My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Would you support the Home Religious Acts?

yes
9
7%
no
119
92%
maybe
2
2%
 
Total votes: 130

samusaran253
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby samusaran253 » Sun May 29, 2011 3:32 pm UTC

This morning I thought of a new idea for a law, the Home Religious Acts, I shall call it. It would respect people's freedom of religion, but absolutely kill off any control religion still has. It would allow religious worship, but only in one's own home. It would disallow parents from forcing their teenagers and children to convert to a religion or follow a religion's teachings of morality. It would eliminate the display of religion in public, I know, it may sound a bit extreme, but it may be the only way to ensure the continue stability and security of the United States. The government will of course respect other people's religious beliefs, but they would have to keep that to themselves, just as one would keep their own sexual deviance to themselves and not express it in public. What do you think of this proposal?

User avatar
KestrelLowing
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:57 pm UTC
Location: Michigan

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby KestrelLowing » Sun May 29, 2011 3:39 pm UTC

First thought:
Spoiler:
Can't tell if trolling or very stupid...

Frankly, that sounds absolutely horrible.

Basically you're talking about making religion illegal. A huge portion of many religions is to worship together. You've just outlawed that. You've also outlawed any religious music to be played. Guess what? The majority of Bach's songs were written for the church.

And
samusaran253 wrote:but it may be the only way to ensure the continue stability and security of the United States.
[citation needed]

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Lazar » Sun May 29, 2011 3:45 pm UTC

samusaran253 wrote:just as one would keep their own sexual deviance to themselves and not express it in public.

Yeah, you're definitely making a lot of friends here.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby sourmìlk » Sun May 29, 2011 3:48 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Image


Seriously, eliminating the first amendment is just such a horrible idea. Freedom to express one's opinions is a very basic right, and eliminating that puts you right up there with an Orwellian villain.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

samusaran253
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby samusaran253 » Sun May 29, 2011 3:50 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
samusaran253 wrote:just as one would keep their own sexual deviance to themselves and not express it in public.

Yeah, you're definitely making a lot of friends here.

On another forum I posted a very similar idea, and everyone agreed with me.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun May 29, 2011 3:56 pm UTC

I'm not surprised - the Internet has plenty of fascists.
KestrelLowing wrote:Basically you're talking about making religion illegal

First thought:
Spoiler:
And nothing of value was lost.


As much as I dislike the religious, I dislike the thought of outlawing public worship even more, as it sets a dangerous precedent.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

samusaran253
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby samusaran253 » Sun May 29, 2011 3:57 pm UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I'm not surprised - the Internet has plenty of fascists.
KestrelLowing wrote:Basically you're talking about making religion illegal

First thought:
Spoiler:
And nothing of value was lost.


As much as I dislike the religious, I dislike the thought of outlawing public worship even more, as it sets a dangerous precedent.


Well in theory I support a self-fulfilled apocalypse, elimination of current society, and a society rebuilt by me founded on my principals.

samusaran253
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby samusaran253 » Sun May 29, 2011 4:13 pm UTC

I don't even truly support this idea, I mean in theory it's a great idea, but people do have the right to peacefully spread their own ideas, plus I don't trust the government. I just wanted to throw this idea out there for others to toy with.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby sourmìlk » Sun May 29, 2011 4:25 pm UTC

samusaran253 wrote:I don't even truly support this idea

samusaran253 wrote:It may be the only way to ensure the continue stability and security of the United States.


These statements don't really agree with each other.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun May 29, 2011 4:26 pm UTC

I don't see a conflict. I didn't support the bailout, but I recognised that it helped your decadent capitalist society survive a little longer.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby sourmìlk » Sun May 29, 2011 4:28 pm UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I don't see a conflict. I didn't support the bailout, but I recognised that it helped your decadent capitalist society survive a little longer.

Fine: his statements only disagree with each other if his goal wasn't to preserve "stability and security of the United States."
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
TheStrongest
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia, USA
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby TheStrongest » Sun May 29, 2011 5:36 pm UTC

I'm an atheist, and this is the worst proposal for a law I've ever read. The 1st Amendment prevents Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion (and irreligion), and that's that.

Not sure if troll...

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sun May 29, 2011 5:45 pm UTC

TheStrongest wrote:I'm an atheist, and this is the worst proposal for a law I've ever read. The 1st Amendment prevents Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion (and irreligion), and that's that.

