Tolerating religious intolerance

Perhaps it's a paradox. Should the intolerance of religious fundamentalists be tolerated? If so, how does one tolerate the intolerance of religious fundamentalists when that intolerance evokes righteous indignation? If not, what to do about it when fundamentalists can't be reasoned with?

reply to post by BlueMule



Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Well...where do I start. First of all, I'm not affiliated with any religion.

I suppose tolerating their intolerance may eventually lead to tolerance on both sides, anyone should be free to express their religious beliefs unless they are deliberately and viciously harming others with their activities (such as the Westboro Baptist Church and protesting at funerals).

Some religions seem to preach a message of tolerance, love and acceptance, even though not all follow that message. The respective teachings of Jesus and The Buddha come to mind. Reminding the intolerant person of the message their religion puts forth may help.

If you can't come to common ground with those methods, I suppose the best thing to do would be to ignore whatever it is they're saying/doing, after all, if they have the freedom of religious expression (assuming you're speaking of people in nations that allow this), then you have the right to ignore that expression.

Speaking from personal experience: My family is full of evangelists, whenever they tell me I'm going to hell, I generally respond as such "Well, I'll see you there since you seem to think condemning me to eternal damnation is more important than trying to save my soul"

Originally posted by TurtleSmacker
Speaking from personal experience: My family is full of evangelists, whenever they tell me I'm going to hell, I generally respond as such "Well, I'll see you there since you seem to think condemning me to eternal damnation is more important than trying to save my soul"

edit on 27-1-2013 by TurtleSmacker because: Clarification

I usually say:

"I am driving the bus there!" and depending on the person "I'll save you a seat".

I have close family and friends that believe I need to be saved and since they are "True Christians" it is their responsibility to ensure I understand the only way I will get to heaven is through "Our Lord Jesus Christ" and to recognize "He dies for our sins".

The subtle Facebook posts drive me crazy...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by BlueMule

 

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

and here lies the gem i love you for writing this and im done here star and flag
more questions like this needs to be asked and ppl need the common since not to be swayed stand firm in the lord and he in you

As a person with their own notions of faith, spirituality, etc... that I rarely ever mention, yet alone discuss, I'll say the following.

Discussing even the abstract ideas of spirituality or religion with an atheist is every bit as frustrating as trying to discuss it with the most zealous religious adherent of any ilk. When you strip away the labels, one is most commonly left with the same concept - a person who refuses to entertain anything that anyone else has to say because they are absolutely positive that their view is the only correct or plausible one.

Entrenched thinking is entrenched thinking, regardless of the flavor. It's kind of fascinating to watch people reach a point where they literally want to dismember one another when, essentially, they are not that different. It's like watching folks try to kill their reflection in the mirror.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide

Discussing even the abstract ideas of spirituality or religion with an atheist is every bit as frustrating as trying to discuss it with the most zealous religious adherent of any ilk.

Very true. Hard-core atheists and hard-core religious fundamentalists are complementary opposites. Two sides of the same horrible coin...

...and spiritual folks who strive for a more liberal tolerant cross-cultural mindset are caught in the middle of their bull#.

I suppose that the conflict between intolerant religion and tolerant religion could be viewed as an aspect of what the Hindu call leela, and in so doing approach it as sport. Maybe then I can lighten up about it. I've been inching toward acceptance of that concept for a while now.

Lila (Sanskrit: लीला, IAST līlā), or Leela is a concept within Hinduism literally meaning "pastime", "sport" or "play". It is common to both non-dualistic and dualistic philosophical schools, but has a markedly different significance in each. Within non-dualism, Lila is a way of describing all reality, including the cosmos, as the outcome of creative play by the divine absolute (Brahman).

[...]

Lila is comparable to the Western theological position of Pandeism, which describes the Universe as God taking a physical form in order to experience the interplay between the elements of the Universe.

In this case, it would be the interplay between tolerance and intolerance.

Originally posted by BlueMule
Perhaps it's a paradox. Should the intolerance of religious fundamentalists be tolerated? If so, how does one tolerate the intolerance of religious fundamentalists when that intolerance evokes righteous indignation? If not, what to do about it when fundamentalists can't be reasoned with?

edit on 27-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

In this style of paradox, should you not allow Satanists, as their premise also lies in an existance of God/otherwise no thing to contest? Non existance. Take the fundamentalists compare them to any belief system how do they differ, one I would suppose would have a difficult time reasoning with a Satanist. Is the REAL question how to tolerate and live with the intolerable? INGORE THE/ ITS FUNDAMENTAL ARGUEMENT; the point of its own explaination force the unclean to JUSTIFY itself.

Originally posted by TurtleSmacker
Well...where do I start. First of all, I'm not affiliated with any religion.

I suppose tolerating their intolerance may eventually lead to tolerance on both sides, anyone should be free to express their religious beliefs unless they are deliberately and viciously harming others with their activities (such as the Westboro Baptist Church and protesting at funerals).

Some religions seem to preach a message of tolerance, love and acceptance, even though not all follow that message. The respective teachings of Jesus and The Buddha come to mind. Reminding the intolerant person of the message their religion puts forth may help.

