Why do some people feel that it is important to be tolerant of religion?

Question

I am not tolerant of religion, nor do I claim to be. Religion has cause more hatred in the world than any other system. Religion is truly the opiate of the masses.

Religion subverts science, encourages fanaticism and thrives on guilt. Thanks, but no thanks.

Your thoughts?

Hoosier - good point. Perhaps it's time to move on, though, particularly with the current White House administration.

Not myself - It's not OK for anyone to kill for any reason. My point, exactly.

Don - I'm not an ex-Christian. I've been an atheist for as long as I can remember. Why do you assume that I am only addressing Christians?

JP - I am not spreading hatred. I don't dislike religious people, I dislike religious dogma. There is a huge difference.

Answer 1

I can only think of one reason people tend to be tolerant of religion. As a culture, I think that is one of the subjects that is regarded as, pun intended, a sacred cow. Most folks don't want to offend what appears to be a core definition of who a person is.

I've read S. Harris' book, The End of Faith, and I think it is our duty as atheists to expose the destructive nature of religion.

Answer 2

You have asked a good many questions, in your 'question' ---

"...Why do 'some' people feel . . .???"
Seems that tolerance of others beliefs and behaviors is what "live and let live" is all about. . .we are all here with the same 'birth-right', which is - find your freedom, and live it. . .whether another agrees with you, or not.

Tolerance is at the core of 'peace' - within oneself, and beyond.

"Religion has cause[d] more hatred in the world. . ."
Is it not more accurate to state?
Belief in, and practicing enforcement of some 'religious' principles - has caused . . .?
Religion, of and by itself, it only a human construct - what one does with that, as we are all equally endowed with freedom of choice, is the real 'issue' or question, is it not?

Religion (per say) does nothing -
it does not subvert science, encourage fanaticism, or thrive on guilt. . . rather - - -

what the human ego/mind does with 'it' may ultimately create the above negatives.

I believe also, that the philosopher's oft' quoted statement:
"Religion is the opiate of the masses"
manifests some deeper truth, that the masses 'miss' in the translation. . . pills are more accessible, today!

Answer 3

Well, Christians like to say "Hate the sin, but love the sinner", and I look at religion this way (I am not Christian, by the way). It is not all religion, it some of religion's followers. Many Christians actually advocate science and mind there own business. These people are actually more Christian than the people that go around bashing gays, evolution, other religions, etc. Did Jesus do this? No. The only time he got close to violence was turning over the money-changers' tables in the temples, and these same "Christians" are actually pro-money and greed (look who they vote for).
Regardless, the problem is a rather vocal minority (the truth is, this group is apparently smaller than 10% of the US per various polls that have been done).
Ultimately, religion must be tolerant of other religions and viewpoints. Jesus taught love and peace, not bigotry, which is where this vocal group is actually coming from.

Answer 4

I feel it is important to be tolerant of religion for the reasons you stated you hate religion. Hello! If people of certain faiths TOLERATED people of other faiths, then they wouldn't feel the need to convert people by the sword or whatever they choose. The problem comes when fanatics of ALL religions are INTOLERANT of those who feel differently.

Tolerance is not the problem. Intolerance is. As a Wiccan, I strongly believe in the reed - An it harm NONE, do what ye will. Intolerance does nothing but breed hatred and give people ulcers, both of which are very harmful to myself and others. I do not feel the problem is the idea that we should all tolerate a person's right to choose their own religion, but that some people missed the "ALL" part of the concept.

Answer 5

While I, like you, am not religious, I would not presume to make that choice for others. For many, their religion is a source of great strength and inspiration. It's part of their pursuit of happiness, which the founders of my country believed to be an inalienable right. As an American, I agree with the founders that one's faith or moral philosophy is a matter of conscience that should not be decided by anyone but the individual herself. By the Golden Rule, which I hold as the highest moral precept, I would not want anyone else deciding how I should think or what I should believe, so neither would I presume to tell another what he should think or what she should believe.

That said, while one has the right to believe whatever one wants, one has never had the right to DO whatever one wants without restriction. What we do has effects upon those around us, and we do not have the right to interfere with the rights of others.

I have no problem with anyone practicing their religion so long as they do not try to impose their beliefs upon others.

