What's the most intolerant religion?

[Gadawg73]

If they want to pay for them, I honestly don't see why it's a big deal. However, what if Muslims put up a religious display during a time of celebration at the center of your town square, would you have a problem? Buddhist display? Hindu display? I venture to guess that most christians would be extremely uncomfortable with that, and therein lies the hypocrisy. It comes down to Christians wanting their religion main staged, for the same reason that a Yankees bar in the bronx doesn't like any Red Sox jackets to be worn inside. It's a primal, primitive territorial response. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can change it. A precedent needs to be set in the minds of christians that Christianity will have no more privilege than any other religion when it comes to public life.

I absolutely have no problem with the Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists putting up a tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display celebrating a religious festival any more than I have a problem with the Christians doing so. The key concept is celebration of a religious festival offered in good will and inclusive spirit. A Christian message of Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men is entirely appropriate. What reasonable person of any faith could have a problem with that?
A Christian message of "Repent for the End is Near" or "Believe and be saved" would not be appropriate for such a shared public display.

The argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is on the grounds that 'everybody else isn't represented.' Well no, Christmas has nothing to do with Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. Christmas is a uniquely Christian observance and the Christians should not be required to include everybody else in their recognition of it. Any more than Muslims should be required to include something Christian in theirs.

And certainly the argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is that 'somebody might find it offensive.' I get sick and tired of the intolerance of a very few being allowed to deny simple harmless pleasures to everybody else.

Who decides what a “tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display” is?

What are the standards?

How are disagreements resolved?

Are you suggesting that 6, 8, or a dozen religious groups representing competing religions are going to be accommodating of each other?

"Simple harmless pleasures"? Not when it comes to competing religions.

Exactly, they come to us with "we want this and we want it to be tasteful and we want YOU to make it is tasteful"
All the while expanding government in the process.
I found out that once we opened the door everybody came forward with their requests at every holiday, parade, whatever.

 

[Gadawg73]

I absolutely have no problem with the Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists putting up a tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display celebrating a religious festival any more than I have a problem with the Christians doing so. The key concept is celebration of a religious festival offered in good will and inclusive spirit. A Christian message of Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men is entirely appropriate. What reasonable person of any faith could have a problem with that?
A Christian message of "Repent for the End is Near" or "Believe and be saved" would not be appropriate for such a shared public display.

The argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is on the grounds that 'everybody else isn't represented.' Well no, Christmas has nothing to do with Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. Christmas is a uniquely Christian observance and the Christians should not be required to include everybody else in their recognition of it. Any more than Muslims should be required to include something Christian in theirs.

And certainly the argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is that 'somebody might find it offensive.' I get sick and tired of the intolerance of a very few being allowed to deny simple harmless pleasures to everybody else.

Who decides what a “tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display” is?

What are the standards?

How are disagreements resolved?

Are you suggesting that 6, 8, or a dozen religious groups representing competing religions are going to be accommodating of each other?

"Simple harmless pleasures"? Not when it comes to competing religions.

I have lived most of my life in small towns. We currently live in the big city and so far as I know, nobody has requested to put a celebratory exhibit at the County Court House or City Hall. In the city where no single prevailing culture exists, it doesn't ever seem to be an issue.

Everywhere else that we have lived have had long standing community traditions involving historical displays such as an old creche that sort of falls to a few people by default to put it up and take it down each year. It isn't any kind of organized thing but it has become a part of the culture of the community, much appreciated and beloved by most. And yes, the ACLU or one or two disgruntled people have complained or attempted to interfere now and then, but because the displays were tasteful, non coercive, and discriminated against nobody beliefs, so far they have prevailed.

All that is required for such lovely and enjoyable traditions to continue is the non interference of those who don't care about them. And that is the very essence of religious tolerance or any other kind of tolerance.

