Suchergebnisse

Tolerance is a basic value of our democracies, when it applies to life attitudes and to symbolic interpretations of our experience. However, usually there is no tolerance about statements of fact offered without scientific basis or from assumptions that proved to be false. Religions have a symbolic and poetic dimension which is not only tolerable, but even also fruitful for the interpretation of our life, but they also tend to present themselves as explanations of facts in competition with scientific explanations. It can be argued whether complete tolerance of this second use of religious ideology should be encouraged. ; La tolerancia es un valor básico de nuestras democracias, en cuanto se refiere a actitudes vitales y a interpretaciones simbólicas de nuestra experiencia. No suele haber tolerancia, en cambio, sobre las cuestiones de hecho presentadas sin base científica o desde presupuestos comprobadamente falsos. Las religiones tienen una dimensión poética y simbólica no sólo tolerable sino hasta enriquecedora de nuestra interpretación vital, pero casi siempre pretenden presentarse también como explicaciones de los hechos en competencia con la de los científicos. Puede cuestionarse si debe haber plena tolerancia para este segundo uso de la ideología religiosa.

Abstract The issue of socio-economic development of the Nigerian nation is a worthwhile exercise that required absolute attention. Economic development as a public sector term, is the process by which the economic well being and quality of life of a nation, region or local community are improved according to targeted goals and objectives. This is measured with indicators, such as gross domestic product (GDP), life expectancy, literacy and level of employment. In an attempt to achieve these objectives, the effects of religious intolerance and violence became the obstacles as it has led to high degree of insecurity and thus devastated socio-economic structures and institutions such as schools, hotels, petrol station, hospitals, shops and workshop and scared away potential investors. Worried by this trend, the work identified lack of religious neutrality on the part of government, lack of religious tolerance, religious fanatics and wrong religious orientation as some of its causes; and therefore recommends amongst others, the need for neutrality on the part of government, upholding the sanctity of the federal constitution that authorized freedom of worship, ban on public preaching in buses and unauthorized places and giving of proper religious orientation by religious leaders to their adherent as panacea.

National audience ; From time immemorial religion has been a factor which united or split the society. Even in the modern society religious intolerance has caused fratricidal wars and disasters. At the same time religious intolerance (inside the society) is a serious resource in the hands of the states at variance in the aspect of splitting these countries and societies. From these considerations various missionary activities, which besides religious goals (propaganda and dissemination of their own religion and values), also pursue political aims, have been implemented. ; Կրոնական անհանդուրժողականությունն անգամ արդի հասարակություններում է եղել եղբայրասպան պատերազմների ու աղետների պատճառ։ Այլոց կրոնի և կրոնական արժեքների նկատմամբ մերժողականությունն ու անհանդուրժողականությունը հանգեցրել են արյունալի պատերազմների, պետությունների ու ազգերի պառակտման։ Կրոնական անհանդուրժողականությունը լուրջ ռեսուրս է նաև հակառակորդ պետությունների ձեռքում՝ այդ երկրներն ու հասարակությունները պառակտելու տեսանկյունից։ Այդ նկատառումներով են իրականացվել և իրականացվում զանազան միսիոներական առաքելությունները, որոնք, բացի կրոնականից (սեփական կրոնի և արժեքների քարոզչություն և տարածում), հետապնդում են նաև քողարկված քաղաքական նպատակներ։

Статья посвящена современным проблемам формирования религиозной толерантности. Анализируются некоторые аспекты религиозной толерантности и межэтнических отношений в Узбекистане.Автор анализирует, механизмы формирования религиозной толерантности связанные со всей системой общественных отношений, с возможностью полноценной реализации конституционно-демократических прав и свобод, с уровнем духовной культуры личности и социума. Проводится анализ условий развития узбекской этноконфессиональной среды, выделяются векторы государственной политики в отношении данного феномена, определяется значение толерантности в отношении существующих конфессий для формирования конструктивного поля диалога.

Анализируются некоторые аспекты религиозной толерантности и межэтнических отношений в Узбекистане.

