Religious tolerance

[backontrack]

Why can't we just live and let live?

Honestly, why can't we?

What's the point in trying to dunk on each other in the name of feeling smug?

 

[102 fan]

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

With religion both are required

 

[py_megapixel]

@JamesRowden makes an excellent point about judging groups.

For every person who uses [twisted/misinterpreted versions of] the teachings of a religious text or figure as an excuse to commit atrocious acts, there are plenty of followers of the same religion who are not doing so.

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

It sounds like you prefer the second option, which, as I said in my previous post, is fine.

 

[JamesRowden]

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

Just explain your logic in a calm objective way, and allow others the right to then come to their own conclusions.

 

[102 fan]

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.

If it's an absurd belief, then why not?

 

[DB]

For every person who uses [twisted/misinterpreted versions of] the teachings of a religious text or figure as an excuse to commit atrocious acts, there are plenty of followers of the same religion who are not doing so.

I think the point here is that most major religious books contain multiple self-contradictory viewpoints so can be claimed to 'justify' pretty much anything.

 

[43096]

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

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?

Religion itself is ridiculous at its most basic level - take Christianity, there is zero evidence that god actually exists. Jesus could well have been some early Middle Eastern David Icke type figure.

Arguably, religion is the biggest con/scam that has ever been perpetuated - over the centuries billions of people have been persuaded to worship this idea, spend significant sums of money on it and indeed fight wars about it. And all of it without a shred of evidence that it actually exists.

 

[102 fan]

@JamesRowden makes an excellent point about judging groups.

For every person who uses [twisted/misinterpreted versions of] the teachings of a religious text or figure as an excuse to commit atrocious acts, there are plenty of followers of the same religion who are not doing so.

It's usually the same bible/koran they both read.

 

[DB]

Just explain your logic in a calm objective way, and allow others the right to then come to their own conclusions.

Doesn't work with many people. The whole point about faith is that it is belief without reason, so trying to disprove it using reason often has no effect.

 

[JamesRowden]

Doesn't work with many people. The whole point about faith is that it is belief without reason, so trying to disprove it using reason often has no effect.

How well does trying to convince them without using logic work then?

It's usually the same bible/koran they both read.

I would suggest that you probably have not done case studies in which you can read the mind of the individuals, and that you are choosing to believe that which you want to want to be true.

 

[DB]

How well does trying to convince them without using logic work then?

It doesn't - that's the point. Doesn't matter how it's done, if someone has strong religious beliefs nothing is, in many cases, going to convince them otherwise. They will come back with answers such as 'you can't prove that god doesn't exist'. If the response to that is 'you can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist either' they will claim that's a ridiculous response.

I would suggest that you probably have not done case studies in which you can read the mind of the individuals, and that you are choosing to believe that which you want to want to be true.

It isn't necessary to read anyone's mind - just read the bible or the koran and you will see that they can be used to justify pretty much any viewpoint without much difficulty - it's easy to cherry-pick bits to back up whatever viewpoint is being pushed.

 

[Philip]

It doesn't - that's the point. Doesn't matter how it's done, if someone has strong religious beliefs nothing is, in many cases, going to convince them otherwise. They will come back with answers such as 'you can't prove that god doesn't exist'. If the response to that is 'you can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist either' they will claim that's a ridiculous response.



It isn't necessary to read anyone's mind - just read the bible or the koran and you will see that they can be used to justify pretty much any viewpoint without much difficulty - it's easy to cherry-pick bits to back up whatever viewpoint is being pushed.

Sometimes maybe, but faith isn't about trying to prove the existence (ie. the words of Jesus to Thomas), it is a personal relationship with God.

 

[JamesRowden]

It isn't necessary to read anyone's mind - just read the bible or the koran and you will see that they can be used to justify pretty much any viewpoint without much difficulty - it's easy to cherry-pick bits to back up whatever viewpoint is being pushed.

This is about primary motivation, not excuses found by reading a popular book.

 

[najaB]

Arguably, religion is the biggest con/scam that has ever been perpetuated - over the centuries billions of people have been persuaded to worship this idea, spend significant sums of money on it and indeed fight wars about it. And all of it without a shred of evidence that it actually exists.

That's the church (synagogue/temple/etc) rather than the religion. I could be a devout Christian, following every tenet of Christianity and neither fight a war nor give more than I can afford to.

 

[AlterEgo]

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

I don’t think your posts are doing much to persuade me that you have some level of wisdom the religious don’t.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

A belief is a choice? Really?

So if you're - say - an atheist or a socialist or a liberal or whatever, can you suddenly decide in 5 minutes time to believe the opposite of what you previously believed? I'm pretty sure you'll find you can't - you believe what you do because all your life experiences have convinced you that that particular belief is correct. It's not really a choice.

 

[DB]

A belief is a choice? Really?

So if you're - say - an atheist or a socialist or a liberal or whatever, can you suddenly decide in 5 minutes time to believe the opposite of what you previously believed? I'm pretty sure you'll find you can't - you believe what you do because all your life experiences have convinced you that that particular belief is correct. It's not really a choice.

Most people have arrived at their views on, e.g., politics by a rational understanding of the issues and options. They can and do change views, and, crucially, do not demand special treatement - you won't find a socialist saying that due to their political views they should be allowed to be a homophobic bigot, but you will find members of assorted religions doing so. Politics is also debated and everyone thinks that's reasonable, whereas if you try to do that with a proportion of religious people they will immediately start the accusations that their beliefs deserve 'respect' (i.e. should not be questioned).

 

[JamesRowden]

Most people have arrived at their views on, e.g., politics by a rational understanding of the issues and options. They can and do change views, and, crucially, do not demand special treatement - you won't find a socialist saying that due to their political views they should be allowed to be a homophobic bigot, but you will find members of assorted religions doing so. Politics is also debated and everyone thinks that's reasonable, whereas if you try to do that with a proportion of religious people they will immediately start the accusations that their beliefs deserve 'respect' (i.e. should not be questioned).

Ever thought that a minority of people might be using their religion as an excuse for something, rather than the religion being the source of such behaviours/attitudes? Not wanting to be persecuted is one thing, but persecuting others is another.

 

[najaB]

A belief is a choice? Really?

So if you're - say - an atheist or a socialist or a liberal or whatever, can you suddenly decide in 5 minutes time to believe the opposite of what you previously believed?

To some extent, yes.

The idea of the Damascene Moment is very much reflected in numerous stories of people who have either found or lost their faith after a (sometimes long) period of contemplation. You can argue that it's not a conscious decision but rather a sub-conscious one, but in any case it clearly isn't an intrinsic trait such as race or sexuality but is a belief that results from things either taught or experienced.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Most people have arrived at their views on, e.g., politics by a rational understanding of the issues and options. They can and do change views,

Sure, people do change their views. But they generally do so because life experiences force a change of view: Life experiences convince them that their previous views aren't correct. You don't just suddenly decide on the spur of the moment that you're going to (quite genuinely) believe something different from what you believed 5 minutes ago. To that extent your beliefs are not a choice.

and, crucially, do not demand special treatement - you won't find a socialist saying that due to their political views they should be allowed to be a homophobic bigot,

but you will find members of assorted religions doing so. Politics is also debated and everyone thinks that's reasonable, whereas if you try to do that with a proportion of religious people they will immediately start the accusations that their beliefs deserve 'respect' (i.e. should not be questioned).

And to my mind those two paragraphs illustrate the problem with what you're saying. Calling someone a 'homophobic bigot' is not reasoned debate - that's name-calling. If you disagree with someone about the morals of homosexuality then you should do so by engaging with the issues, not by throwing insults around. (And to be clear, I'm saying that as someone who totally believes in equal rights irrespective of gender identity).

And then, after throwing in a gratuitous insult, you talk about 'accusations that their beliefs deserve 'respect' ' Has it occurred to you that just maybe, some religious groups aren't actually seeking to stifle genuine debate, but are simply pointing out that they deserve not have those kinds of unthinking insults directed at them?

