I am not a teologist but as far as i know islam has utmost respect ro any other religions. There are several examples from Prophet Mohammed’s time up to date. Istanbul is a good example of very conmopolitian city with lots of ethnic minorities with their temples exist.

Dear Shibabrata Pattanayak ,

First ... I agree with my Dear Emre .

Second ... I advice you my colleague Shibabrata to read well about all religions before assuming that ...

Because Islam orders already before 1400 years ago for respecting the others and there should be no discrimination at all because of religion and also in Quran “ no compulsion in religion “

I am sure also that christianity , and jewish religion order for that already because they are all came from one source ... from Allah

Best Regards and Respect

Sir, Greetings!!!

Sorry to disagree with your question. I have many friends from diverse religions and we talk to each other about different religions. But, till now I did not hear anything about what you raised in your question.

Thanks.

The interpretation and beneficial aspects of some people and governments allow and courage this unpleasant to do so . Otherwise no religion or humanity let it to do

Regarding the question in the respect of religion I have expressed my views in my publication under the captioned '' Religion the way of Human Being for which I submit herewith for your perusal

Thanks

I think it part of the teaching of every religion to respect other religions. There is no such religion, which is against another religion.

I have friends, teschers, classfelows of different religion, and very much redpecting religion of each other.

Sometimes, we interpret political conflect as religious conflict. This may be the reason to raise such question.

I agree with Emre Pakdemirli, islam has utmost respect ro any other religions.

Dear Dr. Shibabrata Pattanayak

I congratulate you on bringing forward a challenging quesion.

Because of our upbringing (family, school, university, community, state), we find this to be a challenging question, since we can not discuss this without any passion or emotional attachment. Yet, it is important that we as researchers discuss this kind of a challenging question.

I know that some of my friends from other religions respect the religions they do not belong to. I think the problem is with the fans. I can't generalize this observation since I am not a theologian.

One way to explain the "impression" that followers of some religions do not respect other religions is to understand basic ethical principle -- we cannot attribute anything to an entire group; it is almost never true. That fallacy often leads to religious, cultural, racial, gender-based and other stereotypes. Having said that, another reason for the impression is because a small fraction of many followers is hard-core, religion-centric, and are often ignorant. Minus that, no religion teaches their followers to consider other religions inferior.

it is a trick question because the basic premise of the question is questionable.

All people do not have the possibility to dig deep into doctrines of different religions. All people are not even able to read, they have to listen to wrong interpretations from other people who do not really know what they are talking about. There are people who learn from the beginning of their life that e.g. Jews are bad or to become a Christian is punished with death or you cannot inherit if you convert or you are dead to your family and so on. There is a lot of suffering in the world for people who confess the "wrong" religion. The ideal is to respect each other as educated and civilized people do, however this is seldom the case. In Sweden Muslims are allowed to have a room where they can pray but Christians are not allowed to do that! There is no real justice in this world. A civilized person is not allowed to discuss politics and religions in some places because it steers up so many strong emotions. I do not think that highly educated people here on RG represent a randomly selected sample of how the common men and women think. For example students who study nursing do not all hold positive attitudes towards patients with mental disorders. They do not see a mental illness as an ordinary illness. The same goes for certain radical political groups and religious denominations or for attitudes towards more or less melanocytes coloring the skin. The human being is both evil and good, but we are promised that the good will conquer in the end.

The reason is the diabolic (seperating) mind-set because of the dualistic calculation-error (at the beginnig of the religious logic). Therefore relative things ( a prophet, a priest, a theory, some rules etc...) were made into absolute. But there is only one (everything uniting) absolute: god. And god is immanent and transcendent, has a part which can be recognized (otherwise the absolute would not be absolute) and god has a will! We can harmonize with his will (they will be done) or not, this is our free will.

It depends on our inner orientation and the understanding of spirituality:

When we confuse the polarity (two uniting poles like man and woman, north and south, space and time etc...) with duality (no-supplementary parts) it may happen, that we think good and evil belong to each other or they are different parts of the same medal, but it is not.

Light does not need the shadow, but shadow exists only averted from light. (Armin Risi). The next step in this confused calculation are the thoughts of beeing "special" or "inaugurated"... which includes the thinking of "someone is more worth than another…" this leads automatically in "evil" and as more we go to the rood (lat.: radix) the mind-set reveals more and more. So in the radicalisation of the underlying mind-set we see war, terror, fear and all 'fundamental' products of beeing averted from the light... Sad but true!

Many religions were practiced in this mind set and of course many other 'modern' traditions as well like freemasons, lodge-systems, esoteric schools etc. One of the core revealings is the seperation from man and woman, the seperation-system of special inaugurations and many more apart-throwing (dia-bolic) rules within the systems...

Nevertheless in many religions the theistic core of love and the way of harmony, re-connection with the absolute is still perceptible. To reveal the calculation-error we do not only need our logical mind, but also our mytho-logical awareness and than we still feel if it is "right" or "good" to kill someone or to support killing (weapon-industry, army etc) or if it is good for the soul to manipulate someone else or to consume another person, to believe in fear, needing and necessarity of prejudicing etc...

In every religion we still have some core-messages which can help us to de(s/)cide e.g. "...the fruits reveal"(Mt 7/20) [the mind-set]. So what fruits we can see today? Does our behaviour lead to harmony, love or to conumption and fear (the opposites) leading to seperation, war, hunger, Pollution and so on...

