What if we accepted each others Religion?

[ppp]

The requirements you think should be applied to them, are. Well, are supposed to be..

You'd think so, wouldn't you? At least from a cursory reading of the statutes they appear to be 501(c)(3) non-profits. But in reality, religious organizations have a special exemption from transparency or accountability. A special and unearned exemption. IMHO, obvs.

Where my faith lies, is within the people who congregate together in the name of hope. I have faith in people, not the institutions the people support.

Institutions only exist as the people who support the institution. An institution is exactly equal to the "people who congregate together". No more. No less.

I think we can find a way to share with one another just fine. If anyone, I think it's these institutions that have the problem with people becoming closer through intercommunal relations.

If I am interpreting you correctly, you are talking about the institutions who try to isolate their members from interactions with those outside of that organization. Or to forbid certain types of interactions. Yeah. Those organizations are a problem. Shunning is disgusting. But cultish behavior is not a bigger problem than the larger religious organizations who try to arrange society and influence law, so that they are exempt from scrutiny or critique.

The IRS has a specific definition of what constitutes a "church" for purposes of these exemptions. This includes considerations like regular religious services, established places of worship, and a distinct legal existence.
In summary, churches are a special category within the broader classification of 501(c)(3) organizations, with certain unique exemptions and requirements. They are not labeled differently in terms of their tax-exempt status, but they are subject to a different set of rules and guidelines.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I'm not saying we live in a perfect world... I'm giving my perspective on how opinions and speech should be handled and treated.

Yes, and as it turns out we live in the real world, where lots of people have opinions of what should be, and not all of them compatible.

It’s important to acknowledge reality in order to have a hope of ever attaining an ideal world of how things should be, or anything approaching it.

Unfortunately the imploring of others to adopt their method of worshiping while conspicuously misrepresenting the reality of the conflict between different religions with statements such as these is not the way.
The bait;

We Baha’is already do this and read from all the sacred scriptures of each religion in all our services.

I myself I accept all the major religions and their Founders and Holy Books and find this enriches me greatly.

followed by the switch:

We accept all the religions as true just not the manmade dogmas.

each of these religions prophecies the return of its own Prophet so there is a ‘link’ connecting the religions to one another making them all part of one unfolding process. We believe that Baha’u’llah was prophesied by all these Faiths so in reality He is an integral part of ‘their’ beliefs as He fulfills their prophecies.

which is of course not the view of the other religions and is in fact heretical to them.

I’m not certain if this is a result of blindness brought on by confirmation bias, or a disingenuous attempt at evangelizing for the Baha’i faith.

As I stated before….

That you yearn for peace and unity among mankind is admirable.
That you can’t fathom that religions are antithetical to that goal is naive.

 

[Trailblazer]

You must have a private definition of tolerate, one that includes approving of or supporting such beliefs.

What I meant by tolerate is the following:

tolerate

• allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
• accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

what does tolerate mean - Google Search

I certainly do not expect atheists to 'approve of' or 'accept' Christian or Baha'i beliefs. I do not even expect atheists to 'respect' those beliefs.
But what I see some atheists doing on this forum is being unable to allow the existence of Christian and Baha'i beliefs that they do not like or agree with without interference.

Granted, it is on a debate forum is where I see these posts so atheists have a right to disagree with Christians and Bahais about certain things.
But what I call intolerance is when some atheists consistently denigrate certain things that they don't like about the Baha'i Faith, such as the Baha'i law that pertains to homosexuality, calling Baha'is bigots, just because Baha'u'llah revealed that law. Having a particular law in the Book of Laws is not bigotry on the part of the Baha'is, not by any stretch of the imagination. The only bigotry I see here is the bigotry against the Baha'is on the basis of their membership in the Baha'i Faith, just because 'some people' don't like the Baha'i Faith or its teachings and laws.

Bigotry: obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
bigotry means - Google Search

Bigotry: the fact of having and expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:
bigotry

If so, you ask for more than what the faithful give atheists or gays or women wanting abortions. Tolerance is merely the opposite or absence of oppression. Here's what the religious are entitled to in my opinion and no more: they can believe what they like, read whatever holy book they like, gather in their private spaces like homes and places of worship, adorn their bodies, businesses and car bumpers with whatever icons or decorations they like, enjoy their rituals, and the like - all of the things that don't involve others uninterested in their religion.

Tolerance is merely the opposite or absence of oppression, but that is in real life situations, not in forum discussions.

