Why have tolerance?

[Wakeup]

If we have tolerance towards a religion that says doing good and avoiding bad will land you a spot in heaven, with little to no evidence for this claim, then we must also have tolerance for religions that say killing yourself and others will land you a spot in heaven, with just as little evidence for their claim. If you disagree and think "their" religion is weird and not moral than your enthocentric.

To take this a step further people who fly planes into buildings because of a religiously-inspired hatred of America are actually morally exquisite and brave. What they are doing is for their God and in their culture is seen as an incredible quality, laying down their life for God. But a Christian is ethnocentric if he says it's immoral because he believes in similar rubbish. You have to climb into their skin to understand them.

 

[bobhikes]

If we have tolerance towards a religion that says doing good and avoiding bad will land you a spot in heaven, with little to no evidence for this claim, then we must also have tolerance for religions that say killing yourself and others will land you a spot in heaven, with just as little evidence for their claim. If you disagree and think "their" religion is weird and not moral than your enthocentric.

How about if you have tolerance for everyone as long they don't apply there beliefs to others. You want to believe killing yourself gets you to heaven (Jim Jones) fine as long as you didn't manipulate or force others into your belief.

Thats my issue forcing others to subscribe to what you believe. I don't have your experiences and can not understand your belief as long as I don't force you to take my belief we should be able to get along what ever that belief is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It all depends on how you define "tolerance". I tolerate religion in that I am happy for people to believe whatever they want - provided those beliefs don't negatively impact the happiness of others - but I have been called "intolerant" in the past purely for criticizing religion or religious beliefs. I'm tolerant to the extent that I will allow people to have their beliefs, but I'm not tolerant to the extent I am unwilling to question or criticize them.

 

[Orias]

If we have tolerance towards a religion that says doing good and avoiding bad will land you a spot in heaven, with little to no evidence for this claim, then we must also have tolerance for religions that say killing yourself and others will land you a spot in heaven, with just as little evidence for their claim. If you disagree and think "their" religion is weird and not moral than your enthocentric.

All religions say that doing good and avoiding bad will land you a spot in a spiritual paradise.

And what you described is not ethnocentrism, just a person that thinks that they are right.

Ethnocentrism would be like, "U.S.A is the greatest country in the world", or "White people rule". Not, "my religion is more right", since religion is worldwide and not racially specific.

To take this a step further people who fly planes into buildings because of a religiously-inspired hatred of America are actually morally exquisite and brave. What they are doing is for their God and in their culture is seen as an incredible quality, laying down their life for God. But a Christian is ethnocentric if he says it's immoral because he believes in similar rubbish. You have to climb into their skin to understand them.

Ethnocentrism is more of a political thing than a religious thing, but I guess that it could be tied in with religious matters at some point.

 

[Quiddity]

This is absurd.

If one claim is silly, then they all must be thrown into the same bucket?

Do you apply this to everything and not just religion?

If one cookie sucks, then they all must suck?

If the flying spaghetti monster is yummy then all pasta must be yummy?

What evidence is there for all pasta being yummy?

......

 

[Breathe]

If you disagree and think "their" religion is weird and not moral than your enthocentric.

Ethnocentric?
:foot:


A couple of things:

Religion ≠ culture
Religion ≠ ethnicity
Ethnocentric ≠ thinking a religion is weird

It is not ethnocentric to consider a religion weird. It is not ethnocentric to dislike a religion's teachings.

Even if you replace that word with racist, it still doesn't work. Bigoted, then it moves into a little bit more of a grey area. To consider the adherents to the religion as something negative, yes -- to disapprove of the religious philosophy? Not really.

The religion you mention does not teach that one should kill innocents for God, let alone going into specifics such as flying planes into buildings, nor does the culture. There are many members of that religion and from areas where it is the major religious belief who abhor such acts.


There is no problem with having tolerance for a religion whose teachings are not the same as what you believe if they believe we should avoid bad and do good.

