Talk:Religious toleration

message: Religious tolerance redirects to Freedom of religion.  But religious tolerance includes not only state tolerance, but also tolerance among sects.  If "religious toleration" is a synonym (or Britishism?) for "religious tolerance", that should be added to this article.  Otherwise, Religious tolerance should become an article on the subject. -- Beland 03:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have redirected "religious tolerance" to this article because it is a variation on the same meaning. Religious toleration seems to be more than a Britishism because it has historical significance as well as application to the history of the British legal system with regards to religion. Thanks for pointing out this orphan, I did not know that it existed. As for tolerance among sects/religions, well, that is a tall order since many religions are exclusive by their very nature. In order to survive in a democratic society a face has of late been created to cover over these differences from outside of each sect/religion, while their doctrines often remain unchanged. I suppose if the world's religions could all get together and agree upon a common God and shrug off all theology the world would be a far better place and of course I would be dreaming. It is a pleasant dream though. MPLX/MH 06:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the expansion tag? I visited the referenced page on the tag and it is blank. It does not make sense. MPLX/MH 06:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The expansion tag simply refers to the request that follows it, to add information about religious tolerance among sects.  I certainly agree it's a big subject.  By "Britishism", I mean that I think "religious toleration" is how Brits say the same thing we Americans mean when we say "religious tolerance", and vice versa.  -- Beland 03:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "religious tolerance" is the more commonly used phrase nowadays in the UK. Tolerance and toleration have two distinct meaning, with tolerance implying "accept" and toleration implying "put up with" Daduzi 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the Article, Expansion tag 

message: "Vatican II", a Council held 1962-1965 under John XXIII (1958-1962) and Paul VI altered Church teaching to enshrine Religious liberty. This has been rejected as apostasy by Traditionalist Catholics and as schism by the party of Marcel Lefebvre (Society of Pope St. Pius X). 
The changed teaching has had influence on the larger faction of the Church that accepts Vatican II, and should be reflected in this article. 
I believe that the so-called Constantinian shift too is relevant and should be linked to.
WikiSceptic 20:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Vatican II"

message: This article largely covers the same ground as Freedom of religion, and I am therefore suggesting that it be merged into that article, with a redirect from this title.  Historically, "Religious toleration" only has, so far as I am aware, distinct connotations in English history, where it is used to mean connote freedom of worship for different religious groups while the establiched Church was retained.  Such a matter can be discussed within the Freedom of religion article.  Gabrielthursday 22:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merge

message: I think the article should be moved to "religious tolerance," a term that is a lot more common than "religious toleration." A quick Google search reveals that this is indeed about 4 times more common. -71.107.7.249 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  religious tolerance vs religious toleration 

message: This article is about the historical expansion (or contraction) of state toleration for minority religions.  The Criticism section is about the atheists who don't "tolerate" religion itself (even though Dawkins, for example, actually does tolerate religious views in others), and simply does not belong here.Silas Maxfield (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead sentence in the article says: "Religious toleration is the condition of accepting or permitting others' religious beliefs and practices which disagree with one's own.". I disagree that the  article's scope is limited to to (as you put it) "state toleration for minority religions". The article doesn't presently contain much information regarding toleration by individual religions, religious groups, religious persons, or nonreligious persons of philosophies, organizations, groups, or individual persons holding differing views but such information might be within the legitimate scope of an article titled "Religious toleration".  "Criticism", though, strikes me as a bad section heading for the information presently contained in that section. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support: Google count: 
**"Religious tolerance" 1,100,000 hits
**"Religious toleration" 217,000.
I realize there is a toleration article, as opposed to tolerance, but I'd like to move that one as well. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I don't understand. What is religious tolerance? And if they are so different, why is toleration used throughout the article? By my count, toleration is used 21 times, but tolerance is used 10 times. If it's really different, that's fine (I'm no expert) but you should probably make the difference clear with references. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Toleration is specifically defined, by the OED, as   Allowance (with or without limitations), by the ruling power, of the exercise of religion otherwise than in the form officially established or recognized. Accordingly, the laws so providing are called Toleration Acts. This is the term of art; tolerance can mean this, but it normally does not, and distinctions should be encouraged, as Fowler said. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Most of the uses of tolerance here are in badly sourced and dubiously literate sections, like the Iranian nationalist nonsense about the Cyrus cylinder; the use in the intro is elegant variation, and should be pruned. What this needs is not a move, but a clean-up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll gladly remove my move request if the two words mean different things. This should, however, be made more clear in the article, particularly since tolerance redirects here, and the word tolerance is used throughout this article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: "The most tolerant religion is considered to be Buddhism. A monistic and open-minded religion. However, since it is a Dharmic faith, nations practising Abrahamic religions have had a long history of non-tolerance and discrimination toward it (Anti-Hinduism). In fact in several countries, it is not even recognized as a religion despite being the oldest relgion in the world and being practised by over 900 Million people world-wide."
First off, how can we wager which religion is the most tolerant?  Secondarily there is no source to this claim.  Third other religions and spiritual practices beside Hinduiism have similar veiws concerning religious tolerance... simply because a "religion" is tolerant, doesn't mean that its followers are... nor does it mean that if a "religion" is intolerant that its followers are rude violent, and crude. Removing this for now and placing here.  Also, I don't see how being the oldest religion in the world has anything to do with religious tolerance (and that claim is disputed...) Please Discuss. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this particular passage is even worthy of discussion.  It has no source, so it is not verifiable; it is unprovable, so it is original research; it is an easily disputed pro-Hindu diatribe, so it is definitely POV rubbish; and I don't see one redeeming thing about it to counter the fact that this violates every core policy of Wikipedia.  Good riddance to it.  Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no, Wolf... Buddhism isn't even a religion or a faith because it does not believe in a Supreme Being, aka God! At best it is an impersonalist form of spirituality involving mysticism where its success or failure as a transcendental practice is determined 100% on the ability of the practitioner. God is not worshipped, there is no sense of loving devotion and service to the Supreme Being - so how the hell can it be considered a religion? It's about as "religious" as ©️ Transcendental Meditation which has absolutely no moral compass whatsoever and no concept of "sin" or "redemption". Ningnongtwit (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I retract my comment as I have since learnt that a religion is a set of beliefs, instructions, etc not necessarily ethical or moral or anything to do with God. For instance football fanatics indeed class their support for their favourite team as a religion. Ningnongtwit (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Tolerant Religion... moved here... Discuss

message: I have added in the section - contexts of toleration; an example why India choose to be a secular nation even after being formed through a partition in the name of religion - this is obviously because Hinduism preaches secularism in its scriptures, especially the Vedas. Therefore before making any rvs, pls talk here. 117.204.88.31 (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  inclusion of India in contexts of rel toleration 

message: The article  goes into no detail about the various voices in favor of and opposing religious toleration throughout history. Where is John Locke? Mill needs to be discussed more. The article also states there are five contexts for understanding its topic, lists only four and goes into detail on none of them. I will be back from time to time to work on this. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs improvement and clean up 

message: I just added a section on John Locke. This needs to be improved and some references added, and I will be back to do so. I also modified the reference to Sam Harris. I misunderstood from the existing content that he wrote from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, when in reality as his Wikipedia bio illustrates, he is skeptical of all religion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Locke/Sam Harris 

message: I moved the Sam Harris section down to put the various references in somewhat chronological order.
I created a separate Hinduism section and moved appropriate content there, deleting some opinionated words and revising to meet NPOV standards. I also fixed some problems with the references. The article still needs a lot of work. Sections should be added on Mill, Dworkin and Rawls, who are referred to near the top but never discussed. How about the effect of the Reformation on tolerance,   more information on toleration towards "People of the Book" in areas and times of Islamic or Ottoman domination, etc. I will be back from time to time to try and improve this, but hope others will jump in. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I am eager to discuss his reasons with the IP user as I stated on his talk page and in edit summaries. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: There seems to be a bit of an edit war (reported at WP:3RRNB) on this topic. Bold, Revert, Discuss is work remembering - please discuss, don't revert. JoeSperrazza (talk)
:Thanks, I am eager to discuss his reasons with the IP user as I stated on his talk page and in edit summaries. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss, don't edit war 

message: I added sections on Mill, People of the Book, Johann Reuchlin, Edict of Nantes, Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, this article badly calls out for an overhaul from a PhD type who really has an overview of this topic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More work needed

message: I have flagged this article and Toleration for merger. The rationale is that the "Toleration" article, which is inadequate, contains only religious toleration examples (all of which are now included here).  I have also expanded "Religious toleration"  to include discussion of Walzer, Dworkin, Rawls et al who discuss toleration of political and ethnic groups, gays, etc. Therefore I propose moving this article to "Toleration" and creating a redirect here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of merging, Toleration article should be extended as there is many ways of toleration itself.--DeeMusil (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The surviving article would be named "Toleration". It could continue to be extended with all kinds of examples. Right now, it doesn't make sense to have two separate articles because the content dealing with other than religious toleration is only a small part of the article. In the future, if there were substantial additions to this section,  we could consider separating the articles again. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Hinduism (sanaatan dharma) is most the most tolerant religion in the world because It accept the ideology of Buddhism and Jainism without any discrimination and war when It is only way of life in India. 
And On the other hand It has been remaining it's tolerance in spite of facing many discrimination and attacks on it since past. Islam is the worst religion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:4C8D:DEDE:0:0:EE09:3207 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: One anonymous opinion