Tolerance
Via alchook
So what’s the alternative? Are you arguing that religion is fine so long as nobody takes it seriously? When a person or a group decides that it is in communication with the Almighty, how do you expect them not to think that they are right, others are wrong, end of story?
What you describe is not a religious person, it is a fanatic. Most religious people in this country and I would suggest most countries do not believe they have a direct connection to their version of god (personal relationship, maybe, direct communication, no). Most just tend to have some unquestioned assumptions about the metaphysics of the universe.
To condemn people based on unquestioned assumptions is the behavior of the fanatic that you describe. What we must do is rip apart he label and use the better definition of those who attack and those who let us live in peace regardless of their theological stance.
Pat Robertson and many others listed in Kazim’s speech attack us for our disbelief. That is not a valid position. My mother believes in God, she does not believe her way is the only way. I think (maybe imagine) she believes I, as an atheist, will go to heaven if I live a moral life. Those are very different positions and I think we need to make sure we don’t confuse them.
There is no reason (and it’s a waste of effort) to fight my mother’s religiosity. She doesn’t threaten to make us in any way violate our conscience. Pat Roberson wants a theocracy. Lets not waste a lot of effort in quarrels with people who aren’t are enemies and may be our supporters.
We talk a lot about separation of church and state, freedom of conscience and similar veins. If we are serious about that we must accept that some people are religious and so long as they let us live our life according to our conscience, we must afford them the same right.
–Zafkiel