• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should religious tolerance be a part of ouir foreign policy

Should religious tolerance be part of our foreign policy

  • yes

    Votes: 6 35.3%

  • no

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • It already is

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • No opinion

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
earthworm said:
Of course, religious tolerance must be part....it has to be an integral part and it may be to an extent..
Is not Islam the world's "largest" religion ?
And Judaism and Christianity are two small religions on the world level..
Click to expand...

Actually, Christianity is the largest with 2.0-2.2 billion people professing it (accounts all Christian denominations). Islam has 1.5-1.6 billion followers (accounting all Islamic denominations).
 
listener said:
I see it more as encouragement of religion to religion encounters not as a means of conversion but finding ways to work together for common good from a religious standpoint as in fighting hunger or better health care for all.
Click to expand...

The problem with this approach is, the US prides itself on "separating church and state." The Federal govt can't give special concessions, legally, to any particular religion within our own borders..........how is it that the govt can compromise that policy and cater to a particular religion when dealing with foreign policy? Seems quite hypocritical to me. And before you get going champ, you can say we could "implement tolerance toward ALL religions.......but everyone knows that we're talking specifically of Islam. Just look at Obama's/Bush's actions, as referenced above and you have all the evidence you need :shrug:
 
Strange OP question.

Shall we tolerate Islamists religious fundamentalists? who believe in the 7 virgins awaiting for them in Heaven if they bomb themselves killing hundreds?

Nope, we shall not.
 
listener said:
Suspicion goes back hundreds of years between Christians and Islamist and part of the Israeli Palestine problem has to do with apparent hatred between Jews and Arabs. Problems between Sunni and Shia Islamist is a source of much M E unrest. I do not think we should try to tell others what to believe but believe that our being a leader in trying to break down conflict based on religious differences could be helpful.
Click to expand...

As far as I know the US does not dictate religious belief to anyone.

Do you have any sources to back up your assertion?
 
FluffyNinja said:
Predominantly Muslim nations trade with us on a regular basis......all the while knowing that the US harbors a degree of intolerance or even disdain towards the more radical elements of Islam or perhaps even for Islam in general, depending on which US public officials you talk with. Many have made the claim that US foreign policy under Bush wasn't necessarily "Muslim Friendly" (I don't disagree)..........but did it stop those nations from willingly doing a great deal of business with the US..........no.

You see, my original point was that the only religion that really matters when targeting foreign policy, is the "Church of the Almighty Dollar." Our Foreign policy goals should be centered on Economic interests, as well as security interests which directly impact the US and its citizens.

Going into negotions with our hands stuck out, trying to convince another nation that we Americans are all a bunch of completely tolerant folks, ready to fully trust and to embrace their foreign ways and beliefs with fervor is just......well........is being dishonest. Any world leader with access to the internet and a shred of common sense would identify these lame gestures as patronizing.

Do we tell them how much we love them anyway? Sure we do.....for PR reasons and to be Politically Correct.....especially during an election year. Does anyone with sense recognize it as nothing more than patronizing?........I should hope so. The REAL foreign policy negotiations begin when both side begin to lay NUMBERS down on the table.

In an ideal world, your argument may hold water..............but you should remove the rose colored glasses for a moment and see foreign policy, and international diplomacy/negotiations for what they truly are.

Obama has already used this "We are tolerant" approach with Ahmadinejad. How well has it worked? Has it stopped the threats and hate speech from Iranian leaders or has it changed the hearts and minds of the Iranian people? Come on, be completely honest. How comfortable would you feel walking the backstreets of Tehran with your arms open wide sharing with all you meet that you are a tolerant American?

The world needs idealists like you......the US just doesn't need them designing our foreign policies. :shrug:
Click to expand...

We may be tolerant of religious beliefs, but the Iranians most certainly are not, or at least their leaders are not.
 
FluffyNinja said:
That's exactly my point..........Did you read the other part, where I asked how much good it's done? Do you really believe that the US openly showing tolerance of religion is going to change the way the members of a particular religion feel about the US in general?

It never hurts to be optimistic..........but any American who's overly optimistic regarding this line of thinking, should spend a little time in a predominantly Muslim nation like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan and come back to report your findings. :shrug:
Click to expand...


Liberals don't realize that we get more respect from these nations when we start dropping bombs.
 
I don't think 'religious tolerance' should play any factor whatsoever. Either their religion doesn't affect US interests, in which case we should leave it strictly alone-- not out of tolerance, but out of efficiency-- or it does interfere in US interests, in which case we should stomp it flat.
 
Also , in my opinion I wanted to add, apart from my post #29 ...that tolerance should be granted to religions only when their philosophy and ethics are acceptable in our civilized world and when inhumane, barbaric, antisocial practices are not acts of faith.
 
Mya said:
Also , in my opinion I wanted to add, apart from my post #29 ...that tolerance should be granted to religions only when their philosophy and ethics are acceptable in our civilized world and when inhumane, barbaric, antisocial practices are not acts of faith.
Click to expand...

That may speak to what would be tantamount to a criminal act and would not be tolerated on any level by the US.
 
