If you could wish for religious tolerance, and here are the ups and downs, don't add any, if you want make your own thread.
Pro's: No religious wars, No angry debates in the road, No family feuds over religion, No terrorism by any religious extremists, and No basic fighting over religion.
Con's: No spreading your religion to others outside of it, No debating with other religious peoples, outside of your own, No having your religious holiday for others, No spreading free holy books to others, and no crying when school decides to teach science over religion.
I would take the wish, in a second. I know their are not many with my beliefs (if any in this state lol) but I'd rather suffer loneliness then die for a war not only political but religious.
Why is a political war worse than a religious war?
At least in a religious war, both sides (hopefully) believe that they're doing it for the greater good. A political war is just because of greed, and what a stupid reason to fight over, that is.
hmm? that is what would happen if we had religious tolerance?
you seem to be calling for an abolition of religion rather than religious tolerance if those are the pro's & con's.
religious tolerance means tolerating the presence of other religion, ie. no killing or discrimination against them based on religous identity alone, that is all there is to it, wars and whatnot will continue regardless of religion.
it's is a result to the human condition itself, just as religion, art, economy and all the rest are.
I'd say there no con's for religious tolerance, only pro's, but I guess our definitions differ.
I am no sure I agree with your concept of 'religious tolerance', Clover.
I would see true religious tolerance to allow people to speak of their religion, practice their religion, converse and discuss (though peacefully!) with members of other religions.
I think religious tolerance requires us to learn about and understand other religions, their beliefs and values too, so we can relate better to those who follow them. Religious tolerance requires us to accept the fact that other people have other beliefs and worldviews, but it gives us the freedom to reject those beliefs and worldviews for ourselves and to follow our own.
I can agree with your Pros, but the only Con (and in my mind it isn't a Con at all) would be not to be allowed to force one's religion onto anybody else ...
Now I have looked at alcurad's post, I think my view are very similar to his.
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
^
Can you explain a bit further what this quote mean to you, Jon Paul? Or what Chesterton meant?
Does the quote imply that true tolerance cannot be achieved by those with strong (religious or otherwise) convictions?
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
^
Can you explain a bit further what this quote mean to you, Jon Paul? Or what Chesterton meant?
Does the quote imply that true tolerance cannot be achieved by those with strong (religious or otherwise) convictions?
The Myth of Tolerance
Myth: Tolerance is the greatest virtue
The catalyst for this approach to religion is the modern definition of tolerance. The goal of religious relativism is not to be logical, but to be tolerant. Tolerance is the virtue that trumps all others in our culture. It is more important to be tolerant than it is to be honest, loyal, or trustworthy. Moreover, the tolerance to which I am referring is not the tolerance of old. Today’s version is what Josh McDowell calls the "the new tolerance."
Tolerance once meant putting up with someone or something in spite of the fact that one did not like or agree with the idea or the person. Today, however, tolerance has morphed into a big hairy monster that demands we not only put up with but even embrace and celebrate the views and practices of others. Furthermore, the new tolerance demands that we value the views and practices of others to the degree that we value our own.
We attribute to Voltaire the statement, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." This sentiment is a thing of the past. Today such ideas are considered out of touch and even intolerant. We are no longer allowed to disagree. This is an untenable position. This is the type of thinking that prompted G. K. Chesterton to exclaim, "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without conviction."
I think I agree with the basic premise here, that it would be wonderful if people could stop fighting over their religious differences and so on.
However, isn't it difficult to have religious tolerance when many religious scriptures say things like: "This religion is the right one and all others are wrong."?
people subscribe to a school of thought because they believe it is the correct one.. if you were uncertain then it would say 'vacillation' as a way of life in your profile.. you choose what you choose because you are convinced it is correct.. have you glanced at the 'myth of religious tolerance' above?.. simply, tolerating someone or something doesn't mean you have to believe or accept or celebrate their practices or beliefs!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Don't ever debate with another religion believer.
In debate, both sides always say "I am right, you are wrong". That is not good for religious tolerance. But we can discuss peacefully.
If you want to know about other religion, you must ask directly to people in that religion. But don't ever thinking bad to that religion.
And if someone in another religion ask you about your religion, give your best answer but don't ever take a chance to promote your religion.
hmm? that is what would happen if we had religious tolerance?
you seem to be calling for an abolition of religion rather than religious tolerance if those are the pro's & con's.
religious tolerance means tolerating the presence of other religion, ie. no killing or discrimination against them based on religous identity alone, that is all there is to it, wars and whatnot will continue regardless of religion.
it's is a result to the human condition itself, just as religion, art, economy and all the rest are.
I'd say there no con's for religious tolerance, only pro's, but I guess our definitions differ.
No, I am of a religion, so to do that would hurt myself, and I am not into that sort of pain.
Why is a political war worse than a religious war?
At least in a religious war, both sides (hopefully) believe that they're doing it for the greater good. A political war is just because of greed, and what a stupid reason to fight over, that is.
In those terms I'm not convinced there ever has been a 'religious war'. Religion is used as excuse to start political ones, and to get those with nothing to gain to fight and die for the benefit of those who have something to gain from them doing it.
people subscribe to a school of thought because they believe it is the correct one.. if you were uncertain then it would say 'vacillation' as a way of life in your profile.. you choose what you choose because you are convinced it is correct.. have you glanced at the 'myth of religious tolerance' above?..
Of course.
simply, tolerating someone or something doesn't mean you have to believe or accept or celebrate their practices or beliefs!
You are surely right, but can't you see how religions themselves actually sow discord when they disparage other religions in the way I mentioned?
You are surely right, but can't you see how religions themselves actually sow discord when they disparage other religions in the way I mentioned?
Peace
If your way of life can't withstand the test of time, then perhaps indeed you should rethink it?..
I had reviewed an anti-Islamic book on amazon and received 54 negative comments.. should I then abandon Islam because a group of 54 islamophobes enjoy reading a book entitled 'because they hate' and ironically not see it as a manifestation of their own psyche?
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Religious tolerance is good, but it shouldnt lead to the equality of all religions in a state. The state should favour and support the faith that is true in its eyes, the others should have the right to private cult and should be forbidden of making their religious propaganda. Good example is USA (the future pattern of all demo-liberal countries), which have many big sects like mormons, jaehova witnesses, 7th day adventists etc.
This country is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs.
If your way of life can't withstand the test of time, then perhaps indeed you should rethink it?..
I had reviewed an anti-Islamic book on amazon and received 54 negative comments.. should I then abandon Islam because a group of 54 islamophobes enjoy reading a book entitled 'because they hate' and ironically not see it as a manifestation of their own psyche?
all the best
Did you quote me by mistake there or was that meant to be an answer to my question?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Wish: Religious Tolerance
Cont...The Myth of Tolerance
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks