This chart is in interpretation and adaptation of material found in Adherents.com (http://adherents.com),
The percentiles of individual world religions add up to more than 100% because the numbers used are the
upper limits of estomates. Except for Judaism, only the most populous faith traditions are included. The
percentiles of denominations within religions add up to slightly less than 100% because small splinter
groups are not part of the chart. (source)





Religious intolerance outside North America:
In spite of UN declarations on religious freedom, there is still massive room for improvement in some countries.

Wars: Religious intolerance is a driving force behind many of the world's armed conflicts and centers of civil unrest. A few current and recent conflicts are listed below: Protestants vs. Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland
* Muslims, vs. Serbian Orthodox Christians in Kosovo
* Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Middle East
* Aboriginals, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs in India
* Christians and Muslims in East Timor
* Christians and Muslims and Animists in Nigeria
*Christians and Muslims in the southern Philippine islands
*Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka
*Christians, Muslims and Animists in Sudan

We maintain a listing of current civil wars and civil unrest which are at least partly based on religion.

Missionaries: Religious missionaries are severely persecuted in some areas of the world. Most victims are Christians; most perpetrators are national governments.

Conversion: Some countries have declared that a religious conversion from the state religion to another belief system is a criminal act, sometimes punishable by death. These laws are most frequently found in Muslim countries, although they are very rarely applied.

Overview: Robert Seiple of the U.S. State Department reported to a congressional hearing on 1999-OCT-6 on religious freedom around the world.

Unfortunately, the report did not include religious abuses inside the U.S. They found that seven countries exhibited "particularly severe" violations of religious freedom over the last year:

* Afghanistan's previous government, led by the Taliban, persecuted and killed Shiite Muslims in programs of mass murder that meet some definitions of genocide. The police often impose "severe physical punishment and imprisonment for deviations from codes of worship and dress."

*Myanmar (Burma) has imprisoned Buddhist monks who promote human and political rights.

* China suppresses unregistered religious activity "through harassment, prolonged detention and incarceration in prison or 'reform-through-labor' camps." 4

*Iran seriously persecutes the Baha'i World Faith by imprisonment of its members, denial of the right to assemble, and confiscating or desecrating their holy places.

*Iraq arbitrarily imprisons, and murders some individuals from their Shi'a Muslim minority.

*Serbia's government (primarily composed of Serbian Orthodox Christians) killed, tortured, raped and forced the emigration of ethnic Albanians (mostly Muslims) in Kosovar.

*Sudan's government has engaged in killing, arbitrary imprisonment, violence, and forced conversions of members of minority faiths, including Christianity, Aboriginal religions, and minority Muslim groups. 1,2


The Religious Freedom Act requires the President to react to this report by selecting "from 15 policy responses that range from private diplomatic protest to economic sanctions."

We have prepared a review of religious intolerance in various countries. It is not intended to be complete or balanced. It is a random sampling of some of the most important events that have been covered in the media in recent years.



Religious intolerance in North America:
The wall of separation between church and state does not prevent judges and legislators from attempting to eliminate the rights of faith groups that they do not like:

In 1986, Senator Jessie Helms (R, NC) introduced a bill in Congress to remove tax exempt status from existing Wiccan groups and prevent any new groups from being recognized. It never made it out of committee.

Family court judges in the U.S. and Canada occasionally discriminate in custody matters against the parent of minority, high demand faith groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses.

Various attempts have been made to modify the constitution in order to permit prayer in the public schools. This would have students recite prayers of the dominant religion. Students who follow minority religions would be given the options of either violating their own beliefs or risk later harassment and violence from other students.

Society has made much progress in the past few decades:

*With the repeal of oppressive laws, Native Americans are now able to conduct their traditional ceremonies.

* The exclusion of Jews from membership in golf clubs and similar organizations is much less common than in the past.

* A person no longer has to believe in the existence of a personal deity in order to be a conscientious objector to military service. (However, the Canadian government only extends charitable status to religious groups if they teach a belief in a God.)

Some local ministerial organizations now include non-Christians.

J.F. Kennedy became the first Roman Catholic President of the US. The religious faith of the Prime Ministers of Canada seemed to be of little interest to anyone prior to 2006. The Evangelical Christian faith of the present Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is of considerably greater interest to the media.

Ritual consumption of peyote during some Native American rituals is permitted.

Native Elders are now generally given the same rights as Christian and Jewish clergy during prison visits.

Roman Catholic children are no longer taught that Protestants will go to eternal punishment in hell when they die; most Protestant children are no longer told that all Roman Catholics will automatically go to hell.

The constitutions of the US and Canada guarantee religious freedom to all citizens, yet many hurdles remain to be overcome:

* Atheists are denied certain fundamental rights in some States. No Atheist could reasonably expect to be elected to any political office because of prejudice.

