Exactly. And you tell them in no unertain terms that they are wrong, instead of making excuses because "it's their culture" or because of freedom of religion.

Harmful ideologies do not get a free pass in my book just because they claim divine backing.

Agreed but it works both ways - non-religious harmful ideologies can be almost as bad.

What proportion of people - even of western college-educated liberals - genuinely, in their heart of hearts, supports free speech even when it's speech they disagree with, freedom of religion even when it's a religion they disagree with, and all the other enlightenment values? I fear it's pretty low.

I support freedom of speech - absolute and unrestricted. I don't support freedom of religion, but support freedom from religion - no other human should be able to force religion on other. The religion should be private matter to the individual and individual alone.

> I support freedom of speech - absolute and unrestricted. I don't support freedom of religion

That, at first reading does not appear to be internally consistent. At some level freedom of religion is freedom of speech. Unless you want to lobotomize people who are religious so they no longer speak their mind on the subject but you can't have the one without the other.

Religion is more than just beliefs and speech. It is also religious organizations, religious rituals and so on.

The first part I support - no one should be prevented (or punished) for saying - I believe in X. On the other hand there should be total override of secular laws towards the commandments - if your country orders you (or forbids you from doing) something that contradicts with your beliefs - you do it, and sort it out with your deity later.

> if your country orders you (or forbids you from doing) something that contradicts with your beliefs - you do it, and sort it out with your deity later.

Independently of religion, this is horrible policy. Not every country has rational sane laws, not every goverment wants their populace to be free. If you'd be given the option in Hitler's Germany to join the army or die, would you comply or try to fight?

The rational thing is to figure out if your beliefs are reasonable, then adjust them if necessary, and then to act according to them, law or not. The source of your beliefs aren't half as important as what you do to figure out if they are sane and have a positive impact or not.

You're being disingenuous. venomsnake's point was that a nation should treat religiously-motivated violations of its laws the same way as any other violations of those laws (and not provide legal exceptions on religious grounds). When an individual should consider it worthwhile to break the laws of their country is an orthogonal concern.

That's not the angle he described it from. He said what he thought the individual should do. If you think I shouldn't have taken him on his word, you're equally disingenuous.

Freedom of Religion means I can practice whatever religion I want without the Government telling me I can't. It does not, in any way, force religion upon anyone.

That is the keyword. Practice. You cannot practice that parts of the religion that contradict with a country's laws. But that don't infringe on your freedom of religion since no one is punishing you for your religious beliefs.

> I support freedom of speech - absolute and unrestricted.

What if my "free speech" involves drawing masses of people and telling them, persuading them, to kill you, your wife, your kids, your mother and father because you have the wrong skin color, eye color, religion or whatever else I imagine?

Then I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it.

Nobody does this in practice. Absolutely nobody. Ask any Holocaust survivor.

That's a very polite way to deal with the problem.

I've seen first hand that most people bend easily. A very charismatic leader can do a lot of harm.

I'm a firm believer in anti-hate-speech laws.

>I'm a firm believer in anti-hate-speech laws.

And I am firm believer of benevolent dictatorship. The main problems comes with the inheritance - how can we ensure the next is also benevolent?

Same is with speech - we cannot project into the future how laws banning (especially widely defined as the lawmaker bodies love to do them) categories of speech will be abused - so it is better safe to not have them at all.

No need to wait that long, usually the benevolent dictator of today is the tyrant of tomorrow.

Fair enough, but in that case you're not really a supporter of free speech. If you believe in outlawing certain kinds of harmful speech, why not other kinds of harmful speech?

That's a false dichotomy. Freedom is not absolute, it's already limited through various laws.

Why should speech be absolutely free when I am not absolutely free?

Well I will gather a bigger rally and convince them to defend me. Or will convince them that you are the real threat. Or I will convince your people that you are just a phony that copulated with pigs in high school.

Here is a good rule of thumb - any restrictions on speech hurt the weaker side more ...

Try suggesting that Americans give up their guns, and you'll hear a lot about culture. Suggest that some places in USA don't fly a CSA flag and you'll hear about culture. Tell some christians that they need to teach their kids that's it's OK to be gay, and you'll hear a lot about religion and freedom of religion.

The veil of ignorance [1] is a very nice step in the quest for a universal human morality. It abstracts away culture and makes biases and prejudices painfully clear, whatever the cultural background to reveal universal human values.

Try to imagine being a black islamic lesbian undocumented immigrant in a small bible belt town. You have little knowledge of the English language. An immunology disorder makes it dangerous for you to get a vaccination. Your hobby is collecting fossils. Your neighbors would have to throw quite a bit of their culture out of the window if they really want to treat you with the respect you deserve as a human. Good people will make the effort, and rightly so.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_ofA very strong reason for moving moral positions for may... _ignorance

Its exactly what he said, those people should not get a pass either.

However I would also argue that for all of those their are non cultural/religion arguments that can be applied.

Precisely! and wrong ideas need to be challenged unequivocally regardless of their origin or dogma.

Although I don't think that is the point you were trying to make.

True. But for the most part, it is just talk. They don't throw you off a building for being gay as a rule (there are hate crimes committed, but they are unfortunate exceptions, not a rule).