If you can't come to common ground with those methods, I suppose the best thing to do would be to ignore whatever it is they're saying/doing, after all, if they have the freedom of religious expression (assuming you're speaking of people in nations that allow this), then you have the right to ignore that expression.

Speaking from personal experience: My family is full of evangelists, whenever they tell me I'm going to hell, I generally respond as such "Well, I'll see you there since you seem to think condemning me to eternal damnation is more important than trying to save my soul"

edit on 27-1-2013 by TurtleSmacker because: Clarification

Wise testimony. I always tell the Athiests; some are close family members some are loved ones (big difference) that I will never encounter them EVER in afterlife form. They will be in another place certainly not in my sphere, they will be in the place of the healing (the place of the lost souls). Best ever theocratics? Jesus, Budda, Plato, Herododus (well the last two being history buffs, but still..) and New Golden Bough writer; authorship: Sir James Frazer.

reply to post by BlueMule


How about you give some examples of religious intolerance by "fundamentalist" and explain why it is so bad...I would be most interested to hear about your examples of intolerance by Christian "fundamentalists" as my own background is Christian and am from the denomination that is the most fundamentalist (i.e that advocates all the teachings/fundamentals of the Bible) than any other.

Knowing what true 'fundamentalists' are like, having been around them for a long time I would suggest that you are miss using the term 'fundamentalist' and are more referring to poorly informed or ignorant religious people. The fundamentalists that I know know more about what is going on in the world and in matters of science and health, history and the like than 98%+ of people here.

What are your thoughts about the NWO and New Age agenda plans to demonize and kill religious fundamentalists who won't accept their coming impostor 'Christ' (Lucifer in disguise) and have the MSM sell you on the idea of it that it is a good thing?

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by BlueMule

 

How about you give some examples of religious intolerance by "fundamentalist" and explain why it is so bad...I would be most interested to hear about your examples of intolerance by Christian "fundamentalists" as my own background is Christian and am from the denomination that is the most fundamentalist (i.e that advocates all the teachings/fundamentals of the Bible) than any other.

My background is Christian too. I consider myself a liberal esoteric Christian mystic. As opposed to exoteric conservative non-mystic Christians... which is the vast majority.

In my experience, exoteric Christians are intolerant of esoteric Christian mystics because they are ignorant. They fear what they don't understand. They ignorantly label esoteric Christianity as "New Age" and I find that to be disrespectful i.e. intolerant. They deserve to be rebuked for their ignorance, their fear, their disrespect.

Knowing what true 'fundamentalists' are like, having been around them for a long time I would suggest that you are miss using the term 'fundamentalist' and are more referring to poorly informed or ignorant religious people. The fundamentalists that I know know more about what is going on in the world and in matters of science and health, history and the like than 98%+ of people here.

I have been around them a long time too, and so I will make up my own mind about using the term 'fundamentalist'.

What are your thoughts about the NWO and New Age agenda plans to demonize and kill religious fundamentalists who won't accept their coming impostor 'Christ' (Lucifer in disguise) and have the MSM sell you on the idea of it that it is a good thing?

My thoughts are that Christians who believe such things are paranoid and don't understand how synchronicity works. Again, it boils down to ignorance and fear.

Originally posted by BlueMule
Perhaps it's a paradox. Should the intolerance of religious fundamentalists be tolerated? If so, how does one tolerate the intolerance of religious fundamentalists when that intolerance evokes righteous indignation? If not, what to do about it when fundamentalists can't be reasoned with?

I don't believe in religious tolerance.

I don't believe in unconditional love.

I don't believe in equality.

See my signature.

As a matter of fact, a quote from scarface comes to mind.

"Whattaya lookin' at? You're all a bunch of #ing assholes. You know why? 'Cause you don't have the guts to be what you wanna be. You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your #ing fingers, and say "that's the bad guy." So, what dat make you? Good? You're not good; you just know how to hide. Howda lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth--even when I lie. So say goodnight to the bad guy. Come on; the last time you gonna see a bad guy like this, let me tell ya. Come on, make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through; you better get outta his way!"

Scarface

reply to post by BlueMule


I have many times thought about this type of "paradox"... I refer back to the ol' turn the cheek parable...

Ironic that the right thing to do against "Christians" is the same thing that Jesus said to do... One of many life's ironies.

On a MORE serious note...
I thought I would share some of this blog that I had found earlier today written by a Kent DelHousaye, it's worth a read.

Tolerance, though, has become a sort of trump card that people use to shut other people down if they have anything to say that they might deem as controversial or unpopular. And, it has often been used to silence religious groups and members of the faith community to keep them from speaking out against immoral behavior or wrong belief.

The truth is that a measure of tolerance isn’t necessarily bad because it does actually stifle violent behavior and hateful words. Of course, people should never attack each other or even demean others no matter how much they disagree with someone else’s behaviors or beliefs. So, in that way, tolerance can do some good.

