Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 6 of 357 (829217)
03-04-2018 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
03-04-2018 3:16 AM


I think you have it backwards. As often as not, religion takes it's practices from the culture. See Christmas as an example.
When you start banning religious practices, you open the door to banning cultural practices in general. Note how "Christmas" trees are frowned on by the political correctness fanatics even though they have nothing to do with Christianity.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2018 3:16 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2018 2:50 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 357 (829233)
03-04-2018 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tangle
03-04-2018 2:50 PM


Tangle writes:
Banning harmful practices does not 'open the door' to banning harmless ones.
Who decides what's "harmful" and what's "harmless"?
Tangle writes:
With the exception of totalitariast regimes nobody is ever going to ban Christmas trees are they?
I suspect that you would if you thought they were "harmful".
But you're missing the point. The point is that the "harmful" practices are not necessarily religious in nature.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2018 2:50 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2018 3:05 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 20 of 357 (829344)
03-06-2018 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tangle
03-04-2018 3:05 PM


Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
Who decides what's "harmful" and what's "harmless"?
Our secular institutions. That's their job.
I think the job of our institutions is to follow the public will, not dictate its practices.
Tangle writes:
I'm not fond of any harmful practice, but here we're talking about harmful religious practices.
We're talking about cultural practices that can be used to target specific religious groups. By declaring certain practices like circumcision "harmful", you can excuse discrimination against the people who practice them.
Why not let the individual decide what's "harmful" to him?

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2018 3:05 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2018 1:29 PM ringo has replied
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2018 1:48 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 35 of 357 (829445)
03-07-2018 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Modulous
03-06-2018 1:29 PM


Modulous writes:
If most people refuse to serve Black people at shops, hotels etc etc, it is still justifiable for the government to criminalize doing so.
We're talking about "harm" here. Until recently, many governments judged that equality for black people did more harm to society. When they changed their assessment, they were following public opinion more than leading it.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2018 1:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2018 3:08 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 36 of 357 (829446)
03-07-2018 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tangle
03-06-2018 1:48 PM


Tangle writes:
Jews have informed me very forceably that circumcision is a religious practice, not a cultural practice.
What about female circumcision? It's far from universal among Muslims. It seems to be tied to the culture - primarily African culture - rather than the religion.
Tangle writes:
And why would we not prevent harm just because it occurs within a religious community?
Why would we not let the individual decide what is harmful to him?
Tangle writes:
At the age of 18, indivuals can decide whether they want their dicks hacked - or not.
We don't let a child decide whether lack of education is harmful to him. His parents decide.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2018 1:48 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2018 3:39 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 37 of 357 (829447)
03-07-2018 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tangle
03-06-2018 2:52 PM


Re: Circumcision
Tangle writes:
The point is that the practice is not done for incidental benefit, it's done for religious reasons.
So you're against it because it's religious, not because it's supposedly harmful.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2018 2:52 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2018 3:43 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 41 of 357 (829452)
03-07-2018 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tangle
03-07-2018 3:39 PM


Tangle writes:
Whether something is cultural or religious seems to be a matter for those that believe in such things...
Well, I certainly believe in culture - and I don't want you deciding whether or not certain aspects of my culture are "harmful".
Tangle writes:
... but there's no denying the inter-linkages.
That's what I'm saying: I don't want you trampling on my culture because of your vendetta against religion.
Tangle writes:
Education is mandatory in this one, parental consent or otherwise.
But it's the adults who decide that it's mandatory. The children don't decide whether or not to go to school and they don't decide whether or not to be circumcised.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2018 3:39 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2018 4:12 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 47 of 357 (829500)
03-08-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Tangle
03-07-2018 4:12 PM


Tangle writes:
And, as I pointed out, the issue is not whether the harm is cultural or religious or whether there is actually a distinction, but that it is harm.
That doesn't address what I said: I don't want you deciding what is harmful to me.
Tangle writes:
I'll do you a deal, don't mutilate babies and I won't trample on your perverse and harmful culture.
No deal. Trying to ban something that is "harmful" causes more problems than it solves. Prohibition doesn't work. It only makes the criminals rich.
Tangle writes:
In this case, the adults are harming children and our institutions are looking the other way.
Our institutions and our parents don't agree with you about what is "harmful".

