I'm pretty sure some beliefs actually ruin lives (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.). Do you just accept all of them as being "weird and wacky"? Shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? Even the great thinkers in ethics like Kant or John Stuart Mills draw the line somewhere, each in their own way... but both utlitarian and kantian ethics would agree that preventing sexuality equality is unethical.
Lots of beliefs ruin lives. I can show you conservatives who fervently believe that having high taxes on high income earners would destroy the country, because Henry Ford types would then find it more attractive to take a 40 hour a week management job at an established corporation than to spend 100 hours a week to create a new industry, and the lack of anyone selling affordable transportation would then condemn anyone not born within walking distance of gainful employment opportunities to a life of abject poverty (and so on for each generation's major innovations). There are serious scientists who argue that not imposing a significant carbon tax right now will soon result in irreparable damage to the planet and widespread death, destruction and famine. Then there are people who argue the opposite of these things -- that not imposing serious taxes on the rich will lead to insufferable inequality, that the increase in energy costs that would come from any serious effort to address climate change will be extremely regressive and cause real immediate harm to those living in poverty, etc.
Take any issue and you'll find two sides to it. You can believe that your side is right, but the other side believes that their side is right. One of you has to be wrong, but that doesn't mean either of you is evil. Everybody is wrong sometimes.
You're sure that it isn't you who is wrong in this specific case because it affects you individually. If you were wrong about this then the result would be to your detriment. But that doesn't prove that you're right -- or that you're wrong. It only proves that you have a stake in the outcome, which (because you're human) makes you want to paint those who disagree with the position you take as the enemy. But they're not evil. They just disagree with you on an issue that personally affects you.
I'm not saying I have proved that I am right. I simply provided an argument for the position (which you have failed to do). I just said that homophobia ruins lives (and it does, ask a homosexual). Now, it is up to the other party to say "ah, but gay marriage is bad because the Bible says so." Then, when all arguments are done, it is up to the judge to say who is right and who is wrong.
You can't just say "umm but no one is evil and everyone disagrees and everyone ruins someone else's life some way or another so what the heck? Let's just do whatever?" That leads nowhere.
Were you expecting me to defend the religious zealots? I never said I agreed with them. All I'm saying is that they're normal humans who have jobs and lives. They don't get up in the morning and say, "geez, how can we make life hard for pilgrim689 today?" A lot of them honestly believe that they're acting in your interest by saving you from eternal damnation.
>Then, when all arguments are done, it is up to the judge to say who is right and who is wrong.
The judge is just a lawyer in a robe. The judge can be just as wrong as anyone else. (See e.g. Dred Scott.) And the judge doesn't get the final say anyway, we do. We The People get to appoint different judges or pass new laws or amend the constitution. So we have to decide somehow which of you is right or wrong. Isn't it better to treat one another as people acting in good faith and have a debate and try to convince each other than to wage a holy war where each side dismisses the other as a immoral and proceeds to partisan political maneuvering rather than mutual understanding?
>it is in no way their place to dictate what is or is not in the previous poster's "best interest".
That's the libertarian position. Which is fine, but know that you're now in the company of those who think it should be fine to sell methamphetamine or asbestos or expired food and medicine because people should be free to decide what's in their own interest.
>When the radical theists do, I am fairly sure the rest of us will be amenable.
I don't think the radicals are the real obstacle. They're just the loudest and the most obnoxious -- and they're the hardest to convince anyway. What you need are the moderates who are just on the other side of the line. They're the ones who you never see on television but you always see in the voting booth. Which is why condemning anyone who disagrees with you is a bad strategy. You don't want to fight against the middle, you want to convince them to fight for you.
Sure... and what caused the action? Was it not the belief? So should I have said "beliefs indirectly ruin lives"? Actually, does the action even directly ruin lives, or is it the way you react to an action that will ruin your life or not? Bah. It's just a nitpick, isn't it?
My apologies, I shouldn't have been so brief. Where I was going with my comment is that I don't take issue with other people's beliefs. What I take issue with is how they treat others. They may treat people badly because of their beliefs or because they're jerks... just as someone that is a biggot may still treat people well (ie "you're lesser than me, but all people deserve response").
