Well it does. At a rampant level no other. People's ideology should not govern what I can and cannot do. Other than that, I couldn't give a **** less if you believed in something as absurd as believing in a flying spaghetti monster*
As in it creates an unjust society. Read your ****ing constitution. 1st Amendment. You have complete freedom to express what you wish, but just because you think it is a good idea does not save it from my condemnation. Nobodies respects or opinions are infallible.
If everybody kept their opinions to themselves there wouldn't be a reason to condemn them other than just being an asshole. If this nation was truly secular, and no laws were made because of the rules of any religion, gay marriage for example, and if people privately worshiped in their homes, churches/synagogues/mosques, and did not protest like the WBC, then there would be absolutely no reason for someone to tell someone else that their deeply held belief is wrong.
First of all you're applying a broad concept to a specific situation. When you say, "if everybody kept their opinions to themselves there wouldn't be a reason to condemn them" that implies all ideas anyone chooses to talk about ever. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's a revolutionary idea (Many scientific theories were dismissed upon their initial conception and later revalidated because people kept talking about them), or maybe it's just something interesting to think about that doesn't have a strict right or wrong. By saying everyone should keep their opinions to themselves you essentially stop all forward thinking all together. The non-stupid way to phrase what you meant to say is that people should keep their religous beliefs to themselves. That does not mean people shouldn't have to defend them. If you can't defend why you believe what you believe then maybe you shouldn't have those beliefs in the first place. I personally believe all the organized religions are crap, but I won't make it my mission to eliminate them or convince people not to follow it (unlike some others here). If they want to restrict themselves to self-imposed rules thought up thousands of years ago by men, so be it. If they take solace in the knowledge that when they die they will go somewhere, fine, I can even respect that but then they better be able to defend the things they say if they initiate the conversation.
I think for religious people faith is not something that can be defended. What if you had a dream and in that dream God told you that you are the chosen one, and when you woke up you believed that God had spoken to you? It would be very difficult to convince this person that they are wrong but it would be even more difficult for them to prove they are right. My point is that no one with any religious conviction can be swayed because they are beyond logic and any attempt to convert them will cause great emotional stress. It's not worth it, UNLESS they are people like the WBC, muslim extremists, or any other religious group that causes harm based on their religion.
no, there is a moral responsibility to inform people of what is [more] correct. its not OK for people to think the world is flat or the sun revolves around the earth, even if it is just to themselves. there is a responsibility to educate those who do not know. Religion can never be kept to oneself as it clashes with the workings of society, a person who hold beliefs of X will want to pass it on to their children as they will believe it will give their children what is best for them. But when it clashes with what is taught questions are always raised. If everyone privately believed what they wanted, it would segregate society enough for people to want self-determination, it's a ridiculous idea. what i've never understood is how so many religiously devout people can enjoy today's society as technology is so ubiquitous, technology that requires the science of quantum theory and the like, all of which need corroboration by more basic science which so many religions reject. another point, religion is always somehow interpreted by its followers in a way that they put themselves above those who do not follow it, so removing society and politics from the grasps of religion is near impossible.
Well then you have misinterpreted religion my friend, and your comfort in absolutism is bordering on insanity. no-one with any religious conviction can be swayed? You act as if religious people are not under emotional stress to begin with, and this is often caused by religion itself. Doubt is synonymous with faith, and yet you act as if people who discard these convictions would be destined for nothing better, when in fact their perspectives would be enormously enhanced. If you think that there is this duality of nice religions and extremists then you have already shown your ignorance to the topic, the problems stem in all religions equally, regardless of the fact that the Catholic church would have been the #1 by our 'extremist' standards up until about 200 years ago. And if you think that you can have religion a la carte, taking just the bits you like and dropping the texts that warrent rape, torture and genocide, then you have already proved my original point, that god was made my man, and not visa-versa.
So now it isn't "religious beliefs" it is the specific religious belief regarding faith. Also still a load of crap. If god spoke to me and I told others this fact then they have every right to question me. My faith doesn't exonerate me from the words I say. If I was humble I would keep it to myself and just be devout and certain in my own way. If I tell others of what happened then I better be able to defend the things I tell others. Such as what god said, what the circumstances were that led to this vision/dream/whatever, what the meaning behind what was said was, etc. If I just say "faith" and have no other answers to any of those other questions then I am certainly not above reproach. There are plenty of people who do just claim faith behind outlandish statements and again it goes back to then they shouldn't have said anything to begin with, but if they do, defending oneself is the least one can do.
You guys may think I'm living in a fantasy world but I do know that it is impossible for someone to keep their religion to themselves. I just wanted to say my original statement which I still feel is true. I'm not arguing on behalf of religion, I'm arguing on behalf of human rights. A lot of religions are made by man. Every single idea in our heads is made by man. And that's not to say being made by man discredits the meaning of every religion or every set of morals. Math is man made, does that mean we should not believe that 2+2=4? What if "the chosen one" kept his little interaction to himself? No one would know he believes it but himself and nothing bad would happen because of it. If he did tell someone, the nicest thing to do would be to say, "ok", and walk away as fast as possible. If the man intends on starting a cult with blood sacrifices, that's when you can step in and tell him God never spoke to him.
Oh so now there are conditions to where your point is crap? If they keep it to themselves fine no one is saying (well maybe QKT is saying) that someone can't have a belief in their head. The point is when they do say something. Under your logic, which by the way is completely anti-human rights if you think it through, someone could say, "All left-handed people are evil, they deserve to die". And everyone should just accept that, put on a happy face, and move on with their day knowing someone just said that. How about that Norwegian nutjob killer. He had some very vocal beliefs regarding Muslims "taking over" his country and he killed 27 people. I suppose he shouldn't have to defend himself, no his beliefs are beyond reproach. Oh but then I guess I'm forgetting your "get out of jail free card" in saying, "if the man intends on starting a cult with blood sacrifices, that's when you step in" meaning your own logic doesn't apply if a person intends on actually acting on their beliefs. Is that where you draw the line, just saying something for shits and giggles and actually following through on what they say? I guess all the "family first" anti-gay people don't have to defend themselves or the Westburough Baptist Church. They usually just "say" stuff and aren't actively killing people but I guess their human rights trump the people they want to remove from existence. You said, and again I quote it, "One should not have to defend their beliefs." My only point was this was a profoundly stupid statement as you've now drawn in 3 separate people telling you just as much and you still hold by it. But you hold by it in the most ass backward, barely scrapped together semblance of holding by it.
If the delusion doesn't hurt anyone, if the guy continues life normally but with the belief that he is special, let him go. Why should I care what another guy thinks? It doesn't concern me. I've been saying this whole ****ing time that if someone intends to harms others based on their beliefs that's when you can step in. If someone told you they think so-and-so should die, feel free to go militant atheist on them. If they believe in jesus christ, step off.
Why should anyone care about anything ever, that's what I say. I feel like this is a conversation with a banana (did you know they are proof of god's existence). My whole point of bringing up your exception to your own logic is that your broad statement is just that, broad and nonsensical. If you meant, "People shouldn't have to defend their faith" I would have said fine, fair enough, but you didn't say that. Beliefs =/= faith. I can believe the sun revolves around the Earth, Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim, Socialcommifacist, or all matter of things that have nothing to do with faith. Your statement says I can say those things to other people and that they should just shrug it off and let me keep believing those things because those beliefs hold just as much merit as the correct ones. Now you're just continually back pedaling on a stupid statement and I don't know if its pride or ignorance that is preventing you from seeing that the statement is stupid.