 

[DB]

Ever thought that a minority of people might be using their religion as an excuse for something, rather than the religion being the source of such behaviours/attitudes? Not wanting to be persecuted is one thing, but persecuting others is another.

It's impossible to tell to what extent that is the case.

However, it is true that many religious organisations do encourage bigotry and intolerance so I don't think it's tenable to claim that they aren't behind it in a lot of cases. They often actually thrive on intolerance, both towards others and within their own organisations. Take the CofE: the Anglo-Catholic wing is where gay clergy mostly tend to be found (they have to pretend that they aren't in relationships, but it's very much a case of 'don't ask, don't tell) - but despite the discrimination which they receive, they also dole it out and it's the Anglo-Catholic wing which is most opposed to female clergy. Don't ask, don't tell isn't an option here, so the CofE, of course, panders to that bigotry by having a system where the most deeply misogynist churches can choose to report to one of the 'Provincial Episcopal Visitors', who are basically bishops who exist solely to avoid such churches having to report to a bishop who has ordained women (and indeed may be a woman now, but that wasn't the case when this system was set up). I can think of no secular eequivalent where gay people would have to pretend not to be in a relationship, or where such an elaborate system would be set up in order to pander to misogynist bigotry - both of these scenarious would be considered completely unacceptable in any non-religious organisation.

And to my mind those two paragraphs illustrate the problem with what you're saying. Calling someone a 'homophobic bigot' is not reasoned debate - that's name-calling. If you disagree with someone about the morals of homosexuality then you should do so by engaging with the issues, not by throwing insults around. (And to be clear, I'm saying that as someone who totally believes in equal rights irrespective of gender identity).

And then, after throwing in a gratuitous insult, you talk about 'accusations that their beliefs deserve 'respect' ' Has it occurred to you that just maybe, some religious groups aren't actually seeking to stifle genuine debate, but are simply pointing out that they deserve not have those kinds of unthinking insults directed at them?

Nope, sorry, not going to accept that this is a valid argument. Western society has moved on and homophobic attitudes are no longer regarded as acceptable, just as racist attitudes aren't, and anyone displaying these attitudes is a bigot. Likewise, the anti-women attitude of various religious organisations is equally unacceptable, and is also bigotry.

There is no 'reasoned debate' to be had on the issue of homosexuality - it's one of those things, like race, which are part of who someone is (it's how they are born) and there is absolutely nothing to debate.

The test is whether any views would be regarded as unnacceptable and bigoted if there was no religious justification behind them. And in all the above cases, that would certainly be the case.

 

[JamesRowden]

It's impossible to tell to what extent that is the case.

However, it is true that many religious organisations do encourage bigotry and intolerance so I don't think it's tenable to claim that they aren't behind it in a lot of cases. They often actually thrive on intolerance, both towards others and within their own organisations. Take the CofE: the Anglo-Catholic wing is where gay clergy mostly tend to be found (they have to pretend that they aren't in relationships, but it's very much a case of 'don't ask, don't tell) - but despite the discrimination which they receive, they also dole it out and it's the Anglo-Catholic wing which is most opposed to female clergy. Don't ask, don't tell isn't an option here, so the CofE, of course, panders to that bigotry by having a system where the most deeply misogynist churches can choose to report to one of the 'Provincial Episcopal Visitors', who are basically bishops who exist solely to avoid such churches having to report to a bishop who has ordained women (and indeed may be a woman now, but that wasn't the case when this system was set up). I can think of no secular eequivalent where gay people would have to pretend not to be in a relationship, or where such an elaborate system would be set up in order to pander to misogynist bigotry - both of these scenarious would be considered completely unacceptable in any non-religious organisation.

I would suggest that these things in fact very much do exist outside religious circles. And that these negative things are simply part of the human world, and in fact a very insignificant / non-existant part of the fundamentals of these faiths.

