So anyway, why do think that, for example, the religious belief that Jesus walked on water, or the religious belief that God hates fags, deserve special respect and tolerance over non-religious beliefs such as the non-religious belief that Jesus, being just a human, could not have walked on water, and the non-religious belief that homosexuals are just fine, and God doesn't hate them because God doesn't even exist? — S
I'm not unsympathetic to your position here because I have seen pointless injections of generally "religion sucks, religious people are stupid" sorts of non-sequiturs within otherwise interesting threads about religion. I have in mind those posters who do that, and my general response has been to cease responding to them. They offer very little to the debate. They strike me more as agenda driven, thinking they have arrived enlightened upon a village of idiots, delighting they can proclaim the emperor wears no clothes, as if anything they have to say isn't something already considered. — Hanover
This thread is not complaining about people expressing and arguing for their views. It's about those who troll such threads, with the intention of preventing the discussion of (what they see as) 'nonsense'. — Pattern-chaser
Although many of my posts this morning have been facetious and sarcastic, I want to give this a serious answer.
Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.
Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal. — T Clark
So yes, I think we need to be cautious around religious intolerance lest we end up with persecution, but we also need to accept that religions do seek to constrain the autonomy of those who may be too young or too meek to actually decide for themselves to follow their rules - we need to allow such people to express their anger over this without incidentally sweeping them up in the attitudes designed only to avoid persecution. — Isaac
I don't think that that answers my question. You said that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance, and the suggestion, given that you specified religious beliefs, is that they deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs. Is that what you meant to suggest, or was your specific mention of religious beliefs redundant? — S
Although many of my posts this morning have been facetious and sarcastic, I want to give this a serious answer.
Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.
Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal. — T Clark
On the other hand, to "allow such people to express their anger" probably is bad philosophy. — T Clark
That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing. — T Clark
Wait. Let me give this a go. You're suggesting that, because the non-religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because the religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because religious zealots would silence criticism or expressions of nonconformity with their religion, and because militant atheists would silence religious expression, it is only the religious who deserve special treatment? — S
Yes, I too had somewhat mixed my messages and was referring here to society in general (as with religious tolerance) not philosophy forums, where both religious discussions and rants about how badly religions may have treated one do not really fit (though clearly we will have to agree to disagree about the former - amicably, though, I hope). — Isaac
Freedom of speech would include the right to call religious people motherfuckers though. Free speech is a shit throwing contest when it is being practiced most freely.
The Constitution only speaks to government interference in the free exercise of religion, not in prohibiting the Baptists from calling the Mormons heathens (or whoever might have a beef with one another). — Hanover
Do you have any candidates for other beliefs that might deserve special treatment? — T Clark
Wait. Let me give this a go. You're suggesting that, because the non-religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because the religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because religious zealots would silence criticism or expressions of nonconformity with their religion, and because militant atheists would silence religious expression, it is only the religious who deserve special treatment? — S
I'm no historian, but with what little knowledge I have, the only serious oppression I can think of perpetrated by atheists on the religious is Nazi Germany. All other cases of oppression have been one religion oppressing another, no? — Isaac
The US, in particular, was founded by people escaping from religious oppression. — T Clark
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...
... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I don't know. Do you have any candidates for other beliefs that might deserve special treatment? — T Clark
Since you introduced an historical perspective, we need to go back further. A key player in the diminution of "Holy Wars" was Francis Bacon and the concept of tolerance. The holy wars that Bacon addresses were not between theists and atheists or Christianity versus Islam, but between different Christian sects. — Fooloso4
I'm no historian, but with what little knowledge I have, the only serious oppression I can think of perpetrated by atheists on the religious is Nazi Germany. All other cases of oppression have been one religion oppressing another, no? — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.