What's the most intolerant religion?

[Ernie S.]

Another utterly vapid assertion by a theist. Atheists have no cause to be intolerant as a group, since there is no binding ideology, other than to form a defensive posture against religious fanatics (the christian right lunatics) from trying to conflate church and state. That is the only cause that coalesces us, and might make is appear "intolerant," buy in reality, this perceived intolerance is a reaction against theists trying to circumvent the first amendment.

My practice of my religion doesn't involve you. If you don't want to participate, don't, but shut the **** up. I'm TIRED of listening to you ***** about my nativity set, "In God, We Trust" on out money and the 10 Commandments on the wall of the court house.
If these things offend you, tough shit. They comfort me.
The First Amendment is about freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

I'm not sure how to respond to something so idiotic.

In other words you've got nothing so your fall back is to call me stupid.

OK how about you comment on this:

Incoming.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't think religions are 'intolerant' so much as people's interpretations of them.

The idea of 'owning' the One True TRUTH is just awfully attractive to some - so they put about the false rumor that 'everybody' has that element in their religion.

I know of no faith whose adherents are required to believe that 'nobody gets to Heaven except us' - but you'd swear that was a Commandment the way some folks talk.

I have had evangelicals tell me that I won't be going to heaven if I am not "born again"

I assure them that I was born right the first time.

If your house was on fire, I'm sure that even you would want someone to tell you. Intolerant is not telling someone what someone believes is the truth. Being intolerant is telling someone to shut the 'f_ _ _' up ..!"

 

[Samson]

Sacrificial rituals among the Aztecs and in Mesoamerica in general must be seen in the context of religious cosmology: sacrifice and death was necessary for the continued existence of the world.

Likewise each part of life had one or more deities associated with it and these had to be paid their dues in order to achieve success. Gods were paid with sacrificial offerings of food, flowers, effigies, and quail.

But the larger the effort required of the god, the greater the sacrifice had to be. Blood fed the gods and kept the sun from falling. For some of the most important rites, a priest would offer his own blood, by cutting his ears, arms, tongue, thighs, chest or genitals, or offer a human life, or even a god's life. The people who were sacrificed came from many segments of society, and might be a war captive, slave, or a member of Aztec society; the sacrifice might also be man or woman, adult or child, noble

 

[S.J.]

Hands down, the most intolerant of all religions is Atheism. Islam doesn't even come close.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm not sure how to respond to something so idiotic.

Yet, we are able to do it all the time.

 

[Unkotare]

The most intolerant religion is 'Far-left, Liberal, Atheist democratism.' Its adherents are more fanatical and intractable than anyone.

 

[newpolitics]

My practice of my religion doesn't involve you. If you don't want to participate, don't, but shut the **** up. I'm TIRED of listening to you ***** about my nativity set, "In God, We Trust" on out money and the 10 Commandments on the wall of the court house.
If these things offend you, tough shit. They comfort me.
The First Amendment is about freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

I'm not sure how to respond to something so idiotic.

In other words you've got nothing so your fall back is to call me stupid.

OK how about you comment on this:

Incoming.

Your telling me to shut the **** up, and have the nerve to request an intelligible discussion? That's interesting.

 

[Saigon]

Islam is certinly intolerant, but I'm going to suggest Hindi as being potentially worse.

Hindi is so associated with Indian nationalism that it seems to have become a single concept. Any insult to India is an insult to Hindi is an insult to all Hindus and visa versa. That is very dangerous.

In India I have sometimes found Hindus terribly intolerant, and quite macho in their posturing about the wonders of their religion. It can be quite disturbing.

 

[Noomi]

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.

Catholicism.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Catholicism.

This is precisely why I think we need a common definition of intolerance, because I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude this. We must have different ideas of what intolerance is.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

No religion is intolerant. People are intolerant. No religion has a monopoly on intolerant people.

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?

 

[PratchettFan]

After reading all of the posts, I think I have actually come up with the answer.

The most intolerable religion is..... the other guy's religion.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm not sure how to respond to something so idiotic.

