Religious Tolerance and Acceptance

[Hegel]

Should any religion be tolerated? Even ones as bizzare as say, Franko's or Marxist2's (the question of if they actually believe thier religion is beside the point)? Should fundimentalists be allowed to practice thier religion? Should we accept all people's beliefs as just thier way of facing the world vs. ours, or are thier rights and wrong?

Just a few little religious questions.

[Yahweh]

The hardest question I've ever been asked in my life is "What's wrong with people having harmless beliefs?". Well, whats wrong with questioning them?

[Seismosaurus]

Religion should be tolerated to the extent that anything should - i.e. to the extent that it doesn't harm other people or impinge on their freedoms unfairly.

In other words, the fundamentalist can believe whatever they like, but they don't have any right to try and force others to go along with them by, say, making the government endorse and promote their beliefs.

The biggest grey area with that is the fact that we allow parents to inflict religion on their children. I think we have that balance about right, letting them impart the belief system but stepping in if those beliefs present serious physical threat.

[arcticpenguin]

I don't have a problem with other people holding bizarre beliefs, unless they're clearly harmful (Jim Jones, David Koresh). My main problem with fundamentalists is if they want to enforce their religion on me. Some of them want their religious codes incorporated into civil law and they want to have worthless cr** substituted for valid science in my schools.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
Religion should be tolerated to the extent that anything should - i.e. to the extent that it doesn't harm other people or impinge on their freedoms unfairly.

In other words, the fundamentalist can believe whatever they like, but they don't have any right to try and force others to go along with them by, say, making the government endorse and promote their beliefs.

The biggest grey area with that is the fact that we allow parents to inflict religion on their children. I think we have that balance about right, letting them impart the belief system but stepping in if those beliefs present serious physical threat.

I have to admit I agree completely. I feel that as long as what the person believes they keep to themselves why does it really matter if what they believe matches with your reallity? After all thier reallity could be different from yours...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Hegel
Should any religion be tolerated? Even ones as bizzare as say, Franko's or Marxist2's (the question of if they actually believe thier religion is beside the point)? Should fundimentalists be allowed to practice thier religion? Should we accept all people's beliefs as just thier way of facing the world vs. ours, or are thier rights and wrong?As long as a person's religion is neither harmful to themselves or others, then yes, they should be tolerated and allowed to practiced. It doesn't matter how wacky or off base I feel they are, I'm not going to prevent believers from following the teachings of their beliefs. Of course, I'm not going to stop commenting about the idiocy of a particular religion if the subject is brought up.

Some of the iffy religions, in my mind, because they often cause physical and financial harm to the participants are snake handlers, scientology, and christian science.

[Nyarlathotep]

religion is, to my mind, only a problem when someone uses it as a club. As long as they aren't forcing anyone else to adopt it or harming anyone else in the name of it everyone has the right to believe anything they want, or not believe anything, if that is their choice.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by Upchurch
As long as a person's religion is neither harmful to themselves or others, then yes, they should be tolerated and allowed to practiced.

Just to clear it up, how do you define hurt? It sounds really stupid, but just think, other's tastes may differ.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Some of the iffy religions, in my mind, because they often cause physical and financial harm to the participants are snake handlers, scientology, and christian science.

Interesting... are you just saying that you personally disapprove of a person who practices a religion that harms them, or are you saying that people should actually not be allowed to do that?

[jj]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


Interesting... are you just saying that you personally disapprove of a person who practices a religion that harms them, or are you saying that people should actually not be allowed to do that?

False dichotomy. How about "disprove of people who lead OTHERS into doing dangerous things like avoiding all doctors, handling snakes, or (to use an extant example of yet another former religion) drinking purple koolaid"?

That is another potential interpretation.

[T'ai Chi]

Interesting post Hagel. :)

I believe that I should value the rights of others to believe in their religion and perform rituals/etc., even when I don't believe in their religion. We all have a right to be different, and I deeply appreciate and respect that different-ness. I don't have any problems with this, even though I mainly have a science worldview, because I treat beliefs and actions differently.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Upchurch
As long as a person's religion is neither harmful to themselves or others, then yes, they should be tolerated and allowed to practiced.

