Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We don't need freedom of religion

ottawacitizen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#61

Post by uvdiv »

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…

>The law prohibiting discrimination against persons by reason of their religion is defined to include directly passing over someone because of their beliefs.

Actually I would guess the author supports religious discrimination, although he doesn't make a clear statement either away. If the discriminator is a private citizen, then a freedom to discriminate follows directly from the basic freedoms he lists, particularly freedom of association.

He evaded this issue by only giving examples of public discrimination (by public schools, courts, and government employers).

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#62

Post by ars »

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...

It's more humane if it's conscious because to make an animal unconscious you have to hurt it. I'd rather simply kill it instead of hurt it first, and then kill it.

A captive bolt does not always work on the first try, and it doesn't always fully stun either.

You can't just increase the power of the bolt or you get brain matter mixed into the meat, raising the risk of mad cow disease. So you have to carefully tune it to "enough to stun, not enough to kill". It doesn't always work.

With Kosher slaughter on the other hand making sure the animal dies very fast is important otherwise the meat is not kosher and can't be sold.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#63

Post by qntm »

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) ....

I don't think religion is a choice. While a person does have control over which religion he or she adheres to in practice, I don't think a person has conscious control over what he or she believes, and I think that that's a factor which needs more respect.

You can study more and educate yourself and find your opinions changing as you learn, and maybe there are beliefs that you hold which you only hold because you've never spent the time to analyse them. But the number of people who analyse their own beliefs is small, as is the number of people whose beliefs will change when they are proven incorrect or when the evidence supporting those beliefs (if there is any) is cast into doubt. I think a person's religion is up to external factors and gut feeling - i.e. the subconscious.

If I wanted to become a Sikh or a Christian or a Muslim, I couldn't, any more than a Christian could voluntarily literally cease to believe in Jesus. And that's if I saw a benefit in converting at all, which is unlikely. Sikhs aren't Sikhs because they choose to be, nor Christians Christians, nor atheists atheists.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#64

Post by known »

splat wrote: post #49
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.

God != Religion != Politics

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#65

Post by slammdunc23 »

raganwald wrote: post #43
slammdunc23 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dasta…

Good point--I should have said that the Sikhs would go to the courts when the police chief (almost undoubtedly) said no. Still, the point is the same: under this author's conception of the issue, the courts /should/ come to the same conclusion about uniform color and badges being the only important parts of the police cap. The difference is that this decision should free /everyone/ to wear such hats, not just Sikhs or just the religious.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#66

Post by anamax »

Semiapies wrote: post #44
anamax wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> And they remain straight people unrestricted by the status quo

As I implied with my first sentence, some folks making that argument are not straight, so they don't "remain straight".

Yes, most folks making that argument are straight, but since most folks are straight....

> Do you have a point?

My point is that your gaydar is broken at least wrt this issue.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#67

Post by anamax »

vacri wrote: post #52
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) ....

Religion is definitely a choice in countries where such subtle nuances of civil rights are being debated as in the main link. Children can and do break with their parents religion as they grow up (and do so /often/), so clearly it's a choice. Sometimes it's a hard choice. But it's still a choice that's frequently made. But if you've got amputated legs, you can't choose to just hop up out of your wheelchair and go for…

> Religion is definitely a choice in countries where such subtle nuances of civil rights are being debated as in the main link.

Since honor killings happen in countries such as the UK....

Even if you're going to argue "it's a choice because it's not civil-legal to kill apostates", it's certainly "civil-legal" to shun them.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#68

Post by pkulak »

Natsu wrote: post #38
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.

> 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?

Who's doing the forcing? Is it a job? Is the religious practice safe? Then fine. It's part of the job. Quit if you don't like it. My atheism may prevent me from dressing up as Santa because, maybe, I don't want to lie to kids, or something like that. That doesn't mean that I get to take that job and then sit down amongst the elves at the mall in jeans and a FSM t-shirt while little kids sit on my lap to be told that Christmas was stolen from the Pagans and there's no Jesus. You're trying to call me out, but you're exactly right.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#69

Post by J3L2404 »

pkulak wrote: post #68
Natsu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Who's doing the forcing? Is it a job? Is the religious practice safe? Then fine. It's part of the job. Quit if you don't like it. My atheism may prevent me from dressing up as Santa because, maybe, I don't want to lie to kids, or something like that. That doesn't mean that I get to take that job and then sit down amongst the elves at the mall in jeans and a FSM t-shirt while little kids sit on my lap to be told that…

+1 for FSM mention. Ironically on their website a few years ago they were (mockingly) showing an inverse correlation between increasing CO2 and piracy just before the wave of Sudanese boat-jackings.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#70

Post by gnaritas »

forensic wrote: post #55
gnaritas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This perspective is ignorant of modern findings on mind control. People born into certain religions with certain kinds of parents and communities often don't have a psychological choice because of the nature of their environment. Just because some INTPs slip through the cracks does not mean that your typical ESFJ has a choice.

I simply don't believe that, choice always exists whether or not an individual is aware of it. They can choose otherwise, regardless of whether they do or not, nothing is stopping them. If you have actual scientific evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

> Just because some INTPs slip through the cracks does not mean that your typical ESFJ has a choice.

Yes it does, they just didn't assert it.

Post reply on HN