I think the point in that last post, suggesting that we might "not agree" but still "get along" is very relevant. Perhaps what I should have added in my earlier post is that if one does concentrate on commonalities, it is surprising just how much religious traditions do have in common. Not everything of course, but much more than we might imagine at first glance. BTW, yes, it is true that it is possible to locate exclusionist references in the sacred writings of many major religions. However it is important to put these references in context. For instance, how much were the writers of these texts actually aware of other religious traditions when they wrote the texts? This is what philosophers call the hermeneutic task, that is, asking what a particular text means in a modern context.

I do not believe in any god, this I have no faith to believe. I have no problem with others believing in some divine body, & although I can't understand the urge, they are welcome to do as they please.

Provided they keep their beliefs to themselves & we will get along just fine, however, if they try to make me comply with their belief, & their rules for society, then it is war.

I recognise that to function society must have some rules. Although I think bike lanes are totally immoral, & our speed limits are ridiculously low, I can't be bothered to try to change them, so I comply. This is entirely to religious groups trying to force their beliefs on others. Provided they keep their beliefs in their own back yard, we will get along fine.

To Dr. James Page.

Sorry for the delayed response, but I want to add a thought to your statement of seeking commonalities among religions. Though it makes it easier to get along with people that we agree with, so seeking commonalities can help with that, that shouldn't overshadow the things that people don't agree with.

Think of it if we were talking about politics instead of religion. There are some political positions that are vastly different from each other, and though both groups might say they want the best interest for society, they disagree with what are the best interests for society. In this sense there is an ideological fight over which view is right, pinning different persuasive perspectives against each other hoping to win out in their causes and public support. But if things are civil this doesn't mean civil war or fracturing of society. A Labor supporter and a Liberal supporter can get along even if they don't agree with each other. Even if one tries to persuade the other to change their views they can still get along.

That's how it should be for so many other groups of people too. Love for one another is more important in my opinion then agreement and commonalities among people. A parent, an uncle, or a brother can disagree with you with your best interests in mind, even if you both disagree with what are in your best interests are. But in the end regardless they can stand by you through the hardships and mistakes they think you are making, (and you can do the same for them). That's what I think it would mean to get along with other religions. Love your neighbor as yourself. Hate the sin, but love the sinner.

Yes, that is a very relevant comment from Not-Now-Soon. I think in our toxic political atmosphere the need for dialogue and listening to what the other person is actually saying is very much needed. One of my favourite political sayings is from J.S.Mill, in his book On Liberty, where he writes something to the effect that "He who only knows his own case, doesn't even know that". Interesting comment from Hasbeen. I agree entirely that one should not compel belief. Interestingly, the High Court (Australia) has ruled that freedom of religion includes freedom of irreligion. And yet one should still be able to express religious sentiment within the public domain. This is where I tend to part company with the secularists, or at least with the more vehement secularists.

To Dr. James Page.

I do agree that it's a good idea to seek commonalities and to have open dialogues in order to make it easier to get along, and to understand other views. However I must stress that neither of these points are the point I was trying to address by saying to try and get along even if you don't agree. I don't know if your comment is meant as a way of agreeing and rephrasing my points, or if it was largely meant as a counter point. In case it was the first, I want to clarify what I meant once more. I'll try one more example to try and highlight the point.

Consider the issue of abortion. This is a topic that both sides of the debate have very strong views on the matter. One side strongly supports the idea of freedom of choice for abortion, and may even think that in most cases abortion is the correct choice; while the other side strongly supports protecting the unborn baby, and thinks that abortion should only be used rarely or never. The debates for this issue can be debated fiercely. Even within a family when a young girl finds out she is pregnant.

Consider that situation for a moment. A teenager is pregnant and is considering what to do next, while some or all of her family disagrees with her thoughts on abortion. Either the girl wants to get an abortion and her family thinks it's wrong to do; or the girl thinks abortion is wrong and her family thinks it's a mistake for her to go through with the pregnancy. In the end in either scenario, the family loves the girl and is concerned for her, they will stand by her even if they think her choice is a mistake. This is what it would mean to love a person even if you hate the decisions you see them make.

(continued)

(Continued)

I hope that clears up what I was saying earlier. Though looking for commonalities helps with accepting other idea, and listening and talking openly helps understanding of other ideas. More important then either of these is to look past the issues and look at the person. Have compassion for them regardless if you agree or understand where they are coming from. Love the sinner, hate the sin.