Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

[Cello Man]

I've been lurking on these forums for a while. It's been fun and informatve reading the discussions taking place here. I've had enough of being quiet now, and I'm ready to start picking this forum's collective brain. The point of my first diatribe is as follows:


Religious tolerance is not necessarily a good thing. I don't advocate extreme mindless bigotry such as running mini-vans with Jesus-fish stickers off the road, but permitting religion to place their version of morality on a higher pedestal than human life cannot be excused.

Case in point: AIDS in Africa has become a full-on epidemic. Within certain areas where the only governing authority is provided by Catholic missionaries, people are not being educated about the use of condoms to avoid spreading the HIV virus. The official stance of the Catholic church is that the use of birth control is a sin, and the idea of pre-marital abstinence is being promoted as the sole solution to the AIDS problem.

Let's face it. People are people, and the reason people exist in the first place is because other people had sex. The need to propogate our species is coded into every fiber of our being. Preaching absolute abstinence makes as much sense as telling people to stop breathing. Sure, there will be the small percentage of people who are devout enough to follow the whatever their religion says to the letter, but as statistics on abstinence-only sex education in my own country (USA) show, the idea is doomed to failure from the outset.

If Catholics were somehow forced by an outside government or health care organization to spread educational materials and birth control supplies, they would cry discrimination against their religious beliefs. Surely they'd be as offended as a Muslim being served bacon for breakfast. We cannot let that overshadow the fact that a campaign of misinformation and their unrealistic, outdated, and warped sense of morality is killing people by the thousands, the same people they are trying to "save". The Vatican is unwilling to permit what it sees as the lesser of two evils. Their philosophy of abstinence-only education is misguided at the very best. At worst, now combined with a lethal STD in the equation, I see no reason whatsoever that it's any different from criminally negiligent genocide.

I say that those responsible should be taken to task. If ithis were a truly fair and objective world, leadership of the Catholic Church would have already been found guilty of crimes against humanity.

Anyone else care to weigh in on this?

 

[Meadmaker]

Ah, yes. The Catholic Church teaches chastity outside of marriage, lifelong monogamy, heterosexuality, and no use of contraceptives. People follow this teaching, and, as a consequence, are dying of AIDS.

 

[scotth]

and warped sense of morality is killing people by the thousands, the same people they are trying to "save".

Other than thousands being an understatement, that was largely my opinion already. Clearly setting the goal of seeing real justice is reaching too far at the moment. I would like the people to quit dying that could be saved by no more than telling them the truth. I would take that.

The U.S. Gov't., the one that is supposed to be representing me, is guilty of committing those same crime, today. My Gov't witholds money from charities and other NGOs that teach that condoms can help stop the disease. No matter what other great thing the group might be doing in Africa, say. If you teach that handy little bit of knowledge you are cut off. No money for you.

We've got to find a way to recruite a large enough voting group of American's to make a difference on this. They (the people running in elections) need to know that our community even exists. They're always worried about the "Hispanic vote", the "Black vote", the "Catholic Vote", or the "Someother Vote", but it is never the "Rational vote" or the "Skeptical Vote". We need to start doing a better job of converting our friends. We really need to start recruiting. We need grow a lot. And we need to look and act enough like a community that we begin to be recognized as such.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I agree, this silliness especially favorable towards muslims of tolerance no matter what as long as theyre not xians or jews is silly

Where is N.O.W. to protest the treatment of women in Dar-al-Islam ?

 

[gdtbiker]

Nice first rant, er, ah. . .I mean diatribe, Cello Man - Welcome! to the real world that is so often unbelievable.

 

[gdtbiker]

Oh, and, uh, Welcome to the forums too!

 

[andyandy]

i'd agree that all religious beliefs should not be tolerated (ie. accepeted)by default purely because they are religious....

An example closer to home in the UK is the stance of the Muslim Council of Britain on homosexuality

Following recent press coverage it is reiterated that the practice of homosexuality is sinful in Islam.Following some recent inaccurate reports in the media, the Muslim Council of Britain wishes to make it clear that the statements attributed to Abdul Aziz by the Gay website Pink News - where he was erroneously described as 'the policy advisor to the MCB' - were unauthorised and not at all representative of the Muslim Council of Britain.

The MCB believes that homosexual relationships are sinful and clearly go against Islamic teachings.

MCB has always been and remains committed to a non—discriminatory, just and cohesive society in Britain.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-555

Why should homophobic intolerance on an organised and coordinated level be tolerated in the UK simply because that group happens to be a religion?

MCB has always been and remains committed to a non—discriminatory just and cohesive society in Britain?

 

[scotth]

How rude of me.... Yes, welcome to the forums.

I liked the post also, if you hadn't already figured that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ah, yes. The Catholic Church teaches chastity outside of marriage, lifelong monogamy, heterosexuality, and no use of contraceptives. People follow this teaching, and, as a consequence, are dying of AIDS.

Nonsense. If they follow it all, their adherence to doctrine would massively reduce the incidence of AIDS, by massively reducing amount of exposure via reduction in coitus. It's all that "fornication" and "non chastity" that is the root cause.

Your cherry picking is showing.

DR

 

[ceo_esq]

Nonsense. If they follow it all, their adherence to doctrine would massively reduce the incidence of AIDS, by massively reducing amount of exposure via reduction in coitus. It's all that "fornication" and "non chastity" that is the root cause.

Sure, but isn't that more or less the same point Meadmaker was making via sarcasm?

 

[Cello Man]

missing the point...

Ah, yes. The Catholic Church teaches chastity outside of marriage, lifelong monogamy, heterosexuality, and no use of contraceptives. People follow this teaching, and, as a consequence, are dying of AIDS.

Those ideals are all fine and dandy, assuming everyone adhered to them unswervingly. However, we live in reality. The point I'm making is that the Church is not providing people with enough information to make and informed decision. When a possible outcome exists of contracting a fatal virus for which there is no cure, you would think they'd be more than happy to use this nugget of information if for no other reason than to scare people into their social mold.

Small children, if left to their own faculties, would run into the street and get flattened all the time. Luckily their parents usually do a good job of making sure this doesn't happen. The parents must intervene because the kid has no way of being informed enough to make a good decision. Likewise, a large percentage of the African population has had no access to education, so those that choose to provide for them have all the obligations to provide them with information necessary to make good decisions.

 

[ceo_esq]

Those ideals are all fine and dandy, assuming everyone adhered to them unswervingly. However, we live in reality. The point I'm making is that the Church is not providing people with enough information to make and informed decision. When a possible outcome exists of contracting a fatal virus for which there is no cure, you would think they'd be more than happy to use this nugget of information if for no other reason than to scare people into their social mold.

Yet the Catholic Church is massively involved in AIDS awareness/education efforts in Africa and elsewhere.

Likewise, a large percentage of the African population has had no access to education, so those that choose to provide for them have all the obligations to provide them with information necessary to make good decisions.

What are you getting at here, though? If I advise someone that a certain decision is a bad one and disclose to him that it could lead to serious risks, have I not provided him with information at least sufficient to enable him to make a different decision?

 

[Cello Man]

Yet the Catholic Church is massively involved in AIDS awareness/education efforts in Africa and elsewhere.

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?

 

[Tricky]

Religious tolerance is a very good idea. With so many religions in the world, you'd have to be intolerant of most everybody unless you practiced religious tolerance.

Behavior tolerance is another matter. Most people of all religions know how to behave in a manner consistant with the society in which they live. When people (religious or non-religious) are unable to abide by common respect and politeness, then they should not be tolerated.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If I advise someone that a certain decision is a bad one and disclose to him that it could lead to serious risks, have I not provided him with information at least sufficient to enable him to make a different decision?

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.

 

[Meadmaker]

Those ideals are all fine and dandy, assuming everyone adhered to them unswervingly.

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?

I think the Church's position on contraception is downright silly, but it isn't the cause of the AIDS epidemic.

 

[sillyhead]

Wow. I haven't read a thing past the topic line. Kudos for that, even if you suck. I might comment on other posts in this thread, or I might not.

But the title of the thread is provocative.

 

[Dog Boots]

Ah, yes. The Catholic Church teaches chastity outside of marriage, lifelong monogamy, heterosexuality, and no use of contraceptives. People follow this teaching, and, as a consequence, are dying of AIDS.

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.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

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.

 

[scotth]

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.

The US Gov't funding policies (or lack of funding rather) are certainly religiously driven.

Local (African) leaders spreading of misinformation is religiously and/or superstitiously motivated.

While the whole blame for the problem cannot be laid at the feet of the Catholic church, it should be nearly beyond argument that many many people are dying needlessly because one persons irrational beliefs or another are preventing the spread of or belief in the truth.

Yes, people around the world are dying because of decision made by religious people. Decisions that are informed by 1000+ year old legends and fairy tales rather than what has actually been learned in the last 100.

My tolerance for this is getting thin.