Religious tolerance is a critical issue in pluralistic societies such as Indonesia. Without tolerance, the expressions of beliefs can lead to fanaticism, conflict, and hostility that negatively impact social security and stability. This article addresses the dilemma of religious tolerance by exploring and connecting the concept of "the Other" in Emmanuel Levinas' thought as an ethical subject who requires protection and respect for the individual with the discussion of tolerance indicators in the context of religious moderation. This qualitative study employs a literature review method, with data collected through literature review and analyzed descriptively using Emmanuel Levinas' philosophical perspective. The results indicate that religious tolerance in the framework of religious moderation, as found in Emmanuel Levinas' thought, entails the recognition and respect for the identity of the "Other". The "Other" is an ethical subject with the right to live free from discrimination and oppression. In the framework of tolerance, the "Other" is not merely allowed to exist and differ but necessitates the growth of respect and appreciation through fair and respectful treatment of those who are different. From Levinas's viewpoint, the practice of religious tolerance must be carried out by considering the concept of ethical relationships between individuals and "The Other." Religious tolerance manifests ethical responsibility to recognize and respect the existence of others with different religions and beliefs. This article proposes that Levinasian philosophy can provide a useful critique and proposal for the dilemma of religious tolerance in pluralistic societies

Preface -- Chapter 1. The Setting-Religious Intolerance in Indonesia -- Chapter 2. Religious Tolerance, Intellectual Humility, and Democratic Education -- Chapter 3. Context of the Study -- Chapter 4. Religious Tolerance, Intellectual Humility, and Future Teaching Practice -- Chapter 5.Religious Tolerance at School and Democratic Education -- Chapter 6. Conclusions and Future Directions.

The article is devoted to the most important issues to ensure inter-religious dialogue in modern Russia. The urgency of the problems dictated by a number of reasons: the need to find a basis of conjugation of religious differences in modern Russian society with the traditional multiethnic, multi-religious way of life, the need for social stability and social consensus in the horizontal and vertical sections of Russian society, the imperative of overcoming religious intolerance in society and on the orientation interfaith dialogue. The author notes that the dialogue between religions, contributing to the formation of the population of respect for religious pluralism and cultural diversity is possible under the condition of overcoming of mutual ignorance and prejudice. The process of forming a culture of tolerance should include a whole range of legal, civil, political, moral, cultural and educational imperatives. Forming of adequate state-confessional relations should be based on the fundamental principles of freedom of conscience, as well as Russian historical traditions and modern realities, including the specifics of inter-religious dialogue for each region, taking into account its socio-economic and cultural characteristics.

This article touches upon the world-scale policy which is being carried on providing tolerance and tranquility, plus accomplishing international political-legal basis, as well as effective cooperation and international initiatives of Uzbekistan with UNESCO

