• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Religious tolerance

Status
Not open for further replies.

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
I would suggest one problem is that religion and faith covers a very broad range of beliefs:

  • At one end of the scale you have the more progressive Christian churches that contain many thoughtful individuals, and which often do a lot of good in terms of campaigning on issues like poverty. Those churches and individuals happen to believe something about the nature of the Universe and its implications for how we should live our lives that most atheists would disagree with, but that shouldn't be any more than a respectful difference of beliefs.
  • At the other end of the scale you have the right-wing USA mega-churches that have turned Christian faith into a vehicle for supporting Donald Trump, so-called gun-rights, and pushing out swathes of disinformation about science and outright falsehoods about current events. Add to that newer churches outside the traditional denominational organisations in both the UK and the US that seem to have turned faith into a business designed to line the pockets of their self-appointed leaders, and which often preach fairly intolerant messages towards - for example - gays.

I imagine there is a similar spectrum in the Muslim world, though I have less knowledge of that. Realistically, the two ends of the spectrum are very different. One end I would argue really does deserve condemnation (not because of their faith, but because of their unethical practices and pushing out of fake news etc.); the other end of the spectrum does deserve a lot more respect than it tends to be given.

Unfortunately, and understandably, it's often difficult for people outside of any movement to distinguish between often vast differences within that movement - and the result is that people at the more thoughtful/progressive end of religious belief get tarred with a brush that they don't really deserve.
From widespread experience over 25 years, you're absolutely right - a lot of progressive Christianity is really good stuff, with a lot of campaigning for social justice. A classic example was various groups pressuring governments to write off third-world debt. This had a massive impact for good on millions of people, and it was local churches out there campaigning and building up momentum. I also know someone who has benefitted massively from the accommodation the YMCA provide to vulnerable homeless people.

But yes...unfortunately I also got involved with the people you mention in the second category there. While these churches will often present themselves as cutting-edge, radical, exciting, passionate etc., with slick music, big dramatic meetings, and big promises that God will work miracles, they're often hotbeds of extraordinarily hateful and bigoted opinion, and it's there that you'll find homophobia and other prejudice by the bucketload.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,646
Location
Manchester
I would suggest one problem is that religion and faith covers a very broad range of beliefs:

  • At one end of the scale you have the more progressive Christian churches that contain many thoughtful individuals, and which often do a lot of good in terms of campaigning on issues like poverty. Those churches and individuals happen to believe something about the nature of the Universe and its implications for how we should live our lives that most atheists would disagree with, but that shouldn't be any more than a respectful difference of beliefs.
  • At the other end of the scale you have the right-wing USA mega-churches that have turned Christian faith into a vehicle for supporting Donald Trump, so-called gun-rights, and pushing out swathes of disinformation about science and outright falsehoods about current events. Add to that newer churches outside the traditional denominational organisations in both the UK and the US that seem to have turned faith into a business designed to line the pockets of their self-appointed leaders, and which often preach fairly intolerant messages towards - for example - gays.

I imagine there is a similar spectrum in the Muslim world, though I have less knowledge of that. Realistically, the two ends of the spectrum are very different. One end I would argue really does deserve condemnation (not because of their faith, but because of their unethical practices and pushing out of fake news etc.); the other end of the spectrum does deserve a lot more respect than it tends to be given.

Unfortunately, and understandably, it's often difficult for people outside of any movement to distinguish between often vast differences within that movement - and the result is that people at the more thoughtful/progressive end of religious belief get tarred with a brush that they don't really deserve.

Thanks, excellent post!

From widespread experience over 25 years, you're absolutely right - a lot of progressive Christianity is really good stuff, with a lot of campaigning for social justice. A classic example was various groups pressuring governments to write off third-world debt. This had a massive impact for good on millions of people, and it was local churches out there campaigning and building up momentum. I also know someone who has benefitted massively from the accommodation the YMCA provide to vulnerable homeless people.

But yes...unfortunately I also got involved with the people you mention in the second category there. While these churches will often present themselves as cutting-edge, radical, exciting, passionate etc., with slick music, big dramatic meetings, and big promises that God will work miracles, they're often hotbeds of extraordinarily hateful and bigoted opinion, and it's there that you'll find homophobia and other prejudice by the bucketload.

