I’ll take Sweden, please.
Post snipped
Who decides what is a ‘good thing’? How is it decided? What belief system is used to decide what is a ‘good thing’? I ask because, at the end of the day, your answer will have some premise that you take on faith as it will be unprovable*.
Slee
*Unless, of course, you have found a logically consistent theory of ethics that is provable including the premise. Which, if you have, you ought to publish.
And yet they are allowed to decline immunization even if they do so for non-religious reasons. Thus showing that religious believers are not enjoying a privilege denied to the secular.
Regards,
Shodan
Nope - the process of being granted conscientious objector status was exactly the same for religious people as for those who objected on philosophical grounds. Same hearings, same consequence, same process.
Also wrong, as the anti-vax example shows.
And, as sleestak points out,
You seem to be saying that freedoms based on religion should not exist even if the majority wants them to. Therefore, you need to provide a non-axiomatically-based rationale why the majority should not rule. I haven’t seen any besides “they haven’t convinced me”. Why should they have to?
“Because they haven’t convinced me” is not a good response, BTW.
Regards,
Shodan
Looking through both the Khmer Rouge and Soviet Union articles, I still see the anti-religion factor in both cases as being predominantly if not entirely politically motivated. For instance, two quotes from the Soviet article:
[ul]
[li]In 1929 Lunacharsky made some statements in which he claimed that religious freedom could be suspended “when it is abused for the direct class struggle against the proletarian dictatorship”.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The propaganda viciously attacked the Orthodox church and especially its clergy as being the scum of the nation. It was claimed in the official press that none of the seminarians believed in their religion’s teachings but that these teachings were simply tools to exploit the masses. The early anti-church propaganda produced by the Soviet state claimed that the state was only opposed to the leadership of the Orthodox church, and not religion in general or the Orthodox church as a body. To this effect the press commended acts of disobedience by parishes against the Patriarch; in 1920 there was one parish that was commended for refusing to accept priests that were sent by the church hierarchy and which opted instead to elect a former psalmist as their priest.[/li][/ul]
I think we can agree that neither strict secularism nor strict religious protectionism is going to fix a society’s problems when there are broader cultural conflicts. While it’s true that France’s strict legal secularism hasn’t solved its discrimination problems, it’s also true that France has long been a deeply religious nation in which religious conflict and divisiveness has been a big part of its history, and that its secularist legalities are an attempted remediation that is the result of those conflicts. We recently saw exactly the same issues play out in Quebec – a dominant role of religion, discrimination against religious minorities, and an ill-advised government backlash that tried to ban all public service workers from displaying any type of religious symbol – an action which not only failed but embarrassed the province and the government and helped take it to election defeat. Meanwhile in most of the other provinces religion is mostly low-key and no one gives a flying fig what kind of symbol anyone wears.
I would argue that, everything else being equal, reason-based secularism is likely to lead to a more reason-based and just society than one which tries to accommodate and balance out every possible crackpot belief system, or actively discriminates against any of them, or flips to the other extreme and tries to ban them all. How about just freaking having laws that make sense, and that apply to everyone without exception? Such as, for instance, no you may not hide your face behind a damn mask when engaged in official interactions in which identity matters, even if the damn mask has a lofty religious name. Other times, sure, knock yourself out. Yes, you are still required to wear a motorcycle helmet even if you have some religiously inspired yard goods wrapped around your head. No, you may not carry around a lethal “ceremonial dagger” in public or where weapons are prohibited. And no, you may not stone a woman to death or pretend that Sharia law ever has dominance over the law of the land in a reason-based secular system of law.
And I think it’s a bad idea to set aside the law for anti-vaxxers. I thank you for pointing out that non-religious “true believers” have also managed to avoid obeying the law. Still, for the most part it is the religionists that push the most for these exemptions, I believe.
By the way, I believe the reason the anti-vaxxers get away with it is a combination of public ignorance and political pandering, and that with proper education the only excuse they would have left would be religious in nature…and I have no doubt they would use it to the extreme.
Same hearings, same process – I never said otherwise. Same outcome? Really? It’s just as easy to prove the genuineness of your personal beliefs as it is to prove that you’re a paid-up member of some pacifist religion? Dave Barry once wrote about his hearing before a selective service board. Not a hope in hell, he said, that he would have been approved as a conscientious objector but for the fact that his father was a minister and known to the board, so the religious angle carried him through. Otherwise he didn’t have a leg to stand on.
Yes, you’re also wrong here too. Anti-vaxers are shooting their mouths off and/or refusing to allow a physical injection of a foreign substance. They’re crazy of course, but typically within their rights. This has nothing to do with the extraordinary broad exemptions that religious freedom laws grant to almost any crackpot belief, from the presumed right to flout ACA laws to the active practice of homophobic discrimination, or the presumed right, as I alluded to earlier, to permanently hide your face behind a mask or carry dangerous weapons in public (or, ideally, both those things at the same time! :p). Or to promote the teaching of blatant falsehoods in public school.
[quote=“wolfpup, post:85, topic:717899”]
Looking through both the Khmer Rouge and Soviet Union articles, I still see the anti-religion factor in both cases as being predominantly if not entirely politically motivated. For instance, two quotes from the Soviet article:
[ul]
[li]In 1929 Lunacharsky made some statements in which he claimed that religious freedom could be suspended “when it is abused for the direct class struggle against the proletarian dictatorship”. [/li][/quote]
[/ul]
In other words, there was no freedom of religion, as it was revocable at any time.
Note, the “early” propaganda, i.e. more followed, of a different type.
