Should bad religion be tolerated?

[night912]

I believe in the separation of church and state and freedom of speech. I think anyone should be able to practice whatever religion and say whatever as long as it doesn't violate the law. If a church refuse service to a gay wedding, they have every right to do so and the government shouldn't get involved. But if a religious person refuse to issue a state legal marriage license because of his/her religious beliefs, then the government should step in and serve that person with appropriate disciplinary action for violating the law. Also, any religious person with establishments open to the public can't refuse service to individuals because of religious reasons. Even if the establishment have a religious "theme." It is no longer a religious establishment. Separation of church and state and freedom of speech is important to maintain equal rights to all, but it must go both ways.

Bigotry comments getting banned is the beginning of the breakdown of freedom of speech. Freedom comes with a price, but if only some have that right while others don't, then that is not freedom.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You do realize that you are talking to a LGBT person, right?

Yet, you have already stereotyped people into two categories, LGBT people who uniformly oppose Trump and backwards bucktoothed hicks who voted for Trump. I mean you might not have said this, but this is basically what you are projecting.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why I honestly don't care about LGBT people getting turned away, why I still view a Trump vote as a vote of support for LGBT people. Hint: it has to do with this event. One presidential candidate wanted people like me not to have any protection against such shooters (I still don't own a gun, because I'm a pacifist, but I support the 2nd amendment). Trump was not this candidate. One candidate wanted to have quotas of LGBT people just for the sake of quotas, despite the fact that with all their hormones and other treatments they would likely be undertrained and thus easy prey for being sent to countries that very much did not share pro-LGBT values. The other, again Trump, interestingly enough protected these people from being slaughtered, despite their cries of "bigotry, bigotry." One candidate would like my dad to be forced out of his job if he didn't want to perform certain weddings, even though the church allows the priest to have personal say in all weddings (usually he rejects weddings where it seems like they have shallow reasons for getting married, or they are marrying for money, but people shouldn't be forced to compromise their values for people who move like 7 states away just to harass them over not baking a wedding cake in Colorado when the wedding was in Massachusetts). Trump did not.

You know, sometimes people say they love us, but the truth is they are just pandering. Trying to buy our friendship. I was outside like two days ago, and they had a homecoming parade. That's kinda cool. Then midway through, a truck with "___ for Sheriff" and another one with "____ for Congress/Senate/whatever" drive buy. They're throwing stuff at us like candy and such, and suddenly I'm not having as much fun anymore. Instead I'm like, "You guys must think we're idiots. Also, your parade is going too slow, creating a nuisance to people behind you."

How have these "tolerant" people treated LGBT people? Well, conservatives aside from telling them flatly that their lifestyle is likely to hurt them in the long run, overall are okay with them. On the other hand, as I have demonstrated, liberals prefer them unable to defend themselves and dependent on the state. I was forced out of an apartment with the sketchy tactics of (mostly liberal) mooch fratboys and their landlord, himself a gay man. Liberals only like you if you behave like they think you should. So how should LGBT behave? Well, like dependents. Most of them are in homeless shelters. Most of them are on foodstamps. I was on foodstamps in the big city, and they wouldn't hire me as a genderfluid person. I moved to a small town, and got a job at the library. Didn't care how I dressed or who I was, they cared about me doing the job well. Nor did the local church care. Small town folks, not anyone messed with me until I started getting stressed out and actually did a bad job.

It's not about the politics though. Anyone can change, and I was helped, saved if you will by two churches before I found my small-town one. One was a hardcore Baptist type, who taught me what real grace was, and how we have to understand the law first to understand that we don't measure up to the law, and that in fact was the point. I walked out in the middle of the service because it sounded like he was saying that LGBT people wouldn't be accepted (it was a marriage and family sermon). Went to a church that was more liberal, and yes they were kinda committed to alot of the Pride stuff (but when I actually needed to find a job and a place to stay, they really couldn't help). But over time, I realized that the welcome I got from the liberal church didn't serve me as well as understanding what they were trying to tell me before I walked out.

You see, this is where the passage that they mentioned came from. But the next two verses explain what was so difficult at the time.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10



I was transgender rather than gay, but lumped in with all the other stuff thanks to well meaning people who decided it would be nice to treat the whole group as the same. Yeah, you'd leave that church too. But the questions nagged at me until I actually read the passage. Here's what the rest says.



Notice that homosexuals are on the same scale as thieves and drunkards and people who are just kinda greedy. And notice that all of this is seen as just history compared to Jesus. None of it is of any consequence. But yes, it sounds bigoted at the time, if you don't bother listening.



Why shouldn't you receive anal sex? Is it because God will never forgive you? Or is it because God wants you not to hurt yourself. Anal sex, besides being painful has a high risk of disease, and even a risk of anal cancer.

Some things seem like love at the time, but turn out to either be not much good in the long run, or in fact hateful. Other things seem bigoted and hateful at the time, but turn out to be good lessons. Had I not been so upset with this that I started hunting for answers, I would not have found this passage of how grace removes the curse of our pasts. Or I would be sitting around a bunch of nice-sounding people but now probably be homeless. What I value more than people who seem sweet but are trying to use me, are people who care about me enough to tell me, "This is hurting you." Or, "You probably shouldn't masturbate multiple times a day and stay up all night, you look exhausted and sexually depleted."

I really appreciate the post. You've given me a lot to think about.

 

[PureX]

more from the totalitarian state. You can practice your religion, under command and control of the state.

The whole purpose of establishing governments is to protect the citizens in a society from each other. That means those citizens will determine what each individual's rights and responsibilities are, and the government will enforce them.

The fact that you don't like the state telling you what you can and cannot do to other people in the name of your religion (or for any other reason), and the fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge that the state, in a representative democracy, is an authorized extension of the will of the people you live among and that formed it, and operate it, just shows your own excessive level of immaturity and selfishness.

The state has absolutely no business being involved in religion in any way.

The state is not involved in religion in any way. But it is involved in establishing and protecting the rights and responsibilities of it's citizens. And when religious factions seek to abuse those rights and responsibilities, it's the government's responsibility to stop them.

It is a complete unalienable right for an American to practice their religion any way they choose.

Right up until they abuse the rights of others, and ignore their responsibilities to their fellow citizens. Then the state is obliged, and MANDATED, to step in and stop that "expression of religion".

The government has absolutely no right to intrude, period.

The government has an absolute right to intrude. That's WHY it exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The organization is funded by government.

Most governmental organizations are. What's your point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Americans, under the first Amendment to the United States Constitution have the right to practice any religion, any way they choose.

That's not true at all. Not legally and certainly not in practice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If I say Christianity is the only true religion, and you don´t like it, tough. Frankly my belief structure is none of your business.

What you say is not important. What Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism say is important. Does the religion respect other religions? That is the measure of good or bad.

So they believe in allowing other beliefs flourish eh? Ha.

At times, yes, after the person following some other religion pays 'zizia', performs his/her worship silently, does not construct a place of worship higher than the mosque and does not raise his eyes or voice while talking to Muslims.

So they believe in allowing other beliefs flourish eh? Ha.

At times, yes, after the person following some other religion pays 'zizia', performs his/her worship silently, does not construct a building higher than the mosque and does not raise his eyes or voice while talking to Muslims.

What's bad religion? I can tell you suffering and evil are illusions.

Bad religion thrives of illusions.

 

[sealchan]

Should bad religion, religion that promotes bigotry and prejudice, be tolerated?

At what point does neutral/good religion tip the scale into bad, and who should decide such a thing?

The problem with judging a leader is that you automatically end up judging the whole set of followers. Probably better to continue to educate everyone about the truth and to address social issues like employment and medical care and psychiatric care (you see what I did there) so that hate isnt leveraged as a unifier of people.

 

[shmogie]

That's not true at all. Not legally and certainly not in practice.

It is absolutely true. Legally, and in practice.

A Canadian who learns of the US from TV is not inn a position to judge.

You are dead wrong.

 

[shmogie]

The whole purpose of establishing governments is to protect the citizens in a society from each other. That means those citizens will determine what each individual's rights and responsibilities are, and the government will enforce them.

The fact that you don't like the state telling you what you can and cannot do to other people in the name of your religion (or for any other reason), and the fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge that the state, in a representative democracy, is an authorized extension of the will of the people you live among and that formed it, and operate it, just shows your own excessive level of immaturity and selfishness.
The state is not involved in religion in any way. But it is involved in establishing and protecting the rights and responsibilities of it's citizens. And when religious factions seek to abuse those rights and responsibilities, it's the government's responsibility to stop them.
Right up until they abuse the rights of others, and ignore their responsibilities to their fellow citizens. Then the state is obliged, and MANDATED, to step in and stop that "expression of religion".
The government has an absolute right to intrude. That's WHY it exists.

Not in the United States. The government, nor the people determine the rights of citizens, the Constitution does.

The Bill of Rights , which enumerates the rights of citizens lists the freedom of religion first. These rights are unalienable, they cannot be compromised for any reason.

So, the Nation of Islam, a black semi Islamic religion, weekly preaches how evil white folk are. Whites are called terrible names, and terrible evil acts are attributed go them.

The Nation of Islam runs on pure hate.

I would assume that in your ideal state the government would intrude into this religion and how it operates.

They have every right in the US to freely practice what they believe.

If the government can mess with them because they don´t believe as the government wants them to, then the government can find an excuse to meddle in my faith.

They are a despicable religion, but the Constitution, and I support their right to be despicable.

I would assume that in your ideal state the government would meddle

 

[shmogie]

No correct. Under the first amendment people can practice whatever religion they want as long as their actions does not violate government laws. No religious law is above government laws. The reason for it is so the government does not favor one religion over another.

You are correct as to criminal law, and some civil law. Nevertheless, the belief structure itself is totally free.

A church can determine, and believe that their god only accepts left handed blue eyed people. They can exclude all others.

They can refer to all others in terrible ways from the pulpit, and in their lessons, they are free to do so.

As long as there is no incitement to violence, a crime, or actual criminal behavior, what they believe is their right.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You are correct as to criminal law, and some civil law. Nevertheless, the belief structure itself is totally free.

A church can determine, and believe that their god only accepts left handed blue eyed people. They can exclude all others.

They can refer to all others in terrible ways from the pulpit, and in their lessons, they are free to do so.

As long as there is no incitement to violence, a crime, or actual criminal behavior, what they believe is their right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but such things are still subject to interpretation... I mean the Constitution... and when push comes to shove, it's the Supreme court judges who interpret it. Our interpretation is for educational purposes and as it stands, has little power.

 

[shmogie]

I thought human sacrifices and animal sacrifices were illegal in the US (polygamy it depends on the on the State, same thing with child marriage, but both are illegal in most States). In that sense, Americans can't practice their religion in any way they want. There are limits to it.

The supreme court held that animal sacrifices as part of the religion of Santeria is legal, and a foundation of their faith.

murder is a crime.

Polygamy is illegal, although it is practiced by small groups and they are left alone.

Certainly there are limits based upon the law, these apply to all citizens.

However, courts have voided certain laws for religions, that impinged upon their first amendment rights.

 

[shmogie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but such things are still subject to interpretation... I mean the Constitution... and when push comes to shove, it's the Supreme court judges who interpret it. Our interpretation is for educational purposes and as it stands, has little power.

The first amendment regarding religion has always had extreme latitude given to religion in cases before the supremes.

This is a long standing precedent of the court.

my analysis is based upon an understanding of the Constitution, and of itś interpretation, specifically that regarding religion, of the past.,

What I have stated is what the Constitution has established, and the supremes have supported.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Should bad religion, religion that promotes bigotry and prejudice, be tolerated?

At what point does neutral/good religion tip the scale into bad, and who should decide such a thing?

The Prophets of God only taught love, forgiveness, peace , humility and heavenly virtues and good character.

Anyone teaching otherwise is acting in opposition to his own Faith or religion.

There is no such thing as bad religion but only people who do not obey their religion or act in a contrary manner. The Prophets called us to love all humanity unconditionally. Their teachings were perfect but it is the followers who are imperfect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is absolutely true. Legally, and in practice.

Say I want to proselytize to my neighbourhood, so I go to a nearby apartment building and demand to be let inside so I can knock door to door at all the apartments there. The building manager refuses. What happens next?

Say my Wiccan coven and I want to have a worship service in a public park at midnight. The park curfew is 10:00 p.m. What happens next?

Say my town has an invocation before every council meeting. Local ministers apply to get into the rotation, but they're all Christian. I, a Satanic priest, apply to do a Satanic invocation. In response, the council votes to get rid of the invocation altogether. What happens next?

In how many of these situations does the religious person have "the right to practice any religion, any way they choose?"

(Spoiler: none. The fact that someone wants to do something for religious reasons doesn't exempt them from normal rules)

 

[shmogie]

Say I want to proselytize to my neighbourhood, so I go to a nearby apartment building and demand to be let inside so I can knock door to door at all the apartments there. The building manager refuses. What happens next?

Say my Wiccan coven and I want to have a worship service in a public park at midnight. The park curfew is 10:00 p.m. What happens next?

Say my town has an invocation before every council meeting. Local ministers apply to get into the rotation, but they're all Christian. I, a Satanic priest, apply to do a Satanic invocation. In response, the council votes to get rid of the invocation altogether. What happens next?

In how many of these situations does the religious person have "the right to practice any religion, any way they choose?"

(Spoiler: none. The fact that someone wants to do something for religious reasons doesn't exempt them from normal rules)

You are addressing laws and rules interacting with with religion in the public sphere.

The right to practice ones religion as they chose doesn´t mean the interaction of religion with the civil or criminal law always protects the religionist.

It means that on private property in groups or singularly a religion can be freely practiced without interference by the state. Preaching, teaching, sacraments exist as the religion determines. They can exclude or
include whomever they choose. They can sacrifice animals. Native Americans can use peyote in their religious rituals, an illegal drug for everyone else.

This is the freedom of religion.

When this freedom conflicts with the law, like the guy who refused to bake a homosexual themed wedding cake because it was a conflict with his faith, the courts decide . He won.

 

[THE Art Vandelay]

Should bad religion, religion that promotes bigotry and prejudice, be tolerated?

At what point does neutral/good religion tip the scale into bad, and who should decide such a thing?

I suppose it depends on what you're claiming as "bigotry and prejudice", doesn't it? For instance, man's creator says that homosexuality is a serious sin against his laws and moral standards. People today try to claim that such a stand is "bigotry and prejudice" and that their acceptance of it is the right way to go. I'd choose God's standards over man's any day of the week. In due time, though, we'll see that all false religion - including those that do tolerate what God does not - will be gone forever.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I suppose it depends on what you're claiming as "bigotry and prejudice", doesn't it?

It does, but arguing constructs takes forever.

 

[PureX]

Not in the United States. The government, nor the people determine the rights of citizens, the Constitution does.

The people wrote it, and the people amend it as they see fit. They do it their through their appointed representatives.

The Bill of Rights , which enumerates the rights of citizens lists the freedom of religion first. These rights are unalienable, they cannot be compromised for any reason.

Yes, they can be amended.

So, the Nation of Islam, a black semi Islamic religion, weekly preaches how evil white folk are. Whites are called terrible names, and terrible evil acts are attributed go them.

The Nation of Islam runs on pure hate.

I would assume that in your ideal state the government would intrude into this religion and how it operates.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean that citizens can believe whatever they want, and can preach about it to others. But there are limits. You can't force people to listen, and you can't force or coerce other people's children into listening. You can't advocate for violence against your fellow citizens. You can't advocate for causing your fellow citizens harm. And you can't slander your fellow citizens. You also can't use inappropriate language in public, etc.,.

They have every right in the US to freely practice what they believe.

This is where you are seriously confused. They have the right to believe what they choose. They have the right to share those beliefs with others. They do not have the right to "practice" their beliefs if in so doing they infringe upon the rights of others or cause others harm, or even to advocate causing others harm. When beliefs become actions, the government is needed, and is charged with protecting us from abusing each other.

If the government can mess with them because they don´t believe as the government wants them to, then the government can find an excuse to meddle in my faith.

Governments don't "believe", people believe. And people can believe whatever they want. But when those beliefs become actions, then the government is there to keep the peace.

 

[shmogie]

The people wrote it, and the people amend it as they see fit. They do it their through their appointed representatives.
Yes, they can be amended.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean that citizens can believe whatever they want, and can preach about it to others. But there are limits. You can't force people to listen, and you can't force or coerce other people's children into listening. You can't advocate for violence against your fellow citizens. You can't advocate for causing your fellow citizens harm. And you can't slander your fellow citizens. You also can't use inappropriate language in public, etc.,.
This is where you are seriously confused. They have the right to believe what they choose. They have the right to share those beliefs with others. They do not have the right to "practice" their beliefs if in so doing they infringe upon the rights of others or cause others harm, or even to advocate causing others harm. When beliefs become actions, the government is needed, and is charged with protecting us from abusing each other.
Governments don't "believe", people believe. And people can believe whatever they want. But when those beliefs become actions, then the government is there to keep the peace.

You don´t understand what the free practice of religion is. Except where there are exemptions, the criminal and civil law applies.

However, I do not consider criminal acts as part of a religion, and if they are, the law needs to be enforced.

Belief and practice are in the context of private property used for whatever the religionists believe is right, at their meeting place, at home, or in their schools and institutions.

Public interactions are somewhat restricted by the law, but even there religious beliefs can take precedence over certain laws.

Amending the Constitution takes years, every state legislature must take part, and two thirds of all the states must approve the amendment. The last attempt I remember was the equal rights amendment in the seventies, after 5 years, the deadline, it failed to pass.

The only other option is a convention of the states, which has never occurred.