fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2264 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2264 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Criminal Minds, Dharma & Greg]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Teen Wolf/Colton Haynes]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Alex and Emma Watson]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Anthony Bourdain and Guy Fieri]

__________________________________________________

08.

[World of Warcraft]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Kuroko no Basket]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Les Miserables]

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

[Psycho Pass]

__________________________________________________

13.

[Journey Into Mystery]

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

15. [SPOILERS for Buffy]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

16. [SPOILERS for Spartacus]
[WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

17. [WARNING for child abuse]
http://oi46.tinypic.com/25akho2.jpg
[Kuroshitsuji; linked for (obvious) child abuse, animated]

__________________________________________________

18. [WARNING for incest]

[Revolution]

__________________________________________________

19. [WARNING for rape/abuse]

[Assassin's Creed 3]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #323.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

...letting people have their beliefs is problematic?

what

There's the notion that the way religion is held as "sacred" and above criticism or examination in our society is a problem, and when more benign religious beliefs are treated as though they should be insulated from the sort of criticism that any other idea might be subject to, they lend legitimacy to more harmful religious beliefs. That's how you get people who oppose gay rights being able to say, "It's just my religious belief" and expect that defense to be taken seriously. The argument is that no belief should be beyond question or criticism, even if it's someone's religious belief that they're emotionally invested in, because placing a certain category of beliefs beyond criticism allows hatred and bigotry to run unchecked when they fall under that category.

At least, I think that's where OP is going with this.

So it's a slippery slope argument, then? "First we let you believe that God loves you, then you'll want us to let you believe that it's okay to kill gay people?" I'm not totally sure that tracks.

da

Well, allowing people to believe that some invisible deity loves them isn't objectively harmful to others in and of itself. There's such a thing as religious tolerance, but there comes a point when religious tolerance comes up against civil rights, and the idea that (subsets of) religious morals trump the population's right to equality, health, and liberty is disgusting and harmful. Religious tolerance only holds up until it starts infringing on other people's rights. However, subsets with oppressive and harmful religious beliefs think that "religious tolerance" can and should protect their right to not only believe, but openly practice and base legislation on those harmful beliefs, simply because it's ostensibly for religious reasons. The SJW response, if I'm understanding this correctly, is that since apparently there is no happy medium that we can agree on, then all religious beliefs are and should be subject to question and criticism - up to and including beliefs that don't actually harm others in some way.

If that's correct, then I sort of get the response - we tried religious tolerance and it just made people (of certain religions) entitled assholes about their so-called religious beliefs, so if we can't compromise on what is and isn't an acceptable belief, then...all religious beliefs are verboten. It's extreme and I don't agree with it, but it's not an entirely irrational response.

There's such a thing as religious tolerance, but there comes a point when religious tolerance comes up against civil rights, and the idea that (subsets of) religious morals trump the population's right to equality, health, and liberty is disgusting and harmful. Religious tolerance only holds up until it starts infringing on other people's rights.

Exactly. I'm all for respecting other people's beliefs and opinions, up until the point when their opinions start infringing on other people's rights, and at that point, we're no longer having a discussion. I don't care what you believe or why, if your beliefs interfere with other people's rights, then your belief is not worth respecting. This idea that I hear from otherwise open-minded, intelligent people that all beliefs are somehow equal and valid regardless of how they might harm other people or infringe upon their rights just completely boggles my mind.

There are some respects in which this point is valid. The question of the validity of religion and religious maxims and its relation to morality is a really problematic and complicated one. The problem is that mainstream in atheism in no way has the tools to get involved in this kind of moral debate or deal with the complex and subtle questions it raises. There's some meat there; the problem is that what mainstream atheism does with it is just incredibly dumb and naive and un-thoughtful.

I don't think any category of beliefs should be "beyond criticism". I say this as a Christian. If I can't examine and defend my faith, what is it worth, anyway? But implying that religious freedom is in itself problematic is a completely different thing from implying that religion needs to be under scrutiny (especially, as I would say, from those who practice it!) or saying that religious beliefs should be allowed to influence political matters (I staunchly believe they should not).

I think if that's OP's attitude they're taking it a bit far. Everyone should have the freedom to believe what they want to believe. That doesn't mean I have to respect your beliefs (though I usually do unless your belief is "killing puppies for dinner" or something idk) or agree with them or that your beliefs have any place in law (they usually don't) but yeah people should be allowed to have them.

[ SECRET POST #2264 ]

Re: Since SJW discussions are in vogue these days

Re: Since SJW discussions are in vogue these days

Re: Since SJW discussions are in vogue these days

Re: Since SJW discussions are in vogue these days

Re: Since SJW discussions are in vogue these days

Re: Since SJW discussions are in vogue these days

Re: Since SJW discussions are in vogue these days