In other words you've got nothing so your fall back is to call me stupid.

OK how about you comment on this:

Incoming.

Your telling me to shut the **** up, and have the nerve to request an intelligible discussion? That's interesting.

Basically, yes. If all you can bring to the table is insults, shut the **** up and enjoy the neg.

Speaking of intelligible... Perhaps you should make an effort to make your posts intelligible. Your carelessness makes you look like an idiot.
I believe you meant to write: You're telling me to shut the **** up, and have the nerve to request an intelligent discussion? That's interesting.

 

[emilynghiem]

To those of the Christian Right who want to return this country back to a state of scientific ignorance and their version of morality? Yes, I am intolerant of this.

Dear Newpolitics: Speaking of tolerance and respect for science,
would you support the idea of formal medical research studies and
development in the field of spiritual healing and the effects of
"forgiveness"-based therapy on mental and physical illness?

I have been sharing this idea with other agnostics, atheists, nontheists
and also Christians on backpage.com and craigslist.org

From what I have read of other Christians and doctors who set up studies,
the "false division" they found between science and religion
was perpetuated by fundamentalists on BOTH sides -- both
fundamental atheists who did not believe scientific proof could be
obtained because of religious bias and agenda, and also Christian fundamentalists
who fought against the idea of scientific proof because they reject dependence on science.

However, there are enough people who are NOT intolerant
who are open to seeing and even pursuing replicable proof
that the spiritual healing follows a specific pattern and does
have a positive effect in facilitating the cure of mental or physical conditions or diseases.

Are you open to this, as you ask Christians to be open to science and not
to be content with ignorance?

Thanks, NP!

 

[emilynghiem]

The most intolerant religion is 'Far-left, Liberal, Atheist democratism.' Its adherents are more fanatical and intractable than anyone.

I find the extreme fundamentalists on either the far left or far right of ansy group
are EQUALLY annoying and difficult to work with.

The key is still to forgive them first, and then from there
it is easier to work around their conditions to find points of agreement.

It is no less difficult to manage around the "unforgiven" conditions and perceptions
of the far right as the far left, which can become just as hardened and etched in stone.

Again the key to any such impasse is forgiveness first, and then any changes or corrections
to perceptions can follow. Some changes and connections can happen instantly,
other changes can take years. But overtime, as people interact with different views and contexts, and learn to forgive and let go mutually, eventually people become more open
to give and take equally, instead of imposing views one way on each other, and expecting the other side to change first. As we realize changes are mutual, it gets easier over time.

 

[newpolitics]

To those of the Christian Right who want to return this country back to a state of scientific ignorance and their version of morality? Yes, I am intolerant of this.

Dear Newpolitics: Speaking of tolerance and respect for science,
would you support the idea of formal medical research studies and
development in the field of spiritual healing and the effects of
"forgiveness"-based therapy on mental and physical illness?

I have been sharing this idea with other agnostics, atheists, nontheists
and also Christians on backpage.com and craigslist.org

From what I have read of other Christians and doctors who set up studies,
the "false division" they found between science and religion
was perpetuated by fundamentalists on BOTH sides -- both
fundamental atheists who did not believe scientific proof could be
obtained because of religious bias and agenda, and also Christian fundamentalists
who fought against the idea of scientific proof because they reject dependence on science.

However, there are enough people who are NOT intolerant
who are open to seeing and even pursuing replicable proof
that the spiritual healing follows a specific pattern and does
have a positive effect in facilitating the cure of mental or physical conditions or diseases.

Are you open to this, as you ask Christians to be open to science and not
to be content with ignorance?

Thanks, NP!

