puellapaschalis Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 On my Facebook page a discussion has sprung up in relation to the euthanasia case in Italy. A friend of mine (athiest) called religion "intolerant", and specifically that religions are intolerant of each other. How do you respond to such an accusation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 We are intolerant of sin (not the sinner). We are intolerant of evil and injustice. I'm intolerant of people who make money killing the innocent. Yep, we are pretty intolerant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 (edited) Duplicated...read post #5... Edited February 9, 2009 by Veridicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' post='1776848' date='Feb 9 2009, 08:21 PM']"Our country is not tnearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broad-minded.[/quote] I'm in in "our country" but this quote very much applies to this one too. A wonderful quote, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Religions are definitely intolerant in one sense. Objective truth is always intolerant of untruth so any philosophical model that makes any claims in having access to objective truth thus becomes intolerant. I'd like to share a Fulton Sheen quote with you on the topic: "Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broad-minded. A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broad-minded man is one who will accept anything for a reason--providing it is not a good reason. It is true that there is a demand for precision, exactness, and definiteness, but it is only for precision in scientific measurement, not logic. .... In the face of this false broad-mindedness, what the world needs is [i]intolerance[/i] (emphasis mine). The mass of people have kept up hard and fast distinctions between dollars and cents, battleships and cruisers. "You owe me" and "I owe you," but they seem to have lost entirely the faculty of distinguishing between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong. The best indication of this is the frequent misuse of the terms "tolerance" and "intolerance." There are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make "intolerance" mean hate, narrow-mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broad-mindedness, American good nature. What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience towards evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error. ... Why, then , sneer at dogmas as intolerant? On all sides we hear it said today, " The modern world wants a religion without dogmas," which betrays how little thinking goes with that label, for he who says he wants a religion without dogmas is stating a dogma, and a dogma that is harder to justify than many dogmas of faith. A dogma is a true thought, and a religion without dogmas is a religion without thought, or a back without a backbone. All sciences have dogmas. ... A dogma, then, is the necessary consequence of the intolerance of first principles, and that science or that church which has the greatest amount of dogmas is the science or the church that has been doing the most thinking. The Catholic Church, the schoolmaster for twenty centuries, has been doing a tremendous amount of solid, hard thinking and hence has built up dogmas as a man might build a house of brick but grounded on a rock. She has seen the centuries with their passing enthusiasms and momentary loyalties pass before her, making the same mistakes, cultivating the same poses, falling into the same mental snares, so that she has become very patient and kind to the erring pupils, but very intolerant and severe concerning the false. She has been and she will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, untruth, affect not personal matters on which she may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding. Meek she is to the erring, but violent to the error. The truth is divine; the heretic is human. Due reparation made, she will admit the heretic back into the the treasury of her souls, but never the heresy into the treasury of her wisdom. Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. And in this day and age we need, as Mr. Chesteron tells us, "not a Church that is right when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong." The attitude of the Church in relation to the modern world on this important question may be brought home by the story of the two women in the courtroom of Solomon. Both of them claimed a child. The lawful mother insisted on having the whole child or nothing, for a child is like truth--it cannot be divided without ruin. The unlawful mother, on the contrary, agreed to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe, and the babe would have died of broad-mindedness." Old Errors & New Labels Fulton Sheen Selection from ps. 59-74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 In wisdom we know some things should not be tolerated. As far as other religions go, I admit at times we seem intolerant as we try to correct errors, or defend our beliefs (we are quite passionate at times), but we reject errors, hatred or evil within ourselves as much as within others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 [quote name='Didacus' post='1776878' date='Feb 9 2009, 08:46 PM']In wisdom we know some things should not be tolerated. As far as other religions go, I admit at times we seem intolerant as we try to correct errors, or defend our beliefs (we are quite passionate at times), but we reject errors, hatred or evil within ourselves as much as within others.[/quote] Yup. His last comment was this: "If you do not respect my beliefs then you do not respect me as a person. We just have a different point of view, but by calling my ideas erroneous you place yourself above me. There is no such thing as being intolerant of an idea, you are then by default intolerant of the people who believe in that idea." To which I pulled out my Mother argument - being that my mum has plenty of crackpot ideas, but that doesn't make me respect or love her any the less for it. This is so unsettling - I'm not good at talking about this stuff with your average Dutch athiest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 [quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1776942' date='Feb 9 2009, 04:17 PM'][snip] This is so unsettling - I'm not good at talking about this stuff with your average Dutch athiest![/quote] Take heart; we're all in this together, and we've all been there before. JP the Great said many times that faith requires courage, and this I believe (if I know my papa at all!), is precisely one of the examples he was refering to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinytherese Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601fea2.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601fea2.asp[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 [quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1776942' date='Feb 9 2009, 03:17 PM'].... There is no such thing as being intolerant of an idea, you are then by default intolerant of the people who believe in that idea." ....[/quote] This Dutch atheist's inability to separate individual from ideology in his statements is disturbing. There is a break in logic to jump from intolerance of ideology to intolerance of a person. People are not ideologies, people ascribe to ideologies...people change their ideologies. You can respect the person, but there will always be the ideology that you must reject so long as that person ascribes to said-ideology. Really the whole ordeal becomes kind of silly because he in his own sense is being intolerant of your idea that there is objective truth and therefore being intolerant of you. Why is he allowed to be intolerant, when you apparently are not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 The "discussion" sprang from the case in Italy where a woman will now (after a court hearing, I think) not be allowed to be euthanised. I don't know the particulars, but understand that both she and her family members were in favour of euthanasia. The Dutch athiest's point is that by forcing my/our will and ideas upon her wishes and those of her family, we're being intolerant. I said this: [quote].... I think the Catholic viewpoint here is that there are areas where the "what you think works for you goes" attitude is valid, but that there are norms which cannot be violated. It has little to do with being Catholic as opposed to Protestant etc. as with being human. That's why these principles are referred to as "Natural Law" in Catholic teaching - to show that they're really quite self-evident and that you don't need any particular belief system to hold them true.[/quote] To which he replied, [quote]The second part of your reply contains no arguments whatsoever. You just say that your opinion is better than mine so it has to be forced on everyone. I respect your beliefs, but you do not respect mine (or Eluana's [the lady in question]). How would you call that tolerant?[/quote] Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 People want religion without dogma? Well you know what? I want to read without anything being communicated. Go ahead and tell me it defeats the purpose. You're just being intolerant of my creative process. I don't need to read Shakespeare. I'll just think about the title of the play and make up the story myself. Unless the title is too restricting. Then I just might make that up too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 [quote name='tinytherese' post='1776967' date='Feb 9 2009, 05:15 PM'][url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601fea2.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601fea2.asp[/url][/quote] Good link! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now