Religious tolerance explained

2 Responses to Religious tolerance explained

  1. maria zorrilla says:

    It is fundamentalism, in any and all religion or theology, that poses a threat to coexisting- For example, true Muslims, are not Islamic terrorists – it is militant extremists Islamic fundamentalists that are. I am Christian, but I believe Christian Fundamentalists do seek to oppress and judge other faith practices. They are a threat – not only in ideology, and not only to others, but to their own alleged mission. They invalidate the true Christian path, of love, tolerance and compassion, of all people. This is not the first time, Christianity has been ruined by violent extremists [like The Crusades, or when the bible was used to uphold slavery in this country], and it is not the only religion suffering because of fundamentalism, like Islam. Tolerance and coexistence is not a one-way xenophobic path, “as long as you’re a Christian it’s all good!” No – what does means to earnestly practice “our” principles…? what Jesus taught – and these beliefs – are also present in many other religions.

    Like

    • I don’t think I can co-exist completely with your statements. How can you make the broad statement that all fundamentalism is a threat? Regardless of flavor? What about the fundamentalist true believers in tolerance itself? Are you saying that no one can believe completely in any particular truth? If that’s what you’re saying, it seems to be rather self-contradicting, because you started out making a very absolute statement. That would make you a type of fundamentalist, and hence, a threat, if I understand aright, because you ascribe to a belief that all “fundamentalism” is a threat. I perceive that what you “mean” is more precisely that you take issue, in particular, with Christian, Jewish and Muslim extremists. That still seems a little awkward in light of the atrocities being chiefly, almost exclusively, by only one of those sects. Your statement about some Christian fundamentalists is nevertheless true, to some extent. I’d be more impressed, however, if you didn’t lump those misguided people in with actual bloodthirsty monsters. I know, you don’t think it’s tolerant to label people in that way, but do you read the papers?

      Also, I have reservations about the accuracy of all your historical statements. Was Christianity “ruined” as you say, by the “violent extremists” during the Crusades, or was it merely preserved for a while from the peace-loving muslim armies who captured and dominated, by force, all of Africa, the Middle East, much of Asia, and for a while parts of Europe before the violent crusaders pushed them back temporarily until they could invade by stealth later? Also, by my reading of history, the Bible was used by both sides in the modern slavery debate, and it was overwhelmingly Christians and Christian clergy who succeeded in abolishing the practice.

      I think that your last statement is the truest of all you said, but you seem to intend it to prove that all, or most, religions are similar in virtue or in their truth. I don’t think your statement implies that at all, and in truth I think that the reality is far from it.

      Like

%d bloggers like this: