Page 5 of 21
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:45 amby Nekostan-e Gharbi
Old Tyrannia wrote:Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Ah this will inevitably lead to a lot of struggle.
Not allowing people to violate non-legal “customs of the society” is authoritarian and stifles innovation.
All societies inevitably impose some set of values on the people who live in them. If that's authoritarian then all societies are authoritarian and if you want to be truly free then you should go live alone in a cabin in the middle of nowhere.
There is a reason why I hate both sides. I guess the days of hipsters and Randians are not coming back. True lovers of freedom rarely reproduce making the world more and more authoritarian. The people want to crush each other now.
Just take the renaming thread as an example. There are all kinds of moralists bullying each other around while my attempt to bridge the sides by allowing overloading of existing names leads to nowhere and are entirely ignored.
I think authoritarians need to be separated from freedom lovers since the latter can not afford to live among the former.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:47 amby Page
People should have all the religious freedom that doesn't cause harm to anyone else, but this includes their own children - you don't get to mutilate your kid's genitals or let them die of a treatable disease or torture them to change their orientation or gender identity because your God says so.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:50 amby Stellar Colonies
Page wrote:People should have all the religious freedom that doesn't cause harm to anyone else, but this includes their own children - you don't get to mutilate your kid's genitals or let them die of a treatable disease or torture them to change their orientation or gender identity because your God says so.
Yes...the genital cutting bit especially should be rejected vigorously, to say the least.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:07 amby The Alma Mater
Stellar Colonies wrote:Page wrote:People should have all the religious freedom that doesn't cause harm to anyone else, but this includes their own children - you don't get to mutilate your kid's genitals or let them die of a treatable disease or torture them to change their orientation or gender identity because your God says so.
Yes...the genital cutting bit especially should be rejected vigorously, to say the least.
Though ironically, most people in the USA circumcise their kids
despite their religions official position.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:10 amby The Republic of Fore
As much as we possibly can. If praying or expressing faith in public bothers people then they can look in a different direction.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:19 amby Neutraligon
Risottia wrote:Sanghyeok wrote:NSG, what's your opinion on this issue?
In one's private home, when not involving anyone else and not damaging anyone: complete freedom.
In one's private home, when involving someone else: you don't get to impose your religion on anyone, especially not on minors.
On private premises that are open to the public AND specifically dedicated to religious worship: free worship and active proselytism within the bounds of law.
On private premises that are open to the public but NOT specifically dedicated to religious worship: free worship and active proselytism within the bounds of law and with the consent of the landlord.
On public premises: public religious practices require authorisation as it happens for any other cultural event in public. No active proselytism allowed.
In state or state-recognised schools: religion allowed only as cultural subject, no indoctrination into any religion allowed, no religious worship or proselytism allowed, no display of religious symbols on one's body or clothing allowed. Religious-specific events allowed as long as they are open to anyone and further knowledge about religions as cultural phenomenon.
Why no religious symbols or clothing? Why is it anyone's business if I wear a Star of David while at school?
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:21 amby The Alma Mater
The Republic of Fore wrote:As much as we possibly can. If praying or expressing faith in public bothers people then they can look in a different direction.
Would that be valid for all religions and rituals ?
Can a devilworshipper sacrifice his goat in public ? Can a member of the church of bodymodification (yes, that exists) stroke his prince albert in the middle of the mall ?
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:12 amby CoraSpia
The Alma Mater wrote:The Republic of Fore wrote:As much as we possibly can. If praying or expressing faith in public bothers people then they can look in a different direction.
Would that be valid for all religions and rituals ?
Can a devilworshipper sacrifice his goat in public ? Can a member of the church of bodymodification (yes, that exists) stroke his prince albert in the middle of the mall ?
Yes and yes. If it offends you then so be it: come back when you've learned how to be less easily offended.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:45 amby Anglicora
Lots of complaint about proselytising... you may find it annoying but some people might be grateful that people proselytised to them. A ban on people going door to door? Dumb. If Latter-Day Saints or Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on your door just tell them to get lost. If they don't you can deal with them the way you'd deal with any other people who refused to leave your property. Likewise, banning people from preaching in public? Absurd. Logically it should follow that we ban all public politics then. No protesting, no party propaganda, etc.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:46 amby Nuroblav
Page summed it up well:
Page wrote:People should have all the religious freedom that doesn't cause harm to anyone else, but this includes their own children - you don't get to mutilate your kid's genitals or let them die of a treatable disease or torture them to change their orientation or gender identity because your God says so.
