To live and let live?

[dax0410]

Is this a possible stance? Can one really live and let live in the realm of religious/or non-religious beliefs? I often read on here something to the effect of "I don't care what you believe, however I do get upset/angry/the heebie jeebies when you start proselytizing, so everyone should keep there beliefs to themselves." Is that in itself proselytizing?

Moreover, everyone must rely on their first principle philosophy/philosophies to shape their worldview. For instance, its many peoples opinion that intelligent design should not be taught in school because it is not scientific. (I am not debating that one way or the other). However, some would say it has more scientific merit than evolution. The classes I have taken on the subject often leave out some of the gapping holes of the theory, or teach pieces of it that have been disproven for a number of years. However, I don't inted for this to digress into that realm. Rather, it would seem in that case that what is taught is derived from the worldview of the powers that be that design the curriculum.

So is it possible not to proselytize, whether you are doing so for religious purposes or not? Is it acceptable for someone to use a religious world-view to shape their opinions on lets say, public policy? If not why not?

[Homini Lupus]

About people living shoulder to shoulder, I think the attitude of living and let live is possible as long as there is the will to be so; religious arguments most of the time get a real problem when people want it to be. When dealing with public policy, it is a bargain by definition: you can't stop the pope from talking and you can't stop people to do what he says if they wish so (provided that they don't break the law). The solution here in most countries is having a "rigid" constitution wich requires a lot of political effort to be changed, so that the majority has to respect the rights of the minorities. Obviously, there's a limit also to that but if population becomes an "irrational" crowd you can't expect a democratic state to stay rational. Wether it reflects the will of that crowd or it becomes a non democratic state.

[Monte314]

I want to be able to express my ideas, and I want to have access to the ideas of others (I can't learn a whole lot from people who believe exactly what I believe). This access can only occur if all of us have the freedom to speak our minds in the public forum without fear (of anything more than being flamed).

Some of us won't be civil with this freedom. We will be rude and insulting, we will ridicule others' cherished beliefs, will make jokes about peoples' deeply held convictions, and treat their feelings lightly... but this is part of the price of freedom, and it's a price worth paying.

Other people are going to say things I don't like, in ways that offend me. But as soon as you start imposing rules to *make* people be *nice*, everyone's freedom is diminished.

On a related matter, I'm very happy with the benevolent dictatorship we have here on the INTJ Forum. Rather than try to concoct a bunch of rules based upon guesses about what nasty things people might someday do, we have moderators that confer with one another about what makes sense, warn you if you are "out of line", and give you the boot if you can't be a productive member. That works in a voluntary system like this Forum.

[Antares]

This is a possible stance only if everyone learns tolerance. So far, it doesn't seem imminent. It would only work if dogmatic people get out and stay out. Stop converting people and make personal beliefs truly "personal". Religion have no place in politics. Churches should be ignored and political arguments involving 'gods' be cast out of the legislation. Sure, you can advocate laws based on the morality you learned from your religion (as long as you can logically justify it), but if you have to resort to religion, then please, do us all a favor and keep your mouth shut. No, we shouldn't legalize polygamy for any Muslim just because they're muslim, nor should we have public school prayers. We should tax religious funds just like any other charity. One can talk about their religion as long as they don't meddle in another's personal beliefs.

[Monte314]

... if you have to resort to religion, then please, do us all a favor and keep your mouth shut.

Do believe that your requested ban on religious speech in the political arena should be formalized in any way, say by legislation or case law?

(Keep in mind that atheistic speech is held to be religious speech in some countries. Or does the requested ban only apply to religious speech that annoys our Moderator?)

[Freak87]

I don't think intelligent design has anything to do with religion. someone could not believe in intelligent design and they could just believe evolution doesn't make sense- maybe there's someone behind it. they could be agnostic, deist or just not care.

this philosophy is impossible in our world yet it is possible theoretically of course.

