religious-tolerance

Any religion that does not evolve with time, either gets destroyed or destroys the world.

A religious individual may most gloriously carry out his or her own rituals, as a part of his or her cultural identity, but the moment, that person starts to build a wall of separation between the self and the rest of humanity, coaxed by the textual commands of a scripture, the healthy religiousness turns into dangerous fundamentalism, which is a threat to both the self and the society.

The point is, being a Christian does not mean hating or belittling the non-Christians. Being a Muslim does not mean hating or belittling the non-Muslims. Being an Atheist does not mean hating or belittling the religious people. In a civilized society, diversity in religious orientation should be the reason for celebration, not the cause for hatred and differentiation.

Killing a bunch of Jihadis may be morally justified, to save humanity from their wrath, but it won't terminate Jihad for long. Jihad or Holy war would keep festering one way or another, until religious fundamentalism is eradicated from the human society. Until the whole humanity learns to scrutinize its most revered scriptures with the sharp tool of reasoning, Jihad will keep on striking over the world. If one does not have the basic conscientious capacity to refute the primitive textual verses of the scriptures that demand one to kill or torture another being for holding a different belief system than one's own, then that entity is no being of the civilized human society, it is merely a pest from the stone-age. No Quran, no Bible, no Gita, no Cow, is greater than the human self. There shall be hope for harmony and peace in the world, only when fundamentalism is destroyed forever. Harmony is not a luxury, it is an existential necessity of the species. And to achieve it, if a hundred Bibles have to be sacrificed, then be it. But for no Bible, Quran or Gita, can harmony be compromised.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

A true religious person should not think that __y religion alone is the right path and other religions are false._ Other religions are also so many paths leading to the same domain of transcendental bliss.

I am proud to say to you that, I am a scientist and I accept all religions to be biologically true and equal. My pursuit of understanding the human mind has taught me universal tolerance.

The frog in the well knows nothing more grand than its own tiny well.

It's about religious acceptance, it's no longer about religious tolerance.

The world has always teemed with a wide variety of spiritual thought and many differing journeys of the heart. But too often the world has used these differences as a weapon. How much agony has been wrought by what should be a thing of beauty - religious passion?

All religions, in their pure form, will tell you God is Love. And power, fear, division, judgment, oppression, hatred and self-righteousness are the opposite of Love. So going to war, for example, in the name of religion, is a complete contradiction. No pure religious leader would ever support this.

The book-learned preacher who carries the badge of authority, is by no means religious.

If to a person religion means reading books and obeying every single word from it without the slightest bit of reasoning, then such perception would only bring destruction upon the person and the world. Also there are people who use the words from those books to justify their own filthy actions. Let__ take a conservative Muslim, for example. Say, the conservative Muslim male Homo sapiens (I won__ call such creature a human, regardless of the religion, since his action here shows no sign of humanity) is found to be beating his wife. Now, if someone says to him __his is wrong_, he would naturally reply, __his is a divine thing to do, my book says so_. Now, if a Christian says __y book is older, so you should stop obeying your book and start obeying mine_, there will come the Buddhist, and say, __y book is much older still, obey mine_. Then will come the Jew, and say, __y book is even older, so just follow mine_. And in the end will come the Hindu and say __y books are the oldest of all, obey them_. Therefore referring to books will only make a mess of the human race and tear the species into pieces.

Science is never rigid, it is flexible. It can bend towards any direction that ultimately tends to do good to humanity. Religion must learn the same. And the moment any religion learns that, it would become the most scientific religion in the world.

Religion comes not where reign fundamentalism and authoritarianism.

A religion that demands absolutely irrefutable obedience, is anything but religion.

Do not abandon ship:Some countries of the world are like people fighting on a large boat. In the middle of their battle over who should catch the biggest fish, they look up and realize that the fine boat is sinking, and everyone is going down. Their next fight will be for basic survival, and they will need to rely on one another, floating far from shore in the vast sea.

Religion doesn't divide the society. The humans reading the wrong books to understand religion, do.