The Limits of Religious Freedom?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't care who started it, either way, you are derailing the thread.

To claim something without evidence is worthy of ridicule, but that it is worthy of ridicule is without evidence. That is the joke and I will continue to point it out. If someone wants to use evidence, then I hold that person to that standard.

Am I allowed to believe something without evidence? Am I allowed to act upon it?
That fits your question of religious freedom.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

To question a belief is always ok, but there are those who try to mock/ridicule others because they disagree, that is what is so wrong in my view.
I am not allowed to say names here, but one member who has been ridiculed for a long time, by one other member is Trailblazer, she has been under fire for a long time by one member, to me that is not ok.

In order to have freedom of speech, you have to be willing to tolerate a certain amount of mocking and ridicule. That is just how the cookie crumbles because you can't have freedom of speech and then take away people's freedom of speech. It just does not work that.

For example, the religious community has a long history of bashing and looking down on the LGBTQ community, and it is always justified by freedom of speech, so if the LGBTQ community can endure that day in and day out for decades on end, I think you can live with someone "mocking" your beliefs.

I can get on board with laws against hate speech and harassment, but when someone says one of your beliefs is silly or nonsense, that is just something you need to suck up and get over. If it is someone that targets you and goes out of their way to make fun of your beliefs then, that is bullying and harassment, and I agree that should stop, but you can't end all ridicule of your religious beliefs without damaging freedom of expression.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...We the people should have discussions and enact fair laws which prevents religious freedom from running amok.

I just got this visual image of crazy people in religious garb running about with tongues hanging out. "Running amok!" I want to do that. I want to run amok like a flash dance kind of thing. Have everybody wear religious garb and then just run around acting crazy, then go back to acting normal and scatter. I think it would be an awesome youtube if RF had a channel.

@ all I'd say modern religious oppression comes from government in at least 1/2 of the known world: China, N Korea, USSR, parts of Europe. Sometimes this is an extreme reaction against religion, but more often its an attempt to either control the population, enforce a symmetry, to make a political party into a religion or a combination. Is it effective? For political purposes it is effective, however it robs the population of its dynamism. It makes it dead, conformant, non-creative. It guarantees that the average individual has little or no say in what trade they will have, what they may learn, where they may go. This is an extreme I think we should avoid and err in the other direction of having too much religious freedom while disallowing religious based oppression.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

To claim something without evidence is worthy of ridicule, but that it is worthy of ridicule is without evidence. That is the joke and I will continue to point it out. If someone wants to use evidence, then I hold that person to that standard.

Am I allowed to believe something without evidence? Am I allowed to act upon it?
That fits your question of religious freedom.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. That is all you are doing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. That is all you are doing.

So you want to limit my freedom of religion, as this is what I in part believe in.

 

[QuestioningMind]

@ReluctantMathematician @QuestioningMind

Let us start with a stone, a piece of rock.
The stone is tangible, observable and so on. We could do a lot of scientific test in regards to the stone. The stone is objective, because when I say "There is a stone", it is the case, that it is an act of expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; a case of of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; and a case of having reality independent of the mind.
The stone is objective and we can use science on it.

Now ridiculous as the claim, that the earth is flat, is ridiculous.
We do the same as with the stone. This time it is not objective and we can't apply science on it. Ridiculous as deserving or inviting derision or mockery. To claim something is ridiculous, is not science. It is a first person subjective act of expressing a feeling. Namely that it deserves derision or mockery.

So here it is: You 2 demand evidence of other humans, but you don't do it yourself. You are as subjective and not scientific as those claims, you ridicule.
If you want to do science, learn not to use feelings. That is not science. Further in the strict sense of true/with evidence, it is not the case that the claim, that the earth is flat, is ridiculous. There is no evidence.

Do you honestly not know the difference between an opinion and a fact? If someone claims that the Earth is flat my FIRST opinion is that it's a very IGNORANT statement, based on a lack of education. Thus my response would be to educate them about the verifiable evidence that the Earth is indeed a sphere. If after being fully educated this same person STILL claims that the Earth is flat THEN in my opinion the statement is RIDICULOUS and deserving of ridicule.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you honestly not know the difference between an opinion and a fact? If someone claims that the Earth is flat my FIRST opinion is that it's a very IGNORANT statement, based on a lack of education. Thus my response would be to educate them about the verifiable evidence that the Earth is indeed a sphere. If after being fully educated this same person STILL claims that the Earth is flat THEN in my opinion the statement is RIDICULOUS and deserving of ridicule.

We agree. There is a limit to evidence:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

In my personal opinion of how I live my life God makes sense to me. And I claim nothing about God in regards to evidence. It is all faith.

 

[QuestioningMind]

We agree. There is a limit to evidence:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

In my personal opinion of how I live my life God makes sense to me. And I claim nothing about God in regards to evidence. It is all faith.

That's certainly your choice. Though in my personal opinion accepting anything of significance without any evidence is rather ridiculous. But to each his/her own.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Stop calling me out. I didn't start with claiming that some versions of religion are ridiculous.

He is complaining about you once again running down the usual rabbit hole of your "objective vs subjective" nonsense.

I didn't start that. As always, you did.
Now cut it out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@ all I'd say modern religious oppression comes from government in at least 1/2 of the known world: China, N Korea, USSR, parts of Europe.

I'm curious... which "parts of Europe" are you referring to and how does it manifest in your opinion?

Sometimes this is an extreme reaction against religion, but more often its an attempt to either control the population, enforce a symmetry, to make a political party into a religion or a combination. Is it effective? For political purposes it is effective, however it robs the population of its dynamism. It makes it dead, conformant, non-creative. It guarantees that the average individual has little or no say in what trade they will have, what they may learn, where they may go. This is an extreme I think we should avoid and err in the other direction of having too much religious freedom while disallowing religious based oppression.

I agree.
While I can honestly say that I consider the big bulk of religions to be like the motherload of bad ideas and absurd beliefs, it is HUGELY important that people can believe and pursue the ideas and concepts of their own choosing.

It ties into what some call "the free market of ideas".
And the "free market of ideas" is THE motor of innovation, progress, learning.
Eventhough many religious ideas ironically stand in the way of innovation, progress and learning.

But imo you can't have one without the other.

For innovation, creativity and progress to be only limited by people's imagination, the "free market of ideas" needs to exist.

Another hugely important aspect of this free market of ideas, is the concept of competition and scrutiny.
NO idea on this market is above it. NO idea on this market is exempt from criticism. ALL of them are fair game to be turned upside down and to be analyzed, scrutinized, ridiculed, praised,... to hell and back.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He is complaining about you once again running down the usual rabbit hole of your "objective vs subjective" nonsense.

I didn't start that. As always, you did.
Now cut it out.

So that is your subjective "opinion". In my subjective opinion we humans matter and subjectivity matters, because that is what allows me to hold the opinion that humans matter. Now if you can give evidence for "that humans objectively matter and that is objective" other than just writing that it is objective, because that is not the same as giving evidence, I am still waiting.

So far it is just your subjective opinion, which I happen to share with you.
It is all nonsense, because there is no meaning in the visibly observable universe. To claim that it matters, is an opinion, which I hold. What about you?

 

[1213]

Religious freedom is too often used as an excuse to engage in behavior that puts others at risk (i.e. not vaccinating your children) and as an excuse for bigotry and prejudice towards minorities. While religious freedom is a vital cornerstone for a free society, it also must clearly have limits. So my question is what are those limits?

Would you allow me to decide what is good for your child? If not, why do you think someone else should allow you to decide about his child?

I think people should be allowed to live their own life as they want and parents should be the ones who are responsible of their kids and decide for them.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Would you allow me to decide what is good for your child? If not, why do you think someone else should allow you to decide about his child?

I think people should be allowed to live their own life as they want and parents should be the ones who are responsible of their kids and decide for them.

If you saw a parent hitting their child do call the police? There are acceptable levels of behavior, and just because it is your kid that doesn't mean you should have the right to recklessly endanger their life. They are human beings, not your property.

 

[Milton Platt]

Religious freedom is too often used as an excuse to engage in behavior that puts others at risk (i.e. not vaccinating your children) and as an excuse for bigotry and prejudice towards minorities. While religious freedom is a vital cornerstone for a free society, it also must clearly have limits. So my question is what are those limits?

There is no such thing as unlimited freedom of any kind. One person's freedom ends where the next person's begins

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

There is no such thing as unlimited freedom of any kind. One person's freedom ends where the next person's begins

I never said there was unlimited freedom, but we can make ethical compromises allowing as much freedom as possible to as many people as possible. That is what freedom really is.

 

[Quintessence]

I find it ironic that a thread which points out how religious freedom can be used as an excuse for bigotry then uses that as an excuse for bigotry against religion.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

I find it ironic that a thread which points out how religious freedom can be used as an excuse for bigotry then uses that as an excuse for bigotry against religion.

You are not really paying attention then.

 

[Quintessence]

You are not really paying attention then.

I am - I actually read through all six pages of the thread - and that's why I also expected a response like this.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

I am - I actually read through all six pages of the thread - and that's why I also expected a response like this.

No, I don't think you are. I see people making a case that freedom of expression should not take a back to seat to "freedom of religion". So I think you are just making a broad general statement without paying close enough attention to the conversation.

 

[nPeace]

Is there a limit to religious belief?

Apparently, even the experts can't seem to address that question completely.
The Waco tragedy
They do investigate alleged criminal acts though, which is the right thing to do, imo.