• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

Meadmaker said:
I find it almost inconceivable that there are very many people who ignore the church's teaching on chastity, but adhere to it on condom use.

As for the Catholic Church not providing condom information, I think you are giving the church way too much credit. Where are these places where the Catholic missionaries constitute the only entity capable of providing education to massive numbers of Africans?
Click to expand...

The question is for how many are they the primary source for information? And if you add in that the US only supports abstenence only programs also for religious beleifs then it is much worse case for religion.

The problem is that they are not dessemintating all the information that they have. Their beliefs on chastity are irrelevent, because they are hiding information about what to do if the person doesn't meet that ideal. It is not holding the ideal that is the problem.
 
Dog Boots said:
Teaching good things don't justify teaching bad things. Besides, if people follow the complete advice as you state it, it's still irresponsible and stupid on a continent where the real problem is overpopulation.
Click to expand...

Only if the church could admit that over population can be a problem
 
Meadmaker said:
I'll grant that the teachings of the church could contribute to overpopulation, just not AIDS. And I'll bet the Africans ignore the teaching on birth control every bit as often as Americans or Europeans.
Click to expand...

Only if they can some how get any accuate information on contraception in the first place and get affordable contraceptives.
 
Cello Man said:
Hmm. That does somewhat change things. I don't remember reading anything to that effect, so I'll do a little more research. If I'm wrong about this topic, then I concede. Can you provide me with a source?
Click to expand...

Here's a few English-language sources that came up in a very brief Google search:

http://www.caa.org.na/
http://www.cmmb.org/What/choose_to_care.htm
http://www.cafod.org.uk/about_cafod/what_we_do/hiv_and_aids/aids_education_in_south_africa
http://www.crs.org/our_work/where_we_work/overseas/africa/democratic_republic_of_congo/staff.cfm
 
TragicMonkey said:
It depends on what information you are not sharing.

Suppose you live in a primitive community. I am a medical doctor from a more advanced society. I am your only source of medical information. I inform you that eating the seeds from the monkeyflower bush is bad for you. I also inform you that eating the flowers of the monkeyseed bush is bad for you.

I do not go into the details. The seeds are high in fat and will cause you to gain weight and risk high blood pressure and assorted ailments, if you eat too many of them. The flowers contain a powerful toxin that will cause you to die in horrible agony within eight hours of eating one.

But I decide you don't need to know that. You can trust in my knowledge, and in my warning that both seeds and flowers are bad for you and should be avoided.

Now, you see someone eat the seeds. There are no apparent ill effects.

Will you try the flower?

If you do, am I at all responsible for your death? Not only are you a free agent, to choose as you will, but I actually warned you not to do it.
Click to expand...

Is this absolutely hypothetical, or is it meant to be some kind of analogy to a real situation? For example, did the Catholic Church fail to share how HIV is transmitted or the fact that AIDS is a life-threatening disease?
 
Ideas should not be given special protection for being religiously modivated. Anyone who tells people not to use condoms is guilty of idiotic nonsense and causing harm to people, whether it is their imaginary freind who told them to say it, or not. Harmful religious stupidity should be given the same treatment as any other stupidity.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
Ideas should not be given special protection for being religiously modivated. Anyone who tells people not to use condoms is guilty of idiotic nonsense and causing harm to people, whether it is their imaginary freind who told them to say it, or not. Harmful religious stupidity should be given the same tratment as any other stupidity.
Click to expand...
[derail]
Hey Hey... whats "cooking".

In case you missed it, I've announced my bounty for the TAM 5 poker tourney is a 750ml Chateau d'Yquem. I thought you might appreciate that in particular.
[/derail]

I disagree. Religious stupidity should be given even more attention than regular stupidity. Religious stupidity is dogmaticly enforced and perpetuated. It will require a more intense and sustained effort to crack.

I think your point really was that it should not be given any slack merely because it is religious stupidity. And with that, I am in total agreement.
 
Mmm, fine vino *and* poker; this is tempting.

I'm not sure. On the hand, I loathe religion, so I agree with your sentiment. But, on the other, I don't think that religious ideas should automatically be attacked. The Old Testament says, for example, that the Jews were slaves of the Egyptians for a while. Instead of dismissing it because it's religious, I dismiss it because there is no archeological or historical evidence supporting it.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Mmm, fine vino *and* poker; this is tempting.

I'm not sure. On the hand, I loathe religion, so I agree with your sentiment. But, on the other, I don't think that religious ideas should automatically be attacked. The Old Testament says, for example, that the Jews were slaves of the Egyptians for a while. Instead of dismissing it because it's religious, I dismiss it because there is no archeological or historical evidence supporting it.
Click to expand...