" The violent rise of India’s cow vigilantes

In India, Muslims are being killed over cows.

By Johnny Harris and Christina Thornell Jul 24, 2019, 11:00am EDT A Muslim man was shot and killed and another injured by Hindu vigilantes on Thursday in Indian-controlled Kashmir over allegations of smuggling cows.

A group of Hindu men intercepted the two Muslims in the outskirts of southeastern Bhaderwah town before dawn and shot at them after an altercation, police said. A 50-year-old man died while another man was injured. Residents say the attack was carried out by so-called cow vigilantes.

The injured man, Yasin Hussain, told reporters the two were taking with them three horses, not cows. He said at least eight men intercepted them, hurled abuses and without checking the animals, fired shots at them.

Nayeem Ahmed Shah was hit in the head and died on the spot, Hussain said, adding the attackers fled.

The Hour of Lynching: the killing of Muslim cow farmers in India

A new Guardian documentary examines vigilante violence against Muslims in India through the story of Rakbar, a farmer killed by a Hindu mob.

(Indian Muslim, Accused of Stealing a Cow, Is Beaten to Death by a Hindu Mob

By David Barstow and Suhasini Raj

• Nov. 4, 2015)

Hindus consider cows sacred, and slaughtering them or eating beef is illegal or restricted across much of India. Mob attacks on minority groups, especially Muslims, have been on the rise in India since the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party came to power in 2014. " (https://www.dailysabah.com/asia/2019/05/16/muslim-man-killed-over-allegation-of-smuggling-cows-in-india-controlled-kashmir )

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/may/24/the-hour-of-lynching-the-killing-of-muslim-cow-farmers-in-india

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/vigilantes-india-kill-suspicion-theft-190719152312505.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/world/asia/hindu-mob-kills-another-indian-muslim-accused-of-harming-cows.html

Christian Jost,

is it easier to accept the psychological terms "constructive" versus "destructive" elements in our psyche? Or white and black mind with no gray scale.

Nazia Asad

very sad to see this in India where Mahatma Gandhi was the peace prophet.

All religions teach their followers to respect other religions.

Dear Colleagues and Shibabrata Pattanayak

Islam tells disbelievers that they have their road and we have our road which means all can walk in parallel peaceful ways . Islam gives humans enough information about the only one God and leave them to obey or not, but keep in mind the result of your choice in the hereafter.

-----------------------------

From Quaran, the Islam Holly Book:

" لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ "

(109:6) To you is your religion, and to me, my religion. *5 *5) That is, "My religion is entirely distinct and separate from your religion. I am not a worshipper of your gods and you are not worshippers of my God. I cannot worship your gods and you are not prepared to worship my God, Therefore, you and I can never follow and walk one and the same path together." This is not a message of tolerance to the disbelievers, but a declaration of immunity, disgust with and dissociation from them as long as they are disbelievers. Its object is to disappoint them absolutely and finally that in the matter of religion the party of Allah's Messenger and his followers would ever come to terms with them. This same declaration of immunity and expression of disgust has been made in the Makki Surahs revealed after this Surah successively. Thus, in Surah Yunus, it was said: "If these people deny you, say to them: 1 am responsible for my deeds and you are responsible for yours: you are not accountable for what I do, and I am not accountable for what you do." (v. 41). Then further on in the same Surah it was said: "O Prophet, say: O mankind, if you are still in doubt concerning my Faith, know that I do not worship those whom you worship beside Allah, but I worship that Allah alone, Who has the power to cause your death." (v. 104). In Surah Ash-Shu'ara it was said:"If they disobey you, tell them: I am not responsible for what you do." (v. 216). In Surah Saba it was said: "Say to them: you will not be questioned for the errors we have committed, nor shall we be answerable for what you are doing. Say, our Lord will gather us together, then He will judge between us rightly." (w. 25-26). In Surah az-Zumar: "Tell them plainly: O my people, do whatever you will, so shall 1. Soon you shall come to know as to whom comes the disgraceful torment and who gets the enduring punishment." (w. 39-40). Then the same lesson was taught in Madinah to aII the Muslims: "There is indeed an excellent example for you in Abraham and his companions when they said to their people plainly: `We have nothing to do with you and your gods, whom you worship beside God: we have renounced you and there has arisen between us and you enmity and hatred for ever, until you believe in Allah, the One." (Al-Mumtahinah: 4). These continuous explanations of the Qur'an do not leave any room whatever for the doubt that the verse Lakum dims kum wa liya din dces not mean:"You may go on following your religion and allow me to follow mine", but it is the kind of declaration made in Surah Az-Zumar: 14: "O Prophet, say to them: I shall serve Allah alone, making my religion sincerely His. As for you, you may serve whomever you please beside Him." (v. 14). From this verse lmam Abu Hanifah and Imam Shafe`i have deduced that kufr (unbelief ), as a whole, is one community, however discordant and different from each other be the religions of the unbelievers; therefore, a Jew can inherit a Christian, and a Christian a Jew, and likewise the unbeliever of one religion can inherit the un-believer of another religion, if there exists between them a relationship by descent or marriage, or some other connection, which necessitates the passage of inheritance of one to another. On the contrary, Imam Malik, Imam Auza`i and Imam Ahmad hold the view that the followers of one religion cannot inherit the followers of another religion. They deduce this from the Hadith which has been related on the authority of Hadrat 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin al-As, saying that Allah's Messenger (upon whom be peace) said: "The people of two different communities cannot inherit each other." (Musnad Ahmad, Abu Da'ud, Ibn Majah, Daraqutni). A ,Hadith with almost the same content has been related by Tirmidhi from Hadrat Jabir, by Ibn Hibban from Hadrat `Ahdullah bin `Umar, and by Bazzar from Hadrat Abu Hurairah. Dealing with this legal problem comprehensively, the well known Hanafi Imam; Shamsul-A'immah Sarakhsi, writes: "The unbelievers can inherit each other mutually for alI those reasons for which the Muslims inherit each other mutually, and they can also inherit each other in certain other cases in which the Muslims do not inherit each other ... The fact is that Allah recognizes only two ways of life, the religion of Truth and the religion of falsehood; that is why He has declared: Lakum dine-kum wa liya din. And He has classified the people also into two groups, one group will go to Paradise and this consists of the believers, and the second group will go to Hell and this consists of the disbelievers collectively. And He has declared the two groups only as the potential opponents of each other: "These are the two parties who have disputed about their Lord." (AI-Hajj: 19). That is, one group comprises all the disbelievers collectively and they are opposed to the believers ... We do not admit that they are separate and distinct communities according to their beliefs, but as against the Muslims they all form one community. For the Muslims affirm faith in the apostleship of Muhammad (upon whom be Allah's peace and blessings) and in the Qur'an and they refuse to affirm faith. For this very reason they have been declared to be unbelievers and are one community as opposed to the Muslims ... The Hadith, La yata-warith ahl millatain, points to the same thing as explained above. For the Holy Prophet has explained the word millatain (two communities) by his saying: La yarithul Muslim al-kafir wa lal-kafir al-Maslim: "The Muslim cannot inherit the disbeliever, nor the disbeliever can inherit the Muslim." (AIMabsut vol. 30, pp. 30-32). The Hadith cited here by Imam Sarakhsi has been related by Bukhari, Muslim, Nasa'i, Ahmad, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Abu Da'ud on the authority of Hadrat Usamah bin Zaid.

