I read an answer to a question about the existence of God which said something like "I'm entitled to my belief without you questioning it, and you're entitled to your belief without me questioning it." It's that "without questioning" part that I'm asking about. If we have freedom of speech, then asking questions or even openly disagreeing about religion is necessarily part of that, isn't it? Are we too careful not to step on toes in this area? Not careful enough? Or to maintain the metaphor, are we guaranteed steel-toed boots for our religious ideas?
2007-09-26 18:20:07 · 15 answers · asked by auntb93 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Perhaps the person meant: "I'm entitled to my belief without you badgering me about it, and you're entitled to your belief without me badgering you." This is more consistent with the spirit of the law.
It is not the questioning that runs into trouble (legally or socially), it is the manner of the questioning. Add to this the stacking of the Supreme court which might cause it to lean to the political Right also has an effect on our society.
So there are no longer the cries of "Hare Krishna" at the airports, but "Jesus Camp" is perfectly legal.
2007-09-26 20:59:41 · answer #1 · answered by Richard 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Hi auntb..... I think this is a most complicated issue.... not only because it is subject to individual interpretation; but, because there are so many "fine lines" involved. Where is the point, for example, at which one person's "freedom of speech" could be said to infringe on another person's "freedom of religion"? How can we possibly know, when it varies from one person to the next? And, while it's true that no religion comes with a guarantee of steel-toed boots, isn't it just a little sad that anyone should even feel a need for them? To me, there's a difference between "questioning" someone's belief, and "asking a question about" someone's belief. The former is, most likely, a "challenge" (thinly disguised in a more subtle word, but still.....) So, logic tells me this is a good place to draw the line, because I really don't think freedom of speech was ever intended to mean freedom to verbally abuse.
PEACE ....and btw, you're right ... Ron Paul has some great ideas, for a Republican,,,, (not that the Democrats are doing any better!)
2007-09-27 08:09:25 · answer #2 · answered by 1staricy2nite 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the person was being a little defensive. Though we are entitled to believe whatever we like, no where does it say that we cannot be questioned or judged for those beliefs. I am a firm believer that a person can say whatever they like no matter how offensive or annoying it is. With that though, they must also be prepared to deal with whatever consequences may come from it.
I just say whatever I like. I have found that some people will find a way to be offended no matter what. That is their burden not mine. "It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them."
2007-09-27 01:24:42 · answer #3 · answered by alana 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Freedom of religion and speech can go as far as one is willing to take them. How this affects others can be questionable. I state what I feel in my heart, at least we have that choice. There were times when many were killed for stating what they believed and thought. There are places where some still cannot.
It is through questions and answers that insight can be brought to light.
2007-09-27 01:28:37 · answer #4 · answered by Soul Shaper 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I strongly disagree with those who believe freedom of speech should be without limits. We should treat each other with honesty and respect.
In suitable forums, such as Yahoo Answers, questioning someones beliefs is entirely appropriate if done in a respectful manner.
It can be tricky to understand the sensitivities of others (e.g., how likely they are to be offended) -- we simply must do our best to treat others as we'd want to be treated.
2007-09-27 02:10:43 · answer #5 · answered by Bryan Kingsford 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom qualified is not freedom. Even the moderators here see it as more important to defend people against even the slightest insult than seeing that this is precisely when freedom of speech should be supported. Any opinion that cannot be supported (by evidence and not metaphysics) should be called ignorant and accepted as such.
2007-09-27 01:32:33 · answer #6 · answered by neil s 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would hope that what the person meant to say was "with you respectfully disagreeing with me". The problem arises in that there are two definitions of respect. There is the giver, and their intention of being respectful, and there is the receiver and their perception of the intent. Skill is needed to both give and to receive respect - and unfortunately it is often lacking on one or both ends of the communication exchange. (((Auntie)))
2007-09-27 01:34:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as it being consider and act of terrorism. Once it crosses that line then you are killed or imprisoned. Hate crimes legislation. Look at no.1 to sign the petition. Rod Parsley!
2007-09-27 01:46:45 · answer #8 · answered by God is love. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There should be a level of respect and decency twds all people of differing beliefs. You can have an open and honest debate without degrading and being offensive.
2007-09-27 01:24:54 · answer #9 · answered by cadisneygirl 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Freedom goes, as far as collective social discretion (norms) permit.
2007-09-27 08:05:13 · answer #10 · answered by Sam 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