Yay to religious freedom, but that includes those that don't follow you.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:49 amby Sanghyeok
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Potentially unorthodox opinion but I largely support freedoms (sans for groups like Scientology which are just blatant scams made to harm people) but think things like proselytism should by and large not be legal.
I largely agree with you there, but how can we determine which groups are dangerous?
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:51 amby Sanghyeok
Salus Maior wrote:Disgraces wrote:That's why I put socialist between quotes
Well, how was He "socialist" then. Why is that any sort of accurate descriptor?
I don't seem to recall Jesus saying that the proletariat should seize the means of production.
Socialism came become Marx, Marx was merely the first scientific socialist.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:55 amby Echo Chamber Thought Police
Page wrote:People should have all the religious freedom that doesn't cause harm to anyone else, but this includes their own children - you don't get to mutilate your kid's genitals or let them die of a treatable disease or torture them to change their orientation or gender identity because your God says so.
Yet NBC compared banning male genital cutting to the holocaust.
No i am not kidding.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:56 amby Belshekistan
IMO, keep your religion private in your house and your church/mosque/synagogue/whatever. No public evangelizing. If people want to convert, they will seek conversion out, and didn't Jesus say to pray in private anyway?
Dangerous cults should absolutely be dismantled (I favor Stephen Hassan's BITE model for determining if something's a cult, but that's just me). Groups like Heaven's Gate, the Manson cult and the Branch Davidians are too dangerous to be allowed to continue existing.
I believe religion also has a similar effect on the brain as hard drugs, so maybe we should make it illegal for minors to participate in religion as well? Something to consider.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:00 amby CoraSpia
Sanghyeok wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:Potentially unorthodox opinion but I largely support freedoms (sans for groups like Scientology which are just blatant scams made to harm people) but think things like proselytism should by and large not be legal.
I largely agree with you there, but how can we determine which groups are dangerous?
There comes a point at which we have to trust that people are rational thinking humans, and should be allowed to suffer harm as a result of their own poor decisions.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:01 amby Stellar Colonies
The Alma Mater wrote:Stellar Colonies wrote:Yes...the genital cutting bit especially should be rejected vigorously, to say the least.
Though ironically, most people in the USA circumcise their kids
despite their religions official position.
Unfortunately...
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:Page wrote:People should have all the religious freedom that doesn't cause harm to anyone else, but this includes their own children - you don't get to mutilate your kid's genitals or let them die of a treatable disease or torture them to change their orientation or gender identity because your God says so.
Yet NBC compared banning male genital cutting to the holocaust.
No i am not kidding.
Wow, they really did...Damn, I didn't know that trying to get rid of the practice of slashing into baby genitals was comparable to the industrialized murder of millions. Thanks NBC!
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:02 amby CoraSpia
Belshekistan wrote:IMO, keep your religion private in your house and your church/mosque/synagogue/whatever. No public evangelizing. If people want to convert, they will seek conversion out, and didn't Jesus say to pray in private anyway?
Dangerous cults should absolutely be dismantled (I favor Stephen Hassan's BITE model for determining if something's a cult, but that's just me). Groups like Heaven's Gate, the Manson cult and the Branch Davidians are too dangerous to be allowed to continue existing.
I believe religion also has a similar effect on the brain as hard drugs, so maybe we should make it illegal for minors to participate in religion as well? Something to consider.
You state that they are too dangerous to exist, but oddly you do not state why you think that. People choose to join these groups and should be allowed to guide their own destiny without somebody deciding that they don't know what's best for them and that that's something that needs to be sorted out.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:03 amby Washington Resistance Army
CoraSpia wrote:Belshekistan wrote:IMO, keep your religion private in your house and your church/mosque/synagogue/whatever. No public evangelizing. If people want to convert, they will seek conversion out, and didn't Jesus say to pray in private anyway?
Dangerous cults should absolutely be dismantled (I favor Stephen Hassan's BITE model for determining if something's a cult, but that's just me). Groups like Heaven's Gate, the Manson cult and the Branch Davidians are too dangerous to be allowed to continue existing.
I believe religion also has a similar effect on the brain as hard drugs, so maybe we should make it illegal for minors to participate in religion as well? Something to consider.
You state that they are too dangerous to exist, but oddly you do not state why you think that. People choose to join these groups and should be allowed to guide their own destiny without somebody deciding that they don't know what's best for them and that that's something that needs to be sorted out.
You do know the Manson group murdered people right lol
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:04 amby CoraSpia
Washington Resistance Army wrote:CoraSpia wrote:You state that they are too dangerous to exist, but oddly you do not state why you think that. People choose to join these groups and should be allowed to guide their own destiny without somebody deciding that they don't know what's best for them and that that's something that needs to be sorted out.
You do know the Manson group murdered people right lol
I am aware. How is this different from some guy having some very close friends and convincing them to murder people though? The religious aspect doesn't need to come into it and risks drawing over-broad definitions. Punish the acts, not the relationship between the criminals.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:06 amby Belshekistan
Stellar Colonies wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:Though ironically, most people in the USA circumcise their kids
despite their religions official position.
Unfortunately...
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:Yet NBC compared banning male genital cutting to the holocaust.
No i am not kidding.
Wow, they really did...Damn, I didn't know that trying to get rid of the practice of slashing into baby genitals was comparable to the industrialized murder of millions. Thanks NBC!
Okay, all this talk of circumcision as "mutilation" seems like scaremongering to me. I'm circumcised for hygienic reasons, and I like being circumcised. I really can't see any difference between circumcision and and any other surgery. I suppose I can see not wanting it practiced on babies, but shouldn't the option remain?
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:07 amby Belshekistan
CoraSpia wrote:Belshekistan wrote:IMO, keep your religion private in your house and your church/mosque/synagogue/whatever. No public evangelizing. If people want to convert, they will seek conversion out, and didn't Jesus say to pray in private anyway?
Dangerous cults should absolutely be dismantled (I favor Stephen Hassan's BITE model for determining if something's a cult, but that's just me). Groups like Heaven's Gate, the Manson cult and the Branch Davidians are too dangerous to be allowed to continue existing.
I believe religion also has a similar effect on the brain as hard drugs, so maybe we should make it illegal for minors to participate in religion as well? Something to consider.
You state that they are too dangerous to exist, but oddly you do not state why you think that. People choose to join these groups and should be allowed to guide their own destiny without somebody deciding that they don't know what's best for them and that that's something that needs to be sorted out.
All of these groups killed people, either themselves or others. That is unacceptable.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:08 amby Old Tyrannia
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:Page wrote:People should have all the religious freedom that doesn't cause harm to anyone else, but this includes their own children - you don't get to mutilate your kid's genitals or let them die of a treatable disease or torture them to change their orientation or gender identity because your God says so.
Yet NBC compared banning male genital cutting to the holocaust.
No i am not kidding.
It's not that much of a stretch. Illegalising circumcision for minors raises serious barriers to Jewish families raising their children in their faith, and therefore treating it like an attempt at cultural genocide is not wholly invalid. Cultural genocide may not be as horrific as actual genocide like the Holocaust, but it's still pretty terrible.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:10 amby CoraSpia
Belshekistan wrote:CoraSpia wrote:You state that they are too dangerous to exist, but oddly you do not state why you think that. People choose to join these groups and should be allowed to guide their own destiny without somebody deciding that they don't know what's best for them and that that's something that needs to be sorted out.
All of these groups killed people, either themselves or others. That is unacceptable.
Is it? I guess we should ban the roman catholic church, they've killed loads of people over the years.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:11 amby Washington Resistance Army
Old Tyrannia wrote:Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:Yet NBC compared banning male genital cutting to the holocaust.
No i am not kidding.
It's not that much of a stretch. Illegalising circumcision for minors raises serious barriers to Jewish families raising their children in their faith, and therefore treating it like an attempt at cultural genocide is not wholly invalid. Cultural genocide may not be as horrific as actual genocide like the Holocaust, but it's still pretty terrible.
My Jewish theology might be a bit rusty but it's beyond a serious issue at least in orthodox Judaism I think. I'm pretty sure circumcision is directly required by G-d and you can't really be a Jew without doing it so yeah claims of cultural genocide aren't unfounded.
Posted:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:12 amby Phoenicaea
that measure of agibility, so that to afford religious pluralism, and when the first is there, to do it in tranquility. so a definition which is based on circumstances, since intellectually you can not value so clearly the rights when it comes to disputing of established beliefs.