However, a religion which believes we should do bad, well, I do have a problem with having tolerance for such a hypothetical religion, because it believes in doing bad - which violates the religious beliefs of every--if not all--religions that have existed, which say, in effect: love your neighbour (and do no harm to the innocent) -- this is probably universal, as religions are social based, and believing you can go around killing anyone who is not like you would not really be beneficial a religion's or culture's survival (if you attack others who are different all the time, others may end up taking a pre-emptive strike on your group). When we get such views, we end up with groups who become self-marginalised and are definitely dangerous, such as the Jim Jones' cult and Aum Shirinkyō.

Of course, we have had, and probably will have, wars are fought on political means with religion as a tool. Even if we removed religion, the same can occur by one's skin, nation of birth, or political ideology. I do not believe that, for example, various groups believed they had to enslave, kill and sacrifice others because their religion told them to, but they did so because of other means (and when sacrifice is applicable, because I guess people would rather sacrifice a nameless person than someone whom they know) - usually these boil down to differences, which were usually tribe and religion, but with nations occurring, we have seen them with other things, such as on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, and nationality.


Just my $0.02.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I tolerate all sorts of silly and dangerous things that I cannot change. What other choice do you have?

 

[Wakeup]

This is absurd.

If one claim is silly, then they all must be thrown into the same bucket?

Do you apply this to everything and not just religion?

If one cookie sucks, then they all must suck?

If the flying spaghetti monster is yummy then all pasta must be yummy?

What evidence is there for all pasta being yummy?

......

you missed the point entirely and you give me the awful impression of someone whose never read any of the thoughts or opinions of anyone contrary to your own. I'm not saying that just because some religions believe killing people will land them a spot in heaven all religion is bad. The example you gave: one cookie is bad, therefor there all bad. I'm saying if we tolerate catholicism for e.g., so much so that speaking out contrary to it is so taboo to the point its not aloud then we must treat other religions the same way. These other religions could be immoral, but must be protected and not spoken bad about on the same grounds we treat our religion.

 

[Wakeup]

Ethnocentric?
:foot:


A couple of things:

Religion ≠ culture
Religion ≠ ethnicity
Ethnocentric ≠ thinking a religion is weird

It is not ethnocentric to consider a religion weird. It is not ethnocentric to dislike a religion's teachings.

Even if you replace that word with racist, it still doesn't work. Bigoted, then it moves into a little bit more of a grey area. To consider the adherents to the religion as something negative, yes -- to disapprove of the religious philosophy? Not really.

The religion you mention does not teach that one should kill innocents for God, let alone going into specifics such as flying planes into buildings, nor does the culture. There are many members of that religion and from areas where it is the major religious belief who abhor such acts.


There is no problem with having tolerance for a religion whose teachings are not the same as what you believe if they believe we should avoid bad and do good.

However, a religion which believes we should do bad, well, I do have a problem with having tolerance for such a hypothetical religion, because it believes in doing bad - which violates the religious beliefs of every--if not all--religions that have existed, which say, in effect: love your neighbour (and do no harm to the innocent) -- this is probably universal, as religions are social based, and believing you can go around killing anyone who is not like you would not really be beneficial a religion's or culture's survival (if you attack others who are different all the time, others may end up taking a pre-emptive strike on your group). When we get such views, we end up with groups who become self-marginalised and are definitely dangerous, such as the Jim Jones' cult and Aum Shirinkyō.

Of course, we have had, and probably will have, wars are fought on political means with religion as a tool. Even if we removed religion, the same can occur by one's skin, nation of birth, or political ideology. I do not believe that, for example, various groups believed they had to enslave, kill and sacrifice others because their religion told them to, but they did so because of other means (and when sacrifice is applicable, because I guess people would rather sacrifice a nameless person than someone whom they know) - usually these boil down to differences, which were usually tribe and religion, but with nations occurring, we have seen them with other things, such as on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, and nationality.


Just my $0.02.

Your entirely wrong. The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and sub-divisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.

ethnocentricity is in fact thinking another religion is weird so long as it's judged through the lens of your own religion.

 

[javajo]

I believe in live and let live. You believe what you want, I will believe what I want. But when your belief inspires you to kill me, then we have a problem.

 

[tarasan]

I believe in live and let live. You believe what you want, I will believe what I want. But when your belief inspires you to kill me, then we have a problem.

what if my beliefs inspire me to hug you?:angel2:

is that permitted?

