freedom of belief: oppressive freedom?
(copied dirently from a post in my own livejournal)
I was writing an entry in forgottenrealms (hey, I'm a big nerd, so be it), and I'll later put it over in idealists. I was thinking about religious tolerance, and, the right to believe in what one chooses to believe in. I formalized a problem I had been thinking about for a while. While I think that being allowed to choose what one believes in, and believe in such beliefs without infringement, is morally, "good" for a lack of a better word (I don't like to use the words "good" and "bad" or "evil" in such a sense... but for time's sake, okay).
However... What if someone believes in something that implies infringement of the right of others to believe what they choose to believe in? What is an acceptable method to deal with this situation? This may make more sense if I use an example similar to the one I used in forgottenrealms.
This mock-play has three characters:
Idealist (I use the term loosely and in representation of myself and my beliefs)
Evil King (althoguh Evil King does not necissarily mean someone in a leadership position)
Others (referring to People at large)
An Idealist is (and I use the definition of this term loosely, merely for the example), someone who believes that everyone should have the right believe in whatever they choose to believe in without an oppression of their beliefs or an infringment of their right to choose their own beliefs.
Evil King is not an Idealist.
Evil King maintains a belief that Idealist percieve to inheirantly infringe upon other's right to believe in what they choose to believe in.
Evil King's beliefs cause an infringement upon the rights of others to believe in what they choose to believe in, as well as an oppression upon their beliefs. (Such theories may include but are not limited to: "might makes right", natural selection, religions which restrict governmental rights*, and religions which declare all other religions as 'wrong'. *I understand governmental rights is a completely subjective phrase.)
Evil King, in excersizing his beliefs, is not allowing others to believe what and how they want to believe.
Evil King, in not allowing others to believe what and how they want to believe, is in opposition to my belief that others should be allowed to believe what they choose to believe.
Now, morally, I have two options: 1) Do something about Evil King and save others from his infringement and oppression, thereby allowing Others to believe in what they want to believe in, or 2) Do nothing about Evil King, and allow Evil King to freely believe in whatever he/she/it desires.
If I choose 1, I will be going against my own belief and essentially oppressing Evil King's belief, and infringing upon his right to believe in whatever he chooses to believe in. If I choose 2, I will be allowing all of the Others to remain oppressed and infringed upon, and my own initial belief will be effectively useless as it is unable to be applied.
Therein lies my conundrum. Of course, as obvious answer occured to me. The wording of the initial belief could be changed to, "An Idealist is (and I use the definition of this term loosely, merely for the example), someone who believes that everyone should have the right believe in whatever they choose to believe in without an oppression of their beliefs or an infringment of their right to choose their own beliefs as long as their beliefs to not imply an infringement upon the rights of others to believe in what they want to believe in, or an oppression upon their beliefs." It would solve the problem, but I cannot help but feel that giving what I percieve to be "freedom of belief" such a clause would be slightly hypocritical. I feel as though it would be saying, in a sense, "You can all believe what you want to believe, as long as you acknowledge that my belief is still true". I feel as though it is just a modified, dressed-up version of oppressing the beliefs of others.
So... I don't know. I hope that all made sense. I guess I can't really desire an absolute freedom of belief, because that I would be potentially advocating a belief that oppresses others. I guess, where do we draw the line? "All beliefs are acceptable as long as they are able to co-exist with other beliefs"? I guess I'm hesitant to add the typical U.S. phrase to the end, "to any reasonable person", as "reasonable" might very well be the most subjective term there is. (I'm not making an off-color remark, I was born and raised, and still live in the U.S., and very well be the whitest person on the planet, and still find it puzzling that a government of primarilly rationalists would use such a phrase so casually)
Ahh... I'm not sure. But that's my little paradox I have going on. So... repsonses of any kind would be enjoyed mougominomously. (mougominomously is defined as 'to such a degree that one must make up a new word in order to display with accuracy)
On a possibly related note, I think that balance is preferrable to any extreme any day (and have noticed that an extreme of anything will inheirantly have negative consequences)- this was pretty much exactly mentioned by ceruleanswirl in idealists when he/she (sorry) brought up extremists, idealists, and balance.
I earlier brought up the idea of "absolutism", (which I personally would definne as "having a characteristic of being absolute, irrefutable, and correct without questioning- applied to any idea and not just government). I was looking up words and prefixes for my english paper, and I came across, 'ab', which implies, 'away'. This would mean that, assuming "-solutism" implies, "of a solution", the word "absolutism" might literally be translated into "away from a solution". Just a thought, I enjoyed it.
Sorry for writing such long-winded novels. Thanks for the time of reading all of this mumbo-jumbo, and thanks in advance for any responses at all.