However, tolerance in our culture is usually not about mutual respect and charity. Tolerance is more often about acceptance of every lifestyle and equality of all ideas. The essence of tolerance today is embracing all belief systems and every individual choice, no matter how selfish or harmful one’s choices may be to oneself or to society.

Tolerance is bad because it fosters indifference. And, indifference is the opposite of love. If we love others, then we will look out for them, we will speak into their lives, and we will care enough to tell them the truth. Even if it hurts or offends, real love means telling others when they are heading in the wrong direction or when they are harming themselves or others.

Why Tolerance is Bad for Society

So, I quite agree with this, indifference and ambivalence are a recipe for impotence.

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
reply to post by BlueMule

 

I have many times thought about this type of "paradox"... I refer back to the ol' turn the cheek parable...

Ironic that the right thing to do against "Christians" is the same thing that Jesus said to do... One of many life's ironies.

Yeah one of many! Intolerant religious fundamentalists who try to communicate their orthodox religious message (which we have all heard already) don't seem to realize that the communication is happening on two levels. There is the level of the topic itself and there is the level of the interpersonal relationship between sender and receiver. If they slap someone, so to speak, on that level then they are just short-circuiting the level of the topic.

They would have more luck communicating without words. That is to say through deeds of charity, healing, compassion, love, respect, etc.

Originally posted by BlueMule
Perhaps it's a paradox. Should the intolerance of religious fundamentalists be tolerated? If so, how does one tolerate the intolerance of religious fundamentalists when that intolerance evokes righteous indignation? If not, what to do about it when fundamentalists can't be reasoned with?

edit on 27-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

The answer is simple and I will quote Thomas Jefferson.

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

reply to post by Wonders

Originally posted by Wonders
I don't believe in religious tolerance.

I don't believe in unconditional love.

I don't believe in equality.

See my signature.

You don't believe in any of those? Really? Could you possibly elaborate on why you don't believe in each one?

I can understand the first one on your part - I've read your posts before. But the other two? Why? It's really baffling.

Really.

Originally posted by ihavenoaccount
reply to post by Wonders

 

Originally posted by Wonders
I don't believe in religious tolerance.

I don't believe in unconditional love.

I don't believe in equality.

See my signature.

You don't believe in any of those? Really? Could you possibly elaborate on why you don't believe in each one?

I can understand the first one on your part - I've read your posts before. But the other two? Why? It's really baffling.

Thanks for asking.

The bible describes love in the book of 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 as "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, and it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres. Love never fails"

"If you love me, obey my commandments. -John 14:15 IF

If one can describe what love is, AND what it ISN"T, then one should be able to see that we live in a world filled with conditions, love is NOT indifference. It's strange how a scientific oriented mindset that many people claim to have, would seemingly throw their capability to distinguish between truth and lie out the window just to be politically correct.
Any good scientist knows that if you can define it, then it has a condition to it. The fact that you asked me to elaborate shows how I have not met your conditions of understanding or communicating.

As for equality. I'll just throw this at ya, this guy says it better than I care to, and with less words too.
Equality.

I tell you that if you take any two or three, or however many people you want. They will not be equal in individual skills, knowledge, understanding and conceptualization, physical strength, abilities, intelligence, etc.

Also. This includes Religions, Beliefs, Viewpoints, Desires, Wants, Needs, Physical attributes, Intellect, Reasoning and Logic, Learning abilities, etc. Anything not made equal through man's influence in this world and its machinations.

Even in the bible, a people can not be stereotyped if one wishes to describe them accurately, thus, more words to elaborate are necessary for more understanding, which is the reason the bible is a book and not a feel-good fact sheet.

The way I see it, the fact that you asked me to elaborate shows me that your perception may not be changed, though someone else may think over these things for themselves and use their own search engine, good for them. Never depend on any one human to shape your views. I know that you'll probably never agree to the beliefs I subscribe to, and that you probably just asked out of curiosity or amusement with NO REAL potential for change because *gasp* What would the masses think of you if you dared to question their sensibilities?!

Still "baffled"?

reply to post by Wonders


Yes, I'm certainly still baffled.

One, because your "conditions for love" argument is just arguing semantics. When people talk of unconditional love, the supposition is that Person A would never permanently and absolutely deny Person B. I was under the impression that "agape" was an ideal trait in Christians, but whatever.

As for your position on equality, well... I guess it was too broad from the start. Regardless, surely there are certain types of equality. Surely you stand for legal equality? Formal equality? Equal civil liberties and basic human rights for all? Come on, you're on ATS mate!

If people aren't equal in ability, socio-economic class, ambition, etc., does that make one superior to the other? Is one more worthy of life than the other?

I asked the questions of sheer curiosity and was genuine. Snark and condescension are unbecoming IMO, so don't take this post with the pitcher of salt you did with the other one.

As such, I'll ask one more question. If I have no real potential for change (why capital letters btw ), then aren't you condemning me on God's behalf? What kind of Christian are you? Not only is it rude to assume people's futures like that, it's darn right troubling since I know where you think I'm headed.

P.S. I don't think my beliefs are superior to yours. They just make more sense on a personal level. So, equality under the law, yes?