I was referring to discussions on this forum, not to real life situations. In real life situations regarding gays or women wanting abortions, the religious are entitled to their opinions and no more. Of course the same applies to atheists, they are entitled to their opinions and no more.

Have you seen the Christian scriptures describing unbelievers? Altogether, they depict unbelievers as corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of which does any good, to be shunned, fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god, and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers. Don't believe me? Here's where:

[1] "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

That's what intolerance looks like.

I do not define that as intolerance, not unless Christians who believe those scriptures have an unwillingness to accept atheists who have views that differ from their own.

intolerance: unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.

intolerance means - Google Search

That said, I think those scriptures are despicable, which is 'one reason' I could never be a Christian.

And no, we humanists don't talk that way about any of the believers. Imagine reading this from an atheist: "The fool believes in gods. These fools are corrupt, their deeds are vile. Not one does good." Or how about, "But the fearful, and black people, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall deserve the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

I will grant you that. Humanists do not deride believers the way 'some believers' deride atheists.

None of these people are the friends of atheists, and the most that they should expect from atheists is being disregarded and left alone, and that only applies to the ones not trying to impose themselves in the lives of unbelievers, who should be declaimed emphatically and pushed back at as much as possible and using no euphemisms.

I agree.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

I like you. I find you to be basically a kind and well-meaning person. I am happy to be friendly to you, and I would help you any way I could. I respect you, but not your beliefs or your religion. I merely tolerate them (except the homophobia), which many humanists find intolerable.

I also like you and I find you to be basically a kind and well-meaning person. I am happy to be friendly to you, and I would help you any way I could. I respect you and your non-beliefs regarding God and my religion. That is the difference. I can respect you even though I do not believe the same way you do, but you do not respect my beliefs or my religion.

One thing I will not tolerate without speaking up is being called homophobic because I am not.

homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
what is homophobia - Google Search

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT).
Homophobia - Wikipedia

I know lots of homosexuals in real life and I do not dislike any of them. I like them very much and I do not consider their sexual orientation or what they do in their private lives 'my business' because it isn't. I have no negative attitudes or feelings toward homosexuality or people who are homosexuals. IF I have any negative attitudes towards anyone they are towards self-professed Christians who say they believe in the Bible but then go against it and have sex out of wedlock. I do not have the same attitude towards atheists who have sex out of wedlock since they have no religion that prohibits it.

And I suspect that that is OK with you, and that you feel the same about me and my beliefs - happy to be friendly to me and to feel no need to fight me about my beliefs, but also, that you reject it all for yourself and find little value there. That's tolerance.

No, I do not feel the same way about you or your beliefs. As I said above, I respect you even though I do not believe the same way you do, but you do not respect my beliefs or my religion. I consider that intolerance since it is an 'unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.'

And look at how many of the theists posting in these threads have a palpable dislike for atheists. "What are you doing on our forum?" "Why do you argue about what you say you don't believe in?" "You're just trying to make yourselves gods and escape accountability for living licentious, hedonistic lives." They come by it honestly. It's in their book as I just demonstrated.

I will grant you that that happens on the forum, but it cuts both ways since atheists also speak negatively about believers.

But nobody should expect the secular community to approve of or respect any of that. Au contraire. They should expect such people to take antitheistic action until the organized, politicized religions are pushed out of government and back into the lives of volunteers only. They should not expect to be considered good neighbors, and if living in a country like the States with church-state separation, they should not be considered patriots.

No, in real life situations, nobody should expect the secular community to approve of or respect any of that. I agree that the organized, politicized religions should be pushed out of government and back into the lives of volunteers only.

As for making nice with these religions, it's ludicrous that any believer would expect to be treated more respectfully than they or their religions treat others.

What you said reminds me of the Golden Rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a biblical concept spoken by Jesus in Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12; it is commonly referred to as the "Golden Rule." "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

What Does "Do Unto Others" (The Golden Rule) Mean in the ...​

FYI, that is not a Baha'i belief. Baha'u'llah enjoined us to prefer our brothers to ourselves.
As that applies to me and you, or me and any other atheists or believers, I try to prefer them to myself.

I do not believe in tit for tat. I believe I should treat everyone respectfully, regardless of how they treat me.
As an aside, Bahaullah wrote that courtesy is the prince of virtues.

“O people of God! I admonish you to observe courtesy, for above all else it is the prince of virtues. Well is it with him who is illumined with the light of courtesy and is attired with the vesture of uprightness. Whoso is endued with courtesy hath indeed attained a sublime station. It is hoped that this Wronged One and everyone else may be enabled to acquire it, hold fast unto it, observe it, and fix our gaze upon it. This is a binding command which hath streamed forth from the Pen of the Most Great Name.”

