Sam Harris

Sam shares this thought, quote: I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss. End quote

Although this "ideal" (?) is currently, in operation, if one were to be assured of it's elimination, what act, or process(s) would be necessary to bring this desire to fruition?

What type of checks,and balances would be needed, in order to squash any sprouts of re-emergence for tolerance?

Even though a group could use rules, laws, punishment, etc. for those who disobey, one cannot get inside anothers mind and read their thoughts.

History shows only too cleary, that anyone with an "idea" can start an underground revolt, teaching new "disciples" how to overthrow a current freeze on any said rule, or law. Yes, creativity can be used in many ways, for good, and for harm.

IF tolerance, is the problem, I can't fathom of a solution via law, or mass education, that would hold for very long, considering historical proof- evidence, concerning rebels, freethinkers, not to mention socio-paths, so in future history books, we'd see only a repeat of revolt, war, loss. Really nothing gained. Nothing new, under the sun.

Sam's idea may be appealing to some, but is it a practical, long term, age abiding, possibility, or solution?

Advocatus Diaboli

I think sam is talking about a future in which reason can’t be trumped in the “public square” by something so meritoriously challenged as faith.

He’s encouraging Western society to grow up, basically, not suggesting we’d all be better off in a fascist state hostile to religion.

Byron

Hi S-x,

I agree, Sam was not suggesting we’d all be better off in a fascist state. Nothing—in his book, even hints, at such a thing.  (if it did, I’d be going off on a nice little tirade! lol and so probably, would you)

For the sake of clairity, many would agree that it’s often helpful, to present a question that offers moderate, and extreme points of view, and options.

This gives opportunity, for the operation of the checks, and balance dynamic, and to quickly weed out, and/or clairfy,  any points that might be viewed, as vague.

(You, Byron, showed this operation, quite nicely, with your post above, 3 cheers, to you!

However, though it is most refreshing, to suggest new, or more, and continued conversations, that still seems to stop short of a solid solution.

The hopeful “end result” of a conversation, would be for mutual understanding, agreement, and closure. (just a few examples) Would you agree?

EVEN if closure was met, in 2 years from now, for instance, my point, is that there is always, someone, somewhere, someday, that is going to strongly oppose something. (and take some kind of action to “overthrow”)Can you see that, and do you agree?

If you can prove otherwise, I’ll have to conclude, that what I’m seeing from past, and present history, are no longer valid facts.

It seems, there are exceptions, to every rule. There are some skinheads, for example, that would not be “willing” to have a conversation.

Willingness, perhaps, being the key word, that facilitates conversation.

Conversation, a great stepping stone, a needed tool, but I can’t as of yet,  see it, as “the” ultimate solution. (imho)

Again, agreed, that faith should be challenged. If it can’t stand up to the fire, another look, is in order.

Thanks Byron.

Advocatus Diaboli

okay I have issues with some words.

Tolerate doesnt mean to include.

American society owes it greatness not to toleration, but to inclusion.

When religion people say they will “tolerate” other religions, it means they wont shoot them in the street? 

=)

just thinking, a better word would be acceptance.