"Religious tolerance" generally means to avoid oppressing or discriminating against persons whose religious beliefs happen to be different from yours. It is a statement of fundamental human rights.
To be tolerant, for some it means all religions are the same, equal and appropriate for the person... This is a religious concept called "pluralism." One implication is that, because diverse beliefs are all true, that absolute truth does not exist. This they generally find unacceptable.. And make it clear this is not hte form of tolerance they mean....
Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, Supreme religious authority, Saudi Arabia and author of a Muslim religious edict, 1993:
"The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished."
George H.W. Bush, ® as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27:
G.W. Bush ®, as Governor of Texas. Interviewed on ABC's Good Morning America, 1999-JUN-24 by Peggy Wehmeyer. Bush's comment was in response to the Wiccan soldiers at a military camp in Texas being given the right to meet together on base -- the same right as has always been given to Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.
"I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made." 10
Most Rev. George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1997:
"We have lobbed verses of Scripture, like hand grenades, into the camps of others, convinced we only have truth."
Bob Chell, University Lutheran Center. South Dakota State University, 1996-OCT-10:
"In the Bible, the ones who were most certain about what they were doing were the ones who stoned the prophets."
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), "Known as a dandy, a novelist, a brilliant debater and England's first and only Jewish prime minister:" 3
"The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll."
Josh McDowell, at a Youth for Christ rally in 1994:
"Tolerance is the worst roar of all, including tolerance for homosexuals, feminists, and religions that don't follow Christ."
Blaise Paschal: Often attributed to Sam J. Ervin, Jr., in "Protecting the Constitution" (1984).
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
Pope John Paul II. Stated at a mass rally in Mexico City on 1999-JAN-25:
"Only faith in Christ gives rise to a culture contrary to egotism and death."
Rabbi Ya'acov Perin
"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
Discuss.......
Full Version: Understanding Religious Tolerance
I think true religious tolerance can only exist under secular governments. It just seems basic common sense to me.
I have no religious tolerance whatsoever. I only have tolerance for personal faith and treat it the same no matter what it is.
Religious tolerance in the legal and political aspects of society is akin to Pedophile tolerance in my book.
Religious tolerance in the legal and political aspects of society is akin to Pedophile tolerance in my book.
QUOTE(truethat @ Jan 26 2007, 01:01 PM) [snapback]1516788[/snapback]
Religious tolerance in the legal and political aspects of society is akin to Pedophile tolerance in my book.
You mean where desperate people hand over ten percent of their income believing the clerics who pocket it can somewhow cause God to then fix their lives?
I do not see an analogy with pedophilia to this, but I can see a legal tie in with the laws that demand mediums and psychics declare their services are for entertainment purposes only. There does seem to be an illogical double standard in the law about spiritual worker employment.
We should be tolerant of all things except intolerance...Voltaire
QUOTE(truethat @ Jan 26 2007, 10:01 AM) [snapback]1516788[/snapback]
I have no religious tolerance whatsoever. I only have tolerance for personal faith and treat it the same no matter what it is.
Religious tolerance in the legal and political aspects of society is akin to Pedophile tolerance in my book.
Religious tolerance in the legal and political aspects of society is akin to Pedophile tolerance in my book.
The pedophilia analogy works for me, until megans law we had to respect the rights of known sex offenders, to this day The catholic church has done nothing to address its dysfunctional sexual behavior to children, except deny it or say when they are down is precisely the time we ahve to stand by them ..this is what I have been told.........something is very wrong when we are basically forced to agree or tolerate limits that have been placed on the human experince, by ideas that are jsut not workable in any civilized societyand more often than not intolerable..
quotes on tolerance:
It is the enemy who can truly teach us to practice the virtues of compassion and tolerance.
- Dalai Lama
I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.
- Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue quoted in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
It is the enemy who can truly teach us to practice the virtues of compassion and tolerance.
- Dalai Lama
I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.
- Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue quoted in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
Do you really wish for laws to be passed that would imprison religious people for the same amount of time as pedophiles?
There is nothing secular about that to me. It is still factoring in discrimination based upon spiritual beliefs and not upon any actual harmful actions done to another citizen.
To equate possesion of religious and spiritual texts with possesion of child pornography does not seem logical to me.
There is nothing secular about that to me. It is still factoring in discrimination based upon spiritual beliefs and not upon any actual harmful actions done to another citizen.
To equate possesion of religious and spiritual texts with possesion of child pornography does not seem logical to me.
The biggest problem I have with people that lob the word tolerance at the rest of us is not that they want to be tolerated. What they really are seeking is acceptance and approval and wants us to unequivocally condone their actions and beliefs.
I consider myself a very tolerant person but in my books tolerance does not equal approval.
Irish
I consider myself a very tolerant person but in my books tolerance does not equal approval.
Irish
Well yes. I would like to see people imprisoned for forcing their faith on others through religion publically. I'm not talking extreme so don't take it that way. But what I equate it to is an unremorseful child pedophile who believes its OK to do what he wants and then pushing it on an innocent child and their families. To me its no different than a Christian pushing their mental certainty which I view as not true, on innocent people and their families.
I have nothing against you sitting in your house with your desires and beliefs. Just as it doesn't bother me when a pedophile fantasizes in their home. (Though not with pictures of real kids) However you cope is fine with me.
But when you try to make it the law of the land I see it along the lines of a pedophile forcing his insanity on society.
I have nothing against you sitting in your house with your desires and beliefs. Just as it doesn't bother me when a pedophile fantasizes in their home. (Though not with pictures of real kids) However you cope is fine with me.
But when you try to make it the law of the land I see it along the lines of a pedophile forcing his insanity on society.
*clap*
Good topic...
As for my views of the subject, I think it is fair to be respectful of any religion that does not state or encourage the harm or misfortune of other people who do not follow the religion. For example, am I really supposed to respect the fact that 2 billion people support the idea that I deserve to burn in hell forever (Or be thrown into a lake of burning sulfur to die a second time, either is grotesque)? I will not tolerate Christianity until it removes every last hateful, violent, and harmful message from its Bible. (I hate religion, I do not hate the religious. I think the religious are poisoned by their religion. Not an excuse to do the things the religions call for, but a sad reminder of the power religion holds over ones own mind. Religion can instill hate into the most harmless person. Can cause normal, nice people to talk about homosexuals as "slimy" and such, as if they're inhuman and wicked... to say that atheists are trying to destroy the world (anyone remember that topic?). Nobody normal tolerates discrimination, and they shouldn't... I won't tolerate hate, and as long as hate is part of religion, sadly.. I cannot have complete religious tolerance. Now, does that mean I'm going to treat a Christian badly? No.. I will just be upset that they support the types of things said in the Bible. But I'll admit it's hard to smile at someone who's waiting for you to burn in hell.
Good topic...
As for my views of the subject, I think it is fair to be respectful of any religion that does not state or encourage the harm or misfortune of other people who do not follow the religion. For example, am I really supposed to respect the fact that 2 billion people support the idea that I deserve to burn in hell forever (Or be thrown into a lake of burning sulfur to die a second time, either is grotesque)? I will not tolerate Christianity until it removes every last hateful, violent, and harmful message from its Bible. (I hate religion, I do not hate the religious. I think the religious are poisoned by their religion. Not an excuse to do the things the religions call for, but a sad reminder of the power religion holds over ones own mind. Religion can instill hate into the most harmless person. Can cause normal, nice people to talk about homosexuals as "slimy" and such, as if they're inhuman and wicked... to say that atheists are trying to destroy the world (anyone remember that topic?). Nobody normal tolerates discrimination, and they shouldn't... I won't tolerate hate, and as long as hate is part of religion, sadly.. I cannot have complete religious tolerance. Now, does that mean I'm going to treat a Christian badly? No.. I will just be upset that they support the types of things said in the Bible. But I'll admit it's hard to smile at someone who's waiting for you to burn in hell.
QUOTE(Irish @ Jan 26 2007, 07:09 PM) [snapback]1516905[/snapback]
The biggest problem I have with people that lob the word tolerance at the rest of us is not that they want to be tolerated. What they really are seeking is acceptance and approval and wants us to unequivocally condone their actions and beliefs.
I consider myself a very tolerant person but in my books tolerance does not equal approval.
Irish
I consider myself a very tolerant person but in my books tolerance does not equal approval.
Irish
I agree. That's a perfect description of a Christian who wants their God theories not only to be tolerated but approved and accepted as "good" and to condone their actions and beliefs.
That's a very good differention between personal faith and public religion. Public religion wants a say in the laws of the land and because they think their way is GOOD then we're all supposed to treat it as such by way of tolerance.
When you see religion as a mental break from reality it doesn't look the same.
QUOTE(truethat @ Jan 26 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]1516906[/snapback]
But when you try to make it the law of the land I see it along the lines of a pedophile forcing his insanity on society.
Oh, I got ya now. Theocracies. Yes, I agree there can never be any true justice in a theocracy of any type, even the ones that appear to be the most tolerant.
QUOTE(truethat @ Jan 26 2007, 12:13 PM) [snapback]1516915[/snapback]
I agree. That's a perfect description of a Christian who wants their God theories not only to be tolerated but approved and accepted as "good" and to condone their actions and beliefs.
That's a very good differention between personal faith and public religion. Public religion wants a say in the laws of the land and because they think their way is GOOD then we're all supposed to treat it as such by way of tolerance.
When you see religion as a mental break from reality it doesn't look the same.
That's a very good differention between personal faith and public religion. Public religion wants a say in the laws of the land and because they think their way is GOOD then we're all supposed to treat it as such by way of tolerance.
When you see religion as a mental break from reality it doesn't look the same.
People have the right to believe anything they like and I retain the right to agree or not, accepting the allowing of room for the “not” is the tolerance.
ahhh, but bella, justice is a matter of perspective, which is a matter of conditioning...
the theocrats see themselves administering justice the same way the democrats see themselved administering justice.
in reality, there will never be a true justice. there will only be justices relative to those handing out the justice.
Look at the great secular democracys and see the injustices. Why are some injustices given a pass, just because they came from under a system one finds more tolerable?
the theocrats see themselves administering justice the same way the democrats see themselved administering justice.
in reality, there will never be a true justice. there will only be justices relative to those handing out the justice.
Look at the great secular democracys and see the injustices. Why are some injustices given a pass, just because they came from under a system one finds more tolerable?
QUOTE(Irish @ Jan 26 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]1516905[/snapback]
The biggest problem I have with people that lob the word tolerance at the rest of us is not that they want to be tolerated. What they really are seeking is acceptance and approval and wants us to unequivocally condone their actions and beliefs.
I consider myself a very tolerant person but in my books tolerance does not equal approval.
Irish
I consider myself a very tolerant person but in my books tolerance does not equal approval.
Irish
I could not have said it better myself, Irish. Thanks!
