|
Post by Nutcase on Aug 11, 2011 19:50:47 GMT -5
I don't make it a habit to answer loaded questions. You can complain about not getting an answer when you ask a question that doesn't require me to accept 6 baseless assertions from you. Ex: "All parents indoctrinate," "you'll have to forego teaching ethics," etc. In other words, you're looking for an excuse to ignore the implications of your position, and blaming that in part on the types of 'incorrect' questions I ask. Weak. Expected, but weak.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 11, 2011 20:02:50 GMT -5
Question: How many freedoms are you willing to take away? Assumption: This is actually against freedom of religion.
I've explained why this does not actually limit freedom of religion many times, and so has Zachski. I think it's actually quite rude that you keep ignoring those paragraphs, & instead stubbornly repeating this "question" of yours. Even in my last post, you blatantly ignored the plain-as-day explanation I gave of the assumptions upon which your question rested, which I obviously disagree with. Note, I could just as easily badger you to answer the question:
"So, why do you want the Mosques to raise suicide bombers?"
...And then accuse you of "ignoring the implications of your position" when you try to give me anything other than a strict "I want them to because x."
If you're going to ignore my points, I owe you no answers of my own.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Aug 11, 2011 20:09:38 GMT -5
Question: How many freedoms are you willing to take away? Assumption: This is actually against freedom of religion. Why it's not: Like I explained above, it doesn't stop kids from following a religion, while the current system lets their parents drag them to church and lets the church deliver all of the unsolicited preaching they want. Seriously, I've made this as plain as day. If you're going to ignore my points, I owe you no answers of my own. So it's perfectly fine to ban children from religious buildings, without regard to any possible religious requirements of attendence? There's absolutely no violation of their freedom of religion, all it's doing is requiring they don't go. That way they're totally free to do anything, except go to services about what may well be one of the core portions of their life. A pillar of the community, the center of socialization for many of them. That's all we have to exclude kids from, to protect them, from that evil religious stuff. If you honestly don't see the issue, you haven't thought about this in the least. Much like the harmful to them argument, which you failed to consider for a moment what others may think about your own life.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 11, 2011 20:18:21 GMT -5
In a nutshell, yes. You are entitled to freedom of religion. You are not entitled to everything your religion wants to do. If your religion wants to essentially kidnap a man for 2 hours and tell him he's going to Hell, they cannot do that, but if that man is a 7-year-old boy, then it's A-Okay, as long as his parents are on-board.
Now, maybe some kids' freedom of expression is stepped on, but it would seem to me to be relatively minor, compared to the current system. If we can't get it so that every kid is happy, for lack of a better word--which I do believe we could--then I think at least mitigating the displeasure is perfectly acceptable.
The rest of what you said is blatant straw-manning. No one is saying anything about "religion being evil," or "you shouldn't be religious." Even the "harm" part is only a small foot note to my overall point. Thus, it is not-at-all similar to your "atheism sends you to Hell" analogy. It's not because I "didn't think about it in the least," it's because it's flat-out not the same.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 11, 2011 20:18:26 GMT -5
I repeat, this blocks people telling kids what to do & believe more than kids deciding for themselves what to do or believe. No it won't, anymore then Prohibition blocked people form drinking. One, telling kids what to do is a parents job. Second, stopping children from entering a building is not going to stop parents from teaching children religion. Even if you outlaw the religions it will not stop it. As soon as you tell people they can't do something their first response it to tell you to fuck off and do it more. ....also not teaching children what to believe if near impossible. Even something such as "treat other the way you want to be treated" is a belief.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 11, 2011 20:20:44 GMT -5
If your religion wants to essentially kidnap a man for 2 hours and tell him he's going to Hell, they cannot do that, but if that man is a 7-year-old boy, then it's A-Okay, as long as his parents are on-board. Yes, children are not adults nor do they have the same rights.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 11, 2011 20:26:19 GMT -5
Did I say, "block completely"? No, I did not.
To a certain extent.
Yep.
To elaborate, they still get the religious knowledge (which I don't personally agree with, but whatever), but without the added pressure of having to conform to a large crowd.
