The land of religious tolerance

[Mercury]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...-sparked-protests/?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel

Why do those who demand tolerance for their religion then ridicule and undermine others?

One of the most damaging mindsets is the belief that the entire population of any religion is all the same, that every single individual of any religion will all share negative attributes. This latest international event will only contribute to such blind ignorance on so many levels. The anti-Islam types will use this as an example of "how dangerous and evil Islam is" while the anti-Christian types will use this as an example of "how all Christians are so intolerant and hateful" when in reality it is only groups of individuals within both sections that share these types of views.

It seems that people with these extreme viewpoints are only growing due to fear and poor understanding.

What do you think?

 

[Tim]

Ahhh, just imagine a world with no religion.

Someday mankind will outgrow this madness but until then we need to put up with crap like this

 

[Stone]

Ahhh, just imagine a world with no religion.

.....................

The likes of Stalin and Pol Pot tried that.
That didn't work out well either........


Simply put....a lot of power can be generated through the manipulation of hate, but there's little constructive benefit from it.
Power is the objective in these confrontations.
This includes believers of faith as well as believers in the secular.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Stalin and Pol Pot didn't want to make the world a happier place by discouraging religion. They wanted to eliminate any sources of competition to their authority and suppressed religion mercilessly.

 

[Minor Axis]

Why do those who demand tolerance for their religion then ridicule and undermine others?

I'm sure Stone by his own example can answer that for you. Ah I see he did.

My view is that one's own religion is considered "truth" others are considered "false" so it becomes easy to feel superior, to pretend they have a lock on legitimacy, while acting like the opposing view is cultish, diminished, or unreasonable in some fashion.

 

[Tim]

The likes of Stalin and Pol Pot tried that.
That didn't work out well either........

There is a huge difference between actively forcing religion out and letting it die out on it's own.

I am for the latter.

 

[Stone]

Stalin and Pol Pot didn't want to make the world a happier place by discouraging religion. They wanted to eliminate any sources of competition to their authority and suppressed religion mercilessly.

Indeed.
They crushed their citizen's spirit/character in a quest for absolute power using state atheism as a their banner....
The brutality was eventually rejected.
Their model for attaining power simply was not a lasting effort and it ended badly.

Point being.....any belief imposed as an absolute is likely to wind up being draconian. Atheist as well as radical fundamentalist Christian/Islamic.

 

[Stone]

There is a huge difference between actively forcing religion out and letting it die out on it's own.

I am for the latter.

And as shown.....a huge difference also exists between actively forcing atheism as opposed to choices being freely made.

I am for the latter.

 

[Tim]

And as shown.....a huge difference also exists between actively forcing atheism as opposed to choices being freely made.

I am for the latter.

Please go reread my posts. Nowhere have I advocated or even suggested forced atheism. That was you that brought it up.

I am talking about a natural progression over many generations. Something the numbers are supporting.

 

[robdawg1]

I don't know that the world will evolve out of the need for religion, I think that ideally the world will evolve into tolerance for cultural/idealogical difference.

 

[Stone]

Please go reread my posts. Nowhere have I advocated or even suggested forced atheism. That was you that brought it up.

I am talking about a natural progression over many generations. Something the numbers are supporting.

I read your posts

The context of this thread is religious tolerance......actually the lack of it.
You want for religion to go away, I want the freedom of choice.
I'm not accusing you of being intolerant, but you certainly aren't expressing graceful acceptance .
Does it bother or upset you that I point out there have been atheists that have brutalized humanity in the quest for an atheist state...... to much the same degree as some radical fundamentalists have brutalized differing faiths in a quest for power?

It is an element of religious intolerance, too.

 

[Stone]

I'm sure Stone by his own example can answer that for you. Ah I see he did.

My view is that one's own religion is considered "truth" others are considered "false" so it becomes easy to feel superior, to pretend they have a lock on legitimacy, while acting like the opposing view is cultish, diminished, or unreasonable in some fashion.

Just pointing out that your view relates to a singular person.......the issue at hand seems much broader spanning cultures and politics.......the collective mind of a society/culture, one that can be molded by charismatic leadership and risks the indulgence of absolutism of acceptable thought through propaganda and even force......resulting in intolerance.

My view is that one's own religion is considered "truth" others are considered "false" so it becomes easy to feel superior, to pretend they have a lock on legitimacy, while acting like the opposing view is cultish, diminished, or unreasonable in some fashion.

Just don't forget to include atheists of being potentially 'guilty' of that same trait........and Simulated Earth spirit worlders

 

[Tim]

I read your posts

The context of this thread is religious tolerance......actually the lack of it.
You want for religion to go away, I want the freedom of choice.
I'm not accusing you of being intolerant, but you certainly aren't expressing graceful acceptance .
Does it bother or upset you that I point out there have been atheists that have brutalized humanity in the quest for an atheist state...... to much the same degree as some radical fundamentalists have brutalized differing faiths in a quest for power?

