If a religion today promoted that a 50 year old can marry a 9 year old, would you ban it or not?
If a religion today claimed that the rapist of a woman who was single was forced to marry said woman, would you ban it or not?
Despite your attempts to provoke me, my answer to every question has been "it's fine" except for the clear cut case of abuse. Now you're continuing towards what I view as islamophobia even after my warning. I really don't understand what you're hoping for here.
Child abuse, rape, and forced marriage are all things that should be illegal. Claiming a law is wrong shouldn't be illegal, but if the church was actively pushing their members to commit crimes they would likely be accessories. At no point would I ban a religion.
But you bring up a great point again. Define religion? I take it Satanism is a religion to you yes?
Because this started with your objection to me saying religious persecution is wrong, and within three posts you had called Jesus gay and Muhammad a pedophile just to see what kind of reaction I gave. If you disagree, explain what you're hoping to get out of this interaction.
As a side note that many readers might find interesting, delusion as defined in the DSM-5, the book that defines what is and isn't a "mental illness", EXPLICTLY makes an exception for "religious beliefs" when it comes to delusions. I.E., if you believe in Zeus and Thor and claim you pray and worship them, you can can be admitted for delusion because those "religions" aren't considered socio-normal, I.E. no big groups of people actively practice them. It's kind of the idea why cults are considered delusions. Now, you take that same exact logic, but apply it to someone who claims they talk to Jesus or Allah, bam, exemption and it's perfectly normal delusions.
I wish people didn't hold beliefs I find nonsensical, but they likely feel the same way and any action I try to force on them will not improve anything. It's unfortunate that many are fine forcing things on me, but that doesn't mean I should adopt the practice.
>DSM-5
DSM-IV, it was changed in DSM-V.
As for your definition of religion, I think it is entirely relevant, as you suggest my ideas on redefining Christianity to include a gay Jesus is offensive to religion. Well, if you are going to claim that, I would challenge why this religious belief is less sacred than the traditional view of Jesus according to Christianity. How do you define religion is definitely relevant.
As for the last comment of it being DSM-V, what does that matter when referring to it as DSM-5? As far as I can tell, it is not a meaningful distinction. Do you disagree with the idea that religion has a specific exception in the current DSM when concerning religion?
>gay Jesus is offensive to religion
No, its intentionally trying to be offensive to the person you are talking to. Any example of a theological difference works for your argument, yet you kept returning to ones I said we're offensive.
The definition you provided was in the DSM-4, the one in 5 is different. I have no opinion on diagnosing delusions.
As for the DSM 4 versus DSM 5, please, if the distinction of which document we are using to define delusion has changed, do you mind explain your rational for why the DSM 4 has an explicit exception for religion concerning delusion when compared to how the DSM redefines it?
I was just fixing your mistake on the DSM part, but if I'm honest the religion exception was probably to prevent assholes from using it to label anyone religious crazy, and the new one makes it more clear harm is necessary.
And harm isn't necessary in the DSM 5. Where are you pulling that idea from? Which part of the wording specifically? I'm referring to delusion disorder.
All i said was banning an app based on intolerance of a belief is more objectionable than going after an app out of geopolitical rivalry.
Every classification describes harmful delusions, and the symptoms are about ways it negatively impacts your life.
As for religion and beliefs, is it possible to have beliefs without religion, or religion without beliefs? Can you ban one and not the other?
And banning for intolerance of a belief is exactly what happened to parler and Trump in the US. Are you against that as well even though it directly lead to an assault at the capitol?
Do you think religion or beliefs can have negative impacts on a life?
Everyone has unreligious beliefs, but my rough definition of religion requires beliefs. You could make a law banning religious beliefs, but enforcement would be a shitshow.
Beliefs can be a negative thing for your life, and they can lead you to things like insurrection. Banning them will not stop this, and will cause additional damage to society.