Palakistan wrote:Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.
I'm not sure atheism is itself to blame for the abortion holocaust.
Palakistan wrote:Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.
I'm not sure atheism is itself to blame for the abortion holocaust.
Yeah, especially considering there is no abortion holocaust....
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:22 pm
by Kainesia
Anyone who bans the consumption of a fine salmon fillet needs to be put to death.
Italios wrote:Yeah, especially considering there is no abortion holocaust....
This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.
Let's have a compromise and make it a fish abortion thread!
What if a hypothetical religion bans the eating of caviar?
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:26 pm
by Thalasus
If it was an individual family that held these beliefs, then I don't think they should be respected. If it's the belief of two very large religious traditions that, combined, have over 1.5 billion adherents across the world, it should be at the very least accommodated for.
This mess of a post is obviously based on the "pork or nothing" controversy that has occurred in certain regions of France lately and has been a contentious subject between (often Christian) ultra-conservatives in the government and followers of Islam and Judaism who have children in school, children who are too young to understand that pork is "haram" or unclean. My opinion is that their religions beliefs should be accommodated for. Is it really that hard for the state to provide alternative lunches for these children? At the very least, you can set out some PB&J for them on days where the school happens to be serving pork.
The argument shouldn't be "is it okay to eat fish (pork)", as most reasonable people would agree that, religion aside, there is nothing wrong with consuming pork. The question we are asking should be "is it right for the state to declare that a certain aspect of a large religion is invalid for no good reason, and to encourage young children to break that aspect of their faith without their parents' consent or the children's knowledge?" The answer to that question should definitely be no.
Italios wrote:Yeah, especially considering there is no abortion holocaust....
This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.
You're right, there's already a thread for that.
Parents shouldn't push religion on their children. If the child does not believe in the religion, they don't need to follow that diet. If they do, fine, they can do what they like. It's up to them in a scenario like this.
Camelza wrote:This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.
Let's have a compromise and make it a fish abortion thread!
What if a hypothetical religion bans the eating of caviar?
Certainly that's ethical. Of course, now you're talking about pretty much any sufficiently strict adherent of most religions.
Camelza wrote:This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.
You're right, there's already a thread for that.
Parents shouldn't push religion on their children. If the child does not believe in the religion, they don't need to follow that diet. If they do, fine, they can do what they like. It's up to them in a scenario like this.
To what degree can a child believe in anything, really? Children believe what their parents tell them, whether they are liberal atheists, conservative Christians, or Muslims. I don't think we should be treating a child like an adult, especially when it comes to religion.
Palakistan wrote:Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.
I'm not sure atheism is itself to blame for the abortion holocaust.
Our dining habits have minimal effect on the human population it is true. Few atheists eat them at the foetal stage, some people just have no taste.
Camelza wrote:This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.
Let's have a compromise and make it a fish abortion thread!
What if a hypothetical religion bans the eating of caviar?
AQ'd
Italios wrote:Parents shouldn't push religion on their children. If the child does not believe in the religion, they don't need to follow that diet. If they do, fine, they can do what they like. It's up to them in a scenario like this.
That's your opinion of what is good and what is not, I strongly believe that parents should teach their chidlren whatever they wish, provided of course that they won't cross the lines. After all, their parents aren't the only sources of information children have and as they grow up the influence of the parents will grow weaker.
Italios wrote:Parents shouldn't push religion on their children. If the child does not believe in the religion, they don't need to follow that diet. If they do, fine, they can do what they like. It's up to them in a scenario like this.
That's your opinion of what is good and what is not, I strongly believe that parents should teach their chidlren whatever they wish, provided of course that they won't cross the lines. After all, their parents aren't the only sources of information children have and as they grow up the influence of the parents will grow weaker.
You said it better than I did. Parents have a right to teach their children what they believe is morally right or morally wrong. Once the children are adults, they can do whatever they want.
Palakistan wrote:Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.
How? Source, please?
By the way, properly executed abortions are not killing. If they're preformed after a specific age, they are. But when the "child" is a fetus, it's not.
Mao, Stalin, and many others killed many people. They are Athiests.
