Hello,

I have found a concept floating around more and more. It is usually called "tolerance." Some world-views say "love your neighbour," while others say, "eat your neighbour." The idea of tolerance is that we can all get along and everyone's religion or lack thereof is of equal value.

I happen to believe that not all paths lead up the same mountain. It seems that those of the "tolerance" camp in the media and elsewhere find it fashionable to tolerate everyone who embraces tolerance, and bash everyone else. However this behavior is nonsensical as to be truly tolerant ("Of course it is ethical to have sex with dolphins and cream cheese!") one must also tolerate the choice of others who follow a philosophy of orthodoxy, ie. that there is truth and lie when it comes to religion.

There are similar ideas being expressed as well. For example, Arnold Schwarzeneggar recently commented on stem cell research, and said that people should leave their religion out of state policy. That might sound good, but at its basic level religion means an idea of faith in which adherents must do or not do certain things.

Arnold believed he should leave his Catholicism at home when serving the state. I know there are problems with "state-sanctioned" religion and I am not arguing for theocracy. But we could just as well say "leave your atheism at home." The point is that whether one particular religious tenet is true or not, every world view has equal potential to prove valuable or not. So an atheist may believe certain things, without question that will influence his decisions while in office. I don't have a problem with that. What is wrong with someone being a Christian, Jew, or Muslim and their faith affecting their decisions in the same way?

I feel sometimes we are forced into Atheism's strictest "orthopraxy" (correct practice--which is making sure not to do anything that could be seen as religious) which is perhaps the strictest religion of all.

Next to emacs, of course ;-)

Well, if they did tolerate people that did not tolerate others, they would be idiots, wouldn't they. The idea of tolerance is to not hate/harm etc, each other for petty differences, allowing it to be an one-way street is just asking to be hated/harmed by these people.
Secularism does not mean the politicians do not have a religion, it means that they do not show it in their jobs. It is perfectly allowed to be affected by religion, but i cannot count anyone secular if they draw arguments from religion in public office. Maybe it is even that religion only distracts from standpoints, it is easier to say I'll be a "good Christian"(or whatever) then it is to give your standpoints. (what being a "good Christian" seems subjective to me)
Where did you get that idea? Certainly not from Americas politics?

hmm i dont think atheism has anything to be left at home as it is merely a lack of beleif in the supernatural, the only thing it truly promotes is only accepting things based on evidence and probability, which isnt a bad thing for any politician, when politicians go against the evidence because they beleive its for a greater good, any good that comes out of it is usually outweighed by the bad

Also whichever religious beleif the politicion choose to let influence them theres going to be another religion that it offends, by taking all religion out of the picture, it keeps at least some peace between them, at least politcally.

Let me begin by saying I am aghast at the American political situation. I do not approve of the "Christian right" by any means. I am Canadian and proud of it. And I have enjoyed time with gay friends over the years, and shared smiles and beers together at cast parties, etc. That doesn't mean we had to agree on everything, but we supported each other and enjoyed each other. I have a good Muslim friend also, and have spent much time with him eating, going to movies, etc., and if you are wondering, no not to convert him.

So I don't push my faith down others' throats. To me that isn't human. But to have faith is my human right, and to deny me that is equally inhuman.

The Nazi ideals and philosophy were certainly harmful, but not particularly religious. The Romans worshiped the Emperor, and later their version of Jesus. Both groups committed great atrocities, whether for religious reasons or not.

The point is that everyone has a world view, a philosophy of life that colours (Canadian spelling) everything we do. If your philosophy of religion is that you can put on and take off your religion like a tee-shirt, thats good for you. But most of the world wakes up and goes to bed with convictions about how things should be and why they should be that way. These convictions may change, but reflect a part of our personality as a deep part of our makeup.

I would be surprised if anyone could present any good arguments for religious philosophies being categorized and evaluated differently than other philosophies with regard to the potential influence of state policy. Honestly, if we all evolved, then what is the difference between "fair trade" and Orthodox Judaism? If there is no God, then they are all just ideas.

