Tolerance versus Sensitivity

[Pebble]

New to site. Wondering if others puzzled by the new era of religious sensitivities. I am happy to tolerate anyones beliefs however mad, but sensitivity is I think taking it too far. Toleration simply requires that you do not try and interfere in any way that might prevent people from holding/expressing specific beliefs.
Religious sensitivity appears to require that one makes special allowance for given groups on the basis that what you think, do, say may offend them. The only evident reason is that such action/thoughts may provoke violence and is in essence a blackmailer's charter. The more extreme your views the more sensitive you are, the more prone to violence your affiliates are the more sensitive others must be.
Is there any rational justification for being sensitive to others religious beliefs that is not based on fear?

[Fiona]

Welcome, Pebble. An interesting post. Unfortunately I cannot find anything to disagree with, so you may have to wait for others to reply if we are to have a discussion. I believe that the only reason for showing "senstivity" is that they will burn you if you don't ;D

[Pebble]

Thanks, Fiona. Here's the thing, I was listening to a program yesterday, where someone trying to say that employers should not have to provide prayer rooms was castigated as being 15 years out of date. Unfortunately, this does in reality appear to be the case. The political agenda has moved on (perhaps Blair's secret contribution while in office) and now 'sensitivity' is everywhere. I fear that I am unable to move with the times on this one. As I see it being sensitive to the needs of fundamentalists leads to intolerance of us heathens in the long run.

[vbloke]

I might not agree with your religion, but I will defend to the death your right to believe whatever you want, as long as it does not interfere with the running of the society to which you claim to be a member.

Once that happens, and you demand special privileges for your religion (which, after all is a lifestyle choice, not a chance of genetics) which are contrary to the society that you live in and the place where you wish to live and work, then you deserve to be scrutinised as to the validity of these privileges and you should be the one who bears the cost of them.

Nobody should receive automatic special treatment because of lifestyle choices without having those choices examined, costed and weighed against the functioning of others.

[seren]

I will defend to the death your right to believe whatever you want

I may have a slight problem with that, although I'd have difficulty articulating it. Things that spring to mind:

- is it right for me to support someone in a belief which I either know is untrue, or that is in the balance of probabilities untrue?

- is it right for me to allow someone to persist in a belief if it may ultimately harm them?

-is it right for me to defend someone's right to an almost certainly untrue belief if they will indoctrinate their children with it?

I can see a space in life for mysticism- like I think it was Daniel Dennett says- if you want to go off to a cave and meditate and experience different states of mind, fine. "Religion" I would say is something else.

[vbloke]

I may have a slight problem with that, although I'd have difficulty articulating it. Hence my qualifier:
as long as it does not interfere with the running of the society to which you claim to be a member.

[Pebble]

OKso skeptics in general do not approve of having religion shoved down their (or anyone elses) throat. My question is that given that respecting religious 'senstivities' tends to facilitate such activities, how does one create a coherent argument against the current vogue for this? More importantly what should one do about it?
In other words how do we get back to toleration being the norm and distance ourselves from excessive sensitivity without being portrayed as outmoded or irrelevant to the current political reality?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Here's the thing, I was listening to a program yesterday, where someone trying to say that employers should not have to provide prayer rooms was castigated as being 15 years out of date. Unfortunately, this does in reality appear to be the case. The political agenda has moved on (perhaps Blair's secret contribution while in office) and now 'sensitivity' is everywhere. I fear that I am unable to move with the times on this one. As I see it being sensitive to the needs of fundamentalists leads to intolerance of us heathens in the long run.

Welcome, Pebble.

Was the programme about this story?
http://www.secularism.org.uk/themulti-faithprayerroomsthatare.html

[seren]

as long as it does not interfere with the running of the society to which you claim to be a member.

- [is it right for me to support someone in] a belief which I either know is untrue, or that is in the balance of probabilities untrue?

Does this belief necessarily interfere with the running of society? I would say no.

- [is it right for me to allow someone to persist in] a belief if it may ultimately harm them?

Does this belief necessarily interfere with the running of society? I would say no.

- [is it right for me to defend someone's right to] an almost certainly untrue belief if they will indoctrinate their children with it?

Does this interfere with the running of society? Perhaps, depending on the belief.

I was trying to show that for me your qualifier probably isn't enough. The wrongness of a belief - where it can be proven or strongly suggested that it IS wrong- is enough for me to want to change it, not necessarily its impact.

[Pebble]

Welcome, Pebble.

Was the programme about this story?
http://www.secularism.org.uk/themulti-faithprayerroomsthatare.html

No. But these stories are worrying. How well validated are the sources do you know?

I was listening to a religious program on Radio 4 (on the basis that one should ... keep your enemies closer).

[Mulder]

I might not agree with your religion, but I will defend to the death your right to believe whatever you want ....

To the death? Really? Or are you just paraphrasing Voltaire?

[vbloke]

To the death? Really? Or are you just paraphrasing Voltaire?I passionately believe in the freedom to do whatever you want, or to believe in whatever you want, as long as those things do not affect or infringe on others freedoms.

If it came to it, I might baulk at the death thing, but as an ideology, I think it's pretty sound.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

No. But these stories are worrying. How well validated are the sources do you know?


THe NSS seems to have got the story from the Manchester Evenening News:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1029092_porter_did_not_assault_muslims

On the more general questions: being a fairly benevolent sort, I'm happy to indulge people's wishes, including religious wishes, if this can be done without much trouble to others. But it has to be clear that their wishes get consideration as wishes, not as religious wishes. So I'm quite happy with the notion of a staff room or common room or social room, which may be used for prayer (or for reading the racing pages), but not with the notion of a prayer room.

I share the view you mentioned earlier about the new ' sensitivity' to religion: there seems to be a notion that failing to privilege religion is itself a form of bigotry, akin to racism or sexism. That would not IMO have been countenanced a generation ago, when it was a commonplace observation that people could not do anything about their race or sex, but could certainly do something about their religion.

[Dr B]

atheists / skeptics have 'sensitives' as well......ask that people respect that. ::)