(Baha’u’llah, Tablet of the World, p. 88.)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, and agree with the idea that the lower basic needs must be fulfilled before the higher needs can be achieved/aspired towards.

Right. However, the higher level needs are still NEEDS. They are just lower priority needs.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Its interesting that you seem to think that is the part that's being objected to as opposed to say - the proposed acceptance of Baha'i dogma that seems implicit.

Plenty of non-religious people and atheists/agnostics are widely read in scriptures and have tried different foods so I dont see why you imagine that is the source of their objections to threads like these.

I don't see the OP as proposing acceptance of 'Baha'i dogma', Baha'i theology or anything else Baha'i.

Of course many non-religious people are well read and experienced with many different cultures.

 

[ppp]

It's an interesting thread, for me not because of the ideas presented but the negative reactions generated.

The whole idea of gaining inspiration from reading scripture from various world religions or attending an event at another's place of worship is just an integral part of multiculturalism. I might eat Turkisk one night and an Indian curry the next. I may read verses from the Quran one day and then from the Christian Bible the next.

I have no desire to stay within the confines of any one cultural tradition. Obviously not everyone feels the same.

Merely eating the foods of different cultures and reading the books of different religions is not multiculturalism. Multiculturalism as a social or political concept involves more than just experiencing different cultural elements; it's about the recognition, acceptance, and respect for cultural diversity, and often involves policies and practices that support and uphold these values in society.

The first century or so of European anthropologists were immersed in a monocultural classism. All the while those anthropologists ate food from many cultures, and read their sacred texts.

Negative reactions are appropriate responses to cultural exploitation. Well, attempted cultural exploitation, at the least.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't see the OP as proposing acceptance of 'Baha'i dogma', Baha'i theology or anything else Baha'i.

I see it as a mixed bag, the OP speaks of acceptance of "religions" and of acceptance of the founders of religions arbitrarily defined as major;
"So Christians would accept Buddha and Muhammad, Buddhists would accept Christ and Baha’is etc"
Without giving any details of what is meant by acceptance of these leaders it comes across as a dog whistle for acceptance of them as divine messengers in my view.

Of course many non-religious people are well read and experienced with many different cultures.

Precisely why we wouldn't be objecting to that in my view.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Right. However, the higher level needs are still NEEDS. They are just lower priority needs.

Allow me to reference the comment/quote in question:

We don't need religiosity per se, but we do need food for sustenance.

By using the phrase 'per se' I am not discounting it's value. I'm literally placing it at the top of Maslow's pyramid.

per se

1. by or of itself: 2. by or of itself: 3. by or of itself:

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Vinayaka]

The 19 day feast is for the community. The devotional and social part can be attended by people that are not Baha'i, but the Administrative part is for the Baha'i.

So there is the option if there are people that are not Bahai attending, have the feast and leave out one of the main Bahai aspects of the feast, or ask the people that are not Baha'i to wait while the Administrative part is completed. Both of those options are not ideal, so many communities will hold the feasts Baha'i only.

In the end, there are many communuty functions organised that everyone can attend, so it is logical to hold the feast for the Baha'i only, as the cause needs to address all the administrative requirements and in the larger communities, that can take some time.

Regards Tony

Thanks for clarifying that. Makes sense.

 

[ppp]

Unfortunately the imploring of others to adopt their method of worshiping while conspicuously misrepresenting the reality of the conflict between different religions with statements such as these is not the way.
The bait;

So true

 

[danieldemol]

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT).
Homophobia - Wikipedia

Evidently you don't get that as an "or" statement you dont have to be both to be homophobic in my view.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Yes, and as it turns out we live in the real world, where lots of people have opinions of what should be, and not all of them compatible.

Well, I'm glad I live in a place where I can announce my opinion without fear of violence or incarceration, regardless of how incompatible it may be with the general consensus.

I think the opinion of the world would benefit, if we could all share all of our opinions, including those considered less than beneficial in idea. Open forums open to opinions, just like ReligiousForums.com here.

 

[Vinayaka]

It's an interesting thread, for me not because of the ideas presented but the negative reactions generated.

The whole idea of gaining inspiration from reading scripture from various world religions or attending an event at another's place of worship is just an integral part of multiculturalism. I might eat Turkisk one night and an Indian curry the next. I may read verses from the Quran one day and then from the Christian Bible the next.

I have no desire to stay within the confines of any one cultural tradition. Obviously not everyone feels the same.