I live in a small town and have lived in many small towns and respectfully, they are the hardest to get the community together on who is in charge, who will be responsible for the ideas, what idea, what kind of tree, who will put it up, "we do not want them helping", "why can't we do this?" 4 weeks after the decisions were made and they have new ideas and/or now they have another person in charge because someone else did not like the other person.
And then the next year they came back when we decided the 2nd year to allow another church in the community do the park area and of course the 1st group pitched a fit, wanted to have a committee elected, wanted us to screen applicants,
On and on and on and on and on.
And to most of us the big light show they wanted to do each year was as tacky as it could be. They had wires running everywhere and to them the more lights the better it was.
Far from what Christmas was in my youth.
Jesus would rather us forget about all of that anyway and go home and celebrate Christmas with our families instead of a silly fuss about decorating the town square.

 

[Foxfyre]

I absolutely have no problem with the Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists putting up a tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display celebrating a religious festival any more than I have a problem with the Christians doing so. The key concept is celebration of a religious festival offered in good will and inclusive spirit. A Christian message of Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men is entirely appropriate. What reasonable person of any faith could have a problem with that?
A Christian message of "Repent for the End is Near" or "Believe and be saved" would not be appropriate for such a shared public display.

The argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is on the grounds that 'everybody else isn't represented.' Well no, Christmas has nothing to do with Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. Christmas is a uniquely Christian observance and the Christians should not be required to include everybody else in their recognition of it. Any more than Muslims should be required to include something Christian in theirs.

And certainly the argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is that 'somebody might find it offensive.' I get sick and tired of the intolerance of a very few being allowed to deny simple harmless pleasures to everybody else.

Who decides what a “tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display” is?

What are the standards?

How are disagreements resolved?

Are you suggesting that 6, 8, or a dozen religious groups representing competing religions are going to be accommodating of each other?

"Simple harmless pleasures"? Not when it comes to competing religions.

Exactly, they come to us with "we want this and we want it to be tasteful and we want YOU to make it is tasteful"
All the while expanding government in the process.
I found out that once we opened the door everybody came forward with their requests at every holiday, parade, whatever.

It is accomplished quite easily. I was on an advisory board dealing with this very concept in one of our former communities in Kansas. What kind of demonstrations or displays should be allowed on public lands? What kind of floats are appropriate for scheduled city-sanctioned parades etc.?

We kept it simple.

Public displays by any organized group, stationary or mobile, had to be approved by the advisory board using the following criteria:

1. No religious doctrinal statements or partisan politics were allowed.
2. The display or float had to meet community standards of decency and respect.
3. Displays had to be at the organizations expense to erect, maintain, and take down after an agreed-upon-period.
4. Stationary displays were restricted to a specific assigned area and would be seasonal or accommodated on a first come, first served basis.
5. Any display designed to disturb the peace in any inappropriate way or disrespect any group would be disallowed.

And for the six years I served on that board, there were very few disagreements or problems, and all of those were worked out satisfactorily.

We can generally do what we have to do to include and be tolerant of pretty much everybody if that is our goal to accomplish.

 

[Gadawg73]

Who decides what a “tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display” is?

What are the standards?

How are disagreements resolved?

Are you suggesting that 6, 8, or a dozen religious groups representing competing religions are going to be accommodating of each other?

"Simple harmless pleasures"? Not when it comes to competing religions.

Exactly, they come to us with "we want this and we want it to be tasteful and we want YOU to make it is tasteful"
All the while expanding government in the process.
I found out that once we opened the door everybody came forward with their requests at every holiday, parade, whatever.

It is accomplished quite easily. I was on an advisory board dealing with this very concept in one of our former communities in Kansas. What kind of demonstrations or displays should be allowed on public lands? What kind of floats are appropriate for scheduled city-sanctioned parades etc.?

We kept it simple.

Public displays by any organized group, stationary or mobile, had to be approved by the advisory board using the following criteria:

1. No religious doctrinal statements or partisan politics were allowed.
2. The display or float had to meet community standards of decency and respect.
3. Displays had to be at the organizations expense to erect, maintain, and take down after an agreed-upon-period.
4. Stationary displays were restricted to a specific assigned area and would be seasonal or accommodated on a first come, first served basis.
5. Any display designed to disturb the peace in any inappropriate way or disrespect any group would be disallowed.

