India and Religious Tolerance

[Thoreau]

If we can, I'd like to get into the psychology and the theology of why it is seemingly difficult for people to accept other faith traditions outside of their own.

For example, it's common to see Muslims taking action against Christians. It's common to see Christians taking actions against, well... everyone else. It's common to see Atheists taking action against religion in general.

Why is it so difficult to simply accept that other people have a different faith and be able to go on with our lives instead of challenging and attempting to change their faith?

My personal opinion is that we all, myself included, could learn from India.

India has a highly secular constitution and government in which the term "secular" doesn't have the same implications as it does here in the west. Here, the highly religious view secularism as a threat because they believe that our morals and ethics come from God. By separating their God from their government, they believe that morals and ethics will disappear as well. However in India, from what I've understood, secularism means accepting and respecting all faiths while not combining the policies of their government with the dogmas of any one faith tradition. This is also what I feel the founding fathers of the U.S. had intended for our country.

This is why we see in India Muslims living peacefully next to Hindus, Christians, and even a few Atheists and so forth with very little social conflict or anxiety. In the public square, you see people of all faiths exhibiting their faith in the streets. You also see a mosque standing right next door to an ashram. Yes, there have been a few very isolated incidences among extremists. But they have been quickly condemned by the government and the people.

Even Gandhi himself, a Hindu, would incorporate many different prayers from many different religions. Because he, like those who founded their constitution, believed that you can have respect for and take part in many religions without having to follow their creeds to a 'T' and without having to pass judgement upon them. He understood that we are all different and that we all believe what we believe for a reason. But furthermore, he also realized that we have more in common than we do not - we are all human. And he often focused on the unity of humanity and emphasized how it is so much easier to focus on our oneness instead of our differences.

What say ye?

Why are some more intolerant of others and what is the solution to bring about more interfaith peace and compromise in America and elsewhere?

 

[wynn]

What say ye?

Why are some more intolerant of others and what is the solution to bring about more interfaith peace and compromise in America and elsewhere?

In short:

1. People should take life more seriously, treat it as the struggle for survival that it is.

2. People should mind their own business, and not stick their nose into other people's business.



I think that on the whole, the people in India are highly intolerant and not nearly as empathetic as we in the West are, they treat life as the struggle for survival that it is and are thus more careful about the conflicts they engage in, picking their battles more wisely.
Perhaps paradoxically, the effect of this is that they appear more tolerant.

I think that interfaith dialogue and education about world religions are misguided efforts; they do not bring about greater tolerance, just the opposite.

 

[Adstar]

If we can, I'd like to get into the psychology and the theology of why it is seemingly difficult for people to accept other faith traditions outside of their own.

For example, it's common to see Muslims taking action against Christians. It's common to see Christians taking actions against, well... everyone else. It's common to see Atheists taking action against religion in general.

Why is it so difficult to simply accept that other people have a different faith and be able to go on with our lives instead of challenging and attempting to change their faith?

My personal opinion is that we all, myself included, could learn from India.

India has a highly secular constitution and government in which the term "secular" doesn't have the same implications as it does here in the west. Here, the highly religious view secularism as a threat because they believe that our morals and ethics come from God. By separating their God from their government, they believe that morals and ethics will disappear as well. However in India, from what I've understood, secularism means accepting and respecting all faiths while not combining the policies of their government with the dogmas of any one faith tradition. This is also what I feel the founding fathers of the U.S. had intended for our country.

This is why we see in India Muslims living peacefully next to Hindus, Christians, and even a few Atheists and so forth with very little social conflict or anxiety. In the public square, you see people of all faiths exhibiting their faith in the streets. You also see a mosque standing right next door to an ashram. Yes, there have been a few very isolated incidences among extremists. But they have been quickly condemned by the government and the people.

Even Gandhi himself, a Hindu, would incorporate many different prayers from many different religions. Because he, like those who founded their constitution, believed that you can have respect for and take part in many religions without having to follow their creeds to a 'T' and without having to pass judgement upon them. He understood that we are all different and that we all believe what we believe for a reason. But furthermore, he also realized that we have more in common than we do not - we are all human. And he often focused on the unity of humanity and emphasized how it is so much easier to focus on our oneness instead of our differences.

What say ye?