Negative reactions, or differing opinions? Are you capable of reading the emotions of other posters? I'm certainly not. I don't know just how angry or not angry someone else on the forum is, due to words I use, or others use. Some people might consider your response here as angry. I don't. One indicator might be if they go away for awhile, or threaten to leave. But that could also be sadness or frustration at not being heard, not anger.

 

[ppp]

Evidently you don't get that as an "or" statement you dont have to be both to be homophobic in my view.

Nor is there any curiosity as to what attitudes the "range of negative attitudes" encompass.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Merely eating the foods of different cultures and reading the books of different religions is not multiculturalism. Multiculturalism as a social or political concept involves more than just experiencing different cultural elements; it's about the recognition, acceptance, and respect for cultural diversity, and often involves policies and practices that support and uphold these values in society.

The first century or so of European anthropologists were immersed in a monocultural classism. All the while those anthropologists ate food from many cultures, and read their sacred texts.

Negative reactions are appropriate responses to cultural exploitation. Well, attempted cultural exploitation, at the least.

I never said eating foods from different cultures and reading books from different religions was multiculturalism, rather 'part' of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism has different definitions and meanings to each of us. Its certainly been around as long as there's been more than one culture on the planet and the need for different groups to work together. Perhaps a good example of an early multicural civilisation was the Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great.

I don't see a lot of cultural exploitation happening on this thread. Do you?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I see it as a mixed bag, the OP speaks of acceptance of "religions" and of acceptance of the founders of religions arbitrarily defined as major;
"So Christians would accept Buddha and Muhammad, Buddhists would accept Christ and Baha’is etc"
Without giving any details of what is meant by acceptance of these leaders it comes across as a dog whistle for acceptance of them as divine messengers in my view.

I wonder if you are reading something into the OP that isn't there. Acceptance does not mean or even imply full agreement. I accept atheism and agnosticism as legitimate worldviews though don't necessarily agree with everything about those perspectives. Similarly I accept atheists as my friends, workmates and colleagues yet I am a theist.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Negative reactions, or differing opinions? Are you capable of reading the emotions of other posters? I'm certainly not. I don't know just how angry or not angry someone else on the forum is, due to words I use, or others use. Some people might consider your response here as angry. I don't. One indicator might be if they go away for awhile, or threaten to leave. But that could also be sadness or frustration at not being heard, not anger.

I'm no better than the next guy when it comes to reading emotions. However some of the opinions on this thread have come across as being more than simply different opinions and have appeared 'negative'. That said, negativity has its place. If the OP proposed Christianity or another religion was the only legitimate religion on the planet, then some degree of negativity would be very appropriate IMHO.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

You'd think so, wouldn't you? At least from a cursory reading of the statutes they appear to be 501(c)(3) non-profits. But in reality, religious organizations have a special exemption from transparency or accountability. A special and unearned exemption. IMHO, obvs.

It pretty clear language if you ask me.

"Religious Organizations
Unlike churches, religious organizations that wish to be tax exempt generally must apply to the IRS for tax-exempt status unless their gross receipts do not normally exceed $5,000 annually."

"Jeopardizing Tax-Exempt Status
All IRC Section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:
their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or individual;
they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests;
they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation;
they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office;
and the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy."

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf Pg.4

Institutions only exist as the people who support the institution. An institution is exactly equal to the "people who congregate together". No more. No less.

If I am interpreting you correctly, you are talking about the institutions who try to isolate their members from interactions with those outside of that organization. Or to forbid certain types of interactions. Yeah. Those organizations are a problem. Shunning is disgusting. But cultish behavior is not a bigger problem than the larger religious organizations who try to arrange society and influence law, so that they are exempt from scrutiny or critique.

An organization, institution, corporation, etc... Is equal to more than each of it's individual members, it is equal to that and the sum of it's members collectively. No individual is the sole representative of the group, but the group can be seen as the sole representation of the individual. Institutions and their ideals can persevere through time, without supporters or members, waiting to be rehashed from what remains of it in the annals of history. Tribalism and groupthink behavior are pitfalls of joining and upholding the banner of any collective. IMHO.

If you want to join a group; Join Humanity.
Better yet; Earthlings, unite!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Allow me to reference the comment/quote in question:

By using the phrase 'per se' I am not discounting it's value. I'm literally placing it at the top of Maslow's pyramid.

per se

1. by or of itself: 2. by or of itself: 3. by or of itself:

dictionary.cambridge.org

I would agree with your "per se", meaning that while religion is a need, it is not the only need.