I was writing an entry in forgottenrealms (hey, I'm a big nerd, so be it), and I'll later put it over in idealists. I was thinking about religious tolerance, and, the right to believe in what one chooses to believe in. I formalized a problem I had been thinking about for a while. While I think that being allowed to choose what one believes in, and believe in such beliefs without infringement, is morally, "good" for a lack of a better word (I don't like to use the words "good" and "bad" or "evil" in such a sense... but for time's sake, okay).
However... What if someone believes in something that implies infringement of the right of others to believe what they choose to believe in? What is an acceptable method to deal with this situation? This may make more sense if I use an example similar to the one I used in forgottenrealms.
This mock-play has three characters:
Idealist (I use the term loosely and in representation of myself and my beliefs)
Evil King (althoguh Evil King does not necissarily mean someone in a leadership position)
Others (referring to People at large)
An Idealist is (and I use the definition of this term loosely, merely for the example), someone who believes that everyone should have the right believe in whatever they choose to believe in without an oppression of their beliefs or an infringment of their right to choose their own beliefs.
Evil King is not an Idealist.
Evil King maintains a belief that Idealist percieve to inheirantly infringe upon other's right to believe in what they choose to believe in.
Evil King's beliefs cause an infringement upon the rights of others to believe in what they choose to believe in, as well as an oppression upon their beliefs. (Such theories may include but are not limited to: "might makes right", natural selection, religions which restrict governmental rights*, and religions which declare all other religions as 'wrong'. *I understand governmental rights is a completely subjective phrase.)
Evil King, in excersizing his beliefs, is not allowing others to believe what and how they want to believe.
Evil King, in not allowing others to believe what and how they want to believe, is in opposition to my belief that others should be allowed to believe what they choose to believe.
Now, morally, I have two options: 1) Do something about Evil King and save others from his infringement and oppression, thereby allowing Others to believe in what they want to believe in, or 2) Do nothing about Evil King, and allow Evil King to freely believe in whatever he/she/it desires.
If I choose 1, I will be going against my own belief and essentially oppressing Evil King's belief, and infringing upon his right to believe in whatever he chooses to believe in. If I choose 2, I will be allowing all of the Others to remain oppressed and infringed upon, and my own initial belief will be effectively useless as it is unable to be applied.
Therein lies my conundrum. Of course, as obvious answer occured to me. The wording of the initial belief could be changed to, "An Idealist is (and I use the definition of this term loosely, merely for the example), someone who believes that everyone should have the right believe in whatever they choose to believe in without an oppression of their beliefs or an infringment of their right to choose their own beliefs as long as their beliefs to not imply an infringement upon the rights of others to believe in what they want to believe in, or an oppression upon their beliefs." It would solve the problem, but I cannot help but feel that giving what I percieve to be "freedom of belief" such a clause would be slightly hypocritical. I feel as though it would be saying, in a sense, "You can all believe what you want to believe, as long as you acknowledge that my belief is still true". I feel as though it is just a modified, dressed-up version of oppressing the beliefs of others.
So... I don't know. I hope that all made sense. I guess I can't really desire an absolute freedom of belief, because that I would be potentially advocating a belief that oppresses others. I guess, where do we draw the line? "All beliefs are acceptable as long as they are able to co-exist with other beliefs"? I guess I'm hesitant to add the typical U.S. phrase to the end, "to any reasonable person", as "reasonable" might very well be the most subjective term there is. (I'm not making an off-color remark, I was born and raised, and still live in the U.S., and very well be the whitest person on the planet, and still find it puzzling that a government of primarilly rationalists would use such a phrase so casually)
Ahh... I'm not sure. But that's my little paradox I have going on. So... repsonses of any kind would be enjoyed mougominomously. (mougominomously is defined as 'to such a degree that one must make up a new word in order to display with accuracy)
On a possibly related note, I think that balance is preferrable to any extreme any day (and have noticed that an extreme of anything will inheirantly have negative consequences)- this was pretty much exactly mentioned by ceruleanswirl in idealists when he/she (sorry) brought up extremists, idealists, and balance.
I earlier brought up the idea of "absolutism", (which I personally would definne as "having a characteristic of being absolute, irrefutable, and correct without questioning- applied to any idea and not just government). I was looking up words and prefixes for my english paper, and I came across, 'ab', which implies, 'away'. This would mean that, assuming "-solutism" implies, "of a solution", the word "absolutism" might literally be translated into "away from a solution". Just a thought, I enjoyed it.
Sorry for writing such long-winded novels. Thanks for the time of reading all of this mumbo-jumbo, and thanks in advance for any responses at all.