• 01011
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Any religion that looks to spread is going to use “us vs them” hatred and eventually violence to get their message across.

  • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think anything is fine as long as they’re not hurting anyone. So if their hate is confined to themselves idc.

    • 01011
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if their hate is confined to their children, is that fine too?

    • ruford1976@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      but confined hate eventually spreads once it gains a significant following. so why allow it in the first place?

      • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you disallow it? Preventing people from practicing a religion would require a system so draconian that the drawbacks would far outweigh any possible benefit.

        • ruford1976@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          By citing authentic sources from their scriptures and other data in court then use that to justify passing the law to ban the books and places of worship. before that group grows in significant number. The remaining that try to defy the law get fined or at the most severe punishment get sent to rehabilitation centers. (but not like chinese way where they use physical and mental abuse)

          • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m a Satanist, so I’m 100% not going to support something like this, as I know that my religion would be the first on the chopping block. We already have to fight in court for our rights; this would just make it even worse.

            • ruford1976@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              i don’t think you should worry, because satanism does not preach hate or intolerance for the tolerant.

              i am talking about religions that don’t obey tolerance for the tolerant principle.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Pretty much every religion has been persecuted that way somewhere in history …. Unless that’s your point

            Also, just like any segment of society, every religion will be mostly moderate but with its share of zealots

        • ruford1976@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Religions are irrationally unjustified. and irrationally unjustified hate is a danger to democracy and other people.

  • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Who would determine which religions are hateful and which aren’t? How would this be enforced?

  • keropoktasen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    In order to preserve tolerance, we must be intolerant to the intolerant. Give plaforms to the hateful religion, and the next thing they’ll do is to play victim whenever they’re being criticized for being intolerant.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    We did just have an interesting experiment in free speech over the last few years, and it’s still not clear where it ends up.

    In the US there’s a carveout where online providers are not liable for what their users say, as long as the platform is free and open. However as the current craziness started breaking out, they did start moderating more, preventing at least some false info and at least some calls to endanger public safety. However, are they still not liable, now that they actively participate in what is allowed on their systems? Where should the line be drawn between false and endangering vs free speech, in what people use social media for? When it was just the village idiot spewing hate and violence, we could mostly ignore them, but what about when they have global reach, connect with other village idiots, actually instigate violence?