Religious Tolerance?

[Neevil]

Now a days, everyone is talking about tolerance. I think we should respect each other's religions, but how much is too much? In some schools, kids aren't allowed to pray. Some people want to change the Pledge of Allegiance, and remove "under God". Instead of "Merry Christmas" we say "Happy Holidays". How much religious tolerance should we have, without violating religious freedoms?

[EveningStar]

There is a difference between "Freedom of Religion" and "freedom from religion".

Tolerance is when a Christian wishes a Jew a very Merry Christmas and the Jew wishes the Christian a Happy Haunnakah. Secularization gone wild is when Christians and Jews wish each other happy holidays because they are either too ashamed of their own religion or too afraid to admit the other's faith is unacceptable.

[QA48]

Never thought of it that way, John!

Also, not to mention, that we are forced to make accomodations to people of other religions (Muslims, Buddhists, etc...), which I don't have a problem with, but in return we must sacrafice our beliefs in order to accomodate them and prove that we are tolerant to their beliefs. There are some cafeterias in some of the states, where they are not allowed to serve certain meats because it offends the Indians who work, or go to school, there. There was a lawsuit against Walmart last year because there was a Muslim who thought that the displays of Angels were offensive. There are neighborhoods and complexs, in which the display of the Nativity scene is not allowed. I could go on, but its obvious that the goal is to get rid of christianity all together.
If so many of the eastern traditions, and religions, of those who complain about the christian religion and beliefs, are said to be polyteistic, what's the problem with accepting the christian God?

[Aitoren]

That's pretty much what I believe. We shouldn't have to deny or go against our own traditions and customs just for others, but we should equally be tolerant of other's not changing for us. We shouldn't silence ourselves to make everyone happy.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

That's pretty much what I believe. We shouldn't have to deny or go against our own traditions and customs just for others, but we should equally be tolerant of other's not changing for us. We shouldn't silence ourselves to make everyone happy.
Yes, I am in complete agreement and have no negative statements to make about that. :)

[Neevil]

In America, it does seem to be biased towards Christians. After all, we are a "Christian" nation, built on Christian morals and principles. As new religions take root here, should we change our normal rules and conduct to accomodate them? I think we would all agree that everyone has the right to believe what they want to. But how many more accomodations should be made for them? For instance, my local highschool gets Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kipper off, when there are only a small handful of Jewish kids in the school. Most of the other kids don't even know what the holidays are, much less, do they celebrate them. I believe they also get off for some Muslim holidays. Should the whole school be let out for religious holidays that most of them them don't even care about? Would it be better to just allow the Jewish students to get off? By letting the whole school out, are the other religions taking too much presedence? Everyone gets out of school for Christmas and Christian holidays, so should all religious holidays be counted equal, even if only a small percentage of people celebrate them?

[Aitoren]

Here's where we run into a little trouble with the separation of Church and state. If the schools acknowledge ANY religion, begining with Christianity, they are then setting themselves up to be sued for being biased. Yet if every religion, no matter how small, were given equal recognition with holidays off, things would be problematic. What constitutes a religion? Should sects get holidays too? Next thing you know, half the calendar is blacked out. And frankly, that's why I'm glad I go to a private school. No mess. We're Catholic, people going there know it, and everyone's happy. Also, ideally for me, vouchers or some other thing would come into play, so these problems wouldn't even exist for many people. But be it as it may, I think that public schools faced with such scrutiny might be better off representing religions according to the number of followers. For example, if one particular school has more Jews than Christians, sure, take Yom Kippur, the Passover, (actually, isn't that off anyways?) and whatever else you want. If almost no Christians are present, why not work through Easter? Try to serve the greatest number of people as best possible. Then again, why not take some completely different idea? Grace time: a number of days off for holidays that the students themselves can pick based off their traditions. Big problems for this idea of course. Namely, the teachers... So, at this point, aren't you glad you go to a private school. And if you go to a public one... I've got nothing more to say. :p

[Narborg]

There is a difference between "Freedom of Religion" and "freedom from religion".

