JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

originally posted in:Liberty Hub
Edited by Stallcall: 8/4/2016 8:59:53 PM
4
A religion is just a set of ideas. Some people make the mistake of thinking that "religious liberty" grants different rights to different religions. This is not the case. Religion is covered by rights - it is not an addition to them. Baptism, as an action, is not something that only Christians can do. A pagan could also dunk a willing person into a pool of water. The idea behind the action isn't relevant. I can dunk a volunteer into water because we both believe that it will further his relationship with God, or I can dunk a volunteer into water because we might have fun. In other words, there is no "religious liberty." There is just liberty. As for generalizing religions... When dealing with a single person, it's best to treat them as an individual. However, broad judgments can still be passed in some cases. Stefan Molyneux makes a good case for this. For example, the average height of a man in China is 5 feet and 7 inches. The average height of a Khampa (southern Slavs, tallest people in the world) man is 6 feet and 1 inch. Imagine I'm a basketball coach. My assistant says, "Hector, listen. I brought in a Chinese player. He's in the locker room right now. You have to see him in action. He's astounding." My response should not be, "Don't be ridiculous. We all know that the average Chinese man is five inches below the six-foot mark. Find me a Khampa." However, if I was sending out scouts to find me tall men to play on my team, I likely wouldn't send them to China.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I know how you feel about liberty, and I don't think I know anyone with a greater desire for it. How far do you think the government should allow infringements in the law in the name of the perpetrators religion? Should nonviolent offenses like drug use on holidays for some religions be permitted, or should any teachings of a religion that aren't within the confines of legality be prosecuted as they would normally be? Should any allowances/ sanctions, good or bad, be made for any specific group of people?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Stallcall: 8/5/2016 9:49:41 AM
    [quote]How far do you think the government should allow infringements in the law in the name of the perpetrators religion?[/quote] We'd have to define "law" to answer that. The current state's laws are far from ideal, so it's hard to give a definite yes/no answer to the question. Ideally, the law would protect only life, liberty, and property. If any of those things are violated, then the law has been broken. Religion is no excuse. [quote]Should nonviolent offenses like drug use on holidays for some religions be permitted[/quote] Drug use ought to be permitted regardless. [quote]should any teachings of a religion that aren't within the confines of legality be prosecuted as they would normally be?[/quote] Merely teaching a religion should not be illegal. It isn't moral to use the state's guns to silence ideas. Once we silence some ideas, we've given the state a license to shut down any ideas that can be defined similarly to the original ones (and that's giving the state the benefit of the doubt). [quote]Should any allowances/ sanctions, good or bad, be made for any specific group of people?[/quote] We ought to be free to pass judgment, certainly. Like I said, it makes the most sense to judge an individual on his own merits. However, if we're talking about a collective of any sort, it doesn't hurt to generalize. We should try and stick to this, policy-wise. For example, an outright ban on Syrian Muslims entering the U.S. is (apparently) justified by generalizing the group. However, it unfairly halts the non-violent refugees and immigrants. The best solution is to generalize and [i]then[/i] deal with individuals. For example, we run background checks on the incoming refugees. We've generalized a specific demographic, but we're offering a fair chance to individuals.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Law being those currently in the United States. I was too specific with the drug example. I meant to use that as a generalization for minor, nonviolent crimes. Should a religious group, or any other group for that matter, be excluded from punishment for certain laws, that currently exist, on the basis of their beliefs? Obviously these practices have to be major/core components of their beliefs.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Should a religious group, or any other group for that matter, be excluded from punishment for certain laws, that currently exist, on the basis of their beliefs?[/quote] No. Like I said, religion is covered by rights. It doesn't add to them. If somebody has been found guilty of breaking the law, then the ideas behind their actions aren't relevant. This is also why I'm against extended sentences for hate crimes.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon