News0 min ago
Are We Too Tolerant ?
12 Answers
That is the title of this month's talk and discussion group. I believe it has in part been prompted by the fact that a Mullah has bought a Brethren meeting place and a large Sikh school has opened in the area.
I don't know any details but I thought you might like to comment.
I don't know any details but I thought you might like to comment.
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
The extent of the question is potentially quite broad. What practices should we make exceptions for to accomodate peoples religious beliefs? Examples of this abound in recent years - from the BA case against the lady who wore a crucifix, through to Registrars suggesting they would refuse to marry a gay couple because of their own religious beliefs. Then...
10:20 Sun 29th Sep 2013
-- answer removed --
I am pleased that in this country people are free to practice their religion (with few exceptions) or free to choose no religion.
There is a Roman Catholic chapel in Afghanistan; churches in Pakistan; Christianity is the 3rd largest religion in India. There are more than 1 million Roman Catholics in Saudi who must practice their religion in private homes. In the UAE Christians can worship openly and wear religious icons such as a cross or crucifix.
It is fair to say the majority of 'native' British people do not attend church, which is a sharp contrast to the other countries I have mentioned where the majority do practice their country's recognised faith.
I am a Christian but I don't feel threatened by those of other faiths or no faith. I would hate to live in a country that banned decent people from practicing their religion. Wherever I go in the world I am Christian and respectful of other faiths.
Nobody should tolerate extremism - and banning a religion is an example of extremism.
There is a Roman Catholic chapel in Afghanistan; churches in Pakistan; Christianity is the 3rd largest religion in India. There are more than 1 million Roman Catholics in Saudi who must practice their religion in private homes. In the UAE Christians can worship openly and wear religious icons such as a cross or crucifix.
It is fair to say the majority of 'native' British people do not attend church, which is a sharp contrast to the other countries I have mentioned where the majority do practice their country's recognised faith.
I am a Christian but I don't feel threatened by those of other faiths or no faith. I would hate to live in a country that banned decent people from practicing their religion. Wherever I go in the world I am Christian and respectful of other faiths.
Nobody should tolerate extremism - and banning a religion is an example of extremism.
I did explain in my OP that it is a talk and that is the title. It is addresing our level of tolerance as a society as a whole, not specific to religion. However I was told the two items I mentioned would also be brought up as they have caused a great deal of local controversy.
We are a village of about 4000 and the Next County wants to build a large secondary school in a midst. They intend to bus in 1500 pupils from 20 odd miles away . This school is not for us nor for our county . It will however affect the character of our village socially and environmentally.
It was opposed several years ago as a site for a State School .But recently the Sikhs have been given permission , since the government dropped most of the planning requirements. Our views have been swept aside.
Some people are too quick to play the race card , it nothing of the sort , the Sikhs in our community are also opposed to the school.
Eve . At a personal level I'm an atheist so I couldn't care less what ritual stupidity theists get up to, although I do believe faith schools are divisive.
However I assume this talk will be dealing with broader issues in society.
crime, the work place , freedom of speech , quite simply Are we too tolerant ?
We are a village of about 4000 and the Next County wants to build a large secondary school in a midst. They intend to bus in 1500 pupils from 20 odd miles away . This school is not for us nor for our county . It will however affect the character of our village socially and environmentally.
It was opposed several years ago as a site for a State School .But recently the Sikhs have been given permission , since the government dropped most of the planning requirements. Our views have been swept aside.
Some people are too quick to play the race card , it nothing of the sort , the Sikhs in our community are also opposed to the school.
Eve . At a personal level I'm an atheist so I couldn't care less what ritual stupidity theists get up to, although I do believe faith schools are divisive.
However I assume this talk will be dealing with broader issues in society.
crime, the work place , freedom of speech , quite simply Are we too tolerant ?
The extent of the question is potentially quite broad.
What practices should we make exceptions for to accomodate peoples religious beliefs?
Examples of this abound in recent years - from the BA case against the lady who wore a crucifix, through to Registrars suggesting they would refuse to marry a gay couple because of their own religious beliefs. Then there was the case of the B&B which refused a room once it emerged that the people who had booked it were gay.
