The cancer of intolerance and how to fight it

Is there a form of intolerance I missed? There's religious intolerance, atheist intolerance, political and racial intolerance. That I think covers the big ones.

Just because they're against intolerance doesn't mean they have to strike a blow against religion in the name of science. Besides which, their views are full of inaccuracies that would be off topic to discuss here.

Excuse, I believe it should be those who seek to cause conflict with what they find intolerant that should be targeted.

No, because to use an example someone who is intolerant of religion would persecute religion because of what they see as it's intolerance. I'm targeting both, the religious intolerance and intolerance of religion.

There are a lot of ways to resolve this one. What you hope your actions will prove. What your actions will actually prove. The character of the persecuted and the one doing the persecuting. Whether persecuting is necessary or simply to fuel your own personal vendetta. Whether it's a fight you can win. To give an example atheists wishing to strike a blow against teligion are fighting most of the world. By persecuting religion they are fulfilling Christian prophecy. How can they hope to win, and how would they be seen if they tried?

That fails to address the issue of only acting on the evidence you wish to hear.

Below you support punishing those who follow religion, taking theist's children away. How is that not spitting in the face of religious freedom that better men and women had fought and died for?

Actually, to use Dawkins as just an example, he makes claimsa about both religion and science that when held up to scrutiny simply don't hold water. His ignorance of Jesus, nay all the good religion and theists do in favor of what he can attack is a prime example of him making claims that cannit be supported by evidence.

Because this is against all forms of intolerance, as opposed to someone intolerant of religion speaking out against religious intolerance.

Atheist apologists can trace back the evil intolerance of religion has caused as well.

Say I post a link addressing an issue and it's ignored, it's stated it's ignored. That's happened numerous times.

Because of ignorance, or a refusal to listen to, explanation of your problems with religion.

Give an example...what does Quest say about what t

 

nancy: I was actually quoting Lenin and not Dawkins. You say that Lenin "sanctioned methods to eradicate religion, including violence", and so I posted some material which Lenin actually wrote on the subject of religion and some commentary on how religion fit within Lenin's socialist paradigm. Having regard to the material that I posted, I think you are wrong on that point.

You say that Dawkins has similar views to Lenin concerning religion. Having read The God Delusion you might be able to clarify this some more? Also, can you quote the page number where Dawkins says that God/religion "must not be allowed"?

 

No, it doesn't. Because I said all the information available. That means including the information you don't "want to hear".

No, I don't. I explain it.

It supports the religious freedom of those children, to grow up unindoctrinated and have the freedom make the decision for themselves.

Again you demonstrate that you haven't read a word of The God Delusion. Although he does admit to an "ignorance" of certain interpretations of scriptures -- all of which claim they've "got it right" and everyone else is "twisting" things -- but as he says, you don't have to know everything about Islam to reject it, do you?

No, it hasn't, unless you mean ignored by you. Every link you've posted, that I've seen, has been addressed in detail.

You haven't posted any such "explanation." In fact when asked you've just said "Oh, you wouldn't listen so I won't bother." The refusal is yours, not anyone else's.

I don't care what Quest says. By what authority can you claim Quest is right and the rest is wrong? Just because it's the one you agree with? How is that difference from people who agree with a more intolerant interpretation pushing theirs forward the same? And how it possible that the "Word of God" might be misinterpreted?

Sure. Just expect to have to back up your claims, as you are being asked to do and failing to do.

Then it was a bad example. Compare like things to like.

You've just moved the goalposts. What is "persecution?" How far can you take disagreement before it is persecution?

So you think children should be allowed to stay in abusive homes, regardless of the abuse?

What about psychological abuse and mistreatment?

 

You're going to have to provide evidence to prove that I haven't read The God Delusion, otherwise you're making the claim up.

 

So which is it?

 

You could, you know, just say whether or not you've read it. Clearly, the general assumption here is that you haven't. Either you can validate that claim or disprove it by explaining your views of what Dawkins said in his book, rather than parroting what other people say about it.

Either way, I honestly don't see the point of continuing this discussion. Nancy is seeking something she absolutely will not find here or anywhere else, and no one here is going to be moved in their views.

 

Well none of those.

Religion is "evil precisely because it requires no justification, and brooks no argument." God Delusion, 308

"Parents should no more be allowed to teach children the literal truth of the Bible as they are to knock their children's teeth out." God Delusion, 326

"There is almost certainly no God." God Delusion, 111-59

Care to explain?

