In Treatise on Toleration, Voltaire argued that since religious intolerance is “absurd and barbaric” for it rebuts natural law it is far worse than the right of the tiger “for tigers do but tear in order to have food, while we rend each other for paragraphs.” However, imagining that there were no religion or that the idea of religism-discrimination against a specific religion, does not carry on, is easier said than done; that is why John Lennon said to “imagine” a world of peace and tolerance in his Imagine instead of “see” for this concept is still in a dreamer’s mind and not yet in reality.
I believe that religious tolerance is the willingness to accept everyone no matter what their religion is. Nowadays, we see society culturally accepting people of different beliefs and standards whether it pertains to abortion or gay marriage which is the political hot-topic of the day. So if the likelihood of tolerance is probable, why isn't the same concept applied to religion? If asked what religion is, I would answer it is the basis in defining who we are and what we stand for. It is a coexistence of the humanities’ ideologies of learning to cope if not to accept each others difference while getting through with the adversity of hatred and poor judgments We all have beliefs, although our beliefs, may contradict; we still must have respect for one another because “we are all formed of frailty and error” And so, “let us pardon each other’s folly” (Voltaire).
Ever since the founding of America, religious tolerance has been a top priority of our founders who founded this great land on the basis of freedom to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” Religious tolerance is one of these as printed in the Constitution; “Congress shall make ...
... middle of paper ...
...ch other’s weakness and disbelieves. In a Canadian Supreme court case, it was ruled that when asking for tolerance as a whole (could be religious), people aren’t asked to abandon their practices, but rather respect the values and ways of those whose ideals might not be the same as theirs for all is entitle to equal right and respect, no matter what their believes are and whether or no who or what they pray to is right or wrong. Although we are close to achieving this goal with the helps of many new policies and society more accepting of people’s personal beliefs, we are still far from it. And eve if we get there, there should not be rules that restrict certain elderly religions such as Judaism and Roman Catholicism should not be deprived of their right to maintain their basic standard to morality and religion for that would alter the motives of religious tolerance.
When it came down to the government during the convention of May 1776, instead of protecting our rights they had passed them down causing us to be under common law. If one had denied the Christian faith and went against everything it believed in, such as, “there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military,” (Jefferson 176). This is what most people had thought about if you did not follow their religion. Thomas Jefferson believed that the wall between church and state should be very high in order to keep out and prevent hostile situations. Using an example from today’s news, many people get uncomfortable in the United Stated with the Muslim religion because of the previous horrific events that led to many cruel deaths in our history. By this, the way that we look at these people is forever changed because of the incidents and who knows if we will ever not be hostile with one another because of it. If church and state hadn’t been separated we may have not become a true democracy from what our developing country was seeming to lead towards. More people would not be as accepting of each other, and not that they are still not today, but I feel as if it may
As the world becomes increasingly more interconnected, differences among the many religions prove to be obstacles to the global society. In an effort to overcome these obstacles, religious authorities propose the essential sameness of all religions (that all religions point towards the same goal); however, this hypothesis oversimplifies all religions to an arbitrary base. On the other hand, Stephen Prothero’s, the author of God Is Not One, proposal for the acknowledgment of the differences preserves the multidimensional aspects of religions. By rejecting the hypothesis of a basic and similar structure of religion, Prothero allows for them to exist as complete entities; however, Prothero also creates false barriers that over differentiate religions.
In a modern civilization, all three—religion, democracy and international good faith—complement and support each other” (Franklin D. Roosevelt: State of the Union message). This statement supported the idea that religion is associated with a well-functioning government. However, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education it was stated that, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach” (Hugo Black).
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution).
For more than a century, the concept of secularism and its boundaries has been widely disputed by secularists and non-secularists alike. English dictionaries define secularism as simply the separation of church and state, or, the separation of religion and politics. Michael Walzer, a true secularist, believes that this separation is an essential democratic value and ultimately fosters toleration of a plurality of religions (Walzer, p. 620). Wæver, an opponent of secularism, defines secularism as “a doctrine for how society ought to be designed”– that religion and politics ought to be divided in order to ensure religious liberty, as well as religious-free politics. However, he does not deem that such a principle exists (Wæver, p. 210). Based on these different viewpoints, I have established a unique concept of secularism: the principle that religion and politics be kept apart, that the state remains neutral in regard to religion, and that liberty, equality, and fraternity be upheld in an attempt to successfully promote religious toleration and pluralism.
The Amendment I of the Bill of Rights is often called “the freedom of speech.” It provides a multitude of freedoms: of religion, of speech, of the press, to peacefully assemble, to petition the government. Religious freedom is vitally important to this day because it eliminates the problem of religious conflicts. Historically, many people died for their beliefs because their government only allowed and permitted one religion. T...
