Okay so this thought sprung as I was thinking about how distasteful I found the idea of censorship, enforced religion based norms etc.
Debate this, though.
If you’re absolutely convinced in what you believe in, and what you dont. If you absolutely know what is right, what is wrong, what is good, what is bad, arent you morally obliged to deter others from doing what is wrong/evil/harmful even if they dont see it that way yet? Consider that you have come to know a certain object contains poisonous materials, you would certainly do everything possible to keep your kid from chewing on it however tempting that prospect seems to munna.
Lets not talk about “intelligent” objectors. Lets focus on people who just want religious freedom, not because of religious basis, but because they want to live freely. They’re either not informed enough about their religion or they dont care about it, either way they want freedom to say, not do hijab (as in Iran). Is the Mulla class morally obliged to repress them?
if that is the case anyone who beleives otherwise is then morally obliged to oppose them right?
I know what you are saying. I am just bringing the other side in too.
so if someone believes one thing and tries to force me to comply.. if i do not agree with it, would i not oppose it and also would i not try to force him to comply to how I think he should live his life?
so either we could have this truggle on an ongoing basis among everyone, or people can chill out back off and let everyone do their own thing. communicate, educate, try to persuade... but dont aggravate othes by forcing them to comply.
But you missed out a caveat I included in my post. I was specifically referring to people who are either uninformed or uninterested enough to not oppose these policies based on specific beliefs, but merely because they're fascinated by whatever is banned by the rule of law. Thus worthy recipients of the likening-to-children treatment. I assure you, there are plenty of those.
As for those who do have beliefs, yes they would be morally obliged to oppose the oppressers in support of their beliefs. Im not sure though that the answer lies in "chilling out". Wouldnt it be more positive to actually debate and hammer out differences in beliefs? (and then enforce those...)
1) this specifc group that you think is un-ifnormed/mis-informed/under-informed... do they realize it or do they feel they know enough to take a stance?
2) if you are forcing somethign upon them, would your opponents not be similarly forcing another thing upon these ppl. so if mullahs are in power they force religion, if someone liberal is in power he forces something else. The people follow because they have to but do they really learn or do they follow for the sake of following, and do they oppose just because they dont liek terms being dictated to them?
Now the solution part..
Now as far as the solution goes..you may have missed the latter part of my post.
chilling out is just the first step. following that is the part where i said "communicate, educate, try to persuade... but dont aggravate othes by forcing them to comply."..
add to it your point about debate, and you have a pretty good system there.
People should also realize that education, debate and discussion will not mean that others will agree with you, they may still disagree, and people have to agree to disagree and learn to live with it and "chill out" if that happens.