Does religion have a place in modern society?

Sorry to interrupt this little discussion between you two, but I disagree with Makaze's view that if you dislike the way someone thinks, acts or believes that you become intolerant of them.

Here's an example from my own life. My best mate is a really nice guy, helps out where he can, fixes computers for cheap, is close to his family especially his brother and mother, is a little immature but still sweet, usually gives stuff away to his mates whenver they need something and works tirelessly to gget work done, but he himself is on the verge of being an intolerant racist that has caused him serious misjudgement of other ethnic groups. He has a general dislike for the mannerisms and look of people from non-white heritage or mixed heritage. Now, to meet him you wouldn't suspect this at all he's rarely angry or sad and I didn't know his views for a while, he's a bottled up and secretive kinda guy, and at first I thought he was joking around but he came out and told me to my face he is 'propably quite a racist' in his own words and it came to me as a shock, since he could be seen as a xenophobic whilst I could be called a xenophilliac. However even with this revealing fact which I totally and utterly disagree with, I still find him to be my best mate.
It makes me think of him differently sure, negatively even, but I don't treat him any differently than before or view him in a judgemental light just because he thinks that way. I just view him for what he is now to me which is a caring friend, but if he puts that belief into actions that's when I fear our relationship will split. Then again he's becoming quite tolerant of the way I think so I doubt if it came down to it that either of us would actively speak out against the other one, we've never gotten into a fight about it, we've just agreed to disagree with one another.

In Makaze's terms, we have found a peace with each other that, although there is a threat it may not stay as such, it is still strong and we are happy with each other. I doubt anger from tolerence or intolerence will help eithers view be put across in a truthful manner.

 

So, you don't agree that he is being intolerant of other people? Because that is what I was saying. Disliking intolerance does not make you intolerant yourself was my position, and KS disagreed with that, saying that he disliked them to the point of outweighing whatever intolerance they might have. Maybe you got us confused there for a moment.

You may have formed a peace with each other, but he is not at peace with people besides you. That will invariably cause tension. Of course you might disagree and be able to live with each other based on that, but your peace only exists so long as you are not in one of the groups that he does not tolerate. Am I wrong?

Edit: In other words, there is a difference between tolerating people who do not tolerate others and tolerating people who simply wish to live their lives without judging anyone or being judged themselves.

 

EDIT: Yes I went off track a bit with my post, but it's started a question so I'll leave it where it is.
Now to answer your question (which makes my old post null).

My friend is a little more complicated then that, he himself discriminates in a specific way that he believes in, saying that he can rank people depending on their race, where White people start at 50 and can go up to 100 whilst now-White people start at 0-25 and can go up to 75.
I laughed at it at first, I couldn't believe he thought such a way, but by his own thoughts and the way he acts he has a degree of tolerance, he can't completely ignore and deny the existence of the diverse people around him and has to accept them to a minimal extent, and as such he maintains his own peace and his peace with others. I can't deny he's on a thin line and a fragile alliance within himself, but it does work to an extent and has for quite a while. However, I will say that no one as at total peace, not all the time within themselves or others. It's part of the way humans are built. At least in Western society.

 

Mmm. I see what you mean, but that still sounds like rationalizing it to me. I am very sensitive to atmospheric tension, so simply not voicing your opinion is not quite enough to get me call you tolerant. One's prejudices need not be repressed for me to call someone tolerant. They need to be non-existent. But I guess that the word tolerance is not a good word to use for this. It implies that you put up with a problem. What I want requires that you not see it as a problem in the first place. Hm...

 

It seems that the invention of a new word is needed in order to properly convey what you mean. Or to discover the word for the term you are trying to express.

It could be said that, for you, tolerance needs to be expressed both externally to others and internally within yourself in order for you to accept them as a tolerant person. My friend is only externally tolerant to others and but is still internally intolerant. What we show to others is not always what we truely are.

 

Well, that's just the thing. I don't believe that anyone is truly able to hide themselves. They might put up a front, but a perceptive eye can still see the back. If I couldn't tell, I wouldn't be saying this now. It wouldn't occur to me that it might be a problem.

 

There are surprisingly deceptive people out there. Some incredibly deceiving and some as obvious as a tree in a desert. I will admit that most of the time truth is revealed by having high perception you are able to read the 'tells of someone, such as facial expressions, body langauge, word choice, eye movement, etc.
However, there is also the fact that people who truelly believe something alter there behaviour as such, for example someone who truly believes they've stolen something may show signs of truth in how they act, there might be actual proof to say otherwise such as eye witness testimony or photographic evidence that clearly shows that person has not stolen what they believe they have. As such you can't always rely on perception alone.
And to voice my opinion, I doubt many people truely know themselves, I know too many people confused or uncaring about who they are and use activities and ideas to drown out about thinking or worrying about it. It's hard to tell who someone is, if they dont know who they are. Then again that's just my opinion on it.

 

You have a point with the second part, but this is a bit different. You can't just believe that you are intolerant and be wrong about it. It is a bit of a personal choice, and it is not based in actions. Someone who doesn't know who they are can't be intolerant as I use it for the same reason. They have to choose to dislike other people based on prejudices. At some point someone will question them about it and they will have to come to a decision. I can't see them avoiding it for too long without making a decided choice on it.

 

You may be surprised at how long some people can procrastonate away their difficult decisions in life, the weak minded and immature can hold out for decades without making a difficult choice, and even then they don't pick their most truthful opinion, they pick what is most beneficial whether they believe in it or not. But I'm rambling.
My point is that not everyone is decisive in their ideas and opinions, im sure plenty of people if asked in the street about their tolerance, especially about religions, would reply with 'I don't know'. Not all people question the world and how it works as long as it does work they don't care what's going on, it's why so many peoe are tolerant of the activities of governments such as use of DNA cataloguing their citizen, a clear violation of personal freedom but it is still accepted by most countries, as long as it doesn't affect their lives they don't care, and is one o the causes for a lack of questioning authority in the general populace, they are too content with themselves.
Tolerance is not as clear cut as I once thought it was.

 

That is true. You make a great point... But that is also rooted in complacency, which is a different thing altogether. A thing which I hate. It consists of not following your emotions or principals through, or accepting something as "good enough". I think that complacency and tolerance should be seperated to make this clearer.

 

Ah, you're kind to say so. At any rate you are right, i've brought us off topic here. Complacency though connected in some way to tolerance is not a vital part of it.