QUOTE(Irish @ Jan 26 2007, 07:22 PM) [snapback]1516927[/snapback]
People have the right to believe anything they like and I retain the right to agree or not, accepting the allowing of room for the “not” is the tolerance.
I agree. And when Christians get bent out of shape because someone wants the word "God" taken out of the pledge of Allegiance that's a really good example of what you mean.
I find the idea of pledging my allegiance to a "god" to be ridiculous and an infringement on human rights. I believe that the concept of God is wrong and has contributed to the problems we see in the world today. NOT having to accept god is part of religious tolerance. But it seems that most Christians especially see that their view is the "norm" and they have to "Tolerate" everyone else.
They don't comprehend that non believers have been told we need to tolerate them and also as you said retain the right to agree or NOT. So when a Christian states that its against the sanctity of marriage to allow homosexuals to get married, it goes beyond the NOT. Basically they are saying there is no room to NOT accept the Christian doctrine. That this doctrine is the norm rather than the thing being tolerated.
QUOTE(truethat @ Jan 26 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]1516987[/snapback]
I agree. And when Christians get bent out of shape because someone wants the word "God" taken out of the pledge of Allegiance that's a really good example of what you mean.
I find the idea of pledging my allegiance to a "god" to be ridiculous and an infringement on human rights. I believe that the concept of God is wrong and has contributed to the problems we see in the world today. NOT having to accept god is part of religious tolerance. But it seems that most Christians especially see that their view is the "norm" and they have to "Tolerate" everyone else.
They don't comprehend that non believers have been told we need to tolerate them and also as you said retain the right to agree or NOT. So when a Christian states that its against the sanctity of marriage to allow homosexuals to get married, it goes beyond the NOT. Basically they are saying there is no room to NOT accept the Christian doctrine. That this doctrine is the norm rather than the thing being tolerated.
I find the idea of pledging my allegiance to a "god" to be ridiculous and an infringement on human rights. I believe that the concept of God is wrong and has contributed to the problems we see in the world today. NOT having to accept god is part of religious tolerance. But it seems that most Christians especially see that their view is the "norm" and they have to "Tolerate" everyone else.
They don't comprehend that non believers have been told we need to tolerate them and also as you said retain the right to agree or NOT. So when a Christian states that its against the sanctity of marriage to allow homosexuals to get married, it goes beyond the NOT. Basically they are saying there is no room to NOT accept the Christian doctrine. That this doctrine is the norm rather than the thing being tolerated.
In a democracy each person has a vote and if the majority is Atheist, gay or followers of the great pink unicorn then their views become the norm because that is what democracy is all about, the wishes of the majority.
So until we have a better system we are all stuck with majority rule, but still have the option of either changing the majorities view or going to a place/country where your views are the majority.
The norm must be tolerant of the non-norm and vice versa.
Irish
I try to be tolerant of others religion, but I am not perfect, when people attack my religion I can become very intolerant. My psychologist is actually a Christian therapist which is fine with me. We discussed it at my last appointment, he has never had a Pagan patient and is very interested in my religion and respectful of my beliefs as I am of his. I don't ask for people to condone my faith only that they are respectful of my right to practice and believe as I wish.
QUOTE(KBA @ Jan 26 2007, 11:10 AM) [snapback]1516908[/snapback]
*clap*
Good topic...
As for my views of the subject, I think it is fair to be respectful of any religion that does not state or encourage the harm or misfortune of other people who do not follow the religion. For example, am I really supposed to respect the fact that 2 billion people support the idea that I deserve to burn in hell forever (Or be thrown into a lake of burning sulfur to die a second time, either is grotesque)? I will not tolerate Christianity until it removes every last hateful, violent, and harmful message from its Bible. (I hate religion, I do not hate the religious. I think the religious are poisoned by their religion. Not an excuse to do the things the religions call for, but a sad reminder of the power religion holds over ones own mind. Religion can instill hate into the most harmless person. Can cause normal, nice people to talk about homosexuals as "slimy" and such, as if they're inhuman and wicked... to say that atheists are trying to destroy the world (anyone remember that topic?). Nobody normal tolerates discrimination, and they shouldn't... I won't tolerate hate, and as long as hate is part of religion, sadly.. I cannot have complete religious tolerance. Now, does that mean I'm going to treat a Christian badly? No.. I will just be upset that they support the types of things said in the Bible. But I'll admit it's hard to smile at someone who's waiting for you to burn in hell.
Good topic...
As for my views of the subject, I think it is fair to be respectful of any religion that does not state or encourage the harm or misfortune of other people who do not follow the religion. For example, am I really supposed to respect the fact that 2 billion people support the idea that I deserve to burn in hell forever (Or be thrown into a lake of burning sulfur to die a second time, either is grotesque)? I will not tolerate Christianity until it removes every last hateful, violent, and harmful message from its Bible. (I hate religion, I do not hate the religious. I think the religious are poisoned by their religion. Not an excuse to do the things the religions call for, but a sad reminder of the power religion holds over ones own mind. Religion can instill hate into the most harmless person. Can cause normal, nice people to talk about homosexuals as "slimy" and such, as if they're inhuman and wicked... to say that atheists are trying to destroy the world (anyone remember that topic?). Nobody normal tolerates discrimination, and they shouldn't... I won't tolerate hate, and as long as hate is part of religion, sadly.. I cannot have complete religious tolerance. Now, does that mean I'm going to treat a Christian badly? No.. I will just be upset that they support the types of things said in the Bible. But I'll admit it's hard to smile at someone who's waiting for you to burn in hell.