But what is harmful? If a religion promotes unprotected sex, could that be considered harmful? How about if it promotes gender inequality to the extent that one group are treated as little more than property? and...

What about the children?

Should children be protected from their parent's (potentially harmful) religious views until they themselves are responsible enough to decide what beliefs they want to have?

The contents of this post are in response to a previous post and as such are not necessarily a criticism nor an endorsement of that post. Always check previous posts before responding. No guarantee of fitness for purpose is offered or implied. Your home may be at risk if you do not keep up repayments on any outstanding loans secured against it.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by jj


False dichotomy. How about "disprove of people who lead OTHERS into doing dangerous things like avoiding all doctors, handling snakes, or (to use an extant example of yet another former religion) drinking purple koolaid"?

That is another potential interpretation.

But the quote I replied to said he was concerned with the harm done to the participants. It didn't speak of others.

If he meant it some other way that's fine, I'm only asking for clarification.

[The Don]

The difficulty about passing such legislation is that there is no agreement as to what represents "potentially harmful" views. Many people would consider an atheistic view unsuitable for children as they require firm boundries and an omnecient. omnipotent God would provide that

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by The Don
The difficulty about passing such legislation is that there is no agreement as to what represents "potentially harmful" views. Many people would consider an atheistic view unsuitable for children as they require firm boundries and an omnecient. omnipotent God would provide that

Those people would be demonstratably wrong.

At present courts don't really like to intervene unless the harm is immediate and physical - parents refusing a blood transfusion to a dying child or something.

I think that's about right. I certainly wouldn't want to see religion restricted just because it tends to encourage unthinking stupidity. Hell at that rate reruns of Baywatch would be banned, and that would be a crime against civilisation!

[reprise]

Heaven's Gate

Jonestown

September 11, 2001


How do we determine - in advance - which religious beliefs have the potential to manifest such extreme consequences. And if we're willing to apply that judgement to religious beliefs, then shouldn't we also apply them to political beliefs?

[evildave]

Even scientific ones. You should read some of the "space travel is impossible" stuff from earlier in the 20th century.

Even basic flight was once thought to be a loonatic dream.

Curing leprosy was once thought to be divinely miraculous... until someone figured out how to cure ALL of it.

Once you "crack down" on whatever seems wacky to you, it may seem "only reasonable" to "crack down" on what seems wacky to others.

And to many people now, dreams of colonizing other planets and reaching for the stars is "wacky".

[calladus]

Okay, I think that there is something here that everyone is missing. Like reprise said:
Originally posted by reprise
How do we determine - in advance - which religious beliefs have the potential to manifest such extreme consequences. And if we're willing to apply that judgement to religious beliefs, then shouldn't we also apply them to political beliefs?

That is EXACTLY what we need to do - have a way to determine in advance exactly how kooky a church is before we take a chance on conversion.

IANAL - so I wouldn't know how this would work, but if I were just taking a swing at it here I would suggest a constitutional amendment that required EVERY religion to disclose ALL of its rites and beliefs in its by-laws. This means EVERYTHING, from snake handling to blood transfusions to the secrets of XENU. (http://www.xenu.com/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm)

Church disclosure could be treated as a sort of supernatural Material Safety Data Sheet (http://ccinfoweb.ccohs.ca/help/msds/msdstermse.html), which would allow prospective converts the chance to do a little homework before the charismatic holy man has a chance to talk 'em out of their car, house and savings accounts.

This data would be, by law, available to anyone who asked for it.

The data would be kept accurate by audit, something like an ISO audit that the church would be required to purchase at intervals. Failure to meet the audit would result in the church losing its tax exempt status at the very least.

Now I know there are holes in this - what I was wondering is if the community here could find 'em and patch 'em.

I realize that there are few churches in America that would think that any regulation, including standardized SELF regulation, is a good idea - so I have no illusions that this would ever be implemented.

Still, what would the MSDS for a religion look like? Would Christianity be required to include the boiling point of brimstone?
:confused:

[drowden]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
In other words, the fundamentalist can believe whatever they like, but they don't have any right to try and force others to go along with them by, say, making the government endorse and promote their beliefs.

