English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Assuming that you believe in freedom of religion, what if someone's religion is that they believe that kidnapping babies, molesting them, and then cannibalizing them glorifies..."the god of the forest" or whatever hogwash? Where do you draw the line? Intelligent answers please. No circular logic. This is a rhetorical question. I honestly think what I wrote is disgusting. I'm asking "where do you draw the line"?

2007-03-27 05:16:08 · 10 answers · asked by blackhawks4life 3 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

since we all have different views, saying that we make the decision based on "common sense", that is too general. if it was common, then everyone would agree. if the "line" that we "draw" on this issue, is so that religion doesn't break existing laws, then all a society has to do is to make a law that prevents the religion. in other words, once a religion is inconvenient for a society, they get a majority vote, or dictator to outlaw it. Hello Dark Ages!!!

2007-03-27 05:28:15 · update #1

10 answers

If it promotes infringing on someone else's rights, liberties, freedoms, etc, then it should be an exception to the "Freedom of Religion" principle. In the case of the example you have given above, it infringes on the victim's "Right of Consent", since the baby is too young to give consent.

2007-03-27 05:24:37 · answer #1 · answered by Byron A 3 · 0 0

I agree with the first answerer. The most sensible thing to do in a situation would be to outlaw any religions like that. But I don't know of any religions at all that do any such practices as those that you threw out there for the hell of it. But it all boils down to reason, logic, and common sense.

2007-03-27 12:20:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Any religion or religious practices that break the law of the land should not be tolerated.
This is already the case as far as I know.

Any law designed specifically to outlaw a particular existing religion would be unconstitutional.

2007-03-27 12:19:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Religions can be tolerated just as long as they respect the law of the State. That is why powers are divided in modern democratic states.
John Locke said that one should be tolerant only with the tolerants and I agree.

2007-03-27 12:21:19 · answer #4 · answered by remy 5 · 0 0

You draw the line at common sense.

2007-03-27 12:19:32 · answer #5 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 1 0

You would have to draw the line at the law. This is why religion and state MUST be disassociated.

2007-03-27 12:19:41 · answer #6 · answered by Dharma Nature 7 · 2 0

Religion as a faith-based only or as a way of life?

2007-03-27 12:27:00 · answer #7 · answered by SukaR 2 · 0 0

The religion is to be tolerated, the practices not.

2007-03-27 12:24:49 · answer #8 · answered by Radagast97 6 · 0 0

If you stick with the Bible, learn it, understand it (thats a tall order) , and put it into practice-we will all be okay. There are many who misinterpret it and call what they do Christianity. Unfortunately this misleads people.

2007-03-27 12:24:11 · answer #9 · answered by John S 3 · 1 1

Draw the line on harm. No child should be harmed in anyway. should be teaching peace and no proselytizing. No person in general should be harmed.

2007-03-27 12:20:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers