Religious tolerance

[Anonymous]

Perhaps you're right, PP. I've had conversations about religion with acquaintances, friends and family. People are less likely to be obnoxious in a face to face conversation, which makes it far easier to have an actual exchange.

[Anonymous]

I think I'm the PP you're responding to. When passions run high about something, talking it over face to face provides a natural restraint on behavior. Plus in real life you can avoid the trolls and the ranters, whereas online you can't get away from them.

Which is why I don't get involved in the DCUM political forum, either. Being a lefty, I just don't want to deal with that one crazy right-winger.

[Anonymous]

All religions tend to get fanatical
It is hard if you truly believe the doctrine to find a balance.
The group pressure in some of them is bad. And they are judgemental

[Anonymous]

I am an evangelical Christian and I think your question is a good one OP. I have lots of friends who are atheists - some of them i can have great discussions about faith / religion with and others I can't. I enjoy a good discussion and i think if you keep it broad rather than personal, and avoid using intentionally insulting language then you can have very healthy conversations about religion. Maybe because I have a faith, it is easier for me to be tolerant / understanding of other's faiths that are different than mine because I am more sensitized to what feels intolerant or personal. I respect them as a person and their right to their belief even if I don't agree and I try and treat them with the same tolerance and respect that I appreciate in others.

I can see if you have never had any perspective other than atheism that it is hard to understand what others might perceive as intolerant or disrespectful. Other people have had really negative experiences with church or religion or a religious figure and they project the feelings from their personal experiences onto my faith, making assumptions about what I do or don't believe. I too like another poster said see my faith as a personal relationship rather than as an organized religion or as a collective belief.

I think too OP that mass or group discussions about religion are hard to have..one comment can throw off the discussion or take it way off track. Such are internet boards!

[Anonymous]

I was raised Pentacostal and attended religious schools through high school graduation. I am fascinated by religion and have taken courses on world religions. Atheism is certainly not my only point of reference.

I think the issue may be that "tolerance" is defined a little differently by everyone. I've had people that seemed offended just by my mentioning that I'm an atheist, the insults that followed cemented my perception. Others can discuss beliefs and doctrine in a reasonable conversation. Because I'm fascinated, I tend to ask people about religion when I meet someone with a religion I'm not familiar with. From Mormons to Muslims, the questions are usually met with a good attitude and explanations of the things that can't be easily explained in textbooks.

I guess there are hyper-sensitive people of every shade of belief and non-belief.

[Anonymous]

7:16 poster here. Forgot to mention that I'm the OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So instead of the recent thread asking something like, "How could anybody be a Mormon?" the thread could read something like "How do Mormon's feel about X aspect of the religion?" And then OP's initial post could say something like, "All the Mormons I know are very nice people, but I don't understand XYZ." This looks like you are genuinely curious, and you see some good points to Mormons you know (the "good points" don't even have to be about doctrine), and this isn't yet another thread designed to slam them.

To me this sounds terribly patronizing -- the such nice people reference. It's like saying some of your best friends are Mormon. Why offer up some obviously fake compliment that generalizes about people and makes them sound like a monolithic group -- gee, we're all nice! -- and then the other shoe drops:

"All the Mormons I know are very nice people, but I don't understand why they all wear that underwear."

All the Jews I know are very nice people, but I don't understand why they all...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So instead of the recent thread asking something like, "How could anybody be a Mormon?" the thread could read something like "How do Mormon's feel about X aspect of the religion?" And then OP's initial post could say something like, "All the Mormons I know are very nice people, but I don't understand XYZ." This looks like you are genuinely curious, and you see some good points to Mormons you know (the "good points" don't even have to be about doctrine), and this isn't yet another thread designed to slam them.

To me this sounds terribly patronizing -- the such nice people reference. It's like saying some of your best friends are Mormon. Why offer up some obviously fake compliment that generalizes about people and makes them sound like a monolithic group -- gee, we're all nice! -- and then the other shoe drops:

"All the Mormons I know are very nice people, but I don't understand why they all wear that underwear."

All the Jews I know are very nice people, but I don't understand why they all...

OK, then find something else to say. Even something equally trivial. "I admire your perserverance in attending when sometimes it must be tempting to spend the day at home." Or possibly there's one point of doctrine, such as giving to charity or volunteering at a shelter (let's stay away from the apparently loaded tithing issue), that you can compliment.

The point is that when you are going to say things that are very negative, it's helpful to find at least something nice to say. This is a pretty generally accepted principle of managing others, negotiating and getting to yes, getting your neighbor to stop the loud accordian playing after midnight, et cetera.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was raised Pentacostal and attended religious schools through high school graduation. I am fascinated by religion and have taken courses on world religions. Atheism is certainly not my only point of reference.

