Skip to main content

View Diary: Freedom of Speech does NOT mean "Freedom from Criticism" (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's where we disagree. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pi Li, VClib

    I think that there's a difference between agreeing with someone else's religion, and respecting their right to their own religious beliefs in their own lives.  The latter is tolerance for views different from your own, especially religious views, which are protected by the Constitution.

    And the human sacrifice thing?  that's just a silly example.  As I said over and over and over -- I respect your religion as long as you don't expect ME to live under YOUR religious views.  Your human sacrifice example is ridiculous.  A Catholic's religious views on marriage don't physically or financially harm you.  Look again at that Jefferson quote -- that's the principle to go by.

    A far more analogous situation for me are certain Muslim beliefs about women.  What I, as woman, am doing with my life, the way I dress and behave, is (I am sure) condemned by some fundamentalist Muslims solely because of my gender.  I think they are wrong, wrong, wrong, but I would not call them "bigots" for their religious views.  They are entitled to their religious views as long as they don't try to make me be a secondary citizen to men or cover my head in public.   It should not concern me that some other religion believes I am sinful or that I am not going to be included in their view of the afterlife.  Again, as Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  As long as it doesn't cost me physically or financially, they can believe -- in their religion -- that I am a sinner.  Why must I feel a need to wipe out THEIR religious views?  That's me doing the very thing I abhor -- imposing MY religious (or non religious, as the case may be) views on THEM.  

    But, more importantly, when you attack the religious views themselves, you hurt the very cause you are trying to advance.  Extending marriage to same-sex couples, for example, is far, far, far easier when those who oppose it are assured that their religious views will be protected, and that they do not have to change their religious views on the subject.  In contrast, when you combine a change in the civil laws with statements about how anyone who has a different RELIGIOUS view is a bigot, clearly implying that religious views that are different from yours are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated, that's when you will find far, far, far more resistance to what you are trying to do, because that is not arguing for tolerance, but instead becomes a threat to their religion.  

    I'm completely with people when it comes to the fact that one religious view cannot be imposed on others.    But I just as vehemently believe that everyone is entitled to his/her own religious views in their own lives, as long as it " neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

    •  The problem is that their beliefs do hurt people. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, Purplehead

      And have been used to justify murdering millions over the millennia, and now, in slightly more civilized times, to continue to oppress people.

      •  Not true. Those are instances of where (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pi Li, VClib

        religious beliefs spill over onto civil law.  Over the last 1000 years -- and even today in some places -- government was controlled by particular religious views.  That is wrong, and I am vehemently against it -- it's one of the bases of our Constitution.  

        That's precisely one of the fundamental things that this country was a rebellion against.  That's the reason that both the guarantee of free exercise, and the prohibition against a government religion, are in the constitution. I am not entitled to some "freedom" from someone else's religion thinking or even saying I am a sinner under their religion.  I am entitled not to have the GOVERNMENT act on their religious views, but I am not entitled to some freedom from others having religious views that I find objectionable, or some freedom from others having religious views that cast me as a sinner or ungodly.  

        The fact that the person I work with, or living next door to me, thinks I'm a sinner under that person's religion does NOT oppress me.  The fact that that person believes -- or even says -- that they think I will suffer their religious version of hell does not oppress me.  As long as the government does not make decisions, or pass laws, based on religious beliefs, the religious beliefs of other does not oppress me.  And, as I've said, if the point is to guarantee all people equal protection under the laws, then you are far, far, far  more likely to move in that direction when people are assured that the laws are not a statement that their religion is illegitimate, but instead is a position that they are entitled to their religious views, just as others who disagree are entitled to their religious views, and that government doesn't take sides.  

    •  I will never tolerate bigotry (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, Purplehead
      I think that there's a difference between agreeing with someone else's religion, and respecting their right to their own religious beliefs in their own lives.  The latter is tolerance for views different from your own, especially religious views, which are protected by the Constitution.
      no matter where it originates from, which in the U.S.A. is Christianity.  Even if it's not personally hurting you, what about the families of these fundie bigots?

      The lesbian who can't come out b/c her family will disown her?  The girl whose parents threated to kill her pets when they found out she was vegan and a animal rights activist?

      Any religion that condones hate deserves condemation

      "Down with sodomy, up with teabagging!" Sign @ TeaBilly rally.

      by pitbullgirl65 on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 05:38:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a condemnation of all religion (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, VClib

        and good luck with that.

        Virtually every religion has its version of who are sinners (or ungodly or some similar concept) and who are not.  Almost every single one.  Muslim parents may disown their child for dressing in a modern way.  Orthodox Jewish parents may disown a child for not adhering to strict religious views.  Parents of virtually any religion may -- and have -- disowned children for straying from that religion. I've seen people treat ethnicity the same way -- I've seen Asian children being "disowned" by parents because the son or daughter married a non-Asian spouse.  (There's a large Vietnamese population in parts of New Orleans.)  None of us has the right to some "freedom" from that.  And -- most importantly -- under the First Amendment, the government has no role whatsoever to play in conveying the impression that those religious -- or other privately held --  beliefs are wrong.  

        My more important point, however, is that condemning religion is completely counterproductive, and the kind of thing that makes martyrs of religious people, and raises the ire of religious people -- and make it HARDER to accomplish the reforms in the law that most people here seek.  

        If you say, I want laws that let you practice your religion, and let me practice my religion, and neither of us has the right to impose our beliefs on others, and the government cannot pick any particular religious views -- that sounds reasonable to sane religious people.  As long as they feel as though their right to their religious beliefs is considered legitimate and will be protected --even if others disagree with those views -- that's something that satisfies most sane religious people.  For example, most states that legalize same-sex marriages ALSO do so with a caveat that no one authorized to perform weddings will be required to do so when the wedding violates their religious beliefs.  When you include that kind of thing, those sane religious people are more likely to support what you are doing -- because it's a move to be inclusive, to have government recognize all views, rather than a statement that particular religious views are not legitimate.

        On the other hand, NO religious person will simply acquiesce to those who say, "your religious views are wrong, and we are intent on passing laws to show you how wrong your religious views are."  

        Not to mention that it's completely unconstitutional to pass a law for the purpose of demonstrating disapproval of, or disagreement with, religious views.  So, the more people say that certain laws need to be passed because religious people are "bigots," and that we need to stop the "bigotry" (i.e., the religious view)  the more constitutionally suspect the laws are.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site