I think the basic test for whether or not someone's morally upright and mature is if they can roundly condemn bad actions of people with basic

similarities to them without apologizing or weaseling out of it.

Every atheist should be able to roundly condemn the purges of religious people in Soviet Russia and other Communist countries.
Every Christian should be able to roundly condemn the colonialist policies of numerous European countries.
Every Muslim should be able to roundly condemn the campaigns against homosexuals and apostates in numerous Islamist countries.
Every Jew should be able to roundly condemn the Israeli campaign against Palestinians.
Every Buddhist should be able to roundly condemn Myanmar's violence against Muslims.
Every Hindu should be able to roundly condemn Hindu nationalists in India and the violence and discrimination they've inflicted against Muslims.

And every one of them should do so without pulling out a No True Scotsman fallacy or similar argument without a strong basic in fact because different people practice religion or nonreligion in radically different ways. And every one of them should be able to do so without apologizing or show even a pinch of remorse because they should understand that we are not responsible for the actions of others, even if those others have something in common with them.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Psycho · 26-30, M

What if it is part of a person's moral code to believe homosexuality is wrong and that is their responsibility to fight against it? They are supposed to adhere to your belief that we should follow a universal code of morality and sacrifice parts of their holy book that they really believe in?

Morals vary, there is no right and wrong objectively it is a concept, which is dependent on things such as personal beliefs, laws, religion, influence etc.

In the modern day we are diversifying and mixing cultures which inevitably leads to conflict.

View 19 more replies »

Psycho · 26-30, M

@BlueVeins From how I'm seeing it you are all for making the World inclusive for these people because they are vulnerable or discriminated against but you think that all these groups should adhere or adapt to your morals. That
doesn't happen. I don't want the World to be all the same.

I accept that people have different beliefs and I encourage them even if they are harmful to mine but I will fight them if they ever come to my doorstep.

We are in a big greedy ideological war between cultures and nations, China wants to rule the World, America wants to rule the World, Russia wants to rule the World. What if one ideology prevails? We all act the same, are scared to express any difference.. that is awful.

We need diversity even if the other person's way of life is harmful to our own.

If it is us Vs the Muslims I will fight the Muslims, me Vs the gays I will fight the gays even though I am bisexual and have no problem with them.

People use groups that have been victimised to push their ideologies and I hate that.

BlueVeins · 22-25

@Psycho I don't want the world to be the same; I just don't want people to be victimized. Accepting people with bigoted beliefs until they actually are "on your doorstep" is kinda shitty because they're on someone's doorstep; even if you personally don't have to put up with Islamic fundamentalists, for example, there's gonna be some gay people living around them. By failing to speak out against them, you're indirectly screwing up the gay people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Psycho · 26-30, M

@BlueVeins At the same time there are activists ruining people's lives by putting out smear campaigns, police being injured for what a few bad eggs do. Their is conflict everywhere.

People will always be victimised for one reason or another, I'll look after myself and those on my path but I can't fix the world. Because people of all creeds can have shitty harmful beliefs.

adorbz · 26-30, F

and the same principle applies outside of religion too

deadgerbil · 26-30

Yup. It's not a difficult concept to understand, people should be critical of their own side and not hesitate when elements of their group go astray and act bad

SW-User

I agree. If your only response to the reprehensible behavior of your "brothers in ideology" is to get defensive, make excuses, and resort to logical fallacies, it's a sign of a lack of moral conviction and maturity to me. One only need look at the defense of politicians who engage in behavior X when they belong to your party and a condemnation of politicians who do the exact same thing but belong to the opposing party.