Whilst I agree with this sentiment, the difficulty is that the promotion, even the enforcement of a belief is often a significant element of the belief itself. And edict from God. To restrict such activity is to deny some people what they would perceive as fundamental religious rights. So, what we're saying is that we have the right to wave a political club over their head but they don't.

I wonder if our moral justification for that has any more sophisticated a basis than "might makes right"?

As for the "harm" argument, that is entirely subjective. Religionists that are trying to force their beliefs upon you firmly believe in the benefit and rectitude of their actions.

In the end we are just acting to protect our own worldviews. I'm not sure if our actions in restricting the activities of certain religionists have or require a more definitive ethical basis than that.


Dan Rowden

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by The Don
The difficulty about passing such legislation is that there is no agreement as to what represents "potentially harmful" views. Many people would consider an atheistic view unsuitable for children as they require firm boundries and an omnecient. omnipotent God would provide that
Interesting idea—on the one hand, god is everywhere and can see everything that you do, everything; but on the other, he's not going to anything about it 'till you die, which is kind of unhelpful when you're trying to get the little bratlet into bed, or to stop it from attempting to pull the kitten's ears off. :) And catholicism, for instance, loads up too much on self-defeating guilt trips, which is definitely psychologically harmful. But trying to police that leads us into the scary realms of Orwellian thought police.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by drowden


Whilst I agree with this sentiment, the difficulty is that the promotion, even the enforcement of a belief is often a significant element of the belief itself. And edict from God. To restrict such activity is to deny some people what they would perceive as fundamental religious rights.

As far as I'm concerned, that's just their tough luck. Their religious freedom ends at the point where they try to thrust it onto others.

For instance, a Jehova's Witness has every right to refuse an operation even if it kills him. But if he acts to prevent somebody else from having an operation and thus kills them, then he is a murderer.

Yes it is a restriction of his religious freedom, but religious freedom is only one of our freedoms - and not necessarily the most important one.

Note that I've no problem with religious people proselytising in an appropriate forum - they can publish magazines and books, make movies, even stand on street corners shouting at people as far as I'm concerned. But they have no right to come onto my property and try to force their beliefs on me, nor do they have any right to make the government do it for them via schools and suchlike.

So, what we're saying is that we have the right to wave a political club over their head but they don't.

Not at all. They have exactly the rights of everybody else - to believe what they like and follow those beliefs so long as it does not impinge on others.

In my example, if we were to say that refusing an operation is wrong and so all JW's must be forced to undergo them, that would clearly infringe on their rights unfairly. But preventing them from forcing their religion on me is a fair infringement.

I wonder if our moral justification for that has any more sophisticated a basis than "might makes right"?

As for the "harm" argument, that is entirely subjective. Religionists that are trying to force their beliefs upon you firmly believe in the benefit and rectitude of their actions.

But the difference is that the harm they do actually exists and is recognised and accepted by all; the harm they are trying to prevent is, at best, questionable.

In the end we are just acting to protect our own worldviews. I'm not sure if our actions in restricting the activities of certain religionists have or require a more definitive ethical basis than that.

There is a crucial difference, though. In adopting the approach of "live and let live so long as you keep it to yourself", I protect not only my worldview but theirs as well. Those who want to preach at me want only their own worldview to prevail.

[Teh Wiccan]

As long it does not harm others i'm fine with it.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hegel
Should any religion be tolerated? Even ones as bizzare as say, Franko's or Marxist2's (the question of if they actually believe thier religion is beside the point)? Should fundimentalists be allowed to practice thier religion? Should we accept all people's beliefs as just thier way of facing the world vs. ours, or are thier rights and wrong?

Just a few little religious questions.

That's not a religious question, that's a question about religion.

And the answer is 'until the end of somebody else's nose'.

[reprise]

I think that even those people who "keep their religion to themselves" are still inclined to vote in favour of government policies (particularly those related to moral issues) which reflect the parameters of their religious beliefs - and to that extent they have an impact on the lives of non-believers whether or not they are actively trying to convert people. Voting in favour of policies which reflect the values of a particular religion can lead to restriction of choices available to non-believers, and to direct and indirect harm being suffered by those people as a consequence.

[Soapy Sam]

Enough of this scientific pussy footing around the issue:-

Nuke 'em all. Then go in with the bayonet!

(I'm having a bad day.)