What should the U.S. do to promote religious tolerance at home?
Posted at 6:00 AM on November 12, 2009
by Eric Ringham
(29 Comments)
Filed under: Religion/Ethics
The official policy of the United States is to promote religious tolerance around the world. What should the U.S. do to promote religious tolerance at home?
Comments (29)
The questions about what should they do is more overshadowed as to what will they do. Already there is a depreciation of Christian views, and an oppression demaning Christians change and tolerate other religious factions, while their own beliefs are being savagely torn away in the face of religious tolerance. I would have to say there is no real religious tolerance. There is oppostion of prejudice and contempt, in the face of the terroristic demands of others demanding their condoning of behavior. This is on religious tolerance, nor it is mere conjecture. As the way of other cultures, Christianity will be the final terrorism, and later will be against the law, and later, can and will cost them their lives, as it is already happening in other countries around the world. However, I quess this is a subject for another discussion.
The fifth largest practiced religion in the U.S. has members who dare not even claim their religion publically due to the lurid connotation still attached to. Still tormented and persecuted today moreso than any other religion are the nature spiritualists called Wiccans. G.W. Bush claimed "Witchcraft is not a religion", however not all Wiccans practice magick, which is essentially witchcraft. Where is the true tolerance of the Religious practices of these people and their rights?
Our founding fathers were aware of how destructive religious conquest were to the well being of the people. Thomas Paine realized that the role of religion was important for the people if it was not in control of the government. Henceforth he urged the separation of church and state to be included in our Bill of Rights.
There is much wisdom contained in a bumper stick stating "When Religion Ruled the world they called it The Dark Ages."
Elizabeth T. you made some good points and I can add to your examples, the Mormon massacre and the Salem witch trials. I guess I view tolerance as a Nation and more so as you indicated in recent times. I was comparing our tolerance to that of the rest of the world. Specifically wars, Ireland, Middle East, WWII killing of Jews, Tibet, the Crusades, etc. American anti-semitism has never fully become genocide. Tolerance from the beginning has grown and improved pretty much on its own socially. I still feel government can not cure social ills, I believe that they must evolve on their own and I have seen evidence of that. I can see with your arguements why you feel something can be done.
@Khatti: what is an Nper?
"Those Douches!" can belief anything they want. Tolerance is when I refuse to seek social/financial retribution on them for their beliefs.
"Those Douches!" can do anything they want, as long as it is within the bounds of the law. Tolerance is refusing to bend the law to make myself comfortable at the expense of someone else's beliefs.
Umm...I'm not quite the Nper that you nice folks are, so I'm sort of looking at this from the outside. What I'm impressed by is that you've given very few ideas on how to promote religious tolarance, but you have given voice to a great sense of agrievement with people you don't agree with (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "those Douches!").
What few ideas you did seem to come up with revolved around making those Douches! behave in a manner you find congenial. Why this wouldn't be a violation of their civil rights of those Douches! I have no idea -- but you apparently do!
It is occuring to me, after reading many of your posts, that you don't need to be religious to be parochial.
I remember being at a lecture of the Dalai Lama's where he said that "there are as many religions on the planet as there are people". I think that says a lot.
"Religious tolerance" is an oxymoron.
Religion enjoys an abundance of tolerance in the United States of America, to the point where it has become exempt from critical discussion and responsibility.
Tolerance between religions is fundamentally impossible as long as each declares itself to be the one true faith.
If religious individuals want to make arguments based on faith, those arguments need to be subject to the same critical thinking and scrutiny as all arguments.
Let us start here:
According to Websters online, tolerance is defined: 2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.
Revoke the tax exemption for all religious organizations.
What should the U.S. do to promote religious tolerance at home?
In my opinion, religious tolerance might better reflect the tolerance practiced in the scientific community. For one thing, scientists seem to know how to say, “I don’t know.” They may have opinions (sometimes strong opinions), but in general, scientists will distinguish between hypothesis and experimental results.
Secondly, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (1927) has been challenged and tested every which way, and it still remains one centerpiece of the 20th century quantum revolution. By its account, it’s OK to say, “I don’t know,” provided one is near the limit where an object and the subject interrogating the object become blurred. And if I don’t know the answer, the next guy in another lab will not have an answer either. There are good things to be said for declaring clearly what one doesn’t know.
