Should bad religion be tolerated?

[tayla]

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

It has nothing to do with religion, In my opinion, but with anyone who exploits or harms others for whatever reason.

But how do we not tolerate others' bad behavior without ourselves falling into bad behavior? Seems we have to tolerate anything that is legal, or try to change the laws.

How bad does someone's bad behavior have to be before it's a crime, and we lock them up?

 

[tayla]

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

Seems that society decides somehow, and laws are created and enforced. Sadly, the laws are not always themselves so good. Hopefully bad laws get quickly fixed.

 

[Firemorphic]

I've never gotten into their music, but I accept the fact that others do. If their music doesn't affect me (since I don't listen to it) and it doesn't hurt others, why wouldn't I tolerate allowing them to tour?

Hey their early albums are pretty awesome

 

[tayla]

view among a certain group of people, mainly humanists but not just them, that morality, culture and human societies move in a linear fashion and always 'improve'; that is, every group from one century looks back at the other and wonders how bad and primitive they were. This is not only false, it's damaging.

As a secular humanist, I prefer we improve, but I don't think it's inevitable. It's just that, if we do improve, it's because we ourselves worked at improving. God didn't intervene and improve us against our will.

Yes, and sadly, all too often, cultures and societies regress and get worse; sometimes much worse.

 

[tayla]

As long as we stick to ours and you stick to yours, it should be fine. Salad bowl, not melting pot

A good motto.

 

[Firemorphic]

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?

In a way the question is a can of worms because several false dichotomies can arise from it.
However I will say that from my own experience, there are people out there who would be better off without a religion because when emotion and prejudice in the minds of some take the precedent over rationality and spirituality foremost, it can have terrible consequences.
I'm not even particularly talking about extremism (although that is where things really cross the borders of acceptability outside of clashing worldviews in an act of the rape of the self/aggressor, mutilation of the religion itself, and towards victims themselves).

 

[Rival]

As a secular humanist, I prefer we improve, but I don't think it's inevitable. It's just that, if we do improve, it's because we ourselves worked at improving. God didn't intervene and improve us against our will.

Yes, and sadly, all too often, cultures and societies regress and get worse; sometimes much worse.

It's what you think of as 'improving' though, which not everyone agrees with.

 

[tayla]

Any religion that says that it is the only correct way is a bad religion, and should be banned.

I agree with two comments:

1. Any revealed religion that thinks it is a trustworthy source of truth and knowledge is fooling itself. In other words, no religion is the correct way.
   
2. Behaviors should be banned (made illegal) if they exploit or harm others. Religious teachings that don't harm or exploit people should merely be exposed as being fiction masquerading as truth.

 

[tayla]

It's what you think of as 'improving' though, which not everyone agrees with.

Yes, so true. I think the criteria should emphasize psychological well being. If this improves, then we are seeing improvement.

Just because some people want to do horrible things and claim these are good things; this does not make them good. But I think most people would agree that a society having rampant murder and violence and theft and other things too grisly to mention; that this society needs improving.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

(grin) Define 'responsible age.'

Perhaps you may be beginning to see the problem.

there have been cultures through the ages which have defined 'responsible age' (the age at which one can be married) to be at puberty...12 to 13 for both males and females. Some cultures have arranged the marriages of their children soon after birth. Some claim that 'marriagable age" is anywhere from 1 to 21...and right now the age of marriage through out the world varies greatly. Those whose culture and practices allow marriage at, say, 15 or 16 for women might get really upset if someone attempted to get married at age 12. Most people in the west would figure that people should be AT LEAST 18, and that's usually far too young.

.............and some marry their kids off at 11, 12, or 13. And they are adamant that this IS a 'responsible age.'

They might even be right, considering their cultures.

So how can any of us make such dogmatic absolute requirements for anybody else?

 

[dianaiad]

I agree with two comments:

1. Any revealed religion that thinks it is a trustworthy source of truth and knowledge is fooling itself. In other words, no religion is the correct way.

You realize that this is you claiming that YOUR beliefs regarding deity is the 'only correct way,' yes? That the "one correct way' is anti-theism?

1. Behaviors should be banned (made illegal) if they exploit or harm others. Religious teachings that don't harm or exploit people should merely be exposed as being fiction masquerading as truth.

Again, you have to define 'harm or exploit others.' If you think that 'harming others' means that they don't treat others the way YOU think they should be treated...we have a problem. Or rather, you have. I agree with your last sentence, though. You SHOULD 'expose' anything you don't believe to be true.

As long as your efforts involve talking only.

 

[tayla]

You realize that this is you claiming that YOUR beliefs regarding deity is the 'only correct way,' yes? That the "one correct way' is anti-theism?

There is no evidence that anything supernatural exists. The various proofs for God are unsound and weak. This is not just some mere belief I choose to accept, but is based on facts.

 

[tayla]

You SHOULD 'expose' anything you don't believe to be true.

As long as your efforts involve talking only.

Yes, agreed.

 

[tayla]

you have to define 'harm or exploit others.'

Such things as: murder, torture, starving someone, psychological abuse, rape, stealing. Things that most people would agree they don't want done to them or to those they love. Seems like these kinds of things are a good basis for a universal moral code.

 

[gnostic]

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?

It depends if the religions are harmless or harmful.

For instance if the religion put people in immediate or potential danger, eg lives at risk or tortures, then such religions should not be tolerated.

And if religion promotes slavery, rapes or pedophilla, then people involved and their leaders should be arrested and charged.

 

[osgart]

(grin) Define 'responsible age.'

Perhaps you may be beginning to see the problem.

there have been cultures through the ages which have defined 'responsible age' (the age at which one can be married) to be at puberty...12 to 13 for both males and females. Some cultures have arranged the marriages of their children soon after birth. Some claim that 'marriagable age" is anywhere from 1 to 21...and right now the age of marriage through out the world varies greatly. Those whose culture and practices allow marriage at, say, 15 or 16 for women might get really upset if someone attempted to get married at age 12. Most people in the west would figure that people should be AT LEAST 18, and that's usually far too young.

.............and some marry their kids off at 11, 12, or 13. And they are adamant that this IS a 'responsible age.'

They might even be right, considering their cultures.

So how can any of us make such dogmatic absolute requirements for anybody else?

I like it to be 21 years of age. You have to have the law. Someone must decide. There is a time when a person begins to know the world well enough somewhere between 18 and 21. And then there are thirty year olds who have no clue what a healthy relationship is. So age varies I would say. It's an individual thing. I like 21, I would choose 21. Not that I would shelter a teenager from deciding on their own who their friends shall be. Parental rights should apply though when bad choices could be prevented.

That sounds reasonable to me at least.

It's a problem though having people decide for you when you are ready to be an adult. Teenagers should have rights of self control too.

12 to 17 are ages when you're still figuring yourself out though.

That's my best dogma.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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 apologise in advance but...I read the title as meaning this.

 

[PureX]

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

Example, please.

 

[SomeRandom]

I like it to be 21 years of age. You have to have the law. Someone must decide. There is a time when a person begins to know the world well enough somewhere between 18 and 21. And then there are thirty year olds who have no clue what a healthy relationship is. So age varies I would say. It's an individual thing. I like 21, I would choose 21. Not that I would shelter a teenager from deciding on their own who their friends shall be. Parental rights should apply though when bad choices could be prevented.

That sounds reasonable to me at least.

It's a problem though having people decide for you when you are ready to be an adult. Teenagers should have rights of self control too.

12 to 17 are ages when you're still figuring yourself out though.

That's my best dogma.

I’d agree with you, but I think being able to drink at age 18 is not that bad of an idea.
It helps blow off steam until about your early 20s when you learn to drink like a civilised person. If I had to wait until 21, I think it would have taken me a lot longer to calm down lol

 

[shmogie]

Example, please.

An artist can refuse a commission if the proposed project violates her religious belief.

A plumber or store owner cannot refuse service regardless of their belief.

The nation of islam, the black muslims, can deny membership based upon race, the local Little League cannot.