What if we didn't accept other peoples' religions

[ppp]

Suppose that we just acknowledge from the get-go that any two given religions or subcultures will have many compatibilities and many incompatibilities. And suppose we do not whitewash that fact, ignore the differences, or try to craft language to obscure those disharmonies.

Suppose that we try to build a society that acknowledges that there will be inevitable conflicts between that society's respective subcultures. Where we teach people that the mere existence of conflict is not an existential threat.

What would the foundations of that society look like?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Suppose that we just acknowledge from the get-go that any two given religions or subcultures will have many compatibilities and many incompatibilities. And suppose we do not whitewash that fact, ignore the differences, or try to craft language to obscure those disharmonies.

Suppose that we try to build a society that acknowledges that there will be inevitable conflicts between that society's respective subcultures. Where we teach people that the mere existence of conflict is not an existential threat.

What would the foundations of that society look like?

What we have today.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Suppose that we just acknowledge from the get-go that any two given religions or subcultures will have many compatibilities and many incompatibilities. And suppose we do not whitewash that fact, ignore the differences, or try to craft language to obscure those disharmonies.

Suppose that we try to build a society that acknowledges that there will be inevitable conflicts between that society's respective subcultures. Where we teach people that the mere existence of conflict is not an existential threat.

What would the foundations of that society look like?

I think conflict denial is a bit like death denial. Death is inevitable, and pretending it doesn't come is unrealistic. As long as man holds an instinctive mind, and the universe is a place for the soul's evolution, conflict will be here. In fact, it's necessary for the human spirit to grow, as it's a precursor for conflict resolution. Over the last 5000 years, and probably much longer, the human species hasn't really gotten that close. Small groups have, but not the entire species. Just as we accept pain as part of life, perhaps we should accept a degree of conflict. Certainly it takes the utopian dream out of the picture.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What we have today.

Regards Tony

Yeah pretty much. I guess some people don't get out of the house too often.

 

[paarsurrey]

What if we didn't accept other peoples' religions

If my own Religion is reasonable and supports reason as far as reason could go and I find other Religions and or No-Religions, then, why I would accept any of them, right?

Regards

 

[danieldemol]

What if instead of attempting to coerce people into accepting dogmas for the sake of peace we instead sought to accept only that which is true and reject that which is not demonstrably true as being non essential at best, worthy of rejection at worst?

 

[SalixIncendium]

What would the foundations of that society look like?

Much like what we see here on a daily basis: Religious Debates

Perhaps it would be more productive to society if differences between cultures and religions were recognized and accepted rather than "accepting" the cultures and religions themselves, and if people strived for tolerance rather than acceptance.

Differences don't necessarily translate to conflict. Conflict arises as a result of ego.

And "accepting" is in quotes above, because manipulating religious beliefs and cultural practices to fit one's own agenda or the agenda of one's own religion isn't acceptance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Suppose that we just acknowledge from the get-go that any two given religions or subcultures will have many compatibilities and many incompatibilities. And suppose we do not whitewash that fact, ignore the differences, or try to craft language to obscure those disharmonies.

Suppose that we try to build a society that acknowledges that there will be inevitable conflicts between that society's respective subcultures. Where we teach people that the mere existence of conflict is not an existential threat.

What would the foundations of that society look like?

A secular democracy?

 

[Quintessence]

There's a bit if a mismatch between the thread title and the content of the opening post, but @TransmutingSoul already covered it - this is more or less how human society works now. What we don't have is going a step further beyond merely saying that diversity is not an existential threat and putting a focus on celebrating and sharing in each other's diversity. In other words, practicing multiculturalism. Some places do practice this, but it is uneven.

 

[ppp]

What we have today.

Really? Do you don't think that the religious people here are representative of the population as a whole?

 

[Quintessence]

Really? Do you don't think that the religious people here are representative of the population as a whole?

How did you get from what @TransmutingSoul said to this, precisely? I don't understand.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Really? Do you don't think that the religious people here are representative of the population as a whole?

I, too, am baffled by your conclusion.

 

[ppp]

I, too, am baffled by your conclusion.

Oh? What are you hearing?

 

[Quintessence]

Oh? What are you hearing?

Something that doesn't make sense. That's why I asked for the reasoning because the comment seems very non-sequitor.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Oh? What are you hearing?

Right now Jeremy Soule's music accompanying the rain falling in Skyrim.

But regarding your post, I'm reading the question you asked @TransmutingSoul that references that for some reason compares the religions denizens of RF to the population as a whole. Why on earth would you compare the religious people here to the entire population? That's essentially comparing apples to fruit.

 

[LuisDantas]

Suppose that we just acknowledge from the get-go that any two given religions or subcultures will have many compatibilities and many incompatibilities. And suppose we do not whitewash that fact, ignore the differences, or try to craft language to obscure those disharmonies.

Pretty good so far.

Suppose that we try to build a society that acknowledges that there will be inevitable conflicts between that society's respective subcultures. Where we teach people that the mere existence of conflict is not an existential threat.

Better yet.

What would the foundations of that society look like?

It would have to be very political, the very best conceptions of that word. It would be on the lookout for authoritatian tendencies and value awareness of social, ideological, religious and political trends. It would have to be, for without that awareness we end up falling back into nationalism and authoritarianism.

Something of an utopian goal, but I am all for it.

 

[LuisDantas]

What if we didn't accept other peoples' religions

If my own Religion is reasonable and supports reason as far as reason could go and I find other Religions and or No-Religions, then, why I would accept any of them, right?

Regards

That is a reasonable question. What is acceptance and how does it apply to groups that we deem non-reasonable?

 

[LuisDantas]

What if instead of attempting to coerce people into accepting dogmas for the sake of peace we instead sought to accept only that which is true and reject that which is not demonstrably true as being non essential at best, worthy of rejection at worst?

Can you give me some examples? I am a bit lost in trying to figure how that would work.

Far as I can tell, we do not exist in a very epistemologically solid world.

 

[ppp]

Right now Jeremy Soule's music accompanying the rain falling in Skyrim.

So good.

But regarding your post, I'm reading the question you asked @TransmutingSoul that references that for some reason compares the religions denizens of RF to the population as a whole. Why on earth would you compare the religious people here to the entire population? That's essentially comparing apples to fruit.

Can you give me a reason for your being aghast? I do not know what your objection is

 

[SalixIncendium]

Can you give me a reason for your being aghast? I do not know what your objection is

I'm not aghast, nor did I object. I'm merely baffled by the question.