What's the most intolerant religion?

[rdean]

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.

It's a new religion. It's called "American Christianity". It's not like "traditional Christianity". This one wants poor people to starve and feel corporations should run the country. It's tied with Radical Islam.

The only thing that protects us is our law enforcement.

The only ting that protects us is God. Christians don't want poor people to starve. They what to find out why that person is poor. Christians certainly don't want corporations to run America. And they certainly do not what the government to become a corporation as it would seem liberals are leading us to.

You are wrong:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J50-fimhM-U]Caught On Tape: Republican Says the Poor Breed Like Animals - YouTube[/ame]

Missouri Republican candidate calls to halt federal school lunch program

How come the right doesn't believe what their leaders are doing? I don't get it.

 

[proudveteran06]

http://Click here: Islam Does Not Mean Peace: "Fight and slay the Christians" (Koran 9:5)

 

[S.J.]

Atheism is indeed a faith-based belief system. The absence of God from their beliefs doesn't make it any less of a religion. They hide behind science to justify their prejudice and intolerance. They are right up there with Islam when it comes to using the law to silence anyone who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs. Just look at all the law suits filed by the ACLU on their behalf, mostly against Christians.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can't get your link to work PV.

There is truth to be found within all religion. But everybody thinks their own religion, whether that be Atheism or Judaism or Christianity or some wierd tribal cult, is the religion closest to the whole truth, which is why they are advocates for a particular faith. Atheism is a faith based religion as much as any other as it requires faith to believe there is no creator or supreme being as much as it requires faith to believe that there is.

So you can find Christians who point to a particular passage or passages in the Bible as PROOF that everybody else is wrong or at least more wrong. Ditto for Jews or Muslims or Hindus or conservatism or liberalism or environmentalism or any other religion you wish to name.

Some people embrace their faith because it has been indoctrinated into them.
Some people embrace their faith because they like it better than any other.
Some people embrace their faith because it feels best to them.
Some people embrace their faith because they are too lazy to challenge it.
Some people embrace their faith for political, social, or economic reasons.
Some people embrace their faith because of personal evidence of its validity.

And not one of those groups is able to prove or convince another person who is not open to accepting the proof or is not willing to be convinced.

And that in itself results in automatic intolerance in our beliefs. Some act on that intolerance. Most don't.

 

[there4eyeM]

The logic that atheism is a religion is faulty, least. As it is the absence of belief, it is only belief in the same way that believing the sun will rise (to use the common term; I know the earth turns) or any other probable event. That certain people who refer to themselves as atheist seem to proselytize is only in reaction to the force with which religion is felt in society. Religion is the presence of something that atheism is the absence of. Insisting that it is a religion is merely the attempt by 'the faithful' to reduce others' thinking to what can be understood.

I think anyone and everyone has her/his experience of the universe and that is what is important. It can hardly be shared with another and certainly cannot be forced.

 

[Foxfyre]

The logic that atheism is a religion is faulty, least. As it is the absence of belief, it is only belief in the same way that believing the sun will rise (to use the common term; I know the earth turns) or any other probable event. That certain people who refer to themselves as atheist seem to proselytize is only in reaction to the force with which religion is felt in society. Religion is the presence of something that atheism is the absence of. Insisting that it is a religion is merely the attempt by 'the faithful' to reduce others' thinking to what can be understood.

I think anyone and everyone has her/his experience of the universe and that is what is important. It can hardly be shared with another and certainly cannot be forced.

The Supreme Court, however, disagrees with you by officially declaring Atheism to be a religion. In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), Justice Black of the US Supreme Court wrote the following footnote: "...Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others..."

And in 2005:

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

“Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”

“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

Read more at Court rules atheism a religion

Buddhists do not believe in God or any other celestial beings, but who among us would say that Buddhism is not a religion? Given the vast majority of humans all across the Earth who do believe in some form of supreme being, I say that it requires every bit as much faith for an Atheist to disbelieve in God as it does for any other religion to believe in God.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Supreme Court quotation does not say atheism is a religion. In any case, I repeat what was said in the post regardless of any court decision. Courts find what is believed or expedient at the time (remember Dred Scot?). The logic is faulty.

The inmate's protection was sufficient under the First merely by speech and had no need of religion.

As for Buddhism, many believe and worship in error, according to what Buddha himself taught. Many call it a philosophy rather than a religion.

If we are to use the loosest definition of the term, how was Nazism less than a faith?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Supreme Court quotation does not say atheism is a religion. In any case, I repeat what was said in the post regardless of any court decision. Courts find what is believed or expedient at the time (remember Dred Scot?). The logic is faulty.

The inmate's protection was sufficient under the First merely by speech and had no need of religion.

As for Buddhism, many believe and worship in error, according to what Buddha himself taught. Many call it a philosophy rather than a religion.

