MerinTB wrote...
There are things we should be intolerant of, though. People should not be tolerant just to be PC or "open minded." If you have people out there who believe vampires are real, they need help - or, in some cases, ridicule is the only way to go. Yes, ridicule. Sometimes some beliefs are so bad that arguing against them just gives them some sense of crediibility and the only answer is humor - to mock them.
I don't like when any PERSON is being treated with intolerance - but wacky beliefs about ridiculous things (I think most of us can agree that Scientology, the scam perpetrated on people by a science fiction author who's medical scam was about to be prosecuted so he quickly definied it as not science but religion and therefore the government couldn't touch him) deserve to be torn to shreds.
Who are you to say that a certain belief is right or wrong? Do you know absolutely everything about the world there is to know? You say we need to ridicule some beliefs for being wrong. That is being intolerant. This exact same mentality is the same mentality for many of the religious groups that are fighting. They are right, the other religion is wrong, and they must convert or die. You might not be suggesting something so extreme, but the the underlying thought is the same.
This is a strawman - most secular people will hold most religious beliefs as, at best, mildly amusing. Christians like to play the victims in America when they are the majority with more power than any other group in America. Why does it seem that Christians get more press and more criticism is explicitly because they are the largest religious group in America - if Hindus were the largest group, outside of us probably having to have civil rights legislation to get us out from an onerous and inhumane caste system, Hindus would get the most attention from secular humanists / agonistics / atheists / other religious groups. When your the big dog, you draw the most attention.
You make a good point that in the US Christianity is the biggest religous group in America, and therefore gets more criticism as such. However, just because it is the biggest doesn't mean people should be intolerant against it either. Intolerance is intolerance, size doesn't change that fact; it merely changes how many people are receptive to the intolerance. Also, some would argue that the caste system in India is more of a political culture than religious, but I digress.
You can take all the issue you like. As was mentioned earlier, most of my history studies were on the history of various religions. Religious beliefs are the number one cause cited, historically, for wars and genocide. While you can argue that other motivations, perhaps greater ones for those in power and calling the shots, existed (wanting more land / resources, disliking people who were different than them, just a way to keep and/or exert power), the rank and file were mostly motivated by their religious beliefs to take up arms for the fight. While in the 20th Century nationalism became something of a religious fervor, causing a lot of fighting in Europe (and a couple World Wars), most of the fighting in the world still today is between different religious groups.
I would argue those other motivations. I would even argue that religion wasn't a cause for any of those wars, but a tool used in those wars. For the cause of those wars, it wasn't religion itself, but an intolerance of religion, or more specifically, an intolerance of culture. Religion is an easy way for people to convince others to be intolerant. If you can make people intolerant of a culture, they are much more
willing to go to war with them. Religion was used as a tool by the people who wanted power, control, land, etc.
While there are teachings in most religions about peace and non-violence, there are just as many teachings about violence and intolerance. I won't bore you with chapter and verse from the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, where Yaweh / Elom / God / Allah tells the faithful to smite these people or dash the heads of the babies of that people or stone those witches or kill those unfaithful... you know they are there.
I have an issue with how you said this. The way you present it across, you make it sound as if more teachings and verses about violence and intolerance than about peace and non-violence. That might be true if you count every prophet, text, and religious figure, but that isn't an accurate way to describe a religion. A religion isn't everyone that is within the religion, it is a set of standards and beliefs; the set of standards and beliefs it holds most dear. Those standards and beliefs is set by a heirarchy of power. Someone lower in the heirarchy does not superscede someone higher. In Catholicism, many people would believe the Pope is at top, and his saying and teachings are with him. He is the highest of who is alive, but if you count the dead Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Moses, and various other prophets are above him. As such I would say that the teachings of killing and violence in many religions is not valid if it contradicts the teachings of people higher in the religious heirarchy. Those teachings are from corrupt individuals who don't follow their religion's own teaching to further their own agenda.
I'll end by saying that just because some religious people of a certain religious belief practice and espouse peace and non-violence doesn't forgive the large numbers who practice violence and hatred. And if you think the numbers aren't large, go watch Jesus Camp, watch some televised content from the Mega Churches, read some indepth articles about what is taught at radical madrassas...
while there are plenty of nice people who are Christian or Muslim (or any other religion), there are many who are not very nice and most of those hold their negative views from their religious beliefs.
Once again, I take issue with how you said this. You make it sound as is more people practice violence and hatred than peace and non-violence. I don't know if that was your intent, but it sounded that way, and I disagree with that notion. Anyway, I agree that the people who practice violence and hatred should not be excused. I am not trying to excuse them. I believe you should put the blame on those people, not on the religion itself. You could take issue with a religion if you believe the top of the heirarchy is teaching violence and hatred. The top of the heirarchy is determined by the people of the religion. There are few Christian religions where Jesus isn't at top of the heirarchy, or Islamic religions where Muhammad isn't at top, or Buddist religions where Buddah isn't at top.
Don't think I'm unfairly picking on religion, though. Nationalism and patriotism hold equal places in my mind for "more harm than good usually comes from these beliefs."
Would Marxism, Communism, and Fascism also hold equal places? They have just as equally poor records.
Modifié par mrofni, 17 mars 2010 - 10:19 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
