Religious tolerance

[py_megapixel]

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

It is both.
Nobody is born believing that a God exists, or not. Something has to teach them that. In religious families this will happen from a very young age - however, it does not negate the fact that it has been taught.

Edit: I should clarify that it isn't always taught at a young age. Some people convert to a religion much later in life - but they have still chosen to do so, and have been taught about it by someone.

 

[Philip]

It is both.
Nobody is born believing that a God exists, or not. Something has to teach them that. In religious families this will happen from a very young age - however, it does not negate the fact that it has been taught.

Edit: I should clarify that it isn't always taught at a young age. Some people convert to a religion much later in life - but they have still chosen to do so, and have been taught about it by someone.

If someone converts to a religion or starts believing in God later in life, it doesn't necessarily mean it must have been taught to them. It may simply be a path someone has chosen to take, or a spiritual experience, or an act of kindness/love they have witnessed or experienced which pushes them towards God.

 

[py_megapixel]

If someone converts to a religion or starts believing in God later in life, it doesn't necessarily mean it must have been taught to them. It may simply be a path someone chooses to take, or a spiritual experience, or an act of kindness/love they have witnessed or experienced which pushes them towards God.

Perhaps "taught" is the wrong word then. Something has had to convince them of the existence of God. That could be through teaching, and there are of course the other factors you describe.

The point is that it is extremely different to race, gender or sexual orientation, as these are things which one is born with and cannot change. Nothing has to convince someone who is gay that they are gay for them to be gay - they simply are, and if they are unconvinced of the fact, the basic fact is not negated.

In contrast, it is necessary for something to convince someone that a religion is the correct path for them.

Now, I'm not arguing for blanket discrimination based on religion. As I said earlier, I am happy for anyone to hold whatever religion they feel is right, as long as it isn't enforced on me as well. I simply think that it is slightly misinformed to conflate religion with gender/sexual orientation.

 

[102 fan]

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.

Are you actually saying a talking snake and donkey AREN'T in the bible? Anybody can have a faith, but if it involves stupidity dressed as a religion, its still stupid. Religious faith is a thing taught by parents, nothing less.

I would say you are intolerant of my non belief.

 

[DB]

Are you actually saying a talking snake and donkey AREN'T in the bible? Anybody can have a faith, but if it involves stupidity dressed as a religion, its still stupid. Religious faith is a thing taught by parents, nothing less.

I would say you are intolerant of my non belief.

I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between respecting the right of anyone to believe whatever they want (provided they don't use it to discriminate or demand special treatment), and respect for the tenets of any/all religions themselves.

While I do respect the right of anyone to believe whatever they want, I am unable to respect the content of most religions. As Christianity is the example here, the bible contains things which are clearly ridiculous (e.g. talking snakes) and much which is thoroughly unpleasant (especially the old testament, the writers of which clearly regarded rape, murder and genocide as perfectly OK). Other religions provide similar examples.

And as regards religion being taught, of course it is - no baby is born with an innate belief in any supernatural being(s). It is also quite notable that while religions have evolved independently throughout the world, no two which appeared independently were anything like the same, which does rather argue against a particular religion occurring naturally.

 

[backontrack]

Someone starts a thread on religious tolerance and we've hit "Marxist agenda" by the first reply. This forum never fails to amuse me.

 

[najaB]

Anybody can have a faith, but if it involves stupidity dressed as a religion, its still stupid.

Religious tolerance is recongnising that while you don't believe, those who do might be right. A simple way to demonstrate this would be by saying "It's still stupid as far as I'm concerned" as opposed to "It's still stupid".

 

[DB]

Religious tolerance is recongnising that while you don't believe, those who do might be right. A simple way to demonstrate this would be by saying "It's still stupid as far as I'm concerned" as opposed to "It's still stupid".

But some things are clearly wrong - snakes are biologically unable to talk, for example.

 

[backontrack]

Religious tolerance is recongnising that while you don't believe, those who do might be right. A simple way to demonstrate this would be by saying "It's still stupid as far as I'm concerned" as opposed to "It's still stupid".

...and I'd argue that this is the same principle as holding different opinions to others and tolerating them.