And for the six years I served on that board, there were very few disagreements or problems, and all of those were worked out satisfactorily.

We can generally do what we have to do to include and be tolerant of pretty much everybody if that is our goal to accomplish.

Wish we would have had you!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

Exactly, they come to us with "we want this and we want it to be tasteful and we want YOU to make it is tasteful"
All the while expanding government in the process.
I found out that once we opened the door everybody came forward with their requests at every holiday, parade, whatever.

It is accomplished quite easily. I was on an advisory board dealing with this very concept in one of our former communities in Kansas. What kind of demonstrations or displays should be allowed on public lands? What kind of floats are appropriate for scheduled city-sanctioned parades etc.?

We kept it simple.

Public displays by any organized group, stationary or mobile, had to be approved by the advisory board using the following criteria:

1. No religious doctrinal statements or partisan politics were allowed.
2. The display or float had to meet community standards of decency and respect.
3. Displays had to be at the organizations expense to erect, maintain, and take down after an agreed-upon-period.
4. Stationary displays were restricted to a specific assigned area and would be seasonal or accommodated on a first come, first served basis.
5. Any display designed to disturb the peace in any inappropriate way or disrespect any group would be disallowed.

And for the six years I served on that board, there were very few disagreements or problems, and all of those were worked out satisfactorily.

We can generally do what we have to do to include and be tolerant of pretty much everybody if that is our goal to accomplish.

Wish we would have had you!!!

Thanks. A very nice compliment. I actually headed the group two of the six years I served, and it isn't always easy to get everybody on the same page re what is and is not acceptable or appropriate. But when there is a will there is a way. Such a concept would probably not work in a city the size and of the diversity of Albuquerque. Communities in which is will work are generally pretty homogenous and agreed on common values to begin with.

But again that is where tolerance comes in. What works one place should not be dismissed or negated because it doesn't work someplace else. One places should not be condemned for the dysfunction or difficulties in another. Tolerance allows those who can make something work satisfactorily to do so even when the same concept isn't working for themselves.

 

[Gadawg73]

It is accomplished quite easily. I was on an advisory board dealing with this very concept in one of our former communities in Kansas. What kind of demonstrations or displays should be allowed on public lands? What kind of floats are appropriate for scheduled city-sanctioned parades etc.?

We kept it simple.

Public displays by any organized group, stationary or mobile, had to be approved by the advisory board using the following criteria:

1. No religious doctrinal statements or partisan politics were allowed.
2. The display or float had to meet community standards of decency and respect.
3. Displays had to be at the organizations expense to erect, maintain, and take down after an agreed-upon-period.
4. Stationary displays were restricted to a specific assigned area and would be seasonal or accommodated on a first come, first served basis.
5. Any display designed to disturb the peace in any inappropriate way or disrespect any group would be disallowed.

And for the six years I served on that board, there were very few disagreements or problems, and all of those were worked out satisfactorily.

We can generally do what we have to do to include and be tolerant of pretty much everybody if that is our goal to accomplish.

Wish we would have had you!!!

Thanks. A very nice compliment. I actually headed the group two of the six years I served, and it isn't always easy to get everybody on the same page re what is and is not acceptable or appropriate. But when there is a will there is a way. Such a concept would probably not work in a city the size and of the diversity of Albuquerque. Communities in which is will work are generally pretty homogenous and agreed on common values to begin with.

But again that is where tolerance comes in. What works one place should not be dismissed or negated because it doesn't work someplace else. One places should not be condemned for the dysfunction or difficulties in another. Tolerance allows those who can make something work satisfactorily to do so even when the same concept isn't working for themselves.

Sometimes here in the deep south many folks that are the best of folks and are really good people have an awful time with anything and everything to do about tolerance.
But things are changing fast as the youth are taking over and that is a good thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wish we would have had you!!!