Humanity has been almost absolutely religious since its beginning. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. But I don't think the absence of religious influence will keep us safe from such atrocities. Our secular age is relatively young yet. But as far as faith and state affairs is concerned, I would argue that under your solution Atheists are able to represent their worldview in public office, while those who hold a faith-based ethical philosophy are not.

We are on dangerous ground. There are people who would outlaw religion, to eliminate discrimination. That in itself is a discriminatory philosophy. I personally resent people assuming I am discriminatory because I believe in God. In Canada religion is practically eliminated from politics and the workplace. One can't have "Christmas" cards on one's desk anymore. If we push it much farther it will be enforced Atheism, look no further than China.

In America, it's not that you should be tolerant, it's that you should be tolerant of people on the Politically Correct list. Whoever isn't on the list is screwed. The loud media-driven tolerance movement is pretty hypocritical. Which is sad, because we really do need more genuine tolerance of our fellows.
If they decide to ostracize people or wage war because of religion, then I see the problem. If they want to do good because of it, then what's the problem?
I don't know what part of America is seen elsewhere. There is a strong religious component of America and they're in (political) power right now. There is also an equally strong component that fights against all things religious. The fight is very personal and very emotional on both sides. There are some issues that people fight about, but there is also the fight about religion itself. It's pretty nasty, and brings out the worst of people on both sides.

deleted

True, there is much hatred between bitter people. But it is unfair to brand everyone who is a fundamental believer in one of these 3 world religions as someone full of hatred. I would argue that if you are telling me I am full of hatred on the basis of my religious beliefs, before getting to know me, then you are discriminating against me.

But believing differently is not hatred or a lack of unity. I share sabbath meals of a friend of mine, who is practicing a form of Orthodox Judaism. He walks to Synagogue every Saturday morning in all black, with his head covered. He has a kosher kitchen with two sets of utensils, pots, etc. Many Christians and Jews make their beliefs a point of contention. We choose to hold to our convictions, yet not make them a point of contention but a point of connection.

I think it is interesting how we can share a common bond, yet such a relationship is almost outlawed by theists and atheists alike. They believe we shouldn't enjoy each other's company if we believe differently.

Know that to assume I have hatred for people because I don't believe their religion is the right way to go is a gross generalization. When people believe my religion is wrong, I don't assume they hate me.

Basically, to sum up the tolerance argument, it goes like this:
It is absolutely wrong to believe in absolute truth. This is of course an absolute, which reveals the foolishness of the position. Or let me express it another way: "I include everyone except those who exclude others." This is another way tolerating and "including" only those who are like yourself. Of course to embrace this philosophy you must become intolerant yourself. Yet we tolerate people's exclusion all the time. Why are serial rapists in prison? Because they shouldn't be around daycare centers. We know that without boundaries, a healthy society is impossible to acheive.

Now most people who believe in God believe something about society. I believe God has a family. My Jewish or Muslim friends may see it another way. But I don't find it offensive if we perceive differences in the boundaries we believe God has placed around faith community--eg. faith in Jesus, obedience to Torah, etc.

What if your daughter came home and said she's attracted to dolphins? A man married a dolphin recently in Europe (Sweden or Switzerland, I believe). Most people have some kind of ethics or moral intuition. Somewhere someone will cross a line and we will say, "I think that was wrong."

Whatever your religious, ethical, and moral positions are, I respect you as a human being, with the full sovereignty of personhood and right to choose, and affirm your place on this planet. If you can't say the same to me, then one of us is intolerant, and I'll let you guess who.

@stairwayoflight: Sorry, assumed that you were American.(btw, please quote only the parts you need, it is clearer, and takes less room, can use the @ thing too)
@Mr. Jaggers: Not all religious people hate other religious people, agree with stairwayoflight on this.
@bns: You are right that have a very limited understanding of American politics. Also, i meant earlier that in public, politicians should try to draw arguments from religion. Why? People that happen not to believe in that religion might not follow that reason. It would seem like something that is inherently polarizing. Maybe they can use religious language internally or public if it is obviously meant for the religious, but i think that to the outside people should be able to know what the standpoints are. (and not in a way of having to dig through the website or anything. People do not often do that.) Directly referring to the bible or anything like seems unclear to even if you know the bible, there being so many interpretations and all. (meh i do not think I get my point clear on this, religious statements in politics just put me off alright )

Tolerance should never be confused with acceptance.

@Jasper: I think I get what you're saying. Often, I feel as though Americans are afraid to admit that they're religious, and that's no good. OTOH, I wouldn't want a president who got up and told me we were going to do X because his spirit guide Fred told him to. If that's what you're suggesting then I agree.

@Rasczak: I think I agree, would you care to explain further?

Tolerance means I have to allow you to do what you do. Acceptance means I have to like it. That's very basic, but covers the general idea I think.

try me to explain:

tolerance means you abide something which is different about something or someone. With tolerance discrimination is still possible.

acceptance has active components and includes a positive value judgement.




what you really need is intercultural/religious competence and sensitivity.

which is not very common neither in religious or atheistic groups.

I'm glad I asked you to explain. Tolerance is such a buzz word today, it's hard to be sure what people mean by it.

I don't at all think that Americans are afraid to admit that they're religious. Where I live, most people flaunt their religion (and the conservative values that usually go with it) and use it as a tool.

I do agree with the bit about our president, though.

I'm not saying it's everywhere and always, just saying it does occur in certain places. There are certainly those who flaunt it and use it as a tool also.

Intersting take on it.

I see tolerance (tolerating) as a passive verb, if you will allow me. I guess there are times when I see it on more conditional grounds, as I think you are suggesting. When I torerate something or someone, it is usually because I have no vested interest in what they may be doing or saying, nor do I inject or project my conditions on them (if I find myself doing that, I usually realize I need to re-examine my motives and/or intentions). I don't make a right/wrong judgement about their actions or activities, unless I see it as violating anothers civil, human or other naturally afforded rights, and that usually has to cross a certain threshold of precieved invasion which is internal.

Acceptance, for me involves that vested interest I spoke of earlier. Whether that interest be important or close to me personally or at a distance, makes little difference. It infers, at a minimum, that some consent on my part is necessary,

deleted

I think tolerance requires some compromise, and compromises can be bad! Frustration will break tolerance, so better talk to get as agreeable compromises as possible. What Mr. Jaggers is stating is not exactly easy. (people often say something like "just do that", but it is not like that)
Happily we do not have to tolerate everything; if it does not touch you do not have to be able to tolerate it. On the other hand, many things can potentially touch you, and you have to be prepared.

Damn, how could I have missed the implicit assumption that some people make here. I mean the one assuming that intolerance is the only problem. How about the physical circumstance itself? How about plain unethical behavior?

The thing that always comes to my mind when I think of the distinction between tolerance and acceptance is the gay movement. I believe in tolerance for homosexuals. I think they have every right to expect tolerance, but I don't think they should expect acceptance from everyone - especially if they cross a line.

Take the Boy Scout thing. I'm sure as a whole, the Scouts are tolerant of gays - they don't go out looking for them to beat up, etc. But they aren't accepting of them to the point they allow them to be Scout masters. Private organization.

Another illustration: Someone decides they can't live another day without a tatoo placed on their neck and maybe a hunk of mettle or two punched through a nose, cheek, eybrow, etc. I can tolerate that. To each their own.

But when he comes to me wanting a job, there isn't going to be acceptance. I won't hire him. He might not want to be accepting of my choice, but he is going to tolerate it.

BTW, did I completely take this thread off topic? Sorry.