May I ask how you view the Catholic Church in England and Wales in relation to the spectrum?
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
May I ask how you view the Catholic Church in England and Wales in relation to the spectrum?
Not particularly positively, if I'm honest. I think there's a lot of authoritarianism in it that has had profoundly nasty effects in people's lives. My mum was also bullied and abused by nuns who ran the boarding school she attended, and this had a serious effect on her for her entire life. A lot of conservative Catholics are also terrible for the kind of bigotry I've already mentioned, and the church's refusal to accept divorce, abortion, homosexuality and birth control causes widespread misery and actually costs lives.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
May I ask how you view the Catholic Church in England and Wales in relation to the spectrum?

The Catholic church remains a hotbed of bigotry, and will frequently go to considerable lengths to prevent dodgy priests from being held accountable.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
The Catholic church remains a hotbed of bigotry, and will frequently go to considerable lengths to prevent dodgy priests from being held accountable.
If you want an example of how not to do things, read up on the Magdalene laundries. Mainly found in Ireland, of course, but there were a few over here too. The treatment of their inmates - and in most cases they were effectively imprisoned - was absolutely shocking. The Catholic church has a lot of blood on its hands, and as an institution it's incredibly corrupt.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,646
Location
Manchester
Notice how when people demand religious tolerance, what they really mean is tolerance for Christians only...
Not really, I think generalizing all Muslim leaders certain things is just as abhorrent as generalizing all Catholic leaders as certain things.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,640
Location
Northern England
As someone with no religion at all, my opinion on this is extremely simple: people can have whatever religion they like, as long as (a) they don't use it as an excuse to discriminate on any grounds and (b) they don't try to force it on me.

I was stopped by some people trying to convert me to Christianity once, who refused to let me continue walking until I had taken one of their business cards which they claimed contained important information from God.
I felt that it would be overly antagonistic to ask them why the all-powerful creator of the universe felt the need to distribute business cards; said card did however go straight in the nearest litter bin.

Note that I don't believe there is anything wrong with believing that there is a God, or indeed holding any other religious belief - I just object to unsolicited attempts to convince me of the same, especially when I feel like I am being imprisoned in the process.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Insert [name of One True Faith] here.

But it is notable that even though religions normally don't get on with each other (or at best have an uneasy truce) the ones they really dislike are atheists, and will band together against this common enemy. They also tend to conflate atheism with secularism, when they are not the same thing (secularism is about removing or reducing religious influence on society, and actually some more moderate religious believers are also secularists).

What most people don't realise is just how disproportionate the power and influence of the CofE is though - it is an established state church (most countries don't have one of those any more, particularly western countries), and by right has 26 seats in the House of Lords reserved for bishops. Its governance system is also heavily entwined with the legal system of the country. This all means that it can exert considerable political pressure, especially in cases where votes in the HoL are going to be close, and is very well placed to avoid scrutiny and to head off any attempts to make it more accountable.

And how many people regularly (at least once a month) attend CofE services? Last figures I saw it was less than 2%. It is unfortunate that disestablishment doesn't seem to be of interest to any of the main political parties because this continued influence is in no way justified given the small (and constantly falling) number of people who actually have anything to do with the CofE.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,646
Location
Manchester
But it is notable that even though religions normally don't get on with each other (or at best have an uneasy truce) the ones they really dislike are atheists, and will band together against this common enemy. They also tend to conflate atheism with secularism, when they are not the same thing (secularism is about removing or reducing religious influence on society, and actually some more moderate religious believers are also secularists).

What most people don't realise is just how disproportionate the power and influence of the CofE is though - it is an established state church (most countries don't have one of those any more, particularly western countries), and by right has 26 seats in the House of Lords reserved for bishops. Its governance system is also heavily entwined with the legal system of the country. This all means that it can exert considerable political pressure, especially in cases where votes in the HoL are going to be close, and is very well placed to avoid scrutiny and to head of any attempts to make it more accountable.

And how many people regularly (at least once a month) attend CofE services? Last figures I saw it was less than 2%. It is unfortunate that disestablishment doesn't seem to be of interest to any of the main political parties because this continued influence is in no way justified given the small (and constantly falling) number of people who actually have anything to do with the CofE.