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (First Amendment Center, 2008)
Values some take for granted within this society today were ignored wholesale by a tyrannical colonial authority, and the people of this land rose up, shook off the chains of oppression, and set out to devise a new governmental system under which they could live rather freely. In his iconic “Four Freedoms” speech, America’s 32nd president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, outlined said values, stating that all should enjoy “freedom of speech and expression...freedom...to worship God in [their] own way” and “ a healthy peacetime life” (46). The importance of the concept of free speech and equality to the American identity cannot be understated, as it truly the foundation upon which much of this society rests. In the United states, it is instilled in us that from birth each human is bestowed with the same freedoms as all others. However, time and time again, people are denied these freedoms on the basis of skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. Luckily, when such situations arise, the core belief that each and every person is owed liberty motivates the citizens of this nation to exercise their rights. With this in mind they speak out, or fight, against injustice, to take a further step towards making that dream of equality and a “healthy peacetime life” for all a
“Ecrasons l’infame,” which is interpreted, “We must crush the vile thing.” This is the expression Voltaire used to articulate his feelings for organized religion. With many natural theists soon to follow his path, Voltaire expressed his hatred for cultural religions, opting for a universal God of nature. Given a few more centuries, Darwin would have given Voltaire the scientific theory to support his desire for atheism. But alas, with no other theory in place, intelligent individuals of 18th century France were forced to use creationism to explain the world in its beauty and organization. This, as previously stated, was not a problem for Voltaire. His issue was the moral implications that separated religious groups, often to the point of war with one another. Religious intolerance was a subject he dealt with in many of his works, especially Candide. The religious characters in this work were mostly negative with the exception of Brethren predecessor, the Anabaptist, and the old woman. His opinion of various religions was also established in Candide, although it was simply a vague one, clumping all organized religions into an “evil superstitions” category. The conclusion of this work also gave us insight on Voltaire’s view of religion as either positive or detrimental to society and the individual.
In an allegedly postmodern world, when looking at tolerance for ideologies other than our own is said to be the only absolute and controlling ideology. Inasmuch, as its doctrine of “sin” suggests that all humans are inherently flawed; Christianity is often viewed as judgmental and intolerant of others. Granted the approach of a certain Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas pushes the extreme that makes all Christians cringe in this area. Christians should not be embarrassed of the doctrine of sin today. Moreover, Christianity should not try to soften what it says about the human condition to be more readily acceptable to a broader world. This world needs help, guidance, and rules if we are to succeed as a human race.
Robinson B.A. 1 Mar 2000 (last update), Islam, Hp. Online. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Available:
Across the world, people are persecuted because of their beliefs. In America, we are fortunate to be able to have freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is important; people can freely partake in the practices of their religion without defiance. Religion can easily be defined as something one believes...
Ecumenical spirits influence various religions to lay aside theological differences, and accept and tolerate diverse beliefs coming together and forming ecclesiastical bonds. Historically, Catholics and Protestants fought each other, and not only through verbal exchange, but through physical means as well. World and religious leaders today advocate accepting all faiths and tolerance of differing viewpoints. For the most part they reflect the ideals of the general consensus. Popular opinion suggests that there are various paths to God, and it is narrow minded to believe there is only on...
Discrimination based on or derived from religion has been a cause of significant suffering. Prejudice directed against people based on their religious beliefs, practice, identification or association has resulted in a wide range of discriminatory practices. Prejudice and discrimination based on religion continue to be problems even in countries that otherwise has achieved a high level of religious diversity. Prejudice based on religion has been used to justify discrimination against those with different religious beliefs, individuals of various ethnicities, those who are not exclus...
The idea of this argument is that the tolerance of someone else’s cultural morals is a good thing to do and ought to be done. Basically, people from different cultures should be tolerant to each other’s culture whenever possible. An example of this can also be seen with the case of Muslims believing that it is wrong to eat with the left hand. Although people from other cultures believe that there is nothing wrong with eating with the left hand, they should still be tolerant to Muslims and likewise, the Muslims should also be tolerant to the others that eat with their left hand. A rebuttal to this is that we cannot always be tolerant to another culture. Sometimes, the things that people within a certain culture do are extreme and should not be tolerated. This can be seen with the activities of ISIS. For a long while, ISIS has been beheading people and posting it on the internet, and performing terrorist acts around the world. Just a few months ago, ISIS carried out a series of terrorist attacks that involved suicide bombing in Paris, which resulted in the death 130 people. With the argument from tolerance, we are supposed to be tolerant of these acts. However, should we really be tolerant and is it good to be tolerant of these acts? The U.S., France, and many other countries do not seem to think so. What would be tolerable to ISIS is completely intolerable to many others because most of us believe that killing is wrong and