Why are some more intolerant of others and what is the solution to bring about more interfaith peace and compromise in America and elsewhere?

I say your a mushroom kept in the dark and fed of propoganda shit if you believe that hinudus don't practice vile persecution of Christians in India.

It sickens me to read lying garbage like this from people like you.

Here watch some truth:

My beloved Brothers in Jesus.
http://sciforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2897541


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Thoreau]

I say your a mushroom kept in the dark and fed of propoganda shit if you believe that hinudus don't practice vile persecution of Christians in India.

It sickens me to read lying garbage like this from people like you.

Here watch some truth:

My beloved Brothers in Jesus.
http://sciforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2897541


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

And I say you make judgements on far more things than you actually know. And your link didn't do anything except for re-route me to the edit page.

Lastly, I'd love to see what the hell you're talking about as far as "propoganda". This is all from my own research and observations.

As far as the anti-Christian violence, please do your research before flying to extremes. Nearly all of the anti-Christian violence by Hindus were by Hindu Nationalists (the Hindu equivelant to Islam's Al-Qaeda). They make up for only 7% of the Hindu population. So, you are very wrong to generalize all Hindus for the acts of a few crazies.


But that's seems to be the common theme among the religious, from what I've noticed. They're so willing to blame an entire religion for the acts of a few. But when the tables turn and someone who's Christian does something morally wrong (see Oslo bombing/shooting for example), you'll go so far as to even denounce his Christianity.

 

[Thoreau]

I think that interfaith dialogue and education about world religions are misguided efforts; they do not bring about greater tolerance, just the opposite.

I disagree with this. A lot of good can come from interfaith dialogues. It allows people to come together, ask questions, and walk away with a better understanding of the beliefs of others. If ignorance breeds hate, and if knowledge kills ignorance, then I'm all for people being educated on other faiths.

HOWEVER, I will say that I think the structure and methodology should shift a bit. It seems like so may religious leaders go to great lengths to avoid confrontation during these dialogues that they often mislead people to believe certain things that aren't true.

I think they should have a knock-down, drag-out, full scaled debate and be honest about it. If a Muslim thinks a Jew's beliefs are stupid, then I want to hear it. I don't want to hear this PC crap that we get fed now like "Well, we are just different". It doesn't resolve anything and no better understanding comes from it. They often make as much peace as they can at the conference and then go back to their normal flaming selves afterwards.

Religion isn't often pretty. There's a lot of hatred in many beliefs. I think that they need to start voicing that hatred and WORKING through it.

 

[kx000]

Bigotry is the answer /thread

 

[spidergoat]

I think most atheists do respect the rights of people to believe what they want. Where we have a problem with religion is where it tries to insert it's faith positions into government policy. India is certainly no paragon of secular virtue, it's full of sectarian conflict.

 

[pjdude1219]

If we can, I'd like to get into the psychology and the theology of why it is seemingly difficult for people to accept other faith traditions outside of their own.

For example, it's common to see Muslims taking action against Christians. It's common to see Christians taking actions against, well... everyone else. It's common to see Atheists taking action against religion in general.

Why is it so difficult to simply accept that other people have a different faith and be able to go on with our lives instead of challenging and attempting to change their faith?

My personal opinion is that we all, myself included, could learn from India.

India has a highly secular constitution and government in which the term "secular" doesn't have the same implications as it does here in the west. Here, the highly religious view secularism as a threat because they believe that our morals and ethics come from God. By separating their God from their government, they believe that morals and ethics will disappear as well. However in India, from what I've understood, secularism means accepting and respecting all faiths while not combining the policies of their government with the dogmas of any one faith tradition. This is also what I feel the founding fathers of the U.S. had intended for our country.

This is why we see in India Muslims living peacefully next to Hindus, Christians, and even a few Atheists and so forth with very little social conflict or anxiety. In the public square, you see people of all faiths exhibiting their faith in the streets. You also see a mosque standing right next door to an ashram. Yes, there have been a few very isolated incidences among extremists. But they have been quickly condemned by the government and the people.

Even Gandhi himself, a Hindu, would incorporate many different prayers from many different religions. Because he, like those who founded their constitution, believed that you can have respect for and take part in many religions without having to follow their creeds to a 'T' and without having to pass judgement upon them. He understood that we are all different and that we all believe what we believe for a reason. But furthermore, he also realized that we have more in common than we do not - we are all human. And he often focused on the unity of humanity and emphasized how it is so much easier to focus on our oneness instead of our differences.

