A Site for All Spirituality Forum Debaters

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
It's one of the most famous cases in American jurisprudence. A high school teacher was arrested and charged with the crime of teaching the theory of evolution in a biology class in 1925.

Sorry, didn't know the name for it; but I knew about the cases and arguments.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I'm trying to find a point at which we can agree before I go.

Is there anything on which you and I agree here?

Can we agree that some Mormons are vile and despicable creatures?

Originally posted by wittywonka
Sorry, didn't know the name for it; but I knew about the cases and arguments.

Did the State of Tennessee exhibit religious intolerance?

Did John Scopes exhibit religious intolerance?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Can we agree that some Mormons are vile and despicable creatures?

We can agree that some Mormons, Baptists, Evangelicals, Catholics, Methodists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and even Scientologists are such.

Anything else on which we can agree?

Originally posted by wittywonka
I know there are extreme cases, Dr. S, and I am admittedly having difficulty diciding where I stand on them. I will concede that there is a fine line, and I will concede that I'm far from being able to stand on it. I'll even add on to that that you reminded me of that fact.

But I am certain, and I will not be swayed on this issue, that there is nothi ...[text shortened]... , and there is nothing wrong with allowing them to practice their religion without oppression.

I know there are extreme cases, Dr. S, and I am admittedly having difficulty deciding where I stand on them.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that it is easier to know where one will stand vis-à-vis a given case (clearly articulated), than with generalized statements. I think, perhaps, that one needs to extrapolate from some of those specific cases to the generalities, and not the other way ‘round.

I know precisely how I would respond if someone were to try to harm my wife. I have prepared myself (insofar as I am able) to respond in a way to ensure that no harm will be done—without consideration of such things as “minimum necessary force”; rather, I will use whatever force seems necessary to ensure that she is not harmed, even if that means causing far greater injury (or more) than the perpetrator would cause her.

It is hypocritical (or self-deceptive) of me to articulate a moral theory that is inconsistent with that decision.

(BTW, I am a feminist, so there is no macho-type care-taking involved in this. I like strong, self-confident women, of which my wife is one.)

Originally posted by wittywonka
We can agree that [b]some Mormons, Baptists, Evangelicals, Catholics, Methodists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and even Scientologists are such.

Anything else on which we can agree?[/b]

Probably not much else of import to the discussion.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I know there are extreme cases, Dr. S, and I am admittedly having difficulty deciding where I stand on them.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that it is easier to know where one will stand vis-à-vis a given case (clearly articulated), than with generalized statements. I think, perhaps, that one needs to extrapolate from some of those specific ...[text shortened]... pe care-taking involved in this. I like strong, self-confident women, of which my wife is one.)[/b]

Forgive my teenager vocabulary; I'm genuinely trying to understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that we need to adopt a one-course of action-fits all in regards to such moral scenarios instead of saying that the scenario varies? I find that harder said than done.

For instance, I do not in any way condone sexual abuse that some religious leaders practice. But there may be circumstances relating to other moral topics within religions that I may or may not tolerate.

Edit -- Thinking on it more, I guess I see what you're saying. In relation to sexual abuse, I would never tolerate it. That serves as my direction for any related issues, not moral issues at a whole. You're saying to make decisions on moral issues from the individual scenario up, not the general topic down. That really makes more sense, now that I talked (typed) it out. Thanks for that.

I guess the hardest part is coming to grips with a moral decision on each of the (apparently at least) infinite scenarios.

After my somewhat epiphany (to base tolerance/intolerance on specifics, not generalities), I owe Dr. S. an apology and a thanks for wrestling it out of me.

Thank you again, and I'm sorry for the bickering.
-Witty

Originally posted by wittywonka
Forgive my teenager vocabulary; I'm genuinely trying to understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that we need to adopt a one-course of action-fits all in regards to such moral scenarios instead of saying that the scenario varies? I find that harder said than done.

For instance, I do not in any way condone sexual abuse that some religious lead ...[text shortened]... oming to grips with a moral decision on each of the (apparently at least) infinite scenarios.

Are you saying that we need to adopt a one-course of action-fits all in regards to such moral scenarios instead of saying that the scenario varies? I find that harder said than done.

The contrary. I’m saying, ask yourself what you would do in this, that, and the other particular situation. Then see if you can derive some general moral theory from that. Not “one size fits all”—but, “this is how I think about these things.” Self-honesty is important here.

Such a moral theory is likely to have several parts.

For example: Is self-sacrifice a higher moral virtue than self-nurturing, generally? Why? What cases can I imagine in which self-nurturing (or pursuing one’s own self-interest generally) seems more “right” to me than denying myself for another? What seem to be the conditions? That becomes a piece in my moral outlook.

