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.

[beagle]

Whereas the mills of God tend to turn slowly in this area, New Labour is quite capable of assisting in a bit of rapid regime change.  If they can find a plane and Land Rover that aren't falling apart perhaps they'll send the SAS into Zimbabwe with a new black female leader to meet the quotas.  Winnie Mandela perhaps? Naomi Campbell?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I thought MI6 took care of those cases (or was it James Bond? ).

[Opsa]

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.

Am I nuts or does this look like a form of slavery? A slave is a person who is denied access to freedom upon threat of death. It looks to me as if some religions are practicing this kind of slavery. I think some people are scared carpless to even sneak a peek at any other way than the one that enslaves them, lest they go to the place of eternal death. They are perhaps innocent, well-meaning people who are being controlled with the use of fear.

This bothers me. I feel that it is dangerous both for those who are being "herded" into zealotry (no matter how nice the origional intentions) and it is dangerous for those of us who not only disagree, but are found to think otherwise even in private. How can this cycle be broken in a civil way? (I could be killed just for implying that.)

I am not saying that my own spiritual way is better. It is a convoluted bunch of many ideas folded in with my own experiences, is constantly evolving and is not for everyone. It is unstable and tailored to my needs. I could not enforce it on anyone else because it's an individual thing, and I think there are other Siblings here who also like to forge their own personal passages. I prefer to do this because thinking on my own helps me get the information I need to improve myself in this world. I don't follow manuals, but I understand that others find it easier to do so.

That's about the best I can do.

[Aggie]

It is a convoluted bunch of many ideas folded in with my own experiences, is constantly evolving and is not for everyone. It is unstable and tailored to my needs. I could not enforce it on anyone else because it's an individual thing, and I think there are other Siblings here who also like to forge their own personal passages. I prefer to do this because thinking on my own helps me get the information I need to improve myself in this world.

Isn't that supposed to be how it is, theist or non-theist?


I was thinking about this today - it (again) emphasizes the differences between Americans and Canadians.  Most of the people (especially my age, but even most of my parent's generation) I know would likely call themselves "non-religious", although they may have a nominal notion of believing in God (predominantly Christian by default), they don't attend church, pray, or think much about the subject.

Lambi, correct me if it's different out your way, because after all, us Westerners are dirty pinko treehuggers.  BC, anyways. Alberta is one of the most pro-american, right-wing Christian provinces here, especially the rural populations,  and it's NOWHERE near the stories I hear from down south.  I've never heard of an atheist being persecuted up here.

[Sibling Chatty]

And there's damn little atheist persecution even HERE.

You get the whining about persecution, but when you ask for specifics?? Not so much.

At a Freethinker's Meet-Up (Can't say Atheist, ya know, Bible Belt!!) in College Station people were asked for ways they'd been persecuted for their stated lack of belief. One guy had been asked to switch roommates. OK, so would he have WANTED to be roommates with the Jesuit Seminarian that was picking up a DocVetMed on the side?? BUT he was persecuted!! He HAD to switch roommates!! After all of 3 hours!!(What, he had to watch the guy carry his shit to Newman House?? The Catholic Student Center had 2 dorm-type rooms available...) Well, his BIG bitch was that he'd ended up with an exchange student roommate. Not caucasian...

One guy finally pointed out that NOT being waited on first at Starbucks wasn't persecution, it was what happened when you were too busy texting somebody to listen to the barista.

It was an interesting meeting. When someone finally asked me, I pointed out that back when I met Madelyn Murray O'Hair in the late 60's, even SHE wasn't stupid enough to scream persecution for shit she brought on herself. I also pointed out that a bunch of fundamentalist Christians and a bunch of Atheists would probably be able to co-exist nicely if everyone acted like the other side was human as well, and didn't make snotty remarks.

Then I tipped the poor waitress $5 and told them that when they grew up enough to NOT be offended by the dove embroidered on the tip of her shirt collars (several had made cutting remarks about the Jeebus Bird on her shirt) they MIGHT notice the pockets on her apron, which pointed out that she'd been in a DOVE SOAP commercial shot there that day.

See, when in public, if one acts an ass, one often gets to BE an ass.

Then she pointed out that she was raised 'sorta' Jewish, and was a non-combatant in their stupid little snipe-fest.

I really rarely am able to find all this persecution that supposedly goes on.

The guy that got fired for being an atheist over at the Sealy plant?? Well, he had 4 'notes' in his personnel file about coming in drunk, and 3 is enough to get you fired. The ACLU gave up when they found out he'd claimed religious persecution when he was fired for that, and not showing up for 4 days...by a guy that said "GOD knows, man, we've tried to work with you, tried to help, but you're not taking it serious." "GOD"...they MOCKED him!! Nobody there knew he was atheist. Nobody cared.

Too much cryin' wolf out there.

[Opsa]

I think that what we're afraid of is the kind of persecution that we hear about in Muslim territories, where anything but Islam is considered Atheist (because you don't follow THEIR specific path) and are thus an Infidel and not worthy of living in this world with the faithful. You are the weakest link- goodbye! Ka-bloom! Whether or not that's really so common, I do not know.

Pagans in our area feel worried about coming out of the (broom) closet because they fear some sort of lynching or other KKK-style action may be taken out against them. Again, I do not know if this is a valid concern or not. They do believe in God(dess), but are worried that their kids will be shunned and hooligans will leave dog poop on their porches and the like. I suggested to one that they adopt a highway and put up a sign that reads "This highway cleaned regularly by Your Pagan Community", but I don't know how she felt about that. I wasn't kidding, though. If they were more visibe in a positive way, they could probably do a lot of good.

Maybe I'll do it myself. "This highway adopted by Your Local Heathen".

[Griffin NoName]

I don't know about persecution but I do think it is more acceptable to be believe in the wrong G-d than no G-d.

[beagle]

Don't know about persecution, but I know from people who've worked in the States that are definitely places where if you don't wash the car on Saturday and go to church on Sunday you're an object of suspicion.  Probably no more so than the devoutly religious are here though.

[Darlica]

Griffins  aside, she has a point.

A woman I met many years ago who travelled a lot in the middle east always carried a small cross in a chain around her neck when she travelled even though she wasn't that religious. She said that she was treated better the times her cross was visible, her experience was that a "godless" westerner gets even less respect than a Christian one. 

This of cause was long before G W Bush II Crusades...

On the other hand Mattias Gardell professor in comparative religion (at Upsala University) and I think Sweden's most famous pagan, is one of the few in not the only white man, and non Muslim that has interviewed the leaders in Nation of Islam and visited their headquarters repeatedly (for a dissertation on Louis Farrakhan and a book about religious based racism in the USA), they said they let him in just because he wasn't Christian but like them belonged to an oppressed minority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattias_Gardell 

He is BTW a very nice (but belligerent) man and an excellent speaker and writer, I have heard a couple of lectures he has given and read some papers he written.