palou said:
With tolerance I mostly meant the spread of ideas. You could consider that an action.
I also don't think that anyone should be arrested, just that it's defendable to put blocks to prevent you from spreading your beliefs if they do not follow certain rules (I proposed 4, but that's of course something that needs to be debated upon.) |
And that's the problem. You can't put your rules on free thought, otherwise, it's no longer free. People must be completely free to express thoughts, and encourage similar thoughts in others, no matter how offensive. We as individuals then respond accordingly.
Your rules are flawed:
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. What if the superiority is justified? What if the fear is justified?
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. This conflicts with points 1, 3, and 4.
3. One must not promise you rights which are not yours according to law. I have free speach in point 2. I should be able to promise you whatever I want. I'm allowed to be lousy at keeping my promises. Also, laws are meant to be changed.
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. What if my ideas are infalable? Who are you to say they are not?
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.