As they say out of the mouths of babes, this is a wonderful post, very real , very caring......I too find the value/merit of relgion vile, no surprise there, and I too think its the religons that have poisioned the minds of the unknowing, truth be known my heart goes out to those that blindly follow, I actaully feel a great compassion because they truly don't know any better, and to the ones that don't blindly fllow they give me a reason to get up in the morning ... its as simple as that, just in my 39 years i have seen so much growth towrds a kinder gentler humanity and my generation is about to step up to the plate and we too will be criticized as it should be its all for a better sunrise anyways inthe end.... ....i used to be a smoker and the dangers went against everything i was conditioined to beleive, the evidence was not convincing, not until i truly was open to looking at it, see i already knew it all...., it was different for me, this applys to religon too beleive me..... ignorance blinds you, one way or another know it all ignorance is the worst........I agree with KBA its not natural to support discrimination of my kind, the issue is few know what is natural as hyper many, many times talks about.....Normal is what is common , meaning the majority practice it few really explore what it means to be human...., those that really change things question the value and merit of those that walk before, and after thank goodness for these courageous souls and we all know who they are, from ghandi to martin Luther etc, in my case to the first time i sat down with an Athiest and saw hope .....saw a possiblity of unity for real....
Now i respect others simply for being here, I need no reason its simply an natural outgrowth of self respect , i think everyone is doing their best as they understand best.... my hat is tipped to every human making this journey in these times its hard for us all...often its the path that produces the greatest growth and the path of the relgious is no exception in my book........I think a good way now is to be an example and it works the best over preaching, it really dosen't matter what the path its how one uses it that is the important point, those are the ones that bring people togehter no matter the path and they are on all of em relgious and otherwise.......as my comrade Hyper is fond of saying its not that any of us our above intolerance its how we use our intolerances that matters......
QUOTE(Bella-Angelique @ Jan 26 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]1516893[/snapback]
Do you really wish for laws to be passed that would imprison religious people for the same amount of time as pedophiles?
There is nothing secular about that to me. It is still factoring in discrimination based upon spiritual beliefs and not upon any actual harmful actions done to another citizen.
To equate possesion of religious and spiritual texts with possesion of child pornography does not seem logical to me.
There is nothing secular about that to me. It is still factoring in discrimination based upon spiritual beliefs and not upon any actual harmful actions done to another citizen.
To equate possesion of religious and spiritual texts with possesion of child pornography does not seem logical to me.
Has anyone heard that a child has the right now to sue a parent for smoking while pregnant due to knowingly harming them,, its thought now that there is enough evidence now and info and if you are still smoking its with the intent to harm., no more excuses............if i beleive in the very near future relgion will be viewed the same way.....often being on the inside blocks the view as to how the world is changing...
Its odd that something such as religion needs to be "tolerated" or that we need to have "tolerance" when it comes to religion. I assume that tolerance need be exhibited in order for everyone to just get along. Are we humoring the religious right by simply tolerating them?
Some religious views are extrodinarily foolish, especially the ones that deal with young earth and creationism, these I guess, require one to have a capacity for endurance.
Irish
To actually witness Democracy being practiced here in North America I would be more apt to say that Democracy here is designed to protect the wishes of the minority(economic elite), from the majority (poor).
Some religious views are extrodinarily foolish, especially the ones that deal with young earth and creationism, these I guess, require one to have a capacity for endurance.
Irish
QUOTE
........ that is what democracy is all about, the wishes of the majority.
To actually witness Democracy being practiced here in North America I would be more apt to say that Democracy here is designed to protect the wishes of the minority(economic elite), from the majority (poor).
'Tolerance' is accepting people for who they are and what they believe without trying to change them.
I get the succinct impression that the original poster got many of her statements and quotes from THIS SITE. Many of the paragraphs seem almost word for word, but paraphrased just slightly in most instances. Quoting a source is still required if this is the case, though.
To quote the source I cited above:
The phrase "religious tolerance" has two distinct meanings:
1. Conservative Protestants often interpret the phrase as meaning that, to be tolerant, one must accept all religions as equal and true. This is a religious concept called "pluralism." One implication is that, because diverse beliefs are all true, that absolute truth does not exist. This they generally find unacceptable.
2. Among other individuals and groups, "religious tolerance" generally means to avoid oppressing or discriminating against persons whose religious beliefs happen to be different from yours. It is a statement of fundamental human rights.
I would say the second definition describes religious tolerance. One doesn't need to take the pluralist point of view in order to be tolerant. Darkwind put it best, when he said I don't ask for people to condone my faith only that they are respectful of my right to practice and believe as I wish. That is the epitomy of the second definition of tolerance, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Religious tolerance is accepting people regardless of their beliefs, not necessarily acknowledging that all beliefs are true.
Regards, PA
To quote the source I cited above:
The phrase "religious tolerance" has two distinct meanings:
1. Conservative Protestants often interpret the phrase as meaning that, to be tolerant, one must accept all religions as equal and true. This is a religious concept called "pluralism." One implication is that, because diverse beliefs are all true, that absolute truth does not exist. This they generally find unacceptable.
2. Among other individuals and groups, "religious tolerance" generally means to avoid oppressing or discriminating against persons whose religious beliefs happen to be different from yours. It is a statement of fundamental human rights.
I would say the second definition describes religious tolerance. One doesn't need to take the pluralist point of view in order to be tolerant. Darkwind put it best, when he said I don't ask for people to condone my faith only that they are respectful of my right to practice and believe as I wish. That is the epitomy of the second definition of tolerance, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Religious tolerance is accepting people regardless of their beliefs, not necessarily acknowledging that all beliefs are true.
