Religious freedom and tolerance

[BetheButterfly]

Hello,

 

Are your freedoms important to you? If you live in a country where you enjoy exercising your rights of freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, then please don't take them for granted! There are people in other countries who are persecuted or killed for having different beliefs. Sadly, many "Western" countries in the past experienced the same tragic persecution of people of other belief, including persecution of people of different ethnicities. So, instead of bad-mouthing people who believe differently than you (whether you believe in a Supreme Being, many Supreme Beings, or no Supreme Being), why not celebrate freedom of religion, and why not be tolerant?

 

Tolerance does not mean to agree with what others believe, but rather to acknowledge their right to believe/be different, and to respect them, even though they are different than you.

 

Can you do that? Can you be tolerant people of other beliefs? Can you celebrate freedom of religion, where each person has the ability to believe what one believes is true, and can you be respectful, kind, and sincere to people who are different than you, even though you do not agree with what they believe?

 

Peace and God bless

[zengirl]

Yes, of course. The only people I badmouth are people who are intolerant (individuals and groups, not whole religions).

 

Of course, while I cannot be killed in the U.S. for my religious beliefs, I'm not foolish enough to believe I have true freedom to be a Buddhist. Though companies, particularly somewhere like a public (government!) school, are not supposed to discriminate or harass people of minority faiths, I know first-hand that many do.

 

However, I don't blame that on ALL people of the majority religion. Just the intolerant ones who perpetuate it. A lot of intolerance is "smaller" than life or death, though, and it goes unchecked continually.

 

I think people disagree on what intolerance is, too! Some people find it intolerant for others to blatantly disagree. For instance, I know people of belief (various) who'd find it intolerant for a strong atheist to simply share his/her strong beliefs that God is not likely to exist and there is no evidence to support God's existence. I believe in God, and I do not find that statement offensive. It's simply the truth as they see it, and they should be free to express it, as people should be free to express their views of religion EXCEPT where they cross lines into other people's freedoms (i.e. it's fine to express belief in a religion, not fine to say people shouldn't practice homosexuality or spread hate-language just because there is some basis to discourage that in your particular religion, just as atheists shouldn't say, "Church is an abomination").

[BetheButterfly]

Yes, of course. The only people I badmouth are people who are intolerant (individuals and groups, not whole religions).

 

Hi Zengirl,

 

Actually, I have never ever thought of your posts as intolerant at all. Although we disagree on many things, since I've been posting in loveshack, I don't remember ever thinking that you are intolerant. However, it has shocked me how some people are very intolerant and insulting to people who believe in God. Most of the Atheists I know in real life are kind people who are very tolerant, so how some people write on this forum made me wonder if tolerance and celebrating freedom of religion is not emphasized in everyday life?

 

Yes lol I'm not very tolerant to people who insult. Maybe because I'm so used to lecturing younger people (though I'm 34) I do consider it one of my responsibilities in life to scold people who are mean to others or to what is important to others.

Of course, while I cannot be killed in the U.S. for my religious beliefs, I'm not foolish enough to believe I have true freedom to be a Buddhist.

 

That is sad.

 

I have friends who are Hindus and Muslims, and they freely practice what they believe here in the USA. I don't know any Buddhists personally, however, so I don't know how they are treated.

 

 

Though companies, particularly somewhere like a public (government!) school, are not supposed to discriminate or harass people of minority faiths, I know first-hand that many do.

 

Yes that is sad but true. Some Muslim ladies I know endure insults and fear from people, for their hijab. Even though I disagree with many of their beliefs, I do respect their modesty and have no problem with them covering themselves if that is what they freely want to do.

 

Anyways, yes it is seems that schools and businesses do need to emphasize more concerning tolerating others and being respectful, and concerning celebrating freedom of religion, instead of harassing the people practicing this freedom.

 

However, I don't blame that on ALL people of the majority religion. Just the intolerant ones who perpetuate it. A lot of intolerance is "smaller" than life or death, though, and it goes unchecked continually.

 

Agreed

I think people disagree on what intolerance is, too! Some people find it intolerant for others to blatantly disagree.

 

Lol

 

I believe it's fine to blatantly disagree. However, if I call you an insulting name for disagreeing with me, that's crossed the line, in my opinion.

For instance, I know people of belief (various) who'd find it intolerant for a strong atheist to simply share his/her strong beliefs that God is not likely to exist and there is no evidence to support God's existence.

 

Oh. See, I understand why Atheists don't believe in God. To me, that is not intolerant at all. I like to joke with one of my Atheist friend, cause he is interested in discussions between Christians and Muslims, and I know without a doubt he finds it hilarious and ironic that both groups condemn the other to hell, and it's like he's watching a ping-pong game where he's not voting for either side. If I didn't believe heart and soul what I believe, I'd definitely be an Atheist, because Atheists do have valid points in many areas.

 

I believe in God, and I do not find that statement offensive. It's simply the truth as they see it, and they should be free to express it, as people should be free to express their views of religion EXCEPT where they cross lines into other people's freedoms

 

100% agreed!

 

(i.e. it's fine to express belief in a religion, not fine to say people shouldn't practice homosexuality or spread hate-language just because there is some basis to discourage that in your particular religion, just as atheists shouldn't say, "Church is an abomination").

 

Well, I think it's ok for people who believe homosexuality is wrong, to say "I believe homosexuality is wrong." However, it is not acceptable to insult gay people or hate them or look down on them or be mean to them, just because one believes that homosexuality is wrong. That's one thing that many of my Christian friends and I are trying to do in our church... to encourage other Christians to not insult people whose lives disagree with our beliefs, but rather to be tolerant, respectful, and be kind, because we are not the Judge.

 

Thanks for contributing and as always, your posts are very interesting and thought-provoking.

[zengirl]

Well, I think it's ok for people who believe homosexuality is wrong, to say "I believe homosexuality is wrong." However, it is not acceptable to insult gay people or hate them or look down on them or be mean to them, just because one believes that homosexuality is wrong. That's one thing that many of my Christian friends and I are trying to do in our church... to encourage other Christians to not insult people whose lives disagree with our beliefs, but rather to be tolerant, respectful, and be kind, because we are not the Judge.

 

I think it's okay for them to think it is wrong, as long as they understand and are careful to acknowledge that it's their religious beliefs that make them believe so AND don't use hateful or incendiary language in doing so, nor try to infringe upon the rights of homosexuals, etc.

 

It sounds like you're doing a good thing in your church. We could all use a bit more tolerance.

 

As to why intolerant Atheists on the internet (and frankly on this site, I've seen some intolerant religious folks as well -- LS is just kind of combative in general, all forums), I'd say because MANY people who are atheist are either currently in or were raised in environments where they were afraid they would be penalized (socially, professionally, etc) for their atheism, and most of the ones who seem "angry" have been perpetually put down by intolerant religious people all their lives. That's not a valid excuse, of course, but I think it's what fuels that fire. A little more tolerance on both sides might put some fires out. Also, I'm in the South, so generally the intolerance and fights I've seen firsthand (IRL) are started by those who are religious, not those who aren't. It's likely different elsewhere. So, that's the WHY that you mention, not that it's an excuse to pester tolerant, religious people.

[Ross MwcFan]

I'm tolerant of any beliefs as long as they aren't ones which are about controlling other people's lives, hating on homosexuals, stoning women, making people feel ashamed/guilty about their sexuality/masturbating/having sex before marriage, hurting innocent people, hurting animals, etc, etc, etc.

[setsenia]

Hello,

 

 

Can you do that? Can you be tolerant people of other beliefs? Can you celebrate freedom of religion, where each person has the ability to believe what one believes is true, and can you be respectful, kind, and sincere to people who are different than you, even though you do not agree with what they believe?

 

Peace and God bless

 

Definitely. As long as they don't shove it down my throat, I'm good. I actually don't find religion to be important when developing new friendships. I've rarely actually talked politics or religion with my friends, we can find plenty of other subjects.

[BetheButterfly]

I think it's okay for them to think it is wrong, as long as they understand and are careful to acknowledge that it's their religious beliefs that make them believe so AND don't use hateful or incendiary language in doing so, nor try to infringe upon the rights of homosexuals, etc.

 

Hello Zengirl,

 

Agreed

 

It sounds like you're doing a good thing in your church. We could all use a bit more tolerance.

 

Sometimes it is difficult to accept or try to understand people with different beliefs or who are different in different ways, but it is important to remember we are all human and should treat each other with respect.

 

As to why intolerant Atheists on the internet (and frankly on this site, I've seen some intolerant religious folks as well -- LS is just kind of combative in general, all forums), I'd say because MANY people who are atheist are either currently in or were raised in environments where they were afraid they would be penalized (socially, professionally, etc) for their atheism,

 

Do you think the Atheists on this forum who are rude do so out of fear? There are of course natural penalties to rudeness. For example, if I am in a business where a person who works there is rude to me and says something rude about my belief, I would automatically think of taking my business elsewhere, where professional courtesy is emphasized. However, I have no problem going to a business where the people who work there are Atheists or of another belief. I would hope that Atheists or people of other beliefs have no problem going to businesses where courteous Christians work, and would perfectly understand if they decide to take their business elsewhere if the Christians who work there are rude and insult their lack of belief in God or other belief in God. I understand that loveshack is not a workplace, but rather a place for discussion. However, it's important to interact courteously with people no matter where one is... whether online or in the workplace, or with friends...

 

 

and most of the ones who seem "angry" have been perpetually put down by intolerant religious people all their lives. That's not a valid excuse, of course, but I think it's what fuels that fire. A little more tolerance on both sides might put some fires out. Also, I'm in the South, so generally the intolerance and fights I've seen firsthand (IRL) are started by those who are religious, not those who aren't. It's likely different elsewhere. So, that's the WHY that you mention, not that it's an excuse to pester tolerant, religious people.

 

It is easy to get mad at people... nobody is perfect. I understand that yeah sometimes religious people can be a little annoying. I am sure I am sometimes. That's not my intention, and if I bother people, I am sorry, because that is not my intention, to hurt or anger or annoy anyone. I just like to explain what I believe, because what I believe is important to me. I have no problem with people disagreeing with what I believe, but I hope they do so in a courteous manner, and i hope I am courteous to others as well, even though I may disagree.

 

By the way, have you ever seen the movie Asoka? I think it's about a king that became Buddhist? I haven't seen it in a while, but anyways. He turns from being a warrior king to being peaceful when he became Buddhist.

[Feelin Frisky]

I find that it is religious people who are most intolerant--especially of those who value freedom FROM religion. It disgusts me when people of faith clap when some pompous partisan preacher asserts that America was founded as a Christian nation when it was clearly and deliberately founded to be secular and welcoming of all. Newt Gingrich throws the word secular around like it's a disease or defect--that is intolerant and anti-American. And it bothers me that no one who is secular has a chance at winning the presidency because of the bitter intolerance of the religious towards intellectuals who openly admit they do not believe. I am an atheist and know better than to go to places of worship and knock the religious ceremony and beliefs of others. Yet on atheists forums on the Internet there are malicious invaders who stick around to sow the seeds of animosity. Where does a non-believer go to get peace?On this forum and by this very OPer I was lambasted for simply saying what I believe--that god is a crock--which was not pointed at anyone in particular and was criticised for being one of "those people" who are intolerant.

[BetheButterfly]

I find that it is religious people who are most intolerant--especially of those who value freedom FROM religion.

 

Hello Feelin Frisky,

 

I am curious. Have you ever had a religious person make fun of you or make fun of what you believe, that there is no God? Hopefully not. If so, then shame on that religious person who insulted you and what you believe.

 

It disgusts me when people of faith clap when some pompous partisan preacher asserts that America was founded as a Christian nation when it was clearly and deliberately founded to be secular and welcoming of all.

If they clap because they believe that the USA was founded as a Christian nation, how does that hurt you? There is concrete evidence that some people immigrated to the "New Land" for religious freedom. That evidence includes the Pilgrims and the Puritans. Separation of church and state does not mean that the nation was deliberately founded to be secular. However, it does mean that all (who at that time were mainly immigrants from Europe) were welcome, and that no belief was to be in control of the nation. Rather, all beliefs (which at that time included for the most part different Protestant denominations and Agnosticism) Sad to say, Native Americans beliefs were ignored during the Founding Father's time.

 

Newt Gingrich throws the word secular around like it's a disease or defect--that is intolerant and anti-American.

Do you believe that religious views are intolerant and anti-American?

 

And it bothers me that no one who is secular has a chance at winning the presidency because of the bitter intolerance of the religious towards intellectuals who openly admit they do not believe.

Do you understand that the reason a person who is Atheist (and people can be secular and religious at the same time, interestingly enough, because secular = pertaining to worldly things as opposed to spiritual things) does not have a chance because the majority of Americans are religious to some extent, though secular in other areas? If the majority of Americans were Atheist, that would be different. However, there is a reason that the majority of Americans are religious, or spiritual in some sense, and that is due to freedom of religion. If you compare the USA with China, you would see a marked difference in the number of people who claim to be of a religion.

 

I am an atheist and know better than to go to places of worship and knock the religious ceremony and beliefs of others.

So, you wouldn't go to a church or mosque or synagogue and yell the insult to God that you wrote on this forum? Why would you not do that in real life, yet do that on a forum?

 

Yet on atheists forums on the Internet there are malicious invaders who stick around to sow the seeds of animosity.[/quote

 

Is it not possible for Atheists forums to block all malicious invaders?

 

Where does a non-believer go to get peace?

Are you not able to go to a private establishment and insult what other people believe there, without other people hearing you and taking offense?

 

On this forum and by this very OPer I was lambasted for simply saying what I believe--that god is a crock--which was not pointed at anyone in particular and was criticised for being one of "those people" who are intolerant

Do you understand that how you did it was an insult, or do you not understand how people think? Here you are, in a section of religious discussion, where there are people who believe in God who write, and yet you insult. What was the purpose? Now, if you wanted to engage in discussion with people who believe in God and express/explain what you believe, why not write "I don't believe God exists because ..." which is expressing your beliefs, without attacking other people's beliefs, and without insulting what other people believe. Even though you do not believe God exists, there are many people in the world who do believe God exists, and who love Him and who are emotionally hurt when a person insults who they love, regardless if you believe that Being exists or not. Do you understand how your deliberate insult was not a mere expression/explanation about what you believe, but rather a deliberate insult against what other people believe? Do you understand how what you wrote is rude and intolerant? Now, if you had merely said that you didn't believe in God and explained why, that is fine. However, you do not need to insult what other people believe while expressing what you believe. Do you understand this concept? By the way, in this post, you did great. You explained yourself without insulting what other people believe. So, you know how to do it. You just did. Why did you not do this before, instead of merely making an insulting comment? Thank you for expressing and explaining yourself in a professional and courteous way. That's all I ask.

 

Peace (and God bless, even though I understand you don't believe God exists, but I do believe He does, so that is why I write this wish - may God bless you)

Edited March 26, 2012 by BetheButterfly

[frozensprouts]

religious in tolerance can be very insidious, often without people who are intolerant eve really realizing it.

 

my family is agnostic,and it's how we are raising our children. Of course, should they decide that they agree with a particular religion and want to follow it's teachings , that would be fine ( as long as they don't use it as an excuse to be hurtful to others)

 

when our kids go to school, thee are christmas concerts, etc. They are free to participate should thy wish to do so, but usually they don't want to, so they go, but don't sing. This has gotten them some odd looks from the other kids ( which i can understand, as around here, most people are christian, so the kids aren't used to it), but it's the looks/comments from a few of their teachers over the years that i find more disturbing...after all, threy are adults and should know better.

 

We've even had people make rude comments about our darwin fish magnet ( similar to the Jesus's Fish" that you see on cars, except instead of Jesus" it says Darwin" and has legs), and some have tried to take it off our vehicle.

 

but it does go both ways. from time to time, jehova's witness come to our neighborhood an d try and knock on doors and hand out literature about their beliefs. I try to be polite and open the door ( unless I am in the middle of something), as the way I look at it, they really believe they are helping others, so how can I fault them for that? i feel bad for them, as they sure get a lot of doors slammed in their faces. I've always found them to be nothing but polite and friendly, and they don't hang around...they just give me the literature and say goodbye...but always seem surprised when they get a "thank you". I don't agree with their beliefs , but they feel they are helping, so how can I fault that? It comes form a good place, and they don't lecture me, point fingers or nag or insult ( even though I make my beliefs obvious by the Darwin fish on our front door)...in my point of view, this makes them a hack of a lot more tolerant than some of the religious zealots I have come across in my time ( like the one who gave me a book about "the harlot mary magdaline...if she could come to jesus, then you can too"...I didn't even know this man, but he gave me the book...I felt like giving him a kick in the arse, but I didn't. The same is true for the guy I sawonce in a restaraunt who left fundamentalist literature instead of a tip for the server... I don't know if that was because he was religious or just cheap:laugh:)

 

I really find it sad that my husband, who is a soldier, went overseas to "fight for our country and for freedom":sick:( I always hated that saying), but it often seems like the REAL freedom he fought for was the freedom to agree with the mainstream christian religion and to agree with the popular social/political trends, and all others be damned ...

[BetheButterfly]

religious in tolerance can be very insidious, often without people who are intolerant eve really realizing it.

 

 

Hello Frozensprouts,

 

That is a good point.

 

my family is agnostic,and it's how we are raising our children. Of course, should they decide that they agree with a particular religion and want to follow it's teachings , that would be fine ( as long as they don't use it as an excuse to be hurtful to others)

 

when our kids go to school, thee are christmas concerts, etc. They are free to participate should thy wish to do so, but usually they don't want to, so they go, but don't sing. This has gotten them some odd looks from the other kids ( which i can understand, as around here, most people are christian, so the kids aren't used to it), but it's the looks/comments from a few of their teachers over the years that i find more disturbing...after all, threy are adults and should know better.

What are the comments that the adults make? Is it a Public school, or a Christian school?

 

We've even had people make rude comments about our darwin fish magnet ( similar to the Jesus's Fish" that you see on cars, except instead of Jesus" it says Darwin" and has legs), and some have tried to take it off our vehicle.

That is horrible to try to take it off your vehicle. What comments do they say? One thing I find to be ironic is that it is a copy of the Christian symbol, and I have been meaning to ask but never have... why copy a Christian symbol and put Darwin and legs? Why not use a symbol like the monkey and man line of progression instead of copying a Christian symbol and changing it? It is interesting to me when other beliefs (including no belief in God) use Christian symbols and change it. For example, there is another belief that uses the cross symbol and changes it to make their own symbol. I personally wish some other beliefs would not do that... for example,the KKK using the cross and then setting it on fire, as a symbol of their hatred of other people? I don't know why they do that or what that means to them, but to me, it's very sad.

 

but it does go both ways. from time to time, jehova's witness come to our neighborhood an d try and knock on doors and hand out literature about their beliefs. I try to be polite and open the door ( unless I am in the middle of something), as the way I look at it, they really believe they are helping others, so how can I fault them for that?

I totally agree with the above! Yes, so many people don't understand that people who are missionaries, for the most part (though there are always exceptions) do sincerely believe they are helping people and rescuing people from eternal torture.

 

i feel bad for them, as they sure get a lot of doors slammed in their faces. I've always found them to be nothing but polite and friendly, and they don't hang around...they just give me the literature and say goodbye...but always seem surprised when they get a "thank you". I don't agree with their beliefs , but they feel they are helping, so how can I fault that? It comes form a good place, and they don't lecture me, point fingers or nag or insult ( even though I make my beliefs obvious by the Darwin fish on our front door)...in my point of view, this makes them a hack of a lot more tolerant than some of the religious zealots I have come across in my time ( like the one who gave me a book about "the harlot mary magdaline...if she could come to jesus, then you can too"...I didn't even know this man, but he gave me the book...I felt like giving him a kick in the arse, but I didn't. The same is true for the guy I sawonce in a restaraunt who left fundamentalist literature instead of a tip for the server... I don't know if that was because he was religious or just cheap:laugh:)

I've never heard of that book. I have some books by Francine Rivers, one of them being about Tamar. I wouldn't give that book however to someone who I wasn't positive was interested in reading it! I have made mistakes in my past, and identify with Mary Magdalene in many areas, so I personally don't see what this man did as being an insult, it's possible he didn't realize it was to you. ? That is surprising that he didn't tip... my sister was a server while attending university, and she said that Christians on Sundays especially were the people who gave the best tips. Anyways, every person is different. There are kind/good/caring people and there are those who are not, of basically any belief.

 

I really find it sad that my husband, who is a soldier, went overseas to "fight for our country and for freedom":sick:( I always hated that saying), but it often seems like the REAL freedom he fought for was the freedom to agree with the mainstream christian religion and to agree with the popular social/political trends, and all others be damned ...

I am sorry but I personally do not believe that the military is "Christian" because there is so much cursing and drugs and alcohol and pornography and immorality in the military that I find it hard to believe that it is Christian, you know? Christians are supposed to live in a way that glorifies God... with the fruit of the Spirit = love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control, forbearance... there are Christian soldiers who do that, and there are soldiers who are not Christian who are loving, joyful, peaceful, kind, good, gentle, and who exercise self-control and forbearance, but I personally believe the USA is heading more and more away from Christian beliefs. Jesus did not teach selfishness and controlling other countries, or killing/invading people in other countries. Jesus taught to love God and love others, and to forgive and do good and pray for others and help the poor. Thankfully there are still people in the USA who are doing this, including people who don't believe in God, as well as people of other beliefs. However, Christians in the USA need to get back to Jesus' teachings on love, including the Christians in the military!

 

Anyways, I personally do not believe that soldiers right now are fighting to "agree with the mainstream christian religion" because Christian beliefs, based on Jesus' teaching, do not teach to fight/invade other countries!!!

 

Peace and God bless

Edited March 26, 2012 by BetheButterfly

[frozensprouts]

Maybe, when it comes right down to it, it's whether or not someone is a good person...

 

Someone can be very religious and a wonderful person, but they could also be very religious and an absolute ass.

 

Someone can have no religious beliefs and be a wonderful person, but they could also be an absolute ass.

 

( the school my kids go to is a public school ( no christian schools here as far as I know, but there are French schools and probably Cathloic schools too- I went to a catholic school for high school, as it was the main high school in the area I lived in at the time, and most people went there. the nuns were nothing like the stereotypical men nun with ruler in hand, rather, most were very nice ladies)

[oldguy]

Maybe, when it comes right down to it, it's whether or not someone is a good person...

 

Someone can be very religious and a wonderful person, but they could also be very religious and an absolute ass.

 

Someone can have no religious beliefs and be a wonderful person, but they could also be an absolute ass.

 

( the school my kids go to is a public school ( no christian schools here as far as I know, but there are French schools and probably Cathloic schools too- I went to a catholic school for high school, as it was the main high school in the area I lived in at the time, and most people went there. the nuns were nothing like the stereotypical men nun with ruler in hand, rather, most were very nice ladies)

 

"men nun"? You meant "mean" nun. I was amazed upon discovering mine where human nuns.

