What's the most intolerant religion?

I don't think it depends on the religion so much as the adherents. All religions have the potential for intolerance. All groups do.

But I've met people from dozens of different religions around the planet and most of them treat you with respect regardless of your religion.

Indeed.

It's always strange for me to read thread about how intolerant Muslims or Jews are, when I've only been treated with respect by both.

As an athiest myself, I do agree that athiests aren't always as tolerant as we could be; but it is as individual with athiests as it is with any other religion or belief.
 
Secular law. Finally.

They have finally desided not to tolerate Christian and Catholics abuse of our young children.

The E U is showing that they have balls while on this side of the pond we have done nothing. Shame on us all.

Pope Benedict Resigned to Avoid Arrest, Seizure of Church Wealth by Easter - Salem-News.Com

Pope Benedict Resigned to Avoid Arrest, Seizure of Church Wealth by Easter
Salem-News.com
Diplomatic Note was issued to Vatican just prior to his resignation.


Learn more, visit: itccs.org

(BRUSSELS ITCCS ) - The historically unprecedented resignation of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope this week was compelled by an upcoming action by a European government to issue an arrest warrant against Ratzinger and a public lien against Vatican property and assets by Easter.

The ITCCS (International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State) Central Office in Brussels is compelled by Pope Benedict's sudden abdication to disclose the following details:


On Friday, February 1, 2013, on the basis of evidence supplied by our affiliated Common Law Court of Justice (itccs.org), our Office concluded an agreement with representatives of a European nation and its courts to secure an arrest warrant against Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict, for crimes against humanity and ordering a criminal conspiracy.


This arrest warrant was to be delivered to the office of the "Holy See" in Rome on Friday, February 15, 2013. It allowed the nation in question to detain Ratzinger as a suspect in a crime if he entered its sovereign territory.


A diplomatic note was issued by the said nation's government to the Vatican's Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, on Monday, February 4, 2013, informing Bertone of the impending arrest warrant and inviting his office to comply. No reply to this note was received from Cardinal Bertone or his office; but six days later, Pope Benedict resigned.


The agreement between our Tribunal and the said nation included a second provision to issue a commercial lien through that nation's courts against the property and wealth of the Roman Catholic church commencing on Easter Sunday, March 31, 2013. This lien was to be accompanied by a public and global "Easter Reclamation Campaign" whereby Catholic church property was to be occupied and claimed by citizens as public assets forfeited under international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.


It is the decision of our Tribunal and the said nation's government to proceed with the arrest of Joseph Ratzinger upon his vacating the office of the Roman Pontiff on a charge of crimes against humanity and criminal conspiracy.


It is our further decision to proceed as well with the indictment and arrest of Joseph Ratzinger's successor as Pope on the same charges; and to enforce the commercial lien and "Easter Reclamation Campaign" against the Roman Catholic church, as planned.

In closing, our Tribunal acknowledges that Pope Benedict's complicity in criminal activities of the Vatican Bank (IOR) was compelling his eventual dismissal by the highest officials of the Vatican. But according to our sources, Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone forced Joseph Ratzinger's resignation immediately, and in direct response to the diplomatic note concerning the arrest warrant that was issued to him by the said nation's government on February 4, 2013.

We call upon all citizens and governments to assist our efforts to legally and directly disestablish the Vatican, Inc. and arrest its chief officers and clergy who are complicit in crimes against humanity and the ongoing criminal conspiracy to aid and protect child torture and trafficking.

Further bulletins on the events of the Easter Reclamation Campaign will be issued by our Office this week.


Issued 13 February, 2013
12:00 am GMT by the Brussels Central Office,

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXI6CdTVJ-0]Celebrate (1975) - Three Dog Night - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL
 
Would you say fundamentalism is a religious denomination?
Within any other group or affiliation?

Not really. Fundamentalism has more than one meaning. It can be a particular belief or it can be an attitude. How do you define it?

I am talking about the same attitude being applied to whatever belief the person is.

A fundamental Christian who rejects ALL Atheists being just as intolerant
as a fundamental Atheist who rejects ALL Christians.

Like someone else said, once they decide the other person's opposing belief is the enemy and is intolerant, they continue to be just as intolerant in return, so the two opposites clash.