I'm an atheist.. I am intolerant of all religions, foreign or domestic.
 
OnWisconsin said:
I'm an atheist.. I am intolerant of all religions, foreign or domestic.
Click to expand...

An atheist who finally admits he's intolerant.....and right here on DP. Will miracles never cease?

funny-pet-image-1316635602.jpg
 
FluffyNinja said:
An atheist who finally admits he's intolerant.....and right here on DP. Will miracles never cease?

View attachment 67134133
Click to expand...

It's not that uncommon. There are pretty legitimate reasons to feel negatively towards organised religion, but sadly there are people that take this as far as intolerance - it's not inappropriate to include myself in this category, as well.
 
waas said:
It's not that uncommon. There are pretty legitimate reasons to feel negatively towards organised religion, but sadly there are people that take this as far as intolerance - it's not inappropriate to include myself in this category, as well.
Click to expand...

Just saying.............first time I've seen an avowed atheist here at DP admit as much. :shrug:
 
FluffyNinja said:
Just saying.............first time I've seen an avowed atheist here at DP admit as much. :shrug:
Click to expand...

DP's fairly conservative and not really the least intellectual forum on the web, so people who do tend to be hit by the storm. :shrug:
 
waas said:
DP's fairly conservative and not really the least intellectual forum on the web, so people who do tend to be hit by the storm. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The "storm" blows both ways. Stick around a while and you'll see what I mean. The Rabid Atheists are always here..........lurking............waiting. :lol:
 
When one nation is negotiating with another nation on issues you are considering you’re not is the streets like you suggest. One small team is negotiating with another. If there is no respect between the teams that have the power you are not going to get anywhere that works for us or them. You are suggesting that we negotiate in the streets, that doesn’t work in any situation.
FluffyNinja said:
Predominantly Muslim nations trade with us on a regular basis......all the while knowing that the US harbors a degree of intolerance or even disdain towards the more radical elements of Islam or perhaps even for Islam in general, depending on which US public officials you talk with. Many have made the claim that US foreign policy under Bush wasn't necessarily "Muslim Friendly" (I don't disagree)..........but did it stop those nations from willingly doing a great deal of business with the US..........no.

You see, my original point was that the only religion that really matters when targeting foreign policy, is the "Church of the Almighty Dollar." Our Foreign policy goals should be centered on Economic interests, as well as security interests which directly impact the US and its citizens.

Going into negotions with our hands stuck out, trying to convince another nation that we Americans are all a bunch of completely tolerant folks, ready to fully trust and to embrace their foreign ways and beliefs with fervor is just......well........is being dishonest. Any world leader with access to the internet and a shred of common sense would identify these lame gestures as patronizing.

Do we tell them how much we love them anyway? Sure we do.....for PR reasons and to be Politically Correct.....especially during an election year. Does anyone with sense recognize it as nothing more than patronizing?........I should hope so. The REAL foreign policy negotiations begin when both side begin to lay NUMBERS down on the table.

In an ideal world, your argument may hold water..............but you should remove the rose colored glasses for a moment and see foreign policy, and international diplomacy/negotiations for what they truly are.

Obama has already used this "We are tolerant" approach with Ahmadinejad. How well has it worked? Has it stopped the threats and hate speech from Iranian leaders or has it changed the hearts and minds of the Iranian people? Come on, be completely honest. How comfortable would you feel walking the backstreets of Tehran with your arms open wide sharing with all you meet that you are a tolerant American?

The world needs idealists like you......the US just doesn't need them designing our foreign policies. :shrug:
Click to expand...
 
Mya said:
Also , in my opinion I wanted to add, apart from my post #29 ...that tolerance should be granted to religions only when their philosophy and ethics are acceptable in our civilized world and when inhumane, barbaric, antisocial practices are not acts of faith.
Click to expand...

Well, there goes organised religion then - wave bye byes! :D
 
OhIsee.Then said:
When one nation is negotiating with another nation on issues you are considering you’re not is the streets like you suggest. One small team is negotiating with another. If there is no respect between the teams that have the power you are not going to get anywhere that works for us or them. You are suggesting that we negotiate in the streets, that doesn’t work in any situation.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point.
 
Leo said:
Well, there goes organised religion then - wave bye byes! :D
Click to expand...

Hardly, a perfect example is that any religious practice that precludes recognition of humane treatment, equal rights for all including women such as that included when applying sharia law would fall under Mya's definition of "inhumane, barbaric, antisocial practices".
 
You are qualifying faith. You are writing that there is acceptable faith and unacceptable faith when it is judged by a rational thinking. Also, you are indicating that there is unacceptable faith when it is judged by rational thinking. However, by definition faith does not require rational thinking. In fact, when it comes to faith rational thinking is discouraged. You are saying there is acceptable faith and unacceptable faith. Many that have no faith may meet your requirements.
September 11th. An anniversary of what faith did to us when it is not rational.
Mya said:
Also , in my opinion I wanted to add, apart from my post #29 ...that tolerance should be granted to religions only when their philosophy and ethics are acceptable in our civilized world and when inhumane, barbaric, antisocial practices are not acts of faith.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom