4 ms·
I can understand your point. My point is that "accepting all faiths" has gone too far. > It's better to let people have the freedom to make their own choices.
by somethingle234 8y ago
I can understand your point.
My point is that "accepting all faiths" has gone too far.
> It's better to let people have the freedom to make their own choices.
But accepting the people's choices without examining the content is strange. Don't you think?
Would you accept anything that you don't understand?
I understand there must be some balance. And we might be biased to accepting a faith. But, at least, we should exercise some common sense before accepting it.
And I know. The problem becomes: whose common sense is right?
- krapp 8y agoWhat do you mean by "accepting" a faith? Accepting its tenets as true, or accepting the presence of its adherents?
- somethingle234 8y agoMy use of English isn't very good, I apologize. Let me give a thought experiment. Let's say: one religion believes that the person who leaves that religion should be killed Should I be ok with the person with this religion? Should I do something about this? I want to say there are good practices and bad practices. But our ideology is to accept all of them. That's not good.
- somethingle234 8y agoJust to clarify: by accepting it, I mean "not practicing it, but be okay with the fact that the person next to you is practicing it."
- traderjane 8y agoI would argue that a western perspective is to wait for harmful action to connect with harmful intent or harmful planning. Then, for the act of harming, a person should be held accountable by society in a reviewable way.
- krapp 8y agoReligions don't believe things, people believe things. Many religions, if the text of their holy books are taken literally, support violence, sacrifice, slavery, etc. And religions are practiced in different ways in different times, and different places. Not every religious person is an extremist. My opinion is that you should judge people by the way they actually behave, not by the worst possible interpretation of how their religion says they should behave. Many people follow supposedly "violent" religions peacefully alongside other faiths.
- somethingle234 8y ago> Many people follow supposedly "violent" religions peacefully alongside other faiths. This is what I originally meant. I think you understand. We might use different words for the same thing here. Christian people in the western world would reject many stories in the Bible. Even Pope seems to reject some ancient ideas from the Bible. Or you can say I consider the old Christianity to be a different religion from the modern Christianity. Because the sets of beliefs differ. But, in other parts of the world where society isn't as "developed", we just follow blindly what (most of) the book says. We reject very little. Since the book is often ancient, it becomes problematic. At least, for me, it doesn't even need to be an action. For example, if a person believes that women are properties of men because the religion says so, I wouldn't want to accept that religion. (Let's say that person says it out loud) Please note, by accepting, I mean "being okay that the person next to you practice this religion". In other words, you can live together in the same area.