*Children are occasionally seized from homes because of some social workers' misunderstanding of their parents' religion.

*Parents are denied access to their children because of some judges' beliefs about the parents' faith.

*Leaders of some faith groups (e.g. Neopagan) are not recognized as clergy during prison visitation

Some faith groups are not allowed to perform marriages. A common method of exclusion is for state or provincial governments to require the group to have been in existence for long periods before their clergy can marry people.

The Socialist premier of the province of British Columbia in Canada refused on religious grounds to authorize election papers for a candidate of a minority faith who was nominated for the Provincial Legislature. Threatened with a lawsuit that he could not possibly win, he apologized for his act of bigotry.

Followers of certain faiths are only able to celebrate their rituals safely in certain areas of North America. They fear persecution and attacks by Christians who misunderstand their benign, Earth-based faith. These include Wiccans, Druids, and other Neopagans. Much of this hatred is based upon a beliefs held over from the Middle Ages.

Representative Barr and a coalition of about a dozen conservative Christian agencies promoted a boycott of the U.S. army in an effort to terminate the religious freedoms of Neopagans.

Religious tolerance does not seem to be heavily promoted in North America. Although there are untold numbers of:

* anti-racism Web sites devoted to racial harmony and tolerance,
*anti-sexism Web sites devoted to equal rights for women,
*anti-homophobia Web sites devoted to equal rights for gays, lesbians and bisexuals,
(Continues)

We have come along way on religious freedom, but it looks like we still have farther to go. At least they don't burn people at the stake anymore for their religious beliefs in North America. It's comforting to know some of the proposals that would have hurt people's religious freedom haven't gone anywhere.

my gosh Gw i was just talking with shadow and doc on starting a thread on this.....religion creates division, i have been saying this and for all its proclaiming otherwise ...what is tolerance ????

In the mormon doctrine this is how it is defined " the saints ( as the mormon's are called) are to put up with and allow the 'false religious beliefs and practices of another , no matter how absurd or false they are, man can worship as he sees fit yet one can't look upon sin with the least bit of allowance.....i would venture to guess give or take a word here or there this is the core belief of alot of religions. ( abrahamic's)..


this is intolerance and it is rampant in many parts of the world and the US....

religious freedom has yet to be understood let alone embraced...IMO

ywt we still have a long way to go to equality. I *feel* (it is important that I identify this as a feeling, not as something manifested) absolutely no connection to my "home country" because I see our charter opening with a statement recognizing the supremacy of "God" (we know which one that is). If I can not accept the foundation of the charter, than it does not represent me, and thus I can not call upon it (to do so would be hypocritical). This is why I state even though I have a document stating I am a citizen of this country, I do not really consider myself a citizen, but just hapen to be occupying land around which others have drawn border lines.

Intolerance isn't the creation of religion. Religion is just one way it manifests itself. If you want to get rid of intolerance you get rid of humanity. I wouldn't suggest that, just as I wouldn't suggest getting rid of religions or specfic religions because of intolerance that is caused by it.

Ones ability to embrace difference, if they even can is how i define tolerance....or the degree to which one needs others to be like them, think like them to be able to except them....relgion has very low threshold for tolerance....

doc what would your definition be on tolerance....

thats a irrelevant point because religion teaches intolerance by the very essence of its teachings..that is what i am addressing not the origins of intolerance ...You have to remember we are built on religious ideas.....
...i am fortunate for the most part to live in a state that celebrates diversity, and is trying to move towards being tolerant although slow we are trying...

me def of "tolerance" is not bothering with something because the return on the energy invested is not deemed high enough.

so, if something is of low value, of low threat, then reducing or eliminating it is of little benefit to you, so you are not likely to expend energy to do so. this makes you tolerant of it.

two different people, same scenario:

your neighbour's tree is dropping figs into your yard.

first - you are a person that has little interest in how "clean" your yard looks. the effort to address the neighbour requires more energy than the reward, so you tolerate the figs dropping.

second - you are a person the meticulously trims and inspects everything in your yard. It must be perfect. the effort to address the neighbour requires much less energy than the reward of not having "mess" constantly disrupting your garden, so you refuse to tolerate the figs dropping.

It doesn't matter how many times I'm reminded of this I am still shocked by it.

We certainly do have a long way to go. I think some people use the word "tolerance" to mean "I'll put up with it as long as it's not in my own back yard". They'll ignore the beliefs of someone who doesn't believe as they do, and gloss over the differences to enable some acceptance of the person in their company. There's no element of respect, and no real tolerance involved.

An old family friend once told me about his experiences as a black man, recently arrived in the UK in the 50s. He said the comment he heard most frequently was "their kind are nice enough, but I wouldn't want my daughter bringing one home". Well, it just so happened that a white woman did take him home, and she went on to marry him... and her family "tolerated" his colour by pretending he wasn't black, and avoiding any subject which might involve a reference to it. They lumped him in with them by labelling him "one of us" (an honourary white person if you like), but remained prejudiced against every other black person who crossed their path.

It's not possible to make any claim to tolerance or respect whilst holding the belief that another person is less than you.

I don't know if that's it's essence, but rather what the leaders who have something to gain from more followers have decided to emphasize that causes the intolerance. It makes sense to preach to convert non-believer's and destroy infidels when there is something to be gained by it. Those who simply believe in the religion have no reason to be intolerant if their leaders decide not to steer them down that path.

don't forget, kingdrake, that nothing unites like a common threat.

very thought provoking...if i may ask Gw, King, Shadow also .... i am actaully seeking to explore the many understandings of tolerance if that is okay too with the thread starter... is it GW (((puppy dog eyes )

Fear is often the glue that holds together collectives the more strongly one identifys with his collective the more strongly he will defend it often with violence of some sort be it attcks in word or deed or group shunning ...and intolerance plays a large part. in this IMO .......doc what would your thoughts be on this??

*sigh*...It's hard not to feel utter despair being reminded of this (which is only every time I watch the news....or follow the wafflings on UM )

What helps me in these moments is a quote from a movie: "There is so little love in the world,.... and yet so much..."

If I had to make up a definition of intolerance it would be to hate someone for differences that really don't mean anything. some of the differences can't be controlled by the person you hate (race, sex, nationality), while others essentially accomplish the same goals just in different methods.

religious intolerance to me is equivalent to hating someone who is doing the backstroke to swim instead of the breaststroke. Both people are on their own path to God, it really doesn't matter what religion they use to get there.

Thankyou for sharing very thought provoking also....

We both know threads often have a life of their own. So by all means, explore.

thankyou my friend....

Please! No need to bow, unless it's just slightly as you place a gigantic dysfunctional family size cheesecake on the community table.

What side road do you propose, relative to those many understandings of tolerance, to add to this thread?!

I find it interesting that people have such varying perceptions of what is involved in being tolerant. For some this involves embracing the differences between people. For others tolerance is being willing to overlook a flaw. Some are called tolerant because they hold respect for both the person and their opinions/rights/practices. Others regard the opinions/practices of others to be less valid than their own but are called tolerant nonetheless for being willing to overlook the unworthyness of the beliefs of the person they claim to be tolerant towards. A willingness simply to exist in the same community as one who is less than you is interpreted as tolerance by some. A person can stand with their nose pointing towards the sky, and look down from their lofty position at the mere mortal who does not measure up, and consider the act of saying "hello" to be enough to label them tolerant.

Indeed. I believe we've had occasion to meet many of the same people, claiming to be tolerant. I often think , at times, the tolerance is in so much as the time it takes to afford one the opportunity to determine, when someone shares their thoughts on personal faith, etc... that the tolerance level lasts long enough to feel smugly superior and then the dialog begins about how wrong that person that just shared, is. So, making it a matter, in as much as the tolerance allows one the opportunity to ascertain someone is in need of conversion, because often enough tolerant is not accompanied with respect, for at least ones right to live a personal life, and personal choice, to be different.

I thought these article links might further the discussion a bit, with respect to religion and Atheism. There's a thread in the forums that attempts to equate non-christians as anti-religious.

I'm sure that comes as a surprise to the jews, muslims, pagans, wiccans, Baha'i, Taoists, and many others that are not christian but still consider themselves religious. I suppose, in a world where someone sees it that way, they must feel very scared and quite outnumbered.




Atheism, Religion, Respect: Are Atheists Intolerant By Not Respecting Religion?
Author: Austin Cline


What is Respect? What Does it Mean to Respect Religion or Theism?:
What does it mean to 'respect' someone's religion or religious beliefs? Many believers insist that their religion deserves to be respected, even by non-believers, but what exactly are they asking for? If they are simply asking to be let alone in their beliefs, that's not unreasonable. If they are asking that their right to believe be honored, then I agree. The problem is, these basic minimums are rarely, if ever, what people are asking for; instead, they are asking for much more. Respecting Religion and Theism...





What is Intolerance? What Does it Mean to be Intolerant?:
More and more, religious theists are objecting to what they call "intolerance" on the part of irreligious atheists who are critical of religion, religious beliefs, and theism. Religious theists insist that atheists are being intolerant and rather than criticizing or mocking religion, they should become more tolerant of religion. Liberal democracies place a high value on tolerance, so this sounds at first like a reasonable request but it's not because of how "tolerance" is being defined. Intolerance of Religion and Theism...




Militant Atheists are Atheist Fundamentalists, a New Atheism:
There seems to be an increasing number of people responding to atheist critiques of religion or theism by labeling the person a "fundamentalist" atheist. The label is problematic because there are no essential or "fundamental" beliefs for an atheist to be "fundamentalist" about. So why do people use the label? Why do so many people feel that the label is appropriate? This seems to be mostly due to misunderstandings about and prejudice against fundamentalism and the label cannot be applied to atheists. Fundamentalist Atheism / Atheistic Fundamentalism Does Not Exist...




New Atheism & Militant Atheism: Should Atheists Respect Religion and Theism?:
There is an increasingly popular attitude that religion and theism deserve automatic respect and deference from everyone - even those who don't share that religion or that theism. People attack atheists for failing to show the 'appropriate' respect to religious and theistic beliefs. Atheists shouldn't say things which constitute pointed, direct, or harsh challenges to religious and theistic claims. At the risk of further accusations of being intolerant and disrespectful, this is nonsense. Religion & Theism Must Earn Respect...





Atheists are Intolerant for Criticizing Religion, Theism?:
There are several myths here, all tightly intertwined for the apparent purpose of getting atheists to cease making uncomfortable and unwelcome criticisms of religion and theism. Religious believers, mostly Christians, respond to atheistic critiques of religion by claiming that vocal, unapologetic atheists are analogous to religious terrorists and that criticism of religion is a form of religious intolerance. The implication is that believers shouldn't have to be faced with criticism. This is wrong: religion and theism aren't owed deference and respect. Atheists are not Intolerant for Criticizing Religion, Theism...





Disagreement is Not Intolerance; Saying Someone is Wrong is Not Intolerance: Many religious theists insist that irreligious atheists who criticize religion, religious beliefs, and theism are being intolerant and disrespectful. What are these irreligious atheists doing — are they calling for religion to be banned? For religious believers to be put in jail? No, nothing of the sort. All of this alleged intolerance and disrespect are occurring because irreligious atheists disagree with religious theism, say it is wrong, argue that it's harmful, and want people to change. Disagreement is Not Intolerance...



Articles Continue

One of the things which I find very baffling is the question "why do you criticize [insert religion here]?"

I'm a trained artist. Being an artist, my work is a part of me... it's very personal. My work is an extension of me, it's who I am. You can't get more personal. When I was at college/university, my lecturers verbally ripped people's work to shreds in regular "crits". These little meetings were designed to highlight everything you are doing wrong, and they could be extremely painful for anyone who isn't thick skinned. Lecturers pointed out flaws in your artistic practices/beliefs/opinions with the intention of making you explore these things yourself and improve in areas where you were lacking/wrong/misguided. The aim was to remove negative aspects of your work and encourage positive ones, to make you into a worthwhile artist. Basically, crits were dreaded things, and every Friday, a lot of young artists at the college/uni I attended, wanted to jump out of the window and end it all. Even this extremely harsh criticism was not considered intolerant. Why?

My husband and I were trying to pick out a movie to rent, and decided to check the online reviews before choosing. Some of them were incredibly harsh... poor direction, atrocious acting, the script was lacking, the production was horrendous, etc. Basically we were being told not to rent certain movies even if our lives depended on it. Very harsh. But intolerant?

I added a book review to Amazon a while back... a favourable one. It was so favourable, in fact, that the publisher added it to their web site. Was my review tolerant?

Having grown up in a creative environment - best pals were writers/artists - it is very strange for me to be faced with the question "why do you criticise". We rely on the critical opinions of others to pick a film/book/restaurant/gallery/album/etc every day of the week... but in religious matters we should all keep our opinions to ourselves for fear of offending and being labelled "intolerant"?

When we tell a man not to beat his wife, are we being intolerant? When women were critical of their male dominated society when they campaigned to get the vote, were they intolerant? When men spoke out against slavery, were they intolerant? We're so wrapped up in being seen as nicey-nicey tolerant respectful wind bags that we don't even stop to question why we're so darned willing to be tolerant or what being tolerant means these days.

I cannot tolerate deliberate stupidity. I cannot tolerate deliberate ignorance. If I see those two things when a person posts on this forum, I will not think to myself "oh heck, he's talking out of his a*se but I must be quiet or they'll call me intolerant, boo hoo." If a man holds beliefs which are damaging others, I will not tolerate it. If a man attempts to force his beliefs on me I will not tolerate it.

And as for respect... well, the meaning of that word is lost on so many that if we really get into the subject we'll have a thread a hundred pages long before we even reach anything approaching a shared understanding of what it means to respect another human being.

Blimey... bit of a rant there I think. I'm just so darned sick of "don't pick on the [insert group label here]"... "don't criticise those beliefs"... sheesh.

But I love your rants!

If you look in the current events forum, there you'll see reference to a BBC article regarding a nursery school that has augmented the ages old nursery rhyme, "Baa Baa Black Sheep" , to "Rainbow sheep!" Why? Because it may be offensive! Of course, this means that there no longer exists black sheep in the world, because goodness knows, seeing one could raise the alarm to....racism! If it's said aloud: "Look! There's a black sheep!"

So instead, we now have a rainbow sheep in the UK. Ah, the relief! All those millers shall no longer have to dye the wool, because sheep come in rainbow now. ~claps hands together~ Goody! Bit of a shock to the mom though.

I think the intolerance card is played, when people aren't mature enough to actually accept the responsibility that they don't live in a world of people, just like themselves. So consequently, when someone disagrees with a philosophy, of any sort but especially religion, the card is played. We have at work, at least in the U.S. , but that sheep article would imply it's taking root in the UK as well, what is called the language police. It's so prevalent a book was written, by that same title, so as to expose the method that is first taking root in our schools. Because if you impress upon young minds there are certain things you just don't say, you raise the next generation to not even think the words, much less say them aloud.

When someone can be sent to treatment for calling someone a fa*, we have a problem. Because in the gay community that word is dolled out often enough. And believe it, you haven't seen anything until you witness two gay men yell across a room, at a party, "Heeeeeey girrrrl!" To this day, I keep looking for boobies, on the man. Sometimes they're there, too. But if you are straight and say, fa*, you stand the chance of being called a name, or sent to treatment or "gender sensitivity training", so that you might retain your employ. It just depends really.
And if you compliment someone, well that's not a good thing now either. Because they could take it as sexual harassment, and then you're in the deep end.

Fascinating! Really.

Religious Tolerance. What a topic. The world over we witness , in headlines daily, that it goes so far in intolerance that people kill people in the name of the hope that something invisible cares about them. It's called god, by any name, and it's worshiped, feared, praised, prayed to and all of it is in the hope that after this life is over, it shall welcome the soul of the devout to paradise forever.

In the meantime, dare not speak of such things, for it might offend. Would seem to be the message. Someone's feelings may be hurt, if you simply don't agree.

A long time ago, a great idea was lost. That we must watch our tongue, for fear of the ears that hear and thus punish us for our words. I tolerate other peoples faith that they live as part of a personal life. I do not and never shall tolerate someone telling me, in their eyes, I am damned. I shall speak up and say, I disagree. And if that is intolerance, pray for me. Because that someone thinks a different opinion is such, means they need prayer more than I.
In the meantime discussion on the fine points of faith in general, is what educates a nation and a people. It is not the dark ages anymore, though some would like to think otherwise. Today we are not called heretic, where it matters much, for thinking outside the god box. We're allowed to think and to speak, if we're lucky, about faithful practice and what it means. That's how it should work, in a civil community. And like Galileo said, and I agree, I can not accept that anyones god gave us intellect, and then would be offended that we use it.

Disagreeing is not intolerance. Different opinions are not persecution. And in this world it is incumbent on us to understand the difference, so that when intolerance and persecution does appear, we recognize it for what it is. Instead of thinking it must be the case, simply because we can not accept there are people in this world, that will not and do not, live or think like anyone else does. That's why it's called a personal opinion. And when we lose the right to that, we've lost everything.

great posts girls, S, you bring in a great point as does Gw, As a home school educator critisim would not be used as it would affect the childs confidence and beleif he can do something, shouldn't one tolerate mistakes too.... A few of the courses i have taken talk abou this alot how encouragment and understanding and knowing we are all different anyways ( and it could be celebrated and learned from) has to be the core motivating idea...


Gw you said disagreeing isn't intolerance and girl i have to agree, it is healthy to disagree, and I often don't even see it as disgareemnt as in a differnet POV what isn't healthy is to attack, seek to hurt due to percieved hurts , in psychology( marriage ). one of the precursors to a failed marriage is contempt , the need to be self justified and we see this alot on these forums also........It makes tolerance very difficult to root....

Intolerance is not allowing (or persecuting) someone for something strictly due to disagreement. In the case of religious intolerance, it is banning, or not allowing someone to believe what they wish or harassing them because they believe what they do.

Tolerance does not mean that you respect their belief. It means you accept that that is what they believe and it is not within your rights to stop them from that belief, even if you wholeheartedly disagree with it.

Plain and simply this is the way I look at it is if a friend models a new outfit and asks you what you think you could say, "OMG, that makes your a*** look huge." or "I don't think it shows off your best features."

