Religious tolerance

[DB]

As one who attends an Anglo-Catholic church where women clergy are welcome,

Hmm - think churches like that are rather the exception. The Anglo-Catholic wing of the CofE is of course where 'Forward in Faith' (the anti-female-clergy movement) operates.

 

[BluePenguin]

As a separate point which did not fit in with the ones I raised above, British culture has a lot of things which could be considered old-fashioned. The man always being expected to pay on a date for example.

Women were never allowed to have an opinion, choose who they married or earn their own money. Today they have the same rights as men and are treated equally. However many would consider it unacceptable to ask a woman to pay her half of a meal, even if she morally should. This is fortunately not an issue when it comes to dates of the same gender. Both parties expect to pay half and someone offering to pay the full bill is considered a kind gesture rather than an expectation.

On the other hand, claiming that a woman should be in charge of the cooking and cleaning in a household is no longer considered to be the norm when it comes to most of our beliefs. Has state mandated Christianity left a damaged shadow on our culture?

 

[JamesRowden]

Hmm - think churches like that are rather the exception. The Anglo-Catholic wing of the CofE is of course where 'Forward in Faith' (the anti-female-clergy movement) operates.

Women being at the top of a church is not an exception at all. Just look beyond the Cotholic and Church of England.

 

[DB]

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

Men-only clubs are very much a niche thing these days, and are hardly in the mainstream of society (not that I'm in favour of them, but don't see them as significant to society). They are also not claiming to be inclusive in the way that most religious organisations do.

Petty playground insults are hardly on the same level.

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?

Hmm. Can you point to where Jesus mentions bishops or indeed any sort of hierarchical structure, special buildings to worship him, ostentatious clothes, formalised rituals...

 

[py_megapixel]

As a separate point which did not fit in with the ones I raised above, British culture has a lot of things which could be considered old-fashioned. The man always being expected to pay on a date for example.

Women were never allowed to have an opinion, choose who they married or earn their own money. Today they have the same rights as men and are treated equally.

From a legal perspective yes; there are however still gaps in the equal treatment, and there are also individuals and organisations who continue to hold sexist values. Certain parts of the various Churches, for example.

 

[DB]

Women being at the top of a church is not an exception at all. Just look beyond the Cotholic and Church of England.

Those are the two major ones which have hierarchical structures - others tend to be looser affiliations.

As a separate point which did not fit in with the ones I raised above, British culture has a lot of things which could be considered old-fashioned. The man always being expected to pay on a date for example.

Women were never allowed to have an opinion, choose who they married or earn their own money. Today they have the same rights as men and are treated equally. However many would consider it unacceptable to ask a woman to pay her half of a meal, even if she morally should. This is fortunately not an issue when it comes to dates of the same gender. Both parties expect to pay half and someone offering to pay the full bill is considered a kind gesture rather than an expectation.

On the other hand, claiming that a woman should be in charge of the cooking and cleaning in a household is no longer considered to be the norm when it comes to most of our beliefs. Has state mandated Christianity left a damaged shadow on our culture?

I do think there tends to be a bit of an over-compensation sometimes which can be anti-male. For example, if an organisation has fewer than 50% female staff that is likely to be seen as a problem to address, whereas if it's less than 50% male that is far less likely to be regarded as any sort of issue.

 

[JamesRowden]

Men-only clubs are very much a niche thing these days, and are hardly in the mainstream of society (not that I'm in favour of them, but don't see them as significant to society). They are also not claiming to be inclusive in the way that most religious organisations do.

Petty playground insults are hardly on the same level.



Hmm. Can you point to where Jesus mentions bishops or indeed any sort of hierarchical structure, special buildings to worship him, ostentatious clothes, formalised rituals...

Exactly mate, bishops are not part of the Christian faith. They are part of the Catholic church/religion. A religion is that which people have decided to do in response to their faith. Religion will come from a combination of the faith and also cultural things in the environment.

 

[52290]

From a legal perspective yes; there are however still gaps in the equal treatment, and there are also individuals and organisations who continue to hold sexist values. Certain parts of the various Churches, for example.

I think it's easier for a woman to become a priest in the C of E than it is for her to be a Master Mason.

 

[JamesRowden]

To sum it all up DavidB, I think you are hearing about the exception and thinking that they form the majority. The news does love a good story.

Just give everyone the basic right to be judged and respected as an individual.

