Should Islam be protected under Religious Freedom?
At what point does a religion cross the line?
>>56727007
>Should Islam be protected under Religious Freedom?
Yes
>At what point does a religion cross the line?
When they interfere with other freedom
This isn't a hard concept
>>56728170
What if Islam leads to
>When they interfere with other freedom
>>56728170
I've probably been watching too many YouTube videos lately, but I just dont think it's that simple.
>>56727007
I don't see why religion needs to be protected, since it's a choice.
You aren't born religious. It's something you become through parental/institutional influence.
Religion should be a private affair.
I'm Christian, btw.
>>56727007
It crosses the line when we say religious laws are equal to laws we came up with through reason and experience.
Can you worship Allah? Sure
Can you kill others for not doing it cause the Quran says so? Sure but we will punish you for it every fucking time any of you do, preferably by hanging.
Officially it should be legal but the state should "oppress/discriminate" them as much as they legally can.
The fact that Western philosophy allows the spread of antithetic ideals is the reason Western philosophy will fall.
>>56728170
What do you do when the majority of the population wants to abolish their rights?
>>56727007
Nothing should be protected as religious freedom. It's a post WW2 Jew clause and I say this as someone who's not on the Jew hate train.
>>56728889
How do you punish a suicide bomber?
>>56730280
Slather his family in pig-fat and blood. Then cut their throats. Make sure all suicide bombers know.
>>56728653
Christianism teaches humans to love the Truth and islam teaches meanness. When you say christianism shouldn't be protected and that religion is only a personal choice, you're saying the Truth has no value and that everything has the same value.
I can create the church o Satan and preach human sacrifice, but that's ok, because it's my personal choice.
I know you will say "the truth is subjective" or "christianism is not the truth", but this is your subjective opinion and not the opinion of the founders of western civilization.
Well i dont think you can generalize a whole religion by a minority
>>56729528
Thats not very tolerant at all
They should be brought into the year of smart phones with sms prayer calls rather than loud speakers, this will help everyone integrate better
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>56729793
Its not western philosophy its modern philosophy.
You'll never catch a Western philosopher rejecting an objective, Relativism is the bane of society and man, The West traditionally rejects relativism, therefore a man of relativism is no longer a western man as he no longer fits the definition.
>>56730540
/thread
Relativism is the belief of man children who.
Not philosophers.
Anyone who says otherwise is being relativistic and only proving my point.
There is no such thing as objective relativism as its logically incoherent therefore 'my' objective view is not 'mine' but is the reality and is the truth and your objection is unfounded upon reason.
It is right because it is right and in dealing with objectivity this is a rare instance where circular reasoning is not entirely fallacious.
Circular reasoning is not always fallacious and I would appeal to that principal in my defense of objectivity.
>>56732870
You're right, of course. I meant to write modern Western philosophy. Self-criticism has turned into self-hate and relativism.
>>56730280
Feed the remains of his corpse to pigs.