What say ye?

Why are some more intolerant of others and what is the solution to bring about more interfaith peace and compromise in America and elsewhere?

hate to break it to you but indians are just as big of assholes as everyone else.

 

[Big Chiller]

Yeah lol maybe he doesn't look into the international news from time to time.

 

[spidergoat]

Where is S.A.M. anyway? Did she get a boyfriend?

 

[wynn]

I disagree with this. A lot of good can come from interfaith dialogues. It allows people to come together, ask questions, and walk away with a better understanding of the beliefs of others.

Interfaith dialogue might make one feel better about interfaith issues, but there seems to be no guarantee that it will promote tolerance.

When some people tell you that they sacrifice 10 newborns yearly so as to get better crops, and when they explain to you why they believe that - do you really believe this will make you "understand them better" and be more tolerant to them?
And some Christians can explain to you to great lengths why they believe homosexuals are bad and should be stoned - but that isn't going to make you respect them or get along with them.

If ignorance breeds hate, and if knowledge kills ignorance, then I'm all for people being educated on other faiths.

Ignorance of what exactly is it that breeds hate?



To blankly state that "ignorance breeds hate" is to state that people are by nature hateful, and that unless they are educated, they hate.
This is hardly a hopeful outlook, as it expects people to act against their nature. And one cannot really act against one's nature. If one could, it wouldn't be one's nature.

 

[Adstar]

And I say you make judgements on far more things than you actually know. And your link didn't do anything except for re-route me to the edit page.

Lastly, I'd love to see what the hell you're talking about as far as "propoganda". This is all from my own research and observations.

As far as the anti-Christian violence, please do your research before flying to extremes. Nearly all of the anti-Christian violence by Hindus were by Hindu Nationalists (the Hindu equivelant to Islam's Al-Qaeda). They make up for only 7% of the Hindu population. So, you are very wrong to generalize all Hindus for the acts of a few crazies.


But that's seems to be the common theme among the religious, from what I've noticed. They're so willing to blame an entire religion for the acts of a few. But when the tables turn and someone who's Christian does something morally wrong (see Oslo bombing/shooting for example), you'll go so far as to even denounce his Christianity.

You where pedaling a lie that all religions where accepted in India and it is a perfect example of peace and acceptance. You failed to mention that truth. Only now after being shown to be a liar you accept that some Hindus attack and kill Christians. But i suggest you also look back at recent history and take an honest look at the persecution of muslims in India. many thousands of muslims where killed by hindu mobs during the partition of india in to Pakistan and Bangladesh.

So stop pedaling your brain washed myopic view of hundus and india.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[kx000]

Christians blow up hospitals.

 

[Thoreau]

You where pedaling a lie that all religions where accepted in India and it is a perfect example of peace and acceptance. You failed to mention that truth. Only now after being shown to be a liar you accept that some Hindus attack and kill Christians. But i suggest you also look back at recent history and take an honest look at the persecution of muslims in India. many thousands of muslims where killed by hindu mobs during the partition of india in to Pakistan and Bangladesh.

So stop pedaling your brain washed myopic view of hundus and india.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Under their consitution, they are. And in many parts of the country, there is still peace among and community among all three religions. Unfortunately, corrupt and biased politicians have since then gained power and hasn't helped ease the tensions at all in violent areas. Get your facts right. Learn basic grammar while you're at it. I'm fairly certain the where/were/we're lesson was covered in grade school.

I never DIDN'T accept it, you religious nut. There has been anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, and anti-Hindu violence throughout the past 20 years. But again, find me one example where the violence wasn't committed but small-time, extremist, minority fringe groups. And here's another fact for you: The majority of the riots have been started by Muslims. They want to impose Sharia Law in India. Ever since the beginning of the Ayodhya dispute, (a product started by Hindu extremists - a minority), it has been nonstop retaliation and constant violence since then. YOU fail to see that. You keep generalizing Hindus and fail to look at the situation objectively. I've never denied or ignored any facts in this discussion. I look at all sides. You, however, fail to do so. You clearly have some sort of bias against Hindu people.

So, please, shut up with your anti-Hindu crap and start acknowledging ALL sides of the discussion - including the FACT that the violence is caused by extremist groups, not the population as a whole. Also, begin to acknowledge the fact that the majority of both Hindu and Muslim people in India and Pakistan want peace. This has been seen throughout numerous polls over the years.

If anyone here is the liar, it's you because you fail to acknowledge and accept all sides of the truth. Have you even been to India? I'm willing to bet not. STFU.

 

[Grumpy]

I say a pox on all of their houses. RELIGION is the problem, you are just arguing about which one is the problem at the present time. The answer, of course, is ALL of them.

 

[Adstar]

Under their consitution, they are. And in many parts of the country, there is still peace among and community among all three religions.

LOL under their constitution? I don't care for constitutions a lot of nations have flowery constitutions with a nice sounding affirmations in them but the Reality on the ground is different. Ha North Korea's constitution garentees the human rights of it's people LOL .. Are you such a nieave moron that you actually believe nations are true to their constitutions? Wake up.

Unfortunately, corrupt and biased politicians have since then gained power and hasn't helped ease the tensions at all in violent areas. Get your facts right. Learn basic grammar while you're at it. I'm fairly certain the where/were/we're lesson was covered in grade school.

Typical. Cannot defeat the others arguement so you turn on the person.

I never DIDN'T accept it, you religious nut. There has been anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, and anti-Hindu violence throughout the past 20 years.

Yeahhh a little bit of truth out of you. But you had to call me a nut. No i am not a Nut i am RIGHT.

But again, find me one example where the violence wasn't committed but small-time, extremist, minority fringe groups.

Ha.. You stated yourself that The perpetrators of the persecution of Christians in India where the "Hindu Nationalists" and you stated that they made up 7% of the Indian population. Can you figure out basic maths? Do you know what the population of India is? Do you have any real knowledge.

The population of India going on 2010 figures is 1156 million people.

7% of the population is 80,982,844 people. A small fringe group?? 80 million people fringe group? man you say the most unwise things.

And here's another fact for you: The majority of the riots have been started by Muslims. They want to impose Sharia Law in India.

You must be an indian hindu right? Only a brain washed indian hindu would believe that the minority muslims in india start the riots.

Ever since the beginning of the Ayodhya dispute, (a product started by Hindu extremists - a minority),

LOL an 80 million minority by your figures. Who tore down the mosque of Ayodhya in one of the most blatant displays of hindu hate and bigotry recorded for the world to see. Note they still occupy the site. The indian government still has not rebuilt the mosque and restored the area to the muslims. WHAT DOES THAT TELL THE WORLD????

This is a bullet list of what has happened at Ayodhya over the past 18 Years yeah that little group of extremists have occupied the place for 19 years.


From BBC News South Asia http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11436552

1992: The mosque is torn down by supporters of the VHP, the Shiv Sena party and the BJP, prompting nationwide rioting between Hindus and Muslims in which more than 2,000 people die.

1998: The BJP forms coalition government under Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

2001: Tensions rise on the anniversary of the demolition of the mosque. VHP pledges again to build Hindu temple at the site.

Jan 2002: Mr Vajpayee sets up an Ayodhya cell in his office and appoints a senior official, Shatrughna Singh, to hold talks with Hindu and Muslim leaders.

Feb 2002: BJP rules out committing itself to the construction of a temple in its election manifesto for Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. VHP confirms deadline of 15 March to begin construction. Hundreds of volunteers converge on site. At least 58 people are killed in an attack on a train in Godhra which is carrying Hindu activists returning from Ayodhya.

Mar 2002: Between 1,000 and 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, die in riots in Gujarat following the train attack.

Apr 2002: Three High Court judges begin hearings on determining who owns the religious site.

Jan 2003: Archaeologists begin a court-ordered survey to find out whether a temple to Lord Ram existed on the site.

Aug 2003: The survey says there is evidence of a temple beneath the mosque, but Muslims dispute the findings. Mr Vajpayee says at the funeral of Hindu activist Ramchandra Das Paramhans that he will fulfil the dying man's wishes and build a temple at Ayodhya. However, he hopes the courts and negotiations will solve the issue.