Religions have traditions, which is why aspects of the past continue to exist within them, when the religion did not create them, merely carried them.

 

[BluePenguin]

This is a very interesting question. I believe religious tolerance varies and is largely dependent on where you live. Sexuality and religion are not a problem in Brighton and London respectively. Although in white areas the opposite is likely to be true

Our sexuality is not something that we chose, nor can we hide it very well. We can choose to open about it with whoever we feel comfortable with. It is a personal thing that needs not to shared publicly.

Religious people on the other hand are usually completely open about their religion, sharing their beliefs with anyone who will listen and encourage them to believe the same.

Anyone who is not straight will not encouraged to become gay or bi in the same a religious person may try to force their beliefs onto someone. Of course anyone may try at any time. But “pitching” at someone never goes down well.

It is true that as a nation we are more open to ethnic minorities, religions and sexualities. But the same cannot be said for the everyone in the whole country. There are still large patches which remain “white flight” havens.

Nobody deserves to be on the receiving end of racism or homophobia. Ethnicity and sexuality are not choices we have a say in. Religious beliefs are considered a choice however and as such tend to be rotected.

On the other hand, an elderly individual hurling homophobic or racial abuse in a supermarket will likely be let off for “not liking gay people” or “was never used to seeing blacks in his day”.

Muslims in particular have had it tough recently. Some of my friends are Muslim and have been bullied for being so more times than we can count. Their children have also began to receive the same.

One of them has a son who had an unfortunate incident at the urinal in school. Another pupil had began pointing at laughing at his penis due to it looking different to his own...you can imagine the rest. It was a humiliating incident which brought him to tears and left him feeling very under confident. With the majority of Brits leaving their sons “natural” as is the norm in the country, there is little motivation to educate young boys on how or why their friend looks different to them and why they should be respectful either way. As a result, sadly there is still progress to be made it would seem.

For this reason, pride day/month is necessary and Ramadan should be respected. Special occasions such as these bring people together in the same way as Christmas does for many Brits, allowing people celebrate what is special to them

 

[najaB]

Religions have traditions, which is why aspects of the past continue to exist within them, when the religion did not create them, merely carried them.

Sorry, but "It's always been that way" isn't acceptable for non-religious organisations so it can't be acceptable for religious ones. We wouldn't accept the KKK saying "but we've always lynched [expletive]", so we cannot accept a church saying "But we've always preached against homosexuals".

 

[DB]

I would suggest that these things in fact very much do exist outside religious circles. And that these negative things are simply part of the human world, and in fact a very insignificant / non-existant part of the fundamentals of these faiths.

Religions have traditions, which is why aspects of the past continue to exist within them, when the religion did not create them, merely carried them.

Can you give any examples of where else this is happening? In particular any secular jobs where gay people are not allowed to be openly in a relationship, or where alternative supervisory structures exist because a branch of an organisation refuses to report to a woman (or to a bloke who manages women)?

Not sure how you can claim that they are "a very insignificant / non-existant part of the fundamentals of these faiths." - I have given you specific examples. And of course when it comes to misogyny, the CofE is a mere also-ran compared to the Catholic church which still doesn't allow female priests at all.

Lots or organisations have traditions - societies have traditions - but that doesn't excuse them refusing to move with the times, particularly on matters of fairness and justice (and let's not forget that these organisations tend to pretend that fairness and justice are at the core of their ethos).

 

[py_megapixel]

And of course when it comes to misogyny, the CofE is a mere also-ran compared to the Catholic church which still doesn't allow female priests at all.

Lots or organisations have traditions - societies have traditions - but that doesn't excuse them refusing to move with the times, particularly on matters of fairness and justice (and let's not forget that these organisations tend to pretend that fairness and justice are at the core of their ethos).

However obnoxious the policies and practices of the central organisation - and some are pretty obnoxious - I don't see it as a reason to tar all with the same brush.
I can think of several people I know who are Christian but very progressive and entirely in favour of inclusivity.