If we are to use the loosest definition of the term, how was Nazism less than a faith?

For some Nazi-ism was a means to an end. Not something they believed in based on faith as much as something they recognized as expedient to achieve certain goals, most especially those of power, influence, and personal advantage.

For others it may indeed have been faith based.

There is sometimes a slim to vanishing dividing line between political and religious beliefs.\

Atheism however is based entirely on a concept that there is no God. That makes it entirely faith based for I say again, it requires as much faith to disbelieve in God as it does to believe there is a God. And because Atheists organize, conduct ritual, dispense dogma and doctrine re the anti-God concept, and have no other purpose for being, THAT is what makes Atheism a religion.

 

[newpolitics]

The Supreme Court quotation does not say atheism is a religion. In any case, I repeat what was said in the post regardless of any court decision. Courts find what is believed or expedient at the time (remember Dred Scot?). The logic is faulty.

The inmate's protection was sufficient under the First merely by speech and had no need of religion.

As for Buddhism, many believe and worship in error, according to what Buddha himself taught. Many call it a philosophy rather than a religion.

If we are to use the loosest definition of the term, how was Nazism less than a faith?

For some Nazi-ism was a means to an end. Not something they believed in based on faith as much as something they recognized as expedient to achieve certain goals, most especially those of power, influence, and personal advantage.

For others it may indeed have been faith based.

There is sometimes a slim to vanishing dividing line between political and religious beliefs.\

Atheism however is based entirely on a concept that there is no God. That makes it entirely faith based for I say again, it requires as much faith to disbelieve in God as it does to believe there is a God. And because Atheists organize, conduct ritual, dispense dogma and doctrine re the anti-God concept, and have no other purpose for being, THAT is what makes Atheism a religion.

It does not take faith to disbelieve in a positive claim for which there is no evidence. Only the opposite is true. Does it take faith to disbelieve the claim that Bigfoot exists? No. Because the burden of proof is on those making the claim. Until they furnish demonstrable evidence, you are justified in disbelief and the requires no faith. The same is with god. Those who claim a god or gods exist have provided no demonstrable evidence for thousands of years. Their belief rests on a complete lack of evidence, which is the definition of faith. Disbelieving this claim does not require any evidence, since disbelievers do not carry the burden of proof, therefore it logically can not be said to be require faith in order to disbelieve. That is logically incoherent. It is a vacuous assertion to say that it does.

 

[LittleNipper]

The Supreme Court quotation does not say atheism is a religion. In any case, I repeat what was said in the post regardless of any court decision. Courts find what is believed or expedient at the time (remember Dred Scot?). The logic is faulty.

The inmate's protection was sufficient under the First merely by speech and had no need of religion.

As for Buddhism, many believe and worship in error, according to what Buddha himself taught. Many call it a philosophy rather than a religion.

If we are to use the loosest definition of the term, how was Nazism less than a faith?

For some Nazi-ism was a means to an end. Not something they believed in based on faith as much as something they recognized as expedient to achieve certain goals, most especially those of power, influence, and personal advantage.

For others it may indeed have been faith based.

There is sometimes a slim to vanishing dividing line between political and religious beliefs.\

Atheism however is based entirely on a concept that there is no God. That makes it entirely faith based for I say again, it requires as much faith to disbelieve in God as it does to believe there is a God. And because Atheists organize, conduct ritual, dispense dogma and doctrine re the anti-God concept, and have no other purpose for being, THAT is what makes Atheism a religion.

It does not take faith to disbelieve in a positive claim for which there is no evidence. Only the opposite is true. Does it take faith to disbelieve the claim that Bigfoot exists? No. Because the burden of proof is on those making the claim. Until they furnish demonstrable evidence, you are justified in disbelief and the requires no faith. The same is with god. Those who claim a god or gods exist have provided no demonstrable evidence for thousands of years. Their belief rests on a complete lack of evidence, which is the definition of faith. Disbelieving this claim does not require any evidence, since disbelievers do not carry the burden of proof, therefore it logically can not be said to be require faith in order to disbelieve. That is logically incoherent. It is a vacuous assertion to say that it does.

You mean to tell me that in your entire life (so far) you have never requested God's guidance, or ask for Divine help? And you never received any responce? Example: Driving home in a sudden heavy snow storm --- "Oh dear Lord, please help me get home safe." or perhaps, "Please God, let my wife get home safe." Mybe you studied for a test, "God, I studied so hard, please work this out." Or what about, "Dear Jesus, my dog ran away and I miss him so much, please bring him home." HOW about, " ______ is very sick... Please bring healing."

Now, if you have ------ well, it seems to me that (1) either you were talking to yourself, or (2) you expected an answer...

But, if you have made an effort to not mention God ---- not say anything regarding God because you KNOW full well that there is "NO GOD", well, that becomes an effort, and that effort is your belief. Either way, you believe something.