This really feels like special pleading. Firstly, anti-theism is anti-theism regardless of whether the motive is ideological, political, or both. Second, there was clearly an ideological factor. Marx was contemptuous of religion, and the Soviets took it to another level. The League of Militant Atheists was so radical in their efforts to exterminate religion “at the tip of the bayonet” that Stalin himself, that paragon of tolerance, had to step in and tell them to moderate. Their leader, Yaroslavsk, said that the League’s duty was to “destroy every religious world-concept” - that is, religion itself, not this or that church or hierarchy. Lenin wrote, in the piece I linked, that “Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion. Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class.”
So I’ll ask: if the pre-World War II efforts to destroy religion in the Soviet Union weren’t motivated by the political goal of removing the Orthodox Church as a rival, but also by a basic ideological opposition to all religion, how would we know? That is, what would distinguish that sort of crusade from one with a purely political motive, in terms of observable differences?
We can.
Ah, but the United States has also long been a deeply religious nation, certainly much more so at the present moment. If France can’t make it work, I see no reason to expect the U.S. to. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I think the U.S. has arrived at a pretty reasonable place, in terms of accommodation. We don’t force schoolchildren to pray or recite the Pledge of Allegiance anymore; nor can you stone a woman to death, or bring a kirpan on an airplane. I am less familiar with the sorts of accommodations other nations have reached.
Until I can find some statistics (if they are available), we can play dueling anecdotes:
Here is an account of a successful non-religious objection. The writer notes that his experience came…
So, like many religious privileges, it is on the wane in recent decades.
Are these serious questions? How do you use the term “we” when the “we” in question are overwhelmingly religious? You don’t mean “we”, you mean “you”.
So, the answer is quite simple. Most people are not like you. Most people are very different from you. And since you live in a democracy, our laws are not going to reflect your beliefs.
Why respect religion more than Star Trek fandom, say? That’s important to some people also.
As the West has become more secular, this is less of a problem, but many religions by their nature are not thrilled at the presence of opposition. In England 400 and some odd years ago the Catholics in power killed the Protestants and vice versa. The freedom to worship is not something that comes from religion, but rather from the realization that religion should not direct who we do and do not tolerate.
Quick addendum: the French law I referenced banned headscarves, but explicitly permitted the wearing of crosses and Stars of David (draw your own conclusions). Was the Quebec law written the same way?
The Quebec law conveniently banned religious symbols of a certain size or prominence – so head scarves, turbans, kippas, etc. would all have been banned. But good upstanding French-Canadian Catholic crosses would still be allowed, since they’re typically small, unless you happened to be wearing one the size of a pickaxe …
… if the charter were adopted by the legislature, the wearing of kippas, turbans, burkas, hijabs and “large” crosses would be banned for civil servants while they are on the job.
Ah, so the same thing. I don’t think it’s fair to characterize this as “an ill-advised government backlash that tried to ban all public service workers from displaying any type of religious symbol”, looks more like a sop to the nativists and bigots.
Yes, really. Conscientious objectors who could show the sincerity of their beliefs did not serve in combat roles, whether religious or not.
No, I’m not. There is no special privilege that religious people get that anti-vaxxers don’t, under the same principle. Even if anti-vaxxers aren’t religious.
Regards,
Shodan
Pretty much, yep. Same culture. Though “taking religion out of public service” was their tagline. Much like Mike Pence recently signing the Indiana “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” in a private ceremony attended by some of the nation’s leading homophobes and religious nutcases.
How much better the world would be if the government had exactly as much specific focus on protecting “religious freedoms” as they do on protecting the freedom to wear funny party hats, and our rights were all uniformly protected by basic civil liberties, with equal rights for all, no more and no less. If someone happens to believe that the Great God of the planet Neptune talks to them nightly and commands them to wear a rubber chicken on their head at all times, I say let them enjoy themselves – just as long as they don’t interfere with anyone else’s civil rights or personal values.
That’s not a good analogy at all. The vast majority of Americans are religious. The vast majority of Americans are not Star Trek fans. If they were, we might be debating if we should eliminate laws requiring people to remove their Spock ears when getting their DMV photos taken.
Do you think we should demand a rational basis for every law? I think that’s a great idea. Let’s start with the tax code, all 4,000,000+ words of it. I want to hear a secular, rational, decent justification for every single word. If Congress can’t provide such a justification then out it goes. Then let’s move on to Obamacare, all 1,800 pages of the law plus tens of thousands of pages of regulations. If Obama can’t provide a secular justification for everything on every page, out it goes. After that we can move on to the millions of other regulations that the government imposes on us, throwing out anything that has no rational justification.
Thing is, religious discrimination does exist and is harmful, and religious freedoms do need to be protected. That’s one of the basic civil liberties you speak of. What would you think if I said that racial and gender discrimination were wrong, but that it was ok to outlaw same-sex intercourse? Or to keep people born in the U.S. to foreign-born parents from becoming citizens? Or that people who earn less than $1 million per year shouldn’t be able to vote? Free exercise of religion is no less important than any of those examples; I don’t want to question your liberal cred, but it seems like a real oversight.
And if everyone agreed with you, there’d be no problem. Sadly, people do use the power of the law to prevent other faiths from enjoying themselves, or at least make them suffer for it. Other times, a law of general applicability happens to hamper religious freedom. The two situations aren’t the same; the former is always wrong (looking at you, France!), the latter is more difficult to resolve to each party’s satisfaction and requires balancing of interests…but the answer can’t be to ignore the human right of exercise of religion.
I get that you and BPC are mainly talking about the second type - laws passed for the common welfare that are claimed to interfere with the exercise of a small portion of the public’s religion, such as the Hobby Lobby case - but hearing those cases out is a small price to pay for religious freedom, and not having to put up with this sort of thing.