Um, ok. I shouldn't get off topic here. It is my personal belief that it is not only killing but murdering, but let's not go down that path. Let's just leave at that.
By the way, properly executed abortions are not killing. If they're preformed after a specific age, they are. But when the "child" is a fetus, it's not.
Mao, Stalin, and many others killed many people. They are Athiests.
Um, ok. I shouldn't get off topic here. It is my personal belief that it is not only killing but murdering, but let's not go down that path. Let's just leave at that.
Remember, it doesn't count unless you can document Mao, Stalin and others proclaiming they killed many people specifically in the name of atheism like some cartoon high priest.
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:04 pm
by The Hobbesian Metaphysician
I daresay we are breaching dangerously close to being off topic.
Palakistan wrote:Mao, Stalin, and many others killed many people. They are Athiests.
Um, ok. I shouldn't get off topic here. It is my personal belief that it is not only killing but murdering, but let's not go down that path. Let's just leave at that.
Remember, it doesn't count unless you can document Mao, Stalin and others proclaiming they killed many people specifically in the name of atheism like some cartoon high priest.
Jochistan wrote:"Fish" is much more of a diverse group of meat than "pig" however. But yes, if you believe it's unclean and have legitimate religious traditions to point to, I really don't give a shit. Neither should anyone else. That is how trivial choosing not to eat one type of meat is to society.
Fite me.
On horseback or with actual swords this time Genghis Khan?
I fought with swords last time, hmph.
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:49 pm
by Gim
How did we get from, "fish", to "Mao and Stalin"?
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:00 am
by Chinese Peoples
There's absolutely no morality involved in this scenario. Religious beliefs are not morals. There is no harm done to either the child by eating fish (unless the religion was just a cover for another reason, such as an allergy to fish) or to society; nor are any social (social customs are not religious customs) customs against eating fish; that alone means it is not immoral to eat the fish.
Moral, from Latin mos, "custom".
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:23 am
by The Alexanderians
Hey it's not like it's pork
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:48 am
by Daburuetchi
Fish are friends not food! But no seriously the kid has R-R-RADICAL FREEDOM so he/she can do whatever parents and their weak morality be darned
A parent has a child. He tells the child that God has told Man that Man should not eat fish because fish is ''unclean.'' To support this proposition, the parent points to an ancient sacred text supposedly confirming this statement. If a person has eaten a fish, then a person has broken sacred commands and he ought to feel ashamed of himself, he tells the child.
One day the parent finds out that the child has eaten fish at the school cafeteria. He proceeds to call the child to him, lecture him, discipline him, and punish him for his crimes against God. In the process, he reminds the child of who he is and who they are, and that as followers of God, they have a moral duty not to eat fish.
Now the discussion question is this:
Did the parent behave ethically? Is it ethical to mandate a specific diet for your child that is motivated by religion? Is it within the parental prerogative? Is it ethical to remind your child of his religious beliefs and of the sacred diet through discipline and punishment when the child decides to try what is forbidden?
From where I'm standing: No.
No. The answer is No with respect to all of the above. It is wrong to impose arbitrary dietary restrictions on your child that are not medically motivated and to impose your religion on your child. He is too young to understand and too vulnerable to religious indoctrination and it is simply unethical to press with your authority in this manner. Furthermore, the beliefs are illogical and not scientifically supported.
To establish this is ethical you would first have to establish that reducing freedoms based on unsubstantiated claims is moral. Which you cannot do. Hence this is not ethical.
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:22 am
by Kilobugya
Parents definitely shouldn't push religion on their children nor punish them if they don't follow religious rules. Freedom of consciousness doesn't stop because someone is young and weak. A child needs to make his own worldview. He will of course be influenced by his parents' worldview, the one of his teachers, the one of the books he read and movies he watches, the one of his friends, ... but it never should come forcefully and under threat of punishment.
Camelza wrote:This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.
Let's have a compromise and make it a fish abortion thread!
What if a hypothetical religion bans the eating of caviar?
I don't know about caviar, but if a religion bans the eating of roe, it's a goddamn crime against humanity.
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:18 pm
