Intolerance

[Jester]

One reason why I feel so strongly that we wouldn't be better off without religion is that, by no means is all religion fundamentalist, extreme, exclusive, and damaging. At its best, it is something modest, inspiring, and sustaining. The modern division, to my mind, should be seen as that between those full of certainty, who scorn the beliefs of others and have a dogma of their own that allows no real debate, and those who are occasionally full of doubt, but who are tolerant and who are respectful of other people's views. That division is by no means between the religious and the secular. The Crusades, Islamic, Christian, and Jewish fundamentalism, Facism, and Communism are all the results of total certainty. For me, the moderates, religious or not, are the ones who need to unite. And those moderates within the religious world have much to give, to teach, and yes, also to learn.

-Julia Neuberger

As many know, I am of the opinion that both theists and non-theists are responsible for serious crimes against humanity. This particular statement struck me as an eloquent explanation of the real reason why fanaticism causes such behavior.
So the question for debate: Is it unquestioned belief in general, or religious belief in particular that causes the negative behaviors caused by fanaticism?

[Nilloc James]

Most ideas taken to the xtreame can have negative impacts. Religion just offers a harbouring ground for that fanatasm and in some cases justifies it. And plenty of religions have ideas that should not be allowed to exist:

human sacrfice, stoning people, etc.

[Jester]

Most ideas taken to the xtreame can have negative impacts. Religion just offers a harbouring ground for that fanatasm and in some cases justifies it.

I agree that many things taught by religious institutions do lend themselves to this. My only argument would be the fact that the same could be said of secular institutions. Government is always a good example here.

And plenty of religions have ideas that should not be allowed to exist:

human sacrfice, stoning people, etc.

At the risk of being redundant, I'm going to first agree with this statement, then add that many ideas of secular institutions have done the same (mass execution, suspension of rights, etc.)

Personally, I feel that it is the fanaticism that is the real issue in all these cases.

[Nilloc James]

I never ment to say anything else.

Everything, for peoples safety needs to be questioned an torn apart.

Take extreame communism. It repleaces religion with the state, its fanatasm that is bad. Although religon has a problem, it is socially acceptable to argue with communism/fachism however it is not publicly acceptable to challenge religion. Its as though it is deserves respect, which in my opinion, it does not.

[Jester]

I never ment to say anything else.

Everything, for peoples safety needs to be questioned an torn apart.

Point taken (and I agree with this last).

Although religon has a problem, it is socially acceptable to argue with communism/fachism however it is not publicly acceptable to challenge religion. Its as though it is deserves respect, which in my opinion, it does not.

I'm not certain that I agree with this, however. Perhaps I don't have an understanding of what you mean by "public", but I have met many people, whom, within a few minutes of knowing them, have felt comfortable to argue with religion. There are public figures who have spoken out against religion, Richard Dawkins, of course, being probably the most famous at the moment. The fact that there is a reaction to such statements is testimony only to the fact that it is a controversial subject. The same sort of backlash exists when people give their opinions on abortion or the marriage rights of homosexuals.
It is my position that those who are convicted about either the truth or falsehood of religion either one would like more talk about it. Yes, each side gets reactive when they hear the opposing argument, but that doesn't amount to public censure.
The only other thing that occurs to me is that you might have been alluding to the fact that it is so difficult, in most places, to hold public office as a professed non-theist. If that is the case, I would argue that this is simply because most voters happen to be theists, and people tend to vote for people who reflect their beliefs.

[cnorman18]

In my opinion, it is neither religion nor absolute certainty that causes intolerance. I know any number of people, Christians, Jews and "other," who are both religious and absolutely certain of their beliefs, but remain tolerant and accepting of others and their views. They (I would say "we" except that I do not claim absolute certainty) seem to hold the view that judgment is the prerogative of God and no one else - and they have a positive regard and respect for other people regardless of their beliefs.

I suspect that intolerance is more a measure of character than belief - though some sets of beliefs seem more prone to it than others.

[Jester]

In my opinion, it is neither religion nor absolute certainty that causes intolerance. I know any number of people, Christians, Jews and "other," who are both religious and absolutely certain of their beliefs, but remain tolerant and accepting of others and their views. They (I would say "we" except that I do not claim absolute certainty) seem to hold the view that judgment is the prerogative of God and no one else - and they have a positive regard and respect for other people regardless of their beliefs.

I suspect that intolerance is more a measure of character than belief - though some sets of beliefs seem more prone to it than others.

Perhaps you are right about this. It does seem that we are too quick to look for some abstract means to blame for the evil in the world, when it generally makes more sense to blame the action and the individuals who misbehave.