Not sure if troll...


While I agree with your legal evaluation, I think your making an is/ought type mistake. It is true that the first amendment prevents this law, but that doesn't necessarily say it ought to be that way.

Considering the horrendous risks this would actually put society at(think of the police powers needed to enforce this) and the complete destruction of civil discourse I obviously oppose it.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

Alexander Falco
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 1:26 pm UTC
Location: NJ, USA

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Alexander Falco » Sun May 29, 2011 6:54 pm UTC

What's this do for you?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

No, it's not my idea.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I don't see a conflict. I didn't support the bailout, but I recognised that it helped your decadent capitalist society survive a little longer.


Who's decadent capitalist society? I don't see one anywhere.... Surely you don't mean America's .05% capitalist, 99.5% corporatist society in which free markets no longer exist?
Last edited by Alexander Falco on Sun May 29, 2011 6:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Enuja » Sun May 29, 2011 6:54 pm UTC

samusaran253, I think this idea of yours comes from a problematic fetishization of privacy as the solution to everything. Human are social, and even in the privacy of our own thoughts, we are strongly influenced by others. Even ignoring all of the practical and civil liberty drawbacks of your proposal, isolating our ideas from each other impoverishes everyone's ideas. Why do you think that trying to minimize the competition between ideas, in public, will improve anything? People will still have ideas and ideals which will still motivate action.

What makes religion especially dangerous in your eyes? Personally, I think that the evils of religion come from humans, and anything that humans do will be tainted by our behavior. I know of a lot of terrible things carried out by religions, but I think that anything will power can do terrible things. The fault is not in the religion, and getting rid of religion, or the power of the religion, or religion in the public square, will not remove the fault.

One of the many practical drawbacks of your proposal is that it doesn't contain a clear bright line that divides the acceptable from the unacceptable. Many people do practice their religions in their home: they preach to each other, they have meetings with like minded people in their homes, they invite over people in the hope that they might become like minded. What's the border between a home and a church? Is a monastery not a church because the monks live there? Do you want to prohibit gatherings of more than five people in anyone's home?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun May 29, 2011 7:09 pm UTC

Is anyone else bemused that he thinks we should keep religion in the home, and that would somehow prevent parents from forcing it on their children?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Enuja » Sun May 29, 2011 7:30 pm UTC

Yes. It's really incredible how many problems I can have with a proposal outlined in 7 sentence post, with only 5 sentences about the proposal itself.

User avatar
Whimsical Eloquence
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:29 am UTC
Location: Ireland

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Whimsical Eloquence » Sun May 29, 2011 7:38 pm UTC

I think I share in the reactions of many in thinking this to be a hopelessly ill-conceived idea at best. Just think about what you're proposing. Religion? What is that? A system of beliefs - does this apply to all non-theisticly minded philosophies as well? All ideas? And given that much of religious worship is the mutual discussion and communication of those ideas than surely this would grant the State power to ban the discourse and celebration of idea from public? Is that something in the least way just? Surely, unless we harm others, the State has no business restricting our actions as individuals - especially not in our capacity to argue and reason freely for whatever ideas (metaphysical, spiritual and otherwise) that we so wish and to celebrate those same convictions with our fellow citizens.

However the one, perhaps redeemable feature is your proposition that:
samusaran253 wrote:disallow parents from forcing their teenagers and children to convert to a religion or follow a religion's teachings of morality.


At present the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has amongst its many worthy and expected proclamations of Liberty and Positive Law a rather bizarre affirmation, singular amongst all the Rights therein in according a right to a specific group in relation to another group. Namely, Article 18, clause 4:
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
. Article 18 is usually considered the implementation of Religious Freedom and the rest of the article certainly is but this is contrary to the very spirit of the Article in ensuring Religious fettering of Minors. Yet this is a right often invoked in countries all across the world. A Right not to to the Child's own Moral and Religious Freedom and Development but a Right for others, the parents/guardians, to go against that freedom.