An American envoy and a Bahraini academic posed for the camera at a Washington hotel in October 2020, grinning ear to ear. They held a copy of an agreement between the U.S. State Department and the King Hamad Global Center for Peaceful Coexistence to combat antisemitism in Bahrain. Ellie Cohanim, then the U.S. assistant special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, called it "a model for a society that actively espouses religious freedom, tolerance and diversity of peoples."Thousands of miles away, in Bahrain itself, Sheikh Zuhair Jasim Abbas was sitting in a solitary confinement cell. His family had not heard from him since July. They would not again for several more months. According to a UN panel, the Shi'a Muslim cleric was allegedly beaten, starved, sleep-deprived, chained, attacked with water hoses, forbidden from using the bathroom, threatened with execution, and prevented from practicing his religious rituals.The Abraham Accords, the diplomatic agreements between Israel, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, have been hailed as a victory for religious tolerance. The image of Muslims and Jews dancing together has convinced American policymakers from both parties that peace is breaking out across the Middle East. The Biden administration is reportedly offering the Saudi government a huge bribe — perhaps even a commitment to go to war on the kingdom's behalf — to get Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords as well.New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman seems to sum up the Biden administration's logic: that a Saudi-Israeli agreement would "open the way for peace between Israel and the whole Muslim world" and "dramatically reduce the Muslim-Jewish antipathy born over a century ago with the start of the Jewish-Palestinian conflict."But the Abraham Accords are attached to a social order that is deeply unequal, divided along ethnic and religious lines. While Israel allows foreign Muslims to visit Jerusalem, it rules over millions of Palestinians against their will. (That conflict is more about nationalism in the here and now than "Muslim-Jewish antipathy.") And while some monarchies in the Persian Gulf are beginning to embrace foreigners of different religions, those same states — especially Bahrain — treat their native Shi'a Muslims as a potential fifth column.For the past few years, some of the Gulf monarchies have been engaged in a project to replace Israel with Iran as the main enemy of the Arab masses. On one hand, these countries have repressed pro-Palestine activism and promoted an image of Palestinians as parasitic ingrates. On the other hand, they have encouraged fears of Iranian power, often conflating Iran with Shi'a Muslims as a whole. Israel has encouraged both prejudices as part of its outreach to Middle Eastern publics. Rather than a victory for religious tolerance, the Abraham Accords are the culmination of an attempt by Israel and its new Gulf allies to rearrange their official enemy lists.In 2018, as Israel was beginning direct talks with Emirati and Bahraini diplomats, Israeli military spokesperson Avichay Adraee turned into a fountain of anti-Shi'a incitement. Quoting medieval Sunni scholars, Adraee claimed on video that Shi'a Muslims are "fundamentally hypocrites and liars who invent falsehoods to ruin Islam." A few months later, he complained that Iran is "transforming citizens into Shi'a" across the Arab world.After the Abraham Accords were signed, Adraee ranted that Sunni Palestinians who prayed alongside Shi'a were leaving the fold of Sunni Islam: "How do these 'believers' justify praying behind those who stab the back of the Sunni world?" The spirit of Muslim-Jewish reconciliation, with its emphasis on interfaith photo ops, clearly does not apply to Sunni-Shi'a relations.It's worth noting that, although Iran is the largest Shi'a-majority state, most Shi'a Muslims live outside of Iran, in India, Pakistan, and the Arab world. And religious Shi'a have been at the forefront of resisting the Iranian theocracy, both inside and outside Iran. However, casting all Shi'a as Iranian agents serves a political purpose. Unrest in areas like eastern Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, where the majority of the population is Shi'a, can be dismissed as foreign terrorism, rather than a case of Arab citizens demanding equal rights. In the words of one Saudi commentator, Arabs who embrace Shi'a identity politics "have sadly become Persian."While trying to terrify Sunnis about the Iranian menace, the Israeli government has also worked to turn Iranians against Palestinians. Last year, when a few Iranian protesters were filmed stomping on a Palestinian symbol, the Israeli foreign ministry loudly promoted that image. The ministry's Persian-language account is filled with sarcastic jokes about the "oppressed Palestinians," along with claims that "they teach hatred and violence" to their children.As the Abraham Accords were finalized, the Gulf states that moved closer to Israel also began to take more of an anti-Palestinian line. Americans celebrated, and rightfully so, when Saudi television or the Emirati school system presented a more sympathetic view of Jews. At the same time, however, Saudi and Emirati media figures got louder about what they considered Palestinian "treachery." In the words of a Saudi soap opera character, the average Palestinian is an ingrate who "doesn't appreciate you standing by him, who curses you day and night — more than the Israelis." Given the heavy censorship that Saudi and Emirati media are subject to, this change in tone must have reflected official policy. Just as political concerns led Gulf states to tone down anti-Jewish prejudice, different political concerns could lead them to tone down other prejudices. At times when Israeli authorities aggressively asserted their sovereignty over Islamic holy sites — especially under the ultra-nationalist Israeli government elected in 2022 — the Gulf has returned to a more pro-Palestine tone. After Saudi Arabia mended ties with Iran earlier this year, Saudi authorities loosened restrictions on Shi'a pilgrims, and prominent Saudi propagandist Hussain al-Ghawi embraced Shi'a as his Muslim brothers. Ironically, American media did not celebrate the Saudi-Iranian pact as the dawn of religious harmony, but instead raised the alarm that Washington was losing its influence in the region.The American cultural understanding of the Middle East is centered on Israel, and anti-Palestinian racism is normalized in U.S. politics. On the other hand, Washington views Sunni-Shi'a sectarianism as a geopolitical game. During the occupation of Iraq and the decades of war that followed, U.S. policymakers treated "Sunni" and "Shi'a" like pieces on a chessboard, debating which side to favor at any given time. Instead of seeing this sectarianism as a terrible policy failure, U.S. politicians blamed Muslims' own attachment to "tribalism" and "conflicts that date back millennia," as former President Barack Obama put it.And so the Abraham Accords help flatter American elites. Israel and its Gulf allies can make a big show of overcoming Muslim-Jewish tensions — which Americans see as the central moral question of the Middle East — with U.S. support. The other prejudices involved in maintaining the system simply don't register on Americans' radar.Other states are starting to appeal to the West through the same strategy. Azerbaijan is fighting a brutal ethnic conflict against Armenia. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani government has made a big show of hosting foreign Christian and Jewish delegations. Those guests often go on to praise Azerbaijan as an oasis of Muslim tolerance — rather than a secular nationalist dictatorship whose ethnic hatred of Armenians outweighs any religious concern.It's noble to want American diplomats to resolve conflicts and promote harmony between religions. But the Abraham Accords are intentionally misleading in that regard. Under the guise of peacemaking, the alliance helps authoritarian governments maintain divisions, albeit among communities that U.S. elites don't care about. The real path to peace comes through justice and mutual respect, not simply rearranging enemy lists.

