There is an inverse relationship between freedom of speech and faith. I believe there ought not to be a limit on freedom of speech. However, if you grant the same for faith, I don’t think you want that any more than I do. Many of you have what appears to be a very lax, non-harmful form of faith; or so it seems to you. Your morality has been tempered by secular ideas and has pushed back at many (but not all) bad ideas associated with religion and faith. What you are saying, however, when you say people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, what you mean is “whatever they want, within limits.” And the closer to your worldview and ideas about faith the better.
So you have your faith, you largely keep it to yourself, and you don’t take it too seriously. You also feel a connection or sympathy to others who are like-minded. Fine. But saying people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, one of the most common, albeit weak, rebuttals I come across, gives implicit approval to anyone to believe anything. “Let people believe what they want, with the following exceptions that aren’t in line with my worldview…”
This is not a moral stance, or acceptance, or tolerance. Because you, like me, don’t want to be neighbors with people who believe a suicide mission will bring glory to their family and will allow them to ascend straight to heaven as a martyr. You don’t want your neighbors and friends to believe God cures diseases and thereby forego medical treatment. You don’t want people who believe that their leader, either religious or political, speaks for god and therefore anything they say or do is good and right by definition, no matter how immoral.You can’t just shrug them off and say, “that’s not what I meant, those ideas are crazy.” Is every Mormon crazy? Was every suicide bomber crazy? Was every Nazi crazy for that matter? No, and yet their BELIEFS allowed them to rationalize their clearly psychotic behavior. Shall I go on? Shall I insult you further?
So you have your faith, you largely keep it to yourself, and you don’t take it too seriously. You also feel a connection or sympathy to others who are like-minded. Fine. But saying people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, one of the most common, albeit weak, rebuttals I come across, gives implicit approval to anyone to believe anything. “Let people believe what they want, with the following exceptions that aren’t in line with my worldview…”
This is not a moral stance, or acceptance, or tolerance. Because you, like me, don’t want to be neighbors with people who believe a suicide mission will bring glory to their family and will allow them to ascend straight to heaven as a martyr. You don’t want your neighbors and friends to believe God cures diseases and thereby forego medical treatment. You don’t want people who believe that their leader, either religious or political, speaks for god and therefore anything they say or do is good and right by definition, no matter how immoral.You can’t just shrug them off and say, “that’s not what I meant, those ideas are crazy.” Is every Mormon crazy? Was every suicide bomber crazy? Was every Nazi crazy for that matter? No, and yet their BELIEFS allowed them to rationalize their clearly psychotic behavior. Shall I go on? Shall I insult you further?
No comments:
Post a Comment