Thanks. A very nice compliment. I actually headed the group two of the six years I served, and it isn't always easy to get everybody on the same page re what is and is not acceptable or appropriate. But when there is a will there is a way. Such a concept would probably not work in a city the size and of the diversity of Albuquerque. Communities in which is will work are generally pretty homogenous and agreed on common values to begin with.

But again that is where tolerance comes in. What works one place should not be dismissed or negated because it doesn't work someplace else. One places should not be condemned for the dysfunction or difficulties in another. Tolerance allows those who can make something work satisfactorily to do so even when the same concept isn't working for themselves.

Sometimes here in the deep south many folks that are the best of folks and are really good people have an awful time with anything and everything to do about tolerance.
But things are changing fast as the youth are taking over and that is a good thing.

Youth sometimes does do it better. Sometimes not so much. It's all relative.

But as far as tolerance goes, it also applies over intergenerational lines. The tolerant youth understands the importance the older generation puts on certain values and allows them to have that. The older genration understands that the youth have to create the world they will live in as all previous generations have to do, and allows them to experiment with their own world view.

Again, when it does not require any contribution from us, materially or physically, when it does not violate any of our rights or our peace, tolerance is allowing others to do or be whatever they choose to be. It is the ultimate concept of unalienable rights that the Founders intended to recognize and protect when they founded this nation.

 

[GreatestIam]

We all suffer from idol worship. Even atheists.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SkZg1ZflpJs]Counterfeit Gods || Spoken Word || Jefferson Bethke - YouTube[/ame]


I like this guy's sentiment but he too idol worships what he has read in scriptures, ---- while pointing out to others that they should not do so. He ignores the log in his eye and speaks of the sliver in others eyes.

He is right though that we are all fundamentally tied by our own way of thinking of God.

Regards
DL

 

[MaryL]

I vote Islam. It's so intolerant, that non muslims are banned from entering its two holiest cities. Not a Saudi Rule, but an Koranic based rule, explicit for Mecca, and they imply it for Medina as well.

Islam holds a special place here. They blow up innocent people and destroy Christian and Buddhist shrines and kill Jews without shedding a tear. They still stone people to death. They crashed planes into Manhattan and New Jersey. But, other than THAT they are just spiffy in my book of mass murdering creeps.

 

[MaryL]

Did I mention, Islamic leaders put out "hits", just like the mafia? FATWAS? Are you kidding? What Other religions pulls THIS crap? Islam, the “Misunderstood" religion. Oh, Ok, as long as THEY do it.

 

[Unkotare]

We all suffer from idol worship. Even atheists.

I dunno, that show has gotten pretty boring.

 

[GreatestIam]

We all suffer from idol worship. Even atheists.

I dunno, that show has gotten pretty boring.

Boring perhaps but true.

I see his monologue as transcending religious Gods or political Gods. God being defined somewhat as the rules we follow for the best life. In that sense we all follow our version of God whatever it is.

Your God from that POV might be the Democratic God or the Republican one. So to speak.

As to us all being fundamentally locked into our thinking patterns, be we atheists or believers or whatever; that should be obvious to you by simply answering two questions for yourself.

How often, as an adult, have I changed one of my held beliefs?

And.

How often have I seen a believer change his held belief?

I answer these with almost never.
So will you I think.

Regards
DL

 

[Foxfyre]

We all suffer from idol worship. Even atheists.

I dunno, that show has gotten pretty boring.

Boring perhaps but true.

I see his monologue as transcending religious Gods or political Gods. God being defined somewhat as the rules we follow for the best life. In that sense we all follow our version of God whatever it is.

Your God from that POV might be the Democratic God or the Republican one. So to speak.

As to us all being fundamentally locked into our thinking patterns, be we atheists or believers or whatever; that should be obvious to you by simply answering two questions for yourself.

How often, as an adult, have I changed one of my held beliefs?

And.

How often have I seen a believer change his held belief?

I answer these with almost never.
So will you I think.

