All over the world our asgardians are living. they are the followers of diffrent religions. So we should not criticize any religion. There should a provision in our constitution

I would have to disagree wholeheartedly. Such a provision would infringe upon the freedom of speech of our citizens. Criticism should be allowed, as the exchange of ideas is vital for a healthy society. Had the religious views of long ago not been challenged, we would still believe our planet is flat and the center of the universe. Individuals should no doubt have the right to hold any beliefs they want, but silencing clashing world views just isn't the way to go about protecting everyone's beliefs.

deleted

Comment deleted

Such a system would require the government to formally recognize religions and identify them as having special protection, else anyone can declare a religion that requires them to commit crimes then claim prosecution constitutes criticism of their religion.

Do we want a government that decides which religions are legitimate and which ones are BS?

Comment deleted

Why does religion get a pass from scrutiny? Does that mean that in your Asgardia that the stoning of homosexuals goes without question or sanction? What about forced conversion or killing of non-believers? Enshrined inequality of the sexes?

I realise these are extreme examples, but there are many, many more examples from various religious beliefs that are incompatible with a nation based on free thinking, equality and free speech.

Comment deleted

@ clive

I know right. The amount of time I'll have to waste brushing my hair and ensuring that I'm not mixing polyesters with my cottons of a morning will detract from my other more useful pursuits. Plus, how will I be able to get a BLT in a nation where criticism of religion is not tolerated???

Comment deleted

I totally agree. If we are to rise above the issues plaguing many existing nations we MUST learn from history.

One of these lessons is that disputes over religion have consistantly lead to persecution, death and destruction in the name of God, Allah, Tlaloc, Zeus, Odin, Ra, Ahura Mazda and (insert any other diety name here). If you were to objectively look at the ledger of good done vs evil done by religion throughout history, breaking even is the best case.

I have no issue with religion as an individual private pursuit. However, nothing good has ever come from religious influence being exerted in politics, education, markets, science or on other citizens. Religious affairs MUST be completely and permanently separate from the affairs of the state.

My 2 cents.

I feel that a very important distinction must be made between ORGANIZED RELIGION and GATHERINGS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE.

When it comes to GATHERINGS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE, people should be permitted to practice whichever religion they'd like, so long as...

1) There's complete transparent-ness in their activities.

2) It is done in a private area designated for religious purposes or, failing that, in a private residence (i.e. it doesn't become a cult).

3) They allow followers to come to them, rather than soliciting others.

4) They come up with their own funding if they would like to establish a church, mosque, temple etc.

5) The religion does not in any way require the sacrificing of children, animals or people.

When it comes to ORGANIZED RELIGION, I feel that it should be constitutionally bound to never be permitted to exist within the same sphere as politics, and religious organizations of all shapes and sizes should not qualify for any sort of tax-free status. They must either pay taxes like every other organization, or tithe their followers.

...is there something wrong with sacrificial offerings? That provision seems to come out of left field and would effectively outlaw the routine rituals of many religions. Though, since sacrifices are typically burned or buried, they might have to be banned on Asgardia proper for safety reasons anyway.

It depends of what you call criticizm. I mean, I have the right to not be agree and to give an opinion obviously, as well as I have the freedem of beliefs and religion, and this must be respected.

We have to ban every type of insults, but constructive critics have to be accepted.

Example: I'm not agree with the Coran when it says THIS because of THAT. Or I think the pope should allow THIS because THAT.

These have to be accepted because they're constructive.

BUT: This Ayatollah is a ass.... . Or this Brahman is a #$*&@%$@

Have to be rejected and banned.

Surely any such restriction must have the same kind of scrutiny that a slander charge would, with the burden to prove that there were damages done and that the speech was made maliciously, in bad faith, and falsely, firmly on the allegedly damaged party. This is a high standard and it is imperative to ensure that such a law was only a tool to protect people, not a tool to silence people, which is the ever present fear of all secular people when religious elements gain the legal privilege to persecute those who offend the faith.