I was not clear. I am not advocating attacking an idea merely because it is religious. I am advocating attacking erroneous ideas (and flat lies) all the time, but especially when they are espoused by religious institutions.
 
I'll tolerate any religion that doesn't result in someone's death or suffering.
 
tkingdoll said:
I'll tolerate any religion that doesn't result in someone's death or suffering.
Click to expand...

There's a problem there, though. What if that religion changes its practitioners' perception of death and suffering?

I once had the following conversation with someone who firmly believed in karma and reincarnation.

Me: I recently found out that more than 100 people have been exonorated while on death row by DNA evidence. All those people turned out to be innocent of the crimes they were going to be killed for. Isn't it nice that they're free now?

Them: No. We shouldn't waste any time after the conviction. We should just kill off all those murderers, pedophiles and all those ********.

Me: But, I just gave you evidence that sometimes they're innocent. Don't they deserve a chance to have their death scentences revoked?

Them: No. If they're innocent, then after they die they reincarnate as people. If they're guilty, then they become a snail or something. The best thing to do is kill them if we're not sure.
 
elliotfc said:
Yes, because God knows that if religion didn't exist, nobody would die and nobody would suffer.

-Elliot
Click to expand...

Please don't be such a fool as to put forth that fallacy as an arguement. Just because there is no perfect sollution doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Them: No. If they're innocent, then after they die they reincarnate as people. If they're guilty, then they become a snail or something. The best thing to do is kill them if we're not sure.
Click to expand...

I hope you replied, "You don't mind if I shoot/kill you then. If things are like you say, the best thing to do is move you on to your next existence where your next form will be picked for you with justice."

Of course, it might be rather pleasant being a snail. I've never heard one complain.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
There's a problem there, though. What if that religion changes its practitioners' perception of death and suffering?

I once had the following conversation with someone who firmly believed in karma and reincarnation.

Me: I recently found out that more than 100 people have been exonorated while on death row by DNA evidence. All those people turned out to be innocent of the crimes they were going to be killed for. Isn't it nice that they're free now?

Them: No. We shouldn't waste any time after the conviction. We should just kill off all those murderers, pedophiles and all those ********.

Me: But, I just gave you evidence that sometimes they're innocent. Don't they deserve a chance to have their death scentences revoked?

Them: No. If they're innocent, then after they die they reincarnate as people. If they're guilty, then they become a snail or something. The best thing to do is kill them if we're not sure.
Click to expand...

Eek.

Alan Keyes...a while back...said something not similar, but interesting kind of I guess. He's an orthodox Catholic who supports the death penalty. He was saying how...our justice system is not capable or appreciating the *greatest* forms of evil (he was talking about premeditated murder, things like that), and that it's best for us to deliver such people to God for judgment. A nice euphemism, that's what struct me and why I remember it, and I'm partial to the guy and the death penalty. But a bizarre way to put it.

-Elliot
 
scotth said:
I hope you replied, "You don't mind if I shoot/kill you then. If things are like you say, the best thing to do is move you on to your next existence where your next form will be picked for you with justice."

Of course, it might be rather pleasant being a snail. I've never heard one complain.
Click to expand...

Ask Cargo. Or, that's what they told me when they offered a snail for me to eat. They told me to ask Cargo. Is Cargo the king of snails or something? Anyways he'd know.

-Elliot
 
scotth said:
I hope you replied, "You don't mind if I shoot/kill you then. If things are like you say, the best thing to do is move you on to your next existence where your next form will be picked for you with justice."
Click to expand...

I did. They agreed. It was eerie.

In fact, since they beleived in karma and reincarnation, I proposed the following scenario.

You are invited to a dinner party hosted by Mr. Body. You, and all your fellow guests are in the parlor when the lights go out, and a gun shot is heard. When the lights come on, Mr. Body lies dead, shot through the heart and no one confesses to killing him. There's no powder on his hands or body, so he couldn't have shot himself. After a thorough investigation, neither you nor the police can accertain who the murderer is.

Do you let the guests, one of whom is a murderer, go free? Or, in line with your belief in karma, do you pick up a gun and shoot one of them randomly, trusting in their bad accumulated karma to ensure that the murderer takes the bullet?

Their answer, "Hey, that's a great idea!"
 
elliotfc said:
Yes. Fewer people would die if there were no religion.

-Elliot
Click to expand...

And even this is only really true if less people are born due to no/less religion. The number of deaths won't really change, but the manner and timing of them certainly can improve.

Having far fewer die of ignorance rather than old age, seems like a worthy goal to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom