How does your WV inform your politics?

[FrustratedFool]

Yes, in the same way I'd want discrimination against racists or Nazis or pedophiles universally adopted from behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance.

Wouldn't you?

No. Because thinking things are bad doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that banning them is justified or good. Letting people play the lottery is bad. Letting people take drugs is bad. Letting people bet their life savings on the stock market is bad. But it is a generally recognized principle in democracies that it does more harm in the long run to society to restrict freedom unnecessarily no matter what the supposed good to be achieved by doing so is. The Nazis thought that they were improving society by killing the Jews. You think you're improving society by marginalizing the religious. The religious think they are improving society by marginalizing LGBTQ people. Racists think that they are improving society by trying to get rid of black people.

If you could invent one rule to apply to all these different harms, what would it be?

Well, I guess that's where our disagreement lies. I think pedophiles should be treated differently to non-pedophiles. You don't. I'd make pedophilia illegal but not gay sex, for example, but I guess you wouldn't because that's discrimination.

But yes, the point you make is that everyone believes they're doing and believing the right thing. You too. Doesn't that mean you are now arguing against yourself? It seems to from my perspective. I take it you are a thoroughgoing cultural and moral relativist plus libertarian or anarchist.

It doesn't matter.

I'd prefer laws like the banning of infant circumcision (except for medical reasons). That's a massive form of religious discrimination. I'm ok with that, since I think unnecessary genital mutilation of children does harm to people for no justifying benefit.

And the such like.

We disagree, but I'm ok with that.

[LinuxGal]

Does the precedent of discriminating against people based upon their beliefs in the long run result in more harm or less?  I'll remind you that countless millions died in the 20th century based upon such views.

Many European Jews in the 1940s were atheist.  They still went to the death camps for being Jewish.

[Angrboda]

No.  Because thinking things are bad doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that banning them is justified or good.  Letting people play the lottery is bad.  Letting people take drugs is bad.  Letting people bet their life savings on the stock market is bad.  But it is a generally recognized principle in democracies that it does more harm in the long run to society to restrict freedom unnecessarily no matter what the supposed good to be achieved by doing so is.  The Nazis thought that they were improving society by killing the Jews.  You think you're improving society by marginalizing the religious.  The religious think they are improving society by marginalizing LGBTQ people.  Racists think that they are improving society by trying to get rid of black people.

If you could invent one rule to apply to all these different harms, what would it be?

Well, I guess that's where our disagreement lies.  I think pedophiles should be treated differently to non-pedophiles.  You don't.  I'd make pedophilia illegal but not gay sex, for example, but I guess you wouldn't because that's discrimination.

But yes, the point you make is that everyone believes they're doing and believing the right thing.  You too.  Doesn't that mean you are now arguing against yourself?  It seems to from my perspective.  I take it you are a thoroughgoing cultural and moral relativist plus libertarian or anarchist.

It doesn't matter.

I'd prefer laws like the banning of infant circumcision (except for medical reasons).  That's a massive form of religious discrimination.  I'm ok with that, since I think unnecessary genital mutilation of children does harm to people for no justifying benefit.

And the such like.

We disagree, but I'm ok with that.

No, there's a difference between discriminating people on the basis of beliefs rather than discriminating based upon their actions. So pedophilia isn't relevant.

And yes, I'm doing something similar by wanting acts prohibited, but it is not at all the same. . I believe that permitting liberty when it does no obvious harm to others is a good. Do you agree or not?

[FrustratedFool]

I'd say discriminating against people has been absolutely necessary for civilization and in the long run countering Nazism, Stalinism, Islamism, and beliefs like 'I should get to kill' or 'I'm not subject to law' or 'disease is caused by miasma' or 'gays should be killed', has been the cause of enormous reductions in harm and suffering.

Generally speaking, we discriminate based upon acts, not beliefs. And that's what happened with the Nazis, Stalinists, and some Islamists. So you're arguing something different than the examples you cite.

Am I?
What law have I proposed that discriminates against a behaviourless belief?

An yes, I totally agree with permitting liberty when it does no harm. I just think religion is a collection of ideologies that results in harm. Can you name a real world religion that doesn't damage society in some way and which we would be better off with than without?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't get butthurt.  I also don't care whether anyone incorrectly attempts to call me out on having my correct views.

You'll need to demonstrate the rectitude of your views before presuming them. Tell me again how feeding hungry folk is helping religion simply because they own the food.

If you're incapable of having a civil discussion with someone you disagree with then I'll just ignore you.  That's not a problem.  I will choose to act civil, as best as I can, regardless.

I'm perfectly able to have civil disagreement. I simply use the same language I use in real life. I write like I talk because life i too short to be fake, and yes, I think anyone who would promulgate laws based on their personal feelings is indeed a twatwaffle. I would, however, grant you te right to disagree, a dispensation you wouldn't grant to those who disagree with you. If that offends you so much that you must block me, go ahead, lad. I've lived 56 years without knowing you from a can of paint. You won't hurt my feelings, you'll only censor your own reading.