I think the issue may be that "tolerance" is defined a little differently by everyone. I've had people that seemed offended just by my mentioning that I'm an atheist, the insults that followed cemented my perception. Others can discuss beliefs and doctrine in a reasonable conversation. Because I'm fascinated, I tend to ask people about religion when I meet someone with a religion I'm not familiar with. From Mormons to Muslims, the questions are usually met with a good attitude and explanations of the things that can't be easily explained in textbooks.

I guess there are hyper-sensitive people of every shade of belief and non-belief.

I guess I'd put people who are offended by the mere mention that you're an atheist in the same category as the ranting atheist. They're equally intolerant and equally unwilling to listen. For taxonomy's sake, maybe there's a distinction between taking quick offense (your offended believers) and having a single-minded goal of insulting people (ranting atheist), I'd have to think about that. But in any case, my preference is to avoid both groups. The problem on the internet is that you can't avoid either group.

Another problem with the internet is that you can't tell who's who. Then, inevitably, at some point one of us will think that the curious atheist is the ranting atheist (especially since the latter seems to post about once a minute), and will say something short-tempered to the curious atheist who didn't deserve it, and the whole conversation just goes downhill.... I agree, the internet is pretty flawed for this sort of discussion.

[Anonymous]

8:33 again. I do think it's pretty clear that the reason people of faith get so offended, so fast, on DCUM is because of the ranting atheist and her ilk. To take just one example, look at the sweeping and unfair generalizations in her post of 22:35! People who cry "bigotry" are reacting to that sort of offensive post, they aren't referring to your well-intentioned questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my view, tolerance means I'm not going to discriminate against you. If you come live in my neighborhood, so what? If your kids and my kids are friends, great. If you want to work in the same company as me? Super. I have zero problem with anyone practicing whatever religion they want to practice as long as .... and here's the distinction ... you don't cram it down my throat. You don't create laws that are directly related to your religious beliefs that I am now forced to abide by. And it's different if a law comes about that I simply don't agree with. For example, I think it's absurd that people have to wait until they're 21 to drink but can serve in the military at 18. I don't agree with that, but that didn't come about because someone's "faith" dictated that it be so. When someone's religion crosses into my personal life, I don't think it's intolerance of the religion for me to be pissed off about that.

I agree with this. I am atheist (not the ranting one!) and I certainly don't mind or care if you are religious or not, as long as it doesn't interfere with MY life. I don't go around preaching atheism so please don't try to "save" me. I also think that religion is far too involved in our government. What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

[Anonymous]

8:33 yet again! I think it's helpful to know who's who. I'm the protestant from 12:47 and 17:16.

[Anonymous]

8:33 here. I agree, religion doesn't belong in government.

Especially when religion is used to justify a generally conservative outlook. For example, I can't find anything that Jesus said anything at all about gays, being together, getting married, or otherwise. Paul did, but there are some issues with authenticity in some of the letters attributed to Paul. And don't get me started on the hypocracy of some of the conservative leadership who want to give tax breaks to the rich while cutting aid to the poor, et cetera. In fact, using religion to suck in Kansans to support such an unchristian agenda is precisely why religion should be kept out of government, in my view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an evangelical Christian and I think your question is a good one OP. I have lots of friends who are atheists - some of them i can have great discussions about faith / religion with and others I can't. I enjoy a good discussion and i think if you keep it broad rather than personal, and avoid using intentionally insulting language then you can have very healthy conversations about religion. Maybe because I have a faith, it is easier for me to be tolerant / understanding of other's faiths that are different than mine because I am more sensitized to what feels intolerant or personal. I respect them as a person and their right to their belief even if I don't agree and I try and treat them with the same tolerance and respect that I appreciate in others.

I can see if you have never had any perspective other than atheism that it is hard to understand what others might perceive as intolerant or disrespectful. Other people have had really negative experiences with church or religion or a religious figure and they project the feelings from their personal experiences onto my faith, making assumptions about what I do or don't believe. I too like another poster said see my faith as a personal relationship rather than as an organized religion or as a collective belief.

I think too OP that mass or group discussions about religion are hard to have..one comment can throw off the discussion or take it way off track. Such are internet boards!

This is interesting because the evangelical christians I know are very INTOLERANT of other's faiths-or lack there of. My parents are evangelical Christians and they are the most bigoted people I know, though they don't think they are. I'm not saying all evangelicals are like that, but most are. Maybe you are an exception.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand atheism, I think agnosticism is a more logical position. Dawkins himself says he's agnostic, because we can't know for sure. Anybody care to weigh in?