"Violence against Muslims in India

Violence against Muslims in India

Incidents

• 1969 Gujarat riots
• 1980 Moradabad riots
• 1983 Nellie massacre
• 1987 Hashimpura massacre
• 1985 Gujarat riots
• 1989 Bhagalpur violence
• 1992 Bombay riots
• 2002 Gujarat riots
• 2006 Malegaon bombings
• 2014 Assam Violence

Religious violence in India includes targeted violence against Muslims. There have been several instances of religious violence against Muslims since Partition of India in 1947, frequently in the form of violent attacks on Muslims by Hindu mobs that form a pattern of sporadic sectarian violence between the majority Hindu and minority Muslim communities. Over 10,000 people have been killed in Hindu-Muslim communal violence since 1950 in 6,933 instances of communal violence between 1954 and 1982. Many scholars believe that incidents of anti-Muslim violence are politically motivated and a part of the electoral strategy of mainstream political parties who are associated with Hindu nationalism like the Bharatiya Janata Party. Other scholars believe that the violence is not widespread but that it is restricted to certain urban areas because of local socio-political conditions.

Violence against Muslims is frequently in the form of mob attacks on Muslims by Hindus.These attacks are referred to as communal riots in India and are seen to be part of a pattern of sporadic sectarian violence between the majority Hindu and minority Muslim communities. Most incidents have occurred in the northern and western states of India, whereas communalist sentiment in the south is less pronounced. Among the largest incidents were Great Calcutta killings in 1946, Bihar and Garmukhteshwar in 1946 after Noakhali riot in East Bengal, the massacre of Muslims in Jammu in 1947, large-scale killing of Muslims following the Operation Polo in Hyderabad, anti-Muslim riots in Kolkata in the aftermath of 1950 Barisal Riots and 1964 East-Pakistan riots, 1969 Gujarat riots, 1984 Bhiwandi riot, 1985 Gujarat riots, 1989 Bhagalpur riots, Bombay riots, Nellie in 1983 and Gujarat riot in 2002 and 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots.

These patterns of violence have been well-established since partition, with dozens of studies documenting instances of mass violence against minority groups. Over 10,000 people have been killed in Hindu-Muslim communal violence since 1950. According to official figures, there were 6,933 instances of communal violence between 1954 and 1982 and, between 1968 and 1980, and 1,598 Muslims killed in a total of 3,949 instances of mass violence.

In 1989, there were incidents of mass violence throughout the north of India. Praveen Swami believes these periodic acts of violence have "scarred India's post independence history" and have also hindered India's cause in Jammu and Kashmir with regard to the Kashmir conflict.

In 2017, India Spend reported that 84% of the victims of cow vigilante violence in India from 2010 to 2017 were Muslims, and almost 97% of these attacks were reported after May 2014"

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Muslims_in_India )

" All religions teach their followers to respect other religions"(Nazia Asad, 28th July, 2019)

It is difficult for a person to live with himself without being confused with the rest of the other societies, who believe without his religion. Hope remains that the sons and the followers of different religions will coexist without being influenced by trumpets that do not want good for humanity. As for coexistence with religions, this coexistence should begin with mutual trust and respect, and from the desire to cooperate for the good of humanity.

in any religion made by Allah you find a basic role that "humans are brothers" if not by same religion then by humanity (i.e they should love and respect each other), but the defect in followers themselves!!!. As an example of Islam indulgence; in Iraq religion schools there is comparative understood curriculum so that to study your religion and other religions opinions about man's life problems.