It is an element of religious intolerance, too.

Nope, doesn't bother me at all.

I don't care if you believe in some divine being or not, nor will I get into a debate whether atheists or religious people are more moral, or who has killed more in history. You are smarter than that than to throw up such a straw man argument and I am not getting into such a debate.
I'm very comfortable with my morals and actually shake my head at some of the lack of morals I see coming from those who espouse a belief in god.

 

[Stone]

Nope, doesn't bother me at all.

I don't care if you believe in some divine being or not, nor will I get into a debate whether atheists or religious people are more moral, or who has killed more in history. You are smarter than that than to throw up such a straw man argument and I am not getting into such a debate.
I'm very comfortable with my morals and actually shake my head at some of the lack of morals I see coming from those who espouse a belief in god.

Nope, doesn't bother me at all.

My comments did seem to get your attention.

I don't care if you believe in some divine being or not, nor will I get into a debate whether atheists or religious people are more moral, or who has killed more in history. You are smarter than that than to throw up such a straw man argument and I am not getting into such a debate.

Not only am I smarter that that, I've posted that both elements have had their 'demons' in history and that arguing one ignores the input of the other. There is guilt among believers and non believers.
( interesting spin, though.....infer that I'm smarter than to try that 'strawman argument' when in fact I have no intention of going there because it is a fallacious argument, and my previous comments attest to that )

I don't care if you believe in some divine being or not

Sure you do ......you can't wait for myself and others to ditch it.....you even dream of it!

Ahhh, just imagine a world with no religion.

Someday mankind will outgrow this madness but until then we need to put up with crap like this

LOL!

 

[Tim]

Sure you do ......you can't wait for myself and others to ditch it.....you even dream of it!

You still don't get it, do you?

I don't want you or any of your friends to give up anything and I wouldn't ever think it would happen.

I'm talking about the changes in societies over many generations. Just look at the history of religion and beliefs over the last 3000 years and you will see a trend. Now follow that out a few more thousand years and you might see what I am talking about.

 

[Tim]

but if you want to give up your religion to make me feel better, go right ahead. We accept all

 

[The Man]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...-sparked-protests/?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel

Why do those who demand tolerance for their religion then ridicule and undermine others?

One of the most damaging mindsets is the belief that the entire population of any religion is all the same, that every single individual of any religion will all share negative attributes. This latest international event will only contribute to such blind ignorance on so many levels. The anti-Islam types will use this as an example of "how dangerous and evil Islam is" while the anti-Christian types will use this as an example of "how all Christians are so intolerant and hateful" when in reality it is only groups of individuals within both sections that share these types of views.

It seems that people with these extreme viewpoints are only growing due to fear and poor understanding.

What do you think?

It has caused huge Chaos in Muslim nations
Me thinks there is no tolerance for intolerance which is a very dangerous brew.
One could argue that the result after the film appeared in itself confirms why the film was made....Note this is not my position but I do expect the argument to arise in smaller news sources.

Where does tolerance stop? and where does intolerance begin?

An amateur filmmaker creates a film which still may cause serious repercussions yet ....We have a global disturbance.
The filmmakers are obviously intolerant .
But are those thousands that are in combat mode intolerant by not letting the amateur have his belief

Intolerance goes very deep...Lets take Saudi Arabia for instance {the largest population of Muslim faith}
Upon arrival at the airport..You had better declare any bibles crosses etc immediately and allow of officials to dispose of them...getting caught with them later is not pretty....It is an Islam only society.
Non Muslims go there to work..{in the technology fields} in a giant compound/ not for social visits there is no integration.
However the worker at the compound is tolerant of Islam with its very strict rule regarding other faiths.

Just as a side note there are TV shows that depict Jews and Christianity in some Islam nations...essentially the same thing this amateur did but just the opposite....I believe those very airings are in part responsible for the reaction to the footage the amateur did as it keeps a hate instilled.

Hate a person if you wish for his belief ...I am fine with that...hate can eventually die out....but resorting to violence can only confirm why the persons hates to begin with




......................................................................................................................................................
Global anger: The protests spread

Yemen

The furore across the Middle East over the controversial film about the Prophet Mohamed is now threatening to get out of control. In Sana'a, the Yemeni capital, yesterday around 5,000 demonstrators attacked the US embassy, leaving at least 15 people injured. Young protesters, shouted: "We sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God," smashed windows of the security offices and burned at least five cars, witnesses said.

Egypt

Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi yesterday condemned the attack in Benghazi that killed the US ambassador. In a speech in Brussels, Mr Morsi said he had spoken to President Obama and condemned "in the clearest terms" the Tuesday attacks. Despite this, and possibly playing to a domestic audience, President Obama said yesterday that "I don't think we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy".

Demonstrators in Cairo attacked the mission on Tuesday evening and protests have continued since.