Some people have very little tact and are very abrasive in their posts. People may perceive you differently in real life, because they can see body language, facial expressions, eyes, whatever...Even if I agree with a post, sometimes the way it's expressed will rub me the wrong way.

My two cents on what I see at UM...

Sheri, it's amazing you can't see the hypocrisy in agreeing with Shadow's post when almost everything she said goes against what you preach.

Good point, Bill.

michelle, based in personal expereince you are simply looking to be spew contempt , take the thread in to a flame war, not in any sort of conversation or getting to know me, as its my choice and out of resepct for all involved i am not gonna be involved.......all the best too you....

Seriously, if someone says to you "I don't think it shows off your best features" all you hear is "wow your bum is enormous." The meaning is understood loud and clear regardless of the fact it's been wrapped in fluffy bunnies and pink ribbon.

And as I said, harsh criticism of films/books/etc isn't considered intolerance, so why should criticism of religious beliefs be any different?

Wrap "I don't believe in your god" up in any package you like, but for some people the basic statement itself is going to cause outrage and result in accusations of intolerance.

Ladies, my hat is off to you...great post Shadow, great response Goddess. I guess I show my age but I come from an age where we called a spade a spade, not "called a digging implement a digging implement" because we were not afraid that we would insult someone because of the implications of the slang word spade. I find PC illogical, if a person is so thin skinned, then they should become a hermit...

It seems when some people are voicing their opinion they are being honest and being praised for it, yet when I do I'm spewing contempt. That's very interesting.

Well, that's just because your hairs a funny color, your butt is way to big in those jeans and your mom dresses you funny!

Now if you'll excuse me , I need to re-dye my hair with grape Kool-Aid, work on my huge butt and slap my mom for making me wear this, just to say "HI! How the hell are ya!?" ~waves to the room~ Ok, that's going to leave a mark that'll get me no end of grief, in a conservative crowd.



Let's all lighten up. Because otherwise, there's a Freudian ghost, reading the title of this thread and saying: :"It's a bad sign when the subject of intolerance, proves itself in a discussion about why intolerance is bad!"

~slaps ghost~
That'll get me 7 years bad luck. Or is that for the mirror I just broke, when I checked my new hair color!?

Michelle the thread is about intolerance and tolerance, not shadows and my relationship of which you know nothing, what could you know I have never once talked with you on a personal level.... you are making this personal based in what you think/perceive not in fact.....her opinion is about a subject of intolerance and it is a great pov as is GW's as have some of yours been and I have said so....

I have no interest in addressing you over how you define me based on nothing factual, i can honestly say i don't know you from the man in the moon ( and vice versa) and couldn't begin to define you, nor am i interested in anything but exploring tolerance and intolerance........

Two examples of religious bigotry today, which helps illustrate the difference between individual and government discrimination.



First, in New Hampshire, an idiot confronted Mitt Romney. (Romney criticized in NH for his mormonism)

Mitt Romney’s visit to New Hampshire started on a sour note Tuesday when a restaurant patron declared he would not vote for the Republican presidential contender because of his faith.

“I’m one person who will not vote for a Mormon,” Al Michaud of Dover shouted at Romney when the former Massachusetts governor approached him inside Harvey’s Bakery.

The kicker? This wasn’t someone from the religious right; it was a self-described “liberal” who said he plans to vote for Hillary Clinton.

There are plenty of questions about Mr. Michaud. If he disagreed with Romney’s politics, why make a point of criticizing his faith? Why shout it out in a small, crowded room? It’s enough to make one wonder if his goal was actually to embarass Romney. And then there’s the classic question of whether he’s really a liberal — and if he actually understands what that word means.

Regardless, I hope we can agree that his moment of fame was classless, rude, illiberal and violative of American values, even if it is in accord with much of American political history. And be glad that in this country a member of a minority faith is only subjected to such individual actions and not (generally) government persecution.

Now let’s go to the other side of the globe, where that sadly is not the case. (Malaysia's Lina Joy loses Islam conversion case)

Malaysia’s best known Christian convert, Lina Joy, lost a six-year battle on Wednesday to have the word “Islam” removed from her identity card, after the country’s highest court rejected the change.

The ruling threatens to further polarize Malaysian society between non-Muslims who feel that their constitutional right to religious freedom is being eroded, and Muslims who believe that civil courts have no right to meddle in Islamic affairs.

On the one hand, this is a fairly minor matter: words on an ID card. She was not actually prevented from converting, and is not in danger of being killed for doing so. And the legal point is minor, too: whether the secular courts have jurisdiction over such matters. They decided not, that only the country’s Sharia courts can allow the removal of the words from Joy’s card.

Let’s put aside, too, the problem of having parallel legal systems. Listen instead to the words of the judge:

“You can’t at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another,” Federal Court Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim said in delivering judgment in the case.

Or consider the reaction of the crowd outside:

About 200 mostly young Muslims welcomed the ruling outside the domed courthouse with shouts of “Allah-o-Akbar” (God is great).

And what fate awaits Joy in the sharia courts, if she goes that route?

In practice, sharia courts do not allow Muslims to formally renounce Islam, preferring to send apostates to counseling and, ultimately, fining or jailing them if they do not desist.

They often end up in legal limbo, unable to register their new religious affiliations or legally marry non-Muslims. Many keep silent about their choice or emigrate.

Fines and jailing, never mind the related legal prohibitions against marrying nonMuslims.

It always astonishes me that believers can justify coerced membership in religion, any religion, failing to understand that doing so not only grossly violates individual rights, but it undermines that religion’s legitimacy. It’s pure power politics, nothing more.

The world should continue to support Joy and express outrage not just at her treatment, but a legal system that allows such religious-based discrimination and disallows freedom of conscience. This is what true persecution looks like, and Malaysia should be pressured to change its laws to respect individual belief.

And for those of you inclined to ask “where are the moderate Muslims?”, consider this very balanced article from Al-Jazeera. (Malaysia rejects conversion appeal) Or Sisters in Islam, a Malaysian Muslim women’s group that is one of several that has sided with Joy in this case.

(Source)

Hubbie was interviewing for a new job and he'd managed to impress the people he'd spoken to so much that they were really eager to have him work for them. Last Friday they made a firm offer, and there were just the usual contractual wrinkles (financial ones) to iron out before the contract could be drawn up. Earlier this week, while speaking to the big cheese in the US, the conversation moved on to honour and ethics in the workplace - that chap was impressed by hubbie's honesty and willingness to help others - and he made a simple comment. He mentioned that hubbie had "demonstrated good Christian values". Hubbie fluffed over it, but the fluffing was noticed. So, the question was asked... "you are a Christian?" Following hubbie's confession that he wasn't, the big cheese cut the call short. He had one of his subordinates inform the agent who had acted as go-between to inform hubbie that the job offer had been withdrawn and that he wished to have no more direct contact. The reason? They don't employ hubbie's "kind".

Debating the contradictions in scripture is not intolerance, assessing the likelihood that a deity even exists is not intolerance, not wanting the religious beliefs of others rammed down your throat is not intolerance. Being unwilling to forget the horrors which have taken place throughout history in the name of god is not intolerance. Pointing out religious hypocracy is not intolerance. When your choice of religion can actually determine whether or not you can make a living, that's intolerance.

Thankfully hubbie got a wonderful job offer yesterday (another US company, but not owned by morons) and everything's turned out very much better than we'd expected.

Shadow, I am constantly impressed by your wisdom. That is a spectacular posting and one that even Bluefinger can't rebutt without looking the intolerant lout. I am so glad that your "hubbie" got a good job offer from a company that is not "stiff-necked" and intolerant and (if I might guess) probably based in the Southern USA.

Agreed! Magnificent news for you and hubbie both! Congratulations!

It's presumptive to think everyone in the world is christian. Or that values stem from there and there alone. And had your husband been of lesser personal character, he could very well have lied and pleased big cheese, just to get the job. But he would have known all along he was compromising his moral values, just to placate someone that has none himself. And no matter the paycheck, I've found that money can't ever buy back what that compromise to one's personal character costs. And, just think the stress that cheese has, living in a world where there are people that are not christian! It's the notion of the majority that makes some people bold. Like the retort I've heard from those claiming to be christian, and yet fail to prove it as they utter the phrase: Well, that's the majority in this country, (U.S) and if you aren't comfortable here you could always move! That always reminds me of the context excuse. You know, where one can gloss over jesus admonition about love thy neighbor?! Perhaps that phrase isn't really saying that. Perhaps one needs a concordance, and then a priest with scholarly wisdom, to take it apart. First from the Coptic, then maybe a reference from Aramaic not to mention old Hebrew (as opposed to the new and frisky one ) , so as to fully comprehend that jesus was actually saying, in the context of even why he was here, that only those meant to understand his words, so they are the only one's that can attain salvation, are to love only those neighbors like themselves!
That would explain Big Cheese smelling like old Bre, right after his judgment levied in jesus name, against your hubby, Shadow. So, in point of fact, perhaps some christians actually act as they do, because they believe the context of jesus words actually said, love thy christian brother as they christian self.

It would go a long way to explain the intolerance he experienced in that way, no?!