Regards, PA
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ Jan 26 2007, 05:02 PM) [snapback]1517421[/snapback]
I get the succinct impression that the original poster got many of her statements and quotes from THIS SITE. Many of the paragraphs seem almost word for word, but paraphrased just slightly in most instances. Quoting a source is still required if this is the case, though.
To quote the source I cited above:
The phrase "religious tolerance" has two distinct meanings:
1. Conservative Protestants often interpret the phrase as meaning that, to be tolerant, one must accept all religions as equal and true. This is a religious concept called "pluralism." One implication is that, because diverse beliefs are all true, that absolute truth does not exist. This they generally find unacceptable.
2. Among other individuals and groups, "religious tolerance" generally means to avoid oppressing or discriminating against persons whose religious beliefs happen to be different from yours. It is a statement of fundamental human rights.
I would say the second definition describes religious tolerance. One doesn't need to take the pluralist point of view in order to be tolerant. Darkwind put it best, when he said I don't ask for people to condone my faith only that they are respectful of my right to practice and believe as I wish. That is the epitomy of the second definition of tolerance, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Religious tolerance is accepting people regardless of their beliefs, not necessarily acknowledging that all beliefs are true.
Regards, PA
To quote the source I cited above:
The phrase "religious tolerance" has two distinct meanings:
1. Conservative Protestants often interpret the phrase as meaning that, to be tolerant, one must accept all religions as equal and true. This is a religious concept called "pluralism." One implication is that, because diverse beliefs are all true, that absolute truth does not exist. This they generally find unacceptable.
2. Among other individuals and groups, "religious tolerance" generally means to avoid oppressing or discriminating against persons whose religious beliefs happen to be different from yours. It is a statement of fundamental human rights.
I would say the second definition describes religious tolerance. One doesn't need to take the pluralist point of view in order to be tolerant. Darkwind put it best, when he said I don't ask for people to condone my faith only that they are respectful of my right to practice and believe as I wish. That is the epitomy of the second definition of tolerance, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Religious tolerance is accepting people regardless of their beliefs, not necessarily acknowledging that all beliefs are true.
Regards, PA
It seems obvious to me... I included all the quoters names.. duly noted in the future i will link....thanks ...
Thanks PA 
QUOTE(Bella-Angelique @ Jan 26 2007, 05:55 PM) [snapback]1516780[/snapback]
I think true religious tolerance can only exist under secular governments.
Tell that to religious people who lived under communist regimes. Secular societies are not "tolerant" towards religious views; in fact there are many groups who want to see Christmas and Easter done away with.
Of course, secularists argue ad hoc when defining tolerance.
QUOTE(Supra Sheri @ Jan 26 2007, 05:50 PM) [snapback]1516771[/snapback]
To be tolerant, for some it means all religions are the same, equal and appropriate for the person... This is a religious concept called "pluralism." One implication is that, because diverse beliefs are all true, that absolute truth does not exist.
It makes no sense to believe all religions or beliefs are true for the simple fact that they all contradict each other. For example, Islam can not be true if Christianity is true and vice versa. Religious pluralists say we should not judge others while making a judgment.
I did like the statement: that absolute truth does not exist.
This statement is self defeating. It claims absolute knowledge about something it claims can not be known! Despite the fact that whoever espouses this self defeats them selves, absolute truth is knowable. Either you ate breakfast or did not; both can not be right.
QUOTE
This they generally find unacceptable.. And make it clear this is not hte form of tolerance they mean....
It is not only unacceptable but impossible!
QUOTE(Irish @ Jan 26 2007, 08:50 PM) [snapback]1517038[/snapback]
In a democracy each person has a vote and if the majority is Atheist, gay or followers of the great pink unicorn then their views become the norm because that is what democracy is all about, the wishes of the majority.
So until we have a better system we are all stuck with majority rule, but still have the option of either changing the majorities view or going to a place/country where your views are the majority.
The norm must be tolerant of the non-norm and vice versa.
Irish
So until we have a better system we are all stuck with majority rule, but still have the option of either changing the majorities view or going to a place/country where your views are the majority.
The norm must be tolerant of the non-norm and vice versa.
Irish
Wrong. That's not how this country is made up and not the definition of democracy in the US. The founders of this country strove very hard to avoid what they deemed the "tyranny of the masses" which is why we have an electoral college and a judicial system tied into the checks and balances.
This is why gay marriage is allowed in some states because their Supreme Courts have deemed it unconstitutional to deny them their rights.
It is also why Gov Arnold was accused of chickening out by leaving the issue "up to the majority." If we left the issues up to the majority Slavery would still be legal in the south.
Here's something I found that says it better than I can
QUOTE
Myths about our Founding Fathers. Part One.
Some of the most widely held and deep seated beliefs about are founding fathers are, quite simply, wrong. One currently being bandied about by liberals and conservatives alike its that the founding fathers built this country into a democracy, and did so because they had a deep seated belief in democracy and majority rule. We hear this from the Bush right, in his “desire” to spread democracy throughout the world. We hear it from the liberal left with their complaints about the electoral voting system and how Bush did not have a majority vote in the last election, (although without mentioning that Clinton did not have a majority vote in his first election either).
The truth is that the founding fathers did not support a democratic system. In fact they distrusted democracy often referring to it as the tyranny of the masses.
Don’t take my word for it. Here are the words of some of the best known founding fathers.