 

[DB]

I think it's easier for a woman to become a priest in the C of E than it is for her to be a Master Mason.

That is true, and many people are not in favour of societies such as the masons. It's worth noting that the masons do believe in a God, albeit this isn't the main focus of the organisation.

There are also strong links with the CofE - senior clergy are often members of the masons, and some churches (Leicester Cathedral is one example) have a strong mason influence.

To sum it all up DavidB, I think you are hearing about the exception and thinking that they form the majority. The news does love a good story.

Sorry, what exception am I 'hearing' about?

I've had a lot of involvement with the CofE in the fairly recent past - much of this isn't second-hand hearsay: I've seen it for myself.

 

[JamesRowden]

Sorry, what exception am I 'hearing' about?

I've had a lot of involvement with the CofE in the fairly recent past - much of this isn't second-hand hearsay: I've seen it for myself.

One person's experience to judge a great many people.........

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

There's a real danger here that in (rightly) seeking to oppose intolerance by other people, you end up pushing out intolerance yourself. "no 'reasoned debate' to be had on the issue of homosexuality"... Nonsense! There is almost always reasoned debate to be had on any issue. The only times when I would say there is no scope for reasoned debate is when one side is knowingly pushing a verifiable falsehood, or when one side is deliberately seeking to incite violence or persecution. That is manifestly not the case in debates about homosexuality in the UK [1].

I suspect that, if this were a debate about gay rights etc., then you and I would be on the same side. Personally I am extremely glad that marriage is now available to gay and straight people alike and that gays are no longer extensively discriminated against in law or wider society. But if someone disagrees with me about the morals of gay sex (as some religious people do) then the right thing to do is to seek to understand why they disagree and to seek to convince them of your views by reasoned debate. (That's also by the way the only thing that's likely to ever change their minds!)

It seems to me the difference between us is that I would (I hope) not seek to argue by hurling insults and offensive remarks at the other side and then immediately falsely accusing the other side of demanding special treatment when they (rightly) protest about the insults.

[1] I am talking about the UK here. The situation is very different in some other countries, particularly in Africa where gays do suffer actual violence and persecution and it seems some groups openly encourage that .

 

[DB]

One person's experience to judge a great many people.........

Would I be right in thinking that you are a member of the CofE? That sort of condescending comment is typical of a certain type of CofE member.

As I've repeatedly said, there are many decent people within the organisation. The organisation itself, though, is deeply unpleasant in many ways. Its primary purpose is to serve its own interests (and in particular those of the upper echelons of the clergy), and it won't hesitate to viciously stamp on anyone who it regards as opposition or a nuisance, or who a member of clergy simply takes a dislike to.

 

[102 fan]

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

I criticise the absurdities in religion, and you think I'm in some way mentally deficient? Have you actually read the absurdities in the fairy stories?

 

[DB]

I suspect that, if this were a debate about gay rights etc., then you and I would be on the same side. Personally I strongly I am extremely glad that marriage is now available to gay and straight people alike and that gays are no longer extensively discriminated against in law or wider society. But if someone disagrees with me about the morals of gay sex (as some religious people do) then the right thing to do is to seek to understand why they disagree and to seek to convince them of your views by reasoned debate. (That's also by the way the only thing that's likely to ever change their minds!)

In that specific case, the appropriate response would be to tell them it's none of their business.

 

[AlterEgo]

I criticise the absurdities in religion, and you think I'm in some way mentally deficient? Have you actually read the absurdities in the fairy stories?

Yes, and even as an atheist I think people are entitled to tolerance of their sincerely held faith without belittling them, even if their views seem absurd or far-fetched. This is one of the most basic building blocks of civil society.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I criticise the absurdities in religion, and you think I'm in some way mentally deficient? Have you actually read the absurdities in the fairy stories?

I would say the problem isn't that you're criticising the 'absurdities in religion'. (And I would agree that the story of the talking serpent in Genesis, taken literally, is absurd: That's probably why many Christians don't take the story literally). The problem is that you are criticising in a way that (a) shows a lack of understanding of the nuances of what many religious people believe, and (b) shows a lack of respect for the fact that other people believe the things they do. I would also say you are somewhat misrepresenting what quite a few religious people do actually believe.

Amazingly, it is possible to disagree with someone - even to think that what that person believes is ridiculous - without belittling that person.

 

[JamesRowden]

Would I be right in thinking that you are a member of the CofE? That sort of condescending comment is typical of a certain type of CofE member.

As I've repeatedly said, there are many decent people within the organisation. The organisation itself, though, is deeply unpleasant in many ways. Its primary purpose is to serve its own interests (and in particular those of the upper echelons of the clergy), and it won't hesitate to viciously stamp on anyone who it regards as opposition or a nuisance, or who a member of clergy simply takes a dislike to.

I just thought that your willingness to judge types of person rather than individuals is often the thing that leads to descrimination of certain types of people. The thing that you are criticising religions for doing.

 

[nlogax]

As an atheist I’m very happy for those that find solace or peace in religion even if I personally think fundamental texts and documents of belief systems are pretty questionable. Religions work well for millions and that’s all anyone could wish for.

 

[Cowley]

Amazingly, it is possible to disagree with someone - even to think that what that person believes is ridiculous - without belittling that person.

I think that sums up how this thread needs to run from here.
Let’s try and keep it respectful please people.
Even if you do vehemently disagree there’s ways of saying it that doesn’t involve pouring scorn on someone.

Thanks.

 

[Scotrail12]

As a gay person myself, I find it hard to be tolerant towards religions which are not tolerant to people like myself. It's a two way street, you can't just have your cake and eat it.

And some of the stuff that goes on in certain religions does deserve to be criticised.

 

[najaB]

As an atheist I’m very happy for those that find solace or peace in religion even if I personally think fundamental texts and documents of belief systems are pretty questionable. Religions work well for millions and that’s all anyone could wish for.

Amen, brother.

 

[TFN]

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.

I'm a black Muslim male but born and raised in London. My religious life is private and as such, don't talk about it with people at work (on the railway) unless they have specific questions about Islam.

In recent years, especially after the rise of ISIS I've noticed that people have been more vocal against religion at work. I've heard work colleagues openly call Muslims stupid and pigs (ironic) which I wish I reported at the time. I don't "look Muslim" presumably because I'm not Asian or Middle Eastern and I don't have a Muslim sounding name so they were more than comfortable bashing Muslims in front of one.

From my point of view, yes I feel like religious tolerance has decreased and I really wish it was easy for everyone to accept everyone else's way of life.

 

[Strathclyder]

As a gay person myself, I find it hard to be tolerant towards religions which are not tolerant to people like myself. It's a two way street, you can't just have your cake and eat it.

It tends to be the religious organizations as a whole that discrimintate aganist us LGBTQ folk. Your feelings are perfectly understandable and in no way invaild, but as pointed out above, individuals who practice any given faith are more often than not tolerant and all for inclusivity; I know this from first-hand experience. Personally, I don't think it's entirely fair to tar all of them with the same brush. Yes, call the organizations and certain individuals out when need be, but keep in mind that not all who actively practice any given faith are calling for us to be banished from society etc.

As an atheist I’m very happy for those that find solace or peace in religion even if I personally think fundamental texts and documents of belief systems are pretty questionable. Religions work well for millions and that’s all anyone could wish for.

Took the words right out of my mouth; this is exactly how I view this matter as a whole. If it brings them comfort and solace, who am I to cast judgement upon them? Live and let live as the saying so often goes.

 

[ChrisC]

Hmm - think churches like that are rather the exception. The Anglo-Catholic wing of the CofE is of course where 'Forward in Faith' (the anti-female-clergy movement) operates.

You are very wrong there. There are a large number of Anglo-Catholic churches where female priests are welcome. When women priests were first ordained in the early 1990’s, the Anglo Catholic wing of the CofE was split right down the middle. Those who didn’t agree with female priests had formed ‘Forward in Faith’ and those who did agree with female priests formed a grouping called ‘Affirming Catholicism’. There is also a very large number of clergy both male and female who belong to a society called The Society of Catholic Priests which is a society of Anglo Catholic clergy in favour the ordination of women. In many areas of the country I would say that there are significantly more Anglo-Catholic churches accepting women priests than there are of the Forward in Faith type. This is certainly true in some of the diocese that have always been seen as being more liberal such as Southwark.

 

[Scotrail12]

It tends to be the religious organizations as a whole that discrimintate aganist us LGBTQ folk. Your feelings are perfectly understandable and in no way invaild, but as pointed out above, individuals who practice any given faith are more often than not tolerant and all for inclusivity; I know this from first-hand experience. Personally, I don't think it's entirely fair to tar all of them with the same brush. Yes, call the organizations and certain individuals out when need be, but keep in mind that not all who actively practice any given faith are calling for us to be banished from society etc.

