If there was a religion of hate, do you think it should be allowed to be practiced?

Already is.

Any religion that looks to spread is going to use "us vs them" hatred and eventually violence to get their message across.

thank you.

Uh, is this a rhetorical question?

I mean, we have them, and they are. Sooo....

cough conservatism cough

It should be allowed to exist. But we should still condemn actions taken by it's followers that have negative impacts on society

but allowing hate to be preached increases hate.

so why would you allow it?
- Because disallowing it would be worse. This has been a hot topic of debate for centuries. Check out the book On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.

I think anything is fine as long as they’re not hurting anyone. So if their hate is confined to themselves idc.

What if their hate is confined to their children, is that fine too?
- Fair enough. I don’t believe in children being indoctrinated into any belief personally, but obviously that’s a lot harder to police.
- exactly
but confined hate eventually spreads once it gains a significant following. so why allow it in the first place?
- How do you disallow it? Preventing people from practicing a religion would require a system so draconian that the drawbacks would far outweigh any possible benefit.
- Punishing thought crimes?

There is a religion of hate: American Protestant

It's far from the only one.
- Oh, don’t get me wrong, I think all religions are ridiculous. These “Evangelicals” in particular are just the most outwardly hateful people lately.
Is that more hate than American catholic? Where I am from everyone is Protestant or not christian at all.

That might be because we fought a few wars about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

Who would determine which religions are hateful and which aren't? How would this be enforced?

In order to preserve tolerance, we must be intolerant to the intolerant. Give plaforms to the hateful religion, and the next thing they'll do is to play victim whenever they're being criticized for being intolerant.

So no change from business as usual.

We did just have an interesting experiment in free speech over the last few years, and it’s still not clear where it ends up.

In the US there’s a carveout where online providers are not liable for what their users say, as long as the platform is free and open. However as the current craziness started breaking out, they did start moderating more, preventing at least some false info and at least some calls to endanger public safety. However, are they still not liable, now that they actively participate in what is allowed on their systems? Where should the line be drawn between false and endangering vs free speech, in what people use social media for? When it was just the village idiot spewing hate and violence, we could mostly ignore them, but what about when they have global reach, connect with other village idiots, actually instigate violence?

Depends on why people call it that, I suppose.