Religious Tolerance and Acceptance

[Seismosaurus]

Whilst I agree with this sentiment, the difficulty is that the promotion, even the enforcement of a belief is often a significant element of the belief itself. And edict from God. To restrict such activity is to deny some people what they would perceive as fundamental religious rights.

As far as I'm concerned, that's just their tough luck. Their religious freedom ends at the point where they try to thrust it onto others.

For instance, a Jehova's Witness has every right to refuse an operation even if it kills him. But if he acts to prevent somebody else from having an operation and thus kills them, then he is a murderer.

Yes it is a restriction of his religious freedom, but religious freedom is only one of our freedoms - and not necessarily the most important one.

Note that I've no problem with religious people proselytising in an appropriate forum - they can publish magazines and books, make movies, even stand on street corners shouting at people as far as I'm concerned. But they have no right to come onto my property and try to force their beliefs on me, nor do they have any right to make the government do it for them via schools and suchlike.

So, what we're saying is that we have the right to wave a political club over their head but they don't.

Not at all. They have exactly the rights of everybody else - to believe what they like and follow those beliefs so long as it does not impinge on others.

In my example, if we were to say that refusing an operation is wrong and so all JW's must be forced to undergo them, that would clearly infringe on their rights unfairly. But preventing them from forcing their religion on me is a fair infringement.

I wonder if our moral justification for that has any more sophisticated a basis than "might makes right"?

As for the "harm" argument, that is entirely subjective. Religionists that are trying to force their beliefs upon you firmly believe in the benefit and rectitude of their actions.

But the difference is that the harm they do actually exists and is recognised and accepted by all; the harm they are trying to prevent is, at best, questionable.

In the end we are just acting to protect our own worldviews. I'm not sure if our actions in restricting the activities of certain religionists have or require a more definitive ethical basis than that.

There is a crucial difference, though. In adopting the approach of "live and let live so long as you keep it to yourself", I protect not only my worldview but theirs as well. Those who want to preach at me want only their own worldview to prevail.

 

[Teh Wiccan]

As long it does not harm others i'm fine with it.

 

[jj]

Should any religion be tolerated? Even ones as bizzare as say, Franko's or Marxist2's (the question of if they actually believe thier religion is beside the point)? Should fundimentalists be allowed to practice thier religion? Should we accept all people's beliefs as just thier way of facing the world vs. ours, or are thier rights and wrong?

Just a few little religious questions.

That's not a religious question, that's a question about religion.

And the answer is 'until the end of somebody else's nose'.

 

[reprise]

I think that even those people who "keep their religion to themselves" are still inclined to vote in favour of government policies (particularly those related to moral issues) which reflect the parameters of their religious beliefs - and to that extent they have an impact on the lives of non-believers whether or not they are actively trying to convert people. Voting in favour of policies which reflect the values of a particular religion can lead to restriction of choices available to non-believers, and to direct and indirect harm being suffered by those people as a consequence.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Enough of this scientific pussy footing around the issue:-

Nuke 'em all. Then go in with the bayonet!

(I'm having a bad day.)