Belief Breeds Intolerance by Albert Einstein

A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant, and he is unable to be tolerant.

At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another religion but usually it does not stop there.

The faithful adherent of a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not successful. Has this happened to you?

However, hatred leads to persecution when the might of the majority is behind it.

In the case of a Christian clergyman the tragi-comical is found in this: that the Christian demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand, because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman. The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a child for cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object of love will be eaten up.

What are your thoughts on the topic?

It is not the belief in itself that breeds intolerance.
Organized religion does it.

Very true Invisible,

yet it all starts with one individual belief that grounds more followers to create organized religions

the art of persuasion is a powerful tool

Well as is often the case, the word 'religion' here is apparently being used to refer to religions that have jealous egotistical Gods.

Why should a belief in a 'religion' in general need lead to intolerance?

I suppose that all depends on how you define 'religion'.

My 'religion' does not pass judgements on anyone. My God loves eveyone no matter what they believe, or even if they are atheists.

I would never tell anyone else how to behaved based on my religion.

In fact, my religion doesn't even tell me how to behave.

I think a lot of people have a very warped idea of religion. Many people turn to religion for moral guidance. Personally I think that's truly sad. All that says is that those people have no morality of their own.

I think it's really sad that people feel a need to either be punished or rewarded to keep in them in line.

Who would a parent be more proud of: A child who just naturally wants to do good things, or a child who only does good things because of fear of punishment if they are bad, or lust for reward if they are good?

Clearly any sane parent would be much more please with a child who is just naturally good without any need for threats of punishments or rewards.

The idea that religion should be tied to moral values is truly insane.

Religion should be about the respect for live and nature, and not about whether a person will be punished or rewarded for the way they behave.

It think it's truly sad that some religions have become totally lost in the concept of a God who punishes or rewards based on behavior and/or beliefs.

In fact, a God who punishes for wrong beliefs would itself be an immoral God, IMHO.

Religion isn't about morals, and should never be about morals.

Religion should be about having a great love and repsect of life and nature. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Religions that focus on judging the moral values of others have no repsect for life, or nature, or God.

Christianity is the most hypocrical of all religions. Their Jesus taught not to judge, yet this is all they ever do. They are the antithesis of all that is holy, and they spit in the face of their very own 'savior'. This is not a judgement but merely an observation of their behavior.

I belief that when Albert Einstein wrote this he was frustrated to know that Jewish people where being shot, starved, or gased in concentration camps.

With this being in mind he came to the conclusion that religion breeds intolerance

If one doesn't follow a certain belief system then one can actually lose their life

so in the end as he sat in America helpless he couldn't but help think in the way the manner he wrote this at the time

yet did he have the interest to study or research Eastern Mysctiscm?

Did he look at other religious prospects and give a opinion on it?

Would he still have wrote this letter in the same sense if he did know about other belief systems that are truly more peaceful then the mediterrenean mythologies faith systems that still cover half of the population around this world?

Sometimes even the smartest people change their minds if they had witnessed or experienced events differently in the course of their lifetimes.

Yes, I'm sure he was looking at the influence that Christianity has on people when he wrote that.

He also wrote the following comment about Buddhism:

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." (Albert Einstein)

I'm in total agreement with this.

Albert Einstein was a very wise man. And surely no one can argue with his compassion.

I'll never understand why people are so anxious to place their faith in the biblical picture of an incompassionate God jealous egotistical God.

It just seem like a very poor place to invest faith.

My experience fits this analogy. No matter how much love they (refering to the religious) claim for everyone it is conditional and the condition is that you convert to their belief. Now I have ran into a few exceptions, Buddhists and Wiccans, they truly do respect all and accept all.

I did not read all the posts until now, I agree with him again in his reference to Buddhists.

Belief (whether or not it is tied to any organized religion) breeds bias which, in turn, can lead to intolerance.

Belief does not breed intolerence. Belief in intolerence breeds intolerence.

there is bias everywhere from christians, muslims, wiccans, athiests, etc....depends on the person and what is in their head.

I found this online...not sure who cares or who agrees...just thought it might be something to consider on the other side of things

just a thought....

"Christians are intolerant because they try to tell other people what to do and what to believe," is a common complaint from those who have been witnessed to by a zealous Christian. Although the actions of Christians are often interpreted as intolerance, the primary reason why Christians are seen as intolerant is because the perceived, politically-correct definition of tolerance has changed over the years.

What is intolerance? To begin the discussion, it would be good to know what the word "intolerant" really means, in order to determine if Christians really are intolerant:

Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1735
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters1

The really remarkable thing about the definition of intolerant is that those who say we Christians are intolerant and should not express our religious beliefs are the ones who actually fit the definition. Tolerance is not about accepting every one else's beliefs, but merely being willing to listen to those beliefs. In contrast to many other religious beliefs, evangelical Christians rate quite high on the scale of being willing to discuss religious beliefs on a moment's notice.

Think about it...

The way our minds naturally operate...

How can there NOT be bias?

I would agree...what I'm saying is that it is not exclusive to one religion or walk of life

"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." - The Dalai Lama

double post