Locke and religious tolerance

[Nearly Sane]

Neat little essay covering some of the issue of religious tolerance from the basis of John Locke



https://blog.oup.com/2017/04/religious-tolerance-locke-philosophy/

[floo]

It is the religious extremists who should never be tolerated.

[Dicky Underpants]

It is the religious extremists who should never be tolerated.

Any plans for their re-education?

[floo]

Any plans for their re-education?

Probably only a brain transplant would do the trick!

[Robbie]

Often thought I'd have loved living during the age of Enlightenment (with modern medicine and sanitation of course  .

[Jack Knave]

"And then the intolerant person is in a position to make a case for religious persecution on the part of the state: there should be penalties for non-attendance at church so that people are induced to attend and at least to give a hearing to the teachings of the state-approved religion."

Yeah, lets start the English civil war all over again.

But this just highlights that religions are just social and cultural institutions and customs, which is why all the arguments in the article fail for the faithful. Which is why some try to impose it on others by force. In my view religion shouldn't be tolerated at all. They are archaic and are not suitable for the modern world.

[jeremyp]

It is the religious extremists who should never be tolerated.

The problem is what are you going to do about them? If you suggest any kind of violence or locking them up, you are as bad as they are. If you do things like ostracise them or harangue them for being idiots, they do stupid things like vote for a tangerine twat for president.

I'm afraid they have to be tolerated in a free society.

[Robbie]

jeremy p - "If you do things like ostracise them or harangue them for being idiots, they do stupid things like vote for a tangerine twat for president."
 

We don't take much notice of them over here. Remember a few years back there was a Christian Alliance political party fronted by someone called Ram Gidoomal (who had been a Hindu, then a Muslim & eventually a Christian but that's another story),and George Hargreaves. they got a lot of air time but when it came to election they sank imto obscurity.
No=one seems to care about religious beliefs of our political leaders as long as they are moderate. Always amazes me what a big thing the Americans make about it.

[Jack Knave]

The problem is what are you going to do about them? If you suggest any kind of violence or locking them up, you are as bad as they are. If you do things like ostracise them or harangue them for being idiots, they do stupid things like vote for a tangerine twat for president.

I'm afraid they have to be tolerated in a free society.

No. You send them to a country that lives by that religion. Or if they are moderate in their views, relative to the state they live in, then they live by that countries laws with no special favours. If they show signs of erring from those accepted norms then they know they will be deported. And this is done by them being totally transparent in their affairs.

[jeremyp]

No. You send them to a country that lives by that religion.

What country lives by fundamentalist Christian principles?

Who decides who needs exiling and who doesn't?

[Jack Knave]

What country lives by fundamentalist Christian principles?

Who decides who needs exiling and who doesn't?

As I said if they abide by the rules of the law of the land, and don't ask for special arrangements then they can stay.

The culture and law of the land dictates the terms of those who can stay and those that have to be deported.

[Robbie]

Deported to where if they are born and bred here?
We do have communities here already who, though law abiding, do have special arrangements, eg regarding education of children. They've lived here peaceably for a long time but have an exclusive culture. Would you turf them out (it's happened before)?

[trippymonkey]

R
What exactly do you mean when you say
'do have special arrangements, eg regarding education of children'

[Robbie]

Run their own schools with mainly religious curriculum, especially for boys. That's a special arrangement. Not everyone has it.
I am not complaining about them at all Trippy, just highlighting that we do have such communities in our midst and they are part of the UK. I wouldn't like to see them 'deported' & don't understand how they could be, being as they belong here.

There is not just one culture here that everyone has to conform to.

If someone breaks the law that's a different matter; of course they should be arrested and tried,maybe go to prison but someone who is a citizen, like ourselves, can't be just shipped off somewhere else - as convicts were sent to Australia in days gone by.

[jeremyp]

As I said if they abide by the rules of the law of the land, and don't ask for special arrangements then they can stay.

