Why are those who claim to be "tolerant" and "open" so intolerant towards religion?

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Klixxer

I meant REAL examples, not examples dependant on something that doesn't have to do with them, i mean, They wouldn't have to marry a person of the same gender, would they? They would not HAVE to abort their children, would they? and they could still say under god, it is just not in the pledge.

When it comes to schools, that is only for public schools, is it not? And religion and government should never have anything to do with one another, should it?

So i mean REAL examples, i mean like prohibiting churces and such, well, you get my point i am sure.

Well, you won't find examples of that. But how many examples can you give of secular actions that are prohibited because of Christian values? Usually, when a law comes into question over a Christian value, the secular side wins out (Roe vs. Wade). You can cite things like prohibiting gay marriage, but how can you prove that is solely based on a Christian value? The Bible also says "Thou shalt not murder," and because of that, Christians support a law against murder. But is murder illegal because of the whacko religious right? Or do you pick and choose which Christian values you agree with and which ones you don't?

your last two questions present a false dichotomy because the concept of murder predates christianity or any other religion. as for gay marriage, are there any non-religious people who really cares whether gay people get married or not?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Todd33
Some religious people try to force their views on others. That chaps my hide. If they keep it to their self, out of the government and schools, I'm fine with Devil worship in private.

How about people on the left who are intolerant of different ideas in education? i.e. the people who rail against those who are in favor of school vouchers, and people who condemn public education altogether. Not only should we keep religion out of education, we should keep government out of education. Afterall, government is a religion all unto itself. It takes a LOT of blind faith to believe that the government is a positive force in education or society in general, in fact it takes faith in the supernatural.

Nice hijack.

The argument is completely different for education, and is about two questions: a basic question of whether privately run education would provide generally better learning opportunities for young people, and, if this is true, whether the ideal of 'equality of opportunity' should trump this difference, and if so, to what degree.

School vouchers are an interesting middle-road proposal (don't forget that most western countries already operate under a 'middle road' - the freedom to send your kid wherever you want, but no compensation for doing so). Personally I think improvements need to be targeted at the public system, because it IS the least common denominator in the education world; I listen to arguments to the contrary, but so far none of them is enough, for me, to overpower the need to try to provide equal opportunities to young people, regardless of their family's economic position.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Steve Guilliot

Amendment to allow gay marriage
Roe vs. Wade
Removing "under God" from the pledge
Prohibiting prayer, or voluntary religious clubs, from schools

How many do you want?

This whole topic goes to the heart of misunderstanding this:
Non-Christian is NOT Anti-Christian.

I didn't read anyone asking for anti-Christian examples. Only non-Christian. However, if you're not for Christian values, you're against them.

Being against making Christian values part of our daily life ONLY because they are Christian is not intolerance. Our country is based on the idea that when we can, we all can believe and do what we want. When we can't, like in the case of allowing murder or not, we compromise and go with the best idea that we can all agree on.

Intolerance is when someone forces their beliefs on you when they don't need to, simple as that. I think you're splitting hairs for no good reason here. Here's an example. If a Christian wants to force public school children to pray, that's intolerance of other beliefs...opposing such action isn't intolerance. But if a Christian wants to pray in Church or at home, intolerance would be telling them they can't.

What is so hard about this? I really feel you are arguing that it's intolerant if society doesn't follow your personal religious beliefs...and I just can't see how that's supportable, especially because quite often your beliefs would conflict with other peoples'...and who is intolerant there?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: jhu

your last two questions present a false dichotomy because the concept of murder predates christianity or any other religion. as for gay marriage, are there any non-religious people who really cares whether gay people get married or not?

Homosexuality predates Christianity as well, so what? Christians have values that are against murder, homosexuality, theft, and abortion (among others). Non-Christians have no issue with being against murder or theft, but disagreeing with homosexuality and abortion is being "whacko religious right". I think non-Christians use the "religious right" label on issues they don't agree with, when in actuality, many of our laws today are on par with religious right values. Why aren't you against those too?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Intolerance is when someone forces their beliefs on you when they don't need to, simple as that. I think you're splitting hairs for no good reason here. Here's an example. If a Christian wants to force public school children to pray, that's intolerance of other beliefs...opposing such action isn't intolerance. But if a Christian wants to pray in Church or at home, intolerance would be telling them they can't.

