Although the main-stream Christian churches are all advocates of tolerance and free expression of ideas (including the Roman Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council), the Chistian tradition has a basic logical problem with tolerance. The traditional position is summed up well by a fairly traditionalist Catholic thinker:
"Traditional Teaching: Historically, the Roman Church has taken the following simple and easy to understand position "Error has no rights": What is wrong must be damaging to individuals and society: else it isn't wrong! Ideas can be as wrong as actions: at least because they give rise to harmful actions. It is an important part of the mission of the Magisterium of the Church to identify and warn against mistaken and dangerous ideas. Those holding seriously erroneous beliefs hazard eternal damnation. Those resisting the judgement of the Magisterium hazard eternal damnation. Any one engaging in respectful dialogue or social interaction with those holding seriously erroneous beliefs hazards eternal damnation. Anyone hazarding eternal damnation should be excommunicated in order to alert them to the danger they are in. It is wrong to inflict ignorance and error on others or to passively allow others to do this. Those who hold and especially those who wish to propagate wrong ideas should be opposed, to safeguard their intended victims. It is the duty of the civil authority to defend its citizens and/or subjects from harm. It is the duty of the officers of any Catholic State to respect the judgements of the Magisterium. Officers of any Catholic civil authority who neglect their duty to oppose error in accordance with the admonition of the Magisterium hazard eternal damnation, and should be excommunicated. Clamour for "rights of free speech" and "freedom of religion" should be denied. Dissidents should be ghettoized, deported, imprisoned or executed. An "opportunity for repentance" should be given before execution, but the choice is always between recantation and death. Regrettably, it may be the lesser of two evils for a Catholic State to offer limited toleration to those aiming to propagate wrong ideas, if on balance it seems that to be properly proscriptive would do more ancillary harm than it could be expected to prevent." http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pharseas.world/RightsOfWrong.html In fairness, I must say that the author of the article does not advocate this position. Nonetheless, the argumentation is pretty clear and consistent and reflects also the basic position of fundamentalist Muslims with respect to the Sharia. One of the interesting things about some radical atheists today, in particular, Dawkins, is that they turn this argument around; claiming that religious belief is erroneous and therefore potentially dangerous. The question then arises, for example, whether a secular society should not take steps to protect children from religious indoctrination. Personally, I incline to more tolerance - particularly, as I must accept the theoretical possibility that the God, in whom I do not believe, might just possibly irrefutably reveal him/herself to me tomorrow, despite everything my own reason leads me to conclude today. Unlike many (including, occasionally, some who post here :-)), I really don't want to be infallible, therefore, I'm happy enough with the "probably" on the London buses. I have grave doubts as to whether Scientologists should be allowed any contact with children - even their own! Francis On 9 Jan., 18:07, "Ian Pollard" <[email protected]> wrote: > Two questions I've been mulling over... > > 1. The recent atheist bus campaign in London, saw buses with the slogan > "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Members > of Christian Voice -- in attempt to have the adverts removed -- have > complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the accuracy of this > slogan. Would it be correct for atheists to now complain about the accuracy > of the commercial activities of Christian churches (such as the Alpha > Course)? Or, in reality, are said atheists far too busy arguing on Internet > forums about whether the slogan is in fact *agnostic* and what the most > accurate meaning of the word "probably" is? > > 2. Should John Travolta be brought to trial for child neglect following the > death of his son? Reports are claiming that his son, who suffered from > autism, was denied prescription drugs and psychiatric counselling for his > illness (that could have helped control his seizures) because of his > father's Scientology beliefs. > > Happy New Year! > > Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