If people don't abide by the rules of the land (and this applies to anybody, not just religious fundamentalists) we already have a system to deal with them: we put them in prison.

[Robbie]

The problem is what are you going to do about them? If you suggest any kind of violence or locking them up, you are as bad as they are. If you do things like ostracise them or harangue them for being idiots, they do stupid things like vote for a tangerine twat for president.

I'm afraid they have to be tolerated in a free society.

Yes!

If people don't abide by the rules of the land (and this applies to anybody, not just religious fundamentalists) we already have a system to deal with them: we put them in prison.

That's right, if we break the law we risk imprisonment.

I wonder what sort of people you are talking about when you say -

As I said if they abide by the rules of the law of the land, and don't ask for special arrangements then they can stay.

The culture and law of the land dictates the terms of those who can stay and those that have to be deported.

Please explain.  Could be any of us if we have practices and beliefs that are not the 'cultural norm' (whatever tht is).

[trippymonkey]

What about practices such as child brides ?
Where do we draw the line & say NO !!!!!?

[Robbie]

That's already illegal here anyway. No-one can marry under 16 and then need parental permission but I'd have thought you knew that.
It does happen in other countries and there are charities which we can support to fight it (Plan International UK is one I know about which does tremendous work), but I thought we were talking about here in the UK.

[floo]

The problem is what are you going to do about them? If you suggest any kind of violence or locking them up, you are as bad as they are. If you do things like ostracise them or harangue them for being idiots, they do stupid things like vote for a tangerine twat for president.

I'm afraid they have to be tolerated in a free society.

No they should NOT be tolerated in a free society, if they are abusive and violent.

[Robbie]

Nobody said abusive and violent people should be tolerated floo; if you read back people have said quite the opposite.

What we are talking about is UK citizens, like ourselves. If they commit a crime (& aif they're caught of course), they will be duly punished, that is what prisons are for, but they cannot be deported anywhere. The days of transportation are over.

Not conforming to 'our' culture, whatever that may be, is not a crime and in a tolerant society we will accept differences - sometimes even celebrate them.

A different scenario would be if a person from another country, without UKcitizenship rights, commits a crime here. For example a person from, say, Brazil or Russia, who is here for a month or two. They would be deported, i don't know how it works, they'd likely be remanded here first but eventually packed off.

[floo]

Nobody said abusive and violent people should be tolerated floo; if you read back people have said quite the opposite.

What we are talking about is UK citizens, like ourselves. If they commit a crime (& aif they're caught of course), they will be duly punished, that is what prisons are for, but they cannot be deported anywhere. The days of transportation are over.

Not conforming to 'our' culture, whatever that may be, is not a crime and in a tolerant society we will accept differences - sometimes even celebrate them.

A different scenario would be if a person from another country, without UKcitizenship rights, commits a crime here. For example a person from, say, Brazil or Russia, who is here for a month or two. They would be deported, i don't know how it works, they'd likely be remanded here first but eventually packed off.

Funny I thought we still deported our citizens to Oz if they were naughty!

[Robbie]

Some would undoubtedly like to  . (we could transport a few nasty politicians).
Must have been 'orrible though, thinking about it; people sent there who had often only committed petty crimes. It was a hard life when they got there too,survival of fittest.

[floo]

Some would undoubtedly like to  . (we could transport a few nasty politicians).
Must have been 'orrible though, thinking about it; people sent there who had often only committed petty crimes. It was a hard life when they got there too,survival of fittest.

Ii would be great to send some of our citizens on a one way voyage to the far reaches of the Universe, paedophiles and serial killers would be top of my list.

[Robbie]

Imagine the horror/sci fi movies that would generate!

[Jack Knave]

Deported to where if they are born and bred here?
We do have communities here already who, though law abiding, do have special arrangements, eg regarding education of children. They've lived here peaceably for a long time but have an exclusive culture. Would you turf them out (it's happened before)?

In my hypothetical proposition if they did not meet the requirements then yes. Past performance is no guarantee for future behaviour - history shows us that.