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

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#41

Post by Semiapies » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 6:31 AM UTC

mingdingo wrote: post #28

Semiapies wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Just answer one thing" Ah, so this isn't a matter of ignorance, but deliberate portrayal with a yes-or-no gotcha question. But no, the requirement for an animal to be conscious is not universally agreed upon in kosher law. Further, the intent of kosher slaughter practices is to induce rapid loss of consciousness through blood-loss, minimal pain via the use of a razor-sharp blade, and a resulting humane death. You ca…

Would it be more humane to cut an animal's throat while it was conscious, or unconscious? That's all I'm asking. If that's considered a gotcha question, then we've probably reached an impasse...

That's all I'm asking

No, it isn't. You tried to go on about ritual slaughter of animals, then backpedaled as your ignorance was pointed out. Now you're trying to reduce the issue of cruelty to animals in a slaughterhouse to a question of consciousness at the moment of slaughter, ignoring the fact that kosher laws require better treatment of animals than the civil laws governing slaughterhouses. The "we stun them, so they don't suffer" line is a favorite of the meat industry, even if it doesn't always work out that way.

But then, cruelty to animals isn't your concern. After all, it would be most humane not to slaughter the animal at all - but conspicuously, you're not arguing for vegetarianism.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#42

Post by Semiapies » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 6:35 AM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #34

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…

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 consi…

"I think you are more wrong than right"

Do justify that, especially in the context of the widespread abuse of animals under those humane-treatment laws.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#43

Post by raganwald » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 6:38 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…

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 dastaar instead. The chief of police (or whoever), would then think to herself, "Well, is it all that important that our police officers wear matching CAPS, or is the important part merely that they wear headgear that matches the rest of the outfit and contains a badge?" She would then conclude that the more appropriate rule, which should apply to /everyone/, regardless of his religion, should be that every police officer must wear a hat of the appropriate color and that the hat must contain a badge. A Sikh could wear a dastaar; an atheist could wear a baseball cap or a turban--or a dastaar. The point is that /anyone/, not just a Sikh, can wear /any/ hat he chooses, so long as it meets those standards that /are/ considered too important to change, such as matching color and a badge.

You have an enormously optimistic view of police chiefs. Or perhaps police chiefs where you live are reasonable, inclusive people who are always looking for ways to broaden their force's recruiting.

Whereas up here in Toronto, the opposite was true. The police force remained staunchly Euro-centric until forced by rule to reconsider rules like the requirement that officers wear the prescribed hat. Left to their own devices, police chiefs saw no reason to change their rules about headgear or the minimum height required to be a police officer.

The changes didn't come because Sikhs petitioned the chiefs of police, the changes came because Sikhs petitioned the courts. And that is why we have constitutional democracies: Some portions of our rules and regulations cannot be left up to the "free market" or an executive branch that is concerned with obtaining a plurality of votes in the next election.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#44

Post by Semiapies » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 6:40 AM UTC

anamax wrote: post #31

Semiapies wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

And they remain straight people unrestricted by the status quo, arguing against removing restrictions on others on grounds that are naive at best, disingenuous at worst. Do you have a point?

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#45

Post by charlesju » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 6:52 AM UTC

I've come to realize that no moral issues can be boiled down into black and white. All moral debates have strong examples on either side.

The goal of government, however, is not to take a stance on moral debates. It's to create laws that are amenable to both situations.

I believe with this professor is trying to say is that the constitution, or written law, should not include laws that are categorically protective of civil liberties that may not be culturally acceptable. We need to break down civil liberties in this particular arena into more granular cases and judge based on those cases as opposed to an overarching blank check for religion.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#46

Post by known » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 6:57 AM UTC

Your religion must be private.

If you intend to make religion public via pony tails, emblems, beards, burkah, turbans etc, you're advertising your religion viz http://goo.gl/dHSA8 Govt will regulate every advertisement.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#47

Post by yycom » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 7:00 AM UTC

The problem with laws and regulations kowtowing to religion is who is the arbiter of authentic religions vs. other arbitrary mumbo jumbo? What stops me (or L. Ron Hubbard) from inventing a religion specifically contrary the law so I can evade responsibility for paying tax, enslavement, or eating babies?

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#48

Post by firemanx » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 7:00 AM UTC

avdempsey wrote: post #11

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…

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…

As a counter point to your first item - the government now doesn't really tell you who you can and can't marry, at least from a religious perspective. However, in the US at least, marriage is often done both religiously and legally, which imparts a whole slew of rights, obligations, and benefits. From the legal and governmental perspective, polygamy is an abuse of this (see the documented cases of welfare abuse in Utah, for instance).

Back to the point though - you could get married to 10 spouses in front of God and your friends and never tell the government about it, and I doubt they would care (unless your cohabitation violated some health code or something).

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#49

Post by splat » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 7:06 AM UTC

known wrote: post #46

Your religion must be private. If you intend to make religion public via pony tails, emblems, beards, burkah, turbans etc, you're advertising your religion viz http://goo.gl/dHSA8 Govt will regulate every advertisement.

And you also must keep your political opinions private. If you intend to make your political opinions public via pamphlets, opinion editorials, posters, books, protests, etc. you're advertising your political opinions and the government can regulate your advertisement.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#50

Post by zupatol » Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 7:41 AM UTC

Freedom of religion is something else than making exceptions to other laws because of religion.

Freedom of religion is the right to believe whatever you want and not be discriminated because of it. There needs to be a freedom of religion because there is such a strong tendency to discriminate against minority religions.

Similarly the law needs to be the same for men and women, but the tendency to discriminate is so strong that there needs to be a law against discrimination based on gender.