Could we live in a world where no one is persecuted over there beliefs?

Probably a difficult topic to take on as a first post, I just wanted to know.

Do you believe in a world where people just get along?
A world where Men and Women of all races and creeds didn't squabble over who's deity is "real", but instead just went about their daily lives with tolerance and a grain of acceptance for others, A land where there was no religious extremism, or atheistic intolerance. Could it really happen?
Or is this all just a hopeful dream that is unreachable simply because of humanity's natural want to be "right".

Just after intelligent discussion, not a "judgment fest"

Thanks

 

No. People tend to make up disagreements easily. Solve one problem and another will come along shortly.

 

Why don't we first try and get all the posters on this forum to get along before we move on to the rest of the world

 

Belief is a strong human urge for some reason. I think it must be inherent in the human mind. I think that those that believe in human beings as having ultimate power are subject to the whims of the person or persons they idolize. Since we know that power corrupts human beings this is a very bad belief.

Belief in an uncorruptable 'higher power' is better because it transfers power from humans to an agreed upon omnipotent. (Creator, God, etc.) This is a leveling influence on human culture which, IMO is the reason for such beliefs.

 

Obviously I could. It’s all you other idiots who are the problem.

 

No, because the range of human beliefs is always bound to include irreconcilable positions that cannot coexist.

 

Nope. Humans in general are tribal and hierarchical by nature. If no good conflicts exist, someone will be happy to manufacture one for personal gain.

 

I doubt it.

There is power to be had with persecution as it's usually born of trying to blame problems on particular groups of people which gives the persecuting groups of people something to focus anger and resentment on. That generally leads to support for whomever is leading the charges against those being persecuted. People without critical thinking skills, or the desire to use them, are always going to get swept up in the "they're not like me so they must be the problem" type of thinking.

 

Wanting to be right and something already being right, is two different things. However there is one religion that prays for their enemy, that accepts all for who they are, while at the same time calling out evil when it is seen. Jesus told us to call out evil when we see it. However, most followers of Christ are afraid to do this, for the sake of political correctness, or being labeled a conspiracist or whacko. There is almost nothing but evil in Washington, and leaders all across the world. Nobody says anything, they prefer to continue their day to day lives, paying into the beast system. Constantly telling themselves everything is ok, yet knowing something is brewing. Our leaders print money from out of thin air, acting as if this is the way it is suppose to be, the citizens tucking tail and doing as their told. We reach our debt limit as a country only to merely raise it again and again, acting as if this is how it is supposed to be done. This is not how the monetary system works, yet they have people screaming for congress to raise it, and they do. Citizens tucking tail, bowing to their masters. So long as there is running water, heat, ac, t.v., internet, smart phones, entertainment, a lot of people know celebrities more than their own family. Some camp out at stores for the new IPhone or Star Wars. It is shameful. All the while God's children are getting their heads cut off, starving and thirsting to death. Plenty of disease yet no food or water, let alone heat or ac.

Whatever takes the focus off the head right.

 

It won't happen until we have a culture that makes it culturally unacceptable to try to force people to be politically correct or inclusive or to prevent others from going peacefully about their lives. At the same time we will allow the Muslim to spread his prayer rug and do his obligatory prayers on his own time, the Christian can silently read his Bible in the courthouse, the Muslim can read the Qu'ran, and neither is, nor is any other person, obligated to participate in activities that violate his/her sense of propriety or morality. Tolerance and acceptance must be 100% a two way street or there is no tolerance or acceptance at all.

 

Never ever and Nope never. There will never a peaceful world, because we are not a peaceful species.

 

Obviously disagreement is always going to exist: I'm not sure, a priori, how human society and interaction would work without disagreement. However, the cause of persecution is not merely disagreement. It's institutionalised and endemic hierarchy. And this does not have to exist.

 

Perhaps over a few thousand more years of evolution, but atm... no.

 

My answer is no.

Beliefs are not just beliefs. They are means of organizing people who share similar beliefs. Organized groups of peole with similar beliefs proselytize. This forces people who don't share these beliefs into a defensive mode, and conflict is inevitable.

You can hope that groups who aggressively recruit will be accepting and tolerant, but you can't make them behave that way. Only the insistence on maintaining your belief system, and a consistent and firm counter pressure over time can work.

