Re: Religious tolerance (was Re: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme)

I did not write but rather quoted the below statement. The main reason
for PZ Myers actions was the response of the Catholic church to a
person desecrating the host, ending in the person being removed from
his position on the university senate and having to fight for his
survival at the university.

Respect or lack thereof is a concept that is easily affected by one's
biases. How to end this vicious circle is an interesting one

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> Hi Bernie, Pim,
>
> I understand Pim's sentiments, but believe Bernie's way of putting it is
> preferable.
>
> The way of Jesus, as I understand it, is not "I will treat you well when you
> get your act together" but simply the unconditional "I will treat you well".
>
> In that respect I balk when Pim states;
>
> If the Catholic church can get
>> away with desecrating what others consider sacred (or, for those of us
>> who have no concept of sacredness, at least special) - if they can
>> call a loving union between two gay men or women an "abomination", if
>> they can call the union into which I hope to enter someday a
>> "perversion", then damn it, I reserve the right to desecrate what they
>> consider sacred also.
>
> I understand the sense of outrage here, Pim, and I think it a pretty poor
> state of affairs when a person claims to espouse tolerance and NOT feel
> enraged when that principle is violated - so I understand the frustration
> and/or anger.
>
> BUT...
>
> The entire point of tolerance is that it ought to BEGIN by being something
> we extend toward others and NOT something we reserve the right to practice
> only after they extend it toward us.
>
> So, I have to say that, if religious tolerance IS a value to be defended,
> then talk of reserving a right to desecrate what others consider sacred
> couldn't be more strongly decried.
>
> It's not a question of Roman Catholics "getting away" with anything - it's a
> question of whether a principle of tolerance will be extended toward Roman
> Catholics even when they take a position one finds absolutely abhorrent.
>
> At the end of the day, the question is whether religious tolerance is a
> principle one lives by or whether it is a principle that one thinks others
> should live by. As you say, Pim, "there is no such thing as a right not to
> be offended" - which includes, I believe, the offense which may be caused by
> Roman Catholics and their views on sexuality.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>
>> PvM said: "Respect is a two-way street - if they want my respect, they
>> must give me theirs."
>>
>> If Jesus is our role model, then we should respect everyone, whether they
>> respect us or not. He went to the cross, yet was blameless. He didn't
>> complain. He's our role model for humility. Atheists don't understand
>> that, and instead would go for "eye for an eye," contrary to the teaching of
>> Jesus.
>>
>> As a guide for Christian life, we should use 1 Peter 4:11. Apply it to
>> actions as well as speech.
>>
>> ...Bernie--
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Aug 2 02:40:23 2008