Religious Freedom and the Government

About the relation between religion and government, French justice system just condemned Scientology to heavy fines for being a scam activity. Yep, they clearly and officially concluded that. :-)

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2012/02/02/decision-jeudi-en-appel-de-la-condamnation-de-la-scientologie-pour-escroquerie_1637583_3224.html

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

If people would quite passing really bad laws in moral panics, it wouldn't be such a problem.

Fight smart, not fair.

We don't know what you mean by "bad laws", Deboss.

Now using Trivialis handle.

"Bad laws" have various definitions.

1) A law which contradicts another equal law (badly formed and destructive, require additional fixes down the road)

1a) A law which contradicts a higher law (same results)

2) A law which is impossible/phenomenally expensive to enforce at large (either pisses away money or teaches a flippant disrespect for the law, depending on how it's funded)

3) A law which [speaker] disagrees with.

Fight smart, not fair.

I mean, did you have bad laws about "environmental regulations on dumping mercury in rivers" and such, or were you just making a point?

Now using Trivialis handle.

General point about "you should follow the law because it's the law" which I took from the post.

As to the OP, I disagree with mandating of active behavior in general.

Fight smart, not fair.

I agree that there's a measure of hypocrisy in pushing laws while breaking, say, copyright infringement law on grounds that "these laws are bad".

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Well Deboss, if a law is a bad law, you should be able to demonstrate why it is so, and either fight it politically. A law has to be pretty bad before you start going for the civil disobedience route. And "My old book disagrees with it" is not good enough justification for taking the civil disobedience route. I'll grant my post used a poor choice of words, but the main idea stands.

On the contrary, information technology is anti-religion, or at least anti-traditional institutionalized religion. Recall that the printing press, by making the Bible available for public consumption, also led to the Protestant Reformation, the biggest challenge to the Catholic Church in its history. The Church has never recovered the power it lost to the Reformation and following religious wars, and never will. Fast forward to the 21st century, where atheists and the nonreligious are a demographic that's growing very quickly.

When you make it easier to share information, you make it easier to spread news and expose what others try to keep private. There are two kinds of religion, the kind that can survive this exposure, and the kind that can't. The second kind isn't going to survive this century without retreating into isolated enclaves.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Correct. Most dogmatic religions maintain their power through suppression of inquiry — that is, they actively seek to prevent people from honestly comparing their ideas with other ideas. Such things do not survive full and free access to information for very long.

Part of the problem with the idea of allowing people (especially minors!) to decline medical care on the basis of their religious beliefs is exactly that, most of the time, such choices are being made in ignorance of basic facts that are deliberately suppressed by the religion in question — most especially with respect to the children who may not ever have had the opportunity to learn about the benefits and risks involved.

Also: Go France for banning Scientology!

edited 2nd Feb '12 6:30:47 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Am I being unfairly antireligious if I stated that I don't think religions should be able to preach to children before adolescence? And to keep things on topic, would a government that moved for legislation on that principle be unfairly antireligious? I just feel that if you can't convince adults or at least teenagers capable of thinking for themselves to join your religion, you're not entitled to converts who can't think for themselves.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

While I support such an notion on a purely theoretical basis, I have absolutely no idea how you'd workably implement it without taking away parents' basic rights solely on the basis of their religion, something that makes me shudder at the implications. What would you think about the converse — a law that banned atheists from raising their children "godless"? There are many countries where that would have a very real possibility of happening.

edited 2nd Feb '12 6:40:31 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Also, it's almost certain that such legislation — in America at least — would not stand a Supreme Court challenge (given the 1st amendment).

edited 2nd Feb '12 6:47:56 AM by OscarWildecat

Please spay/neuter your pets. Also, defang your copperheads.

@Fighteer: When was Scientology banned in France? I know it wasn't recognized as a religion, and got fined for fraud, but I didn't hear of it being made illegal.

Sorry, fined for being a scam, banned, to me the difference is immaterial.

edited 2nd Feb '12 9:34:45 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Ah. I believe the prosecutors requested that the Church of Scientology be entirely dissolved in France, but the decision was no (partly because the law in question was changed to prevent dissolution of religious organizations).

The only EU country that actually bans Scientology is Greece, and that's a beneficial side-effect of a generally asinine religious policy.

Oh yeah, it's unworkable, no doubt. Both laws could be in effect. I was never told by my parents to not believe in gods and I wouldn't tell my children that. There are countries where that is the case.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Well, that's only if you believe that the source of morals is the only aspect of the morals that matter. If it's something one is morally opposed to, does it matter where the moral opposition comes from? I'd think not, myself, since laws relating to morality only apply if a sufficient majority feel that way most of the time.

If it's a right, it doesn't matter why something is done. People have the right to do something or not do something, for any reason they chose, so long as it's legally defined as such.

Fight smart, not fair.

I'm not saying that a religious source of morals somehow disqualifies said morals, merely that a religious source - or any source - is not sufficient. Not to get into an argument about objective or subjective morality, but there are reasons why "do unto others as you would have done unto you" is a principle a civilized society might want to adopt in its legislation while "treat homosexuals as subhuman" isn't. The origin of either principle is irrelevant.

I'm not saying religion is bad, I'm saying it doesn't matter and should be ignored for the purposes of drafting law. If you've got a good argument for pushing a certain policy, then you don't need to say that your holy book inspired you to push it.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Agreement.

Fight smart, not fair.

mentally sound adults have the right to refuse medical care, they shouldn't have the right to decide for their children.

edited 3rd Feb '12 12:12:34 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Thread Hop:

Religious Freedom, like other freedoms end when it stars infringing on the rights of other people.

Dutch Lesbian

I honestly think our "eighteen and you get all the rights, none before" is something that will bite a lot of people in the ass. Much better to introduce things one at a time rather than just blanket giving it out.

Fight smart, not fair.

Now using Trivialis handle.

I believe I answered that question but if you can't see it the answer is NO

Dutch Lesbian

Actually, your answer above was in the other direction, which was why I was double-checking.

Now using Trivialis handle.