Do the lives of strangers hold equal value for me as do the lives of my loved ones? If not, how can I buy into a moral theory that says that I should not value my wife more than a stranger?

General moral platitudes seem to lend themselves to “one size fits all.”

This whole discussion is an example: under what conditions do I think that I ought not be tolerant of other people’s religious beliefs and practices? Does that not complicate the notion of blanket “religious tolerance”?

Mostly, I have to be honest with myself. Such moral considerations as “minimum necessary force,” when proclaimed as generalizations, may be inconsistent with how I know that I will respond in certain circumstances. Therefore, I cannot accept that notion in any kind of “one size fits all.” (For example, although I may not understand it correctly, the Rawlsian notion of justice being a situation wherein I agree to a certain set of rules as just, without regard to whom they affect (i.e., all are “equal” )—e.g., me or the ones I love—seems a bit Kafka-esque to me: I will not submit to such a framework, nor submit my loved ones. Ergo, I cannot claim such a notion of justice generally.)

I'm tired now, and maybe this muddies things, rather than clears them up...

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Are you saying that we need to adopt a one-course of action-fits all in regards to such moral scenarios instead of saying that the scenario varies? I find that harder said than done.

The contrary. I’m saying, ask yourself what you would do in this, that, and the other particular situation. Then see if you can derive some general moral theory from ...[text shortened]... tice generally.)

I'm tired now, and maybe this muddies things, rather than clears them up...[/b]

I agree with what you are saying, and I think I (somewhat) articulated it in my edit.

Especially with what you are saying here:

This whole discussion is an example: under what conditions do I think that I ought not be tolerant of other people’s religious beliefs and practices? Does that not complicate the notion of blanket “religious tolerance”?

Originally posted by wittywonka
www.religioustolerance.org

Oh boy. I remember them. Tolerent ? Sure as long as you're a Wiccan or an Agnostic.

Face it, most sites have a point of view.

Both sides can get a fair forum at CARM - Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (www.carm.org), as long as you are not insulting you can get your ideas out.

Evolution Verses Creation - www.evcforum.org I go to in the Bible Study Section. But the modirators I find a bit biased.

Most sites have a viewpoint.

Religious tolerance should only extend to the way in which people interact with (or elect not to
interact with) the (supposed) Divine. That is, religious tolerance should allow people to attend
Roman Catholic Mass without fear of being imprisoned, or Quaker Meetings, or Jewish Shabat, or
Islamic Jumuah, or to not do any of these things. Religious tolerance should extend to allow individuals
to behave in the fashion they see fit as long as such behavior does not impinge upon another person's
freedoms. So, if an individual thinks that cutting himself makes God happy, then we ought to
tolerate it. If an individual thinks that cutting an unwilling person (or someone too young to make
such a decision for themselves), then we ought to chastise it and ultimately prevent it.

Religious tolerance does not entail religious agreement. I find very little rewarding about Mormon
theology, but if they want to believe that they become gods upon dying, we should allow it.

I think, at the basis of religious tolerance, must be the willingness to allow people to 'sin' according
to the 'tolerator's' perspective. The only time one ought to intervene is not on religious grounds, but
on 'rights-based' grounds. For example, my religious perspective about murder plays absolutely no
role in my secular defense of laws against murder; it's not because of 'God's Law' that I oppose
murder but because I believe that persons have the right to choose to stay alive irrespective of the
existence of a 'God.'

So, those of you who claim to be 'tolerant of religion' must:

1) Recognize the non-religious rights of people first and foremost;
2) Recognize the right for people to 'sin' (according to your hermeneutic, assuming #1 is not violated);
3) Recognize the ability for people to express their religious sentiment (or lack thereof) in the way
that they see fit (assuming #1 is not violated).

Those of you who believe that it was morally right for Abraham to strive to kill Isaac have putrid
theological hermeneutics for reason #1 -- Isaac's non-religious right to live was dismissed by Abraham
(regardless of 'God's Intent,' for Abraham didn't know it).* It is putrid because you would have to
extend the same 'religious freedom' to others who claim the 'moral right' to strap bombs on children
for Allah, or to force seven-year olds to marry men with three other pre-pubescent wives, or for women
to be beaten if they are merely accused of sexual impropriety. When you 'tolerate' the violation of
another person's rights within the context of your own religion, you have no right to question the
violation of another person's rights within another religious context.

Nemesio

*I remember vistesd's take on this story: that Abraham actually failed when he consented to kill
Isaac, that the test was to see if Abraham recognized the 'superseding' right to live was greater than
an evil that God could command. Perhaps vistesd could revisit this (from some Rabbi's midrash if
memory serves...).

Originally posted by jaywill
Oh boy. I remember them. Tolerent ? Sure as long as you're a Wiccan or an Agnostic.

What precisely do you mean?

Nemesio