I am male (although not a man).  Young is a matter of debate.  Entitled, I don't know what you really mean by this, tbh.  I'm not sure what this vague assessment contributes, but fair enough.

You're not old enough to get into the adult section, by your own admission. And your entitlement really oozes out of your posts. But you asked for my assessment. In a word, callow. Don't like it? Oh well.

[Angrboda]

Generally speaking, we discriminate based upon acts, not beliefs.  And that's what happened with the Nazis, Stalinists, and some Islamists.  So you're arguing something different than the examples you cite.

Am I?
What law have I proposed that discriminates against a behaviourless belief?

You made it clear that you don't want people with religious beliefs to vote based upon their beliefs. Is that just an empty wish? They don't want people like you to vote based upon your beliefs either. Is this all just a tempest in a teacup?

And since you've compared the religious to pedophiles, Nazis, and Stalinists, it's pretty obvious from your examples that it isn't just an idle thought.

[FrustratedFool]

I don't get butthurt.  I also don't care whether anyone incorrectly attempts to call me out on having my correct views.

You'll need to demonstrate the rectitude of your views before presuming them. Tell me again how feeding hungry folk is helping religion simply because they own the food.

If you're incapable of having a civil discussion with someone you disagree with then I'll just ignore you.  That's not a problem.  I will choose to act civil, as best as I can, regardless.

I'm perfectly able to have civil disagreement. I simply use the same language I use in real life. I write like I talk because life i too short to be fake, and yes, I think anyone who would promulgate laws based on their personal feelings is indeed a twatwaffle. I would, however, grant you te right to disagree, a dispensation you wouldn't grant to those who disagree with you. If that offends you so much that you must block me, go ahead, lad. I've lived 56 years without knowing you from a can of paint. You won't hurt my feelings, you'll only censor your own reading.

I am male (although not a man).  Young is a matter of debate.  Entitled, I don't know what you really mean by this, tbh.  I'm not sure what this vague assessment contributes, but fair enough.

You're not old enough to get into the adult section, by your own admission. And your entitlement really oozes out of your posts. But you asked for my assessment. In a word, callow. Don't like it? Oh well.

Engaging in an institutional/ ideological activity indirectly grants the institution/ ideology social cache and legitimacy.

I'm 47 years old. This demonstrates lack of careful reading on your part, which combined with your persistent and unapologetic incivility just gives me more reason to ignore you. I chat on fora for fun and personal benefit. If you cannot provide me with either, then I see no reason to engage with you. Why would I?

[FrustratedFool]

Am I?
What law have I proposed that discriminates against a behaviourless belief?

You made it clear that you don't want people with religious beliefs to vote based upon their beliefs. Is that just an empty wish? They don't want people like you to vote based upon your beliefs either. Is this all just a tempest in a teacup?

And since you've compared the religious to pedophiles, Nazis, and Stalinists, it's pretty obvious from your examples that it isn't just an idle thought.

I don't want religion to exist. Inevitably, therefore, I don't want people to do anything from a religious motivation. Like vote or anything else.

It is not an idle thought. It is genuine desire that I think would be good for society.

But again, where have I outlined a law that would outlaw a behaviourless belief?

[Angrboda]

You made it clear that you don't want people with religious beliefs to vote based upon their beliefs.  Is that just an empty wish?  They don't want people like you to vote based upon your beliefs either.  Is this all just a tempest in a teacup?

And since you've compared the religious to pedophiles, Nazis, and Stalinists, it's pretty obvious from your examples that it isn't just an idle thought.

I don't want religion to exist.  Inevitably, therefore, I don't want people to do anything from a religious motivation.  Like vote or anything else.

It is not an idle thought.  It is genuine desire that I think would be good for society.

But again, where have I outlined a law that would outlaw a behaviourless belief?

How would it be good for society if it's just an idle thought? What specifically are you saying would be good for society because some internet rando desiring an end to religion does fuckalll for society.

Put another way. What, specifically, do you want done about religion and religious people voting? It sounds like the answer is nothing save maybe bitching on an internet forum.

It sounds like from your last post that you're all talk and no trousers.

[FrustratedFool]

Real world religion clearly leads to all manner of harms or social issues: from crusades to conversion therapy, from jihadis to FGM, from creationism to sexual prudery.

I think it abundantly clear that not having these incorrect and immoral, but very popular and insidious, belief systems in the world would make the world a better place.

At no point in this thread has much else been said by me, yet that alone was enough for a few posters to take umbrage with and challenge my viewpoint.

What exactly have I said that you think is wrong?

If you and others have kicked up a fuss for a banal no-trousers viewpoint, that's hardly my fault, is it? I was simply following the line of the OP and saying how my own WV affects my own political opinions. If others have constructed a fiend of their own projections, I am not to blame.

Methodology for bringing about this Lennonesque religious utopia has never been discussed. Ask away, if you wish. But we hadn't even got to such details before people said I was wrong. So before we go further, what exactly have I said so far that you think is monstrous?