More recently the discussions over wearing the Niqab in public and especially in court, the u-turn by a Birmingham University over their original statement that Niqabs and other clothing accessories that obscured the face were to be banned.
The number of Mosques being given planning permission is a source of debate.
Religious groups using free schools as a kind of back door approach to getting state funded religious schools.
Going further back I remember the big arguments over whether Sikhs could get an exemption from wearing a crash helmet on a motorbike.
People of the Jewish and Muslim faith making use of special religious courts to settle matters outwith the established legal system.
All these issues test the boundaries of what we should consider an acceptable provision for a tolerant society accomodating peoples of diverse faiths, and those issues where the demands for respect of religious practices amounts to special pleading and constitutes an erosion of the secular state.
We should accomodate where we can, where the matters are essentially trivial. Equally though, religious groups should also recognise that they have to moderate or compromise, and very often they seem extremely reluctant to do that.
What practices should we make exceptions for to accomodate peoples religious beliefs?
Examples of this abound in recent years - from the BA case against the lady who wore a crucifix, through to Registrars suggesting they would refuse to marry a gay couple because of their own religious beliefs. Then there was the case of the B&B which refused a room once it emerged that the people who had booked it were gay.
More recently the discussions over wearing the Niqab in public and especially in court, the u-turn by a Birmingham University over their original statement that Niqabs and other clothing accessories that obscured the face were to be banned.
The number of Mosques being given planning permission is a source of debate.
Religious groups using free schools as a kind of back door approach to getting state funded religious schools.
Going further back I remember the big arguments over whether Sikhs could get an exemption from wearing a crash helmet on a motorbike.
People of the Jewish and Muslim faith making use of special religious courts to settle matters outwith the established legal system.
All these issues test the boundaries of what we should consider an acceptable provision for a tolerant society accomodating peoples of diverse faiths, and those issues where the demands for respect of religious practices amounts to special pleading and constitutes an erosion of the secular state.
We should accomodate where we can, where the matters are essentially trivial. Equally though, religious groups should also recognise that they have to moderate or compromise, and very often they seem extremely reluctant to do that.
LG As you say it is a broad subject but inevitably in today's world religion will raise its ugly head . I know the word ugly will be pounced on but it's not racism that drives intolerance but religion.
//Religious groups using free schools as a kind of back door approach to getting state funded religious schools. //
That was one major reason why this school was given permission and as a Sikh friend of mine said they had a better chance of getting permission if they said it was Sikh because the government wanted to avoid being called racist.
I say the government because our local authority had refused the application but were overruled by central government.
We are trying to preserve our way of life but as soon as faith is involved it
goes from politics to accusations of intolerance.
BUTCHERHOG I agree but the world doesn't stand still whilst we are waiting for // We are too tolerant towards rapists,murderers,child sex offenders // these to be sorted out.
//Religious groups using free schools as a kind of back door approach to getting state funded religious schools. //
That was one major reason why this school was given permission and as a Sikh friend of mine said they had a better chance of getting permission if they said it was Sikh because the government wanted to avoid being called racist.
I say the government because our local authority had refused the application but were overruled by central government.
We are trying to preserve our way of life but as soon as faith is involved it
goes from politics to accusations of intolerance.
BUTCHERHOG I agree but the world doesn't stand still whilst we are waiting for // We are too tolerant towards rapists,murderers,child sex offenders // these to be sorted out.
I don't have problem tolerating people practicing these ridiculous beliefs. It is up to the individual to believe whatever they want.
However I strongly object when they presume their unsubstantiated superstitions should be considered when constructing public policies.
Nor do I accept their beliefs should be respected by silence on the part of those who don't subscribe to their notions. If their faith cannot withstand open criticism then they don't really have a faith.
Denying anyone the opportunity to criticise anything is a denial of freedom of expression and the first step towards fascism.
However I strongly object when they presume their unsubstantiated superstitions should be considered when constructing public policies.
Nor do I accept their beliefs should be respected by silence on the part of those who don't subscribe to their notions. If their faith cannot withstand open criticism then they don't really have a faith.
Denying anyone the opportunity to criticise anything is a denial of freedom of expression and the first step towards fascism.
1 to 12 of 12
