Tolerance of different religions vs. equal treatment

[MobBoss]

So what about Scientology? I would put it about on par with FSM in terms of wackiness... but Scientology has managed to actually gain some followers. (if you reject the idea of FSM followers)

Does that make it "more true" than FSM?

Not 'more true' but certainly 'more legitimate' by virtue of the effort (i.e. money) put forth in its followers to meet the criteria that defines such religions.

But this simply begs the question are the followers of scientology actual believers in that system or are they merely doing so for some type of personal gain? Only L. Ron Hubbard knows I guess.

 

[bombshoo]

I was always amused at how everyone got butthurt over Scientology... guys, it's like every other religion out there - why are you singling it out? Cause it's new?

I think it's more to do with various scandals and crimes associated with the organization of Scientology itself (Operation Snow White, etc) than it is about the religion itself being a bit far fetched.

 

[MobBoss]

Your gender and ethnicity are not matters of choice. Your beliefs are.

And yet freedom of religion is indeed protected like your race or sex is. In fact, in many states its a hate crime to target someone specifically because of their religion. Ergo, if trolling someone because of their sex or race is bad, it is equally as bad to troll them over their beliefs, regardless of what your personal opinion is or not.

 

[Lillefix]

And yet freedom of religion is indeed protected like your race or sex is. In fact, in many states its a hate crime to target someone specifically because of their religion. Ergo, if trolling someone because of their sex or race is bad, it is equally as bad to troll them over their beliefs, regardless of what your personal opinion is or not.

What about political views? Ideologies? Should they have the exact same protection as religions?

 

[MobBoss]

What about political views? Ideologies? Should they have the exact same protection as religions?

Do those carry the same constitutional protections as do race/sex/religion?

 

[galdre]

And yet freedom of religion is indeed protected like your race or sex is. In fact, in many states its a hate crime to target someone specifically because of their religion. Ergo, if trolling someone because of their sex or race is bad, it is equally as bad to troll them over their beliefs, regardless of what your personal opinion is or not.

But in the case that this threaded got started over, the guy wasn't trolling religion so much as pointing out a double standard.

Otherwise, yes I would agree with you. I'm fine with satire to point out injustices, but not to simply make fun of the beliefs of another person. I may not agree with you, but that does not give me the right to insult you.

 

[Defiant47]

Do those carry the same constitutional protections as do race/sex/religion?

Does constitutional protection define morality?

(not that I disagree with religion being protected)

 

[Lillefix]

Do those carry the same constitutional protections as do race/sex/religion?

I don't care about your constitution. What do YOU think?

 

[Ajidica]

If religion is just as important in this country as race or sex, then why should religion be treated differently? For example, no one is going to doubt that your race or sex should be protected from those real life trolls, so why shouldnt your religion be as well since it is indeed one of our protected rights in this nation?

People who think the church of the FSM is harming or insulting their religion have missed the point about as badly as those who banned Monty Python's Life of Brian for being anti-christian.

 

[Farm Boy]

Your gender and ethnicity are not matters of choice. Your beliefs are.

And those choices of belief are protected at the very core of the US Constitution, directly next to rights to free speech. It would seem they are worth protecting even at the cost of some inconvenience. I am inclined to agree.

Faith is the missing link between nonsense and religion.

In order to believe magical stories you need to forgo your sense of reasoning, and "take it on faith" or "take a leap of faith".

Really don't see anyone here advocating for excluding state protections for Scientology or Pastafarianism. Seeing as the topic now seems to be tolerance of different religious vs. equal treatment could one at least use kinder language if you are going to stand back and criticize the entire religious worldview rather than address the more narrow topic? Whether or not it is how you see it, labeling faith in general as nonsense and magical is insulting. I get the feeling you probably know this, but have chosen to ride the line of antagonism anyhow.

 

[MobBoss]

But in the case that this threaded got started over, the guy wasn't trolling religion so much as pointing out a double standard.

Except there shouldnt be any perceived 'double standard' because Pasta-whatthehellism isnt a religion at all, unless of course the nation in question has laws so ambiguous as to not determine its legitimacy or not. Which is why I said I thought the issue made fun of Austria more than it did anything else.

Otherwise, yes I would agree with you. I'm fine with satire to point out injustices, but not to simply make fun of the beliefs of another person. I may not agree with you, but that does not give me the right to insult you.

Having a religious exemption say for Jews to wear their beanie simply isnt an 'injustice'. As you earlier mentioned, if your're getting butt hurt over a guy wearing a kippah/yarmulke on his driver's license, you need to ease up on the caffiene. Seriously, I find those protesting about the religious getting butt-hurt over perceived slights are ignoring the fact that they themselves are crying about 'social injustice' over someone wearing a beanie on their driver's license photo....

 

[galdre]

Except there shouldnt be any perceived 'double standard' because Pasta-whatthehellism isnt a religion at all, unless of course the nation in question has laws so ambiguous as to not determine its legitimacy or not. Which is why I said I thought the issue made fun of Austria more than it did anything else.

I'm sure the law stated that headgear could only be worn for religious reasons, so he gave a 'religious' reason. It is still a double standard because it treats members of religions differently than non-members. Change the law so that everyone can wear headgear or no one, but make it consistent.

Having a religious exemption say for Jews to wear their beanie simply isnt an 'injustice'. As you earlier mentioned, if your're getting butt hurt over a guy wearing a kippah/yarmulke on his driver's license, you need to ease up on the caffiene.

It's a double standard. If a religious person wants to wear a hat, I don't care as long as others get to do the same.

It's not going against religion to expect religious people to follow the laws of the nation. I doubt you'd be in favor of a follower of Huitzilopochtli sacrificing humans - or should they receive an exemption to the law?

 

[Lillefix]

I think I'm going ahead to quickly here. Mobboss, what exactly do you mean by protection of religion. Obviously everyone should be free to believe what they want without being killed. But do you for example think criticism and ridicule of religious beliefs shouldn't be allowed?

 

[Atticus]

Moderator Action: Don't go to the specifics of religions if it isn't relevant. The topic of the thread is not whether Pastafarians are treated unequally versus other religions. It is whether religions should be granted special rights at all.

 

[GamezRule]

All religions should be treated the same as any other similar organization.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm sure the law stated that headgear could only be worn for religious reasons, so he gave a 'religious' reason. It is still a double standard because it treats members of religions differently than non-members. Change the law so that everyone can wear headgear or no one, but make it consistent.

If we are to be respectful of peoples legitimate belief systems, then why shouldnt we give exemptions to something as harmless as wearing a beanie for your driver's license?

Just because some clerk bought into his faux reason isnt cause for celebration. I mean, what are you winning here? Acknowledge that (some) athiests are so anal that some jewish guy getting to wear a kippah makes them filled with rage? Good job!!!

It's a double standard. If a religious person wants to wear a hat, I don't care as long as others get to do the same.

My point is why do you care at all if a jewish guy gets to wear his little beanie? Its simply not that big a deal to get upset over. I mean, my religion doesnt proscribe religious headgear so I dont get to wear a hat on my ID, but I dont view it as some 'social injustice' because I cant. Fwiw, I think getting upset over something like that is just childish.

It's not doing against religion to expect religious people to follow the laws of the nation. I doubt you'd be in favor of a follower of Huitzilopochtli sacrificing humans - or should they receive an exemption to the law?

Sigh, is that the best you can offer? Legitimizing murder for religious reasons? Is getting to wear a beanie for your drivers license equative of human sacrifice?

Amazing.

I think I'm going ahead to quickly here. Mobboss, what exactly do you mean by protection of religion. Obviously everyone should be free to believe what they want without being killed. But do you for example think criticism and ridicule of religious beliefs shouldn't be allowed?

Fwiw, I loved 'The Life of Brian'. I am not saying religion need be protected from farce or comedy; but there is a huge difference in harmless satire, and simply being mean-spirited and ridiculing to injure or humiliate.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not doing against religion to expect religious people to follow the laws of the nation. I doubt you'd be in favor of a follower of Huitzilopochtli sacrificing humans - or should they receive an exemption to the law?

That is going to come back to weighing the specifics of the situation against the public good, just as with hats. There is a public interest in allowing free practice of religion, but there is also a public interest in not allowing people to be diced up in church basements. I get the feeling that the public good would probably rightfully come down on the side of allowing practice of the religion, barring homicide. Same thing with some churches and pedophilia. No objection from me there.

 

[NovaKart]

Arent they called yarmulkes ?

 

[Lillefix]

Fwiw, I loved 'The Life of Brian'. I am not saying religion need be protected from farce or comedy; but there is a huge difference in harmless satire, and simply being mean-spirited and ridiculing to injure or humiliate.

But are you willing to grant ideologies and political views the same protection? Would you say there is a limit on how much we can criticise communism, libertarianism and so on, because we might hurt those who have invested their lives in these ideologies?

 

[Atticus]

My point is why do you care at all if a jewish guy gets to wear his little beanie? Its simply not that big a deal to get upset over.

How about different education for religious reasons?

How about ritual slaughter of animals?

How about institution's right to declare people married or collect taxes?

How about mutilation of newborn babies?

How about exclusion from military draft?