Someone else pointed out we must have different ideas of what intolerance is.
I agree that it is relative. Depending on which group/view you cannot forgive and which
ones cannot forgive yours, but reject each other prima facie, people become intolerant in relation to that bias.

I don't think intolerance means it is permanent.
We can always have our preferences and disdains
but we don't have to be so unforgiving that we automatically reject a certain group and remain in conflict!

I believe that can change, and is almost inevitable,
since all that negative energy wasted in conflict causes suffering on all sides and is not sustainable.

Eventually out of pure desire to be free of suffering and avoid pain,
circumstances and relations come about to motivate us to let go of those areas where we are most
unforgiving and intolerant, and to seek ways of understanding that bring peace and satisfaction.

I believe the human conscience is driven this way,
and will not stop seeking until truth is established that resolves the underlying conflicts.

I can accept this. Intolerance is one of those difficult words that is really a matter of degrees. We are all intolerant to some extent and often our perception of intolerance is a reflection of our own intolerance. If I tell you that you are wrong in your beliefs and are going to hell, am I being intolerant? If I refuse to agree with you that you are right and I am wrong, am I being intolerant? Some may say no, others may say yes. It is impossible to establish a standard for a concept based entirely upon judgment.

I have noticed though that typically intolerance is an antribute of the other guy.
 
Atheism is not a religion, so any claims that atheism is the most intolerant is just an attempt to return like insult, however vacuously. Christianity had built into its scripture intolerant clauses, such as "no one comes to the father but through me." This mutually exclusive aspect of Christianity to any religions, makes it intolerant, were one to follow it literally. Islam is no more intolerant than Christianity. The only difference is that Christianity has had more exposure to scrutiny and had more time to tone itself down than Islam, as aptly an correctly pointed out by Sam Harris. Islam has been highly isolated since its inception, and has not had this opportunity to grow out of its more fundamental and extreme aspects as Christianity has, such as the crusades, the inquisition, witch trials, missionaries ripping cultures and countless indigenous families apart, all well documented, which forced Christianity to change or die out. It changed. Had Islam been subjected to the same conditions, the result would have been similar. To say that Islam is intrinsically more anything (violent, "evil") is a basic bias Christians have towards it. As an atheist, I consider both religions equally as false, but the question about why one is seemingly more violent is answered by both the bias of the perceiving theist (Christian or Muslim) and the specific history of each religions exposure to scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Atheism is the most intolerant religion on the planet (and yes, it IS a religion, and it's based on faith). They are intolerant of all other faiths, no matter who they are. They attack and belittle the very core of every single faith in the world, and seek legislation to silence them. That's pretty intolerant.
 
SJ, everything you just claimed about atheism highlights yours own bigotry and intolerance of atheists, confirming your own Christian-inspired intolerance. Atheists don't care what anyone else believes, as long as we aren't paying for it or being affected by it. Unfortunately, Christians feel the need to infringe upon the constitution, and as long as they do, they will be met with resistance. Of course you call this intolerance: you aren't getting just you want. WHA!
 
Last edited:
SJ, everything you just claimed about atheism highlights yours own bigotry and intolerance of atheists, confirming your own Christian-inspired intolerance. Atheists don't care what anyone else believes, as long as we aren't paying for it or being affected by it. Unfortunately, Christians feel the need to infringe upon the constitution, and as long as they do, they will be met with resistance. Of course you call this intolerance: you aren't getting just you want. WHA!
I won't respond to the personal dig, I'll just say that I was thinking the same thing about atheists. They feel the need to infringe upon the Constitution and force their beliefs on everyone else. Christians don't care what they believe as long we don't have to pay for it, like our tax money being used to teach evolution in the public schools. Now, can we refrain from the personal insults? Mature adults can disagree without name-calling, don't you think?
 
SJ, everything you just claimed about atheism highlights yours own bigotry and intolerance of atheists, confirming your own Christian-inspired intolerance. Atheists don't care what anyone else believes, as long as we aren't paying for it or being affected by it. Unfortunately, Christians feel the need to infringe upon the constitution, and as long as they do, they will be met with resistance. Of course you call this intolerance: you aren't getting just you want. WHA!
I won't respond to the personal dig, I'll just say that I was thinking the same thing about atheists. They feel the need to infringe upon the Constitution and force their beliefs on everyone else. Christians don't care what they believe as long we don't have to pay for it, like our tax money being used to teach evolution in the public schools. Now, can we refrain from the personal insults? Mature adults can disagree without name-calling, don't you think?

