Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Gee ventures into the dangerous world of faith and politics.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
The prophet
ABC
ACM
ALP
Andrew Bolt
Australian republic
Barry Everingham
cartoons
climate change
Coalition
Craig Thomson
David Donovan
David Flint
featured
Gee
Gina Rinehart
Glenn Davies
John Howard
Julia Gillard
Kevin Rudd
Labor Party
Liberal party
Malcolm Turnbull
Peter Slipper
Peter Wicks
Rupert Murdoch
Satire
Tess Lawrence
The Australian
The Queen
Tony Abbott
7 Comments
Question: must we tolerate a belief simply because it is religious? It seems to be a dangerous line the left walks, where out of fear of offending or marginalising people their dangerous religious ideas are not fully discussed.
I agree geo. I think Christianity has some of the most dangerous ideas ever espoused by humans.
And those ‘most dangerous ideas’ are?
Both Christian and Islam have strains which are intolerant, extremist and seek to impose their beliefs on others. Personally I would like nothing better than to see all such creeds go the way of the Dodo.
And all aeithiests and persons of religious persuasions other then Christianity and Islam are free of the intolerant, extremist and those that seek to impose their beliefs on others.
Russia and Eastern Europe under communism – must have been wonderfully tolerant places to live.
This isn’t about atheism vs religion, my question is are beliefs tagged as ‘religious’ given more protection or tolerance than other beliefs, in our ‘free and open’ society. E.g. if some one says “I’m against gay marriage because it is anti-family” you could argue with them, but if someone says “I’m against gay marriage because it is against my religion”, there is not much to say for fear of being ‘intolerant’. What do you think?
In a secular state – which we are – there should be respect for all ‘beliefs’. If I believe, as I do, that gay marriage is not consistent with my religion, that is something that if you want to belong to my expression of faith, you accept. It is not mine to push down the throat of others and in a society that adheres to the principle of the separation of Church and State it is not the role of the State to legislate in a way that imposes a sectarian view on the majority. I’m with you – if I believe this is ‘anti-family’ or something that is to the detriment of society, then I should argue that on a rationale basis – not a ‘because I believe’ or ‘the Bible says’.
And right now, while I may wonder if we aren’t into some form of social experimentation that may have unwanted consequences, I have no evidence to support that.