Is not tolerating the intolerant intolerant

[Ervin]

First of all happy new year everyone, all the best.

I have a question for you and that is: Is not tolerating the intolerant intolerant when it comes to beliefs?

I supose the hadith following islam says to kill an apostate, judeism tels you to kill even your own children if they secretly entice you to go follow another God, Jesus alegedly in the New Testament says that he came to conform old laws(the Old Testament).

So clearly they are intolerant of others.

I am begining to think that the law should be that you can practise WITHIN A REASON or LIMITED FREEDOM OF FAITH wich is in reality the way the things are. That way you would openly make it known to the person that its not OK according to us to do some of those things his/her books tell them to.

What does everyone else think? Would that be rough?

Thanks

[Shell B]

I am begining to think that the law should be that you can practise WITHIN A REASON or LIMITED FREEDOM OF FAITH wich is in reality the way the things are. That way you would openly make it known to the person that its not OK according to us to do some of those things his/her books tell them to.

There is no need to make laws about religion in this regard. We already have laws of men that contradict many "holy" books. They are not specifically aimed at the religious, but they make it rather clear that we don't tolerate killing your children for telling you to believe in another god or other such nonsense. It isn't a matter of not tolerating the intolerant. It is a matter of not tolerating the murder of children.

[Anomalocaris]

Let's not fall into a death spiral around the dictionary definition of tolerance. I think you would agree weather something should be tolerated under the policy of "tolerance" depends heavily on whether that thing acts to defeat the more fundamental purpose for which the policy of tolerance is instituted in the first place.

If the fundamental purpose of tolerance is to actively preserve a wide range of points of view, for example to promotes improved collective decision making, then it would be folly to tolerate one particular point of view that acts aggressively to suppress many others for a purpose decidedly not shared by the majority, as Islamists often tends to do.

[The Omnissiunt One]

What Chuck said is right. We ought to allow free speech to the extent that it doesn't restrict free speech or promote actions which do more harm than allowing the free speech promotes good. Free speech isn't an absolute right; people aren't allowed to shout, 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre, unless it's a pantomine put on by the Arsonists' Amateur Dramatics Society, so people shouldn't be allowed to encourage blowing up the infidels either.

[Edwardo Piet]

When "free speech" can lead to more harm than restricting the "free speech", it's no longer good.

The vast majority of the time, the right to freedom is priority. But taking it as an absolute, as if "free speech" can never do more harm than the restriction of it, is unrealistic and naïve.

What is absolute in this world? To assume that because "free speech" is usually right that there are therefore probably no exceptions is still an unrealistic assumption.

Exceptions are common in this world. There's an exception to most practical matters.

[Shell B]

I thought we were talking about actions, not speech.

[Minimalist]

Free speech isn't an absolute right; people aren't allowed to shout, 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre,

What if the theater really is on fire?

[Edwardo Piet]

I thought we were talking about actions, not speech.

Speaking is an action. A very common one.

---

What if the theater really is on fire?

Then people are allowed to shout "fire".

[Justtristo]

First of all happy new year everyone, all the best.

I have a question for you and that is: Is not tolerating the intolerant intolerant when it comes to beliefs?

I supose the hadith following islam says to kill an apostate, judeism tels you to kill even your own children if they secretly entice you to go follow another God, Jesus alegedly in the New Testament says that he came to conform old laws(the Old Testament).

So clearly they are intolerant of others.

I am begining to think that the law should be that you can practise WITHIN A REASON or LIMITED FREEDOM OF FAITH wich is in reality the way the things are. That way you would openly make it known to the person that its not OK according to us to do some of those things his/her books tell them to.

What does everyone else think? Would that be rough?

Thanks

Politically I am a Liberal Democrat and support the freedom of people to believe in whatever they believe. Indeed I support their rights preach their beliefs and in private even raise (indoctrinate with a nice name) their children in private*.

However the line needs to be drawn when such religions preach overthrowing our Liberal Democratic system and replacing it with a theocracy. Then society cannot afford to be accepting or even tolerant.

* I support Daniel Dennett's proposal for kids in both public and private schools to be taught comparative religious studies from an early age. If you want to know about more Dennett's proposal visit this page http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfai..._well.html

[Edwardo Piet]

Dennett's proposal is excellent.