Tolerance is when a Christian wishes a Jew a very Merry Christmas and the Jew wishes the Christian a Happy Haunnakah. Secularization gone wild is when Christians and Jews wish each other happy holidays because they are either too ashamed of their own religion or too afraid to admit the other's faith is unacceptable.


Evening star, your awesome. Thats probably the best Ive herd it put.

[LifeMaiden]

There are also atheists who believe we should remove the word GOD from everything as well. What are we going to put on the dollar bills, " In nothing we trust?" Or when we say the Pledge of Allegiance, " One nation, under nothing?"


There's controversy about the Ten Commandments. Even when I was not considering myself Christian, I would never say, " Let's remove the Ten Commandments..." because all of those are also fairly universal beliefs as well. And God could mean anyone to a person of a certain faith, not just the Christian God...should we change IN GOD WE TRUST to IN GODS AND GODDESSES WE TRUST? I think not.

I believe in tolerance, but not at the expense of others, and that's where things really get tricky. To me, it's almost ridiculous that someone should bring a lawsuit because they're 'offended' by angels, ( I would have asked the Muslim person if they knew the Angel Gabriel was the one that Mohammed received a message from Allah ..LOL..and that yes, I think that Gabriel probably had wings!) the Nativity Scene, a Star of David, or whatever, or offended by certain foods. I have an in law uncle who is a Jew and married to a relative ( my mom's sister) who is Buddhist, and he was like, " Should I sue the restaurant for serving bacon or pork, which I don't eat?" We laughed about it, but his question was very serious at the same time.

[Gwen]

Contstutions and laws are sometimes build on things from a religion and we just CAN NOT around all people who do believe in a God or Godess (no matter in what shape) :)
I'm an atheist myself... And I don't think we should remove all words of God. Just as you say, IceMaiden, the ten commandments have become 'normal rules' all over the world ;)
As for toleration of other religions in a country that (for example) is Christian, those other religions deserve the same respect as you'd expect for your religion... And I think that that includes accomodating them. But changing holidays and all that stuf... That's almost impossible and I think people with a different religion will understand that too and consider it a part of the country they are in.

[EveningStar]

The problem is there are many people that blame religion for violent crime against other people of different beliefs. Much like the song "Imagine" by John Lennon who, as he was describing utopia, said, "Imaigne if there was no religion..."

Problem is, if you remove all the things that motivate people to have some higher purpose in life such as religion, patriotism, cultural pride, all you have left is factory farmed cattle to stand passively about, disease free and unmolested, until their time has come to die. Certainly easier to manage, but is that living?

[Narborg]

Good point ,Evning Star. People who say these things probably have a nother motive as well, they dont want to belive in God so they dont, and they try and stop other from doing so.

[Neevil]

The problem is there are many people that blame religion for violent crime against other people of different beliefs. Much like the song "Imagine" by John Lennon who, as he was describing utopia, said, "Imaigne if there was no religion..."

Problem is, if you remove all the things that motivate people to have some higher purpose in life such as religion, patriotism, cultural pride, all you have left is factory farmed cattle to stand passively about, disease free and unmolested, until their time has come to die. Certainly easier to manage, but is that living?
Exactly! We have taken religious tolerance to such an extreme, that many people just don't care. We say that all religions are okay, no one's beliefs are more correct than another's. Some people even go so far as to say that all the religions are basically the same, we all have the same god, and whatnot. If all religions are correct, why should it matter which one we choose? As a result of this manner of thinking, many people have become very apathetic. Apathy really bothers me... I would rather talk to somebody strongly opposed to my beliefs, than some one who doesn't care one way or the other.

This really worries me. Students are having religious tolerance engrained into their minds so much, that their attitudes are awful. Apathy, I think, is really becoming a problem. The popular word "whatever" reflects this. Do we want the future of our country in the hands of people who don't care about it? These students are the next generation. What they learn now will effect the decisions they make later in life. In a small amount, religious tolerance is very good, but an overdose can be fatal.

[LifeMaiden]

Initially I think what really dismays me in society is the sense of APATHY that has been around..." I don't care and I can't make a difference." Well, the thing is to me...every act of goodness and random kindness, no matter HOW SMALL, to me, is a very big deal. To fight against evil of any kind, you must stand against it.


And the media rarely portrays anything GOOD. Where are the programs and the news about Christians and people of other religious beliefs doing good things and helping others? All we hear about it seems are things that DIVIDE people, not things that UNITE us.

[inkspot]

The prevailing attutide wafting to the USA from Europe is the idea that good and evil are relative; this is why many European leaders are so uncomfortable with President Bush, because in some ways he represents a strong segment of our society which really believes in good and evil. Whereas post-Christian Europe does not, for the most part, even believe such concepts exist.

This is explains, for instance, why many European leaders are so anti-Israel: they see Israel as the tiny nation causing the big problem in the Middle East, and lacking any moral framework of good and evil, the best method they have for making decisions is what is practical, what works. So their thinking is: no Israel, no problem.

When materialism/utilitarianism replaces the concepts of principle/morality, then only what is expedient is regarded as "good." Once you reach that level, there's no real reason even for small acts of kindness, unless they somehow benefit you or make society work better.

I was staying at a little diving lodge in the Caribbean once, and our table mates at dinner one night were a French couple. When they asked about my work, and I told them I help in raising money for Christian charitable organizations, they had no idea what such things were, and obviously had no ideas of a program of organized charitabe giving at all. I understand their government provides for their poor people, and that seemed to them to be sufficient ... to me it seemed sad.

But, if you have no idea that there is good and evil in the world, or anything beyond this lifetime, I can see where the attitude of apathy would come from. What's the difference?

[EveningStar]

Do you know where my great joy comes from? The fact that God does not base his rulings on popular plebescites, polls, or surveys.

The God that created Martin Luther also created Martin Luther King. He was with us through the Hula Hoop, bell bottomed jeans and bathtub gin. He was with us through the invention of movable type and the internet. Always the same God, always the same offer of salvation, and always the same standards from everlasting unto everlasting.

If you are in Him and He is within you, you are a society unto yourself, and that society is as idealistic and compassionate as you can bear to make it.

[Wendygirljp]

Neevil - you wrote to me,

"I believe there can only be one right religion. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Wicca, the Ancient Egyptian religions', and all the rest, are all good, but they are contradictory to each other. Only one can be the right religion, because they just don't fit together. For this reason, we can teach respect toward's one another's religion, but not equality."

Yes, I agree there are some contradictions among the various religions, as well as within each individual religion, including Christianity. Look at the issue of baptism alone. One church claims infant baptism, another promotes waiting until the age of understanding. One promotes full immersion, and another sprinkling or the light pouring of water. Technically, these are contradictions.

The bigger issue among the religions, I believe, is "what is the one key" that each religion teaches? Personally, I believe, it is the concept of love. ALL major religions teach this concept, so in that line, why not respect one another's religions? After all, the main point is the same throughout. Yes, some believe that there can only be one form of "love", and that, therefore, must be the right way, and all other forms of love must be wrong, then. To me, that makes no sense.

Last comment, quickly. I do not see how patriotism and religious understanding relate, in the field of apathy. Is not patriotism a concept of one country over another? Is not the entire world just that - one world? I have nothing against patriotism, until it goes to extreme to the point where one group "gangs up" against another, just to be "more patriotic".

Thanks for the opportunity.

[Narborg]

Initially I think what really dismays me in society is the sense of APATHY that has been around..." I don't care and I can't make a difference." Well, the thing is to me...every act of goodness and random kindness, no matter HOW SMALL, to me, is a very big deal. To fight against evil of any kind, you must stand against it.


And the media rarely portrays anything GOOD. Where are the programs and the news about Christians and people of other religious beliefs doing good things and helping others? All we hear about it seems are things that DIVIDE people, not things that UNITE us.


Yes, apthy seems to be what is defining oour gernaration. Its is a big probelm. The atitude needs to change in my openion, apathtic prople are so BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Neevil]

Neevil - you wrote to me,

"I believe there can only be one right religion. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Wicca, the Ancient Egyptian religions', and all the rest, are all good, but they are contradictory to each other. Only one can be the right religion, because they just don't fit together. For this reason, we can teach respect toward's one another's religion, but not equality."