I believe something. I could tell you once. as soon as you reject it, i could not tell you again. or i could tell you, and even if you reject it, i still see you as the same person- don't hold a grudge, it doesn't drive a wedge between us. that is live and let live, not tolerance. tolerance is "no one disagree with my opinion or I'll start crying." the idea of tolerance is dead. no one is going to agree. agree to disagree and live with it. agree?
haha

[void]

To live and let live is fundamentally incompatible with a common tenet of many mainstream religions: to spread the religion to non-believers and heathens. You can find quotes strongly advocating this in at least one book from almost every religion. Sure, most moderate religious people don't bother to spread the message, but they pick and choose what to believe anyway.

For the mixture of religion and politics, Antares nailed it with the statement "you can advocate laws based on the morality you learned from your religion (as long as you can logically justify it), but if you have to resort to religion, then please, do us all a favor and keep your mouth shut." As long as you can logically justify it, I don't care where the inspiration comes from.

As far as intelligent design goes: there is nothing intelligent about it. It is not science. Period. The folks frothing at their mouths, screaming "teach the controversy!!1!one!" refuse to acknowledge this. Some of them know very well that the supposed controversy is fabricated and does not exist in the scientific community. The assertion that evolution is taught in public schools due to the worldview of "powers that be" is frankly ludicrous. It is humankind's best explanation for observed diversification of biological entities. It has holes and is by no means a complete theory. But nothing else comes close to it in terms of descriptive and predictive power.

[Monte314]

The assertion that evolution is taught in public schools due to the worldview of "powers that be" is frankly ludicrous. It is humankind's best explanation for observed diversification of biological entities. It has holes and is by no means a complete theory. But nothing else comes close to it in terms of descriptive and predictive power.

You are dragging us off-topic here, but I'll respond anyway.

You are aware, are you not, that macro-evolution has no predictive component? It is actually a collection of retrospective theories still searching for a tenable microbiological infrastructure. Until it addresses this latter shortcoming, it doesn't qualify to be termed an explanatory theory... merely a descriptive one.

Evolutionary theory is *not* humankind's best "explanation" of diversity, because it does not as yet contain an explanatory model. Neither is it the theory having the most "predictive power", because it is not a predictive theory.

[void]

5 seconds of browsing through Google search results generated by "distinction between macroevolution and microevolution" indicates the flaw in your first premise. Here's a succinct link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The first hit is somewhat lengthier but I didn't want to include that due to the URL, which some might mistake for an Atheist Agenda(TM).

Perhaps I'm ignorant of better theories that explain genetic diversity. As for predictive power, this link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._power) provides examples. In case somebody vandalizes that page, here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is another one.


EDIT: I apologize for derailing the thread, but I just couldn't let this one go :-P

[zibber]

5 seconds of browsing through Google search results generated by "distinction between macroevolution and microevolution" indicates the flaw in your first premise. Here's a succinct link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The first hit is somewhat lengthier but I didn't want to include that due to the URL, which some might mistake for an Atheist Agenda(TM).

Perhaps I'm ignorant of better theories that explain genetic diversity. As for predictive power, this link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._power) provides examples. In case somebody vandalizes that page, here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is another one.


EDIT: I apologize for derailing the thread, but I just couldn't let this one go :-P

If you notice how a large chunk of the very first post seems to have as its main intention to smear evolution, which monte aimed to perpetuate, you're not that off-topic.

[Antares]

Do believe that your requested ban on religious speech in the political arena should be formalized in any way, say by legislation or case law?

(Keep in mind that atheistic speech is held to be religious speech in some countries. Or does the requested ban only apply to religious speech that annoys our Moderator?)

There is no such thing as 'atheistic' speech... Or is there? Is simply not mentioning religion or anything related atheistic? It doesn't do what religions do. Let me list the things most prominent religions have in common (excluding Buddhism). Deity, Holy Text, Holy City (or places, such as the Brahmaputra and Golden Temple), doctrine, priest, magic, miracle, rituals, Holy Holiday, to name what I can think of now. Atheism neither has nor have doctrines telling you do to any of those things, or anything, really. And besides, since when did I want to ban religious speech by politicians? Say it all you want. Shout it out. Yell it on the top of your lungs. Just don't take it into politics. Politics is entirely secular. Freedom of Speech is an obstacle, isn't it? Well, I'd ban speeches promoting Atheism and all religion in politics (that actually is going to have tangible effects). If I can't, I don't think we should take political-religious speeches (including ones promoting atheism) seriously.

