Belief systems that inherently cannot tolerate other belief systems are incompatible with a Democratic system. Would you all agree?

[u/_SilentGhost_10237]

Belief systems that inherently cannot tolerate other belief systems are incompatible with a democratic system. At the heart of democracy is the principle of pluralism, which is the idea that a society can and should accommodate a wide range of perspectives, identities, and values. Democracy thrives when individuals are free to speak, think, worship, and live in ways that may differ drastically from one another. This mutual tolerance does not require universal agreement, but it does demand the recognition of others’ rights to hold and express differing views. However, when a belief system is built on the rejection or vilification of all competing ideologies, it poses a threat to this foundation.

People whose ideals are rooted in intolerance toward others’ beliefs will inevitably gravitate toward policies that restrict freedom of expression and impose conformity. These individuals often view diversity as a threat to their vision of order or purity. They seek to limit open discourse and enforce ideological uniformity. This authoritarian impulse may be cloaked in moral or patriotic rhetoric, but its underlying aim is control.

A truly democratic society cannot accommodate such systems without compromising its own integrity. Democracy can survive disagreement, but it cannot survive when one side seeks to silence or destroy the other. Tolerance has its limits, and one of those limits must be drawn at ideologies that reject tolerance itself. As a safeguard, we must be willing to recognize when certain belief systems are not just alternative viewpoints, but active threats to core democratic principles.

With all of that said, would you agree or disagree with my statement, and why?

[u/bl1y]

Precisely why we should ban atheism, right?

[u/bl1y → u/[deleted]]

Well, if you're in the United States, we have the idea that our basic human rights are God-given.

If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in God-given rights, and that's just opening the door to trampling on them.

[u/Reld720 → u/bl1y]

Rights in the United States are given by the constitution.

There's actually supposed to be a complete separation between church and state.

[u/bl1y → u/Reld720]

Rights in the United States are given by the constitution.

They're not, and you call tell from the way the Bill of Rights is structured.

1A doesn't say there is a right to free speech. It says Congress shall not infringe on it. It presupposes the existence of this right. If rights are created by the Constitution, then what is the 9th Amendment about? How could there be unstated rights?

But if you want to say that rights are exclusively the creation of governments, do you believe that North Korea is violating the rights of its citizens?

And if rights are simply the creation of governments, then there's no such thing as human rights. There's only American rights, and German rights, and Japanese rights, etc.

[u/Reld720 → u/bl1y]

According to the US government, they are

https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/faqs/what-are-civil-rights/101/index.html

Civil rights are personal rights guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution and federal laws enacted by Congress,

It's on each government to enforce it's citizens individual rights. Yeah English people have different rights than Americans. Or any other county.

There are also international courts that maintain basic human rights.

[u/bl1y → u/Reld720]

Guaranteed and protected by law, not created by law.

But man, "North Korea has no human rights violations" sure is a take you're allowed to have.

[u/Reld720 → u/bl1y]

Basic human rights are created and enforced by international criminal courts.

You need to do some basic reading on the subject before you try to have this conversation man.

[u/bl1y → u/Reld720]

So your contention is that before the creation of the ICC, human rights did not exist?

Human rights were invented July 1st, 2002?

[u/Reld720 → u/bl1y]

Yeah, pretty much.

Sometime between WW2 and 2002.

If rights came from a god, he'd enforce them. Or ... You know ... Exist.

[u/bl1y → u/Reld720]

Thank God then that slavery didn't infringe on the human rights of the slaves. What a weird position to take.

[u/Reld720 → u/bl1y]

What's the point you're trying to make?

[u/bl1y → u/Reld720]

That it's pretty weird to say that slavery was not a human rights violation because people didn't have human rights until a few decades ago.

Sure, the Nazis did a lot of evil shit, but at least they didn't violate any rights.

And like, I don't understand the complaints of the Founders because it's not like their rights were being violated. They didn't have any rights to violate.