Indeed. Which is different than diversity. A person's ethnicity, social class, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc. doesn't literally shout out "I'm right and you're wrong." We obviously have created implicit ideas about who's right/wrong, because humans are cynical in that sense, but no one's born with genes that makes their chest hair spell out "UR WRONG" or is sexually attracted to the sentence "This is the one and only true way!"
As opposed to most religions where it's usually a core fundamental idea, which will lead to disputes the long-term if we continue to take those religions seriously.
Aye, but that's irreconcilable in the end. You cannot have a consistent religion that holds the "one true" dogma, but then allows for alternatives.
It dilutes the message and would (I assume) eventually lead to the religion fading in practice.
I disagree somewhat. I will take the more popular religion Christianity. Which has plenty of diversity as Catholics are not protestants are not Southern Baptists. And there is plenty of diversity among their membership.
Also different religions means diversity among religion. A Jewish practitioner is not the same as a Muslim practitioner is not the same as a Buddhist is not the same as Hinduism, etc.
Yes. A certain kind pride and elitism can and often does exist in religions. This also exists in political parties, racial culture, sports, comic book fans, families, and so forth. Differences tend to lend themselves to confrontation which is a price for diversity.
Also in the U.S. (not sure this exists in any other country) we have Unitarian churches which allow any faiths to attend and mix ideas among themselves (though there is even diversity among the Unitarian approach as practices vary).
I won't deny that religions tend to be opposed to one another but, again, I find this more true with organized religion than spiritualists.
I take spiritualists very seriously as they tend to be good people and I don't feel they endanger society at all.
And my point is because you happen to be white , it does NOT make you responsible for past generations bad decisions .
Not sure anyone was going there.
However. I do believe that if you are given more opportunities, economically, socially, through law, than any of your fellow humans you do have a certain responsibility to try to at least speak against such things if not do more to correct the imbalance (especially if it is happening in your own society). This is just common good for the species. But that's how *I* feel and I don't expect anyone else to feel this way or practice my viewpoint.
There's no law against being about the self more than about others.
Why is there no option for 'neither'?
Pizza is neither evil nor good. I thought "other" would cover it but I might have underthought it.