You can't really control what politicians say, but if you want to impose the morality you learned from your religion on us, don't use religion, please. This is the worst possible reason. In my ideal world no one will vote for a bill that cites God as a main reason and is illogical (if you cite God but has legitimate reason, it's ok), a true separation of church and state. But I do know that this is reality. It seems, the more god or holy text is cited, the more people seem to like the policy.

[Monte314]

If you notice how a large chunk of the very first post seems to have as its main intention to smear evolution, which monte aimed to perpetuate, you're not that off-topic.

Sorry. Not trying to be a problem.

[bricklayer]

I often read on here something to the effect of "I don't care what you believe, however I do get upset/angry/the heebie jeebies when you start proselytizing, so everyone should keep there beliefs to themselves."

If that is your belief then you are hypocritical and have failed to live up to your own standards. One could argue that it is impossible not to force ones beliefs on others.

[Antares]

If that is your belief then you are hypocritical and have failed to live up to your own standards. One could argue that it is impossible not to force ones beliefs on others.

No. Not impossible. Like Gandhi with his religious beliefs. You just have to be more secular.

[comet]

Is this a possible stance? Can one really live and let live in the realm of religious/or non-religious beliefs? I often read on here something to the effect of "I don't care what you believe, however I do get upset/angry/the heebie jeebies when you start proselytizing, so everyone should keep there beliefs to themselves." Is that in itself proselytizing?

Moreover, everyone must rely on their first principle philosophy/philosophies to shape their worldview. For instance, its many peoples opinion that intelligent design should not be taught in school because it is not scientific. (I am not debating that one way or the other). However, some would say it has more scientific merit than evolution. The classes I have taken on the subject often leave out some of the gapping holes of the theory, or teach pieces of it that have been disproven for a number of years. However, I don't inted for this to digress into that realm. Rather, it would seem in that case that what is taught is derived from the worldview of the powers that be that design the curriculum.

So is it possible not to proselytize, whether you are doing so for religious purposes or not? Is it acceptable for someone to use a religious world-view to shape their opinions on lets say, public policy? If not why not?

I went to school in the 1960's, and for that fact I am very grateful. In science classes I was taught pure science, nothing more, nothing less.

I see political correctness mayhem in the 2000's. If they want to teach intelligent design, then make that a totally separate subject to science, perhaps even (heaven forbid!!) make it an elective subject!!!

The United States was not founded as a Christian nation, you have a secular constitution, and yet in this day and age, religion want's to push and shove it's nose into all things political. Because the USA is legally secular, religion has become free enterprise.

I live in Australia, and although we are a democracy, things are very different to the USA. We never had to fight for our freedom, we negotiated it. But I tell you this, the day religion imagines it can dictate government policy to us is the day most Australians would revolt. We are a conservative country that rejected republicanism simply because we won't be taken in by spin doctors in the form of politicans (or religious leaders for that matter).

As for the rest of the world, it's varied, makes life interesting. I've been to a lot of countries in my lifetime, but give me the larconic Aussie outlook on life anyday. Most here would just say "G'day mate" and not make judgements about a person regardless of their race, colour or creed.

Personally I don't like the idea of politics and religion mixing at all.

[dax0410]

Secularism is just an ingenious ploy to keep religion out of the public realm. Every individual has first principles that shape their worldview. Why is acceptable for those worldviews that do not originate with God to use their first principles to shape their political views, but not those that originate with God? Seems like two sides of the same coin to me. I can rationlize my faith as quickly as anyone can rationalize their faith, or if you prefer lack thereof. However, all rationlize eventually deteriate.

