[DRAFT]Repeal Family and Religion

[Hirota]

You can compel someone to eat pork without using physical force. To return more closely to the issue at hand, let us say that the devout Jew here is ten years old, and the people trying to get him to eat pork are his atheist/Christian/Pastafarian/whatever parents.

What an exceptionally absurd example. Talk about grasping at straws. A devout ten year old Jew raised by parents of another faith (and militant enough about it at the same time to resort to such methods)? How exactly does that happen?

Silly example is silly.

[Quelesh]

You can compel someone to eat pork without using physical force. To return more closely to the issue at hand, let us say that the devout Jew here is ten years old, and the people trying to get him to eat pork are his atheist/Christian/Pastafarian/whatever parents.

What an exceptionally absurd example. Talk about grasping at straws. A devout ten year old Jew raised by parents of another faith (and militant enough about it at the same time to resort to such methods)? How exactly does that happen?

Silly example is silly.

It can happen, whether you think it is silly or not. It is a relatively extreme example; I don't deny that. The point though is to illustrate that there are situations in which state intervention to ensure the freedom of religion of a child is justified.

[Enn]

And yet you fail to grasp that the physical aspect is part of the act itself. You cannot compel someone to eat pork if they do not wish to, unless you use physical force. Without the physical force, your example is meaningless, as it would not occur. And once physical force is added in, then a clear example of abuse occurs.

Until you realise your example shows the bankruptcy of your ideas, I believe there is little more to say here.

You can compel someone to eat pork without using physical force. To return more closely to the issue at hand, let us say that the devout Jew here is ten years old, and the people trying to get him to eat pork are his atheist/Christian/Pastafarian/whatever parents.

One option the parents have to get the child to eat pork, short of outright physical force, is simply withholding any other kind of food. They're providing food (pork) to the child, thus meeting their requirements under a nation's law to provide for the sustenance of their offspring. It's the child himself choosing not to eat it, getting weaker and weaker as he goes without nourishment. That's abuse, right?

Now a nation could outlaw that, of course (never mind that outlawing that treatment is interfering with the parents passing on religious beliefs to the child). But the parents have other methods of coercion at their disposal too. They can, for example, ground the child indefinitely until he eats pork. They can confine the child to his bedroom, with no books, TV or anything else to do except sitting on his bed and daydreaming. They'd let him out to go to school, sure, but afterwards right back in the room. Can't go hang out with friends, can't go see a movie or a play, can't go anywhere but school and his bedroom until he eats pork. Can't have anything to read, anything to watch, anything to do otherwise, until he eats pork. This could go on for four, six, eight years, however long it takes him to reach the age of majority where the state will allow him to move out of his parents' home. Is that abuse? I say most certainly yes.

Or, in nations which allow this, they could simply use corporal punishment. Every day that goes by where he doesn't eat pork, he gets a spanking. That's a form of physical assault that is legal in many places (legal to inflict upon children, at least). Imagine getting a spanking every day for four, six, eight years because of your refusal to sacrifice your religious beliefs. Would that be abuse?

Yes, it is certainly possible (and very possible in many nations in the case of children) to compel someone to violate their religious beliefs, and punish them when they do not do so, without using outright physical force.

Mmhmm. Well, you just keep adding criterion upon criterion to your example. Let me know when the whole shebang falls down around your ears. I'll be in the Bar.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Co-Ambassador for Enn

[Hirota]

What an exceptionally absurd example. Talk about grasping at straws. A devout ten year old Jew raised by parents of another faith (and militant enough about it at the same time to resort to such methods)? How exactly does that happen?

Silly example is silly.

It can happen, whether you think it is silly or not. It is a relatively extreme example; I don't deny that. The point though is to illustrate that there are situations in which state intervention to ensure the freedom of religion of a child is justified.

In a universe where everything can happen, citing an imaginary obscure example out of trillions of more likely and more logical possibilities to illustrate a point just smacks of desperation.

Like I said, Silly example is silly. You can make up these scenarios in your head, and keep on spouting them to try and prove a point, but they continue to become more convoluted and improbable the more you continue.

But, you keep on digging that ditch of yours buddy. Just don't expect anyone in their right mind to pay attention to the crazy old man rambling insanity in the corner.

[Quelesh]

Mmhmm. Well, you just keep adding criterion upon criterion to your example. Let me know when the whole shebang falls down around your ears. I'll be in the Bar.

You'll be waiting for a while, Ambassador. Try to not get too drunk in the meantime.

But, you keep on digging that ditch of yours buddy. Just don't expect anyone in their right mind to pay attention to the crazy old man rambling insanity in the corner.

That children are human beings (with respect to the non-human among us), deserving of the right to choose which religion, if any, they will practice, is not insanity. I will continue arguing for the basic humanity of children regardless of your insults.

[Hirota]

But, you keep on digging that ditch of yours buddy. Just don't expect anyone in their right mind to pay attention to the crazy old man rambling insanity in the corner.

That children are human beings (with respect to the non-human among us), deserving of the right to choose which religion, if any, they will practice, is not insanity. I will continue arguing for the basic humanity of children regardless of your insults.

Splendid. You keep doing that then. When you get round to doing that rationally, then we can talk - I'm all about promoting human rights and freedom of choice.

Till then, you have fun inventing your convoluted little stories all by your lonesome. As far as I'm concerned, you are doing more harm than good for preserving fundamental human rights (and explicitly for children) by needlessly derailing the topic with fairy tales.

Oh, and have you heard of Age of Majority?

[Bears Armed]

*(Artorrios o SouthWoods looks at the day's 'World Survey' rankings, blinks, and mutters something quietly to the multiverse in general...)*

"What are those 'surveyors' on?"


(OOC: They've just ranked Bears Armed as being several places more devout than the local tribe of Kawaiian refugees...)


^_^

[Embolalia]

Have you been paying attention? What I actually said was, given the fact that this hasn't been passed yet, the repeal doesn't yet warrant a full analysis. If the actual proposal passes, I'll give this a further looking-over. My support wouldn't change (since a cursory glance tells me that it's not terrible), but I may or may not suggest alternate wordings.

You indicated you would give blind support to this repeal, without reading. That strikes me as laziness, and unbecoming of a representative to this body. For if we do not consider the exact details of wording, why are we even here?

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Co-Ambassador for Enn

In the event that F&R should pass, I would support this repeal no matter what it says (because I disagree so strongly with F&R). As the ambassador from Mousebumples alluded to, there's really no point in getting too invested in a repeal debate for a proposal that hasn't passed yet. My previous comment was merely a showing of my dislike of F&R. If F&R manages to pass, I'll give the repeal a better read, and still support it.

Again, are you paying attention?

[Mousebumples]

*snip*

Have you had a look at the Child Protection Act recently? I would think that most of your hyperbolic arguments involve actions that would be outlawed under such a proposal - or at least worthy of investigation should a child wish to register a complaint.

(A more in-depth analysis can be found here, in response to Embolalia. I don't wish to double post, but I believe that renders your arguments moot.)

[Mousebumples]

Eat your pork or we lock you in the cupboard again.

Ah, child abuse! As such, we will be calling the gnomes on you and your nation due to the details of the Child Protection Act.

[Mousebumples]

A child has the right to have his reports investigated. Which he can't do whilst locked in a cupboard.

Because he will never ever EVER be allowed out of the cupboard.

Also, so many kids have cell phones these days (within my borders, at least), that I would half-expect a 911 phone call to be placed from the cupboard.

[Mousebumples]

Because obviously all nations are identical to yours. Hell, there's probably a good percentage of nations without cell reception...

Even if we ignore that point, is it believable to think that a child would never be let out of the cupboard? They would never be able to "make a run for it" and go in search of a sympathetic neighbor or officer of a policy?

Yes, if that happens, it would be bad. Whether it's religiously motivated or just straight-up child abuse (hint: that stuff happens in the Real World too), it's not good. But it is the exception and not the norm. I'm not sure that considering that outcome to be likely and/or common would pass the Reasonable Nation Convention.

[Embolalia]

Yay! We won't need a repeal! The secretariat rules! (No pun intended) (Okay, maybe a little.)

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yay! We won't need a repeal! The secretariat rules! (No pun intended) (Okay, maybe a little.)

You shouldn't be celebrating if you like the repeal. The Secretariat ruled that the resolution was unnecessary as everything it wanted to do is already being done by other resolutions.

[Erythrina]

Yay! We won't need a repeal! The secretariat rules! (No pun intended) (Okay, maybe a little.)

Methinks gloating is against the rules.

[Flibbleites]

I think this thread is unnecessary and therefore iLock.