• 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
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.
No, it is based upon a lack of evidence that you accept as evidence, and that's fine.

But you aren't commenting on my point, you are only defending your POV. What gives anyone the right to enforce his/her POV, no matter how correct s/he thinks it is, on anybody else?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
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.

Oh, I would agree with any of the above list that includes obvious physical...and most obvious emotional or mental...harm. That, however, ends up being a bit squishy, that 'emotional and mental' harm bit.

A story: I have only been spanked twice in my entire life. Both times the spanking was severe enough to make it difficult for me to sit for a day or so. I remember them vividly. Now today my parents may well have been accused of child abuse. Certainly it would have been looked on with severe disaproval...TODAY...though sixty years ago my folks would have been viewed as incredibly 'soft' because I was only spanked twice.

the first time I was spanked, my mother did it. We were in the front yard and she told me to be careful not to go into the street, but I was dancing around and full of ...something...and even after she told me two or three times, I ran into the street to 'show' her that I could do what I wanted. The neighbor's dog, a very large mastiff, ran after me, grabbed me and yanked me back to the curb, quite literally saving my life. I had danced in front of a car. After hugging me, praising the dog, making sure that I was OK and not even scraped, she turned me over her knee and spanked me. hard. She wanted me to KNOW that doing something that stupid...ignoring her and deliberately ignoring her when she told me something as important as 'don't run in front of oncoming cars' that doing so would result in painful consequences, even if the car missed me.

Trust me, I did NOT forget that lesson.

The second time was when my father told me to do something and I said "I don't have to!" (I'd heard my friend yell that to her mother and get away with it).

Wrong answer. I did have to. Mind you, I was ALWAYS allowed to try to talk him out of an 'order,' and if I was logical enough, he sometimes compromised. However, I never showed him..or Mom...that level of disrespect again.

Both incidents were before I was ten. Believe me, I have never run into the road without looking for cars first, and when my father speaks to me, I pay attention, even (or especially) now, when he is 94 and doesn't always remember the topic at hand. ;)

So, I was spanked. Neither spanking did me harm, but were, I sincerely believe, the appropriate actions to take at the time. Was I done emotional or psychological harm? No. In fact, I think that a problem that I was developing was short circuited very quickly....and I was a bunch happier later than the friend who had gotten away with telling her mother that she 'didn't have to."

Some one else, with some other philosophical belief system, might have handled things differently, and been successful. That's fine...but that doesn't mean that the way my parents handled this was 'harmful' to me or anybody else.

So...does someone who has a different idea of child-raising have the right to enforce that idea on someone who has a different one?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
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.

That's fine, but you are defending your POV, not explaining why your POV should be imposed on others.....or why other POV's shouldn't be imposed on you.

Never mind that I agree with you, mostly....that is, if the rules of the government say 18 is old enough to enter the military, sign contracts and vote, then 18 is old enough to marry legally. I still think it's too young, personally, but, well....quite a few states still say it's legal to marry considerably earlier than that, and one or two still say that it is legal to marry at 13.

Again, never mind that. You and I can defend our positions (pretty much the same position) as much as we want to. What gives US the right to make sure that everybody else has to abide by what we think?
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
does someone who has a different idea of child-raising have the right to enforce that idea on someone who has a different one?
I am not opposed to non-abusive spanking. In college in a child development course the instructor actually screamed at me for saying this in class. But he gave me an A on the paper I wrote about the topic.

They key to the A was to define specifically what I meant by non-abusive.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
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 wouldn't want a person who isn't led by the Holy Spirit deciding what is and isn't bad religion.

I believe this is sometimes used against religious people because we point out sin for what it is, sin.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The main problem comes when people start doing risky things, saying it's a part of their "religion".

Though there would be some debate as to what's considered "risky".

We do it though. Whether we think it is from religion or not we have laws against murder.So a Satanic cult that sacrifices babies on an altar wouldn't be tolerated. However if they want to have all kinds of perverted sex we probably are not going to bother them as long as they don't do it in public.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
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.

I believe the sinners mask their sin by declaring themselves above reproach.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
There seems to be this 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. This view that one day everyone will be enlightened to this particular philosophy and one day all will be on board with things like abortion, sex before marriage, same sex marriage, people wearing whatever they want &c. because that's somehow 'inevitable'. It's not inevitable and there are always going to be religious people and even nonreligious people who oppose this. We're not going away, we're not a vestige of a past age, we're living, breathing, growing cultures and we're not interested in changing.

As long as we stick to ours and you stick to yours, it should be fine. Salad bowl, not melting pot.
And that would be fine. The issues arise when one person tries to impose their subjective values on another.

I agree that nobody should be forced to get an abortion, enter a same-sex marriage, or dress a particular way. The problem is when people go from, say, "I disagree with dressing in revealing clothes, so I won't wear them" to "... and I won't let anyone else wear them either."

Once a person decides to impose their religion on people who don't share their faith, they're inviting outsiders to pass judgement on their religion and to work to change their religion to suit themselves.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't want a person who isn't led by the Holy Spirit deciding what is and isn't bad religion.

I believe this is sometimes used against religious people because we point out sin for what it is, sin.

Neither would I.

Now how are we going to tell who is, and who is not, so led?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
We do it though. Whether we think it is from religion or not we have laws against murder.So a Satanic cult that sacrifices babies on an altar wouldn't be tolerated. However if they want to have all kinds of perverted sex we probably are not going to bother them as long as they don't do it in public.

True...and we shouldn't 'bother them' at least, not legally or forcefully. Doesn't mean we can't make fun of them and yell, mind you, but when people say stuff like 'we shouldn't tolerate' something or other, they are gearing up to DO something about it, something forceful.

that's what I have a problem with.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
An artist can refuse a commission if the proposed project violates her religious belief.
Anyone can refuse any 'commission' for any reason.
A plumber or store owner cannot refuse service regardless of their belief.
The plumber can refuse any 'commission' for any reason he likes. A business that's open to the public, however, is obliged to serve the public equally and fairly.
The nation of islam, the black muslims, can deny membership based upon race, the local Little League cannot.
Groups of private individuals, and organized private clubs can deny membership to any individual for any reason they like.

These are not examples of extraordinary religious rights or freedoms. These are freedoms everyone has regardless of their religion, or lack of one.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
I believe this is sometimes used against religious people because we point out sin for what it is, sin.

To a non-believer (or for a believer of a different faith) pointing out that X is a sin is a non-argument. You might as well tell me that I shouldn't fart outside the bathroom as to not poison my living room fairies. If we don't believe in your deity, his authority cannot be used to defend or assert anything. Saying X is a sin to my ears is basically telling me that this is a big problem for a deity I don't care about, don't believe in and, should I deign consider it, don't agree with.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
To a non-believer (or for a believer of a different faith) pointing out that X is a sin is a non-argument. You might as well tell me that I shouldn't fart outside the bathroom as to not poison my living room fairies. If we don't believe in your deity, his authority cannot be used to defend or assert anything. Saying X is a sin to my ears is basically telling me that this is a big problem for a deity I don't care about, don't believe in and, should I deign consider it, don't agree with.

I think we need to investigate if there has been a genocide in your house. Was it chili night? That could be consider use of biological weapons.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
I think we need to investigate if there has been a genocide in your house. Was it chili night? That could be consider use of biological weapons.

Zorglon, our God, judge and savior, declared that the fairies were wicked and thus their death should be celebrated. It's not genocide when the people you massacres are opposed to Zorglon. It's only bad if it's the people who follow the word of Zorglon that are massacred.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Zorglon, our God, judge and savior, declared that the fairies were wicked and thus their death should be celebrated. It's not genocide when the people you massacres are opposed to Zorglon. It's only bad if it's the people who follow the word of Zorglon that are massacred.

And by chili was his will known!
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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?

That's actually not at all what he said. Read it again.

Again, you have to define 'harm or exploit others.'


Seems to me that it is pretty self-explanatory though.........

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

Willing to bet that that is not at all what he or she meant.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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.

Such things have nothing to do with religion per say.
 
Top