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2018 4:12 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 03-08-2018 2:53 PM ringo has replied
 Message 51 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2018 4:40 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 62 of 357 (829552)
03-09-2018 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Modulous
03-08-2018 2:53 PM


Modulous writes:
Welcome to civilization. I'm sorry you don't like it here. Here's hoping that a pregnant loved one isn't given thalidomide by a doctor who thinks like you.
That's a poor example. Once the effect of thalidomide were known, nobody would have wanted it anyway.
A better example is marijuana, which can have some harmful effects but is criminalizing the users an appropriate response?
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Trying to ban something that is "harmful" causes more problems than it solves.
Are you sure?
Prohibition of alcohol caused the organized crime problem that still exists today. So yes.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Prohibition doesn't work. It only makes the criminals rich.
That may be true of nouns (although evidence suggests it is not), but you can't jump from what is true of nouns to what is true of verbs (murder, abuse etc).
Those are completely different situations. Murder is harmful to the victim, to his loved ones, even to society as a whole. I'm not banned from murdering because it's harmful to me. The same applies to Child Labour, Child Sexual Abuse, Infanticide, Child Neglect, Giving addictive recreational drugs to children and Corporal punishment.
Modulous writes:
I don't want you, your parents or your institutions deciding what is harmful to me.
That's what I'm saying. I have no desire to stop you from doing anything that's harmful to only you.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 03-08-2018 2:53 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2018 12:08 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 63 of 357 (829553)
03-09-2018 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tangle
03-08-2018 4:40 PM


Tangle writes:
Yeh, banning slavery was a disaster.
Think it through. Slavery was banned because it was harmful to the slaves. A was banned from owning B because it was harmful to B. What we're talking about here is banning B from doing something that is harmful to B.
Tangle writes:
You're comparing cicumcision with prohibition? Who exactly is going to get rich when circumcision is banned until the age of 18? Speakeasies for mohels?
Maybe you've heard of abortion. When it was banned, backstreet abortionists did it, some of them out of principle, maybe, but some of them for the money. If you ban circumcision, you criminalize mohels and make the business more lucrative for the unscrupulous ones.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2018 4:40 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2018 1:50 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 64 of 357 (829554)
03-09-2018 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Modulous
03-08-2018 6:37 PM


Re: How is circumcision harmful?
Modulous writes:
If circumcised men are not bothered by this I can only suppose their glans has become less sensitive due to constant stimulation of that region. That doesn't sound good, does it?
Two of my brothers were circumcised at birth and two of us were not. I'm not even sure how I know that because I have never once heard either of them mention it.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Modulous, posted 03-08-2018 6:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2018 12:10 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 68 of 357 (829562)
03-09-2018 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Modulous
03-09-2018 12:08 PM


Modulous writes:
Sounds like you do want people telling you that things can be harmful to you. Make up your mind!
I want health-care professionals telling me that thalidomide, alcohol and marijuana are bad for me. I don't want politicians jailing me for using them.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
... is criminalizing the users an appropriate response?
Yes it is. Babies should not be fed marijuana, it would be abusive.
I think it should be up to the parents, like it is for circumcision. To prove that it "is" harmful, you'd have to prove that it did harm.
Modulous writes:
... what happens if someone else does something harmful to me?
As I've said, that's an entirely different situation. I have no problem with the government telling others not to harm me and telling me not to harm others. What I'm against is the government telling me not to harm myself.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2018 12:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2018 1:13 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 69 of 357 (829563)
03-09-2018 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Modulous
03-09-2018 12:10 PM


Re: How is circumcision harmful?
Modulous writes:
I have no idea what the state of my three brothers' penises are so I can't share back....
You make my point. There doesn't seem to be a problem.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2018 12:10 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 72 of 357 (829599)
03-10-2018 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Modulous
03-09-2018 1:13 PM


Modulous writes:
And giving harmful things to non-consenting people? Is that OK?
Nobody should force harmful things on non-consenting people - and nobody should prevent consenting people from doing harmful things if they so choose.
Modulous writes:
So having oral sex with a child is OK to do to as a parent as long as harm is not proved?
It has been shown that such things are harmful.
Modulous writes:
I'm pretty sure children aren't circumcising themselves.
Children can not consent to sexual activity, education, medical procedures, etc.
Modulous writes:
Your point is that brothers don't tend to talk to one another about their penises?
My point is that if nobody talks about a problem, it's hard to establish that there is a problem.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2018 1:13 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 03-10-2018 1:04 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 73 of 357 (829601)
03-10-2018 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tangle
03-09-2018 1:50 PM


Tangle writes:
I have thought it through and it appears that you think that 7 day old babies slice the end off their own penis.
If you had thought it through, you wouldn't make such a statement. Seven-day-old babies do not have the capacity to give consent.
Tangle writes:
Oh sure - some mohels will carry on their work for the few fundamentalists but since when did we defer from trying to prevent a harmful practice because some criminals want to continue the harmful practice?
Maybe you haven't heard of abortion? We deferred from trying to prevent that practice - which some people do deem harmful - partly because criminals were continuing the practice in a way that was more harmful. Eliminating the ban on abortion made abortions safe.
Another example would be marijuana. Some US jurisdictions have legalized its use and the Canadian government is about to do the same. In Canada, the express purpose is to keep the profits out of criminal hands and to reduce harm to children.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2018 1:50 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Tangle, posted 03-10-2018 11:09 AM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024