Why is freedom of religion considered socially desirable? Isn't

File: 805b81d1-b261-4de4-a634-fd45fd71544d.jpg (208KB, 597x800px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 597x800px

The freedom of religion allows someone to understand the fact that it's all the same truth spread through different mediums.

>>301742
>Why is freedom of religion considered socially desirable?
Because you only get one life so people should be allowed to believe what they want
>Isn't it better for social cohesion if most people have similar beliefs?
It doesn't work that way, if you enforce a belief, if someone things differently you will have conflict. With freedom of religion, different thought is no problem and you have no conflict.

>>301748
In a perfect world, maybe.

>>301750
Modern Islamic terrorism proves you wrong.

>>301750
History proves you wrong.

>>301762
I didn't say everyone does, it just enables the people to see the truth for themselves.

>>301762
>>301768
Not really. Islamic terrorism is a thing because they believe others shouldn't be allowed to believe different. They are enforcers, thus they are not adhering to freedom of religion, and they don't have freedom of religion where they are.

>>301789
But you concede that if there were no other religions there would be no need for "enforcers".

>>301789
Freedom of religion is not a societal belief and it is impossible to ever be. It is a political belief. Every religion believes that it is truer and superior to all other religions, and every religion in its history has been militant about it. There's no way you can change that mindset, so trying to bring people of different religions together peacefully can only end in disaster.

>>301789
how do we know there motivation is primarily religious?

>>301837
Don't act stupid

>>301856
>faction 1 is military superior to faction 2.
>faction 1 kills people of faction 2 seemingly at random.
>faction 2 tries to kill people of faction 1 in return.
>the only thing faction 2 can muster are isolated attacks on faction 1's civilians.

>>301742

Because when you dont have freedom of religion you go through cycles of war whenever a charismatic person hears voices (or reads the scripture differently) .

>>301891
Epic simplification bro

Here's how it actually goes
>faction 1 is descended from a culture built around a religious unity
>faction 2 is culturally isolated from faction 1, primarily due to the establishment of a different religion
>faction 1 becomes powerful over time, ultimately ends up ruling faction 2
>faction 2 denies the laws and political power of faction 1, because they derive from a culture based around the separate religion
>faction 1 attempts to force its laws on faction 2 through military action
>faction 2 consistently resists adopting the new cultural hegemony and instead throws faction 1 into a perpetual state of conflict

File: 1437863906433.jpg (288KB, 1024x760px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1024x760px

Enlightenment-age support of personal freedom. The common good becomes basically what people can accept and functions are conflict resolution rather than something objective. That these beliefs came about in trying to make sure sectarian wars don't continue is not surprising.

It is socially desirable to unite all people, but people would argue there is no ground to make judgement for others as it must be done personally. You also get views like >>301750

>people should be allowed to believe what they want

This comes from the belief that only the individual knows what is good for them because all individuals are different. To a degree this is true but it comes from the belief that there are no shared essences between humanity. If we were to believe there is something shared between humanity as a whole that we can work towards (the oft-mentioned "universal morality") then you're directly against the idea of no shared essences and thus the collectivism comes out of that rather than individualism.

>>301809
Christianity is a single religion, yet there are many different sects, so there would still be conflict between them. I get what you're saying though, but it's impossible for everyone to have the same exact idea, since everyone has a completely independent perspective.

>>301937
Christendom did exist, yo.

>>301742
The Reformation and the following wars and shit really taught western civilization that shared religion is overrated and more trouble than it is worth. Nationalism does is better for such cohesion.

Because it stops people from murdering each other over religion. Keep in mind however that this is due to Abrahamic religion in Europe, the heno-polytheism in pagan Europe is a different matter.

>>301954
>teaching religion incorrectly and fighting over correct beliefs shows that shared religion is overrated

>>301742
>Why is freedom of religion considered socially desirable? Isn't it better for social cohesion if most people have similar beliefs?

do you even understand the words you typed ?

yes social cohesion is good if most people have similar beliefs

and that belief is -

KEEP YOUR GDAMN RELIGION TO YOURSELF

>>301974
Is "keep stuff important to you to yourself" good enough for any kind of meaningful social cohesion though?

>>301921
I agree except for some details. I think further exploring this issue will cause me to steer the conversation more off-topic (towards pol), so lets end the discussion here.

>>301748

Wishful thinking hippie nonsense. There are a lot of religions out there and while they often share some basic things in common, they also contradict the shit out of eachother. Even different sects within the same religion can disagree strongly with eachother based most of the time on their own subjective views and biases and never. Good luck finding any truth in that sea of bullshit.

>>301968
What?

Are you one of those crazy people?

>>301982
Hey Wofshiem.
Welcome to /his/.
Glad to see you leave /pol/.

>>301982
Yes, because when you keep it to yourself and the other guy keeps it to himself you don't end up fighting over it.

>>301989
He's a tripshit. That means he's at the very least a stupid attention whore.

>>302004
>Guy1: hey buddy keep your fucking shit to yourself
>Guy2: Hey BUDDY, YOU keep YOUR shit to YOURSELF
...
>Guy1: oh no help a group of bandits is raiding my house!
>Guy2: you said to keep my shit to myself, and I told you to keep to yours.
...
There is no "keep shit to self" unifying force. Faggot.

>>302021
We're talking about religious belief.