The single greatest substantive reason for the persistence of harmful and barbaric beliefs is because they are passed on from parent to child, Racism, prejudice and a whole host of other ills run in the family as it were. No, I certainly wouldn't make a case for some broad, matter of fact state intervention against this but I would question strongly the justification for this as any sort of Right.
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
~ Soren Kierkegaard

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Glass Fractal » Sun May 29, 2011 8:21 pm UTC

Whimsical Eloquence wrote:I think I share in the reactions of many in thinking this to be a hopelessly ill-conceived idea at best. Just think about what you're proposing. Religion? What is that? A system of beliefs - does this apply to all non-theisticly minded philosophies as well? All ideas? And given that much of religious worship is the mutual discussion and communication of those ideas than surely this would grant the State power to ban the discourse and celebration of idea from public? Is that something in the least way just? Surely, unless we harm others, the State has no business restricting our actions as individuals - especially not in our capacity to argue and reason freely for whatever ideas (metaphysical, spiritual and otherwise) that we so wish and to celebrate those same convictions with our fellow citizens.

However the one, perhaps redeemable feature is your proposition that:
samusaran253 wrote:disallow parents from forcing their teenagers and children to convert to a religion or follow a religion's teachings of morality.


At present the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has amongst its many worthy and expected proclamations of Liberty and Positive Law a rather bizarre affirmation, singular amongst all the Rights therein in according a right to a specific group in relation to another group. Namely, Article 18, clause 4:
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
. Article 18 is usually considered the implementation of Religious Freedom and the rest of the article certainly is but this is contrary to the very spirit of the Article in ensuring Religious fettering of Minors. Yet this is a right often invoked in countries all across the world. A Right not to to the Child's own Moral and Religious Freedom and Development but a Right for others, the parents/guardians, to go against that freedom.

The single greatest substantive reason for the persistence of harmful and barbaric beliefs is because they are passed on from parent to child, Racism, prejudice and a whole host of other ills run in the family as it were. No, I certainly wouldn't make a case for some broad, matter of fact state intervention against this but I would question strongly the justification for this as any sort of Right.


But what is the alternative? Obviously no one would willing to have the state teach children morality and I can't really picture a world where parents cannot tell their children what to do (since that would alter the development of their morals). I'm pretty sure abusing children to force them into a belief is already illegal.

User avatar
Whimsical Eloquence
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:29 am UTC
Location: Ireland

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Whimsical Eloquence » Sun May 29, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

Glass Fractal wrote:
But what is the alternative? Obviously no one would willing to have the state teach children morality and I can't really picture a world where parents cannot tell their children what to do (since that would alter the development of their morals). I'm pretty sure abusing children to force them into a belief is already illegal.


The alternative isn't anything really! Parents still instruct their children - just as they feed, clothe, love and care for their children. That's parenting. But in no other area of parenting is the parent afforded a right to do it "as they see fit". I'm not arguing for any particular state intervention. But if a parent wants to instruct their child that Racism is Good than that's bad and they don't have a legal to do so.

How is it just that the only right in relation to the upbringing of a child isn't that "A Child has a right to moral instruction" or any positive right for the child; it's a right for the parent to do what they wish in an area of parenting with no reference to the welfare of the child. How than can that be considered good?
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
~ Soren Kierkegaard

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun May 29, 2011 9:47 pm UTC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law ... in_schools
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/und ... _blog.html

Too late for France. Yo women. Your freedom is being destroyed by those Veils. If you wear those Veils in public, we're gonna have to fine you $200+.

Separation of Church and State, good. Militant Secularism however is no better than Militant Religion.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Goplat
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Goplat » Sun May 29, 2011 10:20 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Is anyone else bemused that he thinks we should keep religion in the home, and that would somehow prevent parents from forcing it on their children?

In fact, seems to me that this law would make children even more likely to follow their parents' religions, just because they will never get exposed to anything else. Your parents telling you that something is the One True Religion is more convincing if you never find out that other kids' parents told them the exact same thing about a different religion.

User avatar
Vellup
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 9:16 pm UTC
Location: With other Vellups

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Vellup » Mon May 30, 2011 5:32 am UTC

This is America. All it takes is are a couple incidents on the news of people getting arrested for praying in public and the rest of the country will go up in arms (if for some strange reason they didn't stand up in the first place)--and if the government tries to hide these arrests, it'll be hit even harder when that information does go public. This will not stop Crosses from being carved onto gravestones or Jews from wearing their kippas. And even if you can get past that, I dare you to force the Muslim community to take away their veils. In fact, how about you go ask a Muslim woman to show you her hair and see where that gets you.

