"Colors"

[Tre-L]

“Once upon a time the colors of the earth were having a disagreement. Each color boasted about their own importance, giving little consideration to the “others”.

Green shouted out:

“I am clearly more important than you all. I am the sign of life. I was chosen for grass, and trees, and leaves. Without me, all animals would die. Look over the countryside and you will see that I am more important than all of you.”
​

Blue interrupted:

“You only think about the land, but consider the sky and the sea. Water is the basis for life, and the sky offers space, peace and serenity. Without my peace, you are nothing.”
​

Yellow chuckled at both of them:

“You two are so serious. I bring laughter, and warmth into the world. The sun is yellow, the moon is yellow, the stars are yellow. Every time you look at a sunflower the whole world smiles. Without me there would be no fun. The rest of you would be dull without my joy.”
​

Then orange started to blow her trumpet:

“I am the color of health and strength. I may be scarce but I am precious for I serve the needs of human life. I carry the most important vitamins. Think of carrots, pumpkins, oranges and mangoes. I don’t hang around often, but when I fill the sky at sunrise, or sunset, my beauty is so striking that no one gives a thought to any of you.”
​

Red could stand it no longer. He shouted out:

“I am more precious than all of you! I am blood – Life’s blood! I am the color of danger and of bravery. I am willing to fight for a cause. Without me, the earth would be as empty as the moon. I am the color of passion, of love, the red rose, and the poinsettia. Without me there would be no life to give any of you any consideration.
​

Purple rose to his full height. He was very tall and spoke with great pomp:

“I am the color of royalty and power. Kings, chiefs, and bishops have always chosen me, for I am the sign of authority and wisdom. People do not question me. They listen and obey! Unlike you , I am honored.”
​

Finally indigo spoke, but much more quietly than the rest, yet with just as much determination:

“Think of me. I am the color of silence. you hardly notice me, but without me you all become superficial. I represent thought and reflection, twilight and deep water. You need me for balance and for contrast, for prayer and for inner peace.”
​

And so the colors went on boasting taking little consideration for the others. All claiming to be best, and more valuable. Each of them were convinced that the others were less important than themselves. their quarreling became louder and louder! suddenly there was a bright flash of lightning! The thunder rolled and shook the earth! Rain began to pour, and the colors drew closer and closer together for comfort…

In the midst of the clamor, rain began to speak:

“You foolish colors, fighting amongst yourselves. don’t you know that you were each made for a special purpose, and that each are equally important?
​

The colors were ashamed of all the fighting against one another, and lowered their heads in shame, and as they looked down at the sea, they saw the refection they had made by joining together.

Then rain spoke again:

“All of you are equally important, and each of you are needed in the world. When you come together as one, you create one of God’s greatest gifts. “The Rainbow” a sign of unity, and love, and hope for tomorrow.”
​

The end. :rainbow1:

This story speaks about unity, and shows us how needless conflict truly is. The moral of the story is when we appreciate each other, and come together as one body, the unity created becomes amazingly beautiful. Now, Imagine that the colors represent the worlds ”Other” religions. Is there any harm in accepting other religions as being just as valuable as our own? Is there really any need for conflict at all?

If so, make your case ....

I personally think all religions are false (To some extent), but I also believe that they are very much needed by those who practice them. They are not only a way of life, but they also lend others hope, and it is a shame that we have been unwilling to accept each others differences, and tear down the walls of intolerance that divide mankind.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Is there any harm[/U] in accepting other religions as being just as valuable as our own? Is there really any need for conflict at all?

My religion is what is right for me. Your religion is what is right for you.


When you decide that your religion is right for me, or if I decide that my religion is right for you, that's where the conflict begins.

It's not so much about unity, as it is about coexistence. The colors of the rainbow exist side by side... still their own color. If they were all unified, they wouldn't be distinct colors... there would just be one white light.

Now, I'm sure there's plenty that can be said for white light... purity, wholeness, openness, potential, etc... but without the colors being distinct, there would be no amazingly beautiful rainbow to talk about.

 

[Reptillian]

I like green personally.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I like green personally.

Me too.

 

[Tre-L]

My religion is what is right for me. Your religion is what is right for you.


When you decide that your religion is right for me, or if I decide that my religion is right for you, that's where the conflict begins.

Yet you fight tooth and nail against my view that Jesus was a good moral teacher, which is pretty much you placing your religion above my own, and belittling the one who inspires me. You have decided that your religious views should be right for me, which is a bit hypocritical.

It's not so much about unity, as it is about coexistence. The colors of the rainbow exist side by side... still their own color. If they were all unified, they wouldn't be distinct colors... there would just be one white light.

Coexist is something we already do for the most part. Why not take it a bit further, and unite under a common thread?

 

[wmjbyatt]

While I personally agree with the thrust of the OP, in order to truly co-exist and to be compassionate, we have to understand those worldviews that stand in contradiction with this idea of harmony through diversity.

My religion is what is right for me. Your religion is what is right for you.

Again, I agree with this. But what must be understood is that not all people see things this way, and when they proselytize, they don't see themselves as making the decision of correctness.

When someone truly believes that their religion is The Truth, as ordained by God, they don't see beauty in diversity. What they see is those who understand the truth and then, elsewhere, those blind to the truth. They don't think of a religion as a path that individuals walk separately in order to best serve their needs. They think of their religion as simple, clear, truth. And many of these religions have mandates from God to evangelize. So when they tell you "what is right for you," they do not believe to know you better than you know you, but only to know the truth. While this may seem an equally arrogant claim, is it not also arrogant to believe it to be arrogance and not, indeed, accurate?

The first step (and the last) on the road to true harmony is UNDERSTANDING. Empathy is what we need. There are those whose worldviews do not lend towards empathy, those who believe that they have a monopoly on truth. While we may abhor that kind of understanding, to exist personally in harmony and to build a harmonious world we must be able to understand their world.

 

[McBell]

Green?
Are you kidding me?
Purple is by far the bestest best colour ever!

so there.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yet you fight tooth and nail against my view that Jesus was a good moral teacher, which is pretty much you placing your religion above my own, and belittling the one who inspires me. You have decided that your religious views should be right for me, which is a bit hypocritical.

I'm not fighting tooth and nail. I'm sharing my perspective. It just so happens that you don't like my perspective.

Coexist is something we already do for the most part. Why not take it a bit further, and unite under a common thread?

Coexist harmoniously. Something we don't really already do. Conversion, expulsion, harassment, murder. None of this promotes coexistence.

 

[Poisonshady313]

While this may seem an equally arrogant claim, is it not also arrogant to believe it to be arrogance and not, indeed, accurate?

No.

I'm not a fan of proselytizers. I do believe that what they do is arrogant and rude. Everyone is entitled to believe that they are right... and they are entitled to defend their positions when scrutinized. But people should seek out their own paths, instead of being pitched to by door to door soul solicitors.

 

[wmjbyatt]

No.

I'm not a fan of proselytizers. I do believe that what they do is arrogant and rude. Everyone is entitled to believe that they are right... and they are entitled to defend their positions when scrutinized. But people should seek out their own paths, instead of being pitched to by door to door soul solicitors.

Are you aware that this demonstrates the same kind of intolerance as that of the people whom you are criticizing? This door-to-door soul soliciting is PART of their path, PART of their position. The two are inseparable. In not tolerating the proselytizing, you are not tolerating their path, their view. This is hypocrisy.

 

[Tre-L]

I'm not fighting tooth and nail. I'm sharing my perspective. It just so happens that you don't like my perspective.

I disagree with your perspective, and I wonder why you felt the need to belittle the one who inspires me to the point of you accusing him of being a racist.

Coexist harmoniously. Something we don't really already do. Conversion, expulsion, harassment, murder. None of this promotes coexistence.

Harmoniously being the key term. Seems like there should be a common thread present in most world religions upon which we can build our relationships. Love for neighbor perhaps?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I disagree with your perspective, and I wonder why you felt the need to belittle the one who inspires me to the point of you accusing him of being a racist.

It's nothing personal towards you. I just find neither his words nor his conduct compatible with that of a good moral teacher. In regards to the incident at hand, I don't know how else to describe subjugating and humiliating a foreigner who besought his help and was already humble as well as in distress. Especially when the justification for this subjugation was the fact that she was a foreigner.

