Our political leaders here in Australia are currently talking about our supposed "religious tolerance". The very next second they are saying that those people whose religious beliefs include the push towards a state theocracy, or which are intolerant of other religions, should leave the country!
In reality "religious tolerance" mean tolerance of beliefs we are happy to call "religious". If there is a religion whose beliefs we do not like, then we don't consider them a religion, so we don't need to tolerate them. Makes sense!
Religious tolerance
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
-
Foresta Gump
Religious Tolerance...
It sounds like Australia is conforming its peoples. With a little dictating in there too. A good government achieves with toleration. Toleration is something that merits the highest of credibility.
Yes, it makes sense
Yes, it makes sense
Re: Religious tolerance
Same for the "tolerance" of "diversity", for instance. When you are too "diverse", i. e. you have a really different viewpoint, then you are marked "extreme" and won't be tolerated in this so-called tolerant society.ksolway wrote:Our political leaders here in Australia are currently talking about our supposed "religious tolerance". The very next second they are saying that those people whose religious beliefs include the push towards a state theocracy, or which are intolerant of other religions, should leave the country!
In reality "religious tolerance" mean tolerance of beliefs we are happy to call "religious". If there is a religion whose beliefs we do not like, then we don't consider them a religion, so we don't need to tolerate them. Makes sense!
Actually there is a "logic" to this. If you look up the word open-minded you will find the answer. Open-minded means being open to new ideas; free of prejudice or bias.In reality "religious tolerance" mean tolerance of beliefs we are happy to call "religious". If there is a religion whose beliefs we do not like, then we don't consider them a religion, so we don't need to tolerate them. Makes sense!
A long time ago a young friend of mine befriended a neo-nazi on the basis that she was going to be open-minded about his views. I explained to her that it is not possible to be open to someone views that are prejudice. By doing so you immediatley have to suspend your objectivity to accept these views. These kind of racist/elitist groups are excellent at creating seemingly logical views for their beliefs, often quoting brief passages from religion or science with equal inacuracy in support of these views.
But they are not being truthful with themselves. I have never met a racist or religious fanatic who was completely honest or introspective with themselves to look at their own faults. It always seems easier to blame someone else. If any of you know such a racist (a truly honest person) I'd like to meet him, because I doubt he exists.
As far as Australia not excepting beliefs that are not tolerant of other beliefs, religions or sexual preferences or what have you, this is one of those great contradictions that for me actually carries some logic with it.
How can any society hope to achieve any kind of happiness or harmony if they accept people who live by rules that compel them to hate or harm other people?
To quote Don Quixote in defense of the government's response: "I am vast, I contain multitudes, I have room to contradict myself!"
And any truly open-minded person or government does, because their contradictions take into account the respect they have for different views, whereas religious fanatics and racists do not.
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
People tend to simplify themselves to one descriptive word. As in: I am a Christian, or I am a republican. If people do this for themselves is no reason for me to do so. I recognize the complexity of people even when they are defining themselves simply. Still, I recognize that when you meet new people they almost always tell you the most important detail of their lives within the first ten minutes, generally. Some people are a little more circumspect. Regardless, no matter how people define themselves, I define them simply as human beings, in little ways different from myself, and having the same needs as myself in gross. I respect people, their cultures, and their religions because that is them in part, and certainly the story of their lives. Were I to say: You can stay, but you will have to lose your religion is not exactly rolling out the welcome mat. Look at religion as people trying to be good rather than the justification of their wrongs in the trappings of hate. The difference between those who accept religion of any sort is not so great as those who have no firm concept of religion at all. Since all organized religions want to run the world even while having to advertize to fill their churches. So, what chance is there of that?
propellerbeanie I like what you said for the most part, but your logic breaks down after awhile.
I have always said that the best thing about religion is that it can have the ability to give hope and understanding to things we do not yet understand, or may never understand in our mortal lives. I think religion can give a person real strength, courage, hope and wisdom.
But personally, I wouldn't roll out a welcome mat for a neo-nazi, the klan or a zealous idiot.
I think Kant's categorical imperative works here: "Do something if and only if you can do that thing in every situation." And of course that is not a dirrect quote. I will have to look for that book later.
I think I will hold off judgment about this statement, but I think if you want me to agree with this to better explain how.
I wouldn't say this at all. I think all kinds of different people are looking for many different things through religion. Be it peace, contentment, happines, power.Look at religion as people trying to be good
I have always said that the best thing about religion is that it can have the ability to give hope and understanding to things we do not yet understand, or may never understand in our mortal lives. I think religion can give a person real strength, courage, hope and wisdom.
But personally, I wouldn't roll out a welcome mat for a neo-nazi, the klan or a zealous idiot.
I think Kant's categorical imperative works here: "Do something if and only if you can do that thing in every situation." And of course that is not a dirrect quote. I will have to look for that book later.
The difference between those who accept religion of any sort is not so great as those who have no firm concept of religion at all.
I think I will hold off judgment about this statement, but I think if you want me to agree with this to better explain how.
This however is a ridiculous statement. Unless you are the ultimate world traveler I doubt you have come into contact with half of the organized mystic religions throughout the world. Yeah, maybe you met their watered down English/American counterparts, but not the real deal operating in their own societies. In fact I don't even think you could change the word "organized" to orthodox and make this statement true. Nothing I have seem or read leads me to believe Shintoism wants to run the world.Since all organized religions want to run the world even while having to advertize to fill their churches.
-
Creative Fossil
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:02 pm
Re: Religious Tolerance...
Governements do not tolerate any thing thats isn't in some way purposeful to themselves.Foresta Gump wrote:It sounds like Australia is conforming its peoples. With a little dictating in there too. A good government achieves with toleration. Toleration is something that merits the highest of credibility.
Yes, it makes sense
Re: Religious Tolerance...
Generally, yes, today's society has made that apparent. Isn't it sad?Governements do not tolerate any thing thats isn't in some way purposeful to themselves.
-
williamashley
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:53 pm
- Location: waterloo
- Contact:
In other words, humans (philosophers) aren't concerned about socialising or creating cultures. Is that what you're trying to say?williamashley wrote:It's politics. religion is culture with a source that isn't human.
Philsophy is culture, a source that is human.
Government employ police to kill anyone they don't agree with. kill as a means to stop socially segregate, either physically or socialally.
Where does religion come from?
The source of religion is completely human.williamashley wrote:It's politics. religion is culture with a source that isn't human.
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
Re: Where does religion come from?
Which is like saying the cosmos exists by virtue of our ability to percieve it, which may be true personally, but hardly explains another person's acceptance of a creation by God of all reality, percieved or unpercieved. What is lacking is any grasp of the ultimate cause, so we are left with the explanation supplied of a cosmos created by God and a God created by humans if one may judge by 'his' human qualities. Ignorance is one name we will not accept, even if it is deserved.DHodges wrote:The source of religion is completely human.williamashley wrote:It's politics. religion is culture with a source that isn't human.
-
propellerbeanie
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am
quote]I-Beam wrote:propellerbeanie I like what you said for the most part, but your logic breaks down after awhile.
Look at religion as people trying to be goodWe have some people who identify with god as power, or revenge, but for the most part, God is identified as good, and we identify with God.I wouldn't say this at all. I think all kinds of different people are looking for many different things through religion. Be it peace, contentment, happines, power.
I have always said that the best thing about religion is that it can have the ability to give hope and understanding to things we do not yet understand, or may never understand in our mortal lives. I think religion can give a person real strength, courage, hope and wisdom.
But personally, I wouldn't roll out a welcome mat for a neo-nazi, the klan or a zealous idiot.
It is hard to disagree that it has that potential. Once you have bought the belief it is hard not to bring it home. The difference I might have with your thought is that people in this country devote little time to the thought of God, and when they go to church they are as likely to see the politics and hierarchy at work there, as anywhere, and be conscious of it. The danger is that when the society outside of church and the socially accepted beliefs do not work, then people feel driven to accept older forms of relationship that seemed to work in the past, even if that is ineffective, and is a retreat from reality that will not save them, and that will not meet the needs of the present. It is out of this frustration of needs that mass movements are made.
Where wisdom would say every situation is different, so for every situation try to determine what is best, and do it, if doing anything seems right.I think Kant's categorical imperative works here: "Do something if and only if you can do that thing in every situation." And of course that is not a dirrect quote. I will have to look for that book later.
The difference between those who accept religion of any sort is not so great as those who have no firm concept of religion at all.
The belief in god is painting a smiley face on the unknown. If you are willing and able to do this at all you have something in common with others who can do so as well, and are miles apart from those who cannot even begin to do so.I think I will hold off judgment about this statement, but I think if you want me to agree with this to better explain how.
Since all organized religions want to run the world even while having to advertize to fill their churches.This however is a ridiculous statement. Unless you are the ultimate world traveler I doubt you have come into contact with half of the organized mystic religions throughout the world.
Thanks for calling me on this. All is rather sweeping since I am pointing at the churches of America, all of which are competative, and advertize, and seem to want to run the world. What they find, is what every organizational solution finds; that no matter how good is the underlying idea, that the energy of the organiztion is always sapped by the politics it takes to move anything with anyone.
Yeah, maybe you met their watered down English/American counterparts, but not the real deal operating in their own societies. In fact I don't even think you could change the word "organized" to orthodox and make this statement true. Nothing I have seem or read leads me to believe Shintoism wants to run the world.[/
Let us look a spiritual movements as separate from churches in giving individuals a sort of power in their relationship with the spiritual that no organized religion does. And I would quibble with Shintoism not wanting to run the world when they rather supported the Japanese in their attempt at world conquest and proved no impediment to slaughter or atrocity. Sorry I missed this reply.
-
suergaz
I was going through the threads and came across this one.....williamashley wrote:religion is culture with a source that isn't human.
for some reason this statement struck me....
May I ask why you say religion is culture?
How are you defining culture here? as mores ? people's collective behavior and tolerances? ummm.... celebrations and/or accepted philosophies in particular?
Why do you believe the source of religion isn't human?
if not human.... then may I ask what is the source?
Sophia