The late Jacob Bronowski (d.1974) developed this theme of “universal tolerance” with personal examples taken from life during WW II. He thinks the sphere of science and arts are one, stimulated by the same human imagination. Bronowski takes the “habit of truth” seriously, admitting to limits of knowledge, not pretending to know when really you don’t know.
Blind authority and power are the enemies of love. The sciences and the arts do not necessarily teach love. They reflect it.
Religious tolerance?
In an age where the church is one of the most protected institutions in our country, and actively seeks to LEGISLATE their agendas, excluding anyone who disagrees... I just find the question hard to stomach.
I do tolerate religion - it's religion that doesn't tolerate anyone else.
Don't Ask Don't Tell is not tolerance.
The Defense of Marriage Act is not tolerance.
Proposition 8 is not tolerance.
Question 1 is not tolerance.
I think a better question would be "What should the U.S. do to promote Muslim tolerance at home?" The Christians seem to be getting along just fine.
Headlines today talk about the Lakeville Lutheran church that plans to leave the larger group because it 'loosened restrictions on gays n the clergy'. How very Christian of that church. Religion often needs to show some tolerance.
My one experience of overt religious intolerance was when it became clear to a very devout Christian (dare I say fundamentalist) I simply didn't see the proof for the existence of God, or gods for that matter. I think he could have tolerated a Jew or even a Muslim as being different but at least being theist, but this was too much for him. I think American society on the whole is fairly open to people proclaiming themselves Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc., but you still can't openly admit non-belief without being thrown together subliminally with communists, anarchists or fringe radicals. In this regard the US still reflects the strong religious foundations of the early colonists. When people ask me which church I attend ("which", not "if") I usually respond saying my mother went to such-and-such.
Get the government completely out of the religion business. Remove religious references from our money (added during the tumult of the Civil War) and the Pledge of Allegiance (added during the Eisenhower Admin in the middle of the "red" scare of the Cold War.) Stop performing prayers at public-sponsored events. Get religious symbols out of all public buildings. Live up to the word of the First Amendment.
In addition, religious people need to get over "being offended" any time someone criticizes their religious ideas. Religious ideas are open to criticism the same as any other public ideas.
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/can-we-talk-about-religion-please/?apage=10
Religious people should eschew proselytizing their neighbors.
As a whole i would believe most Americans are tolerant of others religions even if they have personal opinions about other said religions.
Only a small minority are so intolerant as to act out. Some of us worship a god. and some of us
don't but there are some traditions in America that should be left for prosperity.
A proclamation should be made acknowledging that all religions --including, and ESPECIALLY, the one that many think of as the so called national religion of the United States-- have MULTIPLE examples of the exact same atrocities they condemn in other religions.
For me, religious tolerance would mean I am accepted and comfortable as an atheist. Taking "In God we trust" off of our money and "under God" out of the pledge would be a very good start.
On a much lighter note:
1) abolish the sale of Christmas paraphanelia more than one week before Christmas. You don't see Hanukkah things on sale 2 months before hand, do you?
2) Require public schools, if they want to have public prayer, to recite other religion's prayers in a cycle, not only Christian ones. The Christians would just have to stand in line and take their turn.
3) Require our foreign policy to reflect our 1st Amendment as a whole-scale gov't policy, not just a domestic one.
4) Have media report religious stupidity as such. Don't report it as "another point of view". Call it like it is: religious intolerance. How much column space / air time was spent on the to-do about Keith Ellison wanting to use the Koran for his swearing in ceremony? Report it once, and then ignore the religious bigots. On this one, I'm dead serious.
Just face it, as long as we have the 1st Amendment interpreted as "religious freedom" meaning believe whatever you want (good) --- some percentage of the population will refuse to be tolerant. I guess the rest of us just need to be tolerant of them.
With sincere respect to Mr. Myking, I frankly cannot accept your statement about our wonderful country having always been tolerant:
A review of modern American history & the hysteria flamed during Pres. Kennedy's election about the Pope ruling America through him... will demonstrate that intolerance of Catholicism was alive and well in 1960. This can be found in the reporting of the campaign and speeches he offered to Southern Baptist Leaders (a decidedly large, mainstream group), which was reported in the New York Times, September 13, 1960 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10F14FF3D551A7A93C1A81782D85F448685F9. Several other places have this speech in whole.