And I agree that it's quite obvious that those that claim intolerance, are usually not correct. That's why I posted, from the Atheist perspective, the links above in that other article. Intolerance is not disagreeing. Intolerance is not having a different notion of what makes life possible. Intolerance is exampled by people that scream intolerance, and then proceed to verbally assault people not like themselves. Implying one has no right to be someplace, if they aren't part of the predominant faith. Like that boss that wanted nothing to do with a perfectly qualified job candidate, after they found out he was not christian. Intolerance is exampled when the victim role is played, claiming one is a punching bag, or that if one is not christian they are necessarily anti-religion. I'd like to take this moment to cover the eyes and ears of every member of every other faith on the planet, so they don't learn that "truth" about themselves, now.
Intolerance, religious intolerance, I think, is exampled by those that levy slurs at a non-mainstream group for the express purpose of slandering their truth, and then, when called to the mat for it, claim they just didn't know. But they intended to inflict the damage with that lie, and insult those not like themselves in the process. So that, to me, is intolerance and an abdication of basic human decency. But when it's propagated, in the name of the arrogance that claims itself the only one way to god, it insults that member faith. Not those that know better.

So when the majority believes they are the only one's in the entire world, that know god, that is intolerance of anyone else, not member of that one and only community that believe their faith is the only right one, amid a world population of billions. It's not a different opinion. Because that would not be intolerance. It's not a different personal value system, because that would not qualify as intolerance. It's elitism! And that is another word for intolerance, when that elitist prejudice, sees everyone in the world, as dispossessed of moral values, decency and as such, not worthy of respect.

And it's tragic. Because the one common fact of life, for all people in this world of divisive agendas and values that embrace intolerance, is we all die! And what comes after is taken on faith, that how one lived shall gain them reward, or nothing at all, as the case may be. But in the meantime, the living is what makes the impression. And there is nothing in this world, like someone that claims their faith is being persecuted, simply because there are people in the world that don't hold faith as they do. And then resorting to bias, hate and discrimination and intolerance of others, as an excuse to invoke a means of self-defense. Because that is ignorance, anti-social behavior and pride! And to my understanding, that's one of the 7 deadly sins, for those that are led to believe the kingdom of heaven resides in all people, but and sadly enough, only in those people that they approve for thinking just as they do.

We see it in headlines all the time. What pride, in the name of the hope something unseen cares, can do. And what a incredibly sorry condition that manifests in this world. When the ones that we know are vested in the flesh to care, resort to hateful acts, because they rather embrace the notion the unseen cares about them only, and as such it isn't necessary to care about the rest of the worlds people, because somehow they believe thats what god would approve, in "his people".

If there is a god, and we are made in it's image and likeness, as many faiths believe, what can we say we've made god look like, given the history of the world faiths that translate that understanding, into this human condition of disharmony and viciousness within the human community. If someone believes god is evil, perhaps it's the impression those of god make upon others, that indicts god in their image and likeness, to be the same, when they claim the impetus for doing such things, like blowing people up, shooting people, verbally assaulting folks, rescinding job offers, etc.... is their faith, that their particular god would approve.

yahoo Shadow to you and your hubby and babies( the two new ones LOL) ...wow i can't believe that happened but it does and if these are just words on a page of a bible how come so many speak and see the same words of intolerance and feel this is exceptable, how does one defend these ideas that is what i ask and ask and still never a answer.....Its not intolerance to disagree with ideas that breed intolerance either.....and to ask why ????

Thank'ee, we're very pleased.

It's a strange thing to be told you cannot do a job you're more than qualified for because you do not follow the right god... that you're somehow less trustworthy because you're not a believer. In fact, it's not even being told you're less than... it's having the person who deems you so tell someone to tell someone else to tell you because he can't even stand the thought of having to converse with you via a long distance 'phone call which would only last the length of time it takes to say "get lost you deviant".

How pleased they were with hubbie before the news broke... it is ironic. The big cheese told hubbie he was impressed with his honesty and that he thought he would be a fine example for the other people in the company. And yet, that one little "no" in response to the question regarding whether or not hubbie is a Christian, wiped out all those complements, removed the good impression he'd made, and rendered the boss unable to tolerate speaking to him again. And he's annoyed with the agent for putting hubbie forward because he thought she vetted people more thoroughly before presenting them for consideration.

But it has all turned out for the best... things have a habit of doing that. So we shall move past this little episode and look forward to all the good things that are just around the corner.

He had the courage to be a bigot, but not the courage to take the responsibility to do so personally, and instead had someone else deliver his message. Perhaps big cheese should pray for spine and character. That's what we call, hypochristianity. I told a friend of mine about this post, on the phone last night. They said boss man must have faith in something besides jesus, else he wouldn't hate his neighbor. Your hubby is lucky to be rid of someone of such low character, that would have had that authority over him. Keep us updated when he gets that job that deserves his credentials, to work for them.