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

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#71

Post by Confusion »

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…

  Quit if you don't like it.
Many people have that choice only in theory. Secondly, who's to say what is 'safe'? Obligatory communal prayer every morning at school or work could be considered a form of brainwashing. I certainly don't think it's safe for my kid or even myself. I'm too informed on the human psyche to not be afraid of what others could convince me to think or do under the right circumstances. But if even communal prayer isn't safe, then what is?

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#72

Post by Semiapies »

anamax wrote: post #66
Semiapies wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're welcome to provide citations of gay individuals arguing against their getting marriage rights on the basis that government needs to get out of marriage.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#73

Post by Semiapies »

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.

People don't choose belief or lack of belief, or agreement or disagreement with any idea, unless they're trying to brainwash themselves.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#74

Post by nkurz »

Semiapies wrote: post #42
nkurz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean that semantically, not morally. While it's technically true that kosher is a dietary standard, food meets this classification based on the means of slaughter. I have no particularly strong beliefs as to exactly what constitutes the humane treatment of animals.

I run a company selling primarily vegan products (http://screamsorbet.com), but also hunt and fish. I eat less meat than most Americans, but also have two whole wild boar hams currently in brine for Christmas dinner. I care about the conditions of animals, but eat meat with gusto when I do.

I agree wholeheartedly with the parent article that there should a consistent set of laws, and that exemptions based on belief are a loophole that should be closed. Either shechika is humane or it is not; but the religious beliefs of performant should not be a factor.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#75

Post by nkurz »

Semiapies wrote: post #72
anamax wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're welcome to provide citations of gay individuals arguing against their getting marriage rights on the basis that government needs to get out of marriage.

E J Graff's "What is marriage for?" is beautiful book by a lesbian author that comes close to making this argument. While not exactly arguing that government needs to get out of marriage, it's a solid argument that government's involvement in marriage is a relatively new thing. It's also a good history of marriage from a heterosexual direction. Interview with the author here: http://www.uuworld.org/life/articles/24266.shtml

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#76

Post by Semiapies »

nkurz wrote: post #75
Semiapies wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're welcome to provide citations of gay individuals arguing against their getting marriage rights on the basis that government needs to get out of marriage.

E J Graff's "What is marriage for?" is beautiful book by a lesbian author that comes close to making this argument. While not exactly arguing that government needs to get out of marriage, it's a solid argument that government's involvement in marriage is a relatively new thing. It's also a good history of marriage from a heterosexual direction. Interview with the author here: http://www.uuworld.org/life/articles/2426…

I'll reiterate what I've said twice already: I'm talking about people using this argument to oppose (or at least refuse to support) allowing gay people to marry members of the same sex.

You're welcome to point it out, but I sure don't see any such argument made by Graff in this interview.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#77

Post by Natsu »

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…

> Who's doing the forcing? Is it a job? Is the religious practice safe?

Well, one of the freedoms of religion in the USA is that we don't have a religious test for office. We get rid of freedom of religion and... that's not "discrimination" right?

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#78

Post by Semiapies »

nkurz wrote: post #74
Semiapies wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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.

I mean that semantically, not morally. While it's technically true that kosher is a dietary standard, food meets this classification based on the means of slaughter. I have no particularly strong beliefs as to exactly what constitutes the humane treatment of animals. I run a company selling primarily vegan products ( http://screamsorbet.com ), but also hunt and fish. I eat less meat than most Americans, but also have…

"I mean that semantically, not morally."

Then you're being uselessly pedantic, and failing at it - there's no slaughter involved in making quite a lot of kosher food.

"exemptions based on belief are a loophole that should be closed"

Then expand the freedoms of all people to make exemptions on peaceful religious activity superfluous. Otherwise, when dealing with governments that carefully parse and rank claims of rights (particularly when it comes to "weird" minority groups), exemptions can serve to protect particular freedoms for the people who most care for them.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#79

Post by Semiapies »

vacri wrote: post #56
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…

but the government shouldn't tell you what changes you can't make to your body, or how you provide care for a member of your tribe. Talk to a social worker and see whether or not you still believe that a government should still be able to step in and tell you how to treat a member of your "tribe" I remember reading one social worker's long diatribe about why they burned out and quit. Out of several truly horrible thi…

I'm against the abuse of children and happy to use the government to accomplish that.

However, the prevalence of abuse and neglect in the foster care system - complete with cases on that order of horror - makes a very weak case for the idea that external regulation accomplishes any better.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#80

Post by Semiapies »

slammdunc23 wrote: post #29
Semiapies wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some choices can and do harm children, but saying religious parents' choices "often do harm" their children is just flatly absurd.

I said "in these cases"--turning down medicine and practicing that form of ritualized circumcision. Perhaps "often" is an overstatement, but there have been many cases of children dying when their Christian Scientist parents refused to get them proper medical attention (see, e.g., http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/s... ).

I appear to have have missed that phrase last night.
Post reply on HN