Now, I have no reason to believe that Bigfoot is real or not real. He never did anything for me or anyone I ever talked to. But, if I was lost in the wild and heard noises and growling, you bet your life I'd start to pray to God ------------ even HARDER!

God has answered my prayers. Just recently I asked God to help me keep an appointment. My wife needed me to help her out. I left it in God's hands. I had no way of being in two places at the same time and though one appointment was earlier, I learned that it was going to run overtime... That person called and had break the appointment --- TOTALLY irregular for this individual. And so I was able to help out my wife and there was no problem. GOD worked it out! No stress, no issues.

And simple little stuff happens around me all the time but usually only when I included a prayer to God. Now, sometimes He has prevented an accident. But I always thank God for looking over me.

But, if you are not going to consider God, how do you expect to prove God exists? God is waiting to hear from you.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Supreme Court quotation does not say atheism is a religion. In any case, I repeat what was said in the post regardless of any court decision. Courts find what is believed or expedient at the time (remember Dred Scot?). The logic is faulty.

The inmate's protection was sufficient under the First merely by speech and had no need of religion.

As for Buddhism, many believe and worship in error, according to what Buddha himself taught. Many call it a philosophy rather than a religion.

If we are to use the loosest definition of the term, how was Nazism less than a faith?

I also meant to mention that yes, you can call Buddhism a philosophy or way of life, but it is nevertheless listed among the world's great religions. For that matter there are many Christians who do not practice any 'relgiion' as prescribed by any particular Christian denomination, but who regard Christianity as a relationship, not a religion. Nevertheless, Christianity is listed among the world's great religions.

In my opinion, and apparently that of the courts, is that Atheism is a bonafide religion because it professes a doctrine regarding religious faith, or in this case a lack thereof. And it does require as much faith to disbelieve as it does to believe.

 

[newpolitics]

The Supreme Court quotation does not say atheism is a religion. In any case, I repeat what was said in the post regardless of any court decision. Courts find what is believed or expedient at the time (remember Dred Scot?). The logic is faulty.

The inmate's protection was sufficient under the First merely by speech and had no need of religion.

As for Buddhism, many believe and worship in error, according to what Buddha himself taught. Many call it a philosophy rather than a religion.

If we are to use the loosest definition of the term, how was Nazism less than a faith?

I also meant to mention that yes, you can call Buddhism a philosophy or way of life, but it is nevertheless listed among the world's great religions. For that matter there are many Christians who do not practice any 'relgiion' as prescribed by any particular Christian denomination, but who regard Christianity as a relationship, not a religion. Nevertheless, Christianity is listed among the world's great religions.

In my opinion, and apparently that of the courts, is that Atheism is a bonafide religion because it professes a doctrine regarding religious faith, or in this case a lack thereof. And it does require as much faith to disbelieve as it does to believe.

No, it doesn't.

 

[there4eyeM]

" And it does require as much faith to disbelieve as it does to believe."


I don't believe so.

 

[Dante]

I vote Islam...

Not being religious I don't see all that much of a difference. It all depends on what type of tolerance you are speaking of. In general most religions are by nature intolerant. Especially the three Abrahamic ones

 

[Lipush]

The most intolerant religion is 'Far-left, Liberal, Atheist democratism.'.

Well said.

 

[Lipush]

To go the opposite way, what, in your opinion, is the MOST tolerant?

Now THAT'S a tough one.

Not at all.

Buddhism. Definitely

 

[ima]

Religions are intolerant to those who don't agree with them.

 

[Foxfyre]

" And it does require as much faith to disbelieve as it does to believe."


I don't believe so.

Of course it does. When you can find no civilization that has ever existed, no matter how isolated, that did not develop some sense of unseen being or beings greater than themselves; when the vast majority of people on Earth have some sense of a diety; when more than 90% of Americans believe in God; there is overwhelming evidence for some kind of phenomenon that causes such belief.

Of course you cannot prove to me that God does not exist any more than I can prove to you that God does exist. But with such a cloud of witnesses spanning the many millenia of recorded history that we have expressing a sense of deity, it absolutely every bit as much faith to disbelieve as it does to believe.

 

[Foxfyre]

To go the opposite way, what, in your opinion, is the MOST tolerant?

Now THAT'S a tough one.

Not at all.

Buddhism. Definitely

I would disagree. I have Buddhist friends who quite easily say a pox on all Abrahamic religions. They are not at all tolerant. All religions believe they have found the right path which is why people embrace them. That naturally assumes that all others are more wrong.

 

[Lipush]

Now THAT'S a tough one.

Not at all.

Buddhism. Definitely

I would disagree. I have Buddhist friends who quite easily say a pox on all Abrahamic religions. They are not at all tolerant. All religions believe they have found the right path which is why people embrace them. That naturally assumes that all others are more wrong.

Then again, religion is what people make it to be.