Yes, I agree there are some contradictions among the various religions, as well as within each individual religion, including Christianity. Look at the issue of baptism alone. One church claims infant baptism, another promotes waiting until the age of understanding. One promotes full immersion, and another sprinkling or the light pouring of water. Technically, these are contradictions.

The bigger issue among the religions, I believe, is "what is the one key" that each religion teaches? Personally, I believe, it is the concept of love. ALL major religions teach this concept, so in that line, why not respect one another's religions? After all, the main point is the same throughout. Yes, some believe that there can only be one form of "love", and that, therefore, must be the right way, and all other forms of love must be wrong, then. To me, that makes no sense.

Last comment, quickly. I do not see how patriotism and religious understanding relate, in the field of apathy. Is not patriotism a concept of one country over another? Is not the entire world just that - one world? I have nothing against patriotism, until it goes to extreme to the point where one group "gangs up" against another, just to be "more patriotic".

Thanks for the opportunity.

Okay, I think I'll answer backwards... first off, Patriotism and Religious Tolerance. Religion isn't just something you do on Sunday mornings. Its a lifestyle, and a way of thinking, and it will affect all other aspects of your lives.

As Inkspot was saying, the dominent worldview today has abandoned the consepts of good and evil. There are no absolute morals. Religious tolerance is a product of this way of thinking. Perhaps I misworded my ideas when I wrote to you yesterday, but this worldview, I think, has caused apathy in patriotism, and has also caused the over-use of religious tolerance, which in turn causes apathy in religion. I think apathy in patriotism, and in religion are connected by this worldview.

You said the key to each religion is love. There is one thing that sets Christianity apart from all other religions. Jesus Christ. In every religion, people are trying to achieve something. However, humans are sinful and full of flaws. No matter what the each person is trying to gain, in all other religions they do it on their own. We're imperfect humans, and we can't do it by ourselves. Christianity is the only religion that has some one else stepping in and achieving it for us. Is the key to each religion love? Well... I'm not an expert on religions, so I can't really say... but I know that in Chrisitanity, the key is Christ (hence the name, Christianity...)

From what I've have learned about other religions, it doesn't seem like they can fit together. Maybe one or two, but most of them are incompatible. I know that they cannot fit with Christianity. You cannot combine all religions into one common religion, or one common idea... they are all so diverse. For these reasons, I think it is necessary to respect one another's religion, but not rank it as equal.

We all have the innate right to freedom of worship. So I will allow others to make their own opinions and I will respect them. After all, you can't force somebody to believe something, anyway. You might be able to force them to come to church, or kneel down and pray, but you cannot force some one's mind to believe something it doesn't want to. But even though I can respect a person's opinion, I cannot rank it as equal with my own, if Christ is not the center of their life. This is what I believe is right, and I can't compromise it. The basic point of this post is: Respect - yes. Equality - no.

[Wendygirljp]

Is not "religious tolerance" the same thing as "respect for those who follow their particular religion"? Maybe that is where the difficulty is - definition?

Yes Jesus the Christ is definitely a unique part of Christianity - and so are Shiva and Kali to Hinduism, Siddhartha to Buddhism, Confucius to Confucianism, etc. They may not all hold the same "image", obviously, but they are unique to their particular belief.

You posted, "Religion isn't just something you do on Sunday mornings. Its a lifestyle, and a way of thinking, and it will affect all other aspects of your lives." I agree 100%!

Another post - "You cannot combine all religions into one common religion, or one common idea... they are all so diverse." I agree here, too. And I do not believe one would WANT to combine them, as they are culturally diverse. But why would they be wrong, necessarily?

One of the things I would want to know is "what have you heard about other religions?" Look at the misunderstandings of all the other religions which float about - "In Islam, jihad means holy war!" - The teachings are that it means "inner struggle" or "lesson". "Buddhism worships the Buddha." No, not at all. "Reincarnation is always literal." Again, not so. There are many misunderstandings, hence the necessity, I believe, for an understanding or tolerance of that religion - NOT an acceptance for YOURSELF of all religions. As my professional path is not necessarily yours, neither may our spiritual path be the same. It does not make my path wrong because it is not right for you. Does that make sense?

