This has come to my mind when thinking about religious diversity.

I am generally utilitarian, and of the conviction that adversity must be limited.

I do, however, believe in a certain right to believe what you want.

What I propose is a disctinction of beliefs that cannot be tolerated

1. One must not sell superiority, through faith or any arbitrary quality among believers (see: caste system.). It must not give the right to judge others because of their beliefs, or instigate excessive fear of the lack of belief, attacking the irrational.

 
2. One must not oppose the fundamental rights of any human, can not take away their right to free speech, and more importantly, free thought.

3. One must not promise you rights which are not yours according to law.

4. One must be open to debate, questioning. It cannot sell itself as infallible, and must allow, or even encourage the exploration of other ideas, particularly amongst youths. 


If a philosophy/religion/sytem of beliefs fails to fulfill any of the above, I believe it must be adjusted accordingly, and only then tolerated by society.

This would all be to reduce adversity and prevent infectious thoughts that attack our irrationality.

So, what do you think?

Saw your post on the other thread. It was damn good.

To answer your question, it depends on what you're tolerating. Expression of beliefs should be tolerated as long as they don't call for harm against other people. However, practice of beliefs is another story. If the practice of a belief infringes on a fundamental right, then it shouldn't be tolerated.

No. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and xenophobia should not be tolerated.

There you are! I'm surprised that you haven't replied to any of my posts recently.

People should have freedom of religion as well as freedom FROM religion and should thus be allowed to believe in whatever they desire.

However, just because someone believes in something does not mean they are above criticism.
If you walk around preaching about your then you need to justify such claims with a thing called "evidence". - And no Religion has any yet that I am aware of.

I think in society we should all question claims more stringently, rather than believing something blindly. Ultimately it's not what you know that is important anymore, it's knowing how to get the correct information you need.

Only belief I wn't tolerate is the one that suggests that others aren't entitled to their own beliefs.

No single human being has the right to impose a belief system on anyone else. But who are we kidding, religion is and has always been a form of control.

As they say, money will make people work for you, but religion will make them work for free.

That would be the first criteria I stated - those all sell superiority above others.

No, if it's crazy it shouldn't be tolerated.

 Pretty much this

OK. I was mainly talking about what I think, instead of commentating on your proposal. #2 refers to free speech, and some people think that what I mentioned falls under that category, so I had to clarify that. Of course, when talking about #3, the question is who is going to decide the laws? Are we talking about existing laws, or completely starting over?