Should religion be tolerated?

[BaronVonKaiser]

This is something I'm a little torn on, on one hand, I'm inclined to feel that everyone should be able to conduct their lives as they see fit, to live and let live as it were. On the other hand, however, religions in general seem to cross a line, where they begin to enforce their 'divine will' onto the rest of the world. Children across the world get brainwashed to believe that some horrible damnation awaits them unless they seek salvation through their parents religion, religious groups fight amongst each other over conflicting ideoligies and of course faith in and of itself has a tendency to make one shortsighted and biased when it comes to new information that might conflict with said beliefs. All in all it seems to be quite destructive.

Just to help get this topic rolling, take the all too recent example of 9/11, where religious zealots whose faith is unquestionable by anyone, these people willingly gave their lives to carry out the 'divine will' of their religion. And in so doing ended the lives of so many innocent people. How can one be an advocate for religion without advocating the actions of those 'terrorists'. And if you think that their religion is misguided or their interpretation flawed, and that your own religion is superior, aren't you propagating the very mindset that leads to yet more bloodshed in the name of God?

 

[ChristineES]

Should atheism be tolerated?

 

[Charity]

I think those terroists took their religion out of its normal belief to an extreme exageration of what they desired and threw in a couple of prayers to make it appear that people of their faith are violent and terroistic. Just like a few from different religions do things that make the whole denomination or faith look bad. Like the instance of a priest or a pastor that molests children. It reflects on the group as a whole or just stereotypes the group.......It is unfair but unfortunately it happens....

It's not the religion that is wrong it is the people within the religion that sometimes should not be tolerated...

 

[UnTheist]

Yes, I think it should.

Besides, religion is here to stay.

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

Should atheism be tolerated?

I suppose that depends on your particular definition of atheism, if you take it to mean a 'belief' that god does not exist, then that would make atheism a religion as much as any other. But if you take it as a form of weak agnosticism then the question doesn't make sense anymore. It would be like asking if not having a favourite music group should be tolerated.

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

I think those terroists took their religion out of its normal belief to an extreme exageration of what they desired and threw in a couple of prayers to make it appear that people of their faith are violent and terroistic. Just like a few from different religions do things that make the whole denomination or faith look bad. Like the instance of a priest or a pastor that molests children. It reflects on the group as a whole or just stereotypes the group.......It is unfair but unfortunately it happens....

It's not the religion that is wrong it is the people within the religion that sometimes should not be tolerated...

Just to continue to play the devils advocate here If there is anything to be learned from this forum it is that everyone has their own unique perspective on religions, on their own especially, but one thing that remains universal is that it is the religion that empowers them, whatever warped or twisted idea they have of the 'will of god', they can feel justified in doing it because of religion. To put it in a more general sense, the argument would be, Religion undoubtedly enables it's share of death and destruction and evil, why is it that we are still tolerating it?

 

[McBell]

This is something I'm a little torn on, on one hand, I'm inclined to feel that everyone should be able to conduct their lives as they see fit, to live and let live as it were. On the other hand, however, religions in general seem to cross a line, where they begin to enforce their 'divine will' onto the rest of the world. Children across the world get brainwashed to believe that some horrible damnation awaits them unless they seek salvation through their parents religion, religious groups fight amongst each other over conflicting ideoligies and of course faith in and of itself has a tendency to make one shortsighted and biased when it comes to new information that might conflict with said beliefs. All in all it seems to be quite destructive.

Just to help get this topic rolling, take the all too recent example of 9/11, where religious zealots whose faith is unquestionable by anyone, these people willingly gave their lives to carry out the 'divine will' of their religion. And in so doing ended the lives of so many innocent people. How can one be an advocate for religion without advocating the actions of those 'terrorists'. And if you think that their religion is misguided or their interpretation flawed, and that your own religion is superior, aren't you propagating the very mindset that leads to yet more bloodshed in the name of God?

Seems to me that it is not "religion" so much as it is those who claim religion as justification for actions.

Your question seems to me to be likened to:

Should guns be tolerated?
The thing is that guns do not do anything.
It is the person using the gun that does the thing.
​

One might hear the argument that without guns there would be no gun crime.
This is true, there would be no GUN crime.
But there would still be crime...

I do get the feeling that perhaps I am missing and or misunderstanding something here.
If so, please let me know so I can better respond.

Should atheism be tolerated?

I do not have problems with religion or atheism.
However, I do have problems with some of those who claim to act in behalf of religion or atheism.

 

[McBell]

Religion undoubtedly enables it's share of death and destruction and evil, why is it that we are still tolerating it?

Because religion undoubtedly enables it's share of life, positive constructions, and good as well.

 

[Charity]

Just to continue to play the devils advocate here If there is anything to be learned from this forum it is that everyone has their own unique perspective on religions, on their own especially, but one thing that remains universal is that it is the religion that empowers them, whatever warped or twisted idea they have of the 'will of god', they can feel justified in doing it because of religion. To put it in a more general sense, the argument would be, Religion undoubtedly enables it's share of death and destruction and evil, why is it that we are still tolerating it?

Maybe we are still tolerating it because there is good in Religion and where there is good there is usually bad.
However we keep it to maintain a healthy balance.........:seesaw:

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

Should guns be tolerated?
The thing is that guns do not do anything.
It is the person using the gun that does the thing.

Again I'm not sure I agree one way or the other, but I will continue to argue against on this topic for the sake of helping myself understand better, so here goes...

