5 ms·

I support freedom of speech - absolute and unrestricted. I don't support freedom of religion, but support freedom from religion - no other human should be able

I support freedom of speech - absolute and unrestricted. I don't support freedom of religion, but support freedom from religion - no other human should be able to force religion on other. The religion should be private matter to the individual and individual alone.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Freedom of Religion means I can practice whatever religion I want without the Government telling me I can't. It does not, in any way, force religion upon anyone.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  That is the keyword. Practice. You cannot practice that parts of the religion that contradict with a country's laws. But that don't infringe on your freedom of religion since no one is punishing you for your religious beliefs.
jacquesm 11y ago
> I support freedom of speech - absolute and unrestricted. I don't support freedom of religion That, at first reading does not appear to be internally consistent. At some level freedom of religion is freedom of speech. Unless you want to lobotomize people who are religious so they no longer speak their mind on the subject but you can't have the one without the other.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Religion is more than just beliefs and speech. It is also religious organizations, religious rituals and so on. The first part I support - no one should be prevented (or punished) for saying - I believe in X. On the other hand there should be total override of secular laws towards the commandments - if your country orders you (or forbids you from doing) something that contradicts with your beliefs - you do it, and sort it out with your deity later.
  - Natanael_L 11y ago
    > if your country orders you (or forbids you from doing) something that contradicts with your beliefs - you do it, and sort it out with your deity later. Independently of religion, this is horrible policy. Not every country has rational sane laws, not every goverment wants their populace to be free. If you'd be given the option in Hitler's Germany to join the army or die, would you comply or try to fight? The rational thing is to figure out if your beliefs are reasonable, then adjust them if necessary, and then to act according to them, law or not. The source of your beliefs aren't half as important as what you do to figure out if they are sane and have a positive impact or not.
    - lmm 11y ago
      You're being disingenuous. venomsnake's point was that a nation should treat religiously-motivated violations of its laws the same way as any other violations of those laws (and not provide legal exceptions on religious grounds). When an individual should consider it worthwhile to break the laws of their country is an orthogonal concern.
      - Natanael_L 11y ago
        That's not the angle he described it from. He said what he thought the individual should do. If you think I shouldn't have taken him on his word, you're equally disingenuous.
oblio 11y ago
> I support freedom of speech - absolute and unrestricted. What if my "free speech" involves drawing masses of people and telling them, persuading them, to kill you, your wife, your kids, your mother and father because you have the wrong skin color, eye color, religion or whatever else I imagine?
- lmm 11y ago
  Then I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it.
  - oblio 11y ago
    That's a very polite way to deal with the problem. I've seen first hand that most people bend easily. A very charismatic leader can do a lot of harm. I'm a firm believer in anti-hate-speech laws.
    - lmm 11y ago
      Fair enough, but in that case you're not really a supporter of free speech. If you believe in outlawing certain kinds of harmful speech, why not other kinds of harmful speech?
      - oblio 11y ago
        That's a false dichotomy. Freedom is not absolute, it's already limited through various laws. Why should speech be absolutely free when I am not absolutely free?
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      >I'm a firm believer in anti-hate-speech laws. And I am firm believer of benevolent dictatorship. The main problems comes with the inheritance - how can we ensure the next is also benevolent? Same is with speech - we cannot project into the future how laws banning (especially widely defined as the lawmaker bodies love to do them) categories of speech will be abused - so it is better safe to not have them at all.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

Freedom of Religion means I can practice whatever religion I want without the Government telling me I can't. It does not, in any way, force religion upon anyone.

venomsnake 11y ago
That is the keyword. Practice. You cannot practice that parts of the religion that contradict with a country's laws. But that don't infringe on your freedom of religion since no one is punishing you for your religious beliefs.

jacquesm 11y ago

> I support freedom of speech - absolute and unrestricted. I don't support freedom of religion That, at first reading does not appear to be internally consistent. At some level freedom of religion is freedom of speech. Unless you want to lobotomize people who are religious so they no longer speak their mind on the subject but you can't have the one without the other.

venomsnake 11y ago
Religion is more than just beliefs and speech. It is also religious organizations, religious rituals and so on. The first part I support - no one should be prevented (or punished) for saying - I believe in X. On the other hand there should be total override of secular laws towards the commandments - if your country orders you (or forbids you from doing) something that contradicts with your beliefs - you do it, and sort it out with your deity later.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  > if your country orders you (or forbids you from doing) something that contradicts with your beliefs - you do it, and sort it out with your deity later. Independently of religion, this is horrible policy. Not every country has rational sane laws, not every goverment wants their populace to be free. If you'd be given the option in Hitler's Germany to join the army or die, would you comply or try to fight? The rational thing is to figure out if your beliefs are reasonable, then adjust them if necessary, and then to act according to them, law or not. The source of your beliefs aren't half as important as what you do to figure out if they are sane and have a positive impact or not.
  - lmm 11y ago
    You're being disingenuous. venomsnake's point was that a nation should treat religiously-motivated violations of its laws the same way as any other violations of those laws (and not provide legal exceptions on religious grounds). When an individual should consider it worthwhile to break the laws of their country is an orthogonal concern.
    - Natanael_L 11y ago
      That's not the angle he described it from. He said what he thought the individual should do. If you think I shouldn't have taken him on his word, you're equally disingenuous.

oblio 11y ago

> I support freedom of speech - absolute and unrestricted. What if my "free speech" involves drawing masses of people and telling them, persuading them, to kill you, your wife, your kids, your mother and father because you have the wrong skin color, eye color, religion or whatever else I imagine?

lmm 11y ago
Then I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it.
- oblio 11y ago
  That's a very polite way to deal with the problem. I've seen first hand that most people bend easily. A very charismatic leader can do a lot of harm. I'm a firm believer in anti-hate-speech laws.
  - lmm 11y ago
    Fair enough, but in that case you're not really a supporter of free speech. If you believe in outlawing certain kinds of harmful speech, why not other kinds of harmful speech?
    - oblio 11y ago
      That's a false dichotomy. Freedom is not absolute, it's already limited through various laws. Why should speech be absolutely free when I am not absolutely free?
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    >I'm a firm believer in anti-hate-speech laws. And I am firm believer of benevolent dictatorship. The main problems comes with the inheritance - how can we ensure the next is also benevolent? Same is with speech - we cannot project into the future how laws banning (especially widely defined as the lawmaker bodies love to do them) categories of speech will be abused - so it is better safe to not have them at all.