Religious Tolerance

[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.