Until someone outright makes their beliefs on something clear, then I am afraid that I do get wary if I find out that someone is strongly religious. I know it's wrong and not taking the moral high ground but there is too much bigotry, particularly in the Catholic Church where I was raised.

 

[Bald Rick]

Back to the premise of the OP - which is that there appears to be an acceptance of religious intolerance whereas intolerance of race, sex, sexuality etc is diminishing (albeit, in my opinion, it is still way too high in some parts of society).

I think the issue is broader. There is still too much intolerance in society full stop. Much is driven by ignorance or (frankly) stupidity. Some is driven by ‘belief’, and let’s be honest, some of that belief is the result of religion.

Personally I will listen politely to anybody who expresses an opinion that I think is fundamentally wrong. I will become intolerant if they start suggesting that I am wrong without listening to my reasoning. In the case of a few arguments about religion, my reasoning is based on scientific fact, and the other party’s argument based on belief*, and therefore I will win, even if the other party doesn’t recognise that!

Given that religion is a belief system, we should expect no more tolerance / intolerance compared to other belief systems such as politics.


*like a former friend, now vehement anti-vaxxer, who keeps telling me that belief in God is better than any vaccine, and doesn’t like it when I ask her that if that is the case, then why has ‘He’ chosen to largely eradicate the diseases for which there is a vaccine, but not all the horrible illnesses where there isn’t.

 

[83A]

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

What about MPs?

 

[Inthewest]

What there is increasing hostility towards is the way in which various religious organisations demand that they and their beliefs are treated with what they term 'respect' (which actually means 'not questioned').

Do you have an example of this online?

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.

As above - do you have any sources for this?
A church that actively promotes gun use?

Bearing in mind the amount of churches that there are out there, I suspect the number that have "turned it into a business" is quite small.

Some churches are businesses because they run hostels or homes for the homeless, community events or even go to visit prisioners. They also run clubs and allow kids who attend the opportunity to go to festivals who may not be able to afford it. Those festivals (that attract hundreds of thousands of families, as well as specialised teen versions and student versions) cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to put on. Yes, most of the cost is re-couped in the prices but donations from churches that are part of the organisation that puts the festival on bulk it out.
Church buildings are also old and have many outgoings for their buildings. While we all pay a little in our council tax, the amount is very small compared with other sections of where our council tax goes. Churches generally can't afford the hundreds of thousands of pounds it would cost to replace a roof and some are damaged beyond repair when lead thieves strike.
Purchasing of nearby buildings to expand their community efforts can also be a cash hole. There was a recent sale of some land, buildings and a car park of a church near me. Years ago, the church had to sell the land and buildings to fund a refurbishment. The church was going through a considerable modernisation plan when the owner of these extra buildings put them up for sale. The church offered what it could afford but the owners went with the higher offer, despite the buildings having engravings linking it to the church. There was a limit and it was reached.

All of this stuff costs money.

Many people who are not involved with faith or the physical buildings seem to judge without fully realising or even bothering to investigate where money goes.
Yes, a few churches are hyped up mess, especially in America (there was a documentary about this a few years back) but not all churches are like that and even ones in the same umbrella church family can be very different.

*like a former friend, now vehement anti-vaxxer, who keeps telling me that belief in God is better than any vaccine, and doesn’t like it when I ask her that if that is the case, then why has ‘He’ chosen to largely eradicate the diseases for which there is a vaccine, but not all the horrible illnesses where there isn’t.

Who says "He" has done any of that?
It's a timeless argument against religion of "why does God allow so much suffering in the world" - I don't know the answer (there is one though) but another question is why should he stop it?



Another angle is why we teach the THEORY of evolution and creation in schools.
Because laying it out - we are teaching theory as fact.

Science is great at changing it's mind, especially over medicine use in the last 300 years but people accept it because... I don't know why they do.
Look at the amount of cures for diseases that thinking about them these days, are just horiffic.
Like shock therapy for homosexual people.

Do people hate on Science for these things?
No.

 

[najaB]

Bearing in mind the amount of churches that there are out there, I suspect the number that have "turned it into a business" is quite small.

In the UK, maybe, but in the USA they are very common. Just search for "prosperity gospel" and "pastors" like Creflo Dollar.