Sept 2003: A court rules that seven Hindu leaders should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque, but no charges are brought against Mr Advani, now deputy prime minister, who was also at the site in 1992.

Oct 2004: Mr Advani says his party still has "unwavering" commitment to building a temple at Ayodhya, which he said was "inevitable".

Nov 2004: A court in Uttar Pradesh rules that an earlier order which exonerated Mr Advani for his role in the destruction of the mosque should be reviewed.

July 2005: Suspected Islamic militants attack the disputed site, using a jeep laden with explosives to blow a hole in the wall of the complex. Security forces kill five people they say are militants, and a sixth who was not immediately identified.

June 2009: The Liberhan commission investigating events leading up to the mosque's demolition submits its report - 17 years after it began its inquiry.

Nov 2009: There is uproar in parliament as the Liberhan commission's report is published and it blames leading politicians from the Hindu nationalist BJP for a role in the mosque's razing.

Sept 2010: Allahabad High Court rules that the site should be split, with the Muslim community getting control of a third, Hindus another third and the Nirmohi Akhara sect the remainder. Control of the main disputed section, where the mosque was torn down, is given to Hindus. A lawyer for the Muslim community says he will appeal.

So after 18 Years the indian court says well we will give you muslims one third of the site that was stolen off you back and we will reward the extremists for their violence and bigotry. Seems your little bunch of extremists have a great deal of support in India.....

YOU fail to see that. You keep generalizing Hindus and fail to look at the situation objectively.

Your the one that produced the OP with all it's Bull excrement about india and hindus being the very picture of loving respect for other faiths.

I know whats going on in your supposed paradise and it is an affront to me to read such garbage being put forward as truth.

I've never denied or ignored any facts in this discussion. I look at all sides. You, however, fail to do so. You clearly have some sort of bias against Hindu people.

I got a bias against you. I got a bias against out and out lying propagandists who try to tell the uninformed the exact opposite to the actual situation on the ground.

So, please, shut up with your anti-Hindu crap and start acknowledging ALL sides of the discussion - including the FACT that the violence is caused by extremist groups, not the population as a whole. Also, begin to acknowledge the fact that the majority of both Hindu and Muslim people in India and Pakistan want peace. This has been seen throughout numerous polls over the years.

If anyone here is the liar, it's you because you fail to acknowledge and accept all sides of the truth. Have you even been to India? I'm willing to bet not. STFU.

Ha. I think i have done enough to destroy your OP propaganda piece. You can go to town throwing mud at me. But you have been shown to be a liar. Get the Message. I am not a mushroom and i don't put up with people trying to feed me excrement.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Thoreau]

Ha.. You stated yourself that The perpetrators of the persecution of Christians in India where the "Hindu Nationalists" and you stated that they made up 7% of the Indian population. Can you figure out basic maths? Do you know what the population of India is? Do you have any real knowledge.

The population of India going on 2010 figures is 1156 million people.

7% of the population is 80,982,844 people. A small fringe group?? 80 million people fringe group? man you say the most unwise things.

Are you that daft? Read again. PAY ATTENTION!

7% of the HINDU population. Here, let me lay it out for you

India (by your reference) = 1,156,000,000 people

80% Hindu = 924,800,000 Hindus

7% of Hindu Population = 64,726,000


Not that it makes it much better. But in the grand scheme of things, that's 5.5% of the general population.

A small minority if you ask me.

You must be an indian hindu right? Only a brain washed indian hindu would believe that the minority muslims in india start the riots.

Wrong again. I'm a white American male of Scottish and German heritage who's not Hindu.

LOL an 80 million minority by your figures. Who tore down the mosque of Ayodhya in one of the most blatant displays of hindu hate and bigotry recorded for the world to see. Note they still occupy the site. The indian government still has not rebuilt the mosque and restored the area to the muslims. WHAT DOES THAT TELL THE WORLD????

Do you even know why they tore down the mosque? Apparently not.

Your the one that produced the OP with all it's Bull excrement about india and hindus being the very picture of loving respect for other faiths.

I know whats going on in your supposed paradise and it is an affront to me to read such garbage being put forward as truth.

You know what's going on and yet you've never been there, I'm assuming.

I got a bias against you. I got a bias against out and out lying propagandists who try to tell the uninformed the exact opposite to the actual situation on the ground.