I believe that mutual respect is expected between followers of different religions or beliefs .

That indian mob does not reflect the law abide hard working white hearted Indians but this picture remind me Zionist Israeli soldiers targeting Palestinian civilians..I lost the count he losses in that region , especially Gaza Strip. Our prayers with those people under oppression nearly a centurY. UN keep condemning but nothing done.

I don't know even a little about other religion, but I'm absolutely satisfied & contented to the advices of my one. It teaches to feel for the people of other religions,; to love, to take care, to visit, to help, to forgive, to share knowledge, to solve their problem, to collaborate, to rescue, to show mutual respect and honour, dealings with trust. Our Holy Prophet and all other Prophets (peace be upon all of them) and their companions were the pioneers to practice it, they are the role model for every nation forever.

Emre, my apologies but this does seem a very loaded argument. How do you fit in the activities of the Nigerian Moslem groups and of course Daesh into this? I have read contradictory verses in the Qur-an and in the Gospels.The Hebrew Bible of course is full of it. The principle in the Hebrew Bible was demonstrably against other religions, common in the period, due to growing nationalist tropes and anger and anxiety at conquest by pagan groups. I worked in a number of Moslem colleges where students asserted every tedious morning and afternoon the superiority of Islam, who seemed nevertheless to have no knowledge of other religions.. I know many Christians who believe Islam has nothing to do with their religion whatsoever. Both Christianity and Islam picked up the same prejudices against other faiths from judism.

I am lost and equally disappointed to see questions on here that deliberately distort history and attempt to do the same to reality.

The Hindu violence, as wrong as it is, gains its historical basis from much earlier Moslem conquest of northern India. An extremely violent and distasteful period in Indian history. Of course Christians did likewise in the Americas.

Ignoring elements in the Qur-an and anything else (history itself) is not the way to go on. I know only one religion or series of religions that did not and have not expressed such prejudice and that is early paganism as they/it regarded all religious expressions from the same central core. They do not consider, as do Christianity, Judaism and Islam, one religion truer than another.

I do not believe in any violence as I do not believe distorted questions on RG should go unremarked. The Israeli activities in Palestine are deplorable as is the genocide by Indonesia of Christian and animist indiginous peoples in Western Samoa and the deliberate replacement of the population with Indonesian Muslims. When Israel is mentioned with regard to Palestine the writers often refuse to include the continued position of the Palestinian government to destroy Israel.

Emre, the tolerance of Turkey is a consequence of the secularism imposed by Ataturk, not Islam. Jihad was first constructed as a response to Islams first enemies and within Islam corresponding justifications for war against opposition are numerous. Allahs haddad and other similar assertions are not for all, just believers. If your god is intolerant, not much hope there.

Dear Shibabrata Pattanayak ,

Acintya bhedabheda-tattva: the unimaginable (acintya) simultaneous beeing-different (bheda) AND not-beeing-different (abheda) of god and his energies:

We are all individual sun-beams AND part of the same sun (god).

Thanks for the thread, it was good to see scientists sharing views also on crucial common issues. The issue is hard, but I want to share points I have come upon for myself.

-Human mind operate easier by creating outgroups. That we know early since Muzaffer Sherif's early experiments in social psychology. This has some survival value. (This is not a moral excuse, of course)

-Violence, even religious violence in particular, can not be understood by the effects of religious traditions themselves. As many human behavours can not be understood by one phenomenon per se.

-Power relations, gullability due to limited education, political instability, socio-economical inequality, corrupt justice sytstems, may well motivate violence/intolerance and religion/secterian identity is frequently scapegoated and may be the package of sth else. It is easier to be a predator in the jungle.

-Religious texts and crystalized traditions, at least mainsream ones, usually do not preach violence just based on just religious differences themselves but (if any) within the contexts of legitimate wars which have occurred within a timepoint in history. This seem to be true for all major religions.

all religions teach to respect other religions- i dont agree with your question

Paul: This is a very good question. I personally think each religion should respect all other religions. A person's religion is a personal choice, but we should respect each other's choice.

Good discussion.. following

Wherever you go; everybody has the same thing in the same place and everybody feels the same thing for the same reason. There is only one God and all true religions ask followers to obey God. Being "Muslim" means to "Obey God".

There exists a thin line of demarcation between Religion and " Organized Religion ", most often people mistake the second for the first and that is the source of all problems, religion teaches us to seek god within ourselves and if we cannot find god within, we are never going to find god outside, including at all places of worship, but organized religion is like an empire, the more the followers, the more strong is the influence of the religion, here the control on individuals is exercised through faith, customs and rituals, for every religion to compete against another and establish its influence on the masses it must undermine other existing religions and its followers, it is for this reason people following different religions are most of times at conflict with each other in order to prove whose religion is the best, in doing so, the finer ideals on which the religions are based takes a backseat, and " God", except the name, gets left out in this entire process.

"I'm not a religious man... I find I am a fan of science. I believe in science. A humility before the facts. I find that a moving and beautiful thing. And belief in the unknown I find less interesting. I find the known and the knowable interesting enough".

-Hugh Laurie

All the religions teach to serve humanity and pay respect to others but when we add up the regional dirty politics and regional cultural norm, the things go towards wrong sides. We may clearly observe such scenario in India when Hindus respect the animals but not the humans.

