We don't need freedom of religion • Hacker News Board

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#31

Post by anamax » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 5:30 AM UTC

Semiapies wrote: post #12

diiq wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I absolutely agree with that premise. However, I'd only buy that as the writer's real message if he wasn't going for a subtext of Gee, look at all the unreasonable privileges people get on the grounds of religion! I'm reminded of the argument that we shouldn't support gay marriage, but instead should support getting government entirely out of marriage and letting any consenting adults form any arrangement they want.…

> I can't help noticing that people giving that objection are uniformly straight.

That says something about your powers of observation.

I note that most people giving that objection are unmarried, and a large fraction are "uncoupled".

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#32

Post by anamax » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 5:36 AM UTC

mingdingo wrote: post #20

Semiapies wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kosher, at least, is not a standard for "ritual slaughter of animals", but a dietary standard. Kosher meat rules require fairly humane methods of animal slaughter, whereas captive-bolt stunners are the rug under which many factory-farms try to sweep their treatment of animals at slaughter-time. As for halal, I'm not as familiar, but due to the level of ignorance you've shown on kosher, I'm going to have to call shena…

Just answer one thing: Do Jewish slaughter laws call for the animal to be conscious when having its throat cut, and do you think this is preferable to being stunned? That is, if you HAD to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you want it to be stunned or not? I probably used Kosher and Halal incorrectly, but suffice it to say that slaughter of conscious animals is widely practiced in the Jewish and Muslim f…

> That is, if you HAD to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you want it to be stunned or not?

If you had to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you rather beat it unconscious first?

Anything can be black and white if you leave out enough details. And, you can even decide which side is which with your choice of details.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#33

Post by fleitz » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 5:43 AM UTC

slammdunc23 wrote: post #24

raganwald wrote: post #8

His 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 S…

I think the turban example is perfectly consistent with what the author said. You ask "how would rules such as the uniform rule for the police ever evolve?" The answer is: in much the same way! Under this author's understanding of that example, the rule under scrutiny would be: "Every policeman must wear a uniform cap." The Sikhs, wishing to wear dastaars, would petition the chief of police to be able to wear a dasta…

Agreed, these exemptions CREATE discrimination based on religion by providing different rules for people depending on their religious beliefs.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#34

Post by nkurz » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 5:45 AM UTC

Semiapies wrote: post #16

mingdingo wrote: post #6

Here'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 ma…

Kosher, at least, is not a standard for "ritual slaughter of animals", but a dietary standard. Kosher meat rules require fairly humane methods of animal slaughter, whereas captive-bolt stunners are the rug under which many factory-farms try to sweep their treatment of animals at slaughter-time. As for halal, I'm not as familiar, but due to the level of ignorance you've shown on kosher, I'm going to have to call shena…

I think you are more wrong than right. While 'kosher' is a dietary standard, there are certain conditions that must be met before meat can be considered kosher. These ritual slaughter techniques fall under 'shechita', which traditionally requires that the animal be unharmed (hence unstunned) before its throat is sliced with a knife in a very particular manner. If this is not done, the meat is not eligible to be considered kosher.

Various countries currently have exemptions to their humane slaughter rules explicitly for Jewish and Muslim traditional practices. Here are some citations:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=docum...

http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/21457/controversy-...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2977086.stm

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#35

Post by mingdingo » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 5:46 AM UTC

anamax wrote: post #32

mingdingo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just answer one thing: Do Jewish slaughter laws call for the animal to be conscious when having its throat cut, and do you think this is preferable to being stunned? That is, if you HAD to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you want it to be stunned or not? I probably used Kosher and Halal incorrectly, but suffice it to say that slaughter of conscious animals is widely practiced in the Jewish and Muslim f…

> That is, if you HAD to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you want it to be stunned or not? If you had to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you rather beat it unconscious first? Anything can be black and white if you leave out enough details. And, you can even decide which side is which with your choice of details.

I didn't leave out details. We are talking about stunning it with a captive-bolt stunner.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#36

Post by gnaritas » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 6:10 AM UTC

anamax wrote: post #27

pkulak wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's possible to wrongfully discriminate against someone based on their choices. If someone wants to be part of a religion that wears some special clothing, great, but then there may be sacrifices that go along with that choice. This isn't like not installing wheelchair ramps. People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be.

> People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be. Is religion a choice? I ask because some religions forbid conversions "out", a few with rather serious penalties. Since most adherents of those religions are entered into them by their parents (that is, without their consent) ....

Since when has forbidding people from doing something ever stopped them from doing it? Yes, religion is a choice; anyone can at any time choose not to believe.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#37

Post by kablamo » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 6:15 AM UTC

anamax wrote: post #27

pkulak wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's possible to wrongfully discriminate against someone based on their choices. If someone wants to be part of a religion that wears some special clothing, great, but then there may be sacrifices that go along with that choice. This isn't like not installing wheelchair ramps. People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be.

> People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be. Is religion a choice? I ask because some religions forbid conversions "out", a few with rather serious penalties. Since most adherents of those religions are entered into them by their parents (that is, without their consent) ....

Interesting.

I think the answer depends on who you are. It is a choice if you don't believe in religion. Its not a choice if you are religious.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#38

Post by Natsu » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 6:15 AM UTC

pkulak wrote: post #21

raganwald wrote: post #8

His 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 S…

I don't think it's possible to wrongfully discriminate against someone based on their choices. If someone wants to be part of a religion that wears some special clothing, great, but then there may be sacrifices that go along with that choice. This isn't like not installing wheelchair ramps. People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be.

> I don't think it's possible to wrongfully discriminate against someone based on their choices.

Does that mean you're okay with any discrimination against atheists by forcing them to engage in some religious practice?

Or is atheism not a choice?

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#39

Post by nickpinkston » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 6:20 AM UTC

slammdunc23 wrote: post #19

avdempsey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Hitchens' examples reflect some basic rights a civil libertarian should want to protect. Mormon polygamy: the government shouldn't be telling you who you can or can't marry. Christian sects that disapprove of medicine: the government shouldn't be forcing you to make changes to your body. Ritual circumcision (especially when the mohel sucks off the debris from the penis with his mouth): sounds gross to me, but th…

The government certainly /can/ tell you "how to care for a member of your tribe" if that member is a minor. The ritual circumcision Hitchens references led to a small but deadly outbreak of herpes among recently circumcised babies. The government should let /adults/ practice their religion as they choose, but there would certainly be a rational basis for concluding that this particular practice unnecessarily endanger…

Government can tell you things to or not to do that are by some definitions "immoral" - a legal argument here is moot. You talking utilitarian principles - not libertarian ones.

A civil libertarian would reject the notion that a government should restrict you from a personal activity (which parenting certainly is) - because of society's majority judgment against it. They'd easily call this tyranny of the majority - whether you agree with it or not.

However, a "classic liberal" would come at this from a natural law or humanist perspective and say there is a moral reason to do / not to do such things.

There is a distinction between civil libertarians and classic liberal civil liberties.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#40

Post by sorbus » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 6:22 AM UTC

kablamo wrote: post #37

anamax wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be. Is religion a choice? I ask because some religions forbid conversions "out", a few with rather serious penalties. Since most adherents of those religions are entered into them by their parents (that is, without their consent) ....

Interesting. I think the answer depends on who you are. It is a choice if you don't believe in religion. Its not a choice if you are religious.

Sort of like being gay, then: if you support it then it's not a choice, if you dislike it than it is a choice. I wonder how many other things there are which function in the same manner ...