Survey shows US Religious Tolerance

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

This is most encouraging.

NY Times article

Although a majority of Americans say religion is very important to them, nearly three-quarters of them say they believe that many faiths besides their own can lead to salvation, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

[Swatopluk]

Great! That leaves just 75 million intolerants.
Sorry, I am in a bad mood at the moment.

[Opsa]

I heard this on the news last night, felt encouraged and thought of us here.

I certainly hear Swato's cynicism as well.

I think it's a good start, but here's the thing: What do they mean by "can lead to salvation"? This is what bugs me. What the heck is "salvation", anyway? I really feel weird about that term. I am guessing that outwardly it may mean a Way into Heaven, but what if my religion does not include ideas about any specific Heaven, or even of a specific God? If I am a heathen and try to find wonderfulness in my heart so that I can contribute to what Heaven we may have here in this life, does that count? If I rejoice in what's Godlike in a tree leaf, does that count?

I really want it to, but I don't quite feel comfortable breaking out the smudge sticks in front of my neighbors, yet.

[Alpaca]

I wish the tolerance would extend to people without a religion. When somebody asks me about my religious views and I respond that I am an atheist, the correct response is not "I'm sorry." (And he wasn't apologizing for asking the question.)

Same goes for "wouldn't it be safer to be agnostic?"

Same for "I mean, I'm tolerant and everything, but to me Atheism is still black magic."

I'm bothered by the implicit assumption I encounter in some people that lack of religion is the same as lack of moral standards.

[Sibling Chatty]

All you can do is patiently correct their ignorance of your views. The 'black magic' person especially.

With your peer group, explain that you'd just as soon they not go into the real world and display that level of ignorance of the English language. A=without, theism=belief in gods (of any kind), A=without gnosis=knowledge. Lots of a-theists and a-gnostics around, and most of them are just regular folks, not scary spooky guys with weird things happening where ever they go. (THOSE would be the politicians.)

As to I'm sorry guy? Tell him he certainly is, but you were discussing your lack of belief in God, not his personality. (He won't get it.)

[pieces o nine]

There are people who can be educated, because they are merely ignorant (e.g.: don't know) as opposed to willfully stupid (e.g.: believe they know *every*thing).

I sometimes choose to voice a correction to a representative of the latter group anyway, but that is only for the benefit of anyone in their audience who may be merely ignorant, as neither of us is apt to change the other's mind.

I've also found that an expressionless stare will back down the most rabid god-botherers (even though I know it reinforces their belief in 'demonic' or 'black magic' in those outside their particular faith bubble).


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
On a related note, "Nebraska Right 2 Life" called during the worst days of the flooding here to solicit contributions and drum up support for McSame. I know Mom shares their political and religious views, and quite possibly has supported them financially in the past. Too bad -- they got ME this time.

When they started in on the hard sell I informed them that I was battling flood waters and really did not have time for them at the mo. I also gave them an ... ahem ... activity suggestion ... in plain, old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon English.

I am quite confident that they will *never* call this number again. 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I also gave them an ... ahem ... activity suggestion ... in plain, old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon English.

You told them to 'go forth and multiply'? 
-------
The survey goes to show what is known: the voices heard tend to be those on the fringe while the people in the middle tend to be far less vocal. Also the questions assume (correctly apparently) that the influence of religion in the US is very high, as represented by the low percentage of 'non-believers' on the survey, although the phrasing pretty much left agnostics in the 'Don't know/no answer' group.

Perhaps the religious slant in the survey itself shows up in the results. 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I think it's a good start, but here's the thing: What do they mean by "can lead to salvation"? This is what bugs me. What the heck is "salvation", anyway? I really feel weird about that term. I am guessing that outwardly it may mean a Way into Heaven, but what if my religion does not include ideas about any specific Heaven, or even of a specific God? If I am a heathen and try to find wonderfulness in my heart so that I can contribute to what Heaven we may have here in this life, does that count? If I rejoice in what's Godlike in a tree leaf, does that count?

I really want it to, but I don't quite feel comfortable breaking out the smudge sticks in front of my neighbors, yet.

I can agree completely with you:  "saved?  From what, exactly?" is my now most common answer to the "are you saved?" question.

If they immediately reply, "sin!"

Then I reply, "I have not sinned.  Now what?" 

This is if I'm in a hurry.  If I'm in a generous mood, I might reply: "Define 'sin' in such a way that it is universal to every human being, and without using ANY supernatural terms or ideas."

.....

After 3 years of communication with fundies on-line, I've become a bit more open about what I expect from other people.

I see the survey as indicative that 3/4 of the US recognize that they are not in possession of absolute knowledge.

Put it in their context:  they allow that people might be worthy of their heaven, WITHOUT going through the same religious belief that THEY went through.

This is amazing, really-- if you contrast this with the typical attitude of a zealot.  (ANY zealot of ANY stripe)  Who secretly believes that ONLY THEY are worthy of heaven, and, perhaps a few who are EXACTLY LIKE THEY.

Again: see it from their point of view--- "worthy of heaven" ought to be edited to be "worthy".

Or, to put it still another way:  an actual bona-fide human being, worthy of rights the same as theirs.

For that is implicit in "going to heaven", is it not?

...........

As to I'm sorry guy? Tell him he certainly is, but you were discussing your lack of belief in God, not his personality. (He won't get it.)

[Alpaca]

As to I'm sorry guy? Tell him he certainly is, but you were discussing your lack of belief in God, not his personality. (He won't get it.)

He probably would get it from my tone alone, since that's the sort of reply I give to most of the things he says. (That is, unless someone beats me to it. (Like my English teacher. (Who dislikes him even more. (Wonder why.))))

Put it in their context:  they allow that people might be worthy of their heaven, WITHOUT going through the same religious belief that THEY went through.

This is amazing, really-- if you contrast this with the typical attitude of a zealot.  (ANY zealot of ANY stripe)  Who secretly believes that ONLY THEY are worthy of heaven, and, perhaps a few who are EXACTLY LIKE THEY.

Again: see it from their point of view--- "worthy of heaven" ought to be edited to be "worthy".

Or, to put it still another way:  an actual bona-fide human being, worthy of rights the same as theirs.

For that is implicit in "going to heaven", is it not?

Progress to be sure, but I don't believe "worthy" is yet based on value as a human being - it's still more like "close enough to my arbitrary rules of human value." My best friend is Jewish, and has a fundie Puritan (-seeming) voice teacher, who once told him about how Jews and Christians are similar enough that they need to ally against the Arabs. (He went on at length.)

Same sort of fundamental intolerance issue here, I'm afraid. (I'm pessimistic, I guess.) It's not an acceptance of people for their humanity, it's an opening up just in case a pseudospirituomoralistic alliance needs to be formed with other sects in the looming battle of Armageddon.

[beagle]

Same for "I mean, I'm tolerant and everything, but to me Atheism is still black magic."

I may be wrong but I think you get thrown out for invoking demons. It's not really consistent with the core values.

[pieces o nine]

Past -- and no doubt future -- tagline:  Not Under Hamartial Law.
(Technically, it is *perfect* Pauline Christianity! ha!)


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
From my observations, most of the 'tolerance' is interdenominational (e.g.: all still self-identify as Christian in one form or another). Some is extended to Jews, sometimes positively (realization that Christianity as an institution is very much the bratty, overbearing, ingrate offspring of Judaism and that 100% of the first 'Christians' were, in fact, observant Jews). Other times, it is extended negatively (we need 'em for Armageddon so Jesus can come back -- Praise! -- and Rapture our sorry asses out of here so that *we* don't have to experience physical death).

The really 'out-there' tolerants in the mainstream also accept Buddhists, at least in theory, beacuse they've had more than a generation's worth of time to get used to the reality that such a system exists and promotes some very positive ideas.

However, mention neo-Paganism (in any form), indigenous practices originating from anywhere in the world, forms of ancestor-worship or variations on African/Caribbean diaspora religions, or *any* form of Islam and that tolerance evaporates light neocom koolaid in bright sunlight. The only mental processor operating for far too many is a gasp and an involuntary exclamation that the other person ... does not believe in big-G God!  Atheism seems to, well, scare the bee-jee-sus (BeeGeesUs?) out of them.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It seems to me that even the most well-meaning institutional Christians are guilty of a kind of blasphemy when they literalize the so-called 'Great Commission' from the Matthew Gospel, insisting that it is their personal obligation to evangelize as many people as possible, and that they could never enjoy the heaven knowing that there were friends and relatives whom they had not 'brought to Jesus'.

I have reached that conclusion because insisting that the flawed, mortal creatures of an Omipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Divinely Benevolent Creator are capable of greater compassion, understanding, and forgiveness than their concept of god seems a tad ... well ...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

We have mentioned several times the basis for those attitudes: a deeply ingrained culture of the 'morality of fear' ("if you don't behave you'll go to hell") with the obvious implication that morality cannot exist without god/religion. It will take a few generations before such concepts are reevaluated by the majority in the US*

*it would seem that in Europe the 2 wars that devastated the continent, having fascist dictators in the south and an 'atheist' empire in the east afterward, helped the growth of a healthy skepticism towards both religious and ideological 'morality'. The fear now is that apparently some in the new generations are losing that skepticism. 

[Griffin NoName]

*it would seem that in Europe the 2 wars that devastated the continent, having fascist dictators in the south and an 'atheist' empire in the east afterward, helped the growth of a healthy skepticism towards both religious and ideological 'morality'. The fear now is that apparently some in the new generations are losing that skepticism. 

Indeed. Witness the British Governement believing that stripping Mugabe of his Knighthood will solve mass murder.

[beagle]

Try and think of it as part of Harriet Harman's equality drive.  Thirty years ago we would only impose sanctions on white African political leaders.
And it's one Christmas Card less on the civil list.

[Griffin NoName]

On that basis, given Mugabe's belief only G-d can remove him, giving him equality with our dear Queen, perhaps we should declare Harman's campaign a success.