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

51–60 of 94 posts

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#51

Post by tvorryn »

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…

I'd just like to point out that "Mormon" polygamy is currently only practiced by Mormon fundamentalists, which make up only .07% of Mormons today.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#52

Post by vacri »

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) ....

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 a run like pretty much anyone else can.

Perhaps I can make it a bit more black and white. A few suburbs away from me there was a Turkish man who killed his daughter for 'dishonouring' his family (had premarital sex). Now, I am in Australia, and this kind of thing is seen by us as murder, but it's seen by folks where this man came from as honourable.

Should we be saying "It's just cultural, he didn't have a choice" or should we be saying "we're striving to create an egalitarian society, where everyone is treated as equals"?

This man had a choice and to argue that "it's just cultural" (of which "it's just religious" is a subset) deprives others of their freedom to be. Laws need to cover people equally or as said elsewhere you simply create another form of discrimination. This doesn't mean that laws don't need to change, but instead that they should be worded to allow everyone the same flexibility, not having to pass some sort of highly subjecting 'faithness' test.

For the record, the Turkish government has started handing out harsh punishment in an attempt to knock out "honour" killings.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#53

Post by dkarl »

Let's leave aside the fact that it's no business of the government whether we are disrespectful to each other's religions, as well as Justice Charron's call for schools to indoctrinate children.

Schools have to indoctrinate children. They're freaking _children_. It's normal childish behavior to lie when they're afraid of getting in trouble, hit other children or destroy their property when they get angry, disrupt lessons when they're bored, and ridicule others when they sense weakness. Discipline and indoctrination about proper behavior can't stop when parents drop their children off at school. If you don't want your kid indoctrinated by someone else, if you can't handle the idea of your kid being partly raised by people who may have different ideas from you, then school just isn't going to work. Forget about school, and forget about tee ball, summer camp, piano lessons, hell, forget about church, because you don't know the exact behavioral standards the Sunday school teachers might enforce. Just keep your child at home and you never have to worry about anyone indoctrinating your kid except you.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#54

Post by forensic »

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…

the courts should defend atheist headgear too

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#55

Post by forensic »

gnaritas wrote: post #36
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) ....

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.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#56

Post by vacri »

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…

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 things (black and blue children are ten a penny), the one that really stuck in my mind was the description of finding genital warts on the anus of a 7-year-old because his mother repeatedly whored him out.

"Self regulating"? Bollocks.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#57

Post by forensic »

Semiapies wrote: post #14
a-priori wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Formally allowing weapons in school would arguably make schools less like prisons.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#58

Post by [deleted] »

andreyf wrote: post #30

That's silly. Many laws are meant to minimize people harming each other. For example, the point of laws that control whether a child may bring a dagger to school is for the safety of minors, who don't have the neurobiological facilities to make good decisions (e.g. whether or not to bring a knife to school, or whether or not to use it). I imagine it's easily demonstrable that enforcement of those rules yields less st…

[deleted]

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#59

Post by vacri »

anamax wrote: post #32
mingdingo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

> That is, if you HAD to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you want it to be stunned or not? If you had to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you rather beat it unconscious first? Anything can be black and white if you leave out enough details. And, you can even decide which side is which with your choice of details.

That's a misrepresentation of what he was saying, don't know why you got the upmods. A captive-bolt stunner is a quick strike that stuns. "beating" something is protracted causation of pain. You're not 'filling in' details that have been left out, you're creating a new situation out of whole cloth.

Re: We don't need freedom of religion

#60

Post by vacri »

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.

You've never heard of "a crisis of faith"?
Post reply on HN