We don't need freedom of religion
ottawacitizen.com
We don't need freedom of religion
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: We don't need freedom of religion
#2That's one hell of a linkbait headline that the Ottowa Citizen came up with. A more accurate description of the article's thesis would be "freedom of religion can be derived from other rights which are explicitly recognized, like freedom of speech and association, and does not need to be explicitly protected as long as those other rights are genuinely protected." Put like that, it sounds a lot less controversial.
Re: We don't need freedom of religion
#3That's one hell of a linkbait headline that the Ottowa Citizen came up with. A more accurate description of the article's thesis would be "freedom of religion can be derived from other rights which are explicitly recognized, like freedom of speech and association, and does not need to be explicitly protected as long as those other rights are genuinely protected." Put like that, it sounds a lot less controversial.
Definitely. Mortgages are loans, but we have special laws for them anyway. There might be benefits to eliminating mortgage-specific laws, but it would be odd to term that argument as "mortgages don't need to be regulated".
Re: We don't need freedom of religion
#4That's one hell of a linkbait headline that the Ottowa Citizen came up with. A more accurate description of the article's thesis would be "freedom of religion can be derived from other rights which are explicitly recognized, like freedom of speech and association, and does not need to be explicitly protected as long as those other rights are genuinely protected." Put like that, it sounds a lot less controversial.
I agree, but isn't half of journalism the catchy headline that raises your article above the noise and into the spotlight?
Re: We don't need freedom of religion
#5That's one hell of a linkbait headline that the Ottowa Citizen came up with. A more accurate description of the article's thesis would be "freedom of religion can be derived from other rights which are explicitly recognized, like freedom of speech and association, and does not need to be explicitly protected as long as those other rights are genuinely protected." Put like that, it sounds a lot less controversial.
I agree that that headline is awfully dramatic --- but your summary misses what is, to me, the most interesting part of the article: that enforcing freedom of religion has led to inconsistencies in the way we maintain those other rights. The fact that we do have explicit protections of the freedom of religion means we are failing to genuinely protect speech, association, etc. That seems like a conclusion worthy of at least a little drama.
Re: We don't need freedom of religion
#6Here's a good article by Christopher Hitchens on freedom of religion: http://www.slate.com/id/2266154. Some examples of where he thinks religion oversteps its bounds:
- Mormon polygamy
- Christian sects that disapprove of medicine
- Ritual circumcision (especially when the mohel sucks off the debris from the penis with his mouth)
I would also add to that list the ritual slaughter of animals. Kosher and Halal both mandate that an animal cannot be stunned with a captive-bolt stunner before having their throats cut, and must be fully conscious. Needless to say, this cruelty only persists because of "freedom of religion".
If you ever want to get away with things you otherwise couldn't get away with, freedom of religion is probably the most potent argument you could unleash.
Re: We don't need freedom of religion
#7That's one hell of a linkbait headline that the Ottowa Citizen came up with. A more accurate description of the article's thesis would be "freedom of religion can be derived from other rights which are explicitly recognized, like freedom of speech and association, and does not need to be explicitly protected as long as those other rights are genuinely protected." Put like that, it sounds a lot less controversial.
To be fair... how often is the Ottawa Citizen linked to from Hacker News? I'd say it worked splendidly!
Re: We don't need freedom of religion
#8His examples are very carefully cherry-picked to support his claims. I'm to going to agree or disagree with his conclusions here, but an example that is useful for the purpose of discussion is the subject of turbans, such as the dastaars worn by the Sikhs he discusses.
At one time the uniform for a police officer in Toronto (and I'm sure everywhere else in Canada) included a cap that was quite inconsistent with the Sikh practice for men to wear a dastaar.
The law prohibiting discrimination against persons by reason of their religion is defined to include directly passing over someone because of their beliefs. But it is also held to include indirectly passing them over by way of rules and regulations that are inconsistent with their beliefs and practices unless there are strong reasons to enforce them.
The rules about uniforms were in a grey area. There are good reasons for police officers to wear a consistent uniform. But would a Sikh in a dastaar really violate those good reasons? The police changed its rules and regulations to include the dastaar as an option, with its colour and the inclusion of a badge on the head just as the original cap holds a badge.
Kirpans are a very contentious subject and reasonable people can and do disagree on how they should be handled. But dastaars are an example of places where a failure to provide legal protection for people to practice their religion could create an indirect discrimination that is inconsistent with Canadian values.
The author points out that if there's no good reason for a rule, it should be abolished for everyone. One interesting point of discussion is this: If there is no specific rule protecting the freedom to practice one's religion, how would rules such as the uniform rule for the police ever evolve?
Re: We don't need freedom of religion
#9That's one hell of a linkbait headline that the Ottowa Citizen came up with. A more accurate description of the article's thesis would be "freedom of religion can be derived from other rights which are explicitly recognized, like freedom of speech and association, and does not need to be explicitly protected as long as those other rights are genuinely protected." Put like that, it sounds a lot less controversial.
Well, it's a bit of a stealth piece, as he's claiming to argue that while really arguing the reverse. He's not arguing for greater freedom, he's arguing against religious freedom.
Look at the examples he chooses. He's not really arguing that anyone should be able to wear veils, not have pictures on their IDs, carry sheathed knives, etc. He's arguing that if voters wouldn't see any random person as needing/deserving to be able to do something, then nobody should be able to do it based on religion.
Myself, I'd say sure, let kids carry knives, whether pocketknives (as people in my neck of the woods happily let kids in prior generations) or kirpans. On the other hand, the writer's dog-whistling, saying that we should only do something as crazy as let Sikh kids carry kirpans if we'd be willing to have a stabby bloodbath in our (well, Canadian) schools.
While I'd love to be able to skip legal protection of enumerated rights, knowing that the government would respect my freedoms in every conceivable formulation, it ain't gonna happen. The best-case situation in Western society is that the government remains leery of obviously stepping on the rights that people most object to having abridged - free speech, religion, etc.
ETA: And yes, that means that some people will have a "privilege" - ie, they'll be exempted from some stupid law that would harm or impair them even more than it does everyone else. In that case, the answer isn't to attack the privilege, it's to attack the thing the privilege protects against.
Re: We don't need freedom of religion
#10That's one hell of a linkbait headline that the Ottowa Citizen came up with. A more accurate description of the article's thesis would be "freedom of religion can be derived from other rights which are explicitly recognized, like freedom of speech and association, and does not need to be explicitly protected as long as those other rights are genuinely protected." Put like that, it sounds a lot less controversial.
I agree, but isn't half of journalism the catchy headline that raises your article above the noise and into the spotlight?
I started to think that it's part of the internet age of journalism, but quickly realized I was just being naïve. The sensationalism of headlines is as old as the headline.