• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it wrong to dislike or look down on someone based only on their religion?

Is it wrong to dislike or look down on someone based only on their religion?

  • Total voters
    73
X Factor said:
In your 50+ posts a day, do you ever offer anything other than "left good, right baaaaaad"? Just curious. In fact, you have a religious like devotion to your "side".

Oh, and if you want to discuss abortion, go so to some other thread.
Click to expand...
Keep up with the discussion. And abortion is relevant to people forcing their beliefs on others.
 
David_N said:
Keep up with the discussion. And abortion is relevant to people forcing their beliefs on others.
Click to expand...

I notice which part of my question you couldn't/wouldn't answer (probably because the answer is obvious).

Incidentally, you want to force your beliefs on others, too, so don't think you're all above that. Your own devotion to your political "side" is quite religious in itself and, of course, you'll support left wing legislation enforcing your left wing beliefs on others, so try not being such a huge hypocrite (for, at least, a couple of your 50 posts a day, anyway).
 
Born Free said:
Its easy to see around the world that Muslim extremist are using a religion based on killing anyone that does not believe the way they do. They have "0" tolerance. I see no legit argument to accept this religion as they view it. We are actively out to destroy this religious belief.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. I see no reason to commit genocide. Otherwise, exactly how do you 'destroy' an idea, a belief?

That only drives it underground. The answer is education to change the smaller radical believers..or eradicate them.

btw, in case you didnt realize it, you just endorsed doing exactly what ISIL, AQ, etc are attempting.
 
Cardinal said:
It's legitimate to look down on someone if their religion has become toxic. Obviously if someone is inspired by their religion to raise a happy, well-adjusted family, not be judgmental toward others simply for being different, and give to charity, I'm not going to look down on him.
Click to expand...

Paleocon said:
Yes, some religions (as well as a lack of religion) provide good grounds for not wanting to accord someone the same rights and privileges as members of other religions enjoy.

No. Religions are not created equal. One might be founded by the Son of God, while another might have been founded by a neurotic academic, while yet another might have been founded by a desert pedophile.
Click to expand...

Case in point of the 'toxic' and reason that there would not be any one (or more) religion to single out, but only individuals.
 
Lursa said:
Speak for yourself. I see no reason to commit genocide. Otherwise, exactly how do you 'destroy' an idea, a belief?

That only drives it underground. The answer is education to change the smaller radical believers..or eradicate them.

btw, in case you didnt realize it, you just endorsed doing exactly what ISIL, AQ, etc are attempting.
Click to expand...

Fine then fly over a couple of plane loads of teachers, ministers or whoever you think is needed to teach ISIS they are all wrong in their belief. I have to wonder how long it will take ISIS to cut all their heads off. Does naive mean anything to you?

Even Hillary says ISIS has to be destroyed. I believe Obama said the same thing but he didn't mean it.
 
countryboy said:
We can always count on you for hypocritical nonsense. *cough* social liberals *cough* :roll:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, hypocritical nonsense comes spewing from both sides like vomit. The world of politics would be much more productive if people would be more balanced in their approach. No one has all the answers.
 
X Factor said:
I notice which part of my question you couldn't/wouldn't answer (probably because the answer is obvious).

Incidentally, you want to force your beliefs on others, too, so don't think you're all above that. Your own devotion to your political "side" is quite religious in itself and, of course, you'll support left wing legislation enforcing your left wing beliefs on others, so try not being such a huge hypocrite (for, at least, a couple of your 50 posts a day, anyway).
Click to expand...

Which ones? Welfare is probably one...and I'd agree but altho I dont think anyone likes paying for it, I think liberals just see it as the lesser of 2 evils. Obamacare...I'll totally give ya that one.

Otherwise, which ones?
 
Born Free said:
Fine then fly over a couple of plane loads of teachers, ministers or whoever you think is needed to teach ISIS they are all wrong in their belief. I have to wonder how long it will take ISIS to cut all their heads off. Does naive mean anything to you?

Even Hillary says ISIS has to be destroyed. I believe Obama said the same thing but he didn't mean it.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you dont believe that ISIL speaks for all Islam :doh

Otherwise, did you actually understand anything I wrote? Like this:

Lursa said:
The answer is education to change the smaller radical believers.. or eradicate them.
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
Which ones? Welfare is probably one...and I'd agree but altho I dont think anyone likes paying for it, I think liberals just see it as the lesser of 2 evils. Ogamacare...I'll totally give ya that one.

Otherwise, which ones?
Click to expand...

Mostly I tend to think of environmentalism centered regulations, then there's the banning of soda (over 16 ounces) and happy meals. The truth is that everyone supports their own morality being legally enforced to some degree, and I'm not arguing that it's necessarily even wrong. That's what politics is. Trying to get your political team in the best position to advance what you'd like to see happen.
 
Absolutely not. A religion is just a system of belief. It is no more wrong to look down on someone because they choose to believe in an imaginary man in the sky than it is because they are racist. It says something significant about their worldview and their mental capability.
 
X Factor said:
Mostly I tend to think of environmentalism centered regulations, then there's the banning of soda (over 16 ounces) and happy meals. The truth is that everyone supports their own morality being legally enforced to some degree, and I'm not arguing that it's necessarily even wrong. That's what politics is. Trying to get your political team in the best position to advance what you'd like to see happen.
Click to expand...

As someone with a degree in resource management, I tend to take a much longer-term view on that subject. We're all going to pay for that short-term ignorance, esp future generations.

But I agree on the soda, transfat, sodium kind of stuff but that is all pretty localized and those things are not outlawed, but their availabiilty restricted. But I do agree they're mostly useless.
 
eohrnberger said:
*cough* Atheists *cough*

I think it pretty much a universal applicability that you shouldn't force your believes on others.
Click to expand...

Atheists lack belief.

The area reserved for having faith irrelevant of evidence lacks or is empty (nothing there) in Atheists. So what belief is there to force on others?
 
Born Free said:
Fine then fly over a couple of plane loads of teachers, ministers or whoever you think is needed to teach ISIS they are all wrong in their belief. I have to wonder how long it will take ISIS to cut all their heads off. Does naive mean anything to you?

Even Hillary says ISIS has to be destroyed. I believe Obama said the same thing but he didn't mean it.
Click to expand...

Militants are not the challenge for teachers and ministers, ignorance is.

Science sheds light and removes ignorance with research, religion sustains ignorance with dogma and re-iteration of ancient people's opinions. So basically the fight would be between teachers and Imam's/Priests over people's future. If people know more then they may be prevented to join the suicidal and dangerous groups such as ISIS.
 
DDD said:
Atheists lack belief.

The area reserved for having faith irrelevant of evidence lacks or is empty (nothing there) in Atheists. So what belief is there to force on others?
Click to expand...

Some of you do would like to force your belief that there is no god onto others.
 
Lursa said:
As someone with a degree in resource management, I tend to take a much longer-term view on that subject. We're all going to pay for that short-term ignorance, esp future generations.

But I agree on the soda, transfat, sodium kind of stuff but that is all pretty localized and those things are not outlawed, but their availabiilty restricted. But I do agree they're mostly useless.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I think some laws designed to protect the environment are absolutely reasonable and necessary. Some seems more geared to punish or hurt certain unfavored industry, though.
 
X Factor said:
Mostly I tend to think of environmentalism centered regulations, then there's the banning of soda (over 16 ounces) and happy meals. The truth is that everyone supports their own morality being legally enforced to some degree, and I'm not arguing that it's necessarily even wrong. That's what politics is. Trying to get your political team in the best position to advance what you'd like to see happen.
Click to expand...

Banning sodas and happy meals would make sense if the government is funding healthcare. Poor diet is a leading cause of illness in this country. One cannot have both the freedom to make poor choices and the security to have those poor choices subsidized. The universe doesn't work that way-- it's the whole.. for every action there is a reaction sorta thing..
 
clownboy said:
No, people are free to like or dislike whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. Religion and politics are two eternal mainstays.
Click to expand...

What you're saying is, people are free to be as wrong as they want.
 
Cally said:
Banning sodas and happy meals would make sense if the government is funding healthcare. Poor diet is a leading cause of illness in this country. One cannot have both the freedom to make poor choices and the security to have those poor choices subsidized. The universe doesn't work that way-- it's the whole.. for every action there is a reaction sorta thing..
Click to expand...

You're right, the government and freedom are incompatible, aren't they? Yet some support more and more government. It's weird.
 
DDD said:
Not believing is not a position. There is simply nothing there to force on others.
Click to expand...

'Not believing' IS a position. How can you say that saying there's no God isn't taking a position? And nearly every atheist I've met was an evangelist at heart; some atheists are basically fundamentalists and intolerant of any other position.
 
Lursa said:
Please tell me you dont believe that ISIL speaks for all Islam :doh

Otherwise, did you actually understand anything I wrote? Like this:
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?


Yeah you said "I see no reason to commit genocide.
Click to expand...

Eradicate them is what you said, which means kill them all or to put it another way, "commit genocide"

Otherwise, exactly how do you 'destroy' an idea, a belief?
Click to expand...

The exact say way as you eradicate them, which I believe is the same as "destroy"

That only drives it underground.
Click to expand...

Now you contradict yourself, you state you want to eradicate or destroy them but that only drives it underground. You seem to not know what your saying

The answer is education to change the smaller radical believers..or eradicate them.

btw, in case you didnt realize it, you just endorsed doing exactly what ISIL, AQ, etc are attempting."
Click to expand...

btw, in case you didnt realize it, by eradicating them you just endorsed doing exactly what ISIL, AQ, etc are attempting.
 
X Factor said:
You're right, the government and freedom are incompatible, aren't they? Yet some support more and more government. It's weird.
Click to expand...

Conservatives, generally.
 
X Factor said:
I ask because I've seen it argued that not only is it not wrong, it's actually quite prudent. Of course, others disagree, strongly. I see legit argument either way. Certainly, I don't like to be viewed as delusional or mentally ill, but people have a right to that opinion. Can we all agree that whatever the response is, it should be the same response regardless of the religion itself?
Click to expand...

It does not depend on the religion, unless it is a crazy cult... it depends on the person.

Examples:

Muslims are fine. Muslims that want to kill non-Muslims are scum.
Christians are fine. Christians that tell me I will burn in Hell for not believing in God are scum.
Jews are fine. Jews that screw me out of money with international banking... well, nothing to do with religion, they are just assholes as people.
 
I would say Muslims that want to kill anyone are scum.
Bodhisattva said:
It does not depend on the religion, unless it is a crazy cult... it depends on the person.

Examples:

Muslims are fine. Muslims that want to kill non-Muslims are scum.
Christians are fine. Christians that tell me I will burn in Hell for not believing in God are scum.
Jews are fine. Jews that screw me out of money with international banking... well, nothing to do with religion, they are just assholes as people.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom