this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
406 points (97.0% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, just dangerous ideologies (which include all major religions). Religions like pastafarism or the satanic temple are totally fine.
So religions are not inherently dangerous ideologies but some of them are.
By what criteria should a government decide which religions should be banned?
I'd start with looking through their club charters and apply general hate speech rules.
But we are talking about banning an entire religion and any symbol or item associated with it from the public and workplace, not some clubs and their signage. My question is how should a government decide if e.g. christianity as a religion is a dangerous ideology, and should therefore be banned, or whether it isn't? We are not talking about banning some clubs here, but your claim that some religions are inherently so dangerous that any religious display or symbolism should be banned from the public and workplace. And presumably since they are so dangerous probably ought to be banned in entirety.
Same way they decide which terrorist groups and nazi organisation are dangerous. You look at their fucking charters/book/scripture and the actions of their members.
Do all of the organisations of that religion need to be dangerous to warrant a ban on the entire religion or just some clubs? The biggest clubs, the most clubs, whats the criteria here? What about people practicing that religion that do not belong to any religious organisation?
Again you are proposing banning an entire religion, that means places of worship, religious texts and items and removal of any public display of these religions because they are deemed as dangerous as nazis. So it stands to reason that any building or statue that displays the same religious symbols ought to be demolished or vandalised to the point where it can no longer be recognized as a building of that religion.
How should a government judge a religion as worthy of such persecution as the nazis?
edit: maybe via an example. Tell me which religions you want the government to ban and why.
What means dangerous in this case? And what makes the major religions dangerous?
Just it's regular textbook definition.
Claiming a monopolity on truth, indoctrinating people with lies, promiting homophobia, xenophobia, rape, violence, slavery, etc.
Most governments indoctrinate their people with lies. Christianity and islam and strongly against xenophobia (I don't have much knowledge about judaism, so can't speak for or against it). Same goes for rape. Slavery is legal to this day in the USA for example.
I hope you can see my point, that standing on the moral basis of the modern western societies can make it seem like people, who live their lifes following different rules, may be "backwards" or "morally inferior" but you are lacking the logical foundation to claim something like that.
I agree, but one wrong doesn't justify another one.
Not sure there is much of a point. Morality in an entirly human invented concept, no one has any fundation for it other than their personal believes. If I believe people that follow religious rules are backwards that claim is just as logical founded as a religions person thinking I'm am infidel that will burn in hell. It's all made up. Some of the made up stories are just way stupider than others.
If you agree that humans alone can't claim what is universally right and wrong, then that is a first step towards religion, but I will leave that aside.
It seems like you agree that you have no basis on which to claim, with a degree of authority, that someone has to adjust their actions in your vicinity. If you don't contest this then I will leave this discussion, as you have confirmed, that you can't just forbid others from dressing in a certain way.
If you do not agree then I would like to understand how you can say that "morality is an entirely human inventes concept, no one has any foundation for it..." and then go on to say that somehow you can in fact impose your morality on others, as I understood it because their "made up stories are just way stupider than others"? According to which scale? One that does suddenly pop out of nowhere and is absolute for all humans?
I've read most of your respones in this thread and have deemed them thoroughly thought out.