WRONG! Schools have clubs for students' interests. Some kids join the chess club, some kids join the farming club, etc. However, students are not allowed to start a religious club. No one is forced to join, but it's not even allowed to be an option for those who want to join. THAT is intolerance.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: jhu

3) as i recall, "under god" was added to the pledge nearly 50-60 years ago due to heightened religious ferver.

As I recall, "separation of church and state" was added to the constitution 50-60 years ago due to the heightened religious intolerance.

 

[Gaard]

Is this Cadder007 guy ever going to back up his claims?

 

[jjzelinski]

You speak only of a coincidence between the a few of the laws of abraham (the common sense ones) and the laws of the United States. It's like you're suggesting that without the good book, everyone would all of the sudden commit murder, steal, or commit adultery. Just to let you in on a little secret, these things have been considered to be "no-no's" for several thousand years before your religion was even concieved of.

By the way, the more the evangelical Christians push around EVERYONE else in this country by trying to legislate their superstition the more people will push back. Just relax, enjoy your relatinship with Christ and live a good life without being a huge PITA to the rest of your country.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
You speak only of a coincidence between the a few of the laws of abraham (the common sense ones) and the laws of the United States. It's like you're suggesting that without the good book, everyone would all of the sudden commit murder, steal, or commit adultery. Just to let you in on a little secret, these things have been considered to be "no-no's" for several thousand years before your religion was even concieved of.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very clearly. I relaize those laws have been generally accepted for thousands of years before Christianity. That's my point entirely. Just because issues like abortion and gay marriage have been rather recent developments does not mean they are directly related to Christianity. You're saying that because, generally, Christians support laws against it. But Christians also support laws against murder and theft, yet you don't label those laws "religious right". If that doesn't get my insignificant point (which has received too much thought already) across, then forget it.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Homosexuality predates Christianity as well, so what? Christians have values that are against murder, homosexuality, theft, and abortion (among others). Non-Christians have no issue with being against murder or theft, but disagreeing with homosexuality and abortion is being "whacko religious right". I think non-Christians use the "religious right" label on issues they don't agree with, when in actuality, many of our laws today are on par with religious right values. Why aren't you against those too?

i'm not sure what you're getting at. we're talking about values that christian people predominantly hold. the ones you mentioned only include abortion. the disagreement with homosexuality and abortion is predominantly a religious issue.

Originally posted by: Rob9874
As I recall, "separation of church and state" was added to the constitution 50-60 years ago due to the heightened religious intolerance.

you recall incorrectly. the term "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. we just can't have a national religion. the placement of "under god" in the pledge of allegiance occurred about 50 years ago.

 

[GreenMonkey]

I am completely tolerant of religion as long as no one uses it to restrict my freedoms. My biggest problem with religion is that people of faith seem always to want their views represented in law. There are "blue laws" restricting everything from shopping to buying booze on Sundays with the express purpose of not allowing alternatives to going to church. There have been, and still are in many cases, laws against oral and anal sex, based entirely on religious objections. Laws against prostitution and gambling came from religious beliefs. A new tactic of zoning laws that prevent so called "sex shops" within 1000' of a church; conferring a government sanctioned special status to churches. Attempts to force governments to recognise the Creation Story as science in order to feed it to all children.

I supopose that I could be labled as intolorant when the "god card" is played in a discussion (often about abortion and homosexuality) because then there no further point in continuing the discussion. No other ideas or facts seem to have any weight if they are outside of god's will as it might be interpreted.

I have also found the merely expressing my belief that religion is a relic of man's ignorant past is construed as an attack on religion, and therefore, representitive of intolerance.

I feel that it is anybody's right to have religious beliefs and pattern their life after them. I also believe laws should be based on common sense with the goal of good order and security in our society. I freely admit to being intolerant of faith based laws.

Cheers to that!!!
:thumbsup:

I must say, I have a lot of respect for people's religious beliefs. Be they Christian, Muslim, or whatever. My favorite example of how this can actually be is Babylon 5 - the creator/producer/writer of B5, we'll just shorten his name to JMS, has a lot of religion in his show. But he is an atheist. You can have respect for other's religions. It's only when it is getting pushed on others that we object.

