• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should bad religion be tolerated?

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
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.

To YOU.

Again, don't take this the wrong way....but who died and made you God, that you get to decide this? What if you are wrong? Not that I disagree with everything you have written here and in the following comments, but...er...who died and made ME God, that I should pass judgment on what you believe...and enforce it through force of law?

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.


No. It doesn't....and neither does all of humanity.

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it?
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
To YOU.

Again, don't take this the wrong way....but who died and made you God, that you get to decide this? What if you are wrong? Not that I disagree with everything you have written here and in the following comments, but...er...who died and made ME God, that I should pass judgment on what you believe...and enforce it through force of law?




No. It doesn't....and neither does all of humanity.

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it?

I am not out to enforce my morality on others. There is a reasonable line though on things that should be absolutely rejected so that civilization is maintained. Those things are quite obvious.

As for personal morality goes, do whatever you want but don't tread on those whom are different.

I actually hate the idea of enforcing morality. But any person's morality shouldn't be forced on others neither.

There are generalities that apply to everyone though.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
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 think a world of balance is probably more a henotheistic world, and so that's going to mean respecting boundaries, though boundaries themselves are always by nature going to have bias to some degree. A reason an individual participates in a religion, a culture etc. is in part because they think it quite a right thing to do. The next step to having boundaries and identifying practices is whether or not you want to compel others about their rightness. Since one thinks they are right, they think why not? But maybe a problem is that this feeds the ego too much, so convinced does one become about their rightness and truth they become tainted. They cross the henotheistic boundary of balance
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Most governmental organizations are. What's your point?

That it isn't a private organization with it's own source of funding separate from government. For all purposes this organization provides the only source of public school within a distance for many children. IE Ontario is helping promote religion with tax payers money. Time to rein it in.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Should bad religion be tolerated?

Not only should they be "tolerated"... They should be celebrated and get a spot in the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame. They so deserve it! Epic band and one of my all time favorites!!!




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

Ow.... right.... euh.... No, they shouldn't be tolerated :)

But who's going to decide what qualifies as what?
Because to be honest, according to my rather strict definitions of these terms, it seems to me that almost all religions promote bigotry and prejudice and they are pretty much all inherently divisive by chopping the world up in "our own followers" and "the rest".

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

I'm not trying to be a jerk here...
But I honestly am having lots of trouble coming up with an example of a "neutral / good" religion.
Not that I consider them all the same level of "bad / evil", off course.

See, the things is.... imo, believing anything on bad or no evidence (which is to say, on "faith") is never a good thing. Even when the thing being believed is, or seems, good.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The only place where Catholics listen to that much, from what I've seen, is in Latin America.

Dude: Africa. The catholic missionaries' bs concerning contraceptives over there, are the main cause of rampant spread of aids.


Any more examples?

Witch burnings in nigeria. Just like we used to have in old europe centuries ago.
Flying planes into buildings.
Prosecution / discrimination of homosexuals.
Inequality of males and females.
Genital mutilation.
Psychological torture by threats of hellfire, to the point of being able to call it child abuse and actual trauma.
Forceibly staying in a bad unhealthy marriage because of the belief that god doesn't like divorce.
Social stigma against those who believe otherwise and/or leave the religion
Science denial because it conflicts with religious beliefs
Refusing medical treatment for yourself or worse: for kids
...
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Here, both systems (public and Catholic) get paid almost the same. It's just passing the buck, in more ways than one. The private Christian schools are also partially funded by public funds, which I disagree with as well. I shouldn't have to fund the intolerant.

I've been to both "public" highschool and "private" catholic school in belgium.
I can honestly tell you that the only real difference was that in the catholic school, we also had one extra hour of religion class. I have never noticed anything intolerant or whatever.

In fact, several of my teachers were clearly atheists, specifically science teachers.
The only real "catholic" believer, was the religious teacher. And I noticed clearly that at times he was very carefull not to say anything too controversial, when the topic of discussion was for example sexual orientation.

Several friends of mine who went to other schools had similar experiences.

I'm sure that other people will have other experiences. But over here in Belgium, there doesn't seem to be much "catholicism" going on in "catholic schools".

In fact, since 2-3 years, the catholic schools even no longer organize "communion" (not sure about the english word for that...). Now, parents who wish their kids to go through that, need to take care of it on their own time. They'll have to contact the pastor themselves and make the necessary arrangements, all on their own time. Schools are completely removed from the process now.

Reason was that less and less kids go through it. The last year the school my son goes to did it, only about 15% of kids took part in it. Of those, the vast majority of the parents would not bother with it on their own.


People just don't care anymore. So much so that even the schools themselves are following suite - they don't care either any longer.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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.
Humans are biased, flawed, and far from perfect. We are able to recognize wisdom that we are unable or unwilling to aspire to. Which is exactly why we need to establish systems of self-governance based on ideals that transcend our own limited ability and willingness to achieve and embody them, and why we need to trust and abide by the government's enforcement of those ideals even when we don't agree with them, and don't 'like' them. Otherwise, government is pointless, and useless, as we will simply do as we please whenever our personal ideals and desires contradict those of our greater collective wisdom.

The founders of the U.S. proposed ideals for the establishment of a nation based on the equal rights of every citizen, and yet nearly all of them owned slaves and held black men and women to be fundamentally unequal in value and purpose to white men, and held wealthy educated white men as being fundamentally more righteous and valuable than the others. The ideals they set forth transcended their own willingness and ability to embody them. Yet eventually, the system they set up worked as it was intended, and such inequality was finally rooted out, exposed for what it was, and eliminate by the systems of governance that they'd initiated.

This is why it's so fundamentally important that be willing to accept the government's intervention in our personal desires. That's what it's there for. And especially so when it comes to issues of freedom, equality, and opportunity. And why it's crucial that we do not allow the forces of greed and ignorance and our own individual desire to corrupt the system of governance that we have set up for ourselves.

Sadly, this is where we have failed, utterly, and where we are continue to fail. To the point of near total collapse. Too many of us have decided that we know better how everyone else should be governed, and by what principals; to the point that many of us are now willing to ignore and even to sabotage our systems of governance to get our own way. "Political correctness" is being used as a dirty word because our selfishness now trumps, in our minds, those higher ideals that our government was originally intended to represent, establish, and protect.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
I am not out to enforce my morality on others. There is a reasonable line though on things that should be absolutely rejected so that civilization is maintained. Those things are quite obvious.

As for personal morality goes, do whatever you want but don't tread on those whom are different.

I actually hate the idea of enforcing morality. But any person's morality shouldn't be forced on others neither.

There are generalities that apply to everyone though.

The problem is....where is the line of 'morality' that should be obvious, and thus rejected?

Abortion?
marriage customs?
the education given to one's children?
The proper way women and men should dress and/or the societal roles they fill?
Beliefs about the way the world 'is?'
Theories about how things work?
Death penalty?
politics?
who has the right to force others to respect THEIR opinions and beliefs?


Most of the people who have posted here, and most of the people I have encountered and discussed such things with, seem to believe that their opinions on one or more of the above questions should be the obvious TRUTH and thus be imposed upon others, will they, nil they....

...........and that does include me, I'm afraid.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Dude: Africa. The catholic missionaries' bs concerning contraceptives over there, are the main cause of rampant spread of aids.




Witch burnings in nigeria. Just like we used to have in old europe centuries ago.
Flying planes into buildings.
Prosecution / discrimination of homosexuals.
Inequality of males and females.
Genital mutilation.
Psychological torture by threats of hellfire, to the point of being able to call it child abuse and actual trauma.
Forceibly staying in a bad unhealthy marriage because of the belief that god doesn't like divorce.
Social stigma against those who believe otherwise and/or leave the religion
Science denial because it conflicts with religious beliefs
Refusing medical treatment for yourself or worse: for kids
...
I agree with all this, but acknowledge we have a tough road ahead of us.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
..you mean, like the 'bad religion' of communism, based in atheistic naturalism, that promoted genocide and the death of millions last century?

Or, the 'bad religion' of national socialism, based in evolution and a 'master race', that should help evolution along, and eliminate inferior stock?

..those kinds of 'bad religions?'
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
The problem is....where is the line of 'morality' that should be obvious, and thus rejected?

Abortion?
marriage customs?
the education given to one's children?
The proper way women and men should dress and/or the societal roles they fill?
Beliefs about the way the world 'is?'
Theories about how things work?
Death penalty?
politics?
who has the right to force others to respect THEIR opinions and beliefs?


Most of the people who have posted here, and most of the people I have encountered and discussed such things with, seem to believe that their opinions on one or more of the above questions should be the obvious TRUTH and thus be imposed upon others, will they, nil they....

...........and that does include me, I'm afraid.

No murder, no abuse, no rape, no slavery, equal rights for all, responsible behaviour toward others, self defense from harm, willful relationships.

That about covers the absolutes.

Anything else is personal morality. And there are quite a few personal moralities I find disgusting, and be unhealthy but I tolerate it and I do not interfere. I would rather they live who they are then be forced to comply to my morality.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
..you mean, like the 'bad religion' of communism, based in atheistic naturalism, that promoted genocide and the death of millions last century?

Or, the 'bad religion' of national socialism, based in evolution and a 'master race', that should help evolution along, and eliminate inferior stock?

..those kinds of 'bad religions?'
Psst: neither of those are religions. Not every belief system is a religion.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
No murder, no abuse, no rape, no slavery, equal rights for all, responsible behaviour toward others, self defense from harm, willful relationships.

That about covers the absolutes.

Anything else is personal morality. And there are quite a few personal moralities I find disgusting, and be unhealthy but I tolerate it and I do not interfere. I would rather they live who they are then be forced to comply to my morality.

Define 'equal rights for all.'
Define 'responsible behavior toward others."
Define 'wilful relationships.'

For that matter, define what YOU mean by 'self defense from harm."

I know a couple of people who have sicced their dogs on missionary types who dare to knock on their doors, and claim that this is 'self defense from harm," and others who figure that suing someone for putting a cross on their lawn where they can SEE it is 'self defense from harm.'

Y'see, to some, 'equal rights' means 'I can make you support my beliefs whether you agree with me and what I do or not."
to some, "responsible behavior toward others' means 'You have to teach your children whatever I think is appropriate..anything else is child abuse."
to some, 'willful relationships" means "your relationships must be as I will"

T'aint easy to realize that other people have the RIGHT to tell you to go pound sand.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
..you mean, like the 'bad religion' of communism, based in atheistic naturalism, that promoted genocide and the death of millions last century?

Or, the 'bad religion' of national socialism, based in evolution and a 'master race', that should help evolution along, and eliminate inferior stock?

..those kinds of 'bad religions?'
No, only the real kind.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Define 'equal rights for all.'
Define 'responsible behavior toward others."
Define 'wilful relationships.'

For that matter, define what YOU mean by 'self defense from harm."

I know a couple of people who have sicced their dogs on missionary types who dare to knock on their doors, and claim that this is 'self defense from harm," and others who figure that suing someone for putting a cross on their lawn where they can SEE it is 'self defense from harm.'

Y'see, to some, 'equal rights' means 'I can make you support my beliefs whether you agree with me and what I do or not."
to some, "responsible behavior toward others' means 'You have to teach your children whatever I think is appropriate..anything else is child abuse."
to some, 'willful relationships" means "your relationships must be as I will"

T'aint easy to realize that other people have the RIGHT to tell you to go pound sand.

There are absolutes in my list of those four things. Just because I do not get into particulars does not mean there are not any. In the name of self defense people do a lot of dishonest things obviously. And obviously your examples are not grounds for self defense.

Willful relationships are relationships entered into by will of the person at a responsible age.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
There are absolutes in my list of those four things. Just because I do not get into particulars does not mean there are not any. In the name of self defense people do a lot of dishonest things obviously. And obviously your examples are not grounds for self defense.

Willful relationships are relationships entered into by will of the person at a responsible age.

Responsible behaviour is behavior that doesn't provoke violence, doesn't initiate violence and keeps the peace.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
So the practice of religion is not free, then. It is restricted by the rights and freedoms of everyone else.
No, it is under the law, as every person and every institution is.

The law makes religion free. Without the law there is no freedom.

There are laws that apply to others, that do not apply to those practicing their religion.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
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 think we should rather be against lies, murders and theft. Those are matters that should not be accepted.
 
Top