Religious tolerance

[Anonymous]

10:15 - it's incredibly easy to talk about your atheism without talking about fairies.

Just say, "I don't believe in a god." This doesn't demean anybody's beliefs, but at the same time it addresses your apparent need to avoid acknowledging any particular god of all the possible gods.

However I suspect this already occurred to you, but you want to keep insulting people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:40. you can't distinguish between attempts at conversion and forcing their beliefs into government policy. They are essentially one in the same. The tactics are just different.

I would actually make this distinction. I see a difference is passing laws reflecting their views, and expecting you to convert and adopt their views. I don't think Ryan wants to "convert" me to Republicanism when he pushes tax breaks for the rich or privatizing Medicare. He doesn't care what I think, he just wants to structure society the way he thinks it should be structured. Same with the evangelicals - getting their beliefs into law (which I oppose) is distinct from converting me to accept their beliefs.

PP has a good point regarding the activism that some organized religions play in government politics. I suppose the question is, does it matter what my motive is for wanting a certain policy or law. If I'm pro-life but atheist, is it okay to advocate for Roe v Wade to be overturned? Can I vote against gay marriage legislation for reasons unrelated to religion and have it be an accepted part of the public discourse? Like any American, I believe that my position on an issue is the right or best one, and it's what I want as part of our social and legal framework. It shouldn't be any more objectionable if that position derives from my Christian-based religious beliefs or my broader moral ones as an agnostic or Jew or Unitarian.

Back to OP's original question, I think tolerance is about respect. I am a Catholic. I have friends and family who are evangelical, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, and atheist. The Catholics I know run the gamut from liberal to very conservative. I might disagree with views on subjects (privately, I might even think some are truly wrong), but I don't look down on them, belittle them, or otherwise criticize. I do believe there is one God, and I actually believe that we are all worshipping the same God, but for some reason have very different perspectives on what that means. I do believe in a heaven and hell, and honestly, don't know what that means for those who are atheist. Does that impact my relationships now, no, but it is something that I grapple with philosophically on a personal level.

[Anonymous]

I think the distinction in the political issues is the activities of the organized church, not a vote or opinion of any one parishioner. There's a "threat" that if leaders don't follow requests of the church, the church leaders will encourage followers to pull support. Some church leaders are active in contacting legislators to make their opinions known. I'm all for people participating in their government, but take issue with churches taking such an active role. I think it runs afoul of separation of church and state and government not establishing or endorsing a religion.

Look at LDS's role in Prop 8 and the current efforts to redefine "life" (in the legal sense). The current push to redefine life includes a ban on birth control pills. I wonder who'd want to stop people from using BCPs and prevent clinics from doing procedures like IVF. The majority of the population thinks these things are morally acceptable, or at least, should be available in our health care options.

[Anonymous]

11:14 here, forgot to add I'm the OP.

[Anonymous]

10:44 here. I see your point, OP but I think you possibly might have missed mine. There are tons of huge PACs and interest groups (AARP, NRA, AIPAC, the Corngrowers Association of America, Planned Parenthood just to name a few) that play a huge role in pushing legislation and their own political agendas, not to mention the role of corporations and industry groups (banking industry, anyone?), some of which I'd contend aren't in the best interests of most Americans based on my own views. In the situations you are discussing, these churches or the interest groups that stem from them aren't really any different. So again, it's a question of why it matters whether the activism is based in religious faith or other personal or professional interests.

(and, yes, I know that opens the door to discussing whether churches should have tax exempt status, but that's a different thread that this one on tolerance).

[Anonymous]

Our Constitution makes no mention of separation of corporation or interest group and state.

[Anonymous]

The Constitution only states that no religious requirement is necessary to hold public office.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nowhere does it state that religious groups can NOT lobby and petition for their positions.

[Anonymous]

You should read up on the court decisions that further clarified the Establishment Clause. It is a lot more than the one case you mention.

[Anonymous]

See this is the issue: Maybe faith groups do have a "right" to lobby congress to vote in accordance with their beliefs. But what is it that I should be tolerant of? And how should my tolerance manifest itself? I'm not talking about individual parishoners voting with their conscience. I'm talking about churches, like the Mormons and Catholics, having an industry of lobbyists on the hill lobbying against gay marriage and abortion etc....

What if, instead of gay marriage, the issue were interracial marriage. Just for the sake of argument. Even if these churches had every "right" to oppose interracial marriage, and lobby against it, and write propositions opposing it, etc...what then am I required to do or how am I required to act in the name of "tolerance" if I feel that they hold unjust and discriminatory views? If I say, "your views are discriminatory and unjust," on here I get called a bigot. But I feel that way about those that are anti-gay marriage. I have heard the arguments...I still think it is an unjust and discriminatory cause. So I guess my question is that for those faith groups who have churches that regularly and aggressively insert themselves into politics...what are you looking for in the way of tolerance? You have a right to exist, and that in and of itself is a form of tolerance. You want me to approve as well? Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

[Anonymous]

Of course you have a right to disapprove of faith-based policies that you ... disapprove of. It's how this disapproval gets expressed on DCUM that seems to be the issue.

To me, the biggest problem with critcism here on DCUM is the use of labels that are inaccurate/unfair/rude. I'm not saying you're guilty of the following. But some are. Heck, maybe it's the ranting atheist and her cousin, who blight every thread with 3-4 posts on every page. Some of the insulting labels are:

- Blaming all believers, not just the particular sect involved with the particular policy
- Making lame jokes about how believers are so deluded they might as well believe in fairies and the spaghetti monster (BTW, it loses its novelty after the 1000th repetition, sort of like a 3-year-old's jokes)
- Gratuitous statements about how all christians are also climate change-denying creationists.

Along the same lines, OP requested that we call her an atheist rather than a non-believer, because she believes in humankind.

So it's about offensive or just plain wrong labels. And giving people the respect of labeling their beliefs fairly and accurately.

[Anonymous]

According to this NY Times article, catholic governor Cuomo pushed hard for gay marriage, and the catholic church put up a tepid opposition, for whatever reason:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?ref=samesexmarriage

Just more evidence of the dangers of typecasting and labelling. I'm not catholic, FWIW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to this NY Times article, catholic governor Cuomo pushed hard for gay marriage, and the catholic church put up a tepid opposition, for whatever reason:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?ref=samesexmarriage

Just more evidence of the dangers of typecasting and labelling. I'm not catholic, FWIW.

There's actually no typecasting or labeling that your example "disproves." No one has said that all Catholics are jerks. What people are offended by is the institution that would feel the need to insert itself into politics. You said it yourself - one individual was fine with gay marriage and pushed hard for it; and the Catholic church put up an opposition, tepid or not. The fact that they opposed it as an institution is consistent with what people have said here irritates them about the church. So back to the original question - if I'm gay, why should I tolerate this religion? (Not the necessary the people, the religion and its leaders). Why can't I be free to say to a person, "the institution you belong to offends me." That's not intolerance, that's being a backboned individual.

[Anonymous]

OP here. It is my understanding that the slow and secret persuasion of legislators was to basically blindside the church and not give them a chance to mount an opposition campaign. They were informed at the last possible moment.

[Anonymous]

9:31. I think we agree that it's OK to criticize an institution. I've been thinking about 11:23's point and I think that if it's fair to criticize the bankers or the corn-growers, then it's fair to criticize particular churches when they support particular legislation.

Where I disagree with you on is your statement that "nobody has said that all Catholics are jerks." I actually see this all the time on DCUM, usually linked to sweeping statements about catholics and (a) pedophilia, (b) the entirety of catholic doctrine, (c) all catholics are intolerant of gays and/or non-believers, and (d) belief in fairies. Same for mormons and evangelicals. I'm not in any of these groups, FWIW.

Again, the point is HOW the criticisms are made (19:21), not that nobody can criticize anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So back to the original question - if I'm gay, why should I tolerate this religion? (Not the necessary the people, the religion and its leaders). Why can't I be free to say to a person, "the institution you belong to offends me." That's not intolerance, that's being a backboned individual.

Let me turn it around on you. Say I believe homosexuality is wrong and a sin. Why can't I be free to say to you, "I think homosexuality is wrong and anyone who engages in homosexuality is going to hell. I like you as a person, though." It's the same thing if my faith is a fundamental part of who I am, in the same way that being gay is part of who you are.