Stop by some (and I do mean quite a few) of the rural evangelical churches, and you'll hear about the evils of the Catholic church (okay, so phamphlets about Death Cookies are the exception, not the norm) from the parishoners, if not the Pulpit. They will also discuss the Jewish Conspiracy to destroy the U.S. Government. The KKK certainly advocated this, and they were a pretty big group before the 60s. I have personally heard this in the 1970s and 80s.
I am willing to accept that the majority of Americans are reasonably tolerant these days. But the claim "always" is without merit. The Catholic church was prohibited in 12 of the 13 original colonies (MD being the exception). Having lived in the south, I can assure you that intolerance toward Jews was alive and well into the 1980s (when I left). Making a claim such as this is no different than saying the country has always been racially tolerant.
I intend this to be a respectful statement that I cannot accept Mr. Myking's position being historically accurate.
Stop referring to our nation as "Christian" and stop labeling people by religion, sex, race, etc.
I had hoped that Barack Obama's election would help us to see, really see, each other better.
Isn't happening. Sadly.
Promoting religious tolerance at home is easy.
1) Keep the government out of religion. The Founding Fathers did a great job of separating church and state. The government, and specifically the judiciary, needs to make sure that the “intent” of that separation is maintained.
2) Involve the government by ensuring our freedoms are maintained. In other words discriminating or denying anyone their freedom for any reason i.e. religion, race, color, physical appearance, is wrong. Why single out religion? Our right to practice our chosen religion, like any other freedom, should be guaranteed right up to the point it infringes on someone else’s freedom.
Realize the the truth in the statement from A Course in Miracles:
"A universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary."
See that all genuine practice of a religion or discipline is to bring about (or to realize) that universal experience.
As a Nation I do not think we have to do anything. With the exception of some isolated case's I am not aware of religeous intolerance. Looking at the extremes it was our Government that created the situation in Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge. Investigation by U.S. Congressmen sparked the Jones Town massacre. The general public has always been tolerate, there only seems to be a problem when some citizens call upon their government to do something about their concerns over the activities of some religious group. In 1970 on a lay over at SeaTac in Washington I spoke with two young men from a Christian cult called the Children of God. We talked a long time and they both impressed me as being knowledgeable and fine young men with moral character. They spoke of the locals who objected to their commune and tried to raise a fuss about it. The government never got involved to the best of my knowledge and I don't think there was any significant incident related to them. Reverend Moon was around then as well as the Hare Kirishna and other extreme religious sects. The majority of the population did not seem to concerned with any of them. I see a great deal of tolerance for the persistant Seventh Day Adventists and Latter Day Saints. Any religion I know of has some representation here. The Jews as far as I know are the only ones who have suffered and that was from small hate groups not the general public. The only thing the American public is guilty of may be ridicule or verbal critizism. It seems to me that Freedoom of Religion is the only freedom we have any more.
Way to much time is spent being politically / religiously correct in this country.
I don’t like the fact I have to hit 1 for English or have to make any special considerations to someone’s religion.
We are all Americans, our language is English, and our religion is an individual right.
Do not force your beliefs on me.
D.T.O.M.
How about not forcing sports teams to say the Lords' Prayer before events, as my PULBLIC HIGH SCHOOL does?
How about the press begin reporting the religion of all offenders of any kind? I do think your constant reporting of the fact someone is Muslim feeds the fire or intolerance and hate.
A fine way to start would be for religions in the US to respect the beliefs of people of other religions or no religion at all. Out of respect for people of various beliefs, rules of specific religions should not be codified into civil law.
| November 2009 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- How have your views on nuclear power changed over the years?
- Where do you stand on requiring Minnesotans to produce a photo ID to vote?
- Now that the caucuses are over, what are your three most important issues?
- What living writer might still be read 200 years from now?
- What do you think of Minnesota's system of party caucuses?
- How do you think the United States and other countries should respond to the situation in Syria?
- What do you think of constitutional amendments as a way to make policy?
- What changes would you like to see in campaign finance laws?
- What role should evaluations play in teacher job security?
- If you were energy czar, how would you change U.S. energy policy?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock
