The uncivilized speaking about the civilized. Laughs 
Your post was reported.
I don’t see it as very offensive, but maybe next time you could try to be more informative or something, to make the post more appealing.
Alright, how about this? The so called civilized are very much uncivilized. This entire discussion is hilarious because religious people are a great example of that facet
Religious people are most discriminating out there not to mention hypocritical also.
I agree that some religions, or aspects of some religions, are negative. One of the worst examples would be aztex human sacrifice.
In order to apply globalism, “religious tolerance” is like a code, a part of that whole movement. It is also a part of melting pot immigration based countries.
Without religious tolerance, there would probably be civil war. Everything has a reason.
Does it ever occur to you to read what threads are about? I started this off stating that I require the same civilized behaviour from anybody in society, with no exceptions for cultural deviations. If people want to live in western societies, they have to adhere to the rules that have enabled them to come here and not try to undermine them. What it means to be civilized is defined by the people who built the country. The right to follow other religious traditions does not include malevolent treatment of any human being or even murder.
Dan: There is no such thing as religious tolerance. A slight walk through various religious texts will tell you all about that.
If that is not enough you can see how religious people treat each other or others.
There is nothing civilized about Western civilization. You’re argument is already mute.
That is when the law is put above religion.
Anything sufficiently popular or intrenched becomes law.
Well yes, the law must provide a basis for co-existence and religion must respect that law.
That alone speaks about the truthfulness of religions. If there truly were some moral codes and laws of a higher being, they would (and SHOULD) be put ABOVE man’s law. But since none of the religions are right about their god existing, we don’t see that happening. Conclusion? Man’s laws >>> god’s laws, according to religions themselves (except crazy but at least honest religious people like radical Muslims).
Unless it shouldn’t. I mean, think of the liberation priests in South America. But you can’t then ask the civil society to make an exception because you are religious. You would be asking for that exception because you (think you) are right.
I guess for me I see problems with laws and problems with religious ideas (and many non-religious ideas of course also). So its not that I want either to align with the other, but that each stops being so fucked up.
I think we’re in a agreement, but each institution must respect the role of the other, unless they are not fulfilling that role. I mean the liberation theology was about injustice rather than theology, saying that Catholicism cannot support injustice, or be silent to it. In that case the church was speaking out politically, which was the crux of the matter for Rome.
Especially in democracies a religious person doesn’t stop being political because they are religious, but religion and politics should be separate issues. I may be political because I am religious, but that is my affair and it doesn’t give me more or less rights.
Actually for those involved in liberation theology it was theology. They interpreted the teachings of Christ as compelling them to defend the weak and unjustly treated.
I agree it doesn’t give one more or less rights, but I can’t see how they can be separate. Or, I can imagine religions and specific religious beliefs that preclude overlap, but in general there will be overlap and some religious beliefs will be part of one’s political motivation. You may not have meant separate in this sense, and were more focused on how it might give the religious person more rights. I am agree with you here as said. But any belief, secular or religious, may entail political opinions. We can’t keep those out of politics, since this also would entail an ideological politics itself.
I realized that the title of the thread leads me to want to say…
(civilization is religious or certainly has been. It has generally been in part the monotheisms, for example. Requiring civilized behavior often meant the suppression of ‘bad religions’ and other people’s cultures. This is not to say one should not have the same expectations of religious people. I agree they have no special grounds to be exempt. )
I agree with you wholeheartedly, it is just that the discussion is very polarised and heated, so that many people are just at loggerheads with each other.
Yes it probably is. The other interesting thing here is that what you call ‘name calling’ and ‘hostility’ is what Sam Harris calls reason. In case you missed it the last time- he does what you condemn. You don’t condemn it when HE does it because it’s to push an agenda you like. You seem to want to put an end to religious people saying things about each other’s religions that you happily say yourself and happily quote atheists as saying.
What you do in your personal time doesn’t impact your position.
Violence isn’t acceptable. Everybody already knows that and every civilized country has laws against it. My concern isn’t with your stance against violence because it’s boring and obvious. But you don’t just say ‘violence’. You say ‘including violence’ or ‘behaviors leading up to violence’ or ‘even violence’, implying that there are other things besides violence that you want stamped out too. I expressed this concern at the beginning of the thread, then later in the thread you confirmed it when you said that what needs to stop is religious people insisting that their religion is the only correct one- which again, is a central teaching at least by implication to most of them. You complicate things by praising Sam Harris, who has said things about religious people every bit has horrible as they say about each other.
And that’s not unusual. Pretty much everybody who wants to take a serious stand against hate speech has somebody they hate that they want to speak about.
Yeah? When has it EVER worked that way?
Since the dawn of time.
It is merely a temporary, desperate delusion that people can have separate fundamental rules/morals from other people.
“What goes around, comes around”.
If religious people were concerned with morality, ethics, or even the so called grace of God they would of put a stop to civilization ages ago.
The entire existence of civilization is an immoral one using their own terminologies. The fact that human civilization still exists after all these years is proof that none of that stuff matters or that there is no God whatsoever either.
Like a lot of bullshit in this world it is all window dressing, smokescreens, and elaborate forms of camouflage.
It’s all meant to conceal the more genuine reality of the world from us all that the power establishments across the planet do not want us too see in mass.
I admire your faith, but ‘freedom for me but not for thee’ seems to be the actual practice of movements like this.
?? “movements like this”??
What movements? “Freedom for me but not for thee” represents the extreme opposite of my stance. So who or what are you talking about?