R
Rau
Guest
Perhaps “never accept” would better charterise the situation.
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Tolerate is often used to mean just the same thing though. As Nodito implied by his question earlier - what does “not tolerate” look like in relevant contexts? Rioting or violence or repeated verbal assaults are not implied.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yes that sounds logical.
Stephen168
New member
I would say the laws are just. I also don’t see a requirement to codify every sin in law or that by outlawing a sin that all sin must be outlawed.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Oh my! Well reasoned moral theology.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Argumentum ad populum
I think you better take a closer look at the demographics and who really supports this section of the elite secular-left agenda.
I wonder what would happen if every single American Muslim denounced so-called gay “marriage” and said they wouldn’t vote or extend the privilege of not being islamophobic and racist unless it vanished.
R
rabbitdonkey
Guest
Just to be accurate, the israelites executed those who induced others to apostasize to the paganism of the nations they were at war with which often included human sacrifice
R
reggieM
Guest
Yes, nobody has a right to engage in immoral sexual activity, and also regarding religious liberty it may be argued that nobody would have the right to restrict the religious freedom of Saudi Arabia to establish laws in accordance with Islam.
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
So, depending on what “due limits” is intended to mean, again it can be argued that the policies of Saudi Arabia are, at least, not to be condemned or opposed because they reflect the religious belief of the people there.
Whether we would want that kind of approach in the United States, I guess, would depend on the religious beliefs of the electorate, and that is always subject to change.
E
edwest2
Guest
Regarding the last sentence, religious beliefs are subject to outside influence all the time. It is required in every “hearts and minds” program. Get those Catholics thinking wrong. And everyone else for that matter.
Know what the Church teaches and why, is the best defense.
Ed
A
ATraveller
Guest
I came across 1 Corinthians 5:9-12 recently and maybe it’s relevant to this discussion:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
O
Otar_Mendes
Guest
I like it how Nazism gets justified by “religious beliefs”. Execute, throw into prisons, persecute anyone u want if it’s approved by your religion. How convenient. I guess Hitler could have justified it by some invented religion as well and he would have survived then probably coz “religious beliefs” are sacred
Another thing… what’s your view on,say, “religious beliefs”
of people who consider same-sex activity and marriage to be a part of their religion (if it ever gets invented) or beliefs ? I suppose your stance in respecting “religious beliefs” would get thrown away right this moment coz in reality all you want is to enforce and support only YOUR religious beliefs.
R
reggieM
Guest
The quotes I offered were from Catholic teaching.
So, to get an understanding of what authentic religious beliefs are, some serious analysis is required, and also yes- as you point out, some perspective is already in place.
In Saudi Arabia, there is a perspective about what true religion is.
In the Catholic perspective, we see things differently.
But a religion is not merely something “that anybody makes up”.
That’s a trivial and foolish way to approach the topic - so it would be rejected out of hand.
If there was a new religion, it would need some basis, some validation, some following, some doctrines and some amount of testing and trial to be considered worthy of rights in a society.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I hate it.
F
frobert
Guest
You believe that no one has a right to engage in gay sex and that it is immoral, no problem, but you should not expect others to act in accordance with your beliefs.
Religious freedom should not be a barrier to condemning barbaric acts of a country, yet most countries refrain to do so, not out of respect for religious freedom, but for political and trade purposes. For example, the UK and US supplying arms to SA to bomb Yemen and not condemning the catastrophic health consequences of the conflict.
R
reggieM
Guest
If my beliefs are true then I should, naturally, expect others to act in accordance with the truth.
Various acts and behaviors can be condemned for whatever reasons, whether one society considers them barbaric or not.
I think religious freedom would allow people to live in accordance with their religious values, depending on various things.
But eventually, people decide that their own views are the right ones and others are not.
In this case, Islam thinks that non-Islamic morals are barbaric. A society that promotes tolerance to gay behavior, permits gay marriage and does nothing to discourage it is an abomination to Islamic leadership (and I assume most of the believers) in Saudi Arabia.
F
frobert
Guest
The beliefs of my church are just the opposite. We could argue about which belief is true but I am pretty sure neither of us would change so I would expect tolerance but not that others live in accordance with what I believe.
And that is the problem with religious and cultural beliefs. Lucky we live in a Western society where women, gays and other religions are treated with dignity and respect by most people, including Islamic believers.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I have to be honest. I got confused with this thread very early on in the beginning so I have not been following it all along. I am still very much confused as to whether or not such laws are a good thing.
R
reggieM
Guest
Eventually, we have to live in accordance with what somebody believes. There are things you tolerate in society and things you don’t tolerate. It’s the same for me. It’s the same for people in Saudi Arabia.
The reason we have tolerance is because of our religious and cultural beliefs. If our religion and culture changes then attitudes towards other people can change. There is nothing inherent in Western society that requires tolerance towards gays, for example. If enough people want to be intolerant, that’s what the society will allow.
F
frobert
Guest
You are straying from the topic, i.e. just laws. No one can control what a person believes so at times the state needs laws that support tolerance of minorities. Such laws are JUST while laws that promote intolerance are UNJUST regardless of the country.
The reason for tolerance is that we have multiple religious beliefs and multiple subcultures within our society. I am lucky to live in a western society where I have a voice in promoting tolerance, those living in SA do not have the option to change unjust laws.
- Status