221–230 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not an argument. No, it's a conversation. And I hope you're not fond of "thou shall not murder" either.
That's not an argument or a conversation.
On what axiom do you base the premise that citizens should not murder fellow citizens in your society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telling people they can have a religion but they can't practice it is as laughabaly silly as telling them they have freedom of speech so long as they don't say undesirable things. The entire point of a religion is implementation and execution of beliefs as a practice, without that it's just belief or philosophy which I don't believe is protected specifically as you noted. I think people who ride your train of thought…
The OP point is still clear. If the law says "You must do x unless you have a religious exemption" then why should anyone at all be expected to do x if clearly it isn't important enough to enforce on all people. If your religion includes killing people, it is still illegal regardless of your religion. So it seems reasonable that any law which can be overridden by a religious exemption should be dropped for all people…
Of course, in the eyes of western law, religion does not supersede the rule of law. But at the same time, legislation or judicial enforcement done in ignorance of the people's religions (or lack thereof) is in effect regulating their faith. Just citizens can't claim ignorance when they disobey the law, the gov shouldn't claim ignorance of people's beliefs either.
The only time it makes sense to infringe on religious freedom is when preventing infringement of others' liberty. Point being, murder violated someone's liberty while a baker refusing business violated a right (not liberty since other bakers are willing to serve the couple). I would draw the line by saying concerting to restrict others rights would violate liberties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telling people they can have a religion but they can't practice it is as laughabaly silly as telling them they have freedom of speech so long as they don't say undesirable things. The entire point of a religion is implementation and execution of beliefs as a practice, without that it's just belief or philosophy which I don't believe is protected specifically as you noted. I think people who ride your train of thought…
> Telling people they can have a religion but they can't practice it is as laughabaly silly as telling them they have freedom of speech so long as they don't say undesirable things. Freedom of Speech != Freedom of Consequence. Don't care for the rest of the comment because I've come to believe those that can't wrap their heads around the difference between civil and criminal law are not worth talking to about either.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telling people they can have a religion but they can't practice it is as laughabaly silly as telling them they have freedom of speech so long as they don't say undesirable things. The entire point of a religion is implementation and execution of beliefs as a practice, without that it's just belief or philosophy which I don't believe is protected specifically as you noted. I think people who ride your train of thought…
> Telling people they can have a religion but they can't practice it is as laughabaly silly as telling them they have freedom of speech so long as they don't say undesirable things. Freedom of Speech != Freedom of Consequence. Don't care for the rest of the comment because I've come to believe those that can't wrap their heads around the difference between civil and criminal law are not worth talking to about either.…
Ah yes, Godwin's law for the 2020's. So we can fire people for spouting commie propaganda (ie promoting unions) now?
Good. Religious exemptions are pragmatic canaries for state overreach. People are not livestock, even if states and employers like to treat them that way. The idea of a religious exemption isn't just some pastafarian variation, it represents a very real line between the individual and group and whether one is a citizen or mere property. This is the marking issue with biometrics. Are you a being with agency, or are yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have my own opinions about the wisdom of the courts. There are plenty of countries where religious beliefs are given far less leeway to interfere with secular contracts and associations, and many of those countries are still fine places to live. IMO, that's the proper place for religion, but there would have to be much abuse before we countenanced going in that direction in the US.
> secular contracts and associations, and many of those countries are still fine places to live. Sure, that’s a great answer for people who aren’t religious or whose religious practices happen to line up well with secular “contracts and associations”. Not good for devout people though.
I'm not sure why people are so weird about fingerprints and facial recognition. Your biometrics are not secret at all, any more than your hair color. You fingerprint yourself in every restaurant with glass cups, and leave those prints behind when you depart.
What's your home address? What's your social security number? Send me some nudes, everyone has genitalia right? Leave your door unlocked when you go to bed tonight, you have nothing to hide right? This is such a bad and harmful take.
I am privacy conscious, but this is a weak argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your home address? What's your social security number? Send me some nudes, everyone has genitalia right? Leave your door unlocked when you go to bed tonight, you have nothing to hide right? This is such a bad and harmful take.
I find this to be a lazy take though. Plenty of cultures have no nudity shame, have a culture of no locked doors, and know both who everyone is and where they live. I am privacy conscious, but this is a weak argument.
Unfortunately there's no real way of convincing someone so blind to privacy and its importance without big, dramatic examples. Such people need theatre to understand very fundamental things. Hence my comment.
The majority of people I've faced who claim the whole "I have nothing to hide" simply haven't faced a violation of privacy in a way that is meaningful to them, and thus don't understand its importance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But where do you draw the line? What if I have a deeply held religious belief that human sacrifice is required by god? Can I then go around killing people? There’s got to be some kind of limit.
There is endless jurisprudence on this topic. Basically the government draws the line at where your beliefs affect others and there are different levels of urgency the government must show to trample on religious rights depending on the risk to the counterparty.
Good. Religious exemptions are pragmatic canaries for state overreach. People are not livestock, even if states and employers like to treat them that way. The idea of a religious exemption isn't just some pastafarian variation, it represents a very real line between the individual and group and whether one is a citizen or mere property. This is the marking issue with biometrics. Are you a being with agency, or are yo…