That depends on the rules, and their reasoning. Humans have be able and willing to control their individual behaviors for the sake of their collective well being. We are a cooperative species. And those among us that are not willing or able to recognize this fact present a danger to everyone else. As such, everyone else has the right and the obligation to limit their selfish behaviors by force. So the question becomes how to identify those rules that best enable mutual cooperation and benefit while recognizing that we are a collection of individuals, with unique desires and capabilities. And the proscription about having no sex and no children outside of marriage, if enforced, would be ignoring our individual desires and abilities to an unrealistic, and ultimately detrimental degree. It's simply not a proscription that all humans could or would follow, regardless of the laws and consequences applied. And that is not good for the individual OR the collective.
The answer is that I do have that right as a member of a collective humans society, but I do not have that right as an individual. Sadly, this is a distinction that very few American citizens seem to recognize and understand these days (if they ever really did).
They do not understand that there is a difference between what their society should and should not tolerate, and what they as individuals would and would not tolerate. Our selfishness has blinded us to the fact that, as individuals, we are just one among many. And that as citizens, our responsibility is to the collective whole, not just to ourselves. Every time we vote for a candidate because he says he'll do what WE WANT, rather than what society needs, we actively participate in the destruction of our own collective society. And the selfishness has become so widespread that few of us even recognize this. Our society is disintegrating right before our eyes, by our own actions, we still don't understand why it's happening.
This is wrong because religion is not the issue, here. The issue is self-centered individual desire vs collective necessity and well-being. And that involves ALL our motives (sex, power, wealth, reputation, etc.), not just our religious motives.
No, we don't. Not if it damages the function and well-being of our social collective. And not if it damages the individual rights, freedoms, and well-being of other individuals within our social collective.
Which is exactly what should be considered, and what needs to be done when some members of a society engage in actions that are detrimental to that society as a whole, or to the rights, freedoms and well-being of other individuals within that society. When groups or individuals within a society of humans become toxic to the well-being of that society of humans, it is their right and obligation to root out and eliminate those toxic individuals.
I agree. But the basis for that consideration is two-fold: the rights, freedoms, and well-being of all the individuals within the collective, and the security, functionality, and well-being of the collective, itself.
A couple of things here.
First, though you claim that religion is not the issue, it most certainly is; the thread says so. It is, after all, about whether we should 'tolerate bad RELIGION."
Second, you make a rather large point about separating your ability to force others to your POV with that of the 'collective.' The problem here is that the 'collective' is a collection. It's in the name and everything; a COLLECTION of individuals. You are...or seem to be...saying that what the majority of the collective wants should hold true.
That's sort of true, in terms of elections and all, but it is absolutely UNTRUE in everything. To bow to that is to bow to mob rule. Over the millenia, for instance, the Jews have been persecuted, murdered, put away in 'judenhouser' and ghettos, restricted as to what they are allowed to do professionally (and boy, didn't THAT backfire...)
But the majority thought that was just fine. Is this, by you, a good and proper thing?
I allude to the history of my own belief system frequently...not because I'm all that incensed (or proud) about it, but because I'm extremely familiar with it. Back in the early-mid 19th century there were quite a few of us who gathered together in Illinois and Missouri (other places too...) but, especially in Missouri, we were an enclave of people who were NOT slave owners...our leader ran for president as an abolitionist...who, because of their numbers, pretty much ran whatever town they settled in. They tended to vote as a block, you see, and since they were the ones who generally built the towns they lived in (like Nauvoo, which was the third largest city in the USA for a time) they figured they had the right to vote as they wished.
Your classic 'collective,' yes?
But their neighbors were very unhappy with them. Their neighbors, being slave owners or the supporters of slave owners, didn't want a bunch of abolitionist types running anything. They were also against the Mormons practicing polygamy. THEY (the neighbors) decided that the Mormon's religion was 'bad,' because of the slave issue, and because of polygamy. So they decided not to tolerate Mormonism. The governor of the state of Missouri wrote Executive Order 44, which HE (the governor) called the 'Extermination Order" declaring that if the Mormons didn't leave the territory it would be legal to kill them. BTW, that order wasn't rescinded until 1976, 138 years later.
THAT was what happens when 'the collective' has free reign to decide what is acceptable in terms of religion.
I say this: NONE of us have the right to enforce our beliefs on others. We can talk, we can argue, we can attempt to persuade. but 'toleration' is about accepting the right of others to be different. Intolerance is about forcing others to behave the way WE think they should, whether they think so or not.
For ME, it is pretty clear; it doesn't matter how weird, strange, immoral, idiotic or foolish a belief or religion is, the holder has a right to it and neither I nor anybody else has the right to force him/her to change it, or to act according to OUR beliefs, not his.
The line is this: nobody has the right to force an unwilling person to participate in his beliefs. this would mean that things like murder (the victim can almost certainly be said to be unwilling, yes?) or kidnapping, or assault...any physical damage to someone who isn't all for it. Trapping someone to force her to LISTEN to them would be out of the question (like, oh, blocking the entrance to buildings in which services are held, so that the participants can't enter, Demonstrating against that belief with music and shouting so loud that religious events are 'shouted out,' anything that involves physical harm to people who don't want to BE harmed.
On the other hand, demonstrations against a belief system held in such a way that believers CAN pass freely to and from services, and demonstrations at decibel levels that would allow others to ignore them...that's acceptable. Well, I don't like it, but it's their right.
Putting snakes in the mail boxes of heretics is not. Shooting at people or running cars into gatherings is not.
Oh...and forcing a photographer to shoot a gay wedding when that photographer's beliefs are very much against gay weddings is NOT acceptable, any more than forcing a caterer to 'do' the wedding of a divorced man...because the caterer is Catholic and does not believe that a divorced person whose ex-spouse is still living CAN marry again...is acceptable just because YOU (general you) think that both things are just fine and dandy.
Oh, and "we don't like that this group teaches literal biblical creationism to their kids" doesn't count as harm.