This is a good argument, but there are a lot of arguments in favour of guns and as you said, guns don't do anything. Religion on the other hand is almost a script, they generally come along with a set of things you must, or must not do. The argument is that religion has a lot of downsides, and as of yet in this particular topic, no upsides... so that being said, should it be tolerated.
Consider a man walking up to you on the street and introducing himself, if he says, "Hi, I'm a child molester." Do you say, ok, whatever makes you happy? No of course not. You openly demonstrate a lack of respect for their choices. If someone comes and says, "Hi, I belong to -insert religious group here-" Do you say, ok, whatever makes you happy? I'm suggesting that maybe it's not ok, maybe the harm that they are causing to themselves in limiting their ability to accept new information, the harm they will inevitably do to others, in supporting their chosen religious orginization or in brainwashing their children to think as they do, or their own negative disposition towards people of opposing faiths, maybe all that is reason enough to openly explain that it is not ok.

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

Because religion undoubtedly enables it's share of life, positive constructions, and good as well.

Would you care to elaborate? Provide some example of good that religion has offered that could not hve been provided by the non-religious?

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

Maybe we are still tolerating it because there is good in Religion and where there is good there is usually bad.
However we keep it to maintain a healthy balance.........:seesaw:

And the same question to you Charity, would you care to provide and example of some sort of 'good' offered by religion that the non-religious is incapable of offering?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Would you care to provide and example of some sort of 'good' offered by religion that the non-religious is incapable of offering?

I wouldn't say a non-religious mindset is incapable of producing similar works to those done in the name of religion (I point to the humanitarian aid work of my own and many other churches as an example of good brought forward by religion), but I certainly think that many faiths promote charity as a core principle. Perhaps it would be a sad indictment to say that without religion, some people would be less inclined towards charity, but I often see this is the case.

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

I wouldn't say a non-religious mindset is incapable of producing similar works to those done in the name of religion (I point to the humanitarian aid work of my own and many other churches as an example of good brought forward by religion), but I certainly think that many faiths promote charity as a core principle. Perhaps it would be a sad indictment to say that without religion, some people would be less inclined towards charity, but I often see this is the case.

I have to disagree with this, I'm sure you'll concur that a decision to aid in a charitable act really comes down to the individual, if you associate with religious groups you will obviously have more exposure to charitable acts done by religious people, I found the same thing in my earlier years when I was involved in the same religion as my parents, but now that I no longer have much contact with that group of people and find myself in secular crowds, it now seems that everytime I hear of charities being benefited it is the non-religious that are behind it. I think this is just a difference in perspective. And even beyond that, do you think that if those religious people that are participating in charities now gave up their religion for some reason, that they would no longer be inclined to lend their aid? I personally find that doubtful.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I have to disagree with this, I'm sure you'll concur that a decision to aid in a charitable act really comes down to the individual, if you associate with religious groups you will obviously have more exposure to charitable acts done by religious people, I found the same thing in my earlier years when I was involved in the same religion as my parents, but now that I no longer have much contact with that group of people and find myself in secular crowds, it now seems that everytime I hear of charities being benefited it is the non-religious that are behind it. I think this is just a difference in perspective. And even beyond that, do you think that if those religious people that are participating in charities now gave up their religion for some reason, that they would no longer be inclined to lend their aid? I personally find that doubtful.

I respect your disagreement, but I am not exactly surrounded by religious people. In fact I am surrounded by (mainly agnostic/atheist) students. I just think that religion can keep charity at the forefront of a persons mind. And remember by charity, I do not necessarily mean donations to organised charities, rather a spirit of compassion and good will - the pure love of Christ. I'm not implying by any means that if a person were to abandon their religion they would cease to be charitable at all, but religion is a mechanism which reminds people of their duty to be charitable. The more people get prodded, the more they are inclined to action.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Substitute the word "religion" with either Christianity or Islam and your OP will not sound so incredibly stupid.

Find where Hinduism or Buddhism or Paganism etc. has commited mass murder, or try to brainwash a group of children?

 

[3.14]

religion should be tolerated everywhere exept in area's where reason and logic is needed ( healthcare inventions, security, goverment, education)

 

[Storm]

Let's say you decide "no." How do you think the world should go about stamping out religion? Kill all the believers? Because that's what it'll take.

 

[3.14]

wel just say you see jesus in a balony sandwich and place a bomb under it rinse repeat for moslims say there is a woman there that named a teddybear mohammed etc

that hilter fellow seemed to be on the right track when it came to disposing of religious people took out almost 6 mil in a couple years now if everybody started doing that it would only take couple generations

 

[jamaesi]

Just to help get this topic rolling, take the all too recent example of 9/11, where religious zealots whose faith is unquestionable by anyone, these people willingly gave their lives to carry out the 'divine will' of their religion. And in so doing ended the lives of so many innocent people. How can one be an advocate for religion without advocating the actions of those 'terrorists'. And if you think that their religion is misguided or their interpretation flawed, and that your own religion is superior, aren't you propagating the very mindset that leads to yet more bloodshed in the name of God?

Actually, that's incorrect. The motive behind the 9/11 attacks were because of USA involvement and policies in the Middle East, particularly USA military presence in the Arabian peninsula and the USA support of Israel.

Usama (and al-Qaidah as a whole) just uses out of context verses from the Qur'an and makes up his own fatwas (which he has no authority to do so) as a smoke-screen.