Cool? I don't really see how this relates to my argument.
A little over-literal. Things like objective reality, basic social skills, I don't see how "indoctrination" really applies to those.
You can argue with clockworkgirl over that one.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 11, 2011 20:41:59 GMT -5
Did I say, "block completely"? No, I did not. Okay, it seemed that is what you meant. Well except for gatherings outside the buildings, or many other social events that kids will be in. The law, which is meant to stop radical Islam will only help to spread it. People turn to radicalism when they feel backed into a corner. Why do you thing you find more radicalism in places with more repressive governments? Indoctrinations has become a damn buzz word. One side teaches a lesson and the other side calls it indoctrination. It applies because beliefs are just that, beliefs. It does not matter if they come from religion or social skills. I will, that does not change the fact.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 11, 2011 20:45:43 GMT -5
I'm Canadian. It's in my blood... literally. They inject us with bootstraps antibodies up here.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 11, 2011 21:41:50 GMT -5
It wasn't the best wording. "Mitigate" might have been a better choice.
Loopholes, huh? You crafty bastard.
Ah. Problem is, this thread has become a bit polarized. There's the original law, and its context, and what Zachski & I were discussing (& I in particular am advocating) which is slightly different.
I've been trying to avoid confusing the 2 discussions, but I figured it'd crop up eventually.
I'd say it charts out like this:
If it is objective & you teach it as subjective, that is indoctrination. Also vice versa. If it is subjective & you teach it as subjective, that is not indoctrination. Same with objective.
"Treat others the way you want to be treated" here is defined as objective because, even though it's technically a subjective belief, it's how society functions.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 12, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
I will take it that the wider argument you were having was that laws such as this would help prevent children from being indoctrinated into religion. If that is not it please let me know.
Laws such as this would not stop what you want to call indoctrination. The children would still be taught the same things at home and as I pointed out with my loophole other places as well.
Have kids learn about and follow in parents religious beliefs for some is a huge fucking deal. So much so that it has started wars, and made people move to new countries. Religious freedoms, including being able to teach your children religious beliefs, are a huge part of what the US was founded on.
....and I wish that "Treat others the way you want to be treated" was how society functioned. Unfortunately I'm reminded each day to few people follow this.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Aug 15, 2011 16:05:25 GMT -5
@ Distind - ref your posting 11th August
With respect, I don't believe anything I said impinges on the freedom to practice religion. As far as I am concerned, if mayhem and murder is being preached in any place of religion it is an incitement to crime. At that point the state has a duty to protect its citizens. It is beyond any doubt that some places of worship have been used for this kind of incitement. The British, notably, jailed and subsequently deported a one-handed sheikh for seditious/criminal preaching. Yet Islam is still flourishing freely and openly in Britain. So let's keep a sense of proportion. The regulation of preaching is something that needs to be looked at. But this is not in anyway forbidding the free practice of religion, anymore than the requirement for a licence forbids driving.
And lest it be thought that I am singling out Islam, let me state that I apply the same thinking to any religion. Religion occupies a privileged places in most democracies. It is not too much to expect that those who direct it - priests, bishops, rabbis, imams, sheikhs should respect the law of the land and report any breach of the law to the proper authorities. If they don't, then law enforcement becomes an active issue. But it is beyond reason to hold that the removal of a sedtious preacher from a position of great influence is in any sense the repression or persecution of a religion or the breaching of rights or the denial of religious freedoms. Nobody, under the umbrella of religion, whether in church, chapel, meetinghouse, synagogue or mosque, has the right to warp young - and not so young - minds by advocating indiscriminate murder, and justifying it in the name of a putative god. That is plain incitement to criminal action, and in most countries that is illegal. It is particularly abhorrent when youth is used to carry out such crimes, so often at the cost of suicide. Anyone who advocates such crimes, whether it be in Oklahoma, Sweden or elsewhere has blood on their hands and guilt in the hearts. And the words that lead to this end are nothing but evil. In essence, this kind of thing is not religion, nor has it anything to do with religion.
|
|