How much religious freedom is needed?

[Salus Maior]

Uh, no.

It's literally just another 4-chan abomination that's spilled over.

Q-anon originated in a support group for people abused by Catholic priests. It went a bit downhill from there.

Do you have proof of this?

[Anglicora]

Q-anon originated in a support group for people abused by Catholic priests. It went a bit downhill from there.

Do you have proof of this?

No because it isn't true, unless 4chan or 8chan actually originated as a support group for abuse victims.

[Garkland]

It's easy to say "everybody should have lots of religious freedom" and everybody agrees with that ( of course I mean the majority of people).
But what about so-called "religions" that are actually cults that can be very detrimental to people and can cause corruption? When does giving rights and liberties to religions become allowing cults and charismatic power-hungry religious leaders to grow in influence and take advantage of their "religious followers"?

You act like that's a big issue. It isn't. People choose who to follow, who talks sense, who's chagging shit. It's the same for religions, politicians and companies. If you mindlessly follow the shit that someone else spews then on your own head be it.

If the world worked like you said cults wouldn't exist. people aren't stupid yes, but cults take advantage of the weak and vulnerable. This is how they are able to gain so many followers because they are attractive to those who are experiencing loss, are young, or just generally vulnerable. It's not people's fault that they want to follow the crowd, it's a natural instinct and a result of how our brain functions. Yes, some people have themselves to blame for joining cults, but a large majority are genuinely tricked and it's not their fault.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not that much of a stretch. Illegalising circumcision for minors raises serious barriers to Jewish families raising their children in their faith, and therefore treating it like an attempt at cultural genocide is not wholly invalid. Cultural genocide may not be as horrific as actual genocide like the Holocaust, but it's still pretty terrible.

Children's bodily autonomy comes before their parents' religious rights. Banning genital mutilation on unconsenting babies (which they are AWAKE for and feel severe PAIN) is no worse than banning conversion therapy or letting your child die because you're a JW who doesn't believe in blood transfusions.

Further, a baby is not a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew (in religious terms, not ethnicity) or a Buddhist. Babies have no religion. You can't be part of a religion without the mental capacity for understanding it.

This is very explicitly not true in religious terms. Muslims believe all people are born Muslim as far as I know, which is why they call converts reverts.

[Stellar Colonies]

Why ? If a religion hinges on the mutilation of a childs genitals, why would getting rid of the religion be "pretty terrible" ?

Describing male circumcision as "mutilation" is an exaggeration for what is largely a cosmetic surgery and an obvious appeal to emotion, and the fact that you think erasing a particular ethnoreligious group from existence would be a good thing is frankly horrifying. Comparisons to the Nazis might be excessive, but you're certainly not too different from, say, colonial administrations in Canada who forced First Nations children to attend boarding schools where they were not permitted to speak their people's languages and deliberately isolated from their communities in order to cut them off from their cultural roots. That's essentially what you want to do to Jewish communities that have already withstood more than two millennia of persecution. Deliberately trying to destroy a culture using the power of the state is wrong.

If the religion and/or culture is irreversibly cutting off pieces of baby genitals, {especially if that piece is essentially its protective casing) it is not unreasonable to have them simply move that to an age when the child can actually consent to the procedure and/or be able to refuse it.

[CoraSpia]

Why ? If a religion hinges on the mutilation of a childs genitals, why would getting rid of the religion be "pretty terrible" ?

Describing male circumcision as "mutilation" is an exaggeration for what is largely a cosmetic surgery and an obvious appeal to emotion, and the fact that you think erasing a particular ethnoreligious group from existence would be a good thing is frankly horrifying. Comparisons to the Nazis might be excessive, but you're certainly not too different from, say, colonial administrations in Canada who forced First Nations children to attend boarding schools where they were not permitted to speak their people's languages and deliberately isolated from their communities in order to cut them off from their cultural roots. That's essentially what you want to do to Jewish communities that have already withstood more than two millennia of persecution. Deliberately trying to destroy a culture using the power of the state is wrong.

Nope, performing a surgical procedure on somebody who is unable to consent based entirely on what an old book written a long time ago says, whatever the religious beliefs of the authors of said book, is abusive. Was the child suffering any ill effect from the presence of the foreskin? No? Leave it on there. The only test that needs to be done in this situation is a purely medical one.

[Belshekistan]

IMO, keep your religion private in your house and your church/mosque/synagogue/whatever. No public evangelizing. If people want to convert, they will seek conversion out

Why should religious people keep their views private but you're allowed to publicly proclaim your beliefs?

and didn't Jesus say to pray in private anyway?

Praying in public is okay but not if you're doing for attention. Regardless, most of the world's religious are not Christians anyway so citing Jesus Christ isn't that helpful.

I believe religion also has a similar effect on the brain as hard drugs, so maybe we should make it illegal for minors to participate in religion as well? Something to consider.

wtf lmao this sounds like utter nonsense

1. I am not saying religious people can't publicly proclaim their beliefs, what I am saying is they should not be allowed to directly attempt to convert people through public action, I.E. public proselytizing, door knocking, etc. My opinion here would not change if it was atheists like myself knocking on people's doors and asking "Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior Carl Sagan?"
2. Why pray in public if not for attention?
3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 46301.html

[Salus Maior]

Further, a baby is not a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew (in religious terms, not ethnicity) or a Buddhist. Babies have no religion. You can't be part of a religion without the mental capacity for understanding it.

Usually, one is part of a community by birth. This is true of all communities, strictly religious or otherwise.

And communities, I'd say, ought to have the right to govern themselves and pass on their values as they see fit. That's something that's been true forever, and it's important for anyone's personal identity to have that foundation of cultural identity.

[Washington Resistance Army]

3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 46301.html

This literally just says "religious experience is considered extremely good by the brain on par with music, love or drugs" lol. That's not a bad thing.

[CoraSpia]

You act like that's a big issue. It isn't. People choose who to follow, who talks sense, who's chagging shit. It's the same for religions, politicians and companies. If you mindlessly follow the shit that someone else spews then on your own head be it.

If the world worked like you said cults wouldn't exist. people aren't stupid yes, but cults take advantage of the weak and vulnerable. This is how they are able to gain so many followers because they are attractive to those who are experiencing loss, are young, or just generally vulnerable. It's not people's fault that they want to follow the crowd, it's a natural instinct and a result of how our brain functions. Yes, some people have themselves to blame for joining cults, but a large majority are genuinely tricked and it's not their fault.

'Genuinely tricked?'
That's rather patronising, don't you think? You're suggesting that they were unable to make their own decisions and had no part in choosing to follow the religious nonsense that was being fed to them.

[Salus Maior]

2. Why pray in public if not for attention?

I don't know, maybe you're on a train and have time to kill. Or you like going on hikes and praying outdoors. Or any number of reasons people do anything out in public.

This isn't hard.

[CoraSpia]

3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 46301.html

This literally just says "religious experience is considered extremely good by the brain on par with music, love or drugs" lol. That's not a bad thing.

Ban love.

*nods knowingly*

[Loeje]

Why pray in public if not for attention?

Because you want to pray and just happen to be in public. You want to eat in a public place and pray before eating, for example. It happens.

Or, a much better example, you're on an airplane and afraid that it will crash, so you pray for protection.

[CoraSpia]

2. Why pray in public if not for attention?

I don't know, maybe you're on a train and have time to kill. Or you like going on hikes and praying outdoors. Or any number of reasons people do anything out in public.

This isn't hard.

Or:
Because you want to and it's not a problem for anybody?

[Garkland]

Why should religious people keep their views private but you're allowed to publicly proclaim your beliefs?


Praying in public is okay but not if you're doing for attention. Regardless, most of the world's religious are not Christians anyway so citing Jesus Christ isn't that helpful.


wtf lmao this sounds like utter nonsense

1. I am not saying religious people can't publicly proclaim their beliefs, what I am saying is they should not be allowed to directly attempt to convert people through public action, I.E. public proselytizing, door knocking, etc. My opinion here would not change if it was atheists like myself knocking on people's doors and asking "Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior Carl Sagan?"
2. Why pray in public if not for attention?
3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 46301.html

My rule of thumb when it comes to talking about my beliefs, I think it's ok to pray in public and private, to pray for others in public, and preach in public. The thing is, that person who is practicing their religious beliefs in public shouldn't force anybody to participate nor listen to their actives. If they want to join great, if not that's ok.

[Belshekistan]

The Catholic church is more complex, being a much larger group that by and large no longer follows the disgusting, regressive policies they did in the past. However they continue to have far too much influence to the present day. Were it possible to dismantle the Catholic church without causing harm to the Catholics who promote peace and tolerance, I would support such an action.

So what is the distinction that you draw between two groups that are apparently harmful? Is it size? Length of establishment?

Size is not the distinction, but it is the most helpful indicator. The distinction is control. The smaller and more tightly knit the group is, the more likely it is that most or all of the group truly believes in whatever harmful ideology the group's leadership espouses, but even a large group can have widespread indoctrination to those ideas. I know from my experience talking to catholics that this is not the case with them.

[Anglicora]

Why should religious people keep their views private but you're allowed to publicly proclaim your beliefs?


Praying in public is okay but not if you're doing for attention. Regardless, most of the world's religious are not Christians anyway so citing Jesus Christ isn't that helpful.


wtf lmao this sounds like utter nonsense

1. I am not saying religious people can't publicly proclaim their beliefs, what I am saying is they should not be allowed to directly attempt to convert people through public action, I.E. public proselytizing, door knocking, etc. My opinion here would not change if it was atheists like myself knocking on people's doors and asking "Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior Carl Sagan?"
2. Why pray in public if not for attention?
3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 46301.html

1. Why not? Not everybody objects to this. It isn't hard to just tell missionaries to go away.
2. Muslims are obligated to pray salat and if they're out in public they might not have any other choice. Also praying in public literally causes problems for nobody.
3. The study says that the same effects can be found when you listen to music that you appreciate (citing this study and this study.), as well as during conditions of maternal and romantic love. Maybe start reading studies instead of headlines?

[Anglicora]

Here is the full study for anybody interested.

[Belshekistan]

3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 46301.html

This literally just says "religious experience is considered extremely good by the brain on par with music, love or drugs" lol. That's not a bad thing.

The point is that it can be addictive and destructive, especially with the more "out there" denominations such as pentecostalism or evangelism.

[CoraSpia]

1. I am not saying religious people can't publicly proclaim their beliefs, what I am saying is they should not be allowed to directly attempt to convert people through public action, I.E. public proselytizing, door knocking, etc. My opinion here would not change if it was atheists like myself knocking on people's doors and asking "Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior Carl Sagan?"
2. Why pray in public if not for attention?
3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 46301.html

My rule of thumb when it comes to talking about my beliefs, I think it's ok to pray in public and private, to pray for others in public, and preach in public. The thing is, that person who is practicing their religious beliefs in public shouldn't force anybody to participate nor listen to their actives. If they want to join great, if not that's ok.

It's impossible to 'force' somebody to listen to you unless...I know, you put up fencing. That's false imprisonment, big bad. I've heard a lot of loud religious people standing on boxes and shouting through a megaphone and I successfully managed to walk past them without it affecting my day in any meaningful fashion.

[Washington Resistance Army]

1. Why not? Not everybody objects to this. It isn't hard to just tell missionaries to go away.

Because allowing proselytism runs directly counter to freedom of religion imo. It benefits proselytizing religions at the expense of atheists or non-proselytizing faiths.

[Anglicora]

1. Why not? Not everybody objects to this. It isn't hard to just tell missionaries to go away.

Because allowing proselytism runs directly counter to freedom of religion imo. It benefits proselytizing religions at the expense of atheists or non-proselytizing faiths.

Then that's a problem for non-proselytising faiths.

This literally just says "religious experience is considered extremely good by the brain on par with music, love or drugs" lol. That's not a bad thing.

The point is that it can be addictive and destructive, especially with the more "out there" denominations such as pentecostalism or evangelism.

No that's literally not the point. The study that you are citing does not say that at all. You are lying.

[Loeje]

This literally just says "religious experience is considered extremely good by the brain on par with music, love or drugs" lol. That's not a bad thing.

The point is that it can be addictive and destructive, especially with the more "out there" denominations such as pentecostalism or evangelism.

I think you mean evangelicalism. Which doesn't even have to be destructive. It can, like good music, just make your life better.

[Salus Maior]

This literally just says "religious experience is considered extremely good by the brain on par with music, love or drugs" lol. That's not a bad thing.

The point is that it can be addictive and destructive, especially with the more "out there" denominations such as pentecostalism or evangelism.

And people can do really destructive and dumb things out of love too.

You're stretching the metaphor here.

[Shahrukh]

I agree, honestly religion will only break us if we get conservative about it, best to be secular and let all religions be.