The closest any 'powerful' country has ever gotten to this ideal is the Soviet Union, and no one listened to it there. Now... if you can't enforce atheist law in a totalitarian society, how in the world could you possibly do half as well in a democracy?
Honorable clean-upper of the (always in progress) Magi-Nation Wiki.

User avatar
Viae
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:48 pm UTC
Location: Albion

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Viae » Mon May 30, 2011 5:54 am UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I don't see a conflict. I didn't support the bailout, but I recognised that it helped our decadent capitalist society survive a little longer.

You don't get out of it that easily.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Also, I think your title should be "colossus", and I don't care if nobody agrees.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon May 30, 2011 5:57 am UTC

Vellup wrote:This is America. All it takes is are a couple incidents on the news of people getting arrested for praying in public and the rest of the country will go up in arms (if for some strange reason they didn't stand up in the first place)--and if the government tries to hide these arrests, it'll be hit even harder when that information does go public. This will not stop Crosses from being carved onto gravestones or Jews from wearing their kippas. And even if you can get past that, I dare you to force the Muslim community to take away their veils. In fact, how about you go ask a Muslim woman to show you her hair and see where that gets you.

The closest any 'powerful' country has ever gotten to this ideal is the Soviet Union, and no one listened to it there. Now... if you can't enforce atheist law in a totalitarian society, how in the world could you possibly do half as well in a democracy?


Ahem.

See my previous post in this thread. The one about the French Law that bans crucifixes and Muslim veils. Although... apparently France isn't really a democracy?? I dunno much about that country.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Vellup
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 9:16 pm UTC
Location: With other Vellups

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Vellup » Mon May 30, 2011 6:49 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Ahem.

See my previous post in this thread. The one about the French Law that bans crucifixes and Muslim veils. Although... apparently France isn't really a democracy?? I dunno much about that country.


Didn't catch that. I'm an American though, and Americans don't see France as a serious country. :mrgreen: Seriously though, something like that would never fly in the United States. One thing to note is that other countries tend to have very large religious majorities, like Catholicism in Ireland and Islam in the Middle East. America is multi-cultural--that and we're not pushovers, to use a mild term.

There's something to be said when a rapist attempts to flee to France because his government won't lock him up there--not to mention that he--a socialist--was apparently a favorite to win the French elections.

However, the U.S. got to him first, and as you can see, we were much less accommodating. Values dissonance indeed. America isn't consenting to those type of ideals anytime soon.
Honorable clean-upper of the (always in progress) Magi-Nation Wiki.

User avatar
Viae
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:48 pm UTC
Location: Albion

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Viae » Mon May 30, 2011 7:27 am UTC

Vellup wrote:One thing to note is that other countries tend to have very large religious majorities, like Catholicism in Ireland and Islam in the Middle East. America is multi-cultural--that and we're not pushovers, to use a mild term.

Ok, I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I'm fairly sure you don't actually know what you're talking about here. Britain, France, Germany, Austria and actually most European countries have far larger Muslim minorities than the US, and far smaller Christian majorities (the Czech Republic is primarily humanist/atheist now, I believe). Equally, there is a far higher proportion of Christians in Saudi Arabia compared to Muslims in the US, and possibly a greater raw number (this last one based on some quick googling). While the US may be more multicultural- and that is still massively up for debate- the US is far more religiously homogeneous than many countries. I would argue that you don't have to institute legal pressures to conform to the mainstream culture because there aren't that many people perceived as trying to change that; it is precisely because of the backlash against multiculturalism that these sorts of things happen.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Also, I think your title should be "colossus", and I don't care if nobody agrees.

User avatar
Vellup
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 9:16 pm UTC
Location: With other Vellups

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Vellup » Mon May 30, 2011 8:32 am UTC

Viae wrote:While the US may be more multicultural- and that is still massively up for debate- the US is far more religiously homogeneous than many countries. I would argue that you don't have to institute legal pressures to conform to the mainstream culture because there aren't that many people perceived as trying to change that; it is precisely because of the backlash against multiculturalism that these sorts of things happen.


Okay, what if just simplify everything and put it in way so there are no statistics or facts to argue over--Americans are more or less guaranteed to retaliate full-force against change that involves actively preventing modern cultural freedoms. That is a statement I can stand by in complete confidence. This country is filled to the brim with people like me who have been conditioned from birth to follow this ideal, which apparently might set us apart from many other western nations according to some here.
Honorable clean-upper of the (always in progress) Magi-Nation Wiki.

User avatar
Viae
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:48 pm UTC
Location: Albion

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Viae » Mon May 30, 2011 8:36 am UTC

So, you've heard of McCarthyism, eh? What about the Tea Party and gay marriage? Or Abortion? The right of immigration to southern states? The right of privacy (PATRIOT act)? You have, my friend, drunk the kool-aid. Don't listen to the rhetoric, look at what is done.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Also, I think your title should be "colossus", and I don't care if nobody agrees.

User avatar
Vellup
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 9:16 pm UTC
Location: With other Vellups

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Vellup » Mon May 30, 2011 2:50 pm UTC

Viae wrote:So, you've heard of McCarthyism, eh? What about the Tea Party and gay marriage? Or Abortion? The right of immigration to southern states? The right of privacy (PATRIOT act)? You have, my friend, drunk the kool-aid. Don't listen to the rhetoric, look at what is done.


I don't think the Tea Party is even close in comparison to taking away religious freedom. In fact, it's arguable to say that it's much the opposite and whether or not you agree with that is more or less of a political statement. As far as Gay Marriage is concerned, "banning" it doesn't take away the right for gay people to be gay in public or get together. If that line was passed and gays were arrested for expressing themselves, I guarantee no one would acknowledge it. As it stands, the only real issue is really symbolic. Immigration doesn't deal with American citizens and is a matter which is completely different. The Patriot act too isn't really comparable to taking away religious freedom either. The guy here wants to ban religion because he thinks it is insensible and has no real justification for it. The Patriot act wasn't enacted so the government could wiretap people irresponsibly. That, and I'm pretty sure anyone up to it would have been paying the authorities to do it anyway.

Now McCarthyism and company however, is the reason why Americans are not going to let themselves to let the government violate their rights. Our country, as the result of being so diverse, has a history of not just seeking out communists, but detaining the Japanese, the old anti-black laws all going all the way back to our roots as slavers. But now, in modern times, defying the premise of the civil rights movement is basically unthinkable.
Honorable clean-upper of the (always in progress) Magi-Nation Wiki.

User avatar
Viae
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:48 pm UTC
Location: Albion

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Viae » Mon May 30, 2011 3:26 pm UTC

Fair enough, but I maintain that's not because of multiculturalism as you stated earlier. The mainstream culture in the US is to a large extent not challenged in the way the French one is by a large proportion of people who are perceived as not involving themselves with that sort of culture. It seems arrogant to declare that such a step would be impossible in the US seeing as we don't really have a comparison in modern times. Personally I think the existence of the Tea Party and people like that suggests there's a fair proportion of people willing to legislate against religious freedom as long as it's not their religious freedom, but maybe I'm just a cynic.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Also, I think your title should be "colossus", and I don't care if nobody agrees.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby gmalivuk » Mon May 30, 2011 4:19 pm UTC

Viae wrote:there is a far higher proportion of Christians in Saudi Arabia compared to Muslims in the US, and possibly a greater raw number
Yes, and they are not allowed to openly practice their faith or become citizens. Awesome example you got, there!
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Viae
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:48 pm UTC
Location: Albion

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Viae » Mon May 30, 2011 4:26 pm UTC

When my point is that discrimination occurs when the mainstream culture is challenged, I don't think it's a particularly bad one.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Also, I think your title should be "colossus", and I don't care if nobody agrees.

User avatar
TheStrongest
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia, USA
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby TheStrongest » Mon May 30, 2011 6:16 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
While I agree with your legal evaluation, I think your making an is/ought type mistake. It is true that the first amendment prevents this law, but that doesn't necessarily say it ought to be that way.

Considering the horrendous risks this would actually put society at(think of the police powers needed to enforce this) and the complete destruction of civil discourse I obviously oppose it.


I understand. But I would argue that it ought be that way. Most justices would interpret the First Amendment as guaranteeing freedom of religion and, by extension, freedom of irreligion. It all comes back to that idea that one has to guard even the freedoms of their opponents if there a free society is to be maintained. Suppression of irreligious beliefs is just as illegal as suppression of faith, not to mention, as you said, the sheer difficulty of enforcing the laws and the degree to which law enforcement would be required to operate to enforce it.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue May 31, 2011 7:04 am UTC

TheStrongest wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:
While I agree with your legal evaluation, I think your making an is/ought type mistake. It is true that the first amendment prevents this law, but that doesn't necessarily say it ought to be that way.