Darth Vader is still one of the scariest on screen villains to me because he reminds me of a nun with asthma who taught 5th grade when I was a kid.

[zengirl]

Do you think the Atheists on this forum who are rude do so out of fear?

 

To be honest, I've not seen any rude atheists on LS. I'm not saying there aren't any. I've seen some rude atheists on other sites (Reddit comes most to mind, but all of Reddit is a bit rude). Mostly, the worst they do is pick fun at inconsistencies and intolerance in religions (primarily Christianity, as the largest group of people intolerant of others religions or lack thereof are Christians), though a few are completely intolerant. I know one girl IRL who is an "intolerant atheist" who won't let the subject drop if you believe in a Creator or Creation Myth of any kind and just calls everything stupid and is a jerk about it, but I've not met many people like that. I know they exist. Most Atheists are totally respectful of my beliefs -- mainly because they're not worried a Buddhist is going to try to infringe on their rights. A lot of my friends are atheists or agnostics. I've faced a lot of intolerance from Christians and very little from Atheists.

 

There are of course natural penalties to rudeness. For example, if I am in a business where a person who works there is rude to me and says something rude about my belief, I would automatically think of taking my business elsewhere, where professional courtesy is emphasized.

 

Well, what is rude? There are a lot of lines to this. I don't like incendiary discussion, personally, so I do temper my language to be palatable to the Judeo-Christian majority. To be honest, I wish I did not have to.

 

When I was a little kid, I was once reprimanded in school for referring to "The Jesus Myth." To me (even when I was Catholic, I had trouble believing in Jesus/son of God stuff), the story of Jesus was a myth, no different than that of Zeus or Isis or Pan or whatnot. I've read all the Bible stories, and I've studied literature, and the Jesus stories (birth and resurrection) -- as a literature pieces -- follow the format and fit the criteria of myths, in a literature sense. Personally, I think I should be able to say, "The Jesus myth" without anyone getting a bee up their butt about it, just as I have no problem with someone questioning, deconstructing, or interacting with the stories and facets and tales of my religion. To me, that is tolerance. Allowing everyone their own thoughts and accepting when they are vastly different from your own. Granted, there are times and places for various discussions, and tone and context also matter, but I suppose what it comes down to is the question I already asked:

 

What is considered rude? Can we all agree on that? Is it fair to apply the priorities of the Judeo-Christian majority to others, particularly those who want to be free of faith entirely?

 

I just like to explain what I believe, because what I believe is important to me.

 

Sure. Me too. I would caution you to understand that some times what may be perceived as "rude" to many Christians (not sure about you) are just Atheists and Agnostics explaining what they believe and why they don't and can't believe what you believe.

 

By the way, have you ever seen the movie Asoka? I think it's about a king that became Buddhist? I haven't seen it in a while, but anyways. He turns from being a warrior king to being peaceful when he became Buddhist.

 

I have not. I will look it up.

 

I find that it is religious people who are most intolerant--especially of those who value freedom FROM religion.

 

This is my experience IRL as well as on LS.

 

It disgusts me when people of faith clap when some pompous partisan preacher asserts that America was founded as a Christian nation when it was clearly and deliberately founded to be secular and welcoming of all.

 

Right. While the Puritans did come here for a religious experiment, most people came here for money, and the FFs were mostly deists. They basically wanted religion to be a moot point in governing more than anything else.

 

Newt Gingrich throws the word secular around like it's a disease or defect--that is intolerant and anti-American. And it bothers me that no one who is secular has a chance at winning the presidency because of the bitter intolerance of the religious towards intellectuals who openly admit they do not believe.

 

This bothers me as well. No one who is not Judeo-Christian has any hope. I, as a Buddhist, have not much more hope in being truly tolerated than you, as an Atheist, FWIW.

 

I am an atheist and know better than to go to places of worship and knock the religious ceremony and beliefs of others. Yet on atheists forums on the Internet there are malicious invaders who stick around to sow the seeds of animosity. Where does a non-believer go to get peace?On this forum and by this very OPer I was lambasted for simply saying what I believe--that god is a crock--which was not pointed at anyone in particular and was criticised for being one of "those people" who are intolerant.

 

This is where context matters. I will admit I can see where maybe someone might find it rude (I do not) that such a view was expressed in the "Spirituality forum" (but you are right in asserting that spirituality should be for people without faith to discuss faith as well) in such a strong way -- I think it is stretching it to say rude. I would say it was somewhat confrontational (which is not necessarily bad). I remember that post. And I understand the desire to be confrontational about it since the country is continually confrontational -- ALL THE TIME -- with atheists, agnostics, and even people of minority faiths.

 

So, this goes back to my main question of what is rude or intolerant? How do we define it?

 

If they clap because they believe that the USA was founded as a Christian nation, how does that hurt you?

 

Well, I'm not FF, but it's blatantly untrue, based on the writings of most of the FFs, and I think lies hurt us all. I also think it hurts all of us to link being "American" with being "Christian" because it encourages people to marginalize non-Christian America. I would say MOST religious intolerance in America comes from this idea -- that "America is a Christian nation" and flows outward, like poison into the water stream.

 

religious in tolerance can be very insidious, often without people who are intolerant eve really realizing it.

 

SO very true!

 

when our kids go to school, thee are christmas concerts, etc. They are free to participate should thy wish to do so, but usually they don't want to, so they go, but don't sing. This has gotten them some odd looks from the other kids ( which i can understand, as around here, most people are christian, so the kids aren't used to it), but it's the looks/comments from a few of their teachers over the years that i find more disturbing...after all, threy are adults and should know better.

 

We've even had people make rude comments about our darwin fish magnet ( similar to the Jesus's Fish" that you see on cars, except instead of Jesus" it says Darwin" and has legs), and some have tried to take it off our vehicle.

 

This does not surprise me. I was discriminated against, as a teacher, when people found out my minority religion despite being much less "in your face" about it than many Christian teachers were about theirs.

[BetheButterfly]

To be honest, I've not seen any rude atheists on LS. I'm not saying there aren't any. I've seen some rude atheists on other sites (Reddit comes most to mind, but all of Reddit is a bit rude).

 

Hello Zengirl,

 

I have seen rude Atheists on this site. Is it possible you have not because you have not experienced Atheists attack Buddhism?

 

 

Mostly, the worst they do is pick fun at inconsistencies and intolerance in religions (primarily Christianity, as the largest group of people intolerant of others religions or lack thereof are Christians)

I find that hard to believe, since most Christian-dominated nations for at least the last 50 years have religious freedom, whereas other nations, where there is a definite minority of Christians, do not have religious freedom. (Think Arabia, for example)

 

, though a few are completely intolerant. I know one girl IRL who is an "intolerant atheist" who won't let the subject drop if you believe in a Creator or Creation Myth of any kind and just calls everything stupid and is a jerk about it, but I've not met many people like that. I know they exist. Most Atheists are totally respectful of my beliefs -- mainly because they're not worried a Buddhist is going to try to infringe on their rights. A lot of my friends are atheists or agnostics. I've faced a lot of intolerance from Christians and very little from Atheists.

Most of the Atheists I know in real life are very kind, tolerant people who respect people's right to believe what they believe, and don't insult what people believe (at least, not to the faces of those who believe... what they say in private without any person of belief with them, I don't know, nor is it my business.

 

 

 

Well, what is rude? There are a lot of lines to this. I don't like incendiary discussion, personally, so I do temper my language to be palatable to the Judeo-Christian majority. To be honest, I wish I did not have to.

It is simple courtesy to "temper" one's language to one's audience. For example, I know men who curse like sailors, but around me, they don't. Why? Because they temper their language to fit their audience. By the way, I have never asked or told them to "temper" their language... I suppose they do it because their mothers taught them not to curse in front of ladies? I don't really know why they do it, but I appreciate it. As to what is rude, the meaning of words can have a rude connotation. People who write speeches learn about what words have a positive connotation, and what words have a rude connotation. For example, the following sentences have words with the same meaning. One, however, has a negative connotation, and one has a positive connotation.

 

The gnarled, decrepit tree blocked the path.

 

The rugged, ancient tree stood firmly in the path

 

Do you see how one has a negative connotation?

 

Well, words are like that. Saying "I believe God is a myth" does not have a rude or negative connotation to it. However, saying "God is a stupid lie." does have a rude, negative connotation to it.

 

 

 

When I was a little kid, I was once reprimanded in school for referring to "The Jesus Myth." To me (even when I was Catholic, I had trouble believing in Jesus/son of God stuff), the story of Jesus was a myth, no different than that of Zeus or Isis or Pan or whatnot. I've read all the Bible stories, and I've studied literature, and the Jesus stories (birth and resurrection) -- as a literature pieces -- follow the format and fit the criteria of myths, in a literature sense. Personally, I think I should be able to say, "The Jesus myth" without anyone getting a bee up their butt about it, just as I have no problem with someone questioning, deconstructing, or interacting with the stories and facets and tales of my religion. To me, that is tolerance. Allowing everyone their own thoughts and accepting when they are vastly different from your own. Granted, there are times and places for various discussions, and tone and context also matter, but I suppose what it comes down to is the question I already asked:

You consider Jesus to be a myth, and obviously you were never Catholic, which is fine. However, many people do believe Jesus existed (and so was not a myth) and that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, the Messiah. It just means you have different beliefs than they do. However, there is not a way you could personally prove that Jesus is a myth, but you can definitely believe Jesus is a myth. I don't believe it's an insult to say that. However, it is an insult to say "Jesus is a ...." Do you see what I mean?

 

What is considered rude? Can we all agree on that? Is it fair to apply the priorities of the Judeo-Christian majority to others, particularly those who want to be free of faith entirely?

Rude, according to dictionary.com is the following:

 

"

rude

 

   [rood] Show IPA

adjective, rud·er, rud·est. 1. discourteous or impolite, especially in a deliberate way: a rude reply.

 

2. without culture, learning, or refinement: rude, illiterate peasants.

 

3. rough in manners or behavior; unmannerly; uncouth.

 

4. rough, harsh, or ungentle: rude hands."

 

This is regardless of what belief. So, if I said that some belief is a crock (which has a negative and rude connotation) , that is rude, and I would not say that. Rude basically means discourteous or impolite. There are polite and impolite ways of expressing what one believes or thinks.

 

 

 

 

Sure. Me too. I would caution you to understand that some times what may be perceived as "rude" to many Christians (not sure about you) are just Atheists and Agnostics explaining what they believe and why they don't and can't believe what you believe.

When an Athiest tells me "I believe God does not exist" I know they are explaining what they believe politely, and i have no problem with that. When, however, any person of any belief uses words with a negative connotation to describe the religious beliefs or sacred beings of any religion, I know they are being rude. This is mere English linguistics.

 

 

 

I have not. I will look it up.

 

 

 

This is my experience IRL as well as on LS.

 

 

 

Right. While the Puritans did come here for a religious experiment, most people came here for money, and the FFs were mostly deists. They basically wanted religion to be a moot point in governing more than anything else.

 

 

 

This bothers me as well. No one who is not Judeo-Christian has any hope. I, as a Buddhist, have not much more hope in being truly tolerated than you, as an Atheist, FWIW.

 

I am curious. Why do you think there are people of other beliefs in Western nations. Do you believe that you are not "truly tolerated"?

 

This is where context matters. I will admit I can see where maybe someone might find it rude (I do not) that such a view was expressed in the "Spirituality forum" (but you are right in asserting that spirituality should be for people without faith to discuss faith as well) in such a strong way -- I think it is stretching it to say rude. I would say it was somewhat confrontational (which is not necessarily bad). I remember that post. And I understand the desire to be confrontational about it since the country is continually confrontational -- ALL THE TIME -- with atheists, agnostics, and even people of minority faiths.

