Freedom of religion or freedom of expression.

[Burning Water]

Which is more important to you, personally? Which is more important to progressive causes, in your opinion? Why? Let me come right out and say, IMO it is both. But freedom of religion does not impose any responsibilities on other people to admire or even respect your beliefs. Only your right to hold them. And freedom of expression does not constrain you to be "sensitive" to the beliefs of others; nor of them to yours.

There is no contradiction between the two. Both can be expressed fully by everyone. Only violence is prohibited. IMO, of course.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200604/INT20060421a.html

[Avalux]

1. There are both basic rights in this country -

and should be protected as such. The problem lies with those who see "freedom of religion" as the right to impose their religous views on others through government and judicial avenues.

[Burning Water]

3. Or, international

"understandings".

[mondo joe]

2. There's no difference, IMO. -eom-

[tocqueville]

4. proselytism should be forbidden

basically it can be considered like dubious marketing since you cannot prove that what you "sell" works.

[Burning Water]

8. I disagree.

Given the experiences of the 20th century, we can't prove Marxism works, either. Yet, people should be able to continue to discuss and refine the basic precepts in the hopes of making a better wowrld.

[JVS]

5. Are these not the same right?

[Burning Water]

9. No, I don't think so, but

they are, I think co-dependent on each other.

My real question, I guess, is who is in favor of stifling freedom of expression to protect the sensitivities, religious, or otherwise, of others. I am not. A free society means nothing if it doesn't include the freedom to state opinions that will offend someone.

Think of how conversation here on DU would be stifled if we had to consider the sensitivities of the cretins on FR.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. I think also inciting violence through speech

or as one of the Supremes said years ago"Your right to free speech doesn't include shouting FIRE in a crowded theater."

If a rw pundit posts personal phone numbers/or home addresses of peace activists and tells their listeners or readers that these people should be taught a lesson-or worse, these people are traitors and shouldn't be allowed to live-- and someone acts on this information by harming one of the people, do you think the rw pundit should be liable for inciting the crime? Or does posting personal information online with suggestions of doing said people harm covered under free speech, in your opinion?

[Burning Water]

10. If a rw pundit,

posts personal information on the web, she should receive the same punishment as anyone else doing so. If she incites violence, she should receive the same punishment as anyone else doing this crime. It is a crime to incite violence, but c'mon. treason? That it is not. "Treason" has a specific definition according to the United States Constitution, and being a right-winger is not included in it, nor is incitement to violence, rape, murder, or numerous other offenses. And I thought Sufis were against capital punishment, or am I wrong about that?

Posting personal information is not included among "free expression" rights, IMO. However, criticizing, ridiculing, or mocking a religion, even Islam, is. Or mocking anybody or any idea. Or expressing those ideas; however offensive or mistaken, or even evil. All come under the freedom of expression. Incitement to violence does not.

[porphyrian]

7. Freedom of Expression

Religion can be practiced in private, even in repressive environments. Not everyone believes in a religion. However, everyone deserves the right of freedom of expression.

[Burning Water]

11. all right then.

But religious people also have the right to express themselves about their religion, to discuss its ideas and doctrines, and to proselytize. All under freedom of expression. Don't you think?

[porphyrian]

12. I draw the line at proselytizing.

It's invasive, not merely free expression. Say whatever you want in the public square, but don't invade my privacy to do so. Also, don't be surprised or offended when my reaction to your proselytizing is to tell you to go fuck yourself.

[Burning Water]

13. Well, the public

square is what we were talking about. But that can be proselytizing. If someone approaches you personally, naturally you have every right to tell them that you are not interested. You even have the right to do it in the way you described, although I, personally, am too polite and too even-tempered to do so.


But should they be thrown in jail for trying to share their religion with you? Not unless they persist after being asked not to.