Any scientifically verifiable effects of forgiveness would not demonstrate anything supernatural, as this ability has not been demonstrated to be of a supernatural origin. Forgiveness was not invented by christianity, nor any religion, and until you demonstrate that It was, such studies would not support supernatural causes. Forgiveness is known to have positive effects for very practical reasons, not supernatural ones. The cessation of anger or any negative emotions, by necessity, will have positive effects. This just logic, not bias against the supernatural. I appreciate your efforts to be truly amiable here by the way. Thank you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Any scientifically verifiable effects of forgiveness would not demonstrate anything supernatural, as this ability has not been demonstrated to be of a supernatural origin. Forgiveness was not invented by christianity, nor any religion, and until you demonstrate that It was, such studies would not support supernatural causes. Forgiveness is known to have positive effects for very practical reasons, not supernatural ones. The cessation of anger or any negative emotions, by necessity, will have positive effects. This just logic, not bias against the supernatural. I appreciate your efforts to be truly amiable here by the way. Thank you.

Hi Newpolitics: Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I agree that there is just common sense behind the process and benefits of forgiveness.
There are social science and medical studies being done on forgiveness and effects on health.

What I am most curious about is the effect of specific types of spiritual therapy, more involved than just a person choosing to forgive, on SERIOUS types of illness such as schizophrenia and even criminal/homicidal addictions.

In one of Scott Peck's books he wrote, after observing the positive changes to free the minds of patients previous overtaken by schizophrenic and demonic delusions, he acknowledged that regardless of the 1-5% that could not be proven to be spiritual, the other 95% of the events and experiences he witnessed were documentable as scientific observation of the patient, meeting fixed descriptions of symptoms to be diagnosed, stages of progression or regression during the therapy procedures, and signs or steps that accompany improvement and cure in a predictable pattern.

So regardless if this is spiritual, natural or supernatural or what
the fact that the sickness and recovery/cure can be shown to follow
a predictable pattern would still allow the research to be done
and to develop the potential to cure serious, dangerous illnesses.

I agree with Dr. Peck this field is critical to research in order to
offer treatment and cure to people suffering of otherwise fatal conditions,
which endanger not only themselves but other people if they go untreated.

In the process of studying and documenting the degree that this treatment
may even cure schizophrenic voices and dangerous obsessive/addictions
I believe if there is anything that can be measured and proven
by science on the "spiritual" realm (where these voices/delusions
manipulate the minds of the patients, and were even seen by the doctors on the
treatment team witnessed the snakelike contortions of the patients'
faces and changes in their voices to be inhuman and not a
variation of the patients' own attributes) then it will come out in the process.

If you are interested, the books Peck wrote on his observation of the
root cause and potential cure of people with evil mental sickness
are under the titles "People of the Lie" and "Glimpses of the Devil."

I am interested in the common factor in ALL forms of forgiveness-based therapy
that help people to overcome different levels of suffering from conflict, abuse or trauma.

But in particular, for the most dangerous diseases feared as incureable
and which threaten the lives and safety of others, such as pedophilia
and other criminal illnesses, if the only reported cases of successful
diagnosis and cure of the root cause are these deeply spiritual
processes involving specific steps as in exorcism and deliverance,
then I believe that should be studied and made accessible to the public in order to save lives.

If in the process it is shown that this is the only
effective cure, then it may well demonstrate what
Christians have been claiming -- that the demonic
forces only submit and obey the authority of Christ Jesus.
It could be so, but regardless, if the cure works it should be confirmed and replicated.

Thanks again for being fair and clear minded, and I hope your future
discussions with people stay on your higher level of
intelligence and discernment and not stoop to stupidity
which is a waste of your presence here on the forum.

Thank you and please let me
know if you are interested in this
area of scientific research, or
what approach you would take to
help overcome this false division
between science and religion.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

No religion is intolerant. People are intolerant. No religion has a monopoly on intolerant people.

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.

 

[Underhill]

The most intolerant religion is 'Far-left, Liberal, Atheist democratism.' Its adherents are more fanatical and intractable than anyone.

I would laugh, but that is just sad.

Have you actually met an atheist?

We have one of the largest groups of atheist in NYS that get together monthly for fellowship and discussion. We've invited budhist, christian and muslim speakers along with college professors on a dozen different topics to speak. We've hosted moderated debates.

We aren't fanatical or intractable. We invite discussion and treat everyone courteously. We hunger for knowledge.

When was the last time an atheist was invited into a church to speak? How about a budhist or muslim?

 

[Underhill]

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.