One must legislate morality because legislation by its nature is a value judgement (even lack of legislation, anarchy if you will, is a value judgement). Moreover, certain public policy questions are sticky, and it is very difficult to take a stance on them based merely on objective fact. This comes into play on such slippery slopes as abortion, killing in self-defense, capital punishment, and animal rights.

Just as an illustration lets use animal rights as a case study. If one believes that animals and humans share a common ancestor, then it would be acceptable for her to then use that assumption to shape her public policy position, whether it be as extreme as animals having equal rights to humans or as simple as outlawing hunting. I don't think anyone would question that individuals right to lobby her beliefs. However, the opposite stance of animals are not equal to man because God gave man a soul and dominion over animals would certainly be held in contempt by some as a violation of our most sacred right of freedom FROM religion.

For the record I obviously believe in God. I also believe that on of God's intention in creating man was the gift of freedom of the will. He essentially created us so that we can freely come to know and love Him, and so any form of theocracy would be counterproductive in the end. However, I do use my Christian beliefs to shape my stances on certain issues, including the ones listed above.

Jarno- Evolution vs Intelligent Design was clearly used as an illustration in the first post.

Antares- Why shouldn't we legalize polygamy? Especially considering the seperation of church and state within the secular/atheistic government. It seems like that is a moral judgement that cannot be logically justified, unless you make a utilitarian argument, which may or may not hold up. You could also argue that monogamy stablizes societies, which becomes sticky as well.

PS I love some of the irony being thrown around, such as, "top converting people and make personal beliefs truly "personal," which is indeed a personal belief.

[Brutananadilewski]

Secularism is just an ingenious ploy to keep religion out of the public realm. Every individual has first principles that shape their worldview. Why is acceptable for those worldviews that do not originate with God to use their first principles to shape their political views, but not those that originate with God? Seems like two sides of the same coin to me. I can rationlize my faith as quickly as anyone can rationalize their faith, or if you prefer lack thereof. However, all rationlize eventually deteriate.
One must legislate morality because legislation by its nature is a value judgement (even lack of legislation, anarchy if you will, is a value judgement). There are certain

Why on earth do you feel entitled to have religion in the public realm? S

Secularism is not a ploy, it is the only fair and just means to govern an entire population that contains multiple worldviews. The only way to accomodate everyone's differing beliefs (or lack thereof) is to govern the popoulace without resorting to the beliefs of a single system. Would you find it fair to have muslim influences governing your country if you are a Christian? How about pagan influences influencing your policies and legislation? Now reverse those. What about an atheist; is it fair for a government to legislate based on beliefs and a worldview he doesn't share? Secularism is the means by which we can recognize teh diversity of faith, and teh means by which we ensure that people are free to purpose whatever faith they choose.

What secularism does is say that depsite your differences in worldview, there are still some fundamental principles upon which we can agree that are universally applicable to everyone. These principles are basic and transcend any religious outlook; is this not fair for every person that lives in this world? Is it not fair to assure that no one is having something imposed upon them that they do not want to be? Secularism is not an imposition of beliefs, whereas the governance based on religiosity would be an imposition (which violates a person's individual freedom to pursue their own path).

Certain value judgments are less subjective than others. Certain values are more applicable than others. While anarchy can be considered a value judgement, it is the one that offers the least amount of imposition upon an individual's freedoms, and is therefore a better altnernative. As you move into government, through secularism and then religiosity, the impingement upon individual liberties becomes greater. Even though all of the above are value judgements, some of them are more opressive, less universal, and carry heavier ramifications than others. In this sense, the value judgements are not on equal footing, and therefore why secularism is a must for a government of a free population.





Brutananadilewski added to this post, 10 minutes and 35 seconds later...

Is this a possible stance? Can one really live and let live in the realm of religious/or non-religious beliefs? I often read on here something to the effect of "I don't care what you believe, however I do get upset/angry/the heebie jeebies when you start proselytizing, so everyone should keep there beliefs to themselves." Is that in itself proselytizing?

