Why do we have to put up with Religious People?

Great Debates
443

Not picking on you specifically, but this brings to mind one of my favorite pieces of bumper sticker philosophy seen every December:

Put the Saturn back in Saturnalia

Ref @Velocity’s post 2 above & @Broomstick, I agree that atheism today is about where LGBTQ was 75 years ago. IOW: out of sight, actively pushed out of mind, and frankly disgusting / distressing to the heedless majority.

Except there’s a significantly larger percentage of atheists even in religion-soaked USA than there are LGBTQ people. What we lack today is activism on a significant scale.

444

Any activism will be labeled militantism.

445

Atheism, in my view, is about personal realization with the emphasis on personal. Buddha didn’t need activism or militantism to spread his message and perhaps we can all learn something there, about the path which is peaceful but not pacifism.

75 or even 100 years is nothing compared to a human life, be that human life be of any religion.

446

Why? That doesn’t follow at all.

447

I don’t buy it. We can quibble over whether we have good reason to believe Buddha himself was peaceful, but Buddhism is as much a worldly religion with worldly entanglements and ensuing contradictions with it’s supposed peacefulness as any other.

448

You don’t have to buy anything - as an Atheist, it is important to me that you discover your own personal truths. Again with the emphasis on personal.

I take inspirations from the Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed on many of their actions and values. (not by the organized religions that ensued). You may or may not - and that’s okay by me.

Atheists don’t have to all think alike and we don’t have to evangelize (in my opinion). I will be sad if Atheists became one monolithic organized block like religion. That will be suffocating.

449

I have referred specifically to your claims about Buddhism, irrespective of how they relate to your personal belief or non-belief.

If you find some value in some of its teachings, fine. But let’s not pretend it serves as a model for effective, let alone peaceful, change. I am more interested in what people do under the banner of holy writing than in what those holy writings are supposed to say.

450

This is hilarious.

First, as others have pointed out, the central purpose of a university education is to cultivate an inquiring and curious mind, one that’s willing to question things.

Second, despite the bleating by conservatives about secular liberal indoctrination, you might be surprised to know that the vast majority of university instructors are not sitting at home laying out a plan to convince our religious students to become atheists.

I occasionally teach the course in American Religious History at my university, and my aim in teaching this course is to give the students a good overview of the ways that religion and religious thought have helped to shape the history of colonial America and the United States. Sometimes religion comes out looking pretty bad, like when early British colonies exiled people for heresy, or thrust wooden pegs through the tongue ass punishment for blasphemy. Sometimes religion comes out looking pretty good, such as the incredibly important influence of the Second Great Awakening and evangelical Protestant Christianity on the nineteenth-century abolitionist movement. But it’s not really about good and bad; it’s about an understanding of the place of religion in the lives of the American people.

I tell all of my students at the beginning of the class that, if they’re an atheist who is taking the course to confirm their suspicions about the evils and irrationality of religion, they should look elsewhere. And I tell religious students that if they are taking the class in the hopes of confirming their ideas about the moral or historical superiority of their religion, or of religion generally, they also are in the wrong place.

I sometimes think that conservative complaints about liberal indoctrination on campus are not only wrong, but they reflect a certain conservative mindset: “If I were educating college students, I’d try to indoctrinate them with conservative or religious values, so the liberals must be doing the same thing.”

451

There were no claims made on Buddhism - in my original post in response to atheist militantism. Where do you see Buddhism mentioned ?

What I said and I am clarifying it again, is that in my search so far activism is not needed for atheism to be more acceptable. Also in my search, I find Buddha’s methods (not Buddhism methods) to be the most inspiring method. This is not a belief - it’s where I have arrived in my personal journey. You think there is a better method or better inspiration - we can surely debate that and I am ready to accept that.

I am not pretending : I said it explicitly. And I will repeat it again : Buddha’s method of peaceful but not pacifism is the best method I have arrived at in my personal search for communicating atheism ideas. If you have a better way of communication, we can certainly discuss that and I am open to changing my views, if convinced.

452

We dont tax certain non-profit orgs. Churches, Hospitals, schools. The 1st Ad would prohibit taxing churches while not taxing the other non-profits. It isnt that Churches get a special exemption, they are just one type of non-profit org.

453

Do we have any other sources for what Buddha is supposed to have said and done other than through Buddhism? That’s why I persist in framing my critique in reference to your views on Buddhism rather than your views on Buddha.

454

And “Persephone is the Reason for the Seasons”

455

True… Events in Burma in 1963 showed that Buddhist Fundamentalism is no more palatable than any other kind.

456

In my opinion, organized religion or organized atheism, results in group thinking, that in turn will result in violence in the long run.

Again, IMO, there is nothing wrong in picking things to learn from Buddha or Christ or Mohamed. It does not imply a full scale endorsement or embracement of the organized religion.

As another atheist, you may not want to do this or even feel that this is absurd. And that is okay by me : we don’t have to be homogeneous.

We can always debate and agree/disagree, but that’s for another thread.

457

Agreed. Mandatory ideologies are almost always ugly. We put up with other people, and other people put up with us. Freedom: Win/Win.

The most frightening words are not, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” Much more frightening to me are, “You weren’t in church yesterday. I expect to see you there next Sunday.”

458

I think the unfortunate answer to this question is directly ‘trial and error’.

Much as it would be great to make some grandoise claim about validity or statistics, the bitter truth is that just about every option has been tried and ‘put up’ is the best idea.

Religious people have been around for a VERY long time, and successfully addressing the problem has basically always ended in some kind of tolerance people can all live with. The alternatives have been ruthlessly tried:

Genocide: Hitler, obviously. While fighting most of the world, Germany is busily allocating scarce resources to murdering millions; obviously this did crap all to help them win WW2. That said, a society that takes this kind of extremist behavior greatly wounds their society. A different example would be the early Christian Church, under the Roman Empire, which created a series of martyrdom and very failed to destroy the faith. Obviously a poor idea, but tried.

Enforced Conformity: If we can laugh at the Spanish Inquisition because of a Monty Python sketch, this belies a different but horrible arrangement. This is also the current strategy of China’s Communist Party in dealing with its Muslim Uighur minority. Spain has been ruled by dictatorships for most of its history and lagged behind much of more open minded Europe, lost its colonial empire and paid several prices for behavior.

Put them somewhere else: The Pale of Settlement, Ghettos. Arguably the Mormon Trail. There’s the obvious problem that there’s only so many ‘elses’ on planet Earth, and so putting religious minorities on the ocean floor, Antarctica or outer space isn’t even slightly feasible. This list also includes the original pilgrims, whose religious differences inside England would have long legacies in the founding of the USA.

In addition to creating a great deal of poverty and raising questions of loyalty, this risks escalating into worse ideas above. And these minorities can very easily become different groups on their own, seeking independence. After all, if treated badly by a host nation, what do they owe that host nation.

Economics: You can tax based on religion. This actually worked fairly effectively in the raise of various Muslim nations, where tax benefits for conversion worked well. Given the severity of the other actions above, it’s clear that many people would rather be taxed than exiled, tortured or slain. This method still works, indirectly, as people who don’t support churches don’t donate to churches.

So this has some legs. Should churches be taxed? Should religious followers be given special taxes?

Ultimately, bear in mind that whatever rules are baked into the system will be used against anyone, including their creators. So a nation that actively promotes secular behavior with narrowly defined taxes might be reasonable; this is not, however, a direct attempt to swing poverty as a weapon.

Acceptance Or we decide that this isn’t worth the trouble, that we can all get along. Yes, deranged wacktards are going to be there, and they may lose the culture war on the installment plan, but the track record of nations that decide to say SCREW IT and move on is strong.

Prussia, the guys who unified Germany, said SCREW IT to Catholic/Protestant conflicts that had, in the 30 years war, killed one in five Germans.
Though culture wars have obscured it, the United States has done well with a general SCREW IT to State Religions in allowing a diverse society.

So the answer to this question is:
Because rights are based on what the most annoying, most difficult people get at the worst times.
Because great nations have opted to SCREW IT and it worked well.
But most of all, because its easier than not.

459

So, I guess you have to put up with them until one of you died. They are here and it really isn’t that difficult to tolerate it.

460

I find it interesting that often persons strong in one way or another - Christian or Atheist, often have kids or siblings who are totally polar opposites in views.

461

Do you have a cite on that?

462

Did you get that from a Facebook post?