Religious Tolerance

[jonb]

Religious Tolerance, is in britain becoming a form of suppression. So far I think the debate has been around the right to hold a view, but free speech is not just about being able to think it is also about being able to speak. Remember in the most fascist islamic state you can think whatever you want, you are just not allowed to speak it.
Free speech is to be able to speak, and sometimes we just need to tell the other guy he is a wanker. If I am not allowed to offend you because you have a religion, but you are allowed to offend me because my views are only a philosophy there is no equality.
No I don't think, religious toleration is acceptable, it stifles society and as such is anti social.

[Napoléon]

Which means that the obligation doesn't apply to those who don't care about others or what they think. An inapplicable obligation is moot. Therefore, it doesn't always exist.

Thanks genkaus, took the words right out of my mouth

[Godscreated]

The obligation always exist, there are some who do not care about the obligation because they do not necessarily care about others or what others think. This on some level is anti-social.

Which means that the obligation doesn't apply to those who don't care about others or what they think. An inapplicable obligation is moot. Therefore, it doesn't always exist.

Twisty, twisty you know what I meant.

[Darth]

Religious Tolerance, is in britain becoming a form of suppression. So far I think the debate has been around the right to hold a view, but free speech is not just about being able to think it is also about being able to speak. Remember in the most fascist islamic state you can think whatever you want, you are just not allowed to speak it.
Free speech is to be able to speak, and sometimes we just need to tell the other guy he is a wanker. If I am not allowed to offend you because you have a religion, but you are allowed to offend me because my views are only a philosophy there is no equality.
No I don't think, religious toleration is acceptable, it stifles society and as such is anti social.

Tolerance is fine, it's no threat, I'm tolerant of a lot of things/people.
Mandated/enforced tolerance? Entirely different kettle of fish, it's something that we should not tolerate.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

All depends on what one means by 'tolerance'


If you mean not running over dropkicks, wowsers,young earth creationist loons and other undesirables, not setting fire to them or subjecting them to tirades of abuse, yup, I'm pretty tolerant.

If you mean an open heart full of acceptance for every crackpot and religious fanatic and his /her loopy ideas, not so much.

[Brunitski]

My respect needs to earned,it may not be assumed or demanded. I accept many societal conventions because it is in my best interest. However, I do not allow others to decide my moral obligations.

BUT,I behave in a civil, friendly manner in daily life, which is how I like to be treated. My behaviour often reflects the way I feel,but not always.


Joh Bjelke- Peterson, Australia's version of Huey P Long, once actually said "he knows which side of the fence his bread is buttered greenest on". He could have been talking about me.

Ahh, Joh. Politics just isn't the same without him. Isn't it funny, tho, how Barnaby Joyce seems to be slowly turning into him?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Ahh, Joh. Politics just isn't the same without him. Isn't it funny, tho, how Barnaby Joyce seems to be slowly turning into him?

Indeed, just as I'm not the same without chronic diar,dior daihore ,ah fuck it, the shits.


Joyce? Yes, but the difference is that Joyce really IS as stupid as he seems and probably not nearly as corrupt (not bright enough)

[genkaus]

Twisty, twisty you know what I meant.

I do. You were trying to create an illusion of obligation which doesn't exist.

[JohnDG]

What are you feelings on religious tolerance and how far will you go to push for people being able to express their beliefs?

Even before I became a Christian, I was always big on religious tolerance even creating a Facebook group years ago. But I think I started to ignore other religions after I became Christian (fasting for Ramadan was the last step before), but maybe that was because I found what I was seeking.

When I think of religious freedom, I first think of the Hindus mostly because I never personally liked the Eastern religions and because of them being oppressed by other religions groups. When I think of the freedom of public prayer, the Moslems come first to mind because the way they have to pray (as for me, I can just pray without anyone ever knowing...they may just assume I am just resting my head in my hands...it's why when other Christians complain about a supposed lack of freedom for public prayer, I just ignore them) needs to be protected.

Now when I mentioned religious tolerance, someone much more liberal than myself mentioned on my Facebook page I should have made it religious acceptance....I did not respond, but I do not believe in acceptance of beliefs. I am not going to start praying to a Hindu goddess.

Religious tolerance is quite easy (it just calls for acting like a human being), but accepting beliefs you don't hold to be true is too much to ask.

It is religious acceptance if you accept that somebody has a different belief than you. Doesn't hurt to learn from other's also, kids do it all the time you should try. I'm an atheist that attends lots of different religious prayers and teachings. I learn, I accept, but that doesn't mean I have to change.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Religious Tolerance, is in britain becoming a form of suppression. So far I think the debate has been around the right to hold a view, but free speech is not just about being able to think it is also about being able to speak. Remember in the most fascist islamic state you can think whatever you want, you are just not allowed to speak it.
Free speech is to be able to speak, and sometimes we just need to tell the other guy he is a wanker. If I am not allowed to offend you because you have a religion, but you are allowed to offend me because my views are only a philosophy there is no equality.
No I don't think, religious toleration is acceptable, it stifles society and as such is anti social.

In britain, the scales are rather unbalanced, friend.
Free speech...is as a matter of fact, an illusion. I hardly reckon that any man of ridiculous ideas that are potentially offensive can go on TV and say them. No TV station would let them, and even if they did, he would face the public or law.
You are allowed to criticize the other man's religion as much as you'd like, as you are already doing it by belonging to another religion, meaning that you do not approve of that other guys' religion, but tolerate it's existence anyways. Offending the other guy on the other hand, can be through two ways, willingly, or unwillingly. Unwilling offenders are quick to realize what they've done and apologize. Willing offenders apologize after causing stir. Offending someone is not a good thing. Especially if these people have a certain community amongst them which has been known to offend people themselves.
But well, these are only applicable if you really really want to keep these people within your borders. Some people do not want certain peoples to be in their country, and they willingly offend them. Again, from the point of free speech, it's acceptable. But in political terms, it's an open invitation to riots and lootings.
Again, if you wisht that these people make a mistake and get hit on the head for it, you can do whatever you'd like to, in order to provoke others, if you can handle the backlash, both physically and politically.

It's funny you'd say that. Since you are still allowed to talk here, it means that this is one place where the obligation does not exist.

And you'd say that I'm disrespecting the majority here in any way?
It is indeed true that like in any other forum where mods and admins exist, I'm staying here at the whim of any mod. But I'm doing my best to be polite and behave according to the rules.
I think I'm showing the necessary respect to the owners and majority of the place by doing so. If you think that you've been disrespected by me in any way, tell me.

Are you saying that saying anything that is against the grain of the majority is anti-social? Because by that definition you are anti-social to the majority of this site, but yet posting at all and conversating is a social act...

Well, saying this is one thing, while disrespecting people is another.
I'm sure you're mature enough to understand these. You can criticize someone or an aspect of society, religion or any other topic, while being respectful towards the people who show a preference to that point of view or act. And if these people form the majority, even more so, for it's evident that you will run into these people during your daily dealings, and disrespecting them would really only serve to alienate you. But if you're like, hell, I disrespect anyone I want, but still want the same treatment...There is no such world.

Which means that the obligation doesn't apply to those who don't care about others or what they think. An inapplicable obligation is moot. Therefore, it doesn't always exist.

Well, an obligation still exists for psychopaths. They are obliged to face the law. And the law is the majority and majority is the law.
By majority, I do not mean like a 51% or something. I mean the whole people who make up the country, but people of description, psychopaths, only make up a very small proportion, and their opinions only matter to themselves. Therefore they still are under all the obligations previously mentioned.