Freedom versus Sanity

[Anti-Racism]

So we're in favor of religious freedom. What about Wahabists, Kahanists and others we want to call extremists? Their interpretation of the religion is as valid as any other, and indeed more like the historical versions of those religions.

If we tolerate these religions, our society fragments further.

If we do not tolerate them, we cannot claim to be tolerant of other religions.

Our solution so far has been to pretend that Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity do not have violent pasts and do not contain extreme statements urging their followers to war. We also deny that, if you believe in something strongly and it is unpopular, you might have to go to war for it to prevent the sleeping majority from voting it under the rug.

So are we for freedom, which seems paradoxical since then we must grant equal freedom to Osama bin Laden and our local churches, or are we losing our tolerance?

Ponder, ponder.

(I originally posted this at CORRUPT forum (http://www.corrupt.org/transcendence/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187015089), but it's in response to something I saw here. Too many windows open!)

[Drocket]

It's real easy: as long as your religious activities don't include blowing up/otherwise killing people, have fun. This doesn't even target specific religions (though people like CWN would like it to), just individuals and their actions.

[Alonzo]

You do realize that if we restrict religious and similar freedoms people like you anti would be among the first silenced. That's not a threat or anything, its simply what occurs in many other countries.

[davo]

The answer to me is common sense. I have no problem with people believing what they want as long as they're no threat to myself, my family or my *group*'s self-preservation. Once they infringe on those things, they become a threat and the need to act accordingly arises.

[Buck Laser]

The answer to me is common sense. I have no problem with people believing what they want as long as they're no threat to myself, my family or my *group*'s self-preservation. Once they infringe on those things, they become a threat and the need to act accordingly arises.

And what would your "*group*" be?

[Anti-Racism]

It's real easy: as long as your religious activities don't include blowing up/otherwise killing people, have fun.


What if you believe your cause is just, and violence is the only way?

For example, someone who believes Israel must exist and that certain Arab groups oppose it?

[Drocket]

For example, someone who believes Israel must exist and that certain Arab groups oppose it?

They can oppose it all they want to, so long as they don't commit violent acts for their beliefs. If/when someone does commit violent acts, defending yourself is justified. "Defending yourself", however, if limited to exactly that - defending yourself. It doesn't include preemptive wars because maybe, possibly, eventually someone will be a threat, and it doesn't include indiscriminate bombings because, hey, maybe you'll hit someone who deserves to die (sorry about that collateral damage and whatnot...)

[moses2792796]

Consensus > freedom, the modern 'freedom' is an illusion.

[JohnnyAwake]

So we're in favor of religious freedom. What about Wahabists, Kahanists and others we want to call extremists? Their interpretation of the religion is as valid as any other, and indeed more like the historical versions of those religions.

If we tolerate these religions, our society fragments further.

If we do not tolerate them, we cannot claim to be tolerant of other religions.

Our solution so far has been to pretend that Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity do not have violent pasts and do not contain extreme statements urging their followers to war. We also deny that, if you believe in something strongly and it is unpopular, you might have to go to war for it to prevent the sleeping majority from voting it under the rug.[/u]

So are we for freedom, which seems paradoxical since then we must grant equal freedom to Osama bin Laden and our local churches, or are we losing our tolerance?

Ponder, ponder.

(I originally posted this at CORRUPT forum (http://www.corrupt.org/transcendence/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187015089), but it's in response to something I saw here. Too many windows open!)


How exactly does our society fragment further? I was under the impression that we (Americans) were a melting pot of cultural and religious identities. I think the fragmentation of society is more a reflection of the narrow mindedness that has compelled us to generalize
the actions of a few to represent the beliefs of many.

To answer your last question I suggest reading the
Letters to Danbury Baptist by Thomas Jefferson.
I also wrote a a hypothetical some years back on that subject.