People who debate understand that insults are not productive to a healthy debate.

 

So, this goes back to my main question of what is rude or intolerant? How do we define it?

The dictionary defines it quite nicely. Do you agree with the definition?

 

 

Well, I'm not FF, but it's blatantly untrue, based on the writings of most of the FFs, and I think lies hurt us all. I also think it hurts all of us to link being "American" with being "Christian" because it encourages people to marginalize non-Christian America. I would say MOST religious intolerance in America comes from this idea -- that "America is a Christian nation" and flows outward, like poison into the water stream.

Do you deny that many of the Founding Fathers and early European Americans were Christian? Do you think it does not matter? Just curious how you believe about the past.

 

 

SO very true!

 

 

 

This does not surprise me. I was discriminated against, as a teacher, when people found out my minority religion despite being much less "in your face" about it than many Christian teachers were about theirs.

Could you please share how you were discriminated against? Thanks.

 

By the way, Asoka is an interesting movie. I really liked it, and I respect Buddhists, one of the reasons being because of this movie. Another reason I respect Buddhists is because I believe that all people have the right to freedom of religion, and it is not my place to judge or criticize Buddha or any of his followers.

[zengirl]

I have seen rude Atheists on this site. Is it possible you have not because you have not experienced Atheists attack Buddhism?

 

When I say I've not seen "rude atheists" on this site, I mean I've not seen many posts that actually promote atheism at all. Most people in the spirituality section (FF stands out) are not atheists, and I've no idea what people are on the other sections -- whether they're rude or not and I've seen plenty of rudeness here. The only rudeness and intolerance I've seen in this section has been from 3 particular posters, all of whom happen to be Christian. I don't read every thread in this (or any other) section, however.

 

For me, rudeness does not only entail attacking my personal religion. I've seen Buddhism attacked on this site, but only in the Dating section, ironically, and it was more ignorance than attack. A poster once insisted up and down to me that Buddhism was not a religion. That was before I ever visited this section of the forum, which I still feel slightly uncomfortable in because I know there will be intolerance here.

 

I find that hard to believe, since most Christian-dominated nations for at least the last 50 years have religious freedom, whereas other nations, where there is a definite minority of Christians, do not have religious freedom. (Think Arabia, for example)

 

That's not necessarily true. There are many Asian countries where there are a minority of Christians and religious freedom. I feel like there's far more religious freedom in both Korea and Japan than here -- and Korea especially is an extremely agnostic country, though both Buddhism and Christianity have footholds. That is the ONLY country, of all the places I've taught, where I have felt it was okay to have an honest discussion of religion with children and the only place I've ever seen a child express an agnostic or atheist POV without being penalized or attacked, socially or (worse) by teachers. I've seen that many times here, as frozensprouts mentions.

 

Freedom of religion, via legislation, and tolerance are not precisely the same things. Yes, we are not living in the Middle East, but I do not believe it's their religion that makes them less tolerant or that Islam is technically any less tolerant than Christianity.

 

Generally speaking, the Western world has more Christianity. The Western world has had freedom longer. Since all of those countries have also had religious persecution, I don't imagine Christianity = freedom. More like they've already fought it out over religion (in this country, that was mostly Christians fighting each other at first) and worked out laws so they don't go to war or have civil unrest over it.

 

It is simple courtesy to "temper" one's language to one's audience. For example, I know men who curse like sailors, but around me, they don't. Why? Because they temper their language to fit their audience. By the way, I have never asked or told them to "temper" their language... I suppose they do it because their mothers taught them not to curse in front of ladies?

 

See, but pretty much everyone agrees that curse words are rude. That doesn't work with religion -- what's rude to you may not be rude to me. Hence why I said that takes a deeper discussion. A simple definition will not do, because if you apply your rules to my discourse, then you are not being tolerant of my beliefs either (general you).

 

For example, the following sentences have words with the same meaning. One, however, has a negative connotation, and one has a positive connotation.

 

The gnarled, decrepit tree blocked the path.

 

The rugged, ancient tree stood firmly in the path

 

Do you see how one has a negative connotation?

 

Of course. And they don't say the same thing to me. And I think saying neither of them should be rude. If someone feels the tree is gnarled and decrepit and that's their belief, why are they any less entitled to their belief than the other person?

 

Well, words are like that. Saying "I believe God is a myth" does not have a rude or negative connotation to it. However, saying "God is a stupid lie." does have a rude, negative connotation to it.

 

I don't know if I'd consider it rude, depending on the context. I agree that the first is much less confrontational. Is being confrontational always rude? Isn't it sometimes important? I can see many sides to many things -- to me, that IS the essence of tolerance.

 

You consider Jesus to be a myth, and obviously you were never Catholic, which is fine.

 

I was raised Catholic as a kid. I know many people who are "Christian" who either don't believe in Jesus or just try not to think about it, honestly. Passive Christianity is popular in some circles simply because it hurts too much to be different. That is what is problematic about intolerance, IMO. The quiet kind of intolerance is the worst kind.

 

However, many people do believe Jesus existed (and so was not a myth) and that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, the Messiah. It just means you have different beliefs than they do. However, there is not a way you could personally prove that Jesus is a myth, but you can definitely believe Jesus is a myth. I don't believe it's an insult to say that. However, it is an insult to say "Jesus is a ...." Do you see what I mean?

 

First of all: The burden of proof, in literature in general, is on nonfiction, not fiction. I don't have to PROVE there aren't really schools of wizards hidden somewhere in England to say Harry Potter is a work of fiction. And we certainly haven't proven any of the other myths (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc) untrue, yet it's perfectly acceptable to call them myths. I find it very odd when anyone of any religion tries to challenge someone to prove their religion is not true. But I wasn't really speaking to proof at all -- myth is a literary term and the Jesus myth is not all that different (in structure) from any of the Greco-Roman myths. From a literary perspective, we cannot call it nonfiction -- as it cannot definitively be proven to be so -- and it would fall most likely in the folktale or myth section. Yet even as a child, schooling was angry with me for noticing this.

 

At any rate, as to the "I believe" statements, I think you will be hard-pressed to find a Christian that lives up to your standards of saying, "It's just my personal belief" or "I believe" before every controversial (to a non-Christian) statement, including yourself in many of your posts. I also think we can assume when someone posts things -- unless they are referencing fact or data -- that they are posting their personal beliefs. Saying "I believe" constantly only waters it down. And atheists should not have to avoid offending Christians any more than Christians avoid offending them just because there is a Christian majority, IMO.

 

Rude, according to dictionary.com is the following:

 

"

rude

 

   [rood] Show IPA

adjective, rud·er, rud·est. 1. discourteous or impolite, especially in a deliberate way: a rude reply.

 

2. without culture, learning, or refinement: rude, illiterate peasants.

 

3. rough in manners or behavior; unmannerly; uncouth.

 

4. rough, harsh, or ungentle: rude hands."

 

Right. With 2 and 3, the socialization and beliefs of the person are going to matter a lot (you may think it bad manners to call God a lie; really, I don't think it is, even though I do believe in God because I understand there's no proof God exists and I understand many people need proof to consider something truth---I also understand that the manipulations of various religious groups throughout history can be documented and referenced). 4 is irrelevant, so I suppose we're speaking to 1, which is where we come down to intent. "Especially in a deliberate way." That is key, and intent is hard to know, really.

 

This is regardless of what belief. So, if I said that some belief is a crock (which has a negative and rude connotation) , that is rude, and I would not say that. Rude basically means discourteous or impolite. There are polite and impolite ways of expressing what one believes or thinks.

 

I would find that confrontational, but I'd only find it rude if it was done in an inappropriate setting.

 

When an Athiest tells me "I believe God does not exist" I know they are explaining what they believe politely, and i have no problem with that. When, however, any person of any belief uses words with a negative connotation to describe the religious beliefs or sacred beings of any religion, I know they are being rude. This is mere English linguistics.

 

You FEEL they are being rude, but that may or may not be their intent and the differences in socialization would

 

"Manners" are not absolutes. Our manners in one country cannot be applied to another or one time period to another, and we refuse, as a nation, to discuss religion in a tolerant, open way, so we have no manners for it, honestly. To me, that is because of the continued mild social oppression of minority religions and atheists/agnostics, but you may have another perspective on it.

 

I am curious. Why do you think there are people of other beliefs in Western nations. Do you believe that you are not "truly tolerated"?

 

I know I am not truly tolerated. I know it for a fact that where I live (in the Southeast USA) I have been discriminated against professionally for failing to be Judeo-Christian. I know people don't want to hear my beliefs or my agnostic husband's beliefs in many social circles. Honestly, I've been "not tolerated" by Christians on this board, who told me I had no right to an opinion or discussion on matters purely because of my differing belief system. I don't have to believe this; I know it.

 

People who debate understand that insults are not productive to a healthy debate.

 

True enough. I think many people realize that there can be no real debate though -- and that is where they sum up their views and move on. From what I saw, FF wasn't really trying to convince you in the post you site that God was a crock. It wasn't a convincing argument at all, I'll agree. But nothing would've so why is he not as free to express his opinion as you are to yours. Understand that your opinion might feel as rude and offensive to him, as an atheist, as his does to you. I think that is what many people cannot do.

 

Do you deny that many of the Founding Fathers and early European Americans were Christian? Do you think it does not matter? Just curious how you believe about the past.

 

It's hard to say. As I said, most were acknowledged deists. Many expressed more atheist or agnostic statements in private letters while speaking publicly about God. It's confusing. What we know for sure is that they did not intend for America to be a Christian nation.

 

Could you please share how you were discriminated against? Thanks.

 

Many ways, but here's one. In short: I had glowing performance reviews and had improved student achievement via measurable means (i.e. test scores) and had been invited back for another year. My contract invitation was revoked/threatened to be revoked when my (very fundamentalist Christian) principal found out I was Buddhist (long story, but it was not anything inside the classroom). She sent out emails to other teachers and some of the parents of my kids, which is how I knew, saying all kinds of awful things and when I finally confronted her compared my being an "open" Buddhist to several improper activities, including getting high or having sex in public. Lots more to that story, but I won't post it all. I could've probably kept my job, but many co-workers shunned me afterwards and my life was basically made miserable. I got a different job and realized I cannot be a teacher in this state -- I make more and probably work less, so it works out overall, but I really do love teaching. And I'm a good teacher. Ironically, the kids were far less likely to know about my Buddhism or be proselytized at by me than most of the Christian teachers in the school, many who openly wear religious paraphernalia, have Bibles in their classrooms, and discuss their religion to the point where I believe it is wrong to do so with children. (ETA: Taken out some personal details.)

 

There are many stories of teachers who were atheists who were "outed" and persecuted. This is not new. Many people don't like the idea of non-Christian teachers in their public schools. If that's not discrimination, I don't know what is. I certainly don't blame all Christians for this, but I think notions like calling America a "Christian nation" are where it starts.

[zengirl]

Be,

 

Regarding our FFs, these might be some good reads:

 

Five founders who were skeptical of organized Christianity and couldn't be elected today

 

History Is Elementary: A Christian Nation? Be Careful What You Preach

 

Both dig into the complex religious history of our FFs.