Religious groups undergo aggressive and expansionist phases, and then subside. All you can do is protect yourself, and avoid freaking out.

 

How do you envision a system in which this doesn't exist?

 

If people don't argue or fight about religion, they will find a thousand different things to fight out. It's a nice thought that we could have a world without strife, but it's impossible, just based on human nature. Nothing to do with religion, but with any kind of social structure.

 

It is not just the human species that fights. The animals all fight amongst themselves. Even plants 'fight' over territory. Conflict is a necessary evil for all living things.

 

Just as conflict is a part of existence for all living things, hierarchy is also a part of living. Think of a forest. You wouldn't think their is a hierarchy in forests, but there is--the fir and other big trees rule, and the other plants have to adjust to the environment established by the big trees, or they die. There is a hierarchy among all groups of animals and of course hierarchy in the human race. Hierarchy guarantees the survival of the fittest.

It sounds good and feels good to say that there should be no hierarchy, but it isn't possible.

 

No because one person's belief might be it is okay to kill you and take whatever they want, which I assume would run counter to your beliefs.

 

Technically speaking, society would no longer be split into separate strata with different relationships to the means of production. As such, one particular stratum using a state run in its favour to subjugate another stratum on whose labour it depends would not exist, because there would be no economic need for such an apparatus. It would not be needed to preserve the separation of strata and the functioning of production. Therefore, institutionalised hierarchy and subjugation would no longer exist, and nor would a social mentality which causes some people to be branded as objectively "inferior" in every aspect. The concept of human quantification would cease to exist, as would the dominance of a certain set of ideas.

 

Not exactly. Ecosystems are complex, and every organism is adapted in a different manner to its native ecosystem. Larger trees have to adjust to surrounding conditions just as much as every other organism: by growing taller, for instance, or developing a quicker method of seed dispersal. One can't really pinpoint a certain species which "sets the standard" because everything adapts to everything else.

Roles, yes. Not necessarily hierarchy (think of baboons).

"Survival of the fittest" is a ridiculous oversimplification of an incredibly complex species. Everyone is "fit" for something different in their own way. The human race is immensely diverse, and so is the society which we have created, and there is room for many, many different skill sets and temperaments. Unless you want to be a Spencerian ideologue and reduce everyone to an easily quantifiable input in a system.

Edit: I just want to clarify that I'm not dealing in "should"s here at all - in other words, I'm not saying that society is morally obliged to be non-hierarchical. I hate ethics with a burning passion.

 

And in this hypothetical society you're advocating, who does the organizing, planning, enforcing, etc?

 

First off, keep in mind that this society only occurs after a transitional phase, and would necessarily be global and have overabundance of goods. Historically, new socioeconomic systems have spread round the world pretty fast, and we're not far from overabundance right now.

Organising and planning would be done, like all other "jobs", by whoever wants to do it. The people responsible would form some kind of an open committee or voluntary work-group with highly transparent activities, and its members would change every so often and if anyone wanted to start or stop participating, they would be welcome to. Ample use would be made of technology and statistics-collection.

Enforcing, however, would not be done, because there would be no strata to be on the giving or receiving end of enforced orders.

 

Issues regarding the infighting and collusion that would occur in your voluntary committee aside, you've got a major problem here.

If there is no element of enforcement, there's nothing to stop a group of people from bucking the system, giving the global Kumbayah government the finger, and proceeding to oppress and/or persecute whatever groups they please within their newly claimed borders.

If there is an element of enforcement, you are now persecuting those who would dare to defy the decrees and conventions of the global committee.

 

In a unique nation like America in which the government is supposed to receive its power and authority from the people instead of the other way around, it requires a cultural shift that demands that we return to our roots of liberty. So it isn't a matter of planning and organization. It is a cultural conviction of what liberty is. And it is enforced by whatever laws are necessary to enforce it.

Basically it comes down to two basic principles that becomes the cultural reality for each man, woman, and child.

1. So long as I am not violating the unalienable rights of any other, I have the right to be who and what I am in peace without harassment or interference.

2. I have no right to demand that you accept who and what I am, appreciate me, love me, care about me, or provide any contribution or participation or anything else for me.

Do that and we have complete tolerance and peace.