 

[Levite]

Are you aware that this demonstrates the same kind of intolerance as that of the people whom you are criticizing? This door-to-door soul soliciting is PART of their path, PART of their position. The two are inseparable. In not tolerating the proselytizing, you are not tolerating their path, their view. This is hypocrisy.

I've got to go with Poisonshady on this one.

If your religion holds that it is superior to all others and everyone who doesn't think just like you will be damned to hell...that might be arrogant and offensive, but as long as you keep it to yourself, I have no quarrel with it. It's a free country. People are in no way obligated not to believe arrogant and offensive things. That is the beauty of free speech.

My tolerance ends at the moment when you decide your religion empowers you to harrass me on the street, or intrude into the privacy of my home, or disrupt me as I walk to synagogue services, or leave an establishment of my people or faith, in an attempt to make me change who I am and what I am, because your religion tells you this is the kind of behavior that scores you points with your god. Believe whatever you please. Leave me and mine alone.

I don't see this as any different from a situation where, let's say you belong to a religion where you think slaughtering a chicken is going to please the gods and bring me blessings. OK, fine, so I don't believe that, but whatever works for you. You want to slaughter chickens on all our behalf, that's your prerogative. Until the point at which you begin waving your chicken carcass around my yard and over my house, spattering chicken blood and feathers everywhere. The fact that you think you're doing me a favor doesn't change the fact that I didn't ask for that, and you're invading my personal space, and you're offending my religion, which in fact prohibits me from being around what you're doing.

Missionizing and seeking proselytes is just the speech version of spattering people with sacrificial chicken blood. For me, or others who profess tolerance and pluralism, to object to it is not at all hypocritical. Tolerance doesn't mean a total lack of boundaries. It means that so long as you are not harming me, what you believe and do in your religious life is simply none of my affair, or anyone else's for that matter.

 

[wmjbyatt]

I'm not actually saying that one way of doing things or another is better. I'm only saying that if harmony is sought, we must commit and not quit half way. I think Wagner demonstrated rather admirably that you can have beauty in disharmony.

 

[blackout]

Green?
Are you kidding me?
Purple is by far the bestest best colour ever!

so there.

Finally. Some sanity. :sarcastic

 

[Wotan]

Are you aware that this demonstrates the same kind of intolerance as that of the people whom you are criticizing? This door-to-door soul soliciting is PART of their path, PART of their position. The two are inseparable. In not tolerating the proselytizing, you are not tolerating their path, their view. This is hypocrisy.

But I am not required to tolerant anything. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. What is wrong with the 11th commandment?

 

[Eliot Wild]

Are you aware that this demonstrates the same kind of intolerance as that of the people whom you are criticizing? This door-to-door soul soliciting is PART of their path, PART of their position. The two are inseparable. In not tolerating the proselytizing, you are not tolerating their path, their view. This is hypocrisy.

I respectfully disagree. It would be 'hypocrisy' if one sought the right to proselytize while also seeking to deny the same right to others.

Respecting an individual's religious liberties, the right to worship as they personally choose, does not mean that one must respect an individual's religious right to engage in acts that are deemed by institutional authorities as criminal offenses and/or civil harrassments.

For example, we wouldn't label it hypocrisy if we all got together and demanded religious freedom for ourselves, but sought to deny others the right to engage in religiously observed human sacrifices, would we? Human sacrifices through ritualistic killings violate most criminal law codes, I daresay. And while undue solicitation and criminal harrassment are not nearly as egregious offenses as murder, these things might still be outlawed by the state without infringing on one's religious liberties.

Criminal and Civil Law Codes are established to maintain civic order. Governments have the burden of maintaining that order while trying to insure Civil Liberties for individuals, liberties such as a person's right to freely worship under the dictates of their own personal conscience. However, we can't extend to individual's the religious freedom to do absolutely whatever they want.

Proselytizing requires that a person 'preach'. It requires that a person engage another person for the purpose of converting them to their religion and/or their way of thinking on religious matters. One might have religious freedom, but one doesn't have the religious freedom to violate another's civil liberties by engaging them and proselytizing to them where their right to privacy is protected, such as in their home or on their privately-owned property.

This is why I disagree that it is 'hypocritical' to denounce proselytization.