 

What is written before and after these quotes? The pages of writing that come before and after the sentences you have quoted provide context.

Either way, I honestly don't see the point of continuing this discussion. Nancy is seeking something she absolutely will not find here or anywhere else, and no one here is going to be moved in their views.

Yes,kinda sums up the Senate really - at least all of the political threads!

 

I think for some people, views do change. They certainly did for me, and part of it was because of people whose thoughts I read here.

 

I must admit, my views towards Americans generally have changed for the better because of people who have posted here. Also, my views on Mormons have changed for the better.

Best thing is the JC introduced me to Firefly. For that I will be eternally grateful.

 

I don't see how any of those quotes relates to his calling for the legislative abolition of religious practice/freedom, which you have repeatedly claimed is what he wants. I have never said he doesn't claim religion is evil. He does. But you keep claiming that means he wants to abolish religious freedom (which, BTW, is not constitutionally protected in Great Britain, where he lives) or round up believers into concentration camps. He doesn't.

Moving on.

I don't know if anyone here reads PZ Meyer's blog Pharyngula, but there was an interesting controversy recently.

Basically there was a news story about a Catholic outcry, because a student at some university took a piece of the Eucharist out of church instead of swallowing it. There were people calling for his expulsion and basically claiming that what he had done was tantamount to the Holocaust, and Meyers, an atheist, went on record as saying "It's just a freaking cracker." In response to the outcry, he requested that someone smuggle him a consecrated Eucharist so he could publicly desecrate it.

Well, there was an outcry about THAT, with Catholics writing him slews of hate mail. Several patterns emerged. One, they accused him of being a coward, only going after Christians because he knows they're not "crazy like the Muslims" and they're "safe to persecute" (these same letters usually included death threats). Two, as part of the same vein, they dared him to desecrate the Koran (because apparently desecration of holy items is okay, just not THEIR holy items).

Well, Meyers' whole point was that the idea of something being "sacred" was nonsense, everything should be questioned and no idea, particularly with regards to religion, should be above contempt. So he stuck a rusty nail through the host, then nailed the host to some torn out pages of the Koran, and -- in a nice touch -- some torn out pages of The God Delusion. He then threw the lot into the trash, and threw coffee grounds and banana peels on top.

[image=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/24/desecrated.jpg]

A great statement, I thought, and I applaud his making a point of including The God Delusion in dismissing the idea of the sacred. It's just a cracker, they're just pieces of paper, question everything. A good show, IMO. While we're talking about equal-opportunity, low-interference intolerance, I figured this was an interesting story to bring up.

Oh, and interestingly, while he received approximately 12,000 nasty e-mails from enraged Catholics, he received precisely zero threats from the Muslim community.

 

Mmmm. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic, and as one of those myself, I don't particularly care for that kind of display.

 

I'd have to agree with you on that. What exactly does this achieve? That Catholics get upset about the desecration of their religiousn texts?

 

I believe it is extremely telling how a religious denomination handles criticism and doubt. In many ways the manner in which a church or religious organisation handles criticism or doubt defines its worth. This is particularly relevant in the context of a discussion about "intolerance".

You will find many stories about religious followers being happy, satisfied customers until they begin to question, doubt and criticise the church in some way. Then suddenly they are on the outer and those warm and fuzzy 'brothers' are aloof, cold and non-responsive. I've seen examples from Scientology, Pentacostal followers in Australia (Hillsong Church being the most prominent), Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, the Catholic Church and many Muslim communities. (sorry to lump Scientology in there but they claim to be a "religion")

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hillsong--the-church-with-no-answers/2007/08/03/1185648145760.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

I think any organisation that discourages intellectual and spiritual curiosity by threat of excommunication and disenfranchisement from the community has serious moral issues to deal with. Such conditional acceptance seems to me to be inherently weak. The message seems to be: "We love you, as long as you "toe the party line", don't get out of line and don't question anything - shut up and follow the crowd".

The attraction of people like Dawkins is that he appears to advocate the exact opposite, which I guess is a result of his scientific training and background.

 

No, I'm talking about speech codes that restrict language on college campuses. Things of the nature described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_code
Not what is said in a classroom, where in that case, a professor is being paid to teach the given material, not push their political views as though that is the matter for the class.

 

Could it be more clever and/or creative? Sure. But the point is a valid one.

