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

11–20 of 94 posts

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#11

Post by avdempsey »

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 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.

Can government intervention in these areas bring about greater human well-being? Possibly, but I think the above are relatively self-regulating. Christian sects that disapprove of medicine (Christian Scientists for example) must contend with proliferating evidence of the benefits of scientific medicine. As long as scientists have freedom of speech too I suspect their membership will continue to decline in the US.

Can government intervention in these areas bring about greater suffering? Absolutely. The US government currently intervenes in gay marriages, and recently intervened in abortions (and many in Congress would love to intervene here again!).

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#12

Post by Semiapies »

diiq wrote: post #5
pjscott wrote: post #2

That's one hell of a linkbait headline that the Ottowa Citizen came up with. A more accurate description of the article's thesis would be "freedom of religion can be derived from other rights which are explicitly recognized, like freedom of speech and association, and does not need to be explicitly protected as long as those other rights are genuinely protected." Put like that, it sounds a lot less controversial.

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 absolutely agree with that ideal, but it's not happening anytime soon - so I support gay marriage. However, there are people who make this argument and use it as a reason to oppose gay marriage as a "privilege" we should not be establishing.

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

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#13

Post by a-priori »

Semiapies wrote: post #9
pjscott wrote: post #2

That's one hell of a linkbait headline that the Ottowa Citizen came up with. A more accurate description of the article's thesis would be "freedom of religion can be derived from other rights which are explicitly recognized, like freedom of speech and association, and does not need to be explicitly protected as long as those other rights are genuinely protected." Put like that, it sounds a lot less controversial.

Well, it's a bit of a stealth piece, as he's claiming to argue that while really arguing the reverse. He's not arguing for greater freedom, he's arguing against religious freedom. Look at the examples he chooses. He's not really arguing that anyone should be able to wear veils, not have pictures on their IDs, carry sheathed knives, etc. He's arguing that if voters wouldn't see any random person as needing/deserving t…

If kids want to go all stabby stabby in a school, they don't need ceremonial daggers to do it. It happened at my high school, in Canada, using a cooking knife stolen from the cafeteria kitchen.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#14

Post by Semiapies »

a-priori wrote: post #13
Semiapies wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's a bit of a stealth piece, as he's claiming to argue that while really arguing the reverse. He's not arguing for greater freedom, he's arguing against religious freedom. Look at the examples he chooses. He's not really arguing that anyone should be able to wear veils, not have pictures on their IDs, carry sheathed knives, etc. He's arguing that if voters wouldn't see any random person as needing/deserving t…

If kids want to go all stabby stabby in a school, they don't need ceremonial daggers to do it. It happened at my high school, in Canada, using a cooking knife stolen from the cafeteria kitchen.

Exactly. Or shivs, which turn up now and again.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#15

Post by patrickyeon »

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 fodder for discussion, where should the government's influence stand on issues of medicine or circumcision, as practiced by children's parents? At what point can the government say "your freedoms matter less to us than taking care of _your_ child the way _we_ believe it should be done"?

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#16

Post by Semiapies »

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 shenanigans and say "citation needed".

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#17

Post by avdempsey »

patrickyeon wrote: post #15
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…

As fodder for discussion, where should the government's influence stand on issues of medicine or circumcision, as practiced by children's parents? At what point can the government say "your freedoms matter less to us than taking care of _your_ child the way _we_ believe it should be done"?

On a personal note, I was raised in a Christian Science family. While devout, my parents were very attentive and I was lucky to have a healthy childhood (though I didn't even try aspirin until I was in college). A philosophy degree at SFSU cured me of that dogma :) but that's part of why I'm sympathetic; I love my dad even if he is a radical.

I think parents still have a legal obligation to not be negligent. There's a difference between not providing any care (while playing WOW all day) and doing your Christian Scientist damnedest for your children. A person espouses civil libertarianism not because they hate government, but because they trust people and hold others to the personal commitments they make.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#18

Post by Semiapies »

patrickyeon wrote: post #15
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…

As fodder for discussion, where should the government's influence stand on issues of medicine or circumcision, as practiced by children's parents? At what point can the government say "your freedoms matter less to us than taking care of _your_ child the way _we_ believe it should be done"?

Things get more complicated when you bring children into them, yes. However, even then there are areas civil libertarians should be leery of and should scrutinize government involvement in - like the religious, political, or other beliefs that a parent teaches a child.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#19

Post by slammdunc23 »

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…

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 endangers a third party: children who lack the ability to say, "No, thank you! I'm Buddhist." The same goes for Christian sects that disapprove of medicine. Sure, adults can turn down medical treatment for /themselves/, but if they do so for their children they could (and should) go to jail for child endangerment. A civil libertarian should want to protect everyone's right to liberty, the right to do whatever they wish /without harming others./ In these cases, the religious parents' choices often do harm their children, who are too young to object.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#20

Post by mingdingo »

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…

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 faiths. To ask another question: Do you think western slaughterhouses adopted captive-bolt stunning because they were bored, or because it granted a small reprieve at the end of the farming cycle?

Post reply on HN