Well, isn't that just a shame then, huh? You're still not even bothering to recognize the peaceful areas of India. In the words of the great Alanis, isn't that ironic?

Ha. I think i have done enough to destroy your OP propaganda piece. You can go to town throwing mud at me. But you have been shown to be a liar. Get the Message. I am not a mushroom and i don't put up with people trying to feed me excrement.

Yes, I'm the liar. The guy who recognizes all the facts is the liar instead of the guy who can't see beyond his own nose. That calls for another

 

[Thoreau]

Also, if Hindus are sooo violent as you make them out to be, explain to me why Himanchal Pradesh (which is 85% Hindu) is the most peaceful state in India and why Kashmir (68% Muslim) is the most violent.

I think it's time to get off of your high horse, honey.

 

[Balerion]

If we can, I'd like to get into the psychology and the theology of why it is seemingly difficult for people to accept other faith traditions outside of their own.

For example, it's common to see Muslims taking action against Christians. It's common to see Christians taking actions against, well... everyone else. It's common to see Atheists taking action against religion in general.

Why is it so difficult to simply accept that other people have a different faith and be able to go on with our lives instead of challenging and attempting to change their faith?

My personal opinion is that we all, myself included, could learn from India.

India has a highly secular constitution and government in which the term "secular" doesn't have the same implications as it does here in the west. Here, the highly religious view secularism as a threat because they believe that our morals and ethics come from God. By separating their God from their government, they believe that morals and ethics will disappear as well. However in India, from what I've understood, secularism means accepting and respecting all faiths while not combining the policies of their government with the dogmas of any one faith tradition. This is also what I feel the founding fathers of the U.S. had intended for our country.

This is why we see in India Muslims living peacefully next to Hindus, Christians, and even a few Atheists and so forth with very little social conflict or anxiety. In the public square, you see people of all faiths exhibiting their faith in the streets. You also see a mosque standing right next door to an ashram. Yes, there have been a few very isolated incidences among extremists. But they have been quickly condemned by the government and the people.

Even Gandhi himself, a Hindu, would incorporate many different prayers from many different religions. Because he, like those who founded their constitution, believed that you can have respect for and take part in many religions without having to follow their creeds to a 'T' and without having to pass judgement upon them. He understood that we are all different and that we all believe what we believe for a reason. But furthermore, he also realized that we have more in common than we do not - we are all human. And he often focused on the unity of humanity and emphasized how it is so much easier to focus on our oneness instead of our differences.

What say ye?

Why are some more intolerant of others and what is the solution to bring about more interfaith peace and compromise in America and elsewhere?

I admit I am not well-versed on the temperature of interfaith relations in India, so I can't say for myself if it is quite so warm as you say, but that is actually beside either of the points I wanted to make, so I'll leave it alone. I will say that chalking up all religious violence in the country to extremist groups is probably naive; somehow "extremist group" has become a tag applied to any group that practices violence in the name of their faith or one of its tenants, but given that the justification for such violence is always found within the texts themselves, the "extremist" title is a misnomer.

Anyway, the first thing I wanted to mention was how struck I was by your inclusion of atheists within the examples of Muslims and Christians who "take action" against other groups. Perhaps in your mind this term has a broad meaning, but given the context it reads as if you're saying atheists have committed violence against religious groups. I want to know where this idea comes from, because despite their best efforts, none of today's leading atheists have been able to bring together a significant enough number of free-thinkers to make them politically relevant even on a local level. In other words, there are no groups of atheists for there to be action taken by.

The second point was that the US is actually an outstanding example of peaceful religious co-existence. Obviously Christians make an effort to undermine free-thought and civil liberties, but their efforts are almost exclusively non-violent, and almost always at the expense of the secularist, not someone of another faith.

 

[Thoreau]

SOB! I had type this long ass reply and the page refreshed losing everything.... UGH!!!

F*ck it. In short, this is what I said...

I'm not saying that Atheists are violent - just sometimes intolerant of religion.

I disagree that the US is a good role model as far as religious tolerance.

See links.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/125312/religious-prejudice-stronger-against-muslims.aspx

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...s-are-more-bloodthirsty-than-muslims-athiests

Though the tension in the US among different faiths rarely leads to violence, there is still a constant undertone of intolerance which I witness daily.