Should bad religion be tolerated?

[PureX]

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.

The counter to that, of course, is that the presumption that religious texts written by religious men have magically become the "words of God" is basically a gross example of religious idolatry. Idolatry that perpetuates the bigotry and ignorance of men and raises it to the level of the divine so that it cannot be questioned.

Pretty ugly stuff, that, if it's true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

That's right: I'm talking about the things that might stop someone from practicing their religion as they see fit.

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.

Ah - so by "the right to practice any religion, any way they choose," you meant "the right to practice any religion within the restrictions of the law?"

 

[PureX]

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.

So the practice of religion is not free, then. It is restricted by the rights and freedoms of everyone else.

 

[dianaiad]

It should NOT be tolerated. And religion has quite a few of them. Religion has a bad name because of them. Society is push and pull with a number of issues so we all collectively must decide.

The trouble is that the prejudice, and bigotry is masked under the guise of righteousness.

Indeed, and none consider themselves QUITE so 'righteous' as those who think their POV entitles them to 'not tolerate' someone else's.

The only qualification to be in one of those 'super-righteous' groups is...to think that someone else's belief system is not to be tolerated, allowed, and 'there outa be a law."

As has already been mentioned, freedom of religion is a right for a reason. As long as someone doesn't force those who don't agree with them to participate with them, It's NOBODY ELSE"S BUSINESS.

As in...Theres a group two streets over that practices polygamy and homeschools their kids until they are 12 then puts them to work raising bunnies for coyote bait?

NOT YOUR PROBLEM.

When that group starts holding pitchforks to your throat to make you play the part of the coyote?

THAT'S a problem.

There's a group that sends out people to knock on your door and/or put invitations to their services and events in that door?

Not forcing you to do anything. You can say 'no,' slam the door and...IT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM

They haul you to their events by holding your children for ransom?

THAT'S a problem.

As long as what 'they' do doesn't impact what YOU do, it's none of your business. Or mine, no matter what you or I think of their beliefs and/or practices.

 

[dianaiad]

Catholic prohibition on contraceptives.

How is that YOUR problem? How does that affect YOU?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

How is that YOUR problem? How does that affect YOU?

I think I may have caused some confusion. I created a more general thread. I have my reasons for making it, and perhaps in retrospect I would not make it again knowing the weight of my words on issues important to people, but as for what I mean, and why exactly I made it... well the thread is more of a philosophical question I guess.

I guess to have a truely meaningful discussion we would have to get down to the constructs. And from experience, discussion of constructs can take days on end, and we'll never get to the question.

 

[dianaiad]

I think I may have caused some confusion. I created a more general thread. I have my reasons for making it, and perhaps in retrospect I would not make it again knowing the weight of my words on issues important to people, but as for what I mean, and why exactly I made it... well the thread is more of a philosophical question I guess.

I guess to have a truely meaningful discussion we would have to get down to the constructs. And from experience, discussion of constructs can take days on end, and we'll never get to the question.

The question is simple on the surface. Should we tolerate a bad religion?

The problem is defining terms, and figuring out a few important things.

Like...what is a 'bad' religion?
Who gets to decide what religions are 'bad' and which are not?
Why do those people GET to decide anything?
And why can't the folks who belong to what you consider a 'bad' religion decide that YOUR opinions are just as, if not more, 'bad,' and figure out whether they should tolerate your opinions?

As you can see, a great many things must be established before we get to the philosophical question.

One of my favorite authors, in her world-building, described a nation where one of the basic foundations is: "there is no 'One True Way'"....and that would include, I rather think, all those who ask 'should we tolerate a bad religion?"

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The question is simple on the surface. Should we tolerate a bad religion?

The problem is defining terms, and figuring out a few important things.

Like...what is a 'bad' religion?
Who gets to decide what religions are 'bad' and which are not?
Why do those people GET to decide anything?
And why can't the folks who belong to what you consider a 'bad' religion decide that YOUR opinions are just as, if not more, 'bad,' and figure out whether they should tolerate your opinions?

As you can see, a great many things must be established before we get to the philosophical question.

One of my favorite authors has written in many of her books: "there is no 'One True Way'"....and that would include, I rather think, all those who ask 'should we tolerate a bad religion?"

I mean, I think this thread has spawned some interesting discussion. But I did bite off more than I can chew, because mostly I was just asking a hot question.

I mean, let's say I did talk more in detail about bad religion. I know it exists, but do I take the side of LGTBQ+, something I believe, and say all that opposes it is bad religion, which is ridiculous, or do I take the side of a theist, which I also am, and just say bad religion is that which is grossly heretical from a religious standpoint? Which I also consider a slippery slope.

Again, I asked too much. I got some good answers, but really, I didn't even expect the thread to go past 20 replies.

And in saying all this, I'm not denying what you mentioned is relevant questions. It is.

 

[dianaiad]

There is nothing that compels us to respect anyone's beliefs, particularly if they are non-sensical or dangerous.