Considering the horrendous risks this would actually put society at(think of the police powers needed to enforce this) and the complete destruction of civil discourse I obviously oppose it.


I understand. But I would argue that it ought be that way. Most justices would interpret the First Amendment as guaranteeing freedom of religion and, by extension, freedom of irreligion. It all comes back to that idea that one has to guard even the freedoms of their opponents if there a free society is to be maintained. Suppression of irreligious beliefs is just as illegal as suppression of faith, not to mention, as you said, the sheer difficulty of enforcing the laws and the degree to which law enforcement would be required to operate to enforce it.


It seemed obvious what your personal view would be, I just don't like to see the appeal to the US constitution arguments*. I just thought it was important to stress they reasons we have the 1st amendment instead of using it as the argument.

*to be honest its probably because I'm strongly pro gun rights and have to deal with a lot of people who think a sufficient argument for gun rights is "the second amendment says we can have them". Its rather grinding to hear an intellectual discussion reduced to citing (great) documents.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

masakatsu
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby masakatsu » Tue May 31, 2011 7:35 pm UTC

Viae wrote:Ok, I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I'm fairly sure you don't actually know what you're talking about here... Equally, there is a far higher proportion of Christians in Saudi Arabia compared to Muslims in the US, and possibly a greater raw number (this last one based on some quick googling).


Cite or get off the pot. There is 4.82 million Muslims in the US cite compaired to 1.21 million Christians in Saudi Arabia cite. 84% of the US population is Christian cite. 92% of the Saudi Arabian population is Muslim cite. 64% of the Czech Republic claims that they are Christian, even if they aren't strict adherents cite.

Google harder young grasshopper.
I will not attack your math, just your epistemology.

You think you have it bad, I teach Intro to Project Management to Undergrads.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Chen » Tue May 31, 2011 7:50 pm UTC

masakatsu wrote:
Viae wrote:Ok, I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I'm fairly sure you don't actually know what you're talking about here... Equally, there is a far higher proportion of Christians in Saudi Arabia compared to Muslims in the US, and possibly a greater raw number (this last one based on some quick googling).


Cite or get off the pot. There is 4.82 million Muslims in the US cite compaired to 1.21 million Christians in Saudi Arabia cite. 84% of the US population is Christian cite. 92% of the Saudi Arabian population is Muslim cite. 64% of the Czech Republic claims that they are Christian, even if they aren't strict adherents cite.

Google harder young grasshopper.


But from your links that does show the proportion of Christians in Saudi Arabia is 5.1% of the population whereas the proportion of Muslims in the USA is 1.6%.

User avatar
Viae
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:48 pm UTC
Location: Albion

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Viae » Tue May 31, 2011 7:53 pm UTC

I wikipedia'd as hard as I could, and having looked into it further there seems to be a bit of contention. Apparently the 2001 census in the Czech Republic gave a 59% atheist/agnostic cite as if you translate osoby bez vyznani in google it comes out as "people with no religion". The CIA world fact book (I don't know how accurately) claims there are 1.8 million Muslims in the US cite which is a smaller proportion than the number of christians in Saudi Arabia given your statistic (which is contentious anyway, given that there are no official statistics), and is also a similar proportion to Christians in Iran. (300,000 according to the UN here out of 75 million). Obviously there is leeway either side, but I don't think any of those dramatically undermine my point.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Also, I think your title should be "colossus", and I don't care if nobody agrees.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 31, 2011 8:04 pm UTC

Your point seemed to be that the majority will react badly when their way of life is being impinged. But Saudi Arabia would only be proof of that if there was some past time when Christians and other non-Muslims *were* allowed to become citizens and practice their religions outside of their homes and visit Mecca and Medina.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Viae
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:48 pm UTC
Location: Albion

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Viae » Tue May 31, 2011 8:08 pm UTC

I suppose the seventh century doesn't count, then. Fair enough. I think that might have been in response to the allegation that the US was a multi-cultural (and by extension had no major religious majority) country while the middle east was all completely muslim.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Also, I think your title should be "colossus", and I don't care if nobody agrees.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests