How much religious freedom is needed?

[Kowani]

Saying "gays have a right to exist" and "Jews should all be killed" are vastly different, you know.

Not really. The motivation behind the two statements may be the exact opposite, but at the end of the day they're still statements which have no bearing on society unless violent action is taken with them, at which point the action should be a crime and not the statement. There is no good reason to make any statement on its own a crime.

Well, no
We know that certain kinds of rhetoric is more likely to cause violent action to be taken-by individual actors or society at large and it’s not “hey maybe gay people should be allowed to exist”

[Salus Maior]

Just enough so that they don't try to start a revolution in you

I'd say the same about Socialists.

[Salus Maior]

I agree with your first argument, but I think that also exposes how difficult it is to create a line between religious actions which we need to protect and those we wish to exclude from religious freedom. In my opinion, spreading faith if so required by followers of a religion is perfectly fine, but where do we draw the line for "required actions"? Is it refusing service to certain demographics, or allowing them to attack ideals their religion disdains? What about misogyny and homophobia?

Well, I'd say that Christianity doesn't require people to not serve sinful people.

We're all sinful after all.

[Disgraces]

Just enough so that they don't try to start a revolution in you

I'd say the same about Socialists.

Christian socialists too? [Trollface]

[Salus Maior]

I'd say the same about Socialists.

Christian socialists too? [Trollface]

Considering I personally know a Christian socialist, I'd still say yes. : P

[Insaanistan]

My main gripe with the term religious freedom is that it's often used as an excuse for bigotry.


Believe whatever you like, but don't hide behind religion to disguise your discrimination.

^This

[Salus Maior]

And Socialism doesn't have an exclusive license on charity or generosity. And isn't ascetic or anti-materialist.

It's almost as if saying Christ "was a socialist" is just a lazy political jab at religious non-socialists, and has basically no basis.

Yet christian socialism and communism exists.
Anyway, if Decarsia was a totally christian state it sure as Hell wouldn't be classified as a Corporate Police State.

...Which has no bearing on what Christ was and is. Anymore than there are Christian Fascists.

NSG country definitions aren't really a good way to measure anything.

[Disgraces]

Christian socialists too? [Trollface]

Considering I personally know a Christian socialist, I'd still say yes. : P

And why can't they spread the true teachings of Jesus?

[Salus Maior]

Considering I personally know a Christian socialist, I'd still say yes. : P

And why can't they spread the true teachings of Jesus?

I didn't say they couldn't.

[Disgraces]

And why can't they spread the true teachings of Jesus?

I didn't say they couldn't.

I misinterpreted your comment.

[Genivaria]

I agree with your first argument, but I think that also exposes how difficult it is to create a line between religious actions which we need to protect and those we wish to exclude from religious freedom. In my opinion, spreading faith if so required by followers of a religion is perfectly fine, but where do we draw the line for "required actions"? Is it refusing service to certain demographics, or allowing them to attack ideals their religion disdains? What about misogyny and homophobia?

Well, I'd say that Christianity doesn't require people to not serve sinful people.

We're all sinful after all.

To take that logic that story of the Christian cake bakery refusing to serve a samesex wedding has no legal standing.

[Sanghyeok]

Not saying it is harmful to be gay. I'm in the LGBT.

The problem is that if you restrict any version of freedom of speech, then there's no good reason not to restrict the other. There is no reason why a government should ever have a double standard on restricting speech. Any restriction of free speech is a restriction on the rights of man.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and I don't believe in "free speech".

Would you prefer frozen yogurt instead?

[Old Tyrannia]

Well, I'd say that Christianity doesn't require people to not serve sinful people.

We're all sinful after all.

To take that logic that story of the Christian cake bakery refusing to serve a samesex wedding has no legal standing.

I would say that any business has an obligation to serve any customer who requests a "universal" service that they would supply to any other customer; so if a same-sex couple requested a standard wedding cake from a Christian bakery, they should be obligated to supply it. However, there should be an exception for artisanal or personalised goods and services, so if the couple in question asked for a customised cake that the bakers felt endorsed a message they did not agree with, they should be entitled to refuse. Otherwise you could feasibly have Jewish bakers being forced to bake a cake bearing the message "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler." Although some people in this thread think that the cultural genocide of the Jewish people would be no big deal so perhaps they'd be ok with that.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and I don't believe in "free speech".

Would you prefer frozen yogurt instead?

frozen yogurt is just inferior ice cream

[Atheris]

Would you prefer frozen yogurt instead?

frozen yogurt is just inferior ice cream

Ice cream is inferior frozen yogurt.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

frozen yogurt is just inferior ice cream

Ice cream is inferior frozen yogurt.

no (:

[Suriyanakhon]

It would actually be physically impossible because the proletariat as a class hadn't come into existence yet.

Which is why saying Jesus was a socialist is not only wrong, but anachronistic.

I would rather Alcala-Cordel be real, I would undoubtedly be better treated there than in a Catholic state.

Exactly my point.

Also, there are precedents for pluralistic Catholic states.

I was referring more to the fact that I am gay and hoping to get married, rather than worried about being persecuted for my religion (which would be much easier to hide).

[Insaanistan]

Okay, I’ve never had froyo, so I gotta know: is it just ice cream?

[Sanghyeok]

Okay, I’ve never had froyo, so I gotta know: is it just ice cream?

Frozen yogurt is inferior ice cream. Haven't you been paying attention?

[Atheris]

Okay, I’ve never had froyo, so I gotta know: is it just ice cream?

It's smoother and more flavorful, so I prefer it.

[Kowani]

Okay, I’ve never had froyo, so I gotta know: is it just ice cream?

It’s more filling than ice cream

[The Huskar Social Union]

Enough to practice it without harassment and not harass others.

[Insaanistan]

Okay, I’ve never had froyo, so I gotta know: is it just ice cream?

Frozen yogurt is inferior ice cream. Haven't you been paying attention?

I’ve been too busy drinking tea to pay attention to which one NS likes better.

[Qwertyuiopa]

I'd say, that religious freedom is the shot in the ankle for society and is like giving people too much freedom of speech.
Enough is enough sometimes

[Insaanistan]

Okay, I’ve never had froyo, so I gotta know: is it just ice cream?

It’s more filling than ice cream

Okay, I’ve never had froyo, so I gotta know: is it just ice cream?

It's smoother and more flavorful, so I prefer it.

Hmm... interesting.