“A democracy,” said Thomas Jefferson, “is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
“Remember,” implored John Adams, “democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
“Democracy,” as described by Benjamin Franklin, “is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”
“Democracies,” explained James Madison, “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”
“There is no maxim, in my opinion,” Madison also said, “which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.”
“It has been observed that a pure democracy,” noted Alexander Hamilton, “if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which people themselves deliberated, never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Long before the founding father spoke about democracy the Greek philosopher Plato had this to say; ““Democracy leads to anarchy, which is mob rule.”
Much of U.S. history covers the revolutionary war, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The revolutionary war may have occurred because of the Tyranny of King George of England; and most people appear to believe the founding fathers supported a democracy because of this. But, remember, the first colonists came to these shores because of the tyranny of the majority. They all represented minority religions which were tyrannized by the majority religions of their native countries. The founding fathers were well aware of this. In fact, they saw the same tyranny of the majority starting to appear here, where the minority religion in Europe became the majority religion in individual American colonies Tyranny started anew, just with different tyrants. Some early colonies had laws exiling anyone not a member of the accepted religion and in at least one case mandating the death penalty if the exile returned.
This is why the pledge of allegiance says “…. and to the Republic” for which it stands”, not … “and to the democracy for which it stands.”
Some of the most widely held and deep seated beliefs about are founding fathers are, quite simply, wrong. One currently being bandied about by liberals and conservatives alike its that the founding fathers built this country into a democracy, and did so because they had a deep seated belief in democracy and majority rule. We hear this from the Bush right, in his “desire” to spread democracy throughout the world. We hear it from the liberal left with their complaints about the electoral voting system and how Bush did not have a majority vote in the last election, (although without mentioning that Clinton did not have a majority vote in his first election either).
The truth is that the founding fathers did not support a democratic system. In fact they distrusted democracy often referring to it as the tyranny of the masses.
Don’t take my word for it. Here are the words of some of the best known founding fathers.
“A democracy,” said Thomas Jefferson, “is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
“Remember,” implored John Adams, “democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
“Democracy,” as described by Benjamin Franklin, “is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”
“Democracies,” explained James Madison, “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”
“There is no maxim, in my opinion,” Madison also said, “which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.”
“It has been observed that a pure democracy,” noted Alexander Hamilton, “if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which people themselves deliberated, never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Long before the founding father spoke about democracy the Greek philosopher Plato had this to say; ““Democracy leads to anarchy, which is mob rule.”
Much of U.S. history covers the revolutionary war, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The revolutionary war may have occurred because of the Tyranny of King George of England; and most people appear to believe the founding fathers supported a democracy because of this. But, remember, the first colonists came to these shores because of the tyranny of the majority. They all represented minority religions which were tyrannized by the majority religions of their native countries. The founding fathers were well aware of this. In fact, they saw the same tyranny of the majority starting to appear here, where the minority religion in Europe became the majority religion in individual American colonies Tyranny started anew, just with different tyrants. Some early colonies had laws exiling anyone not a member of the accepted religion and in at least one case mandating the death penalty if the exile returned.
This is why the pledge of allegiance says “…. and to the Republic” for which it stands”, not … “and to the democracy for which it stands.”
from
http://forum.saljournal.com/viewtopic.php?...75474c170b70dc6
No opinion or belief is correct because of the very reason that it is an opinion or belief. And that is just my opinion.
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jan 26 2007, 10:45 PM) [snapback]1517661[/snapback]
No opinion or belief is correct because of the very reason that it is an opinion or belief. And that is just my opinion.
Bingo!
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jan 27 2007, 03:45 AM) [snapback]1517661[/snapback]
No opinion or belief is correct because of the very reason that it is an opinion or belief.
2+2=5 and this is my belief. I also believe 2x3=6. Both are incorrect since it is my belief, is this what you are essentially saying because certain beliefs are true and can be verified?
QUOTE
And that is just my opinion.
Well it is not correct. 
QUOTE(P4P3R T1G3R2 @ Jan 27 2007, 12:54 PM) [snapback]1517680[/snapback]
2+2=5 and this is my belief. I also believe 2x3=6. Both are incorrect since it is my belief, is this what you are essentially saying because certain beliefs are true and can be verified?
Well it is not correct.
Well it is not correct.
Reality is whatever you believe it to be. The religious search or spiritual seacrh(i'll put this word in there also because alot of people hate the word religion) or even the philosophical search is the quest in finding the truth that is beyond "belief".
If you truly believe 2 add 2 equals five then it is true. The key word is believe. The ultimate truth is beyond all belief and opinion but it cannot be explained in words or via a belief formulation. And that is just my belief.
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jan 27 2007, 04:02 AM) [snapback]1517691[/snapback]
Reality is whatever you believe it to be.
You can not make reality to be anything because reality is independent of what you percieve it to be.QUOTE
If you truly believe 2 add 2 equals five then it is true.
No it is not. Truth is not dependent on what you believe it to be. No matter how much I say 2+2=5 it will not be true. It is like saying 2+2=4 in America, but in Australia 2+2=5. It is universal, it does not change. The laws of logic like mathematics is the same here as it would be on Mars.QUOTE
The ultimate truth is beyond all belief and opinion but it cannot be explained in words or via a belief formulation.
You are trying to make an absolute statement on something you believe is unknowable. This is self-defeating and un rational. QUOTE
And that is just my belief.
Which is not supported by reality.
