That was quite a message. Lots of cats and dogs in there. I'm not sure what they all have to do with each other. I'll inquire further about a few of them. Maybe I can get them to hang together.
How can you extend religious tolerance to people that elect not to practice religion?
I don't see how you can claim religious tolerance if you only consider those belief systems with a deity to be equal and deserving of tolerance but are intolerant of those that don't have a deity. It's like saying that all races are equal and warrant tolerance except Asians or all genders except women. The notion of religious tolerance that excludes belief systems that are not packaged under the traditional religion umbrella or that don't have a deity. Tolerating belief systems not your own except for non-organized or non-deity belief systems is only marginally less bigoted than tolerating only your own religion. I guess one could look at that glass as half full, an improvement. But you sure can't claim it as full. Or tolerant.
We let the religious extinction in this country negate the entire existance of God because non christians didn't want their kids to listen to be exposed to Christian stories at school.
So what would you do instead? Expose them to Buddhist stories? And/or Wiccan stories? And/or Muslim stories?
If the cornerstone of all obedience is the government, then free will is doomed
Now, that is really confusing. You seem to have paired up obedience and free will in a way that suggests that they are are synergistic. Obedience and free will are much closer to opposites and halves of a pair. I find your pairing bizarre.
You apparently see obedience as a desirable. I don't get that, either. At least not for anyone out of childhood. Why would we want to encourage obedience in adults. A tendency towards obedience fosters group-think, even tyranny, and discourages creativity. I have no clue why anyone would promote obedience. I agree that free will is a desirable, as long as it is developed with education and self-discipline and not expressed wantonly.
But desirable or undesirable, they both seem a distraction from the point we were discussion, which was religious tolerance.
Let's introduce yoga as a replacement to gym class.
I think yoga training is good idea, meditation,religion, and philosophy, too, although not necessarily as a replacement for gym class, but again a distraction from the subject of religious tolerance. I don't see the nexus.
They are attacking the kids in our own schools armed with rifles and ky jelly to assault their victims.
Plus you've irrevocably tied violence and other uncivilized behavior to lack of religion. We get all kinds of uncivilized behavior from the religious and the non-religious alike. You can't attribute constructive participation in society with either God or religion. There are good guys and bad guys on both sides of your bogus dichotomy.
from the aclu free rights movement to remove all structure in our society.
All structure? All structure? C'mon now.
Seems to me that the ACLU is about bucking intolerance, the very objective you claim. They have their own way of doing it and maybe it's not always the most constructive way, but what they're about is fighting intolerance. You and they should be soulmates. If you're as opposed to intolerance as you claim to be, that is.
|
