Can one be against homophobia, sexism and religious intolerance?

[cassity]

I've been thinking and I realise I have no problem at all denouncing the BNP outright because I find their ideas racist and sexist.

Why is it then that I feel uncomfortable, to the point where I honestly can't bring myself to do it, with the idea of denouncing a religious sect for exactly the same thing?

 

Maybe you do, maybe you don't. You have to honestly ask yourself..which of those you do in public and which you don't. It isn't so much your thoughts, but the way you express them to others.

 

Maybe it's easy to voice objection towards the BNP because most do..collectively comfortable (pack mentality)?. I'm guessing the 'religious sect' is a reference to Islam? Maybe the collective isn't so cut n dry here, maybe you're sitting on the fence waiting for the collective to sway one way or another. All this does though is answer the question from a collective perspective, and not what is in your heart..only YOU really know the answer to your own question.

[unbeliever]

I'm not endorsing any discrimination, people are people. Some need more educating than others and I do not back off from a discussion (as you know ).

 

Are you not showing religious intolerance by attempting to "educate" people out of the deeply held beliefs that their god(s) require of them?

 

---------- Post added 04-07-2015 at 21:57 ----------

 

Maybe you do, maybe you don't. You have to honestly ask yourself..which of those you do in public and which you don't. It isn't so much your thoughts, but the way you express them to others.

 

Maybe it's easy to voice objection towards the BNP because most do..collectively comfortable (pack mentality)?. I'm guessing the 'religious sect' is a reference to Islam? Maybe the collective isn't so cut n dry, maybe you're sitting on the fence waiting for the collective to sway one way or another. All this does though is answer the question from a collective perspective, and not what is in your heart..only YOU really know the answer to your own question.

 

I realise that Islam is the hot topic right now. I knew it would come up, but I was triggered to start a thread like this when I saw an old episode of "Jeremy Kyle" recently in which 3 American christian women (mother and 2 daughters) we're being taken to task by more reasonable people for their outspoken hatred of homosexuals. I won't dignify what they had written on their shirts by repeating it.

I also recalled a piece from the new testament which I found rather misogynistic:

Ephesians 5:24 - Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

[cassity]

 

I realise that Islam is the hot topic right now. I knew it would come up, but I was triggered to start a thread like this when I saw an old episode of "Jeremy Kyle" recently in which 3 American christian women (mother and 2 daughters) we're being taken to task by more reasonable people for their outspoken hatred of homosexuals. I won't dignify what they had written on their shirts by repeating it.

I also recalled a piece from the new testament which I found rather misogynistic:

Ephesians 5:24 - Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

 

I was only responding to your comment that you have no issue with denouncing the BNP which is demonstrated by their intolerance. Are you saying that your comment to 'religious sect' was aimed at Christians who are homophobic and racist as depicted on JK, and you have difficulty in condemning them? I'm just not to clear who it is you find difficulty in not condemning.

[andrejuan]

Recent discussions on this forum have reminded me of the dichotomy of tolerance.

 

I'm heterosexual but I feel compelled to support the rights of homosexuals to be treated as true equals in our society.

I'm a man, but I feel very strongly that it is essential that women are treated as full equals.

I'm an atheist, but I feel compelled to support the rights of people of faith to follow said faith. I tend to extend this to non-religious belief systems as well.

 

When a person of faith tells me that their god(s) demand either that homosexuals are evil and should not be tolerated, or that women are not our equals and we are entitled and required to apply different rules to them than we do to ourselves I feel stuck.

When cornered I find myself compromising religious tolerance in favour of the other 2, but that compromise always makes me feel like I have failed. Looking back, I have sometimes avoided such debates so as to avoid that awkward choice.

 

Perhaps the time has come to set minimum criteria for tolerance in order to be tolerated.

After all, if I show too much tolerance to the intolerant am I not automatically being intolerant myself by endorsing said intolerance by my silence.

 

Things get even more confusing when dealing with religious people who are themselves, on the basis of their religion, guilty of religious intolerance.

However, since anybody reading this has probably now developed a decent headache, I'll leave it there.

 

LOL.... you sound pretty well adjusted to me. Go to bed tonight knowing

you have sound thought processes.

[milquetoast1]

If that is their opinion, than so be it, I will tell them that being anti-islamic is just as bad as muslims being sexist or homophobic (in my experience few are by the way).

 

Aren't you simply conflating anti-Muslim (person) with anti-Islamic (ideology) here?

[Aleksandr]

This is a classic dilemma with a simple solution. You want to be tolerant, but how can you possibly tolerate other people who are so intolerant themselves?

 

Tolerance, you see, can be good or bad. A tolerant society needs to prohibit certain practises, and even suppress or expel intolerant people. How else can it be a tolerant society? One does not have to tolerate anything and everything; in fact, one should most certainly not!

 

So there’s no need to beat yourself up about it. Tolerating everything and everyone is a false goal.

[Tommo68]

In response the the OP. NO of course not. Of course there are people whose actions you would condemn if only they were not X. They are your own self inflicted hang ups.

 

Its very simple really.

 

Tolerate what you want to and don't interfere with or comment on other people's choices or beliefs.

 

If you just do that than no one will care about never mind be offended by your views unless of course you choose to let them be known.

 

There is too much contradictory PC crap and libralism coupled with too much overthinking its all screwing with too many minds and pust too many people in a position where they think they can dictate what others should be thinking and what they may or may not do or say.. All in the name of...WHAT?

.

 

.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Tommo68

[gwhite78]

But surely if you're wanting to tolerate all aspects of Islam and christianity then by default you tolerate their homophobia?

[eckby]

This is a classic dilemma with a simple solution. You want to be tolerant, but how can you possibly tolerate other people who are so intolerant themselves?

 

Tolerance, you see, can be good or bad. A tolerant society needs to prohibit certain practises, and even suppress or expel intolerant people. How else can it be a tolerant society? One does not have to tolerate anything and everything; in fact, one should most certainly not!

 

So there’s no need to beat yourself up about it. Tolerating everything and everyone is a false goal.

 

So to create a tolerant society you have to ban everything and everyone that you find intolerable. That would be a closed society full of intolerant people. Or would there be no one left because each person that suppresses or expels an intolerant person would also need to be expelled because of their intolerance. The only people that are intolerant of intolerant people are intolerant people.

 

 

The tolerance paradox arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.

Edited July 5, 2015 by eckby

[unbeliever]

I was only responding to your comment that you have no issue with denouncing the BNP which is demonstrated by their intolerance. Are you saying that your comment to 'religious sect' was aimed at Christians who are homophobic and racist as depicted on JK, and you have difficulty in condemning them? I'm just not to clear who it is you find difficulty in not condemning.

 

I'm trying to deal with all in general. I see no need to address them separately as I wish to treat them all the same.

Intolerance can be found in all the Abrahamic religions. And elsewhere.

 

---------- Post added 05-07-2015 at 08:27 ----------

 

An obvious place to draw a line is secularism.

It is possible to be both religious and a firm secularist.

 

This would mean that people of faith may not bring their faith into the workplace or politics. It mean no overt religious symbols on buildings or displayed about the person. It means no special exceptions for behaviour on the basis of religion. It would most certainly mean no religious schools.

France seems to be firmly headed in this direction, and already a long way down that path. They are constitutionally secular.

Our traditions are different. If we want to follow France's example, we really should start by disestablishing the Anglican church.

 

Even this would not completely solve the problem as there surely must be some limits on acceptable behaviour within a family.

 

I think many of us, including me, would find the system I describe above to be guilty of religious intolerance. Why for example would we force (on pain of dismissal) a devout Christian to work on Sunday, or a Jew on Saturday; if we don't have to?

A firmly secular society refuses to make even the slightest allowance for the religious. I think if we headed in this direction we would soon feel like we'd made the situation worse.

Edited July 5, 2015 by unbeliever