The Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression

Hard to argue with. Predict some will try.

I believe this is one of the most important statements:

quote:

---

There is no right not to be offended, or not to hear contrary opinions. Respect for people’s freedom of belief does not imply any duty or requirement to respect those beliefs.

---

quote:

---

I believe this is one of the most important statements:

quote:
There is no right not to be offended, or not to hear contrary opinions. Respect for people’s freedom of belief does not imply any duty or requirement to respect those beliefs.

---

I agree

quote:

---

Freedom of belief is absolute but the freedom to act on a belief is not.

---

Freedom of belief should be regarded as absolute not because it's innocuous without a corresponding action but because it's merely a biological reaction to available environmental inputs. True belief is ALWAYS innocent even when doctrine is not, and therein lies a major theological problem. The theist who asserts a merciful god but with a conditional paradise must also assert the opposite of my first statement, that is, he must insist that belief is NOT an innocent process but one of will.

So, we're left to contend with persons who are not fully committed to the notion of freedom of belief, even when they publicly agree that it exists. Within my understanding, there are only two values that can be assigned to a particular belief: true or false. Those other persons... those theists.... add another set of qualifiers: whether it's willful or not, and thus are willing to accept that some beliefs deserve punishment, albeit not in the here and now. A principle they're perfectly willing to ABIDE and for which they'll even proclaim an assent, therefore, is not one to which they ultimately subscribe. Such mental dissonance, unfortunately, surely results in social conflict.

quote:

---

Jihadists stand in opposition to the motion, Mr. Chairman. Become Muslim or die.

---

As for physical fates in THIS world, that was a Christian attitude, as well, until enlightened people such as Mr. Chairman had the bravery and paid the sacrifice to speak up.

As for eternal existence, it's still an attitude we can ascribe to most Christians.

quote:

---

So...the moral freedom to meet an opposing action with an equal reaction is off the table?

---

You misunderstood the statement.

ONLY actions deserve other actions. The mere holding and/or espousal of a belief should bear no reactionary physical consequence.

quote:

---

One recent issue I had a bit of trouble with was the one that involved a bakery refusing to sell a cake to a certain client on account of the client's open sexual preference as it stood against the baker's personal beliefs. I seem to remember that the baker lost the case; not sure.

---

You've misrepresented the facts of that case and the boards reaction to it.

The bakery never refused to sell anything to a client on account of the client's open sexual preference. The bakery simply refused to offer a certain product on the grounds that doing so would be against their personal religious beliefs. I think many on the board conveniently failed to see the obvious difference between the two.

quote:

---

It is literally what they did.

---

Nope. They are happy to sell products to gay clients. The just refused to make a certain custom product. The refusal was based on the nature of the product requested, not on the basis of the customers sexual orientation.

Let me ask you, according to The Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression, if person A believes X is morally wrong while person B maintains X is objectively good, can person B compel person A to do X for the common good?