyone's delusion.

[Zack]

The most deaths caused in the last 100 years have been from the spread and control of secular governments.

I think that dubious honor would belong to disease/illness.

[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.