We should not block someone out just because their religion does not match up with us. Having viewpoint of others on our own religion can help to understand why others might not see it their way and notice what prejudice looks like.

We are all individual sun-beams of the same sun (god)

See also Project: On life and Death by Mario Radovan

I thought Buddhist asked for respect towards other religions. That's why I was very pained to heard about Muslim Rohinga's persecution in Myanmar. Can I put the fault on Buddha or Buddha's teachings? Of course, no. The blame is to be put on humans, using religions as a passport for violence, or worst, a way to make secret profitable business, pampered in human blood.This way of using religion is a clear proof of human regression

No religion advice its follower to disrespect other religion. It all deeply influenced by unscrupulous political interest and egoism which have nothing to do with any religion. People’s opinion of what religion says is right and wrong tracks what they believe is right and wrong, not the other way around.

Religions never ever said to disrespect others. ALL RELIGIONS SAY RESPECT OTHERS.

It is limited thinking of the followers feel their religion is great and fight unnecessarily.

“Your thought advocates Judaism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. In my thought there is only one universal religion, whose varied paths are but the fingers of the loving hand of the Supreme Being. In your thought there are the rich, the poor, and the beggared. My thought holds that there are no riches but life; that we are all beggars, and no benefactor exists save life herself.”

Khalil Gibran, Your Thought and Mine

I agree with Zin Eddine Dadach and Emre Pakdemirli . Also, I agree with YOGESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI that no religion advice its followers to disrespect other religions.

Religion has since long ago been used as a means of social control. It was used to punish people and keep their behaviors in check. Going along with this fallacious thinking was the superiority of that religion that was practiced in a particular place even at the cost of denouncing other religions or sects. It is the kind of narrow thinking that exists in many other areas as well as such as thinking my sports team is better than yours and so on. Even though it is childish behavior adults seem to enjoy putting down others due to their own ignorance.

Not true.

Religious worldviews might contradict each other and therefore one religion might undermine the validity of the other religion. This should be especially the case when the religious worldview is more rigid. According to terror management theory (e.g., Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986; Vail et al., 2010) religions serve a protective anxiety buffering function, by providing people with meaning, purpose, order and hope for immortality (usually "literal immortality" that involves an afterlife of some sort/ reincarnation etc..). So if one religion provides a different explanation to something as fundamental as the nature of God, the origin of life, or the afterlife, the mere existence of that other religion might pose a problem because it suggests that these explanations might be false (and all the ceremonies and practices and beliefs are done for nothing, and there is no afterlife and no clear morals etc). Conversion, deregulation, exclusion or annihilation are often the solutions promoted religious worldviews. Studies in the framework of TMT show that these often negative reactions towards people with different worldviews (religious and non-religious worldviews) intensify when death related thoughts are primed and people need to repress them (again see Vail et al., 2010 or Routledg & Vess, 2019 for integrative reviews). Note that these kind of tensions exist also between secular and religious worldviews (e.g., prejudice towards people who are religious among secular people and prejudice among religious people towards atheists - I know about an in-press study about the last point).

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189-212). New York: Springer–Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9564-5_10

Routledg, C., & Vess M. (Eds.) (2019). The handbook of terror management theory. London, UK: Academic Press.

Vail, K. E., Rothschild, Z. K., Weise, D. R., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2010). A terror management analysis of the psychological functions of religion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 84-94.

All religions came in succession and were not synchronized, and each religion came, trying to fix the imbalance before it, and the imbalance in the disrespect of people to each other is not religions, but religions are subjected to distortion through historical novels, which may be subject to some ambiguity and inaccuracy

Pattayanak, God has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation, (Acts 17:26). There will always be nations who think that they are more important than others, but we cannot like Hitler suppress a people because of their worship. I am not racists but I will sit and listen to you discuss your religion and ask you questions about it because I would be curious. I will also share with you my religion and hope that you would respect what I share. Man came from Adam who was created by God. God decided who should rise and who should fall and also gave us our countries. Solomon says "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people", (Proverb 14:34).

The practice of faith can only be solid as long as the leadership is modernized to be aware of the worldly events happening and collaborating with other non-religious institutions to uphold peace and spiritual prosperity. However, even the stewardship can get caught up in the petty political affairs, economical tensions, and social trivial nonsense which breeds insularity and ignorance that prevents the diversity of people from being committed towards the wellbeing and welfare of the common person.

All religions advice followers to respect other religions.It depends on the understanding of the followers

I agree@Reuben

I think there are different manner of practicing in religion. There are a lot of religions, and also different representations of religion. There are a problem both inside "community" and outside. Paradoxally, religion has both the power to gather and ward off. An other question is : has religion an end in itself ? Has religion a purpose ? This question is relevant but first, what is "religion" ?

"Organized religion" acts like a corporation/company which actually functions similar to the way a corporation/company functions (including all pluses and minuses).

On the other hand, "religion" if we consider this to be the fundamental goodness of a human being and well wishes for other human beings, and the world that we live in including all plants and animals and the natural world (we can call this religion, to be more specific, "humanity"), does not need to spread hatred towards others.

"Religion" (as defined in the second paragraph) does not have to be a subset of "organized religion" (as indicated in the first paragraph).