[zengirl]

More interesting facts (re: FFs and America's founding) on this pic:

 

http://api.ning.com/files/wVbFMOiqnzbzOxZuywttsXcqtt5DpFUd4bhLjfYBaq2xexRLZ8rTGLedv4cn*w8Ycq*rp1yQDVveEXGd5jHl4ezitS9qW00w/USAnonreligion.jpg

[NoIDidn't]

My cousin is agnostic. But he would never tell his mother that her religion is a lie or that she was an unthinking fool like many of the atheists and agnostics here on LS would do. That's what's rude.

 

What's often missed though is that many religious are rude to other religious people for not believing exactly as they do. I don't attend church anymore because I simply don't believe in giving money to a preacher that claims falsely that the Bible commands me to do so. I don't believe in accepting everything out of a pulpit just because a person with a religious title said so. And there is much intolerance for my position.

 

Here in the southeast of the US, there is no tolerance for difference of anything it seems. I have to agree with my atheist friend that most of the intolerance started from the religious first too. And it still goes on, I completely disagree with attempts at legislating Christianity. Jesus would be offended as they obviously have not read His words.

[NoIDidn't]

Be,

 

Regarding our FFs, these might be some good reads:

 

Five founders who were skeptical of organized Christianity and couldn't be elected today

 

History Is Elementary: A Christian Nation? Be Careful What You Preach

 

Both dig into the complex religious history of our FFs.

 

More interesting facts (re: FFs and America's founding) on this pic:

 

http://api.ning.com/files/wVbFMOiqnzbzOxZuywttsXcqtt5DpFUd4bhLjfYBaq2xexRLZ8rTGLedv4cn*w8Ycq*rp1yQDVveEXGd5jHl4ezitS9qW00w/USAnonreligion.jpg

 

I listen to The Thomas Jefferson Hour on NPR a few times a week. Today's show discussed a little celebrated Virginia statute prohibiting a religious establishment and test for public office in Virginia. Jefferson described it as depriving other Americans of their civic incapacitation. He might as well have used the term the Right throws around a lot as essentially he was saying a religious test is "Un-American".

 

Here is the link: The Thomas Jefferson Hour

[BetheButterfly]

 

When I say I've not seen "rude atheists" on this site, I mean I've not seen many posts that actually promote atheism at all

 

Hello Zengirl,

 

I think it's fine for Atheists to promote what they believe. For example, "I am an Atheist (or I don't believe in God) because of a, b, c, ... I think that's great for people to explain what they believe and why. To me, that is not rude. However, there are rude ways to explain what one believes, which includes mocking other beliefs.

 

Most people in the spirituality section (FF stands out) are not atheists, and I've no idea what people are on the other sections -- whether they're rude or not and I've seen plenty of rudeness here. The only rudeness and intolerance I've seen in this section has been from 3 particular posters, all of whom happen to be Christian. I don't read every thread in this (or any other) section, however.

I don't really know who the numbers as to who belongs to what group of belief. However, sad to say, there are people of any belief that can be rude to other people. No group has a monopoly on rudeness, nor on politeness.

 

For me, rudeness does not only entail attacking my personal religion. I've seen Buddhism attacked on this site, but only in the Dating section, ironically, and it was more ignorance than attack. A poster once insisted up and down to me that Buddhism was not a religion. That was before I ever visited this section of the forum, which I still feel slightly uncomfortable in because I know there will be intolerance here.

What do you see as rudeness?

 

 

 

That's not necessarily true. There are many Asian countries where there are a minority of Christians and religious freedom. I feel like there's far more religious freedom in both Korea and Japan than here -- and Korea especially is an extremely agnostic country, though both Buddhism and Christianity have footholds. That is the ONLY country, of all the places I've taught, where I have felt it was okay to have an honest discussion of religion with children and the only place I've ever seen a child express an agnostic or atheist POV without being penalized or attacked, socially or (worse) by teachers. I've seen that many times here, as frozensprouts mentions.

One of my good friends is from South Korea. She's very sweet, and is a Christian. One of her good friends is an Atheist, who is a Chinese lady who I don't know very well. Neither one attacks each others' belief, as far as I know. Have you ever seen a child attacked for their belief? Sad to say, this has happened as well. For example, in the USA, some Catholic children have been attacked for their beliefs in school long time ago, by Protestants. Sad to say, there are rude people of any belief who attack other peoples' beliefs. I am not a Catholic; I am a Protestant, and i have friends who are Catholic. Even though they know we have things in which we disagree, we would never ever dream of fighting about our differences. Rather, we respect each other and call each other "sister in Christ" even though there are differences in our specific beliefs.

 

Freedom of religion, via legislation, and tolerance are not precisely the same things. Yes, we are not living in the Middle East, but I do not believe it's their religion that makes them less tolerant or that Islam is technically any less tolerant than Christianity.

I am curious. Have you ever studied the Qur'an?

 

Generally speaking, the Western world has more Christianity. The Western world has had freedom longer. Since all of those countries have also had religious persecution, I don't imagine Christianity = freedom. More like they've already fought it out over religion (in this country, that was mostly Christians fighting each other at first) and worked out laws so they don't go to war or have civil unrest over it.

I think that Christians in the West, over the the last centuries, have realized some many important truths concerning why it's important not to kill those of other beliefs, force convert them to a specific belief, and/or treat people of other beliefs as 2nd class citizens, many of the reasons being the following:

1. It's not nice, to put it mildly.

2. It creates hypocrites who are fearful of being hurt in various ways, instead of people of faith, heart and soul.

3. It prohibits creativity and innovation (and it is amazing how once the focus was off of forcing people to be of a specific belief, technological advancements in the West sky-rocketed, because people felt free to investigate without the heavy hand of some religious authority squishing them.)

4. It does not encourage personal growth and passion.

5. Most importantly, it does not follow Jesus' teachings, because Jesus never ever taught his followers (Christians) to kill, force convert, treat badly, or even make a "Christian" nation! Rather, Jesus taught his followers to love, forgive, do good, and help those in need.

 

 

 

See, but pretty much everyone agrees that curse words are rude. That doesn't work with religion -- what's rude to you may not be rude to me. Hence why I said that takes a deeper discussion. A simple definition will not do, because if you apply your rules to my discourse, then you are not being tolerant of my beliefs either (general you).

Well, take for example our discussion (us in specific) You are not insulting what I believe... you are not being rude to me although we disagree on different points. Hopefully, I am not being rude to you, nor would I dream of saying rude words/expressions about what you believe. So, in that sense, we are both being tolerant and I think we are having a healthy, interesting discussion... I am learning about what you think, and it is helping me understand other sides.

 

 

Of course. And they don't say the same thing to me. And I think saying neither of them should be rude. If someone feels the tree is gnarled and decrepit and that's their belief, why are they any less entitled to their belief than the other person?

Neither one about the tree is rude... I was just showing how words can be used to give either a negative or positive connotation, depending on what words people choose.

 

 

I don't know if I'd consider it rude, depending on the context. I agree that the first is much less confrontational. Is being confrontational always rude? Isn't it sometimes important? I can see many sides to many things -- to me, that IS the essence of tolerance.

I don't think being confrontational is always rude... I confront bullies, for example. Now, if I confront bullies by calling bullies "stupid worthless...." then that would be rude, would it not? How would I be different than the bully in question, who is confrontational to people she/he considers weaker? However, there is a way to confront without using rude words.

 

 

I was raised Catholic as a kid.

I guess this is a difference between Catholic and Protestant beliefs. Many Protestants do not consider themselves "Christian" unless they have personally accepted the belief. For example, I was raised in a Protestant home. However, I don't consider myself to have become a Christian until I made the decision to do so.

 

I know many people who are "Christian" who either don't believe in Jesus or just try not to think about it, honestly.

So then, that is just in name... not a true decision of the heart.

Passive Christianity is popular in some circles simply because it hurts too much to be different. That is what is problematic about intolerance, IMO. The quiet kind of intolerance is the worst kind.

I know people who have been raised in Christian homes, yet they are bold in their not accepting Christian beliefs. They are not made fun of, as far as I know, and they are fine with not being Christian, yet having Christian family... It must depend on the individual's family circle. One fictional example is Sheldon on the show Big Bang Theory. I love that show! His Mom is a fervent, Texan Christian, which he seems to love to complain about, yet you can tell on the show that he loves his Mom, accepts that she doesn't understand him, and is quite used to her attempts to "save" him. Many people who understand yet disagree with Christian ideas don't tend to fear being different, especially when they realize that Christian ideals do not including hurting people who believe differently. If the people you know are afraid of not expressing their lack of faith in Jesus, then it shows there is an issue in the family/friend circle, that needs to be addressed. Hiding in the closet doesn't address that issue, nor change it.

 

 

 

First of all: The burden of proof, in literature in general, is on nonfiction, not fiction. I don't have to PROVE there aren't really schools of wizards hidden somewhere in England to say Harry Potter is a work of fiction. And we certainly haven't proven any of the other myths (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc) untrue, yet it's perfectly acceptable to call them myths. I find it very odd when anyone of any religion tries to challenge someone to prove their religion is not true. But I wasn't really speaking to proof at all -- myth is a literary term and the Jesus myth is not all that different (in structure) from any of the Greco-Roman myths. From a literary perspective, we cannot call it nonfiction -- as it cannot definitively be proven to be so -- and it would fall most likely in the folktale or myth section. Yet even as a child, schooling was angry with me for noticing this.

The beliefs concerning Jesus are not founded in myth, but rather in the Tanakh. The reasons many Jewish Orthodox people do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah are many, one of them being because they do not interpret the Tanakh like the Christians do. The earliest Christians were all Jewish (Jesus = Jewish, Mary = Jewish, Jesus' apostles = Jewish, the first "Christians" = Jewish) and they followed the Law God gave to the children of Israel through Moses. It wasn't until when Gentiles began to become Christians too, that things changed, which is another topic.

 

At any rate, as to the "I believe" statements, I think you will be hard-pressed to find a Christian that lives up to your standards of saying, "It's just my personal belief" or "I believe" before every controversial (to a non-Christian) statement, including yourself in many of your posts. I also think we can assume when someone posts things -- unless they are referencing fact or data -- that they are posting their personal beliefs. Saying "I believe" constantly only waters it down. And atheists should not have to avoid offending Christians any more than Christians avoid offending them just because there is a Christian majority, IMO.

"I believe" is an accurate way to explain what one believes.

 

 

 

 

Right. With 2 and 3, the socialization and beliefs of the person are going to matter a lot (you may think it bad manners to call God a lie; really, I don't think it is, even though I do believe in God because I understand there's no proof God exists and I understand many people need proof to consider something truth---I also understand that the manipulations of various religious groups throughout history can be documented and referenced). 4 is irrelevant, so I suppose we're speaking to 1, which is where we come down to intent. "Especially in a deliberate way." That is key, and intent is hard to know, really.

Do you believe it is possible to come to a conclusion about a person's intent by the words one chooses?

 

 

I would find that confrontational, but I'd only find it rude if it was done in an inappropriate setting.

 

 

 

You FEEL they are being rude, but that may or may not be their intent and the differences in socialization would

 

"Manners" are not absolutes. Our manners in one country cannot be applied to another or one time period to another, and we refuse, as a nation, to discuss religion in a tolerant, open way, so we have no manners for it, honestly. To me, that is because of the continued mild social oppression of minority religions and atheists/agnostics, but you may have another perspective on it.

Cultures and subcultures have different ideas of manners. One that I learned concerning Middle Eastern culture is not to use the left hand in many things I'm used to using my left hand for... I'm left-handed. However, when I am with a Middle Eastern person, I do try to eat with my left hand and also to not point my foot at them. When I am with my family and friends who have no Middle Eastern background, however, I have no problem using my left hand and where my foot points means nothing to them. So, if a person or her/her culture has specific customs, it is nice to take that into consideration.