Moreover, everyone must rely on their first principle philosophy/philosophies to shape their worldview. For instance, its many peoples opinion that intelligent design should not be taught in school because it is not scientific. (I am not debating that one way or the other). However, some would say it has more scientific merit than evolution. The classes I have taken on the subject often leave out some of the gapping holes of the theory, or teach pieces of it that have been disproven for a number of years. However, I don't inted for this to digress into that realm. Rather, it would seem in that case that what is taught is derived from the worldview of the powers that be that design the curriculum.

So is it possible not to proselytize, whether you are doing so for religious purposes or not? Is it acceptable for someone to use a religious world-view to shape their opinions on lets say, public policy? If not why not?

It's very easy to live and let live, but it requires a certain amount of humility and independence, which virtually nobody in our society has. What I mean by this is that it's very easy to live and let live if you can not only admit, but understand, that your worldview has no more merit to it than anyone else's. You must be able to admit that there's a very good chance you could be wrong. Most people are too afraid of the implications of such a stance, theists especially. If you can admit that your worldview could be completely off-base, then you recognize the validity of other's perspectives, and you stop trying to force your own opinion upon other people. However, this requires a certain amount of independence, self-confidence, and humility that our ass-backwards society doesn't promote.





Brutananadilewski added to this post, 7 minutes and 35 seconds later...

If that is your belief then you are hypocritical and have failed to live up to your own standards. One could argue that it is impossible not to force ones beliefs on others.

How is this being hypocritical? If someone wouldn't proselytize to me, or try to legislate some religious notion that affects my personally, I would never have to tell people to back off. I'm not forcing a belief upon anyone when I tell them to leave me alone, they're the ones who have intiated, and invaded my space, and I've every right to tell them to bugger off. This is not hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy would be to tell people to live and let live and yet tell them they can't go to church, or that they can't pray by themselves (not as a school function) at school, or whatever else. Telling people to leave me alone, however, is not hypocrisy.

[dax0410]

Why on earth do you feel entitled to have religion in the public realm? S

Secularism is not a ploy, it is the only fair and just means to govern an entire population that contains multiple worldviews. The only way to accomodate everyone's differing beliefs (or lack thereof) is to govern the popoulace without resorting to the beliefs of a single system. Would you find it fair to have muslim influences governing your country if you are a Christian? How about pagan influences influencing your policies and legislation? Now reverse those. What about an atheist; is it fair for a government to legislate based on beliefs and a worldview he doesn't share? Secularism is the means by which we can recognize teh diversity of faith, and teh means by which we ensure that people are free to purpose whatever faith they choose.

What secularism does is say that depsite your differences in worldview, there are still some fundamental principles upon which we can agree that are universally applicable to everyone. These principles are basic and transcend any religious outlook; is this not fair for every person that lives in this world? Is it not fair to assure that no one is having something imposed upon them that they do not want to be? Secularism is not an imposition of beliefs, whereas the governance based on religiosity would be an imposition (which violates a person's individual freedom to pursue their own path).

Certain value judgments are less subjective than others. Certain values are more applicable than others. While anarchy can be considered a value judgement, it is the one that offers the least amount of imposition upon an individual's freedoms, and is therefore a better altnernative. As you move into government, through secularism and then religiosity, the impingement upon individual liberties becomes greater. Even though all of the above are value judgements, some of them are more opressive, less universal, and carry heavier ramifications than others. In this sense, the value judgements are not on equal footing, and therefore why secularism is a must for a government of a free population.

I do not have a problem with every belief getting an equal hearing, which may actual paralyze government. However, "secularism" or "seperation of church and state" is often used to have religious types "shut their mouth." As mentioned above, and I know you posted before I finished editing my post, I don't believe in a theocracy. I guess my main point is that all worldviews are derived from somewhere. Some are more logically derived than others, or two people can have the same worldview yet one have completely different reasons as to why they hold that worldview. For instance, it would seem that antares and I both believe polygamy should not be legal, but we probably have very different reasons for believing so. However, we both have the right, at least we should, to support that view publically. And publically doesn't necessarily mean politically.