"David Tennant is the best Doctor, in my opinion" will always be better than just saying he is the best Doctor.

It's just about having your own opinion and not trying to rile people up, and that's true of everything from religion to Match Attax cards.

 

[najaB]

But some things are clearly wrong - snakes are biologically unable to talk, for example.

Yes, I think it's stupid too. But if someone honestly believes it I'm not going to harangue them about it. It's their choice to believe it.

 

[backontrack]

But some things are clearly wrong - snakes are biologically unable to talk, for example.

Some Christians interpret the old testament literally, some Christians don't.

As an agnostic (although I think I'm leaning towards a vague kind of theism), I'm heavily sceptical of organised religion, but anyone can recognise that there's room for nuance, surely?

Alternatively - playing devil's advocate - you weren't around 2000+ years ago, so there's actually no way of you telling just how anthropomorphic snakes were back then. I think it's daft, but I won't claim to know better because I really don't see the point in trying to.

 

[DB]

Yes, I think it's stupid too. But if someone honestly believes it I'm not going to harangue them about it. It's their choice to believe it.

Indeed, but that's the distinction I would make - they can believe it if they want and I will respect their right to believe it, but I see no reason why anyone should be expected to respect the belief itself, given that it is completely at odds with modern understanding oif biology.

 

[backontrack]

Indeed, but that's the distinction I would make - they can believe it if they want and I will respect their right to believe it, but I see no reason why anyone should be expected to respect the belief itself, given that it is completely at odds with modern understanding oif biology.

Respect other humans?

 

[DB]

Some Christians interpret the old testament literally, some Christians don't.

As an agnostic (although I think I'm leaning towards a vague kind of theism), I'm heavily sceptical of organised religion, but anyone can recognise that there's room for nuance, surely?

Alternatively - playing devil's advocate - you weren't around 2000+ years ago, so there's actually no way of you telling just how anthropomorphic snakes were back then. I think it's daft, but I won't claim to know better because I really don't see the point in trying to.

To be honest I don't have much time for the 'pick 'n' mix' approach to religious belief either - it can and does reach the point where someone sees themselves as a Christian but doesn't actually believe in core tenets such as the virgin birth. A large number of Christians don't believe in creationism because there is overwhelming geological and fossil evidence that it's wrong (this applies to talking snakes too!).

This especially applies to religious people who use the excuse that their beliefs mean they have no option but to hold discriminatory views (e.g. homophobia), but who are nevertheless happy to ignore those parts of the religion which they find unbelievable / inconvenient when it suits them.

 

[43096]

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.

Ironically your post demonstrates your own intolerance of others' beliefs and opinions. It is perfectly understandable for their to be an intolerance (as you put it) of religion given religion's intolerance of either non-believers ("heathens" isn't it?) or indeed other religions (aka a different version of imaginary sky fairy).

Faith is learned/taught/whatever - you are not born with it genetically.

 

[py_megapixel]

The posts in this thread are reminding me of far too many scenes from The Simpsons!

 

[Philip]

Ironically your post demonstrates your own intolerance of others' beliefs and opinions. It is perfectly understandable for their to be an intolerance (as you put it) of religion given religion's intolerance of either non-believers ("heathens" isn't it?) or indeed other religions (aka a different version of imaginary sky fairy).

Faith is learned/taught/whatever - you are not born with it genetically.

Again, your post demonstrates the problem, using phrases like 'imaginary sky fairy' could be considered disrespectful towards believers, since it is used in a mocking way.

Although I've noticed a lot of your posts are of a similar tone.

 

[43096]

Again, your post demonstrates the problem, using phrases like 'imaginary sky fairy' could be considered disrespectful towards believers, since it is used in a mocking way.

Although I've noticed a lot of your posts are of a similar tone.

You don't get it, do you? You pick the phrase that offends you - as I knew you would, it was laid as pretty obvious trap and you fell for it - yet ignore the language and behaviour of those same religions we're all supposed to respect.

You are, to be blunt, an utter hypocrite.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

Pure, crystallised intolerance in one post!

 

[najaB]

Again, your post demonstrates the problem, using phrases like 'imaginary sky fairy' could be considered disrespectful towards believers, since it is used in a mocking way.