[Neevil]

Is not "religious tolerance" the same thing as "respect for those who follow their particular religion"? Maybe that is where the difficulty is - definition?

Yes Jesus the Christ is definitely a unique part of Christianity - and so are Shiva and Kali to Hinduism, Siddhartha to Buddhism, Confucius to Confucianism, etc. They may not all hold the same "image", obviously, but they are unique to their particular belief.

You posted, "Religion isn't just something you do on Sunday mornings. Its a lifestyle, and a way of thinking, and it will affect all other aspects of your lives." I agree 100%!

Another post - "You cannot combine all religions into one common religion, or one common idea... they are all so diverse." I agree here, too. And I do not believe one would WANT to combine them, as they are culturally diverse. But why would they be wrong, necessarily?

One of the things I would want to know is "what have you heard about other religions?" Look at the misunderstandings of all the other religions which float about - "In Islam, jihad means holy war!" - The teachings are that it means "inner struggle" or "lesson". "Buddhism worships the Buddha." No, not at all. "Reincarnation is always literal." Again, not so. There are many misunderstandings, hence the necessity, I believe, for an understanding or tolerance of that religion - NOT an acceptance for YOURSELF of all religions. As my professional path is not necessarily yours, neither may our spiritual path be the same. It does not make my path wrong because it is not right for you. Does that make sense?

I don't think you're understanding me all the way... maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well.

First - Christ is a unique part of Christianity. But not in the way that others are unique in their religions. It is His character and His role that makes Him unique--His gift of salvation.

Second - what exactly do you mean by spiritual paths? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you... but I don't think there are different spiritual paths. As I have said before, all religions are different. If they are all different, only ONE can be correct.

Third - What I said about combining religions was not meant literally. It can be expressed by something you said, "As my professional path is not necessarily yours, neither may our spiritual path be the same. It does not make my path wrong because it is not right for you." This is the philosophy that I referred to when I said you cannot combine religions.

Fourth - The definition of religious tolerance (at least as I unsderstand it) is supposed to be a healthy respect for other religions. But Post-modern thinking has taken it to an extreme that is not good or intelligent.

I'm sorry if I keep repeating myself... but you're really confusing me...

[Wendygirljp]

Apologies for confusing you - that was not the intent.

Salvation in other theistic belief has different representation.

Spiritual path is a spiritual way one chooses to live one's life. Christianity, for example, is a spiritual path, but so is Buddhism, which is non-theistic, to some extent. Buddhism, to be a bit more precise, is more of an ethical path, but can be used by some for spiritual belief as well. We need not get into how as I do not believe you would be interested.

I guess the issue of "only ONE being correct" is the issue of contention. In my studies, I see the similarities of the various theistic thought processes, so I do not see how one can be the "only one", except on a personal basis. And, again, that is me - not you. And, for me, that is fine.

Unless I hear from you again or get other questions about what I have posted, this will probably be my last attempt at explaining my perspective. I think we are just on different "views" of the same subject.

Thanks!

[Neevil]

Apologies for confusing you - that was not the intent.

Salvation in other theistic belief has different representation.

Spiritual path is a spiritual way one chooses to live one's life. Christianity, for example, is a spiritual path, but so is Buddhism, which is non-theistic, to some extent. Buddhism, to be a bit more precise, is more of an ethical path, but can be used by some for spiritual belief as well. We need not get into how as I do not believe you would be interested.

I guess the issue of "only ONE being correct" is the issue of contention. In my studies, I see the similarities of the various theistic thought processes, so I do not see how one can be the "only one", except on a personal basis. And, again, that is me - not you. And, for me, that is fine.

Unless I hear from you again or get other questions about what I have posted, this will probably be my last attempt at explaining my perspective. I think we are just on different "views" of the same subject.

Thanks!
Haha yeah... we're just sorta talking in circles... I don't think this was getting anywhere. (And btw I actually would be interested in hearing what you wanted to say about Buddhism. I like learning about other religions... but I don't think this is the place to write about it anyway...)