>>302033
There is no unifying force in "keeping religion to one's self".
It's actually a nutural, or non-unfiying.
It will eventually cause conflict.

I was sitting at dinner in a restaurant the other day.

Two women sat down next to us and one asked the other to join in prayer, she said she wasn't religious "soooooooo... you can pray" eventually the woman gave in and joined (as women do). In other instances it would have caused conflict

>>302051
Non-unifying is not the same as divisive. You say it would have caused conflict in your example: yes, because one or both of them would not keep it to themselves. Had the faithful not turned it into an issue, or had the heretic not turned it into an issue, then there would not have been an issue, and therefore no cause for conflict.

Should we have one true religion for all, it would need to be rather stable and constant. And constant views of the world don't work well as it keeps down innovation and advances, now of course you could try to argue that innovation for the sake of innovation isn't desirable.

>>301742

so you aren't forced by idiots to believe in a god

>>301742
>Why is freedom of religion considered socially desirable? Isn't it better for social cohesion if most people have similar beliefs?
Because without it you ARE going to end up with an oppressed minority and they ARE going to end up revolting
not exactly good for social cohesion

>>301742
>Why is freedom of religion considered socially desirable?

It's not, that's why it's advocated. >muh diversity, cultural marxism, blabla /pol/shit bla, etc...

>>301929
>This comes from the belief that only the individual knows what is good for them because all individuals are different.
Not no really. It comes from the belief that with a limited time on earth its immoral to force people to think things they don't want to think, just leave it and let live. I really don't care what god people believe in and i don't think others should either.

>>301742

Well yea it is. But people like being special snow-flakes and don't like change.

>>302077
You don't have a right to supress people from expressing their opinions publicly. There is no possible way to prevent conflict, Religion must be a unifying force for a Nation.
However I'm assuming you're a burger and think the first Amendment is to keep religion out of Governance

Because there is no such thing as absolute truth. Every rational person knows this.

Freedom of religion is impossible. Islam requires a caliphate that enforces Shariah law. If they can't do that, they don't have freedom of religion. But if they do that, then nobody else has freedom of religion.

>>302209
This is stupid.

>the belief that with a limited time on earth its immoral to force people to think things they don't want to think, just leave it and let live.

None of this is about forcing. A state religion does not mean you're forced to be that religion. You have no grasp of what you're talking about.

>>302004
>disagree but don't take it any further
>this is a unifying force
This is no unifying force. Once things in a society get even a little bit intimate people will want to express themselves both generally and onto others. You're thinking conflict-resolution, not any form of social cohesion.

File: 1447951595354.gif (1MB, 316x195px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 316x195px

Religion is a social institute, it has a structure and functions. Currently the functions of this institute are in conflict with the dominant institute of economic relations. Therefore we don't enforce and even negatively sanction religion. It's not needed in the current social structure.

Because it's retarded not to as all reigion is made up. You might as well demand all people insidea conutry dress in giraffe suits.

>>301982
Usually it is accompanied by strong common beliefs in other areas, usually a common national identity.
And frankly it's worked pretty well so far.

>>301742
That shouldn't be an issue since social cohesion should be enforced by the same force that is enforcing that freedom of religion.

Secular government should be strong and have uncontested authority. If Islam submits to secularism like Christianity did then social cohesion happens.
That isn't happening since unfortunately secularism has grown weak and or self-defeating, so either it gets stronger either one of the other religious groups takes up its power, since 3 strong ideologies such as this can't peacefully cohabit for very long.

>>301942
Only when all of western Europe was Roman Catholic

>>301742
Why is social cohesion desirable?

Is order so important that it's worth getting by any means?

ITT: social engineers

the most disgusting type of person to ever existe.

File: ss2.jpg (290KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1024x768px

>>305723

>Implying that the government, the schools, the universities, and the courts aren't actively engaging in "social engineering" 24/7.

>>305805
How was he implying that?

Also what is your point?

>>305805
Why do you think I don't agree? Humanities course specially. Makes my heart warm to most of them suffer after graduating

>>305809
He just wanted to post that pic

>>301742
People aren't gonna let go of their beliefs so easily even if said belief is proven to be wrong(Protestantism for example is debunked through scholarly work on Early Christianity and Judaism). Going all out and telling them they are wrong ain't gonna cut it and would result in prolonged conflict in the long run. The solution? Religious freedom. That way you can even believe that the earth is merely 6000 years old regardless of scientific evidence and research and you can't go upon the throats of those that believe otherwise but just swallow it and let them have that belief.

>>301742
>literally shilling for the government regulation of thoughts and mindsets

Unification of armies is old school. If you cant afford to raise q few hundred thousand soldiers on cash alone then dont even bother showing up to modern war.

Freedom of religion then could exist as a constitutional niche to attract immigrants when you are underpopulated, although that has no chance of happening in many countries today because immigeants can only hurt the economy in some countries.

So its kinda nuetral these days.

>>305923
>protestantism is debunked
Compared to other sects of christianity it beleives that mary was overrated. What is there to disprove?

>>305960
Imagine this if i say that God is a snail and identify as Christian but somehow all information about the state of early Christianity shows otherwise, my belief would be an innovation that wasn't there to begin with. It's something new I added. This is the same with Protestantism. We find nothing of their key doctrines in the infancy of Christianity. Thus, it's false.