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Pattanayak & readers,

My impression is that many religions and denominations have been excessively politicized in recent decades. Some political orientation may establish or facilitate free exercise of religion and religious practices, which is essential to them, but excesses of politicization tends to subordinate moral aims to political aims. This tends to bring religions and religious denominations into large-scale political conflicts. Religious affiliation comes to function in conflict-oriented "identity politics."

The alternative is for religious denominations to return to their primary function of local teachings and moral development of members in the local Parrish or congregation.

H.G. Callaway

These comments, sadly, read like a series of expositions of individually cherished views that populate statements on YouTube. I thought we’re academics seeking enlightenment and not the promulgation of different religions “views”. It is difficult to argue in support of religious tolerance between different faiths. Please look at the history of apostasy then restate your arguments.

May I remind you of the common disposition within Islam regarding it’s tolerance towards other religions : “The ruling of Islam concerning other religions is that they are all either fabricated and false, or abrogated.“ This is cited as follows: “Islam - Questions and Answers” Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid”

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Garrett & readers,

Perhaps you would like to instruct the readers of this thread on the "history of apostasy"? How is this to help the question along?

Webster's Dictionary says:

Definition of apostasy

1: an act of refusing to continue to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith. 2: abandonment of a previous loyalty : defection.

---End quotation

We like to think that we have a pretty good solution to the conflicts of religious faiths in the U.S. viz., the first amendment. Since official establishment of religion is prohibited, that takes the question of political enforcement of religious belief off the table. Since freedom of religious practice is guaranteed, people are free to go their own ways.

As I say, though, "identity politics" has rekindled the conflicts partly by enlisting religious identity for political purposes.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

I thought we’re academics seeking enlightenment and not the promulgation of different religions “views”. It is difficult to argue in support of religious tolerance between different faiths. Please look at the history of apostasy then restate your arguments.

Dear Galloway and readers

You are quite right. Your constitution, fortunately, seeks to ensure the prevention of religion interfering with the secular administration of the state.

My reference to apostasy was simply to encourage those wedded to inerrant religions to consider the implications of this to religious tolerance and possible coexistence. Excommunication from any faith indicates intolerance of the apostate‘s views and this is not a good advertisement “to come and join us.”

I agree with your idea of the deployment of religion as an asset in furthering political objectives.

My sincere apologies to you. I spelled your name incorrectly It should have read Callaway.

I agree with your statement because each religion has certain traditions and customs. If one tells this way is correct to perform certain rules, if a person has a belief only one may follow. Following one religion has an impact on people and they help themselves more.

Each religion believes they are only true religion and all others are fakes.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Garrett & readers,

No problem here. The name is comparatively rare and has many traditional spellings.

BTW: Note that you can go back to your prior messages, open them up and correct your spelling.

I am glad to know you see a basic problem in the politicization of religion and religions. Under political instrumentalization, they tend to the more rigid and conflict oriented.

H.G. Callaway

I believe most religions do teach their followers to respect other religions. There are also some that preach hatred towards non-believers or bielievers of a different creed. However, the cases of religious persecution perpetrated by religious people do draw more attention than examples of mutual respect.

@Israel A.C.Noletto

There is more persecution and hatred between different religions than respect. That is why instances of disrespect draw more attention.

It’s difficult to encapsulate a thoroughgoing argument within the confines of this medium so brevity rules. It seems that stating a case that apostasy and general disagreement within and between religions exists is to some extent sufficient but not absolute In making a convincing answer to the question posed. However, it might benefit all of us to read Jennifer Michael Hecht’s magisterial text titled “Doubt: A History “. I won’t spoil the surprises contained within its pages but I venture to suggest that it might alter the course of this discussion for all of our esteemed contributors.

@Tony Garrett

Why don't U tell us what is ih the book rather than asking us to read it?

I think the answer to this question is anthropological and sociological. In questions where there is no clear answer, people will have different views. Social structures reinforce certain beliefs as being orthodox views, while others are perceived as heterodox. This process is about social and group identification. Individuals and their families may gain though certain identifications, and may change group allegiances if there is a perceived net benefit in doing so. While some may view religions as the same at bottom, there are plenty of believers who think their religious identification is right and other beliefs and believers are wrong. Some religions have advocated physical punishment towards those of heterodox beliefs. In my view "respect" as opposed to "tolerance" relies on the ability to see merit in the beliefs of others. "Tolerance" is part of liberalism and is to be applauded on economic and social grounds. "Respect" requires tolerance and a critical examination of your beliefs and those that you are looking to respect.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Powell & readers,

It is a common view, I believe, that tolerance is obligatory and basic. It allows people with different beliefs to live together. I've already mentioned, above, the appeal of the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution. Respect, on the contrary, can hardly be required of each and all, and the demand for respect tends to impose a burden. It is a matter of common sense that respect must be earned.

I submit that no one is capable of any extensive examination of the beliefs of every random person encountered. This is sometimes worth doing, no doubt. But it cannot be made obligatory in each case. It is a simple fact that some people we may encounter, after preliminary consideration, are judged not sufficiently interesting to justify further engagement. They must then take up the exposition of their own views, if they see a need, and not expect everyone else to do it for them.

Respect for views or beliefs with which one basically disagrees has its limits. No one can be obligated to a "critical examination" of every viewpoint encountered. Least of all is this plausible in a venue of academic inquiry and research. It would impose a burden, which at best would be a constant distraction and would likely only be selectively enforced. As often as not, the demand for respect is an expression of power--i.e., it functions as a controversial, elitist term of art.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

While some may view religions as the same at bottom, there are plenty of believers who think their religious identification is right and other beliefs and believers are wrong. Some religions have advocated physical punishment towards those of heterodox beliefs. In my view "respect" as opposed to "tolerance" relies on the ability to see merit in the beliefs of others. "Tolerance" is part of liberalism and is to be applauded on economic and social grounds. "Respect" requires tolerance and a critical examination of your beliefs and those that you are looking to respect.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Kakkar & readers,

It seems that most if not all religions distinguish themselves from belief in "humanity." Belief in humanity is perhaps religious, or sometimes religious, but not the whole of religion by traditional and orthodox lights. In any case, different religions typically refuse to be reduced to their commonalities. Belief in humanity sometimes functions as an attempt at a more or less secularized substitute for religion.

The orthodox do not believe that "all religions are (equal)" and "just aliases of one another."

Right?

This is not to say, however, that different religious communities have no common interests. One of their common interests is freedom of religious practice, and this idea has frequently entered into arguments for tolerance. A religion that recognizes that faith or belief cannot properly be forced on anyone becomes a religion of conscience. This, at least, has been a strong tendency in the West.

Since many of the early settlers in America sought freedom from religious persecution, they tended to emphasize belief as a matter of personal conscience: not something to be forced on anyone. This belongs to the origin of the politics of religious pluralism and tolerance. The opposite notion is perhaps the idea that everyone in a given political society should or must have the same religion.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

to my belief, all religions are (equal) just aliases of one another. As far as I have read different literatures, no religion teaches hatred for any one (life) in this world. So, I wonder why people are not able to understand the essence of basic religion, i.e. humanity.

I do beleive that god created only humans. Cast, creed, religion, racism, sexism all are psychological egoism.

It's just another human issue, it isn't divine.

It is difficult for a person to live with himself without being confused with the rest of the other societies, who believe without his religion. Hope remains that the sons and the followers of different religions will coexist without being influenced by trumpets that do not want good for humanity. As for coexistence with religions, this coexistence should begin with mutual trust and respect, and from the desire to cooperate for the good of humanity.

Good discussion

Good and evil is defined by religion.@Isam Issa Omran

It is because people created religions--(Divine) Religion from the Day One is One (with progressive continuity of revelations ending in Prophet Muhammad s. a.), and paradoxically no great religious book teaches to hate/antagonize any one.

No particular religion is better than another; all of them teach about striving for the same goal in one's own unique way. All genuine religious paths are facets of pure love and light of divinity, deserving tolerance, respect and understanding. Truth is one, paths are many. Everyone is free to follow their own path and believe/worship one supreme power without denying the existence of others, and none should be mocked or persecuted.

The monopoly on last questions, which we cannot decide about with the scientific method, can cause a quest for supremacy and replacement theology; humans have great problems with uncertainty or the existential information gap, in anthropological terms (e.g. rituals and ceremonies are means to calm the fragile human psyche). Religion interferes with my faith in a creator, but we seem to need some religious tools to develop our higher spirituality for understanding the oneness of creation and creatures. Only a non-killing policy can alter the negative (pathological) side effects of religious practices, which require human tolerance.

(Religion can be understood as relegere=rereading or religere=to bind back; even here, we can see the vital difference and ambivalence of practices).

The reason is the diabolic (seperating) mind-set because of the dualistic calculation-error (at the beginnig of the religious logic). Therefore relative things ( a prophet, a priest, a theory, some rules etc...) were made into absolute. But there is only one (everything uniting) absolute: god. And god is immanent and transcendent, has a part which can be recognized (otherwise the absolute would not be absolute) and god has a will! We can harmonize with his will (they will be done) or not, this is our free will.

It depends on our inner orientation and the understanding of spirituality:

When we confuse the polarity (two uniting poles like man and woman, north and south, space and time etc...) with duality (no-supplementary parts) it may happen, that we think good and evil belong to each other or they are different parts of the same medal, but it is not.

Light does not need the shadow, but shadow exists only averted from light. (Armin Risi). The next step in this confused calculation are the thoughts of beeing "special" or "inaugurated"... which includes the thinking of "someone is more worth than another…" this leads automatically in "evil" and as more we go to the rood (lat.: radix) the mind-set reveals more and more. So in the radicalisation of the underlying mind-set we see war, terror, fear and all 'fundamental' products of beeing averted from the light... Sad but true!

Many religions were practiced in this mind set and of course many other 'modern' traditions as well like freemasons, lodge-systems, esoteric schools etc. One of the core revealings is the seperation from man and woman, the seperation-system of special inaugurations and many more apart-throwing (dia-bolic) rules within the systems...

Nevertheless in many religions the theistic core of love and the way of harmony, re-connection with the absolute is still perceptible. To reveal the calculation-error we do not only need our logical mind, but also our mytho-logical awareness and than we still feel if it is "right" or "good" to kill someone or to support killing (weapon-industry, army etc) or if it is good for the soul to manipulate someone else or to consume another person, to believe in fear, needing and necessarity of prejudicing etc...

In every religion we still have some core-messages which can help us to de(s/)cide e.g. "...the fruits reveal"(Mt 7/20) [the mind-set]. So what fruits we can see today? Does our behaviour lead to harmony, love or to conumption and fear (the opposites) leading to seperation, war, hunger, Pollution and so on...

It's just a question about money. Religion is brought to the world by a Messenger of God, Who always teaches friendship and amity. But then come the "effective managers," who think of religion as simply a business. Of course, for them amity between religions means loss of money, because people should being money to them, and not to other managers "over the fence."

Just look at what the source says:

144

Consort with all religions with amity and concord, that they may inhale from you the sweet fragrance of God. Beware lest amidst men the flame of foolish ignorance overpower you. All things proceed from God and unto Him they return. He is the source of all things and in Him all things are ended.

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 71)

The problem is, how do we define religion?

Is religion the faith or beliefs of a single person that reflects their personal values and goals? So, religion as a "transcendental idea" - in the sense of transcendental idealism from the German philosopher Immanuel Kant? Or is religion the set of basic rules on how to live your life, which unites a religious community? So, religion as a doctrine - as a codification of beliefs, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a belief system, in the sense of the etymological Greek "catechism"? Or do we understand religion as the lived faith, or the way people live their faith? So, religion as an expression of humanism (from the German theologian and philosopher Friedrich Philipp Immanuel Niethammer), as a philosophical and ethical stance with the basic idea, of mankind's ability to find a better form of existence - or as you, Shibabrata Pattanayak, wrote - Religions were made for betterment of human race. When looking for a definition of the term religion, we must also consider the concept of mysticism. Mysticism is the practice of religious experiences - not necessarily during alternate states of consciousness - which may also refer to the attainment of insight into ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

Depending on the approach and definition, the answer to this question about mutual respect and tolerance will be different. Religion includes all aspects. And we are just human people who live our own lives and practice our own religion. And humans are not perfect or ideal or supernatural, we are earthly beings, not transcendental beings. The causes of the problems in the world are lying in people, the reason is not in religion, but in what people make of religion.

Most believing people, as well as true humanists, will confirm that their religion is virtually synonymous with respect and tolerance towards all people, regardless of their religion, to every creature and every form of life. However, religious fundamentalists (and with them also religious fanatics) emphasize the importance of law and order as the basis of their religious community and as a distinction from other communities. This foundation is the fundament and the basis of power. For many people today, this is the main problem with their religion, namely that it is about power and not about religion or about life and human beings.

Our mission or challenge as human beings is to live our lives, make the most of our lives, every day anew. Today, many people call themselves believing or spiritual but not religious. And they live according to ethical and moral principles that are universal. There, religion does not matter.

Many people resign in the face of the problems in our world. They feel powerless and helpless. Most of them think they can do nothing, they cannot change anything. They seek the blame, the guilt, and the responsibility by the others. That is a problem. Other people just want to make the most of their own lives every day. They just want to do what they can do - to take their own lives into their own hands and to shape their lives themselves. They do not want to change the world, they do not want to solve the world's problems or save the world. This personal experience of each person that they can decide about their own lives, that they can change their own lives - this is a mystical experience which makes a new meaning of religion in our global world today.

Finally, I would like to mention Konstantin Wecker (a German musician, songwriter, composer, and author). A line from his song "The White Rose" ("The White Rose" was a resistance group to Nazism in Nazi Germany, primarily active in 1942-43) and the title of one of his books is "It's about doing and not about winning". Wecker says, "It is a fundamental human right to bristle at something / to revolt and to engage ... It is not just a basic right, it is a basic necessity." If we succeed in claiming and living this fundamental human rights - both of them, to revolt and to engage (many people bristle at sth. but forget to engage) - then we can live a fulfilling religious, spiritual life.

@Michael Krichbaum

You didn't answer question, which was "Why don't most religions advise there followers to respect other religions ".

Virgil Matthews

I respect your reply to my comment in this discussion, even I do not understand it. First of all, of course you are right in your statement - I have not given a direct answer to the question from Shibabrata Pattanayak, which you quoted in your reply. But reading the explanation to the question it is clear that Shibabrata Pattanayak wanted to start a discussion on this relevant topic - I think, he did not expect a single answer ("It's because of this .. or this .."). Secondly, even in the answers of most other respondents there is no concrete answer (in the sense of a causal answer to a causal question). But nevertheless, the answers are all correct, because they still contribute to the discussion. Discussing, thinking outside the own box, and getting ideas from other disciplines - that's what keeps people and science moving, not just answering individual questions.

However, this is my personal experience and opinion and, as I wrote, I respect your opinion and your reply. But I'd like to criticize the way you use the discussions in the Research Gate Forum. If your answer is meant seriously - as a contribution to the discussion and clarification of the principle question of discussion - then you would have either to include the majority of the other respondents in your response, too, who made the same mistake as me, or you should criticize the way how the discussion is conducted, as a discussion and not as a list of successive answers.

YOGESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI , You may also see Qur'an/2:62, 22:17 etc.

Religious teaching and its followers are two different realities. One can only approximate the true teaching of a particular religion from the routine life of its followers. Religion addresses the most fundamental existential questions about life.Religion has pronounced affect on the emotions ,cognition and behavior.However there are many other factors that remains active ,in setting the tone of the psychological makeup and social orientations towards out group members of the society.These factors are related with educational, personal,social,cultural, and political forces.

I just want to quote here saying of Holy prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

Beware!  Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud)

“There should be no compulsion in religion …” (Ch.2 v.257)

Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered” (2: 136)

For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

Необходимо различать религиозную доктрину и религиозную практику. Религиозная доктрина, как правило, толерантна. Религиозная практика под влиянием внешних факторов может быть нетолерантна.