Pesantren (Islamic boarding school) is the oldest Islamic institution in Indonesia that often affiliated to the largest mass Muslim organization Nahdlatul Ulama. This organization is well known for its stance to uphold moderate, tolerance Islam and accepting pluralistic state based on Pancasila. Pesantren also often referred as the barometer to understand the way of thinking of Muslims grass root in Indonesia because many Islamic figures in Indonesian village are alumni of pesantren. There are debates among scholars on whether religious violence has a root in religious doctrine or it is caused by factors outside religion such as poverty or injustice. By assuming that both inside and outside factors have significant contribution to violence or radicalism this study will discuss the doctrine that potentially can be used to justify violence and intolerance by reviewing the opinion of pesantren leaders in West Java on jihad, violence or intolerance and power. This study is aimed to examine whether the commitment of Muslim leaders in national level on democracy and plurality is supported by grass root particularly from pesantren leaders. Overall the study found that although they agree that democracy is compatible with Islam, this study reveals that their acceptance to pluralism still be questioned as evidenced by almost half of them supported theocratic caliphate carry out by radical group. Although many argued that pesantren promotes tolerance and pluralism, nevertheless this study shows that some of their teaching tacitly supported violence act in the name of religion that will tarnished the effort of Indonesia to synchronize Islam, democracy and modernity. It means that many of them actually not wholeheartedly accepted democracy and pluralism.

Pesantren (Islamic boarding school) is the oldest Islamic institution in Indonesia that often affiliated to the largest mass Muslim organization Nahdlatul Ulama. This organization is well known for its stance to uphold moderate, tolerance Islam and accepting pluralistic state based on Pancasila. Pesantren also often referred as the barometer to understand the way of thinking of Muslims grass root in Indonesia because many Islamic figures in Indonesian village are alumni of pesantren. There are debates among scholars on whether religious violence has a root in religious doctrine or it is caused by factors outside religion such as poverty or injustice. By assuming that both inside and outside factors have significant contribution to violence or radicalism this study will discuss the doctrine that potentially can be used to justify violence and intolerance by reviewing the opinion of pesantren leaders in West Java on jihad, violence or intolerance and power. This study is aimed to examine whether the commitment of Muslim leaders in national level on democracy and plurality is supported by grass root particularly from pesantren leaders. Overall the study found that although they agree that democracy is compatible with Islam, this study reveals that their acceptance to pluralism still be questioned as evidenced by almost half of them supported theocratic caliphate carry out by radical group. Although many argued that pesantren promotes tolerance and pluralism, nevertheless this study shows that some of their teaching tacitly supported violence act in the name of religion that will tarnished the effort of Indonesia to synchronize Islam, democracy and modernity. It means that many of them actually not wholeheartedly accepted democracy and pluralism.