Regards
DL

What difference does it make though if somebody worships idols or sheep or dwarfs so long as nothing is required of you either materially or physically? The topic of this thread is tolerance. Tolerance is allowing others to believe or think or do whatever they want that does not violate the rights of anybody else; that requires no contribution of any kind from anybody else.

 

[GreatestIam]

[
What difference does it make though if somebody worships idols or sheep or dwarfs so long as nothing is required of you either materially or physically? The topic of this thread is tolerance. Tolerance is allowing others to believe or think or do whatever they want that does not violate the rights of anybody else; that requires no contribution of any kind from anybody else.

There is little of wisdom in the bible thanks to it's corruption over time but this bit is wise.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

We would still be in the trees if none of us corrected foolish thinking.

It is our duty to our fellow man and reciprocity is a moral tenet of almost all religions.

Do you like to be wrong in your thinking?
Do you not like being corrected when wrong?

Regards
DL

 

[Foxfyre]

[
What difference does it make though if somebody worships idols or sheep or dwarfs so long as nothing is required of you either materially or physically? The topic of this thread is tolerance. Tolerance is allowing others to believe or think or do whatever they want that does not violate the rights of anybody else; that requires no contribution of any kind from anybody else.

There is little of wisdom in the bible thanks to it's corruption over time but this bit is wise.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

We would still be in the trees if none of us corrected foolish thinking.

It is our duty to our fellow man and reciprocity is a moral tenet of almost all religions.

Do you like to be wrong in your thinking?
Do you not like being corrected when wrong?

Regards
DL

But the thread isn't about correct thinking. It is about religious intolerance that seeks to marginalize or punish or disallow the thoughts, beliefs, and practices of others that do not require anything of us in any way.

Jesus amended some Old Testament teachings, however, by suggesting that we should not be so concerned about those who break the rules, but to rather lead by our own example. I am fairly certain that there is a tiny, tiny minority of people who have ever been persuaded to seek heaven because they were told they were going to hell. And I wonder how many people have not accepted Christ because of the self righteous or hateful way that He was introduced to them? However well intended one might have been, I don't think God approves of that kind of missionary effort.

But so far as the topic goes, in my opinion, those who want to be tolerated are hypocrites if they are not equally tolerant of the beliefs, customs, and practices of others so long as that requires nothing of the non believer. Tolerance is not the same things as acceptance or approval. It is simply the ability to not interfere, to live and let live.

 

[ima]

The most intolerant religion is the one where people believe in an invisible superbeing in another dimension.

 

[skye]

The most intolerant religion is the one where people believe in an invisible superbeing in another dimension.

No.

The most intolerant religion is the one where people strap bombs to their bodies and send planes into buildings in order to kill innocent people! all in the name of Allah!

 

[ima]

The most intolerant religion is the one where people believe in an invisible superbeing in another dimension.

No.

The most intolerant religion is the one where people strap bombs to their bodies and send planes into buildings in order to kill innocent people! all in the name of Allah!

People who were driven to those acts by what followers of Judaism did to them, with the help of Christians. Please try again.

 

[newpolitics]

We all know that the most intolerant religion is whatever religion you would consider the Westboro Baptist Church to belong to. Seeing as they are more Christian than anything else, the answer is christianity.

 

[Gadawg73]

The most intolerant religion is the one where people believe in an invisible superbeing in another dimension.

No.

The most intolerant religion is the one where people strap bombs to their bodies and send planes into buildings in order to kill innocent people! all in the name of Allah!

People who were driven to those acts by what followers of Judaism did to them, with the help of Christians. Please try again.

That is what they tell the 13 year old kids while they train them to be suicide bombers.
But the citizens of their own countries know better.
Hamas and Hezbollah set up command posts, field operations and barracks in hospitals, schools, mosques and any other public area and then pray that the Isrealis will attack it.
They get a lot of their own innocent people killed but they do not care.
They get more publicity that way.
You are the perfect example how their propaganda works.