This is one thing you can say for the Catholic Church, that a decent proportion of it's members attend Mass regularly, compared with the CofE.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
This is one thing you can say for the Catholic Church, that a decent proportion of it's members attend Mass regularly, compared with the CofE.

A lot of people (especially older people) just put 'CofE' by default on forms because that's what they see as the norm - they aren't actually members of the CofE in any meaningful sense. With any other religion or denomination it is more a conscious choice.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,689
Location
Scotland
Notice how when people demand religious tolerance, what they really mean is tolerance for Christians only...
I think it's because for many they're actually harking back to the days where Christianity was the establishment religion and got special treatment. Rather than tolerance what they actually want is deference.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,397
Location
UK
This is one thing you can say for the Catholic Church, that a decent proportion of it's members attend Mass regularly, compared with the CofE.

Isn't that just another generalisation.

How many catholics are actually 'practicing' catholics and how many just play lip service when in church and see going to mass as a tick box for their religion ? I also worry that many people have a tendency to worship the church rather than God.

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them."
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,689
Location
Scotland
Isn't that just another generalisation.
I'd say one that's supported by observation: people who self-identify with a particular denomination are more likely to be actively involved in their church (e.g. attend service at least semi-regularly) than people who identify as generic Christian (which, in the UK at least, normally means Anglican/Episcopalian).
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,397
Location
UK
I'd say one that's supported by observation: people who self-identify with a particular denomination are more likely to be actively involved in their church (e.g. attend service at least semi-regularly) than people who identify as generic Christian (which, in the UK at least, normally means Anglican/Episcopalian).

Oh yes I quite agree too. However, I find that some people will say that others are generalising and using stereotypes when they are also doing the exact same. I also find that some religions are more pious than others but in the spirit of this thread you also find those self same people are less tollerant than others when their piety isn't the same.


Matthew 7:1-3

7 “Do not judge other people. Then you will not be judged. 2 You will be judged in the same way you judge others. You will be measured in the same way you measure others.

3 “You look at the bit of sawdust in your friend’s eye. But you pay no attention to the piece of wood in your own eye.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,025
Location
No longer here
As much as I loath intolerance of any type, religions can hardly be described as bastions of tolerance can they?
Neither could a number of minority groups, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t extend the benefit of tolerance to them.
As this thread aptly demonstrates, intolerance isn’t the sole preserve of religion.

I think it's because for many they're actually harking back to the days where Christianity was the establishment religion and got special treatment. Rather than tolerance what they actually want is deference.
It seems to me that it’s the Right Thing to defend the rights of others to unquestionably hold whichever identity they feel best fits them; whether it be race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality etc. Why is the same courtesy not extended to religion?
 
Last edited:

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
It seems to me that it’s the Right Thing to defend the rights of others to unquestionably hold whichever identity they feel best fits them; whether it be race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality etc. Why is the same courtesy not extended to religion?
I think religion is given a decent amount of tolerance and respect, but in recent years, people have rightly questioned whether religious organisations should be setting the agenda for non-believers, and that influence has been lost. This is what a lot of church leaders don't like - they no longer have the influence over wider society they once did.

As someone who was once a very committed evangelical Christian, and is now an atheist, I recognise the damage authoritarian Christian leaders can do, and personally I think this loss of influence is a positive thing. Christians in the UK have a huge amount of freedom and probably more protection under the law than many other groups, and so I'm not going to entertain the idea that they're "persecuted". Most Christians who claim that they are are just angry that they can't be openly homophobic any more.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,689
Location
Scotland
It seems to me that it’s the Right Thing to defend the rights of others to unquestionably hold whichever identity they feel best fits them; whether it be race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality etc. Why is the same courtesy not extended to religion?
Would you be kind enough to provide examples of people not being allowed to hold their preferred religious viewpoint?
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,025
Location
No longer here
Would you be kind enough to provide examples of people not being allowed to hold their preferred religious viewpoint?
That’s not what I’m on about. I am specifically referring to the idea that it seems to me that it’s Good and Proper to allow people to hold and express whichever identity they choose (for example race, sexuality, gender) without being questioned as to whether that identity is sincere.
What you said is that some people who identify as CofE actually want deference. I can’t see any real evidence for that and I dare say that questioning someone’s stated identity (especially where that identity is a protected characteristic in law) and also implying that they hold the identity insincerely and perhaps even for personal benefit is not something that would happen for anything other than religious belief.


EDIT: sorry, forget that - I misread which post you were referring to (thought it was the one directly above, about census forms). Strike my contribution from the discussion!
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,993
Location
here to eternity
Neither could a number of minority groups, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t extend the benefit of tolerance to them.
As this thread aptly demonstrates, intolerance isn’t the sole preserve of religion.

Tolerance should indeed be extended to religious groups - provided they reciprocate.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Tolerance should indeed be extended to religious groups - provided they reciprocate.
Yeah - any group willing to label people they disapprove of as Satanic abominations shouldn't be surprised if they get a certain amount of flak thrown back at them.
 

52290

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2015
Messages
547
But it is notable that even though religions normally don't get on with each other (or at best have an uneasy truce) the ones they really dislike are atheists, and will band together against this common enemy. They also tend to conflate atheism with secularism, when they are not the same thing (secularism is about removing or reducing religious influence on society, and actually some more moderate religious believers are also secularists).

What most people don't realise is just how disproportionate the power and influence of the CofE is though - it is an established state church (most countries don't have one of those any more, particularly western countries), and by right has 26 seats in the House of Lords reserved for bishops. Its governance system is also heavily entwined with the legal system of the country. This all means that it can exert considerable political pressure, especially in cases where votes in the HoL are going to be close, and is very well placed to avoid scrutiny and to head off any attempts to make it more accountable.

And how many people regularly (at least once a month) attend CofE services? Last figures I saw it was less than 2%. It is unfortunate that disestablishment doesn't seem to be of interest to any of the main political parties because this continued influence is in no way justified given the small (and constantly falling) number of people who actually have anything to do with the CofE.
As a church going Anglican it wouldn't worry me if the 26 bishops were booted out of the House of Lords provided the other 800 unelected peers were also chucked out.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
Throughout the history of religions, there has been intolerance. Hatred or distrust of people with different beliefs. Romans murdered Christians; Catholics murdered Protestants & vice versa; Christians murdered Jews, etc., etc.

But often it arises from leaders - bishops, popes, etc., afraid that "the established order" might be threatened -- or more likely- "if things change, my income / influence might decline and/or my cushy lifestyle might change for the worse."
So, for example, the bishops opposed availability of English - language bibles for the peasantry, in case the peasants might be able to argue with the bishops about the meaning of scriptures. Indeed the bishops considered the threat so great that they connived in the murder of the language translators. Thousands of women were accused of being witches, and murdered, often with the support of bishops & clergy, often because they had unusual talents, or did not act like dedicate Christians (and in some cases simply because they had disagreements with influential neighbours.)

And then there is a class who, for their own agendas or motives, claim to be religious, but distort the religious teachings / beliefs to justify murdering anyone who disagrees with them.

Ok - the majority of religious believers are decent hard working people, but it only needs a handful of intolerant, influential leaders to cause havoc.
Although politics rather than religion, the rise to power of people like Trump shows how easy it can be for intolerance to be propagated.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,022
Location
SE London
Throughout the history of religions, there has been intolerance. Hatred or distrust of people with different beliefs. Romans murdered Christians; Catholics murdered Protestants & vice versa; Christians murdered Jews, etc., etc.

But often it arises from leaders - bishops, popes, etc., afraid that "the established order" might be threatened -- or more likely- "if things change, my income / influence might decline and/or my cushy lifestyle might change for the worse."

All that is true. But it is also true that, throughout the history of the World there has been intolerance. Romans murdering and enslaving 'barbarians'. Genghis Khan. Communists in Russia murdering dissenters. Facists in various countries in then 1930s and 1940s murdering anyone who opposed them. Apartheid in South Africa. The cultural revolution in China. And of course since 'secular' Governments became commonplace in the 20th century, there have also been instances of ideologically-atheist Governments persecuting religious believers (Communist Russia again, China and the Uighurs, etc.)

So the question is, is it fair to single out religion for historical intolerance? How much historical intolerance was caused by religion, and how much was it a case of, people using religion to justify intolerance that they would've had anyway (particularly prior to the 19th century when for all sorts of cultural and historical reasons, most rulers tended to act notionally in the name of religion whatever they were doing).
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
So the question is, is it fair to single out religion for historical intolerance? How much historical intolerance was caused by religion, and how much was it a case of, people using religion to justify intolerance that they would've had anyway (particularly prior to the 19th century when for all sorts of cultural and historical reasons, most rulers tended to act notionally in the name of religion whatever they were doing).

I think the point is that the major religions claim to be about peace as one of thier core tenets, yet throughout history they have been heavily involved in wars and conflicts (particularly so in the case of Christianity and Islam) - they simply do not practice what they preach.

Of course the point above about most religious people being basically decent is no doubt true - but in many cases they tend to take what their religious leaders tell them as the truth without questioning it, and that is dangerous as it alllows leaders with an agenda to easily stir up opposition to whoever they don't like.

I have encountered CofE clerics at all levels, and I would say that those I would regard as decent, well-meaning people have almost all been at the lower levels, and in most cases with no ambitions to climb the greasy pole. At the higher levels, you tend to find people who want to play politics (mostly but now not exclusively men), who don't mind who they trample on if it suits their purpose to do so.
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,412
Location
Farnham
I’m not saying religion shouldn’t be respected; of course it should, but for those saying it’s the same thing - a belief is a belief, and a choice. Sexuality or gender is not a choice.
 

cb a1

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Messages
350
A perspective from my younger days. I spent a couple of years teaching in the developing country. Four of my 5th form students wanted to take part in a science competition so we would meet after school to progress their idea.

The four students comprised two christians, one muslim and one hindu, with me as their atheist teacher. One day conversation turned to religion and I explained I was an atheist and all four of them could not comprehend how I could have no religion. They had no problem with people believing in a different version of god or gods, but the absence of belief in someone wasn't something they'd personally encountered.

Somewhat ironically, the conversation did expose some intolerance and that was between the two christian students who disapproved (lightly) of the way each other worshipped their christian god.

More generally in the school, it was notable that the vast majority of pupils were more than happy to enjoy everyone else's religious festivals be that Christmas, Easter, Eid, Holi, Diwali, etc. From an external observer, my favourite was Diwali - watching people spinning steel wool dipped in parafin and set alight was both stunning and scary (e.g.
).
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
769
Reading that it is LGBT+ history month, I was thinking about why it seems there isn't the same level of acceptance or respect for people's religion or faith, particularly in this country? And when/if is this likely to change?

Progress has been made in moving away from homophobic language/behaviour within the last 50 years, more so in the last 20; currently racism is in the spotlight and hopefully this too is firmly moving in the right direction even if there is still a long way to go; sexism including women's rights made a lot of progress in the 20th century; mental health is receiving greater support and coverage now than it was before, partly helped by the pandemic. But as far as religion is concerned, it feels, if anything, like things are going slowly in the wrong direction.

A person's faith, or lack of, is something that is personal to them. However, there does seem to be an undercurrent in this country of either ridicule, unease, or even just general resentment towards people of just about all religions or faiths; and currently not a huge amount seems to be being done to stand up to it from the powers that be. I won't go into some of the more unsavoury examples but a broader theme is that people who believe in God are 'crazy', 'not living in the real world' etc. If similar questioning/ridiculing statements were made across social media towards a footballer who announced they were gay, or if an MP came out with homophobic comments in the commons, then the people making the discriminatory remarks would be hung, drawn and quartered. But when it comes to religion, particularly towards Christianity, it feels like there is more tolerance to discrimination against people with these beliefs.


Any adult prepared to believe fairy stories about talking snakes and donkeys deserves every criticism going. Calling it a religion doesn't lessen the ignorance of their beliefs.

People are born with their sexual preferences. Religion has to be taught.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,646
Location
Manchester
Any adult prepared to believe fairy stories about talking snakes and donkeys deserves every criticism going. Calling it a religion doesn't lessen the ignorance of their beliefs.

People are born with their sexual preferences. Religion has to be taught.

This is a good example of the theme of this thread. Ignorant, course and inaccurate are good words to describe your post. Faith is a personal belief, not a something that has to be taught.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top