I mean, imagine there was a news story about a bunch of Hindus getting angry because someone killed a sacred cow. Suppose someone said on a blog, "It's just a slab of beef," and received numerous death threats from Hindus. How many of the Catholics who threatened Meyers would be on the side of the Hindu people?

The Christian persecution complex in this country IS ridiculous. It's perfectly fine that some Christians get offended when people say and do things contrary to Christian doctrine. But to expect people to act as if Christian beliefs were accepted fact (treating a cracker like human flesh, for example) is just silly.

 

Personally, I don't care about the 'sacred' or 'not sacred' element, it just seems like a pointless endevour.

 

I don't necessarily disagree. It was just very over the top.

 

Not to be overly contrary, but I thought it was among the more restrained displays of its type I've seen (no feces involved, for example). And while I know you need to take anything said on the internet with a grain of salt, when you're getting death threats I think the definition of 'over-the-top' is altered.

 

IMO, the things that do that aren't 'not restrained' they're disgusting, with a strong dose of pretentious.

 

Except that you are neglecting one critical thing, especially as both the Catholic and LDS churches go.

It really boils down to one question: Is a church a man-made organization, or is it something established by God?

If it's simply a man-made organization, then a person who is excommunicated for opposing doctrines or practices has every right to go and create a competing organization of equal authority, that is more in line with their view, opinions, or beliefs. There is nothing that says that they need to be a member of that specific church.

If, on the other hand, it is something that is established by God, then it is God's organization and should operate by God's rules. If you don't like those rules, or aren't willing to live by those rules, then why should God allow them to continue in full fellowship in that organization? If God's rules are to mean anything, they do need to be enforced, and when people break them (and especially when they encourage others to break them), there need to be consequences. It's that way with any system of rules.

In fact, a church needs to be able to excommunicate members who are not living by the church's standards. For example, the LDS Church excommunicates those members who are found to be practicing polygamy in any form, and sternly disciplines (up to and including excommunicating) members who advocate its practice. Especially when you consider the confusion surrounding things like the raid on the FLDS compound in Texas (and the fact that some polls have shown that as many as 36% of the population actually thought it was an LDS compound), you can see how it is a necessary power.

But ultimately, no one is forced to be a member of a church (ignoring countries with an established religion - a whole other can of worms). If the church that you are a member of doesn't reflect your beliefs, then go find or start another one that does. It's not like it hasn't been done before (remember that thing called the Protestant Reformation?). Some churches were spun off or created on the basis of extremely minor disputes.

I would hardly classify a church excommunicating someone as an act of intolerance. It is simply a matter of a church enforcing its own membership rules, just like any other private organization. Excommunication is the highest form of punishment that a church can impose, but it is nothing more than expelling a person from membership. As long as a church (or its members) do not move beyond that, then it really isn't a bad thing. If the church were trying to take private property away from excommunicated members, or promoting bodily harm towards the

 

Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point KK. I'm talking more about people who question the rules rather than break them (although in the Church of Scientology to question the rules is to break the rules). Critical examination of Church doctrine and the manner in which such doctrine translates into Church heirarchy seems to me to be discouraged.

The critical question for me would be: are the rules that govern a Church actually "God's rules" or has God's rules been lost in translation somewhere. To me this is an inherent problem in all religious organisations which inevitably become institutionalised bureaucracies, ie, at what point do the "rules" become more about maintaining order and power within the bureacracy (and perhaps maintain a disproprtionate balance of power between genders) and less about God's actual message. It seems to me that many people who pursue this line of thought end up excommunicated/expelled from a religious community.

I think there is a clear distinction between those people who are expelled from a religious community because they dare to question "the rules" and those that are expelled because they breach "the rules", such as your polygamy example or priests in the Catholic Church who engage in the sexual abuse of children.

I'm not sure how excommunication on the basis of sexual orientation, or divorce, or critical examination of doctrine is not a form of intolerance? I've seen footage of LSD leaders rationally explain that the LSD church is intolerant of certain conduct and behaviour and they pointed out that the rules of the LSD church can be harsh for those people who do not measure up. The people I saw interviewed who had been excommunicated certainly thought it was more than just "nothing", understandably because they had been expelled from a community in which they had found for the large part some measure of happiness.

 

I agree with KK, when excommunication doesn't equate shunning. If you violate the group's rules, the group doesn't have to continue to accept you as a member in good standing. I don't see much of a problem with that.

 

It's not the LSD Church. It's the LDS Church - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LSD is a drug. LDS is a church.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Thanks.