I didn't call you call you any names nor personally insult you. I did mock Your past behavior, but if you want to turn over a new leaf and start anew, I'm down with that. In fact, I would like nothing more.

As for your post, evolution is a science backed we evidence, not a religious belief. And here we go again... I don't see this working, but go ahead.
 
Last edited:
Atheism is the most intolerant religion on the planet (and yes, it IS a religion, and it's based on faith). They are intolerant of all other faiths, no matter who they are. They attack and belittle the very core of every single faith in the world, and seek legislation to silence them. That's pretty intolerant.

Compare those demands you mention, that I do not see, to this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIoFiDE2awM]Disturbing Interview w/ British Muslim Leader - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL
 
To go the opposite way, what, in your opinion, is the MOST tolerant?

Same answer. There is no religion which has a monopoly on tolerance or intolerance.

However, following my earlier statement that intolerance is an attribute of the other guy.... Buddhism is the most tolerant.
 
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.

It's a new religion. It's called "American Christianity". It's not like "traditional Christianity". This one wants poor people to starve and feel corporations should run the country. It's tied with Radical Islam.

The only thing that protects us is our law enforcement.
 
Atheism is not a religion, so any claims that atheism is the most intolerant is just an attempt to return like insult, however vacuously. Christianity had built into its scripture intolerant clauses, such as "no one comes to the father but through me." This mutually exclusive aspect of Christianity to any religions, makes it intolerant, were one to follow it literally. Islam is no more intolerant than Christianity. The only difference is that Christianity has had more exposure to scrutiny and had more time to tone itself down than Islam, as aptly an correctly pointed out by Sam Harris. Islam has been highly isolated since its inception, and has not had this opportunity to grow out of its more fundamental and extreme aspects as Christianity has, such as the crusades, the inquisition, witch trials, missionaries ripping cultures and countless indigenous families apart, all well documented, which forced Christianity to change or die out. It changed. Had Islam been subjected to the same conditions, the result would have been similar. To say that Islam is intrinsically more anything (violent, "evil") is a basic bias Christians have towards it. As an atheist, I consider both religions equally as false, but the question about why one is seemingly more violent is answered by both the bias of the perceiving theist (Christian or Muslim) and the specific history of each religions exposure to scrutiny.

The depends upon how you define religion. It is a faith based belief system. I understand the claim that it is an absence of belief, but I have yet to meet anyone who was an atheist and was absent belief. Frankly, I find that claim is to be taken on faith and accepted as a tenent of the belief.
 
All of them.

That's obviously not the case, but as most likely a liberal, your fear of insulting a darling group causes you to insult everyone.

Really? A liberal?

Well I suppose I am liberal in the sense that I put liberty above all else.

And I have no love of any religion. Religion is lust another control people allow to be placed on their minds

Just like Secular Humanistic Education.
 
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.

It's a new religion. It's called "American Christianity". It's not like "traditional Christianity". This one wants poor people to starve and feel corporations should run the country. It's tied with Radical Islam.

The only thing that protects us is our law enforcement.

The only ting that protects us is God. Christians don't want poor people to starve. They what to find out why that person is poor. Christians certainly don't want corporations to run America. And they certainly do not what the government to become a corporation as it would seem liberals are leading us to.
 
I tend to side with those who see elements of intolerance in all religions and among those who reject all forms of religion, such rejection usually becoming a religion in itself. We all see the Atheists who make some kind of snarky remark about people of faith, no matter what the context and who religiously use 1st Amendment distortions to deny Christians public expression of their faith. But are all Atheists like that? No they aren't.

We see the hardcore fanatics among Christians who tell other Christians they are going to hell because they do or don't do something or other. But are all Christians like that? No they aren't.

As a Christian, I have never received such hostility as I have received in some Jewish chat rooms. But are all Jews like that? No they aren't.

Islam doesn't much care what you believe, but is rigid that you follow Islamic rules and don't attempt to proselytize if you are of some other faith. Which makes it both tolerant and intolerant.

Many religions claim to be the center of tolerance, and yet are quite intolerant of the religious beliefs of others that are less tolerance. Its kind of an intolerance of intolerance thing. Those who are tolerant allow others their beliefs.
 

Forum List

Back
Top