this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
147 points (96.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43821 readers
897 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They're basically the same. I'd extent that to outright banning of any religion. Believe whatever you want, but the moment people gather and share the same "true faith", things get ugly.

[โ€“] rainynight65@feddit.org 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That's not necessary. What's needed is to treat religious beliefs as a personal choice, and no more. You can get protection from being discriminated against based on your beliefs so long as it doesn't extend past actual disadvantage (so yes to not being disadvantaged in your workplace for being religious, but no to not wanting to bake a cake for gay people). Other than that, your religion buys you nothing. No 'medical exemptions', no special treatment, and especially no influence on other people's lifestyle choices. True freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. It stays in your home and place of worship. In public, in government, in education and healthcare, religion does not exist.

[โ€“] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I would also specify that your religion doesn't get to negatively (and of there's any confusion about what is negative, err on the side of caution) impact their children in any way. Otherwise, as children are a very vulnerable group that will grow into an adult, it's just a loophole for religious people to continue to propagate their religion without arguing against an opponent qualified to actually think sceptically, or commit harms against minors unable to protect themselves.

[โ€“] rainynight65@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

First step to achieving that is banning homeschooling - way too many people use that as a way to avoid their children getting educated about stuff they don't want them to know.

[โ€“] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

And religious schools in general, banning the private school exemption.

[โ€“] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago

Sorry, but religion has nothing to do with beliefs. Why do people always mix those? There's also a difference between stealing for hunger and joining a drug cartel. You join a religion and take over their "beliefs".

Religion is for the mentally handicapped who can't think for themselves but need a group who tells them what to think. So they feel "connected".

Besides that intermixing of terms, you're not wrong. Have a belief. We all believe something, even if it's nothing. I even love talking about people's beliefs. As long as they're in no cult (or religion), as i don't want to interact with those. It's like talking with a plant.