Religious Tolerance

M

Mr.Spock

Back from the dead
Valued Senior Member
S.A.M. said:
Yes that is exactly what it is- a secular government with representatives from all religions.

Now do you see why I get so frustrated when people malign Islam or Mohammed ? This is the system of government set up 1400 years ago.

The only thing wrong with Islam is the people who practise it. :(
Click to expand...


what do you think is the basis for religious tolerance? and why there are religious individuals that cant practice it?
 
Mr.Spock said:
what do you think is the basis for religious tolerance?
Click to expand...
an understanding of god's universal aspect that transcends issue of culture, geography etc

and why there are religious individuals that cant practice it?
Click to expand...
... in short

SB 10.84.13: One who identifies his self as the inert body composed of mucus, bile and air, who assumes his wife and family are permanently his own, who thinks an earthen image or the land of his birth is worshipable, or who sees a place of pilgrimage as merely the water there, but who never identifies himself with, feels kinship with, worships or even visits those who are wise in spiritual truth — such a person is no better than a cow or an ass.
 
i was talking about religious individuals with no tolerance to other religious individuals of other religions.
 
Mr.Spock said:
what do you think is the basis for religious tolerance? and why there are religious individuals that cant practice it?
Click to expand...

It's a funny word Tolerance.

It is the varying definition of the word that causes problems when it is discussed.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance and respect people.

Tolerance means bearing with, putting up with, suffering something that they are against or offends them.

A holder of one belief can tolerate one who holds to another belief and at the same time work through words and discussion to reveal the falsity of the other belief in an effort to undermine the others belief. Not out of hate for the other but out of disagreement with what the other believes.

Tolerance is only needed when people are in disagreement. You only need to tolerate something that you are against when your main objective is to free the other from the belief that you disagree with. Otherwise you can forgo tolerance of the other and attempt to destroy a belief by destroying all those who hold that belief.

Therefore Christianity teaches tolerance in the true sense of the word, not in the recent twisting of the meaning of the word that has moved the word from it’s true meaning tolerance to acceptance and respect and even admiration. Things that it did not mean and does not mean.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Mr.Spock said:
in that case, i do not understand your point.
Click to expand...


I believe the passage refers to people too enraptured with the material world and the immediate world around them and how this prevents them from acknowledging Gods universal aspect which would probably give them some sort of tolerance for other religous beliefs as most lead back to the one true source anyways.
 
Most religions assert a statement often referred to as the golden rule.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

Note that there are two main variations that are really quite significantly different.

1. Do to others what you would like done to you.

2. Don't do to others what you would not like done to you.

The first one is shared by Christianity and Islam and others and tends to promote the concept of inflicting on others what you think is good for them. It does not reflect tolerance but attempts to persuade and change, by force if needed it seems.

The second is one of true tolerance. It is the one of passivity, of live and let live. Let others believe what they like. E.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, Humanism, Wicca.

I personally like the Wiccan rede - An it harm none, do what thou wilt.

Religious Tolerance comes down to whether you are taught to inflict your views on others, meaning you think the others are wrong and hence a cause of argument and conflict. Or whether you are prepared to let others do their own thing and ignore them.
 
what do you think is the basis for religious tolerance? and why there are religious individuals that cant practice it?
Click to expand...

Religious individuals, representing religions or beliefs (like Adstar) are intolerant of beliefs or faiths that differ from their own. They are under the absolutely certain belief that they, and only they (and perhaps their associated cult) have the key to the truth, and that everyone else is just plain wrong. All this certainty is based on an unseen and non manifested sky daddy. Of course there are innumerable religious individuals from innumerable faiths spread across the globe that hold this same view. How can there possibly be religious tolerance if superstition holds sway over logic and rational thought. Religions have caused and still cause profound division in society. A prime example of the total despicable lunacy in this regard is the Westboro Baptist Church. Their particular brand of hate and intolerance is based on superstition, indoctrination, myths, legends and interpretation thereof. Most other religions represent exactly the same hatred and intolerance.

In a nutshell, the basis for religious intolerance is irrational belief in indemonstrable superstition.

All praise the ancient of Daze.
 
Myuunitarianism accepts all followers.

If they have money.

And/or are hot.
 
lightgigantic said:
SB 10.84.13: One who identifies his self as the inert body composed of mucus, bile and air, who assumes his wife and family are permanently his own, who thinks an earthen image or the land of his birth is worshipable, or who sees a place of pilgrimage as merely the water there, but who never identifies himself with, feels kinship with, worships or even visits those who are wise in spiritual truth — such a person is no better than a cow or an ass.
Click to expand...

Geezuz...is this a woman scorned, a jilted suitor or a pissed off priest? I see lots of places where the 'F' bomb would make it a little more emphatic. Also very gender specific.
 
Last edited:
Cris said:
Most religions assert a statement often referred to as the golden rule.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

Note that there are two main variations that are really quite significantly different.

1. Do to others what you would like done to you.

2. Don't do to others what you would not like done to you.

The first one is shared by Christianity and Islam and others and tends to promote the concept of inflicting on others what you think is good for them. It does not reflect tolerance but attempts to persuade and change, by force if needed it seems.

The second is one of true tolerance. It is the one of passivity, of live and let live. Let others believe what they like. E.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, Humanism, Wicca.
Click to expand...

I believe you've misinterpreted the above-qouted verse (1). It does not mean that you are inflicting others with what you think is good for them. All it means is that you should behave towards people in a way that you would want them to behave towards you. If you wouldn't want something done or said to you, don't do it to someone else. That is the message of this verse.

And the version you cited isn't the greatest either.
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"
 
Essentially what I'm trying to say is, the intent behind verse 1 is the same as in verse 2.
 
Lightgigantic, you're still having to face relentless ad hominems?

Methinks your experience on Sciforums should count towards selfless duty for Krishna.
 
Thank you, my good man. Glad to see you again.

The Religion Forum - or - Ad Hominem Central.
 
As to my position of "religious tolerance" as addressed in the OP:

Religious tolerance consists of the willingness to put aside the option of force. That is to say, to keep disagreement (and indeed all honest religious believers in opposite viewpoints will disagree) from turning violent or to use political power to sanction prejudicial taxation or statuses.

In case you haven't noticed, the majority of the world's religious community are religiously tolerant. Accordingly, to speak of Zealots is almost inappropriate. But why do some of them exist? Because they are of a passionate nature that tends to get hot headed over issues which conflict with their view of the truth. A condition which is not at all common only to the religious, but found in many people who are excessively dogmatical.
 
tim840,

I believe you've misinterpreted the above-qouted verse (1). It does not mean that you are inflicting others with what you think is good for them. All it means is that you should behave towards people in a way that you would want them to behave towards you. If you wouldn't want something done or said to you, don't do it to someone else. That is the message of this verse.

And the version you cited isn't the greatest either.
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"
Click to expand...
Oh I know very well what they are meant to mean, I was referring to how they are implemented in practice.

Christians for example take it to mean they need to actively help people, and on the surface that seems like a good idea. But they believe the best way to help people is to introduce them to God, the ultimate good. This is what they have found for themselves and so must be good for everyone else. The result is proselytizing and preaching and creating governments in the way THEY think is best for others.

The key phrase - DO UNTO OTHERS.. It imposes a need for action. It is not passive and it inherently assumes you know what is good for others based on your own perception. I.e. it is not tolerant of what others think might be best for them.

True tolerance comes from not assuming what others want or what is best for them, but allowing maximum freedom to let others do whatever they wish, providing no harm is done.

This is why the Wiccan rede and its variations is superior to your version with regards to tolerance and a peaceful world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top