Also science is just as much a belief system as relgion. Although with science that is considered fact can be more or less seen and verified it still takes conscious minds to believe that what it is seeing is real and that just because it can be seen whether that is enough if a qualification to think it real. Science as much as some scientists deny it avoid much of the philosophical implications of it's own findings. For an example science can say that the whole universe is made of energy via it's experimentation but it cannot answer as to why there should be energy in the first place or existence for that matter.
In one of the dune novels frank herbert puts it well when he says: All proofs inevitably lead to propositions that have no proof. All things are known because we want to believe in them.
Science, religion and philosophy are all the same. They are all a means to understanding the truth but their approaches are different. A scientist may say his way is superior but that is because he believes so from his own personal evaluation of what he thinks is the best means for finding the truth. Same goes with the other two. Many scientists have turned from science to religion in order to find that which science was missing and many religious followers have become athiests or changed their beliefs in their understanding of god from a convential point of view due to scientific discoveries or different available philosophies. Ultimately it all comes down to faith and I put my faith what my intuition agrees with more than my than my reason.
In one of the dune novels frank herbert puts it well when he says: All proofs inevitably lead to propositions that have no proof. All things are known because we want to believe in them.
Science, religion and philosophy are all the same. They are all a means to understanding the truth but their approaches are different. A scientist may say his way is superior but that is because he believes so from his own personal evaluation of what he thinks is the best means for finding the truth. Same goes with the other two. Many scientists have turned from science to religion in order to find that which science was missing and many religious followers have become athiests or changed their beliefs in their understanding of god from a convential point of view due to scientific discoveries or different available philosophies. Ultimately it all comes down to faith and I put my faith what my intuition agrees with more than my than my reason.
QUOTE(P4P3R T1G3R2 @ Jan 27 2007, 01:06 PM) [snapback]1517694[/snapback]
You can not make reality to be anything because reality is independent of what you percieve it to be.
No it is not. Truth is not dependent on what you believe it to be. No matter how much I say 2+2=5 it will not be true. It is like saying 2+2=4 in America, but in Australia 2+2=5. It is universal, it does not change. The laws of logic like mathematics is the same here as it would be on Mars.
You are trying to make an absolute statement on something you believe is unknowable. This is self-defeating and un rational.
Which is not supported by reality.
No it is not. Truth is not dependent on what you believe it to be. No matter how much I say 2+2=5 it will not be true. It is like saying 2+2=4 in America, but in Australia 2+2=5. It is universal, it does not change. The laws of logic like mathematics is the same here as it would be on Mars.
You are trying to make an absolute statement on something you believe is unknowable. This is self-defeating and un rational.
Which is not supported by reality.
Tell me what is reality?????????????????????????? whether rational or irrational one can only exist insofar as the other does. No such thing as mutually exclusive opposites.
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jan 27 2007, 04:16 AM) [snapback]1517711[/snapback]
Tell me what is reality??????????????????????????
Reality is the earth is not flat. You believing it is, is not reality and does not change the fact that the earth is not flat. I just drank soda, this is independent of me believing that I did or did not. The Law of Non Contradiction is reality; it is a fact independent of what I believe about it. That is what reality is, something that is a fact independent of what one believes about something.
QUOTE
No such thing as mutually exclusive opposites.
So me eating breakfast is dependent on me believing that I ate breakfast?
QUOTE(truethat @ Jan 26 2007, 09:25 PM) [snapback]1517608[/snapback]
Wrong. That's not how this country is made up and not the definition of democracy. The founders of this country strove very hard to avoid what they deemed the "tyranny of the masses" which is why we have an electoral college and a judicial system tied into the checks and balances.
This is why gay marriage is allowed in some states because their Supreme Courts have deemed it unconstitutional to deny them their rights.
It is also why Gov Arnold was accused of chickening out by leaving the issue "up to the majority." If we left the issues up to the majority Slavery would still be legal in the south.
This is why gay marriage is allowed in some states because their Supreme Courts have deemed it unconstitutional to deny them their rights.
It is also why Gov Arnold was accused of chickening out by leaving the issue "up to the majority." If we left the issues up to the majority Slavery would still be legal in the south.
While you are correct that ours (USA) is not a perfect democracy since the founders saw the importance balancing the power of the majority in that system through the system of checks and balances. But in general, this country and its states function in a way that can still be recognized as a democratic/republican system. And in such a system, despite the fact that the minority may not like it, majority will continue to exert it's influence, as it should.
Your 2=2 =5 is a false analogy. We KNOW and can prove that this is incorrect. As we know and can prove that 2=2=4.
But we can't prove that God doesn't exist and others can't prove that he does. So you can't use a mathmatical equation to prove it.
You'd have to use something that would take a leap of faith. Like the Sun will be there tomorrow. We don't KNOW it will be. But we believe that it will be. Weather it is true or not is not really important right now in the darkness because we have to wait to prove it.
But we can't prove that God doesn't exist and others can't prove that he does. So you can't use a mathmatical equation to prove it.
You'd have to use something that would take a leap of faith. Like the Sun will be there tomorrow. We don't KNOW it will be. But we believe that it will be. Weather it is true or not is not really important right now in the darkness because we have to wait to prove it.
QUOTE(P4P3R T1G3R2 @ Jan 27 2007, 01:22 PM) [snapback]1517720[/snapback]
That is what reality is, something that is a fact independent of what one believes about something.
Ya the mystics would agree there. Also the law of non-contradiction??? So why is science so contradictory??? For an example all matter is mostly vast empty space yet some quantum physicists rekon there is more energy in one cubic centimeter of this emtpy space than there is in all the matter in our seeable universe. So what is matter empty or not???
