Is arguing against religious belief intolerant?

PDN

karen3212 wrote: »

The phrase that really bothers me in their statement is ''whether the people want it or not''. How are they going to force the rest of us to put up law according to their beliefs, I wonder.

Anyway policy has to be based on the evidence available, and not what tom, dick and harry believe.

And I've seen the last census, the other religions(besides catholic) in Ireland are a tiny minority, don't know where the huge numbers mentioned are coming from.

Good grief, can nobody read and understand the English language anymore?

The statement says that Evangelicals are working to make their voice known. That means that, even if people don't agree with us, they should actually be aware of what are our beliefs and values instead of relying on the misrepresentations and stereotypes that people often pick up from the tabloid media. No-one is suggesting that laws should be framed to suit the beliefs of a minority.

After all, Karen, wouldn't it be better to hear from people what they actually believe? Wouldn't that be better than swallowing tall stories from propaganda websites and videos etc?

Call Me Jimmy

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

I think it's obviously intolerant if you ridicule someone personally or harass them because of their beliefs. However, questioning the belief and arguing against it in general is not intolerant at all.

EDIT: But then again, if someone believes elvis is still alive and I call him crazy that's also intolerant but it depends whether or not you think that kind of intolerance is a bad thing.

robindch

karen3212 wrote: »

The phrase that really bothers me in their statement is ''whether the people want it or not''.

Where does that quote come from? Closest I can find is "The reaction could be positive or negative, but the Kingdom of God would be unavoidable." which comes from the Strategic Plan for 2007, available as a PDF download from here.

What's interesting from a religion-as-meme point of view is that this is a conscious, documented strategy to permit a religious organization to increase its share of the religious market place (regardless, it seems, of the citizens' feelings, or at least the feelings of those of us who object to "unavoidable" religion). In that sense, it's similar in structure to the well-known and infamous Wedge Strategy leaked from the creationist Discovery Institute ten years or so ago. In around half the sections of the Strategic Plan overall -- or, in almost every section where it's possible -- the importance of increased or increasing market-share appears before any other concern. While the concerns for which churches are traditionally known (concern for the sick and elderly, abortion, the "family", drugs, teen sex and so on), are basically absent. Increased mindshare is what this document is all about. Nothing more.

It's a fascinating insight into how free-market religion has evolved to operate in the absence of the state support that was normal until relatively recently.

Filed away with considerable interest -- thanks again iUseVI.

.

iUseVi

robindch wrote: »

It's a fascinating insight into how free-market religion has evolved to operate in the absence of the state support that was normal until relatively recently.

Filed away with considerable interest -- thanks again iUseVI.

No problem. Glad you found it as interesting as I.

londubh

i was raised catholic and converted to paganism but i still retain some of my catholic traditions and beliefs, so i get the eye-roll from both sides and to be honest i enjoy the debate. nobody will change my mind on my beliefs. so fire away. anyone who gets upest with your opinion may be on shaky ground with their own belief system or they wouldnt be intolerant of your opinion.

karen3212

PDN wrote: »

Good grief, can nobody read and understand the English language anymore?

I think most people in Ireland can both read and understand it. Perhaps they read the meaning from what is said in detail, and interpret it, as many Christians have and continue to do, wrt the bible

PDN wrote: »

After all, Karen, wouldn't it be better to hear from people what they actually believe? Wouldn't that be better than swallowing tall stories from propaganda websites and videos etc?

Yes, but what people say they believe on their website and what they actually believe, may be different. We can only take the website's word for it that they genuinely believe what they say. I am pro free speech, and would never want a website or person to shut up and not talk about something just because I don't agree with it, nor would I tell them that they should shut up because I think their source of knowledge or information might be extremely biased.

karen3212

robindch wrote: »

Where does that quote come from? Closest I can find is "The reaction could be positive or negative, but the Kingdom of God would be unavoidable." which comes from the Strategic Plan for 2007, available as a PDF download from here.

.

Thank you for alerting me to my mistake:o, I interpreted what I'd read, I shouldn't have put it up as a statement directly from the text of their document.:)