Should religion be tolerated?

[ChristineES]

Maybe we should ask if anything should be tolerated. Students kill each other over sneakers, so sneakers shouldn't be tolerated. People kill over lovers, so lovers shouldn't be tolerated. People have riots over sports sometimes, so sports should not be tolerated. We should all dress the same, dye our hair all the same color, eat the same food (and no meat) and all speak the same language. The world would be boring but no one would have anything to fight about. Or would they?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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

Hm...but in the same sense, could you provide some negatives examples that religion has provided that non-religion could not provide?

Otherwise, I would consider folks like Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King to be examples of the positive spirits that a religious mindset could provide as a counterpoint to the folks that have used religion as a justification for torture and death.

 

[ChristineES]

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?

The problem with that logic is that once you ban one or two faiths, it makes it all the easier to ban others. And don't tell me Hindus never fight in wars, I know different.

 

[DallasApple]

Don Penguino..You arent being true to your faith with your execution of people in a group.

Love

Dallas

 

[McBell]

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.

You have just proven my point.
It is the PEOPLE, not religion or lack of religion.

IMO, your argument is flawed simply because I can take your 'points' about religious groups and EQUALLY apply them to non religious groups.

 

[JustWondering]

From a purely practical standpoint, religions that promote violence and intolerence should not be tolerated. They should be dealt with before their followers get their hands on dangerous toys like nukes or biological weapons. If a religion promotes tolerance and peaceful cooexistance then its not a threat to anyone and should be tolerated.

 

[Elessar]

Should ideas you disagree with be tolerated?

 

[ChristineES]

From a purely practical standpoint, religions that promote violence and intolerance should not be tolerated. They should be dealt with before their followers get their hands on dangerous toys like nukes or biological weapons. If a religion promotes tolerance and peaceful cooexistance then its not a threat to anyone and should be tolerated.

If you wipe out an entire faith because you don't approve of it, that would also be intolerance and then you could be wiped out by someone else because of that intolerance and then they would be wiped out and so on. In the end, no one would be left. Truth is, you can't stop people from believing whatever they want- the best you could do is get a person not to talk about what he or she believes.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

The problem with that logic is that once you ban one or two faiths, it makes it all the easier to ban others. And don't tell me Hindus never fight in wars, I know different.

I was hoping i could make BaronVonKaiser slightly more aware of religions outside of his bubble...

Hindu wars versus others is minute, i honestly believe we fight MUCH less wars than others. Of course we have partaken in wars, but that wwas mainly because we had no choice. In WW1 and WW2 India was a colonised nation and many troops were Indian.

I can comfortably say religions such as Buddhism or Jainism have not partaken in ary wars. I think, unless you know otherwise?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Don Penguino..You arent being true to your faith with your execution of people in a group.

Love

Dallas

Explain, please if you will?

 

[Elessar]

I was hoping i could make BaronVonKaiser slightly more aware of religions outside of his bubble...

Hindu wars versus others is minute, i honestly believe we fight MUCH less wars than others. Of course we have partaken in wars, but that wwas mainly because we had no choice. In WW1 and WW2 India was a colonised nation and many troops were Indian.

I can comfortably say religions such as Buddhism or Jainism have not partaken in ary wars. I think, unless you know otherwise?

The Japanese military had institutionalized Buddhism throughout the Meiji Period, including through both World Wars. Also, many Japanese samurai and daimyo practiced Buddhism for many centuries before that, while remaining part of the warring states system of the Sengoku Jidai.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

The Japanese military had institutionalized Buddhism throughout the Meiji Period, including through both World Wars.

I stand corrected.

I am sitting, but never mind.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Should religion be tolerated? What are the other options? Be intolerant?

 

[ChristineES]

Should religion be tolerated? What are the other options? Be intolerant?

True, being intolerant to the intolerant is still intolerance.

 

[zenzero]

Friend BVK,

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?
__________________

Firstly there needs to be someone to * PROPAGATE* when have not found *ANYONE* surely cannot propagate.

God is only a concept and in the name of a concept one can only propose *HYPOTHESIS* and if someone is present and propagating terrorism then surely is irreligious for sure.

Please understand it is not the religion that is misguided but those who do not understand as to what is God as a concept or do not value life.

Love & rgds

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

Hm...but in the same sense, could you provide some negatives examples that religion has provided that non-religion could not provide?

Otherwise, I would consider folks like Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King to be examples of the positive spirits that a religious mindset could provide as a counterpoint to the folks that have used religion as a justification for torture and death.

This is my point exactly, lets take Mother Teresa for instance, she stood by the decisions of the Catholic church, including things like, for instance, the banning of condoms, she denounced their use which made campaigns to reduce the rampant spread of aids fight an uphill battle, she was indirectly responsible for countless deaths that would have been easily avoidable if it wasn't for her misguided faith.

I don't think anyone has to think very hard to come up with an example of an atrocity that only religion could have provided. There are murderers out there, they kill people even knowing that it's wrong, but how do you convince an army of people that wiping out an entire culture is ok? That takes a religious upbringing.

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

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.

I still would have to disagree, take just money donated to charities for instance, there is moer money than ever being donated to charities across the world, they are becoming larger and larger portions of peoples incomes, why isn't this the case in religious nations, Like the United Arab Emirates, they have a lot of wealth there, and according to their statistics, all of their citizens are religious. Why is their percentage of charitable donations so much lower than places where religion is not as prevelant?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This is my point exactly, lets take Mother Teresa for instance, she stood by the decisions of the Catholic church, including things like, for instance, the banning of condoms, she denounced their use which made campaigns to reduce the rampant spread of aids fight an uphill battle, she was indirectly responsible for countless deaths that would have been easily avoidable if it wasn't for her misguided faith.

There is no way to exist without being the cause of suffering for something. Denouncing the use of condoms may be misguided, but I don't think it negates the positive work a person does with helping the poor and sick.

I don't think anyone has to think very hard to come up with an example of an atrocity that only religion could have provided.

That could not be attributed to the cruel nature of humanity, such as:

There are murderers out there, they kill people even knowing that it's wrong, but how do you convince an army of people that wiping out an entire culture is ok? That takes a religious upbringing.

Human desperation, manipulation, and greed need not a religious upbringing. Despair breeds despair.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I still would have to disagree, take just money donated to charities for instance, there is moer money than ever being donated to charities across the world, they are becoming larger and larger portions of peoples incomes, why isn't this the case in religious nations, Like the United Arab Emirates, they have a lot of wealth there, and according to their statistics, all of their citizens are religious. Why is their percentage of charitable donations so much lower than places where religion is not as prevelant?

I tend to like sources when it comes to statistics.

 

[McBell]

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

Provide an example of ANYTHING that non-religious offers that could not have been provided by religion?

You can't.
This is my point.

Your argument equally applies to the non-religious.