 

Concerning names... I have an African American friend who calls people from her ethnicity a name that I cannot use. Why? Because it is ok for her to do so, but it is not ok for me to do so. That doesn't bother me, and I respect that. I don't want to use that name, and I am not her judge if she uses that name.

 

 

 

I know I am not truly tolerated. I know it for a fact that where I live (in the Southeast USA) I have been discriminated against professionally for failing to be Judeo-Christian. I know people don't want to hear my beliefs or my agnostic husband's beliefs in many social circles. Honestly, I've been "not tolerated" by Christians on this board, who told me I had no right to an opinion or discussion on matters purely because of my differing belief system. I don't have to believe this; I know it.

How can one have a discussion if they are of different beliefs? I am sorry to read that... hopefully more and more Christians will be able to discuss with people of other beliefs without being rude or not allowing you to express your beliefs.

 

 

True enough. I think many people realize that there can be no real debate though -- and that is where they sum up their views and move on. From what I saw, FF wasn't really trying to convince you in the post you site that God was a crock. It wasn't a convincing argument at all, I'll agree. But nothing would've so why is he not as free to express his opinion as you are to yours. Understand that your opinion might feel as rude and offensive to him, as an atheist, as his does to you. I think that is what many people cannot do.

If I have used a rude word against him, please feel free to let me know, and I will apologize.

 

 

 

It's hard to say. As I said, most were acknowledged deists. Many expressed more atheist or agnostic statements in private letters while speaking publicly about God. It's confusing. What we know for sure is that they did not intend for America to be a Christian nation.

 

 

What they did intend, however, is for the USA (not America... America includes the whole continents of North and South America) to have freedom of religion.

 

 

Many ways, but here's one. In short: I had glowing performance reviews and had improved student achievement via measurable means (i.e. test scores) and had been invited back for another year. My contract invitation was revoked/threatened to be revoked when my (very fundamentalist Christian) principal found out I was Buddhist (long story, but it was not anything inside the classroom). She sent out emails to other teachers and some of the parents of my kids, which is how I knew, saying all kinds of awful things and when I finally confronted her compared my being an "open" Buddhist to several improper activities, including getting high or having sex in public. Lots more to that story, but I won't post it all. I could've probably kept my job, but many co-workers shunned me afterwards and my life was basically made miserable. I got a different job and realized I cannot be a teacher in this state -- I make more and probably work less, so it works out overall, but I really do love teaching. And I'm a good teacher. Ironically, the kids were far less likely to know about my Buddhism or be proselytized at by me than most of the Christian teachers in the school, many who openly wear religious paraphernalia, have Bibles in their classrooms, and discuss their religion to the point where I believe it is wrong to do so with children. (ETA: Taken out some personal details.)

I am sure you are a good teacher. I am sorry you experienced Christian teachers who did not respect you or allow you religious freedom. That's a shame, and it's good of you to share your experience, because other Christians (like me) can use that to try to help people of our belief become more tolerant, not rude, and accepting of people of other beliefs.

 

There are many stories of teachers who were atheists who were "outed" and persecuted. This is not new. Many people don't like the idea of non-Christian teachers in their public schools. If that's not discrimination, I don't know what is. I certainly don't blame all Christians for this, but I think notions like calling America a "Christian nation" are where it starts.

It bothers me when I hear people say that the USA is a Christian nation. I personally don't believe it is. I do believe that the Founding Fathers strived to make the USA a nation where there is freedom of religion, and where whose who are Christian can peacefully practice what they believe, and where no religion forces itself down the throat of the people.

 

It does make me sad to hear that Atheists and people of other beliefs have been persecuted by Christians. That is one of the biggest shames of Christians... because it is not obeying Jesus. Jesus did not command his followers to persecute others, but rather to love, forgive, do good to, and pray for others. So, when Christians do not obey Jesus' teachings, that is a huge shame.

[zengirl]

Hi Be,

 

Did you get a chance to read over the links I provided, re: America. I'm just wondering, as you didn't really reference those.

 

I think it's fine for Atheists to promote what they believe. For example, "I am an Atheist (or I don't believe in God) because of a, b, c, ... I think that's great for people to explain what they believe and why. To me, that is not rude. However, there are rude ways to explain what one believes, which includes mocking other beliefs.

 

I am not an atheist, so it is hard for me to fully speak for them, but I will make a few points (and then I'll synthesize below):

 

1. Many atheists feel religion mocks science, reason, and logic purely by existing. I'm not sure they're entirely wrong on that, even as a person of faith, especially since many people of faith fail to admit the illogical nature of faith. I agree that several of my Buddhist beliefs are illogical (I can defend the practices of my faith -- i.e. what I actually do and how they help -- much better than all the tenets and beliefs; this is actually easy in Buddhism because beliefs/faith are not the most important part; practices are), as are several of my beliefs about the universe that are rooted in other traditions (Kabbalah, primarily). I can accept that they are illogical. When religious people try to subvert reason to justify their faith -- which is unnecessary, as faith does not require reason and we should just admit that -- it is an affront to atheists and the things they champion, generally science and reason. This is even further hindered by many organized religions (in the past and now) oppressing and suppressing scientific realities and logic in societies to further their own causes.

 

2. Atheists hate it when you use the word "belief" to describe them: I do not believe them because I rationally think them; I believe them because I feel them. This is NOT true of anything atheists believe, and they find it offensive when their nonbelief is equated to a belief. Which religious people often do, not understanding that the language of belief itself is offensive to atheism. In religious topics, the word believe doesn't mean simply "think" as it can elsewhere -- it means to have faith in -- so it is a very charged word. I have seen many arguments over the use of this word.

 

3. When atheists justify and explain their beliefs, many religious people (in this country, typically Christians) feel mocked. That is because they are, as I say in #1, using the language of reason. Reason itself mocks much of religion. I'm not 100% sure it mocks God (it's neutral on God, I suppose) because so much in religious texts is simply unreasonable. Now, some religions get around this by suggesting it's mostly non-literal (most sects of Judaism teach their stories this way) and purely metaphorical.

 

Basically, the simple fact that atheists are operating from the basis of "No faith, just reason," and religious people generally put a heavy emphasis on faith (most Protestant sects of Christianity do this very heavily especially), there are going to be a lot of misunderstandings. What typically happens is that the majority (Christians) controls the language and the tone, and that's why it may appear atheists are mocking you when really they're just using their language to describe the world around them.

 

I don't really know who the numbers as to who belongs to what group of belief. However, sad to say, there are people of any belief that can be rude to other people. No group has a monopoly on rudeness, nor on politeness.

 

This is true, certainly.

 

What do you see as rudeness?

 

I know that rude, to me, is when someone makes a personal attack at me. I also think it is when someone attempts to define what I think or believe and refuses to listen to what I'm actually saying on the matter. Name-calling is generally rude. Misrepresenting others is rude. Saying someone doesn't deserve a place in the discussion or a seat at the table is rude. Denying factual information someone brings or analysis a person gives, because they do not share that faith, (not disagreeing but denying it on those grounds) is rude. Anything that is intended to shut down discussion is rude. Probably more, and a lot of it is situational.

 

One of my good friends is from South Korea. She's very sweet, and is a Christian. One of her good friends is an Atheist, who is a Chinese lady who I don't know very well. Neither one attacks each others' belief, as far as I know.

 

There are virtually no religious tensions in Korea. There's a bit of "selling" of one's church perhaps, but no one really cares. Even though many people have faith, they consider it a much more private thing there.

 

Have you ever seen a child attacked for their belief?

 

Oh, yes. And if a child had said what my Korean student said (literally the child said, "There is no God,") in a public school in my current city, I guarantee there'd be a note home or a reprimand or their contribution to the conversation would be shut-down. I guarantee it in most classrooms here.

 

(If you're wondering the context, it was very cute. I was teaching a Kindergarten class what nature was for a story we were reading, and I said "Nature is everything people didn't make," and we started listing things that might be nature and I would write and draw them on the board and them on their poster-paper along with me. Finally, one student asked, "Who made nature then?" and another said, "God made nature!" and another said, "There is no God. Some people just made that up." It was a very jovial and not-at-all-heated discussion, and they talked for a few minutes and agreed peacefully to disagree. I wish life was like that here.)

 

I am curious. Have you ever studied the Qur'an?

 

I have read it and studied other Islamic literature and culture. I would never claim to be an expert on it. I find the text no more offensive than many of the most incendiary things in The Bible. Anything written that long ago is bound to be slightly offensive to modern audiences.

 

I think that Christians in the West, over the the last centuries, have realized some many important truths concerning why it's important not to kill those of other beliefs, force convert them to a specific belief, and/or treat people of other beliefs as 2nd class citizens, many of the reasons being the following:

1. It's not nice, to put it mildly.

2. It creates hypocrites who are fearful of being hurt in various ways, instead of people of faith, heart and soul.

3. It prohibits creativity and innovation (and it is amazing how once the focus was off of forcing people to be of a specific belief, technological advancements in the West sky-rocketed, because people felt free to investigate without the heavy hand of some religious authority squishing them.)

4. It does not encourage personal growth and passion.

5. Most importantly, it does not follow Jesus' teachings, because Jesus never ever taught his followers (Christians) to kill, force convert, treat badly, or even make a "Christian" nation! Rather, Jesus taught his followers to love, forgive, do good, and help those in need.

 

Those are some reasons in modern times, sure.

 

However, historically, I think mostly it's because the Christians in America and Europe spent a long time being prejudiced against, killing, and persecuting other Christians. Catholics and Protestants, Puritans and Quakers, etc. It also doesn't hurt that our Constitution was written during the Age of Reason and many other countries looked to that document when writing modern versions of their Constitutions.

 

Well, take for example our discussion (us in specific) You are not insulting what I believe... you are not being rude to me although we disagree on different points. Hopefully, I am not being rude to you, nor would I dream of saying rude words/expressions about what you believe. So, in that sense, we are both being tolerant and I think we are having a healthy, interesting discussion... I am learning about what you think, and it is helping me understand other sides.

 

Yes. I agree.

 

I don't think being confrontational is always rude... I confront bullies, for example. Now, if I confront bullies by calling bullies "stupid worthless...." then that would be rude, would it not? How would I be different than the bully in question, who is confrontational to people she/he considers weaker? However, there is a way to confront without using rude words.

 

True. My point was we don't always agree on what those rude words are.

 

I guess this is a difference between Catholic and Protestant beliefs. Many Protestants do not consider themselves "Christian" unless they have personally accepted the belief. For example, I was raised in a Protestant home. However, I don't consider myself to have become a Christian until I made the decision to do so.

 

Yes, this is somewhat different. While I realized I was not Catholic because I could not adhere to their beliefs or practices, faith is not as important (not weighted as heavily -- I mean it is THERE, just not viewed the same way) to Catholicism as it is to many other Christian sects. I was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic church and considered Catholic by myself and them until I choose to leave it. Catholics are baptized as babies unless they convert later in life; many other Christian faiths won't even baptize a child who hasn't internalized their faith. I'm not sure where yours falls, as I don't recall your specific denomination.

 

So then, that is just in name... not a true decision of the heart.

I know people who have been raised in Christian homes, yet they are bold in their not accepting Christian beliefs. They are not made fun of, as far as I know, and they are fine with not being Christian, yet having Christian family... It must depend on the individual's family circle.

 

Much of my family is Christian. They are not intolerant of me, but they are my family. A lot of my family is seriously Catholic; others are extremely lapsed.

 

At any rate, most people aren't "in the closet" to their friends and family about their religion these days, though they might be for professional reasons. I find that quite common.

