Does a Book, Idea, or a Long-dead Prophet deserve the same protection against "intolerance" as living people?

Question

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Please explain your reasoning.


^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

RUKH: Because I'm a gay man and an atheist, you may understand that I have some personal experience with intolerance. I have no problem with the idea that someone examine human sexuality or atheism as ideas. (Indeed, it is through the examination of human sexuality and questioning of prior assumptions that gay people have made progress.)

However, I strenuously object to the idea that those when those who hold an idea claim that, when their idea is challenged by evidence, they can then claim "intolerance." If we reject evidence-based dialogue, then we are embracing superstition and prejudice. And that is, I believe, what you are advocating.

Answer 1

Nope.

The dead or non-living cannot be hurt in the same ways that the living can. Clearly they do not deserve the same protection.

And in fact, I would say that some books and ideas should be challenged based on the effects they have on the world. Not all ideas and books are beneficial.

Answer 2

Technically, these 3 things in and of themselves, are not, and cannot be affected by intolerance... only the people that place importance and value on them are affected.

Given the section (and your affiliation) it is understandable that you use the word "prophet" (a term mainly applicable to monotheism), but a broader, and a bit less biased phrasing would have been to put "prophet, philosopher, or scientist" in its place. This would have made people think more about how protection against intolerance in a free country tends to apply equaly to both what they like and what they don't like.

There is a vast difference between the intolerance and discrimination against living people compared to that shown against the non-living and abstract things you mention, but as for trying to boil things down to a yes or no answer, it is not that simple.

On the surface, it would appear that the simple answer to your question would be "no" and that living people take priorty to any non-living thing... until you take a closer look at how people actually behave.

By displaying intolerance and discrimination against non-living things and abstract concepts, you (by extension) display intolerance and discrimination against those that place value on them. So, technically (by extention) protecting these non-living abstract things also protects actual living people.

The type and level of protection these non-living abstract things deserve is determined by what they promote and whether or not it infringes on the rights and privacy of other people. This is where things get ugly, because people have vastly different opinions on what should be valued and protected, then tend to overstep their bounds in trying to maintain its integrity.

In the case of discriminatory monotheistic concepts, it's mainly a no-win situation when it comes to protecting the relogious non-living abstract aspects you mention. If you don't provide a protective right to such things, you show intolerance for those that promote those ideals, yet... if you do provide a protective right your act you simultaneously show tolerance AND promote the intolerance they wish to spread.

Determining the level of protection for religion is actually quite similar to the conundrum I posed in one of my old questions (not in this section) about correcting intolerant people...

Answer 3

Plz do not misguide human beings by using misinterpreting quran and giving it incorrect meaning, we cant do tafseer on our own, see tafsir ibn kathir, `Ali bin Abi Talib and his cousin `Abdullah bin `Abbas reported, "Allah in no way sent a Prophet yet after taking his pledge that if Muhammad have been sent in his lifetime, he might have faith in and help him.'' Allah commanded each and every Prophet to take a pledge from his usa that if Muhammad have been sent of their time, they might have faith in and help him. Tawus, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Qatadah reported, "Allah took the pledge from the Prophets that they might have faith in one yet another'', and this assertion does not contradict what `Ali and Ibn `Abbas stated. consequently, Muhammad is the suited Prophet until eventually the Day of Resurrection. he's the suited Imam, who if he existed in any term, merits to be obeyed, particularly than all different Prophets. because of the fact of this Muhammad led the Prophets in prayer in the process the nighttime of Isra' whilst they accrued in Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem). he's the intercessor on the Day of accumulating, whilst the Lord contains choose from His servants. that's Al-Maqam Al-Mahmud (the praised station) ?consult with 17:seventy 9? that purely Muhammad merits, a accountability which the reliable Prophets and Messengers will decline to think of. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, Muhammad will carry the activity of intercession, might Allah's peace and reward be on him. Prophet Mohammad( sallallahu alaihi wasallam)in no way spoke of as upon the different prophet for help whilst ever he replace into in prefer.

Answer 4

why should just your demographic be protected.

if we're being intolerant - then lets ALL be intolerant. thats equality after all.

so which is it - equality or intolerance?
free speech or political correctness for everyone?

does my demographic deserve less respect than yours?

Answer 5

yes unfortunately that is not the case as Christians are trying to be pushed out by political correctness

Answer 6

I think so, for future generations. As 'they' say, "those who forget historical mistakes are doomed to repeat them."

Answer 7

My belief is that there will be no peace with religion.

Answer 8

No.