Iraq

Militants said the anti-Islamic film "will put all the American interests Iraq in danger" and called on Muslims everywhere to "face our joint enemy", as protesters in Baghdad burned American flags yesterday. The warning from the Iranian-backed group Asaib Ahl al-Haq came as demonstrators demanded the closure of the US embassy in the capital.

Bangladesh

Islamists warned they may "besiege" the US embassy in Dhaka after security forces stopped around 1,000 protesters marching to the building. The Khelafat Andolon group called for bigger protests as demonstrators threw their fists in the air, burned the flag and chanted anti-US slogans.

Others

There was a Hamas-organised protest in Gaza City, and as many as 100 Arab Israelis took to the streets in Tel Aviv. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai postponed a trip to Norway, fearing violence. Officials in Pakistan said they "expected protests". Protesters in Tunis burnt US flags.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html

 

[Stone]

You still don't get it, do you?

I don't want you or any of your friends to give up anything and I wouldn't ever think it would happen.

I'm talking about the changes in societies over many generations. Just look at the history of religion and beliefs over the last 3000 years and you will see a trend. Now follow that out a few more thousand years and you might see what I am talking about.

Oh....I get it.

Your argument appears to be...... that by removing faith and accepting atheism across cultural boundaries, conflicts between societies and cultures will cease and violence will abate.
The have-nots will no longer have reason to hate the haves......I am doubtful.

There will always be reasons to hate, Tim.
With global warming, a future over many generations will likely reflect more conflict as competition for the basics of life outstrip source. Even now, food riots are projected in parts of the world in the next few years because of global warming and low crop yields. This will only become more intense in the future as populations grow, global warming advances and world crop yield declines.
The dust bowl years in the US produced intense intolerance based upon geography and water issues. A culture conflict between states....in one nation!
And energy.....oil being a major source of energy for all of civilization and there being a finite supply, will be seeing shortages that are likely to drive more Iraq scenarios.

I don't see the peace in future generations that you do, with or with out the acceptance of atheism.
Mankind will kill in it's quest to survive and prosper..... it's leaders use any rationale close at hand they think assures it's success...remember the rationale using UN articles to invade Iraq even though the UN wouldn't sanction it?

Oh, yeah.....I get it.

 

[Minor Axis]

Just pointing out that your view relates to a singular person.......the issue at hand seems much broader spanning cultures and politics.......the collective mind of a society/culture, one that can be molded by charismatic leadership and risks the indulgence of absolutism of acceptable thought through propaganda and even force......resulting in intolerance.



Just don't forget to include atheists of being potentially 'guilty' of that same trait........and Simulated Earth spirit worlders

I was applying this standard to all groups of people. If I was to pick on one particular religion, based on it's size and it's stated origin, an apple orchard in Pa, and an Angel with golden tablets, I'd choose to ridicule Mormons just because it sounds like a con job. However, based on facts, I mean the lack of facts that apply to all religions, I have no right to single them out.

 

[Stone]

I was applying this standard to all groups of people. If I was to pick on one particular religion, based on it's size and it's stated origin, an apple orchard in Pa, and an Angel with golden tablets, I'd choose to ridicule Mormons just because it sounds like a con job. However, based on facts, I mean the lack of facts that apply to all religions, I have no right to single them out.

I was applying this standard to all groups of people.

Not really.....you just now chose a religious group.

My view is that one's own religion is considered "truth" others are considered "false" so it becomes easy to feel superior, to pretend they have a lock on legitimacy, while acting like the opposing view is cultish, diminished, or unreasonable in some fashion.

Just pointing out that you are singling out religion but in fact, arrogance has existed through out history and with examples like Stalin.....comparable levels to what this thread is addressing .
And from comments made in the past, it sounds like you are guilty of violating your present opinions........and we both know the terminology for that.

]My view is that one's own religion is considered "truth" others are considered "false" ...

That is the nature of all things believed ( in religious and secular context ).

If I was to pick on one particular religion, based on it's size and it's stated origin, an apple orchard in Pa, and an Angel with golden tablets, I'd choose to ridicule Mormons just because it sounds like a con job.

More bullshit. You appear to be a master of it.
I've read your posts in the past where you essentially denigrate all of Christian thought and the source of it's foundation.....the Holy Bible, which I remember you going out of your way to describe as a moldy old book of myths.
Where was the respect for opinion that you keep bleating about?


I've asked you out of curiosity where you derived your religious belief in an Earth Simulator/spirit world and am still puzzled by your lack of response other than sophistry.
You actually seem to fit the imagery of what you describe as: "one's own religion is considered "truth" others are considered "false" so it becomes easy to feel superior, to pretend they have a lock on legitimacy, while acting like the opposing view is cultish, diminished, or unreasonable in some fashion. "
Notice how I have easily equated your own views to religious intolerance?

However, based on facts, I mean the lack of facts that apply to all religions, I have no right to single them out.

Trying to rehabilitate yourself in the eyes of others?
Hoping no one reads your past posts? Anyone interested need only associate the search terms 'moldy' and 'myths' with your screen name to get an understanding of your own arrogance.