I don't get the feeling that we are talking about 'respecting' the beliefs of those with whom we disagree. I get the feeling that the discussion is about DOING something about those with whom we disagree, legally or through some other forcible action.

You don't like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Jewry, Islam, Hinduism, whatever? Fine. Rail about it. Go on the internet and rant. Slam your door in their faces when they knock upon it.

That's your right.

but that's not what y'all are talking about, is it?

 

[dianaiad]

Tolerate? Maybe. Allow to bleed into politics? No!
I have many issues with religions in general. But if they leave me alone then I tend to leave them alone.

The real quandary I suppose is should we tolerate bad religion being taught to children?
I mean adults have a choice. Kids, not so much. But the right to raise a child however one wishes is also protected under law. (Short of abuse and/or neglect.)

Some people might see bad religion as abusive. But that’s a bit hard to prove in a court of law.

Again, who gets to decide that? I personally deeply believe that children who are not brought up in my own faith are being abused and are at a disadvantage in life.

Should I get to tell you what to teach your children?

 

[SomeRandom]

Again, who gets to decide that? I personally deeply believe that children who are not brought up in my own faith are being abused and are at a disadvantage in life.

Should I get to tell you what to teach your children?

Then teach all equally and let them make up their own minds. All or nothing. If your religion is the 'Truth TM" then exploring all avenues should be seen as nothing more than an intellectual exercise. (Of course said teaching should always be age appropriate.)

 

[osgart]

Indeed, and none consider themselves QUITE so 'righteous' as those who think their POV entitles them to 'not tolerate' someone else's.

The only qualification to be in one of those 'super-righteous' groups is...to think that someone else's belief system is not to be tolerated, allowed, and 'there outa be a law."

As has already been mentioned, freedom of religion is a right for a reason. As long as someone doesn't force those who don't agree with them to participate with them, It's NOBODY ELSE"S BUSINESS.

As in...Theres a group two streets over that practices polygamy and homeschools their kids until they are 12 then puts them to work raising bunnies for coyote bait?

NOT YOUR PROBLEM.

When that group starts holding pitchforks to your throat to make you play the part of the coyote?

THAT'S a problem.

There's a group that sends out people to knock on your door and/or put invitations to their services and events in that door?

Not forcing you to do anything. You can say 'no,' slam the door and...IT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM

They haul you to their events by holding your children for ransom?

THAT'S a problem.

As long as what 'they' do doesn't impact what YOU do, it's none of your business. Or mine, no matter what you or I think of their beliefs and/or practices.

What if they raise their children so that they can eat their children? Or make slaves out of them or something?

 

[dianaiad]

People should be allowed to believe and speak as they wish as long as they don't act in a way that violates the rights and freedoms of others.

That would be a very good way to handle things.

Forced school prayer? Yeah, not a good idea. that violates the beliefs, rights and freedoms of every student who doesn't agree with prayer at all, or even the form of the prayer being offered.

Forcing someone to violate his/her religious beliefs to do something against their religion because YOU don't agree with it? That's quite another.

I'm certain, for instance, that nobody here would consider forcing an Orthodox Jewish catering service to provide roast pork at your post wedding reception, or forcing an atheist to say 'grace' at the local homeless shelter before he could eat, right?

there IS a line, I believe, beyond which none of us should go in this matter. It's this: If you are forcing me to do something against my beliefs, that should not be tolerated. If I do something which forces you to violate yours...that should not be tolerated. However, if I can say 'no,' or you can, and neither one of us can be sued over it.....

fine.

 

[dianaiad]

What if they raise their children so that they can eat their children? Or make slaves out of them or something?

Eating them would be cannibalism and I do believe that this, along with human sacrifice, is on the other side of the line here...and 'slippery slope' is a very bad fallacy. Just because, for instance, a group practices polygamy (which some people put right up there with human sacrifice and cannibalism) doesn't mean that they run out and kill people.

Or that you have the right to stop them from being polygamists. Or have the right to force them to violate their beliefs by forcing them to participate in YOUR ceremonies, or by forcing them to not celebrate their own in non-lethal ways.

I just had a thought...and don't take this the wrong way, because I'm with you about not tolerating cannibalism (since very few people actually want to be dinner).

Many religions have a real problem with abortion for the sake of convenience. They view it the same way as they do murder....as you do cannibalism. Does that give them the right to go out and prevent all abortions? If not, why not? The same principle applies here, seems to me.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

the problem as I see it is this: while I absolutely agree with the words you wrote here...that is, the government has the right to keep religions from messing with the rights of other people, i know that this isn't what most people who spout this stuff MEAN when they say it.

What they mean is this: the government has the right to see to it that politically incorrect beliefs cannot practice their beliefs, and that the politically correct have the right to enforce THEIR ideologies and agendas upon the politically incorrect. That seems to be true no matter what is considered to be 'politically correct' at any specific moment.

For instance: there was a time when it was considered VERY politically correct for the slave owners of an area to declare that the members of a certain religion be forced all the way out of the USA because polygamy was politically incorrect. Those people were forced out and the slave owners won, because the 'government had the right."

Now it is politically correct to be gay and get married. I have no problem with that myself, actually (I did...but my problem wasn't THEM getting married, it was what they wanted to force US to do, and still is). It is NOT politically correct to believe that gay marriage isn't religiously correct; therefore it is perfectly acceptable to force the politically incorrect to participate in the ceremonies of the politically correct.

It is politically correct to believe in freedom FROM religion, and politically incorrect to display one's religious beliefs in public. So...it is perfectly acceptable for the government to take over a parade that was established and funded by a local Christian church and declare that there would be NO religious floats/displays in it, even though that 'Christmas Parade" was over a hundred years old....and the city still insisted that the church pay for the whole thing if it were to occur.

It is politically correct to believe that one should be able to walk down the street and not be exposed to any religious displays....and politically incorrect for any Christian displays to be shown for the Christmas holidays. Anywhere. A woman here in my area was sued by the local chapter of AA for putting up a cross on her lawn because it could be seen from the freeway.

You need to figure out that if YOU have the right to express and enforce your lack of belief...or simply different beliefs, you are just as 'bad' a 'religion' as anything you are against.

 

[dianaiad]

Then teach all equally and let them make up their own minds. All or nothing. If your religion is the 'Truth TM" then exploring all avenues should be seen as nothing more than an intellectual exercise. (Of course said teaching should always be age appropriate.)

I have no problem with that...and neither does my faith, actually. I was making a point here. You seem to have missed it.

 

[dianaiad]

I mean, I think this thread has spawned some interesting discussion. But I did bite off more than I can chew, because mostly I was just asking a hot question.

I mean, let's say I did talk more in detail about bad religion. I know it exists, but do I take the side of LGTBQ+, something I believe, and say all that opposes it is bad religion, which is ridiculous, or do I take the side of a theist, which I also am, and just say bad religion is that which is grossly heretical from a religious standpoint? Which I also consider a slippery slope.

Again, I asked too much. I got some good answers, but really, I didn't even expect the thread to go past 20 replies.

And in saying all this, I'm not denying what you mentioned is relevant questions. It is.

It's a real 'hot button' for me.

In fact, it's a religious matter. I do believe that mine is one of the very few faiths that makes tolerance for other beliefs a basic part of our 'creed,' that is, we claim the right to worship almighty God the way we want, and allow others to worship as they wish, no matter what it is they worship. Or don't. It's important to us.

It's vital to me. Freedom of religion is not only the first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, it's the only one mentioned TWICE. I believe it was important to our founding fathers, y'know?

So whenever someone starts talking about whether we should 'tolerate' a 'bad religion,' I get antsy.

 

[osgart]

Eating them would be cannibalism and I do believe that this, along with human sacrifice, is on the other side of the line here...and 'slippery slope' is a very bad fallacy. Just because, for instance, a group practices polygamy (which some people put right up there with human sacrifice and cannibalism) doesn't mean that they run out and kill people.

Or that you have the right to stop them from being polygamists. Or have the right to force them to violate their beliefs by forcing them to participate in YOUR ceremonies, or by forcing them to not celebrate their own in non-lethal ways.

I just had a thought...and don't take this the wrong way, because I'm with you about not tolerating cannibalism (since very few people actually want to be dinner).

Many religions have a real problem with abortion for the sake of convenience. They view it the same way as they do murder....as you do cannibalism. Does that give them the right to go out and prevent all abortions? If not, why not? The same principle applies here, seems to me.

That's what we are all interested in is the line on when to interfere or not interfere.

To me the fetus becomes a child when their brain fully developes. I think that is 12 to 15 weeks after conception. Abortion is a woman's right til then IMV. And abortion is permissible at any time to save the life of a woman. I know a lot of people want abortions up until 9 months.

I would and have advocated that that's the way it should be done. But at the same time I could never forcefully interfere with an abortion decision because each person has their own morality about it.

I do wish their were alternatives to abortion though.

In a lot of ways nature itself aborts babies. So my judgment is a little cloudy on the matter. Hopefully one day abortion won't be an issue and there will be more medically humane ways of ending a fetus's life.

I used to be pro life all the way. But looking at the nature of reality I have come to change my mind.

Babies born to the world deserve full human rights.

As far as polygamy goes. I wouldn't interfere with their choices. Although I think it's a very unhealthy thing to do.

My line is still on the sanctity of human life. Animals have rights as well. But I am still a meat eater. Nature itself does not align with my morality.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

If religion causes harm, it is bad. But it isn't that simple. Most religions are a mixture of bad and good.

 

[SomeRandom]

I have no problem with that...and neither does my faith, actually. I was making a point here. You seem to have missed it.

No I got your point. I just offered an alternative.