[LifeMaiden]

I would be very interested to know how religious tolerance is dealt with in some other modern countries like in France, where, for example, the Muslim population in cities like Paris is growing very large. I hear there was a controversy surrounding women over there as to whether or not the French government should allow them to wear their traditional head coverings.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

That was in the schools. France passed a law forbidding any distinctively religious symbols in schools, which included head coverings. Of course, it also precluded the little chocolate crosses that are traditional French fare at Christmastime, but that was a price they're willilng to pay.

[LifeMaiden]

France is also a Catholic country, as 95% of French people are Catholic. And yet they've always struck me as really liberal. You know they legalized that RU 486 a long time ago. Historically, the few French Protestants were persecuted in the past and came to America, primarily in the South Carolina region, who were known as the Huguenots. It's strange that they would pass a law about religious symbols in schools. What about crucifixes? I guess that would be remaining in a private Catholic school.

[Neevil]

It seems like France never really established a solid religion during the Reformation... they just kept switching from Catholic to Protistant. And for more political reasons than religious.

My friends lived in Paris for a couple months last year, and they said that churches are not allowed in the city. Is this true?

[Narborg]

In New Zealand, we seem to have a lot of tolaration of difent religons at one level. There is no social presser to join any faith, which I think is a good thing. However, these dose seem to be a satle bais against Christanity. It seems like tolaration means letting people who came to NZ paratice whatever they like, but it seems to be difrent for christans, who in some peoples minds seem to be told something else. Personlly I dont think that is that bad, but that just me. I tend to be a lot more septical than a lot of chriatns abou the idea that New Zealand was once a "christian" nation, I dont think there have ever een that much contment to faith at a National leavel in NZ

[Neevil]

In New Zealand, we seem to have a lot of tolaration of difent religons at one level. There is no social presser to join any faith, which I think is a good thing. However, these dose seem to be a satle bais against Christanity. It seems like tolaration means letting people who came to NZ paratice whatever they like, but it seems to be difrent for christans, who in some peoples minds seem to be told something else. Personlly I dont think that is that bad, but that just me. I tend to be a lot more septical than a lot of chriatns abou the idea that New Zealand was once a "christian" nation, I dont think there have ever een that much contment to faith at a National leavel in NZ
Perhaps it's just my mind creating conspiracies, but I see a bias against Christians here in America, too. Like you said, it almost seems like toleration means giving more freedoms to other religions, at the cost of Christians' freedoms. I don't think this is necessary. It is possible for other religions to be "tolerated" without taking away from Christianity. I think why a lot of people have a problem with Christianity is not because it is another religion, but because they say their the only true religion.

[Gwen]

Perhaps it's just my mind creating conspiracies, but I see a bias against Christians here in America, too. Like you said, it almost seems like toleration means giving more freedoms to other religions, at the cost of Christians' freedoms. I don't think this is necessary. It is possible for other religions to be "tolerated" without taking away from Christianity. I think why a lot of people have a problem with Christianity is not because it is another religion, but because they say their the only true religion.

I thought that a lot of religions believe that their religion is the only true religion... :o
But these days we (should) understand that that is not what we should fight for. People just have different beliefs. And I don't think that's gonna change soon. Therefore, I think we should respect each other's beliefs :)

In the Netherlands, where I live, it's hard dealing with religions. Mosques and Islamitic schools have been set on fire, but also churches were damaged. All these incidents were (indirect maybe) due to religious problems we have.
In Dutch politics, this remains an important thing. We're having elections here soon, so this subject is popping up everywhere...
Maybe some of you have heard of Pim Fortuyn (he was murdered in 2002)... He said: "The Netherlands are full, all borders will be closed for foreigners" and "If I could decide, no Islamite would enter the Netherlands anymore."
Many people in the Netherland believed he had good ideas. But according to me, this goes TOO FAR! It's just wrong!
Maybe some of you could tell me what you think of this...?

Note: You were talking about the law forbidding head coverings in France. I just wanted to say that that law applies in all public structures, not only in schools. ;)

[Neevil]

Hmmm... tough question. As a Christian, I would like to see the US stay a Christian country. On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to exclude people because of religion, race, etc. From a religious perspective, I would say that people, no matter what their religion is, should be allowed into the country. But I'm sure there are a lot of other political things that would play a part in determining this, as well. I admit, in the area of poltics, I am very ignorant, so I can't really say much on the topic.