Answer 6

Why do I feel that it is important to be tolerant of religion? Let's get to the heart of it, for I felt this way even when I was a hardcore agnostic.

I feel it is important to be tolerant of religious people, because some of them have been the most interesting people I met. I remember this Palestinian fellow I met back in the eighties - I worked with him. He had a poetry about his existence that was palpable. To me, he was like a walking Khalil Gibran, a man in a state of wonder over most things he saw. Everything was new to him, and this was in large part due to his religious and spiritual outlook.

In more recent times, I've become aware that in fact the most brutal political systems ever devised were essentially humanist systems; bereft of a sense of the divine, they instead divinized people, either individually or collectively.

The collective divinization of communist systems took more life in the 20th century than all religious wars in the history of the world combined. And the rugged extremist individualism of the western world - a kind of divinization of the self, has convinced us that we are right because our constitutional rights say we are, and we need to spread liberty and "freedumb frahs" to people who never asked us to do this for them (I speak of Iraq primarily.)

Religious values, on the contrary, advocate humility, charity, wisdom. The state and all its glories are not exalted, nor is the individual. Instead, the divine is glorified, and it is in exalting what should be exalted, that we in turn are lifted up to be more than we can be.

Atheism, to me, is as shallow a philosophy as neo-conservatism and religious fundamentalism are, and emanates from the same foul cesspool - the idea that all that can be known is all that there is, and that we (and usually we alone) are on the threshold of knowing it. Ironically, every time we give ourselves the excessive dignity of being our own gods or prophets, we march out, start wars, and in our vanity strip others of the dignity we had no right to remove from them.

I believe humility is called for. That is in no small part why I remain a believer. And humility is why I must be tolerant of what I do not agree with. For until I know fully and am fully known, I have no guarantees I am right, and that everyone else is wrong.

Answer 7

Any religion is "faith" based. And because you don't have that form of faith doesn't mean that others do not. I'm not saying you are faithless, but you may place your faith elsewhere. But many do not. They place it in something they feel comfortable with. And many feel comfortable thinking that there is someone of a "higher being" which they can turn to for guidance when they are in need.

What it ultimately boils down to is respect of others opinions. Which is funny , cause if history has shown us anything, it shows that people of faith have anything but respect for others that don't agree. However that doesn't mean you have to join them in that aspect.

There is no reason that science and religion can't go hand in hand, but some believe that there would have to be some removal of the "magic" in religion. However, isn't science just a little bit of "magic"? Using your hands and tools to combine things to make something new. There is magic in that. And in that case the "higher being" would just be your boss.

Morals and values are all that is needed in a functioning society. You don't need religion for that. Tho many will try to tell you otherwise. Right and wrong was around WAY BEFORE any form of religion. But as long as we have stars in the sky people will believe in a "higher being". Which is fine, as long as you don't try to SUPER impose on to me your beliefs. Cause in the end they are just that - YOUR beliefs.

Answer 8

If no one is tolerant of religion, you will see more mass murders. If the extremist islams would be tolerant, there wouldn't have been a 9/11. If all religions (and lack of) were tolerant, there would be a lot less people being killed.

Whats more important? Convincing others your right and hating religion or human lives?

Answer 9

I was reading your question and I agree, tolerance is way overemphasized these days. But I had to stop when I came to the opiate of the masses part. Considering it as the opiate of the masses, it should have a calming effect right?

Then I got into the fun part of the analogy. Sure, at first it could simply have the nice effect of settling people down. But they you get into situations with dealers. Each stakes out his own territory and is hostile towards the others. A fight break out every now and then.

It's really an amusing analogy when you get into it.

Answer 10

necessary. We moved a pair of years in the past -- particularly under a year after i'd finally discovered the proper church. The congregation became created from Hispanics, whites, Koreans, and blacks, and actually everyone have been given alongside splendidly. there became a great style of emphasis on helping and giving at each point from community to worldwide. It became in basic terms a eye-catching, heat, worrying Catholic church, and that i enjoyed being area of it. I even have yet to locate what i desire right here in my new homeland. i bypass to Mass, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that that's in basic terms no longer the comparable because it became at my previous church. i'm hoping i will come across a congregation someplace regionally that comes on the brink of the only I had to depart.