 

[Riverwolf]

If we have tolerance towards a religion that says doing good and avoiding bad will land you a spot in heaven, with little to no evidence for this claim, then we must also have tolerance for religions that say killing yourself and others will land you a spot in heaven, with just as little evidence for their claim.

Why?

If you disagree and think "their" religion is weird and not moral than your enthocentric.

How?

 

[Riverwolf]

The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and religion.

So ethnicity and culture are the same thing?

 

[TheKnight]

If we have tolerance towards a religion that says doing good and avoiding bad will land you a spot in heaven, with little to no evidence for this claim, then we must also have tolerance for religions that say killing yourself and others will land you a spot in heaven, with just as little evidence for their claim. If you disagree and think "their" religion is weird and not moral than your enthocentric.

Which is why we shouldn't be concerned with peoples' beliefs but with their actions. I don't care what you believe. I care about what you do. What you believe is between you and God, what you do makes changes and differences in the world that affect other people.

So I could care less what a murderer believes when he is murdering. I disagree with his murder. What he believes about it is irrelevant to that fact.

you missed the point entirely and you give me the awful impression of someone whose never read any of the thoughts or opinions of anyone contrary to your own. I'm not saying that just because some religions believe killing people will land them a spot in heaven all religion is bad. The example you gave: one cookie is bad, therefor there all bad. I'm saying if we tolerate catholicism for e.g., so much so that speaking out contrary to it is so taboo to the point its not aloud then we must treat other religions the same way. These other religions could be immoral, but must be protected and not spoken bad about on the same grounds we treat our religion.

Again, there is no need to speak out against religions. Religions are organized groups of people who share beliefs.

Who cares what people believe. Individuals act and groups act. We should focus on actions. There's no need to speak out against any ideology, only against actions. The ideology is relevant only if we're trying to be proactive or preventative. And that is a slippery slope to traverse.

 

[javajo]

what if my beliefs inspire me to hug you?:angel2:

is that permitted?

Sure!

 

[fallingblood]

If we have tolerance towards a religion that says doing good and avoiding bad will land you a spot in heaven, with little to no evidence for this claim, then we must also have tolerance for religions that say killing yourself and others will land you a spot in heaven, with just as little evidence for their claim. If you disagree and think "their" religion is weird and not moral than your enthocentric.

To take this a step further people who fly planes into buildings because of a religiously-inspired hatred of America are actually morally exquisite and brave. What they are doing is for their God and in their culture is seen as an incredible quality, laying down their life for God. But a Christian is ethnocentric if he says it's immoral because he believes in similar rubbish. You have to climb into their skin to understand them.

Let me first say that you totally have a lacking knowledge on religion. Yes, some people take it to the extreme (such as the hijackers during 9/11); however, they have warped their religion to a point that it hardly resembles what the vast majority would say the religion stands for. And usually, there is something else fueling such actions. Hardly are such actions motivated solely by religion. The sooner people realize that, the better.

As for tolerating others, why shouldn't we? Tolerating others does not mean that we have to sit by and watch them kill us. It doesn't mean we have to sit by and watch them commit crimes or do horrible actions. That is not what toleration is about. That would be foolish. When someone goes to an extreme, that does not need to be tolerated, as it is hurtful. Simply, toleration is not all inclusive.

However, the vast majority of religions and their adherents aren't harming you, or even causing potential problems. Sure, they believe in something you don't; however, you believe in something they don't either. That is life, and if you can't live with it, and tolerate it, then you're in trouble. Because all you would be showing is small mindedness, and generally, that will cause problems for you.

Also, ethnocentric (as the dictionary defines: evaluating other peoples and cultures according to the standards of one's own culture.) really is not a good choice of words here. Religion is not necessarily a part of ones culture. We see most major religions being practiced in multiple cultures. And in one particular culture, you can find a handful of different religions. So me not tolerating someone's religious beliefs (especially like the ones you gave about killing to get to heaven, which only a very small minority hold within any major religion) is not being ethnocentric. I am not speaking about their culture. And I'm not even speaking about the majority belief of people in their culture.