 

The beliefs concerning Jesus are not founded in myth, but rather in the Tanakh.

 

I'm very aware of Tanakh. I converted to Judaism as a teen, since my HS sweetheart was an Orthodox Jew. I fully converted and was welcomed into the faith officially. So, I had to study and be tested on the writings. The Tanakh is a recording of an oral tradition, not a work of nonfiction. It is really no different than any other myth or folklore. Since the Tanakh was not written during the time of the events it depicts (i.e. the creation of the Earth and such), it is not considered a work of history. It is something else entirely, most closely related in genre to myth or folklore.

 

As to the historical figure of Jesus, it is a far cry from the Jesus of the Bible (even in the Jefferson Bible, with the miracles removed!). There is some historical basis for such a figure named Jesus perhaps, but it's bits and pieces held up by mostly theology, not historical sources. The same is true of many Greco-Roman myths which had some rough historical basis but are considered today to have taken great liberties (this was not the popular thought at the time, of course).

 

"I believe" is an accurate way to explain what one believes.

 

There are 2 problems with this: (1) Atheists do not "believe" there is no God; they have studied evidence that leads them to conclude it is empirically true there is either no God or, at the very least, that the world's religion defy reason and there is no proof of God, and (2) I'm quite sure no Christian in the world always uses "I believe" before asserting any Christian belief, including you. You've said many things in this conversation even without asserting, "I believe" anytime you want to express a religious belief.

 

Do you believe it is possible to come to a conclusion about a person's intent by the words one chooses?

 

Yes, but I think it's very difficult to do when you cannot understand their perspective effectively, and I'd honestly question whether you can truly and effectively understand the perspective of an atheist.

 

If I have used a rude word against him, please feel free to let me know, and I will apologize.

 

That's probably for FF to say.

 

What they did intend, however, is for the USA (not America... America includes the whole continents of North and South America) to have freedom of religion.

 

Freedom of or freedom from? That's an interesting debate, really. The only reference to religion in the Constitution was that no religious test would ever be allowed or required for public office (though of course with modern media that's a moot point today). And then there is the first amendment:

 

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

 

Again, this implies they wanted a secular nation -- which is not to say they wanted their inhabitants to be without religion, but that they did not want religion anywhere NEAR government or official workings of the nation.

[BetheButterfly]

Hi Be,

 

Did you get a chance to read over the links I provided, re: America. I'm just wondering, as you didn't really reference those.

 

 

 

I am not an atheist, so it is hard for me to fully speak for them, but I will make a few points (and then I'll synthesize below):

 

1. Many atheists feel religion mocks science, reason, and logic purely by existing. I'm not sure they're entirely wrong on that, even as a person of faith, especially since many people of faith fail to admit the illogical nature of faith. I agree that several of my Buddhist beliefs are illogical (I can defend the practices of my faith -- i.e. what I actually do and how they help -- much better than all the tenets and beliefs; this is actually easy in Buddhism because beliefs/faith are not the most important part; practices are), as are several of my beliefs about the universe that are rooted in other traditions (Kabbalah, primarily). I can accept that they are illogical. When religious people try to subvert reason to justify their faith -- which is unnecessary, as faith does not require reason and we should just admit that -- it is an affront to atheists and the things they champion, generally science and reason. This is even further hindered by many organized religions (in the past and now) oppressing and suppressing scientific realities and logic in societies to further their own causes.

 

Hello Zengirl,

 

The above point is not one I understand very well, because beliefs in God (One Supreme Being and many Supreme Beings) have been a part of human cultures for a long time, way before scientific thought. So, since beliefs in a Supreme Being precedes scientific thought, I don't understand why they would consider it an insult against them. I do think it is wrong to suppress scientific realities. However, there is the issue with the definition of scientific realities lol.

 

My definition for a scientific reality is whatever can be observed and manipulated through scientific experiments.. basically whatever can be learned through the scientific method.

 

2. Atheists hate it when you use the word "belief" to describe them: I do not believe them because I rationally think them; I believe them because I feel them. This is NOT true of anything atheists believe, and they find it offensive when their nonbelief is equated to a belief. Which religious people often do, not understanding that the language of belief itself is offensive to atheism. In religious topics, the word believe doesn't mean simply "think" as it can elsewhere -- it means to have faith in -- so it is a very charged word. I have seen many arguments over the use of this word.

 

 

Belief, however, is the correct word. It is impossible to prove either the existence or nonexistence in a Spiritual Being who by definition, is spiritual, not physical, is invisible to the human eye... the scientific method of observation is based on what is physical, not on what is spiritual. Now, I can say "I know without a doubt that God exists." However, there is no way I could prove that scientifically, any more than there is any way to prove scientifically (based on physical observation) that God does exist.

 

One could equate it to using the microscope or telescope... for example, if a person who has never before used a microscope says that they don't believe organism that can only be seen through a microscope exist, they obviously have not had the experience of seeing for themselves.

 

Atheists have obviously never seen through a "spiritcope" in the sense that due to their personal observations, they have not experienced that God exists.

 

 

3. When atheists justify and explain their beliefs, many religious people (in this country, typically Christians) feel mocked. That is because they are, as I say in #1, using the language of reason. Reason itself mocks much of religion. I'm not 100% sure it mocks God (it's neutral on God, I suppose) because so much in religious texts is simply unreasonable. Now, some religions get around this by suggesting it's mostly non-literal (most sects of Judaism teach their stories this way) and purely metaphorical.

 

I don't agree with you above. First of all, Christians feel mocked when people use negative words/expressions about their beliefs. For example, one poster on here calls Jesus "a dead guy on a stick" That, in my opinion, is a negative expression that is rude. Yes most people who call themselves Christians believe that Jesus did die on the cross, but that God rose him from the dead. How one says something shows whether it is meant as an insult, or not.

 

Secondly, I do not believe that reason mocks God at all. The scientific method basically does not touch many areas of life, many dimensions, including the spiritual. Reason in science has to do with the physical, not the spiritual. Spiritual has reason as well, but it is based more on attributes. For example, the fruit of the Spirit, according to Galatians 5:22-23 is the following: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." These are not physical traits like hair color which can be observed by the scientific method. However, they are traits that are shown through actions and words, and are a matter of the heart(not physical heart, but spiritual heart= spirit/soul)

 

 

 

Basically, the simple fact that atheists are operating from the basis of "No faith, just reason," and religious people generally put a heavy emphasis on faith (most Protestant sects of Christianity do this very heavily especially), there are going to be a lot of misunderstandings. What typically happens is that the majority (Christians) controls the language and the tone, and that's why it may appear atheists are mocking you when really they're just using their language to describe the world around them.

 

Politeness should control language... it is possible for Atheists to be polite, same as it is possible for Christians to be polite. I personally have experienced both groups being polite, and I do think it is wrong for ether group to be rude to each other.

 

 

 

This is true, certainly.

 

 

 

I know that rude, to me, is when someone makes a personal attack at me. I also think it is when someone attempts to define what I think or believe and refuses to listen to what I'm actually saying on the matter. Name-calling is generally rude. Misrepresenting others is rude. Saying someone doesn't deserve a place in the discussion or a seat at the table is rude. Denying factual information someone brings or analysis a person gives, because they do not share that faith, (not disagreeing but denying it on those grounds) is rude. Anything that is intended to shut down discussion is rude. Probably more, and a lot of it is situational.

 

I agree that anything that is intended to shut down discussion and personal attacks are rude. What I think is polite is, if for example, an Atheist wishes to interact with Christians, for the Atheist to explain what he or she believes (or knows, if they want to use know) and provide proof for their claims, instead of just merely insulting what other people believe. Christians as well should not personally attack or do the above that you mentioned. I would be equally confrontational if a person said the following "Buddha is a crock...Psst. Pass it down." Why? Because this is no way is polite. By the way, I don't believe Buddha is a lie... I don't know very much about him, but I do know I'm not his judge, nor am I the judge of anybody who follows him.

 

 

There are virtually no religious tensions in Korea. There's a bit of "selling" of one's church perhaps, but no one really cares. Even though many people have faith, they consider it a much more private thing there.

 

Cool

 

 

Oh, yes. And if a child had said what my Korean student said (literally the child said, "There is no God,") in a public school in my current city, I guarantee there'd be a note home or a reprimand or their contribution to the conversation would be shut-down. I guarantee it in most classrooms here.

 

(If you're wondering the context, it was very cute. I was teaching a Kindergarten class what nature was for a story we were reading, and I said "Nature is everything people didn't make," and we started listing things that might be nature and I would write and draw them on the board and them on their poster-paper along with me. Finally, one student asked, "Who made nature then?" and another said, "God made nature!" and another said, "There is no God. Some people just made that up." It was a very jovial and not-at-all-heated discussion, and they talked for a few minutes and agreed peacefully to disagree. I wish life was like that here.)

 

Lol me too

 

 

I have read it and studied other Islamic literature and culture. I would never claim to be an expert on it. I find the text no more offensive than many of the most incendiary things in The Bible. Anything written that long ago is bound to be slightly offensive to modern audiences.

 

Good point.

 

 

Those are some reasons in modern times, sure.

 

However, historically, I think mostly it's because the Christians in America and Europe spent a long time being prejudiced against, killing, and persecuting other Christians. Catholics and Protestants, Puritans and Quakers, etc. It also doesn't hurt that our Constitution was written during the Age of Reason and many other countries looked to that document when writing modern versions of their Constitutions.

 

The killing and persecuting of "Christians" against other Christians, Jewish people, Muslim people, and people of other beliefs, is one of the greatest shames of Christian history. It shouldn't have happened. Jesus doesn't teach killing or persecuting anyone.

 

 

 

Yes. I agree.

 

 

 

True. My point was we don't always agree on what those rude words are.

 

 

 

Yes, this is somewhat different. While I realized I was not Catholic because I could not adhere to their beliefs or practices, faith is not as important (not weighted as heavily -- I mean it is THERE, just not viewed the same way) to Catholicism as it is to many other Christian sects. I was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic church and considered Catholic by myself and them until I choose to leave it. Catholics are baptized as babies unless they convert later in life; many other Christian faiths won't even baptize a child who hasn't internalized their faith. I'm not sure where yours falls, as I don't recall your specific denomination.

 

Ahh ok. I'm an interdenominational Protestant. I believe that Christians, both Catholics and Protestants who strive to follow Jesus' teachings, are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

 

Much of my family is Christian. They are not intolerant of me, but they are my family. A lot of my family is seriously Catholic; others are extremely lapsed.

 

I am glad your family is not intolerant of you!!! That's great!

 

At any rate, most people aren't "in the closet" to their friends and family about their religion these days, though they might be for professional reasons. I find that quite common.

 

 

 

I'm very aware of Tanakh. I converted to Judaism as a teen, since my HS sweetheart was an Orthodox Jew. I fully converted and was welcomed into the faith officially. So, I had to study and be tested on the writings. The Tanakh is a recording of an oral tradition, not a work of nonfiction. It is really no different than any other myth or folklore. Since the Tanakh was not written during the time of the events it depicts (i.e. the creation of the Earth and such), it is not considered a work of history. It is something else entirely, most closely related in genre to myth or folklore.

 

I am curious... Why did you decide to leave Judaism? As for the Tanakh, I love studying the Tanakh and hope to learn Hebrew one day, because I believe Jesus fulfills and will fulfill the Tanakh. I do not believe that the Tanakh is myth or folklore. I believe God gave the Jewish people the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh and that it is true, not myth.

 

As to the historical figure of Jesus, it is a far cry from the Jesus of the Bible (even in the Jefferson Bible, with the miracles removed!). There is some historical basis for such a figure named Jesus perhaps, but it's bits and pieces held up by mostly theology, not historical sources. The same is true of many Greco-Roman myths which had some rough historical basis but are considered today to have taken great liberties (this was not the popular thought at the time, of course).

 

How so please? (concerning Jesus being different than Jesus of the Bible?)

 

 

There are 2 problems with this: (1) Atheists do not "believe" there is no God; they have studied evidence that leads them to conclude it is empirically true there is either no God or, at the very least, that the world's religion defy reason and there is no proof of God, and (2) I'm quite sure no Christian in the world always uses "I believe" before asserting any Christian belief, including you. You've said many things in this conversation even without asserting, "I believe" anytime you want to express a religious belief.

 

It is a given that what a person believes, that is what they "know" to be true, with or without proof.

 

 

Yes, but I think it's very difficult to do when you cannot understand their perspective effectively, and I'd honestly question whether you can truly and effectively understand the perspective of an atheist.

 

I admit as a Christian heart and soul, that I do understand some aspects of Atheist belief. For example, as one Atheist friend asks "How can you believe God is good when there is so much evil in the world?" I do understand how Atheists come to the conclusion that even if God existed, how could He be good. So, I do not of course, understand everything an Atheist thinks, but i can understand reasons for their perspective.

 

 

That's probably for FF to say.

 

 

 

Freedom of or freedom from? That's an interesting debate, really. The only reference to religion in the Constitution was that no religious test would ever be allowed or required for public office (though of course with modern media that's a moot point today). And then there is the first amendment:

 

 

If it were freedom from, then I would think there would be laws against religion, right? However, it goes without saying that most of the European immigrants to the USA believed in God in some way, whether agnostic or of different groups.

Again, this implies they wanted a secular nation -- which is not to say they wanted their inhabitants to be without religion, but that they did not want religion anywhere NEAR government or official workings of the nation.

 

This does imply that they did not want a religion to monopolize and control government, like the governments in Europe had for so long, fighting over Catholic verses Protestant.

[Feelin Frisky]

Hello Feelin Frisky,

 

I am curious. Have you ever had a religious person make fun of you or make fun of what you believe, that there is no God? Hopefully not. If so, then shame on that religious person who insulted you and what you believe.

 

Not personally but jokes are made all the time denigrating atheists in America and there's no backlash because the majority of people claim belief and it's therefore deemed that belief is the norm and non-belief the flaky exception. I personally feel it is the opposite but I don't take it on as a personal crusade that will just alienate me from people and make me look like a fool.

 

 

If they (audiences in varying religious and/or political venues) clap because they believe that the USA was founded as a Christian nation, how does that hurt you?

 

It does not "hurt me". It disturbs me because it is fundamentally false. The founders of the US Constitution were not united in faith and created language and law to found a nation in which no religion would be favored above another, all persons of faith and lack of faith could live un-oppressed by theocracy in which the laws of man and the supposed laws of "god" were deemed on in the same. That is a most admirable maturity shown by these men who shaped the country as having a secular government entirely separate from the intrusion of faith-lore reasoning on the frameworks of democracy and justice. Anywhere else in the world where religion IS the law is a troubled and backward place where freedom is at best an illusion.

 

 

 

 

There is concrete evidence that some people immigrated to the "New Land" for religious freedom. That evidence includes the Pilgrims and the Puritans. Separation of church and state does not mean that the nation was deliberately founded to be secular. However, it does mean that all (who at that time were mainly immigrants from Europe) were welcome, and that no belief was to be in control of the nation. Rather, all beliefs (which at that time included for the most part different Protestant denominations and Agnosticism) Sad to say, Native Americans beliefs were ignored during the Founding Father's time.

 

 

Europeans including the so-called "pilgrims" often fled Europe to avoid religious persecution. Some were also however "cults" of their own who sought a place in which they could establish their own religious hegemony. That gives them no special right in influencing what was written into the US Constitution. There are semantic battles over what does separation of church and state mean since it was not expressly said but was implied by use of the phrase "congress shall pass now law "respecting the establishment of religion". One can simply look at the original unamended Constitution and see that clearly if the founding fathers were even half zealots, the flavor of the language would have involved the word "god" and probably all manner of biblical allusions. But it didn't. And they went a step further in the first amendment to make sure no one is unclear about this being a non-theocratic nation whose laws would eventually begin to reflect language from other ancient religious traditions. People today who try to imply intent and appearances of Christian beliefs are nothing short of a mob twisting the truth to unite the unsophisticated in yielding their votes to political exploiters who will say and do most anything to take power, favor their private interests and disenfranchise anyone who does not agree with them. That to me is the antithesis of what the message of Jesus Christ is--yet simple folk who spend so much time on their knees praying for deliverance are the easiest push-overs to vote in the very worst liars who will keep them in poverty while medicated heavily with the symbols of the faith they don't even really understand. Christianity is about braving a crucifixion for redemption--something we must all face if we are to realize a world finally united in fellowship rather than hate and possession.

 

 

Do you believe that religious views are intolerant and anti-American?

 

 

Often they are but I would not go so far as to damn everyone. I find the popular American evangelical brand of Christianity to be un-Christian and anti-American in that the message is often one of condition, exclusion, vilification as opposed to unconditional acceptance, inclusion and the extension of the positive benefit of the doubt to strangers whom have not yet demonstrated their substance.

 

 

Do you understand that the reason a person who is Atheist (and people can be secular and religious at the same time, interestingly enough, because secular = pertaining to worldly things as opposed to spiritual things) does not have a chance because the majority of Americans are religious to some extent, though secular in other areas? If the majority of Americans were Atheist, that would be different. However, there is a reason that the majority of Americans are religious, or spiritual in some sense, and that is due to freedom of religion. If you compare the USA with China, you would see a marked difference in the number of people who claim to be of a religion.

 

So, you wouldn't go to a church or mosque or synagogue and yell the insult to God that you wrote on this forum? Why would you not do that in real life, yet do that on a forum?

 

I don't understand some of your intentions in the first paragraph about secular and religious and percentages. Just let me assure you that spirituality is a debatable thing. And I see it very differently than what is popularly asserted by "religious" people. I am the most spiritual person I know. But you have to understand my logic. Briefly it is this: human beings--often because of religion--see themselves as "created" and somehow above or outside of nature but you hold that their is a supreme being who probably looks something like you and has a gender. That is not spiritual in any particular way--it is merely a projection of animal hierarchy typical of what is found inside nature in which there is some super-alpha pack leader who runs the show. I have completely disindoctrinated myself of that notion. Human beings are the product of nature and are entirely inside of it. There is no intrusion by any super-nature in our day to day lives or there would be chaos and no one would plan any kind of progress. They would all believe it's senseless to plan progress if there is a super-natural being who will show up and rewrite everything according to his dominion. So, without saying so, humanity's progress owes it's entire essence to lack of hard belief. My spirituality is in connection with truth and nature and the understanding that no one stands in my way nor do i need any special permissions to create or think on the highest orders I'm capable of. I believe in facilitating the goodness obscurred in each other. That is my spirituatlity--not praying for some sky daddy to customize my reality for me. Religion hangs on in families out of fear of consequence for not believing because no one want tos really risk hell by braving expression of dissent with religious tradtions. But we bank on natural systems we can see working and account for and thus we design and engineer progress freely without sacrificing goats periodically for god to keep the rain from messing up our concrete pours.

 

As for my post on a forum, that is in no way analogous to running in in person into a church, synagogue or mosque and yelling god is a crock. You just took it that way as is typical of many believers who are just intolerant of dissent. Mine was a very quiet type-written few words that did not take over the forum and force everyone to cease their other business and pay attention only to me. You seem to continue to act as if I DID assert such power. Not so. It was what it was--a simple personal assertion of my view that "god" is not real. And worse, I think belief is very deleterious to the progress and good will of human life everywhere--thus I said "god is a crock". That's something you should learn to expect in a new medium in which people get recreation out of asserting their intellects. It's still just words in a little box on something now one has to read and is not a broadcast that has affected the world just because i typed it on Love Shack.

 

 

 

Yet on atheists forums on the Internet there are malicious invaders who stick around to sow the seeds of animosity.

 

Is it not possible for Atheists forums to block all malicious invaders?

 

Are you not able to go to a private establishment and insult what other people believe there, without other people hearing you and taking offense?

 

The bolded quote above was from my response to you. It asserted that if you go to "free thinkers" or "atheist" forums, that there are persons who come there who are believers who hate that there is even any kind of venue for non-believers or agnostics to be honest and share the kind of fellowship that other groups do either IRL in churches or on the net. I think that is very sick and sad--they have no presence to add to their own community and just spend immense amounts of time trying to undermine others who do not agree with them. Sometimes they are banned and blocked and sometimes these people are resourceful and keep at it and find different IP addresses to continue their harangues.

 

I don't find your last question making any sense. I don't have an agenda of mocking people for fun or sport. Some folks do that a lot. I have better things to do.

 

 

Do you understand that how you did it was an insult, or do you not understand how people think? Here you are, in a section of religious discussion, where there are people who believe in God who write, and yet you insult. What was the purpose? Now, if you wanted to engage in discussion with people who believe in God and express/explain what you believe, why not write "I don't believe God exists because ..." which is expressing your beliefs, without attacking other people's beliefs, and without insulting what other people believe. Even though you do not believe God exists, there are many people in the world who do believe God exists, and who love Him and who are emotionally hurt when a person insults who they love, regardless if you believe that Being exists or not. Do you understand how your deliberate insult was not a mere expression/explanation about what you believe, but rather a deliberate insult against what other people believe? Do you understand how what you wrote is rude and intolerant? Now, if you had merely said that you didn't believe in God and explained why, that is fine. However, you do not need to insult what other people believe while expressing what you believe. Do you understand this concept? By the way, in this post, you did great. You explained yourself without insulting what other people believe. So, you know how to do it. You just did. Why did you not do this before, instead of merely making an insulting comment?

 

 

Cry me a river with all of the anguish you suffered by seeing my brief retort. I don't evene remember the thread but you sinply don't understand how this medium works and have blown all of these things into issues of global proportions that involve "one to many" types of communications in which one asserts an authority to monopolize the time of others and dictate a single message to which they must submit. This medium is fundamentally the opposite. It's as if I wrote myself a note and put it in a bug filing cabinet and you came along and saw it and took it as a mortal sin against you and all like you. That is why i criticized you the way I did and pointed out to you how contentious and hostility-provoking religion is. You couldn't withstand a single negative statement even though it was not addressed to you personally and have internalized it. You have a lot to learn about history, about the meanings implied in the story of Jesus, in interpretations of spirituality, what freedom means in a free society, how communications differ than they once did and what other people are entitled to do with their little piece of free speech on a form like this. There is nothing vicious in what I just said--it's just plain expedient truth and I bear you no ill-will.

 

 

 

Thank you for expressing and explaining yourself in a professional and courteous way. That's all I ask.

 

Peace (and God bless, even though I understand you don't believe God exists, but I do believe He does, so that is why I write this wish - may God bless you)

 

God does not exist in any way that matters to mankind. You are welcome to believe what you will but maybe some questioning might do you some good. I have no fear of god but know if I face him some day and he tells me "hey I'm real, but sorry, there's no after-life and in 10 seconds you'll just dissolve forever", I know I can be grateful for the life he did give me rather than angry, ungrateful and disappointed like the all the believers whom have thought all this was just a prelude to some happy eternity.

[KR10N]

Despite the fact that there are some believers and non-believers that can be hostile towards each other, I really appreciate the diversity. The world would be too boring if everyone shared the same beliefs.