Religion of love?

[Sassafrass]

This is not a rant against you....but a.contemplation of the statement.

How do you want them to treat you?

The way they want to be treated? Or the way you wish to be treated? What they think is right? Or what you think is right?

Why do we not treat our neighbors the way they wish to be treated?

I've heard this before and I agree with it in a specific sense. Like obviously if my favourite icecream flavour is chocolate but yours is vanilla, and I know that but I still buy you a chocolate icecream because that's what I would want - then it's not exactly loving is it? But I would also argue that in the general sense of the saying "do to others what you want them to do to you", in my icecream example, I still haven't done that, have I? Because I don't actually want other people to give me things that I don't like just because they like them.

If I take two seconds to think about this saying as a general principle, it is clear that it doesn't mean (or at least doesn't have to mean) I should treat everyone *as if they were me*. It means treat them how I would want to be treated. And how do I want to be treated? Well, I want to be respected. I want people to understand that I am a unique individual with my own outlook, my own experiences, and my own preferences and desires, and I want people to take the time to understand me. I want them to refrain from forcing their beliefs and preferences on to me. I want people to recognise that I am a separate individual from them, worthy of the same love and respect as they are worthy of, and not just a tool or object for the other person to use to get their way. I want them to treat me as a person, not as a thing.

So if that's what I want, then I should treat other people like that too.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I feel strongly that blasphemy is a right, and should never be a crime.

Only Abrahamic religions have blasphemy. Hinduism does not mind new theories/philosophies. My being an atheist Hindu is one such case.
Of course, most of us do not like cultural intrusions, fake 'we love you' claims.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I feel strongly that blasphemy is a right, and should never be a crime.

Crime, no. Though some societies may have treated blasphemy as a crime, that is absurd.
The ghastly punishments of some societies - so much more evil than the so called "crime" "blasphemy" is not a crime to anyone rational.
One would have to define blasphemy though - do we all have the same thing in mind?
In some places and times, just having a different religion could be viewed as blasphemy in someone's eyes.
EVERY religion could be considered "blasphemy" to somebody.
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are rights, and blasphemy would be covered by those rights.
What I said above about "legal ramifications" - I meant only and entirely to compare to how slander, libel, and harassment or "fighting words" are now. But there probably wouldn't need to be any new laws anywhere -- if you followed someone around yelling religious slurs at them, the laws existing for harassment should be enough... if they take a swing at you it might fit under the "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment - (but maybe not, see links below) if you attributed someone as "bad" in print due to their religion, that can be covered under existing libel laws.

Fighting words doctrine - words being offensive alone may not constitute an exception

fighting words

www.law.cornell.edu

Fighting words - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-5/ALDE_00013806/

You could argue that people of any religion deserve to be protected from harassment and slurs - BUT
if BLASPHEMY in their eyes is defined as anything that contradicts or even fails to show reverence to that which they hold holy -
Can anyone claim to have the right to have everyone in society hold the same theology or at least never challenge it?

Definitions of blasphemy

Definition of BLASPHEMY

the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God; the act of claiming the attributes of a deity; irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Blasphemy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Aupmanyav]

In some places and times, just having a different religion could be viewed as blasphemy in someone's eyes.

Buddhism and Jainism are known as 'Nastikas', which means 'no sayers wrt Gods', but that was always taken as a difference in philosopjy.
There were deniers of God even among the six 'Asktika' (Aye sayers) philosophies of Hinduism. Samkhya was one of them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Crime, no. Though some societies may have treated blasphemy as a crime, that is absurd.

Well, it is very common that people consider themselves "smarter" than their ancestors.
I remember when I was a young man, poo-pooing the prudes amongst the older generation.

..but I now believe that they were not wrong .. we don't know what we've got, until it's gone.
There is nothing absurd about preventing society from becoming morally bankrupt, in my mind.

The ghastly punishments of some societies - so much more evil than the so called "crime" "blasphemy" is not a crime to anyone rational..

Well, many people complain about the punishment of apostacy(in Islam) being death, for example.
All well and good, in a society which is not being threatened .. not at war.
..but in war, treason is very serious!

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are rights..

Yes .. but those rights should NOT include the derision of others or majority. eg. hate speech

 

[TheLightWithin]

There is nothing absurd about preventing society from becoming morally bankrupt, in my mind.

Treating speech as a serious crime can be -

becoming morally bankrupt,

Based on whose standards? Religious? Which religion? Esp in a multi-religious, diverse society. Whose?

Yes .. but those rights should NOT include the derision of others or majority. eg. hate speech

What counts as derision? Notice what i said earlier about the libel, slander, etc, I may have included hate speech
However, contemporary hate speech rules have been controversial due to the perceived and/or actual tension with freedom of speech
Racial or ethnic statements or anti LGBTQ statements have been called hate speech. That satisfies some and upsets others.
But the libel and slander exceptions to free speech have been around for awhile
Running around calling slurs at members of ethnic groups or religions - you can argue that would be an exception of free speech, it is slander, hate speech, and potentially "fighting words"
But what if a particularly rigid regime put ALL of us on the forum under the microscope for not upholding their theology?
Who defines blasphemy?
Is mere disagreement about doctrine blasphemy? That definition has existed.
Simply describing one's own beliefs or not agreeing with someone else's belief could be blasphemy somewhere.
I don't want those kind of rules, and I certainly don't want legal consequences for people who accept and or deny a trinity, or accept or deny the existence of G-d, or accept or deny the existence of or the words of a particular prophet, or who accept or deny the divine right of kings, or ....

 

[TheLightWithin]

Well, it is very common that people consider themselves "smarter" than their ancestors.

You've said that a few times, and I don't know what examples you are referring to, but depending on the particulars, people may indeed be smarter (what do you mean by smarter?) and/or wiser and/or more well informed about some things than their own ancestors, or smarter - knowing better - possibly, about a relevant topic, than anybody's ancestors.

Are you making a case that people's ancestors are smarter than they are?
In what situation? In all situations? Regardless of updated information?

If nothing else, on many, many matters, people do indeed have updated information that nobody's ancestors had access to.
And said ancestors are not here (unless reincarnated) We are.