 

[ChristineES]

If we have tolerance towards a religion that says doing good and avoiding bad will land you a spot in heaven, with little to no evidence for this claim, then we must also have tolerance for religions that say killing yourself and others will land you a spot in heaven, with just as little evidence for their claim. If you disagree and think "their" religion is weird and not moral than your enthocentric.

To take this a step further people who fly planes into buildings because of a religiously-inspired hatred of America are actually morally exquisite and brave. What they are doing is for their God and in their culture is seen as an incredible quality, laying down their life for God. But a Christian is ethnocentric if he says it's immoral because he believes in similar rubbish. You have to climb into their skin to understand them.

I've got an idea. If I ever fly an airplane into a building, I will give permission to not tolerate my faith anymore.
Plus, I will make a deal, I will tolerate you if you tolerate me- as long as I don't infringe on your rights and you don't infringe on mine, I see no problem.
Welcome to the RF.

 

[Breathe]

Your entirely wrong. The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and religion.

Maybe so, but that doesn't say I'm wrong- much less "entirely wrong".

These ethnic distinctions and sub-divisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.

Ethnicity ≠ Religion

If ethnicity is religiously inclined, why do we have African, Chinese, Indian, and European Christians, Muslims and so on? Why do we have ethnic groups which have significant numbers of different religions? Why do we have European and African Hindus, or European and African Sikhs?

Do not forget, Europeans as a whole follow Christianity, a religion which was born in the Middle East from a religion which was born and developed in the Middle East.

ethnocentricity is in fact thinking another religion is weird so long as it's judged through the lens of your own religion.

I could probably argue with you over this, but simply: I don't think it is.

It uses the term far too loosely so anyone can be called an ethnocentric. To me, an ethnocentric is someone who considers his ethnic group to be superior or judges another culture through his, not someone who finds another religion to be strange.

An example would be like this:

Person A: The French are the most superior people in the world. French culture is the best, our food is the best, and the world would be better if the French were in charge. That's ethnocentric.
Person B: Oh, Sikhs don't cut their hair? That's odd. That's not.

The difference is, person A thinks his people and culture are superior to others, and person B thinks it's weird because he is not familiar with it, and it's not something he grew up with. Person A is a very small group of people, whom the majority would dislike. Person B is an average joe who knows nothing about other religions and cultures, but holds no hard feelings for them.

Otherwise, a large majority of people could be considered ethnocentric, since many will find things they are not used to a little different and in some cases, strange. Then, it becomes a useless word. Humans judge one things based on their experience - that's all we have to judge something on.

 

[Quiddity]

you missed the point entirely and you give me the awful impression of someone whose never read any of the thoughts or opinions of anyone contrary to your own. I'm not saying that just because some religions believe killing people will land them a spot in heaven all religion is bad. The example you gave: one cookie is bad, therefor there all bad. I'm saying if we tolerate catholicism for e.g., so much so that speaking out contrary to it is so taboo to the point its not aloud then we must treat other religions the same way. These other religions could be immoral, but must be protected and not spoken bad about on the same grounds we treat our religion.

Your ad hominem is not only unwarranted but if you only took a second to glance at how much I've posted in this forum it would give you an inkling of maybe I've read opposing opinions...just maybe?

My point stands. When you say we should either tolerate all or tolerate neither, I'm comfortable my analogies apply.

You make a huge assumption that most religions basically believe the same stuff. Although that statement has some truth in it, our differences can also mean the difference between me strapping a bomb and not.

 

[idav]

If we have tolerance towards a religion that says doing good and avoiding bad will land you a spot in heaven, with little to no evidence for this claim, then we must also have tolerance for religions that say killing yourself and others will land you a spot in heaven, with just as little evidence for their claim. If you disagree and think "their" religion is weird and not moral than your enthocentric.

To take this a step further people who fly planes into buildings because of a religiously-inspired hatred of America are actually morally exquisite and brave. What they are doing is for their God and in their culture is seen as an incredible quality, laying down their life for God. But a Christian is ethnocentric if he says it's immoral because he believes in similar rubbish. You have to climb into their skin to understand them.

Religion isn't all that black and white. Many things I am actually accepting of religions like being good for the right reasons. I would tolerate people doing good for selish motives. Few things are intolerable but there are some lines I don't accept people crossing.