I agree. He (God) isn't an imaginary sky fairy, he's just a sky fairy. Heaven is repeatedly referred to as being up above us (sky) and he fits the definition of a fairy (a mythical being or legendary creature found in the folklore of multiple European cultures, a form of spirit, often described as metaphysical, supernatural, or preternatural). There's no need add "imaginary" to it at all.

 

[py_megapixel]

Again, your post demonstrates the problem, using phrases like 'sky fairy' could be considered disrespectful towards believers, since it is used in a mocking way.

We can't have it both ways. Either:

• Society agrees that religious beliefs should be treated the same as any other belief, in which case it is entirely acceptable to disagree with, ridicule or downplay them, or
  
  
• Society agrees that religious beliefs are a purely personal thing and deserve respect and protection in the same way as, for example, racial background, in which case the practice of putting people on the streets and knocking on doors trying to convert people should be banned

Which of these two things happen, I don't particularly care, because ultimately both of them are entirely fair to both religious and non-religious members of society.

 

[JamesRowden]

The fundamental problem here is judging people as a group rather than as individuals. Why judge? Why judge groups rather than each person for that which they are personally responsible for or have demonstrated?

 

[102 fan]

Pure, crystallised intolerance in one post!

I think you'll find it's Intolerance of stupidity. Why should things have to be acceptable because it has a cloak of religion?

 

[Philip]

You don't get it, do you? You pick the phrase that offends you - as I knew you would, it was laid as pretty obvious trap and you fell for it - yet ignore the language and behaviour of those same religions we're all supposed to respect.

You are, to be blunt, an utter hypocrite.

Who said anything about respecting the religion? It is about respecting (not agreeing with) someone's belief, or at least not resorting to blunt mockery as you just did. There is nothing hypocritical about it, I haven't 'ignored' any language or behaviour, just highlighted something you have said which demonstrates how some people seem to find it ok to disrespect/mock other people's beliefs.

 

[102 fan]

Just out of curiosity, what makes the 'Western' god the correct one, as opposed to the 100's of others?

 

[Philip]

We can't have it both ways. Either:

• Society agrees that religious beliefs should be treated the same as any other belief, in which case it is entirely acceptable to disagree with, ridicule or downplay them, or
  
  
• Society agrees that religious beliefs are a purely personal thing and deserve respect and protection in the same way as, for example, racial background, in which case the practice of putting people on the streets and knocking on doors trying to convert people should be banned

Which of these two things happen, I don't particularly care, because ultimately both of them are entirely fair to both religious and non-religious members of society.

It can't be described as fair to ridicule/mock someone else's faith in a way that is likely to cause offence.

 

[102 fan]

Who said anything about respecting the religion? It is about respecting (not agreeing with) someone's belief, or at least not resorting to blunt mockery as you just did. There is nothing hypocritical about it, I haven't 'ignored' any language or behaviour, just highlighted something you have said which demonstrates how some people seem to find it ok to disrespect/mock other people's beliefs.

If the beliefs are ridiculous/stupid/ridiculous they deserve mocking. Or are you saying we shouldn't highlight absurdities?

 

[najaB]

If the beliefs are ridiculous/stupid/ridiculous they deserve mocking. Or are you saying we shouldn't highlight absurdities?

It's about going after the ball, not the player.

E.g. "Snakes can't talk" is fine, "It's stupid to believe that snakes can talk" not okay.

 

[102 fan]

It can't be described as fair to ridicule/mock someone else's faith in a way that is likely to cause offence.

If you are going to live your life according to a book that says it is correct because it says so, mocking is going to happen. If I stood at every place the TARDIS was supposed to have been, with a big sign saying 'The Doctor will be here' I would expect to be mocked and ridiculed. How is religion any different?

 

[Philip]

If the beliefs are ridiculous/stupid/ridiculous they deserve mocking. Or are you saying we shouldn't highlight absurdities?

In your opinion they might be, that's as far as it goes. To others they might be a dearly held belief. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone about their religion or faith, but when it comes to mocking or even abusing the person's beliefs, then yes that is wrong, just as it is wrong in many other contexts.