by nvrgnbk 105 Replies latest members adult
These words, written by onacruse, brought to mind an article I recently read.
Can tolerance, specifically religious tolerance, ever be a negative thing?
Can religious "moderates" be implicated in the extreme acts of religious radicals?
If you find challenges to established religions offensive, please do not read this article.
Can tolerance, specifically religious tolerance, ever be a negative thing?
Yes,I agree
I think its all about balance.
Edited: I had to edit this as I didn't know there was a link to an article, and I was just comenting about what's quoted. Damn cold meds, see you guys later have a good thread.
Tolerance within the the scope of respect for human rights I have that.
If your belief requires you to shove it down the throat of all who are near , no I don't think so .
Beliefs that overstep anothers right to exist in peace and freedom should not be tolerated.
Very good thread NVR. I think religious moderates can no longer be called moderates if they bash and threaten gays, threaten expulsion from various churches and cults because of ideologic differences some may have. Then they become immoderate. Just look what the " theocratic " way of thinking has accomplished in the Jehovah's Witnesses cult. They are as immoderate as a religion can be. So the article is true, everything needs to be balanced. But the flip side to that take is we live in an unbalanced society unfortunately in which each of us swims through mired bog of tolerance versus intolerance and try to make our stand in what is a comfortable spot for us individually. Peace out, Bro, Mr. Flipper
Financial institutions are pretty intolerant of innumeracy.
If a person has a poor grasp of arithmetic and can't balance their checkbook, the bank does not give them extra money.
Gravity is pretty intolerant of delusional would-be superheros who try to fly by leaping off the top of tall buildings. SPLAT!
Political correctness would not only have us buy the ropes by which we would be hung but would also suggest that we should give our executioner a tip of at least 15%.
“As long as it is acceptable for a person to believe that he knows how God wants everyone on earth to live we will continue to murder one another on account of our myths.” - Sam Harris
I think we're arguing about different things, or at least different ends of a spectrum. I can't stand PC; it sucks, its wannabe-Nazi control. What I am talking about is common decency and normal human kindness.
I think tolerance or understanding or what ever, should have a limit.
Tolerance within the the scope of respect for human rights I have that.
If your belief requires you to shove it down the throat of all who are near , no I don't think so .
Beliefs that overstep anothers right to exist in peace and freedom should not be tolerated.
I think that's pretty close.
Financial institutions are pretty intolerant of innumeracy.
If a person has a poor grasp of arithmetic and can't balance their checkbook, the bank does not give them extra money.
I am not a bank, and neither are you, and that is silly.
Gravity is pretty intolerant of delusional would-be superheros who try to fly by leaping off the top of tall buildings.
Is that like saying that although stupidity is not a crime, it is still universeally punished, or something like that? I'm not taking drugs, and I know I can't fly.
Political correctness would not only have us buy the ropes by which we would be hung but would also suggest that we should give our executioner a tip of at least 15%.
PC sucks.
Good article, tough question.
I guess what Harris tends to overlook is people's need for "religion" in the broadest sense -- which is also a fact, at least from a psychological or sociological angle.
By dismissing it as "delusion" (even if they're right about that) the anti-religious, in effect, leave the dogmatists take care of that need.
It is certainly vital for liberal theology (or religious philosophy, or philosophical religion) to become more vocal and visible, while holding fast to its unauthoritative standards. Easier said than done.
I won't speak for Nathan Natas, but I will give my opinion of what he said, relating it to the article posted.
If accordance with reality is expected, even demanded, in so many aspects of our daily lives why shouldn't we be equally demanding of the accuracy of what we accept with regards to religion?
To simply say that it's ok to believe whatever we want to and then put lives and quality of life in jeopardy because of those beliefs is not acceptable.
Is it ok for Jehovah's Witnesses to sacrifice their children because of their interpretation of Scripture regarding use of blood?
Total tolerance would say it's their business.
Is it ok for Sharia Law to prosecute victims of rape and stone adulterers?
Total tolerance would say that's ok too.
It is certainly vital for liberal theology (or religious philosophy, or philosophical religion) to become more vocal and visible, while holding fast to its unauthoritative standards. Easier said than done.
That is a difficult route, better in the end.