There was another question that was raised in the Skandar Needs Prayer thread. How much should other religions be allowed to spread their beleifs? Some people may get offended when they are being persuaded by somebody to convert to another religion. I know in Christianity, telling others about Christ is a HUGE part of what we believe and practice. So, if we were restricted in how much we could spread our beliefs, would that be violating our religious freedoms? After all, being witnesses for Christ is one of the most important thing Christians are commanded to do. It is a major part of our belief system. Would it be right to restrict something of such importance? On the other hand, are the religious freedoms of others being violated when we spread our beliefs and try to "convert" them?

[Saruman]

On the other hand, are the religious freedoms of others being violated when we spread our beliefs and try to "convert" them?

No.

Speaking as a citizen of the United States, I am heartily grateful to befriend someone who has a different belief system than I do, and to get to know and converse with them. They have the right to believe, to think, and to choose how to worship exactly as they desire, no matter how right or wrong they are. God created mankind with a free will, and as such, man has the right to make his own decisions.

However, it should not be unlawful for someone to share their beliefs with another. I am glad to get to listen to someone share their religious beliefs, and to listen. It does not mean I will believe as they do, and prayerfully I won't ever face a situation where I will be told "convert" or "off with his head."

Speaking as a born-again Christian, I have been taught by Jesus Christ, who demonstrated in His lifetime that He is God by various acts and works, that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man comes to the Father but by Him (Jn. 14:6). And Jesus commanded His disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, the Good News. What Good News? That Jesus came into the world to die for the sins of mankind, rose from the dead three days later, and in and through Himself He has made a way for man to be reconciled with God.

I will boldly share this with other people. I will not, however, tell them to convert or die. In the end, it will be their decision, not mine. And as such, I do not believe people should be restrained from sharing their beliefs with others.

[Narborg]

On the other hand, are the religious freedoms of others being violated when we spread our beliefs and try to "convert" them?


Read Evening stars post. He says theres a difrence between freedom of religon and freedomfrom religon. Where theses freedom of religon, people can shere there beliefs with others.

[inkspot]

There was another question that was raised in the Skandar Needs Prayer thread. How much should other religions be allowed to spread their beleifs? Some people may get offended when they are being persuaded by somebody to convert to another religion.
If the intent of a law against sharing your faith would be to protect people from being offended by your beliefs, that is just silly -- you cannot pass laws based on protecting people from being offended ... because who knows what will offend each person? I'm offended by a lot of stuff on TV and in movies, but there aren't any laws protecting me from it ... If you are offended by someone else sharing their faith, then you should tell them: you're offending me. Shut up. And if they don't, then don't talk to them anymore. But a law to make it illegal for them to share their faith is something the founding fathers of the USA would have found mortifying.

At the private school our daughters attend, the Christians are not allowed to have "See You at the Pole" prayer to open the academic year. I told the girls this wasn't right, and they said, "No, if we allowed Christian prayers, then we would have to allow Hindu prayer day and Islam prayer day ..." Well, right. If the Muslim kids wanted to have their prayer day, that would be great. Why not? I would rather no one was barred from having their prayer day than everyone was barred.

It seems like in the USA, we're just afraid of religion, and try to make people think it's spooky and illegal. That's just silly.

[The First Joke]

i say that happy holidays is lame. under God should stay and this country was settled by peole who sought religious freedom. happy hanuka, everyone.

[Neevil]

i say that happy holidays is lame. under God should stay and this country was settled by peole who sought religious freedom. happy hanuka, everyone.
Would you care to say why you think that? It's hard to have a discussion when you don't know the reasoning behind an opinion. :)

[EveningStar]

Religious Tolerance vs. Proselytization....

The reasoning that pervades this thread is fundamentally flawed. There is a cultural justification to zone areas to preserve a certain style of architecture or a certain land use (residential vs. industrial). This reasoning does not extend to preserving a religion for cultural or aesthetic purposes. The purpose of religion is to have a relationship with God, not to evoke feelings of nationalism or nostalgia.

People should feel free to ask someone if they want to talk about religion or to hear a "sales pitch" for their particular religion. People asking this without using coersive tactics or active harassment should be protected under a very precious freedom....freedom of speech. You can't prevent overt displays of religious belief without the state being guilty of obstructing people from the enjoyment of their religious sensibilities.

[Narborg]

Religious Tolerance vs. Proselytization....

The reasoning that pervades this thread is fundamentally flawed. There is a cultural justification to zone areas to preserve a certain style of architecture or a certain land use (residential vs. industrial). This reasoning does not extend to preserving a religion for cultural or aesthetic purposes. The purpose of religion is to have a relationship with God, not to evoke feelings of nationalism or nostalgia.

People should feel free to ask someone if they want to talk about religion or to hear a "sales pitch" for their particular religion. People asking this without using coersive tactics or active harassment should be protected under a very precious freedom....freedom of speech. You can't prevent overt displays of religious belief without the state being guilty of obstructing people from the enjoyment of their religious sensibilities.

I totally agree, evening star. People should have the freedom to belive what they want and the law should protect the rights of thoses people who want to shere there faith with other. People also have the right to say no, it there choce.


I also argree with the 1st part about relogon being about having a relationship with God, not about evokeing feelings of nationalism or nostalgia. Well said evening star.

[inkspot]

In India right now, various states are passing "anti-conversion" laws. If you are a Hindu, and you decide to change religions, you must ask permission from a government official. If he says no, and you change religions anyway, you may be fined or put in jail.

Their reasoning is: Hinduism is more or less the national religion, and if you embrace something else, you are essentially dis-associating yourself from India. Live in India, be a Hindu, is the thinking. It is flawed because not quite 80% of Indians are Hindus, but in a country of a billion, that leaves more than 20 million people of other faiths.

The laws apply to them, too: Muslims wouldn't be allowed to leave Islam, nor Buddhists allowed to leave Buddhism. I don't know what the reasoning is there, except just to make it unilateral.

But it seems to me, to be a democracy, India should not allow this sort of thing. I wonder if they can't pass a constitutional amendment to present it at the state level?

In the US, since we are a democracy, it seems that we should just let people practice and share their faith when and how they do so, as ES says.

[The First Joke]

i say that happy holidays is lame. under God should stay and this country was settled by peole who sought religious freedom. happy hanuka, everyone.

so here's my reasoning: my friend and i were having this discussion. if we have to call people african american, then they should call us caucasians. it may be off the subject, but i think that people should just say both because then it shows that there is no religious foundation to waking up on the twenty-fifth of december and opening presents or doing what Jewish people do during hanuka. like i said, the first people who came here wanted religious freedom. we can't forget about it. same with the plege. we can't have religion have just a tiny section of out lives. its something that should cover our whole lives. happy kwanza.

[Ephinie]

it may be off the subject, but i think that people should just say both because then it shows that there is no religious foundation to waking up on the twenty-fifth of december and opening presents or doing what Jewish people do during hanuka.I'm not sure what exactly you mean here... because there IS a religious foundation to waking up on December 25 and opening presents and to the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. Neither holiday can be seperated from their respective religious roots, either. I think the point made in this thread is that religious tolerance means you can say, "Merry Christmas" to someone who celebrates Hanukkah, and likewise one who celebrates Hanukkah can say, "Happy Hanukkah" back; and you each appreicate the other's well wishes for the season without getting offended that it isn't your particular holiday.

And I agree that using the phrase, "Happy Holidays," is rather weak.

[The First Joke]

No one remembers Christmas. There is religious foundation behind the presents, however, people lose sight of that and think it is just an excuse to get presents.

[Gwen]

No one remembers Christmas. There is religious foundation behind the presents, however, people lose sight of that and think it is just an excuse to get presents.
I think that doesn't happen everywhere... ;)
Here in the Netherlands, I have presents for Christmas, but a lot of people don't. And here it's more about having a nice dinner, sit by the Christmas Tree... More to BE together, than to get presents... :)