 

[judasmachine]

First I don't like people defending a system that destroys, assimilates, and is completely intolerant of other systems. The christianizing of my people is still going on, long after the shock troops were sent to destroy us, and convert the survivors. I will not worship, or defend this god who said we were unclean savages. I do agree there is no such thing as a noble savage, however, there is no such thing as a noble civilized person either. We lived the way we wanted, and worshipped the way we wanted. We were no better than you, and no worse, yet you fell upon us like a plague. Now you expect me to forgive, and accept the fact that you've won? No way in hell will you EVER get me to kneel before you or any other of your genocidal concepts.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: jhu

you recall incorrectly. the term "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. we just can't have a national religion.

I stand corrected. So why can't schools let students form religious clubs? Why can't courthouses display the Ten Commandments?

 

[Yolner]

Umm at my school they had the christian athletes club, a muslim thing, a jewish thing, and a couple others i cant remember. Do those count?

 

[Yolner]

Ohh and the ten commandments are back as a "historical document"

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Yolner
Umm at my school they had the christian athletes club, a muslim thing, a jewish thing, and a couple others i cant remember. Do those count?

Yes, those would count, and is a rare case. I am a Christian, but support religious clubs from all religions. I think prohibiting them is intolerance.

 

[Yolner]

I think prohibiting prostitution, gay marriage, abortion, drinking from 18-21, pot, calling harry potter series and MTG cards evil, telling kids sex is evil, blowing up abortion clinics, killing stem cell research, freaking out about a nipple, and all the other bs the christian crazies are pulling is intolerance.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: jhu

your last two questions present a false dichotomy because the concept of murder predates christianity or any other religion. as for gay marriage, are there any non-religious people who really cares whether gay people get married or not?

Homosexuality predates Christianity as well, so what? Christians have values that are against murder, homosexuality, theft, and abortion (among others). Non-Christians have no issue with being against murder or theft, but disagreeing with homosexuality and abortion is being "whacko religious right". I think non-Christians use the "religious right" label on issues they don't agree with, when in actuality, many of our laws today are on par with religious right values. Why aren't you against those too?

But anti-homosexual sentiment is largely a phenomenon of certain religions - the greeks didn't seem to have a problem with it. Don't forget that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share a common root, which includes the ancient hebrew writings that outlaw homosexuality (and thus these three religions are really 'one' from that perspective, and many others).

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Yolner
I think prohibiting prostitution, gay marriage, abortion, drinking from 18-21, pot, calling harry potter series and MTG cards evil, telling kids sex is evil, blowing up abortion clinics, killing stem cell research, freaking out about a nipple, and all the other bs the christian crazies are pulling is intolerance.

I disagree with you on: prostitution, drinking from 18-21, pot. Whereas I'm sure Christians are against those things, I'm sure non-Christians are too. I'm a Christian and see nothing wrong with drinking, but I also know how immature people are from 18-21 (myself included).

 

[Yolner]

So people are mature enough to drive a car, vote, and die in iraq but theyr not mature enough to smoke some pot and have a beer? BS

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Yolner
So people are mature enough to drive a car, vote, and die in iraq but theyr not mature enough to smoke some pot and have a beer? BS

I'm sure at under 21, you feel that way. I did too. But regardless on whether or not you agree with it (yet), you can't argue that it has anything to do with religion. I think more alcohol related deaths occur to people under 21 (percentage wise) than any other age group.

 

[Yolner]

Yes i can. All these stupid laws just like abortion restrictions and of course the lovely stem cell research restrictions are a result of christianity's influence on government.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Todd33
Some religious people try to force their views on others. That chaps my hide. If they keep it to their self, out of the government and schools, I'm fine with Devil worship in private.

How about people on the left who are intolerant of different ideas in education? i.e. the people who rail against those who are in favor of school vouchers, and people who condemn public education altogether. Not only should we keep religion out of education, we should keep government out of education. Afterall, government is a religion all unto itself. It takes a LOT of blind faith to believe that the government is a positive force in education or society in general, in fact it takes faith in the supernatural.

Nice hijack.

What hijack? It is a hijack to point out inconsistencies in leftist ideology (intolerance of religion but advocacy absolutism in government and especially education)?

The argument is completely different for education, and is about two questions: a basic question of whether privately run education would provide generally better learning opportunities for young people, and, if this is true, whether the ideal of 'equality of opportunity' should trump this difference, and if so, to what degree.

Privately run education certainly would provide better learning opportunities for young people, for the exact same reasons that privately produced goods and services are higher quality for every single other scarce resource. Government run schools do not even come CLOSE to providing your championed ideal of "equality of opportunity." Actually, all they do is reduce kids' opportunities. Why? Because first of all, government schools have virtually only one curriculim: general education. The chances that a kid from the ghetto is going to take advantage of a general education is very slim. The reason why is that this entire education rests on the fallacy that the kid is going to go to college after graduating from high school, when in fact less than half of them (overall) actually do. This statistic is of course a lot higher for kids from poor families. So what do poor kids get from his "wonderful" general education? Virtually nothing. They either end up in a life of crime (partly due to the fact that they had already done prison time in the public school system), or they end up going to a trade school and performing some trade, causing virtually all of their public education to go completely to waste.

If parents were to choose the education for their kid, they would be able to put them into a trade school early on, reducing their exposure to criminal activities, and allowing them to start making more money earlier on in life.

So, in a nutshell, I must ask the question: how many different school curriculims do we get for millions of children, from the leftist public education system?

Of course the answer is, DING DING DING: 1! (nevermind the poor job the government does in teaching even this single curriculim, or how much this costs taxpayers)

This is not "equal opportunity," this is a tyrannical racket.

School vouchers are an interesting middle-road proposal (don't forget that most western countries already operate under a 'middle road' - the freedom to send your kid wherever you want, but no compensation for doing so).

I condemn school vouchers also. School vouchers would in no way remove the government's influence on education, because the government could just set up all kinds of regulations that schools would have to comply with in order to be eligible to accept the vouchers. Vouchers would simply produce another string of endless bureaucratic red tape. I was just pointing out in my previous post that the leftists in the education department abhore any change in public education.

Personally I think improvements need to be targeted at the public system, because it IS the least common denominator in the education world; I listen to arguments to the contrary, but so far none of them is enough, for me, to overpower the need to try to provide equal opportunities to young people, regardless of
their family's economic position.

This is why I say that it takes blind faith to believe in government. I cannot believe that you actually believe that the public school system provides "equal opportunities." Also, where do you get this idea of a "need" for public education? What philosophical principle do you use to come to this conclusion? Or are you just making claims based on whimsical gut feelings? Furthermore, how many and what kinds of other scarce resources does society have a "need" to provide for people?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Klixxer

I meant REAL examples, not examples dependant on something that doesn't have to do with them, i mean, They wouldn't have to marry a person of the same gender, would they? They would not HAVE to abort their children, would they? and they could still say under god, it is just not in the pledge.

When it comes to schools, that is only for public schools, is it not? And religion and government should never have anything to do with one another, should it?

So i mean REAL examples, i mean like prohibiting churces and such, well, you get my point i am sure.

Well, you won't find examples of that. But how many examples can you give of secular actions that are prohibited because of Christian values? Usually, when a law comes into question over a Christian value, the secular side wins out (Roe vs. Wade). You can cite things like prohibiting gay marriage, but how can you prove that is solely based on a Christian value? The Bible also says "Thou shalt not murder," and because of that, Christians support a law against murder. But is murder illegal because of the whacko religious right? Or do you pick and choose which Christian values you agree with and which ones you don't?

FFS, are you really that blind, you won't think you can have morality without religion, you are so dense that you do not understand that a human could understand that killing is wrong without religion?

FFS man, i ask for something real and all i get is this BS? i mean, you have to know something about your religion, right?

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: boredtodeath
I have looked at many of the religion threads and i have noticed that many of the people that claim to be tolerant and open minded and blame all the bad in the united states on the lack of tolerance in the homosexual threads display great intolerance when it comes to religion. If one is going to be tolerant of all races, cultures, and lifestyles, why are so many hypocritical?

Psssst!!! <conspiratorial whisper> They aren't really tolerant at all they are in fact some of the most intolerant people around here. Liberal elitists is what i tend to call them.