QUOTE(P4P3R T1G3R2 @ Jan 27 2007, 01:22 PM) [snapback]1517720[/snapback]
That is what reality is, something that is a fact independent of what one believes about something.
Do you believe this or know this???
QUOTE(truethat @ Jan 27 2007, 01:28 PM) [snapback]1517728[/snapback]
Your 2=2 =5 is a false analogy. We KNOW and can prove that this is incorrect. As we know and can prove that 2=2=4.
But if I believe that 2 add 2 equals five and that is how I feel and i say that it makes sense to me then who are you to say that my point of view is invalid??? You only think you are right because you believe so.
QUOTE(truethat @ Jan 27 2007, 04:28 AM) [snapback]1517728[/snapback]
Your 2=2 =5 is a false analogy. We KNOW and can prove that this is incorrect. As we know and can prove that 2=2=4.
Since you KNOW that 2+2=4 demonstrate to me how you derived that 2+2=4 without begging the question.
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jan 26 2007, 10:33 PM) [snapback]1517736[/snapback]
But if I believe that 2 add 2 equals five and that is how I feel and i say that it makes sense to me then who are you to say that my point of view is invalid??? You only think you are right because you believe so.
But then you are talking about perception, not reality and you would have to ignore what physical evidence PROVES is true. The first time you take two pencils and then take two pieces of paper, you would quickly find that you only have four objects, not five, and then you would have to either modify your PERCEPTION of reality and join the rest of us in the world where 2+2=4, or you would be insane.
QUOTE(P4P3R T1G3R2 @ Jan 27 2007, 01:22 PM) [snapback]1517720[/snapback]
So me eating breakfast is dependent on me believing that I ate breakfast?
Well what if you were believing that you were eating lunch or dinner??? What if you didn't believe you were eating but just atoms floating around in the universe???
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jan 27 2007, 04:31 AM) [snapback]1517734[/snapback]
Do you believe this or know this???
It is the definition of reality.QUOTE
Ya the mystics would agree there.
It is actually a philosophical definition so if these mystics were philosophers, well then yeah they were right.QUOTE
Also the law of non-contradiction??? So why is science so contradictory???
The Law of Non Contradiction states two things can not be right. Either I drank soda or did not. Both can not be right. You clearly do not understand the law so you claim it is irrelevant because science is contradictory. The Law of Non Contradiction does not say people can not contradict with each other, but states two things can not be right. Science is not contradictory, just the scientists presuppositions of what the evidence should mean.QUOTE
So what is matter empty or not???
It can not be both of them.QUOTE
But if I believe that 2 add 2 equals five and that is how I feel and i say that it makes sense to me then who are you to say that my point of view is invalid???
Because it can be demonstrated false. Your point of view can be demonstrated as invalid.
QUOTE
You only think you are right because you believe so.
This is absurd; if something can be demonstrated false it is irrelevant what your imagination wants to believe.
Begging the question doesn't apply.
2+2=4 is just a way of playing around with counting and setting up a stage for larger figures.
Most people have 5 fingers on their hand. If you start counting you can see quite easily that when you get to 2 and then count two more you arrive at the fourth finger.
Now if you are going to say this doesn't really prove that 2+2 will always equal four or some such other argument then it is you that is begging the question.
That is since you can't prove God exists if you can't eternally prove that 2+2 will always equal four that proves that absence of proof of God means that he exists.
Well that's not a debate I'm willing to have. And its off topic anyway.
2+2=4 is just a way of playing around with counting and setting up a stage for larger figures.
Most people have 5 fingers on their hand. If you start counting you can see quite easily that when you get to 2 and then count two more you arrive at the fourth finger.
Now if you are going to say this doesn't really prove that 2+2 will always equal four or some such other argument then it is you that is begging the question.
That is since you can't prove God exists if you can't eternally prove that 2+2 will always equal four that proves that absence of proof of God means that he exists.
Well that's not a debate I'm willing to have. And its off topic anyway.
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jan 27 2007, 04:38 AM) [snapback]1517747[/snapback]
Well what if you were believing that you were eating lunch or dinner???
Do you eat dinner in the morning? Breakfast means the first meal of the day. Dinner is not the first meal of the day therefore I did not eat dinner nor lunch.
QUOTE
What if you didn't believe you were eating but just atoms floating around in the universe???
Well then I'd be completely wrong to the fact that the meal was not floating and it was on my plate and not outer space.QUOTE(P4P3R T1G3R2 @ Jan 27 2007, 04:47 AM) [snapback]1517757[/snapback]
Do you eat dinner in the morning? Breakfast means the first meal of the day. Dinner is not the first meal of the day therefore I did not eat dinner nor lunch.
Well then I'd be completely wrong to the fact that the meal was not floating and it was on my plate and not outer space.
Well then I'd be completely wrong to the fact that the meal was not floating and it was on my plate and not outer space.
If you eat the first meal of the day at 9 at night is it still breakfast?
Technically your dinner plate and the meal on it are floating around in outer space.
Ok I'll stop now!
QUOTE(truethat @ Jan 27 2007, 04:44 AM) [snapback]1517755[/snapback]
Begging the question doesn't apply.
Yes it does. If you demonstrate to me that 2+2=4 by posting that same equation you are begging the question and committing a logical fallacy. You can not prove something by giving the same thing you are trying to prove as an answer.
QUOTE
Well that's not a debate I'm willing to have. And its off topic anyway.
You still haven't demonstrated that 2+2=4 but a deduction that does not beg the question.This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.