Spam talks about RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE

[TripMyHop]

"Religious values could be a part of a nation's doctrine/law/government/whatever I guess"

I voted for that one, not because I think any specific religion should rule over all, but the moral values should be kept in place. Such as, the 10 commandments, which is what our laws are based off of anyway. (Don't cheat, lie, steal, murder, etc.)

I also believe that a person's religion shouldn't have to be hidden from the public. If you want to roll around in the park and shout out your prayers to Zeus almighty, have at it. I don't like how people want to censor the word "God." Lets say you're saying the Pledge of Allegiance and it was the word God in it. In YOUR mind, change the definition. Have it mean something else that suits you. Have the word itself be the embodiment of the moral values or whatever that you believe in.

So long as your religion doesn't disrupt the lives of others, have at it. And if you don't have a religion, quit being a dickhead. Let people practice it. Quit making them hide it.

No one forces people to hide religion or has the political (or otherwise) power to do so. Let's be realistic about atheists (in the us at least). They are outnumbered and don't have anywhere close to the power Christians have, in daily life.

Also the morals you mentioned can easily be covered under a secular consensus of having freedom without it infringing on the freedom of others either by killing them, stealing from them, or whatever. It doesn't require morals from a certain religious doctrine.

[Asuras]

I believe that it is okay to be religious, but please, if you are a politician, don't make your religion the base of your policies.

Not. Possible. Nnrghh.

[TripMyHop]

The problem as I see it is that the benefits are far outweighed by the harms. People can be brought together by beliefs, sure, but they're also driven apart. That is a direct neutralization of the benefit of togetherness. Then on top of that is all the harms caused by people trying to force their beliefs on others. I already went over it all in the post you quoted. It's a very basic balancing of positives and negatives, with the negatives weighing far more, that leads me to be against religion rather than simply not practicing it.

I agree. It's all well and good that people find a positive way to express their faith; but the aggregate influence is negative--strictly in practical terms.

[Elendra]

Personally I have experienced so much good done by religion (in my location) that I would have to disagree with you. I understand that it's not as fine and dandy in other parts of the world, but I don't think being against religion itself is going to solve any problems. It's individuals that are jerks about it that you should be against, because they are not practicing their religion correctly (in my opinion). I've seen people of multiple religions all get along with one another extremely well and even exchange information about their beliefs, spoken of the differences and similarities, and were happy. If it can be done here, it can be done everywhere. I really wish it would.

World peace<3

Actually, with many religions, it's technically those who aren't jerks that are usually not following the doctrine of the religion as strict, at least, they tend to follow more of it than others. For me, I more see people who are both nice and religious as people who are bad at religion, but good at humanity. Exceptions abound due to various translations, doctrines, dogmas, and beliefs, but generally speaking, the majority of religion practiced today is completely not following the original message of the doctrine. And honestly, I'm okay with that, having looked at various books of faith of various faiths that are practiced in large numbers, I am really, really glad that more people aren't being good at their religion. Because those who follow it the strictest, tend to scare the everloving fuck out of me at worst, or make me think very mean thoughts about them at best.

In short, if you're going to do religion, then please, for all of us, do it wrong.

[Christiefries]

No one forces people to hide religion or has the political (or otherwise) power to do so. Let's be realistic about atheists (in the us at least). They are outnumbered and don't have anywhere close to the power Christians have, in daily life.

Also the morals you mentioned can easily be covered under a secular consensus of having freedom without it infringing on the freedom of others either by killing them, stealing from them, or whatever. It doesn't require morals from a certain religious doctrine.

Um, yeah, some people tell other people they're not allowed to say "God" or "Jesus" ilookedsomethingupwow

And I was just saying to keep in the moral values. I didn't say religion was required for that part.

[Elendra]

I think that people who claim religion is a dead thing and isn't helping society are fooling themselves. If only there were some kind of virtual simulation world you could enter into for just one day where you could program yourself to experience the world just as it is, but with no trace of religion. It would be fucking chaos and you know it. Sure, you can have morality without a type of religion, but organized religion, while it has been used for oppression and "containing the masses" in the past and present, is one of the things that binds a community together. No community = no society = lolwhatislife = apocalypse. In essence.

EDIT: All that being said, I'm not in direct support of total religious involvement in all political/social affairs. But nor am I in favor of the total separation of it.

I find this line of thought very depressing.

It says a lot when you think that the only way humanity can play nice is if we make up an overlord species of divinity who hurt us if we don't.

[Hank]

As for hiding religion, there have been multiple proposals in the Netherlands that, for example, civil servants are not allowed to display a holy cross or wear an Islamic headscarf (whatever it's called). Y/N?

[Jorick]

Personally I have experienced so much good done by religion (in my location) that I would have to disagree with you. I understand that it's not as fine and dandy in other parts of the world, but I don't think being against religion itself is going to solve any problems. It's individuals that are jerks about it that you should be against, because they are not practicing their religion correctly (in my opinion). I've seen people of multiple religions all get along with one another extremely well and even exchange information about their beliefs, spoken of the differences and similarities, and were happy. If it can be done here, it can be done everywhere. I really wish it would.

World peace<3

Actually, with many religions, it's technically those who aren't jerks that are usually not following the doctrine of the religion as strict, at least, they tend to follow more of it than others. For me, I more see people who are both nice and religious as people who are bad at religion, but good at humanity. Exceptions abound due to various translations, doctrines, dogmas, and beliefs, but generally speaking, the majority of religion practiced today is completely not following the original message of the doctrine. And honestly, I'm okay with that, having looked at various books of faith of various faiths that are practiced in large numbers, I am really, really glad that more people aren't being good at their religion. Because those who follow it the strictest, tend to scare the everloving fuck out of me at worst, or make me think very mean thoughts about them at best.

In short, if you're going to do religion, then please, for all of us, do it wrong.

I was having issues coming up with how I wanted to answer that post, Christiefries, but then I refreshed the page and saw Elendra doing it better than I could have.

As an addition, look at countries where Sharia (I think that's the word) law is the law of the land. Look at how oppressed and poorly treated people, women especially, are there. This is not because the Muslim faith is inherently flawed compared to others or anything, it's because they're actually following the letter of the law in their holy books. Just some food for thought.

[Asuras]

I find this line of thought very depressing.

It says a lot when you think that the only way humanity can play nice is if we make up an overlord species of divinity who hurt us if we don't.

Loki must have been right in saying people like to be ruled.

[Elendra]

And I was just saying to keep in the moral values. I didn't say religion was required for that part.

Which religious morals? Do we keep the stonings, or do we throw that out for forgiveness? Do we keep the love or do we throw that out for vengeance? Both options are available in religious morality, meaning, technically, either is equally valid in the 'keep the moral values'. Also, those same moral values that supported slavery, and to this day are used as an excuse to battle against homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgenders, and others.