 

[JamesRowden]

Sorry, but "It's always been that way" isn't acceptable for non-religious organisations so it can't be acceptable for religious ones. We wouldn't accept the KKK saying "but we've always lynched [expletive]", so we cannot accept a church saying "But we've always preached against homosexuals".

You miss understand. I am not saying that this justifies any bad actions. I'm suggesting that parts of text/tradition will be affected by the attitudes of the time that they were written/created (whether true or fake religion).

We are discussing the conservative ends of religions, just like there are conservative non-religious organisations. People who want things to continue as they always have done.

 

[52290]

As one who attends an Anglo-Catholic church where women clergy are welcome, I can tell you that there is strong opposition to them in the Evangelical sector. As for gay clergy, the evangelicals sift them out long before they get near to ordination. Also it's not unknown for female clergy to be gay.

It's impossible to tell to what extent that is the case.

However, it is true that many religious organisations do encourage bigotry and intolerance so I don't think it's tenable to claim that they aren't behind it in a lot of cases. They often actually thrive on intolerance, both towards others and within their own organisations. Take the CofE: the Anglo-Catholic wing is where gay clergy mostly tend to be found (they have to pretend that they aren't in relationships, but it's very much a case of 'don't ask, don't tell) - but despite the discrimination which they receive, they also dole it out and it's the Anglo-Catholic wing which is most opposed to female clergy. Don't ask, don't tell isn't an option here, so the CofE, of course, panders to that bigotry by having a system where the most deeply misogynist churches can choose to report to one of the 'Provincial Episcopal Visitors', who are basically bishops who exist solely to avoid such churches having to report to a bishop who has ordained women (and indeed may be a woman now, but that wasn't the case when this system was set up). I can think of no secular eequivalent where gay people would have to pretend not to be in a relationship, or where such an elaborate system would be set up in order to pander to misogynist bigotry - both of these scenarious would be considered completely unacceptable in any non-religious organisation.



Nope, sorry, not going to accept that this is a valid argument. Western society has moved on and homophobic attitudes are no longer regarded as acceptable, just as racist attitudes aren't, and anyone displaying these attitudes is a bigot. Likewise, the anti-women attitude of various religious organisations is equally unacceptable, and is also bigotry.

There is no 'reasoned debate' to be had on the issue of homosexuality - it's one of those things, like race, which are part of who someone is (it's how they are born) and there is absolutely nothing to debate.

The test is whether any views would be regarded as unnacceptable and bigoted if there was no religious justification behind them. And in all the above cases, that would certainly be the case.

 

[DB]

However obnoxious the policies and practices of the central organisation - and some are pretty obnoxious - I don't see it as a reason to tar all with the same brush.
I can think of several people I know who are Christian but very progressive and entirely in favour of inclusivity.

Sure, many individuals are fine. The issue is the ethos of many religious organisations, and the fact that they often go to considerable lengths to pander to, and in some cases to incite / reinforce, bigotry (and then create systems to pander to it). Iny any secular organisation, there would be no incitement / reinforcement, and anyone not liking it would be told that they would have to accept it or leave.

 

[JamesRowden]

Can you give any examples of where else this is happening? In particular any secular jobs where gay people are not allowed to be openly in a relationship, or where alternative supervisory structures exist because a branch of an organisation refuses to report to a woman (or to a bloke who manages women)?

Not sure how you can claim that they are "a very insignificant / non-existant part of the fundamentals of these faiths." - I have given you specific examples. And of course when it comes to misogyny, the CofE is a mere also-ran compared to the Catholic church which still doesn't allow female priests at all.

Lots or organisations have traditions - societies have traditions - but that doesn't excuse them refusing to move with the times, particularly on matters of fairness and justice (and let's not forget that these organisations tend to pretend that fairness and justice are at the core of their ethos).

There are men's clubs which Women are not allowed to join. Being 'Gay' is used as an insult among non-religious school children.

You have given examples of Christian people/organisations doing things where Jesus never directly mentions the topic in the Bible. If Jesus did not mention it, then how is it of fundamental importance to the faith?