Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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