Just as an aside, anarchy would not, in my opinion, offer the greatest amount of personal freedom in an imperfect world where people are irrational due to the rule of the mob. There cannot be a void of power in society because some force will fill that void.





dax0410 added to this post, 6 minutes and 37 seconds later...



How is this being hypocritical? If someone wouldn't proselytize to me, or try to legislate some religious notion that affects my personally, I would never have to tell people to back off. I'm not forcing a belief upon anyone when I tell them to leave me alone, they're the ones who have intiated, and invaded my space, and I've every right to tell them to bugger off. This is not hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy would be to tell people to live and let live and yet tell them they can't go to church, or that they can't pray by themselves (not as a school function) at school, or whatever else. Telling people to leave me alone, however, is not hypocrisy.

"I don't care what you believe, however I do get upset/angry/the heebie jeebies when you start proselytizing, so everyone should keep there beliefs to themselves."

Here is how it is hypocritical: If you don't care what other's believe, then you shouldn't care if they share it, especially if their beliefs call for them to do so. You do have every rigth to say as an individual that you don't want to hear it, but it is hypocritical to state that people should not proselytize because that in itself is proselytizing.

[Brutananadilewski]

I do not have a problem with every belief getting an equal hearing, which may actual paralyze government. However, "secularism" or "seperation of church and state" is often used to have religious types "shut their mouth." As mentioned above, and I know you posted before I finished editing my post, I don't believe in a theocracy. I guess my main point is that all worldviews are derived from somewhere. Some are more logically derived than others, or two people can have the same worldview yet one have completely different reasons as to why they hold that worldview. For instance, it would seem that antares and I both believe polygamy should not be legal, but we probably have very different reasons for believing so. However, we both have the right, at least we should, to support that view publically. And publically doesn't necessarily mean politically.

Fair enough, I agree. Secularism is being used as a "shut your mouth" kind of thing, when in fact it should only pertain to the political realm. It's just too bad that people blend the public and political realms so intricately.


Just as an aside, anarchy would not, in my opinion, offer the greatest amount of personal freedom in an imperfect world where people are irrational due to the rule of the mob. There cannot be a void of power in society because some force will fill that void.

I just don't care about everyone else. As long as I could do my own thing unhinged, it doesn't matter. Ideally, I wanna live on a hippie commune, playing music, smoking dope, and playing with my dog. I, however, am trapped in medical school with nearly 200 grand in debt, thus I'm bound to an existence within this society. I can see where you're coming from, though, and if I were different, I'd probably share your view.


"I don't care what you believe, however I do get upset/angry/the heebie jeebies when you start proselytizing, so everyone should keep there beliefs to themselves."

Here is how it is hypocritical: If you don't care what other's believe, then you shouldn't care if they share it, especially if their beliefs call for them to do so. You do have every rigth to say as an individual that you don't want to hear it, but it is hypocritical to state that people should not proselytize because that in itself is proselytizing.

It would be hypocritical if someone asked to share their worldview with me, I offered permission, and then half-way through told them to keep it to themselves. I, however, did not invite them to share it with me in the first place, and thus it can't be hypocrisy for me to tell them not to share when permission was not given in the first place.

I can see what you're saying, but the fact remains that I do care that people share their worldview because I simply want to be left alone. Sharing their worldview, no matter if it compels them to share or not, violates my personal space, and I don't want that. I don't care what they think, what I care about is that they're bothering me in the first place. That's not hypocrisy or proselytizing. It has nothing to do with the view itself and everything to do with the fact that I just don't want to be bothered to being with. Period.

[bricklayer]

I've every right to tell them to bugger off. This is not hypocrisy.

All of what you have just said is a belief. Your belief that you are trying to have me accept. Therefore you are doing exactly what you have claimed to hate: forcing your beliefs on others. Sorry to be so technical.

[void]

*puff puff*

"Well that's just...like...your opinion, man!"

*puff puff*

That's akin to arguing that atheism is a religion, bricklayer. And I'm sure you've heard how that statement relates to stamp collecting.