Rights of Religion?

[b&wpac4]

Non-christians arn't allowed to debate theology.

I'm not a Christian either.

 

[Supernaut]

Non-christians arn't allowed to debate theology.

Such a shame...

 

[Isambard]

I'm not a Christian either.

That'll only mean that any thread on theology we start will have its lock time from 5mins after creation, to 2mins. ><

 

[b&wpac4]

That'll only mean that any thread on theology we start will have its lock time from 5mins after creation, to 2mins. ><

LOL True. Honestly, I'm not all Rah Rah Let's Go Cut Babies or anything like that, I just think that the fight against the practice will only effect hospitals and such where it is not a religious practice. Jews will continue to circumcise their male children regardless of the laws put in place. It's happened before, and, if anything, it pushes their community more to being religious as now they feel they are being persecuted. It just means everything will be done underground and the law will be unenforceable.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Why should patients who have glaucoma or a life threatining disease be allowed to smoke and get marijuanna legally, when it's illegal for everyone else? The double standard is not limited to relgion.

You could compare that to say simply a drug prescription.
Between religion where health is not a concern and health i do see a difference.

This thread is on why religion gets special permission to break the law.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

I can see the thread getting derailed here, but it's a good point. And why the sexual disparity: OK for baby boys, but absolutely not OK for girls?

Religion aside--could part of the reason be aesthetic? To the Western eye, is the "mutilated" male actually more pleasing than the natural?

Actually this is another reasonable addition. If you were to go up to anyone and without consent snip there tips as ti where you would be arrested. yet its perfectly fine to do it to kids who cannot give consent.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

I doubt they could...and I really doubt you want to know...*shudders at the thought*

But the real reason for male circumcision is for cleanliness. As simple as that, it is easier to keep it clean than if it were uncircumcised.

As Robin Williams said one time:
-Moses: Hello? Lets not wait for the bread to rise - just take some crackers and the skin off your penis. We're leaving.
-Random person: Excuse me?! Why the skin off our penis?
-Moses: We're traveling people, you don't want sand in there!

And thats as logical as knowking out all the teeth so you dont risk getting cavitites. Its easier to clean down there than your teeth. And less painful too if you dont do it everyday.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Now back to topic, why do we also limit these rights? Are we allowing things as long as it harms no one in a religion? Or only harms a little?

It seems that if your giving the freedom then what about human sacrifice with willing fully informed sacrifices. (say a terminally ill person).

Should we allow them to do that if there religion calls for it?

 

[Verv]

I agree with religious organizations receiving special tax statuses because they provide a service (in most cases) to the people of the community and generally do not become profit-based organizations.

Of course, the last part is very debatable -- look at the lavish lifestyles that some religious leaders have led (though this is often through book sales).

And no, this is not just Christians -- there was a lot of donation fraud committed by Buddhist temples in south Korea for a long time.

Something I've learned: wherever there are people involved there are imperfections.

 

[Uncle Tommy]

IM sure many of you have heard of the rights of religions to have rights outside of others.

For instance its common for many religions to have the right to use certain illegal drugs.

Is this right?

If something is illegal why does a religion get to ignore the law?

If say it is deemed not harmful so the religion can use it then why is the drug or whatever illegal in the first place?
Pardon the ramble of this posts but please post your opinions and thoughts.

Why is it ok for religions to get special treatment?

The same Constitutional amendment that protected and still in some way protects Atheists from having to submit to a "State Church". If you don't want religion taught in schools then stay away from the regular practice of the Church.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

The same Constitutional amendment that protected and still in some way protects Atheists from having to submit to a "State Church". If you don't want religion taught in schools then stay away from the regular practice of the Church.

wait how does that relate?
Areyou saying its ok for the church to do illegal activities?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

You could compare that to say simply a drug prescription.
Between religion where health is not a concern and health i do see a difference.

This thread is on why religion gets special permission to break the law.

I'm not going to start a thread about this, but merely pointing out that what's legal for some and illegal for others is not limited to simply religion. Health is a concern with religion, which is primarily why there are dietary laws within certain faiths. 7th Day Adventists for example, follow a strict dietary regimen very similar to Muslims and Jews. Most Hindus and Buddhists are vegetarians, while Christians and followers of other religions feel it is okay for one to eat anything.

For example: intentionally killing an endangered animal is illegal; if you do it in order to survive due to lack of food, then it's legal.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

I'm not going to start a thread about this, but merely pointing out that what's legal for some and illegal for others is not limited to simply religion. Health is a concern with religion, which is primarily why there are dietary laws within certain faiths. 7th Day Adventists for example, follow a strict dietary regimen very similar to Muslims and Jews. Most Hindus and Buddhists are vegetarians, while Christians and followers of other religions feel it is okay for one to eat anything.

For example: intentionally killing an endangered animal is illegal; if you do it in order to survive due to lack of food, then it's legal.

The huge difference is that religions get this for no reason other than its religion. No reason like life or death. Not medical etc.. It is simply due to it being someones religion.

 

[b&wpac4]

The huge difference is that religions get this for no reason other than its religion. No reason like life or death. Not medical etc.. It is simply due to it being someones religion.

...and that's the way it works in a society that doesn't take sides in the religion debate. It's the first amendment, and it's important. That you don't follow a religion is your right, but it doesn't give you the right to not let others practice theirs.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

So it is ok to have a human sacrifice if its my religion?

Why do they get special treatment?

 

[b&wpac4]

So it is ok to have a human sacrifice if its my religion?

Why do they get special treatment?

I knew you'd go that direction. No, a religion could not perform human sacrifice. To be honest, there's a huge gap between human sacrifice and other practices. What I really don't understand is people who take a stance which is outright antagonistic toward all religious practices. As I say to Christians who try to force people to their thoughts, you are either on the freedom train or you are not. Swinging to the other side and trying to force people not to practice their religion, especially a long established religion, puts you (the general you) on the anti-freedom side.

Yes, it is a tough road to walk when we're trying to figure out what we can allow under religious freedom and what we cannot. Human sacrifice removes a life and violates a person's right to live, so that one seems obvious. Issues such as male circumcision are going to be difficult as, for example, Jewish culture has practiced it for literally thousands of years and not having it performed excludes that Jewish male from participating in his religion, if he chooses to do so. An argument of harm can be made, as shown on this thread, but the fact is that for religious Jews (and even secular ones that hold strongly to the cultural aspects), they will practice it regardless. Do we really want to make an entire religious population outlaws?

I think that we need to be very careful how we approach any religious issue. The history of outlawing religious practices is not one of people peacefully giving them up because the government demands it. They take it underground, they fight for the rights to do what they believe is correct, they can become violent. How would you react if you were forced to go to church every Sunday against your will? I'm sure you wouldn't take to it kindly.

 

[Isambard]

I knew you'd go that direction. No, a religion could not perform human sacrifice. To be honest, there's a huge gap between human sacrifice and other practices. What I really don't understand is people who take a stance which is outright antagonistic toward all religious practices. As I say to Christians who try to force people to their thoughts, you are either on the freedom train or you are not. Swinging to the other side and trying to force people not to practice their religion, especially a long established religion, puts you (the general you) on the anti-freedom side.

Er no. There are other freedoms besides the right to worship. Someone's supersitition doesn't, nor should it ever, trump those.

Yes, it is a tough road to walk when we're trying to figure out what we can allow under religious freedom and what we cannot. Human sacrifice removes a life and violates a person's right to live, so that one seems obvious. Issues such as male circumcision are going to be difficult as, for example, Jewish culture has practiced it for literally thousands of years and not having it performed excludes that Jewish male from participating in his religion, if he chooses to do so.

Circumcision can take place at his choosing when he is of legal age of consent. A jewish (male) child can't participate anyway in the religion until he has his barmitzvah (sp?) anyways, so the argument is mute.

An argument of harm can be made, as shown on this thread, but the fact is that for religious Jews (and even secular ones that hold strongly to the cultural aspects), they will practice it regardless. Do we really want to make an entire religious population outlaws?

Would we arrest a Muslim for beating his wife? What about a Scientologist for participating in a 'fair-game policy'? Why the double-standard for Jews?

I think that we need to be very careful how we approach any religious issue. The history of outlawing religious practices is not one of people peacefully giving them up because the government demands it. They take it underground, they fight for the rights to do what they believe is correct, they can become violent. How would you react if you were forced to go to church every Sunday against your will? I'm sure you wouldn't take to it kindly.

History has shown that the religion becomes cowardly when sufficient force is displayed. Its not like the Klan, Scientology (in parts of Europe), or Christians (witch-burnings, attacking homosexuals, attacking minorities etc.) are anywhere near the level viciousnes they once where.

 

[b&wpac4]

I'm not arguing for the special treatment of anybody. I get that you really don't like religious beliefs. I really understand that.

 

[Isambard]

I'm not arguing for the special treatment of anybody.

Yes you are. You're saying Jewish practices should be excempt from human rights requirements on the basis that its been practiced for thousands of years. The same argument could be made for Islamic wife beating or Hindu widow-burning. Would you allow those practices as well?

I get that you really don't like religious beliefs. I really understand that.

No. I don't like hypocracy. All the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-footing around certain religions is one of the reason why the religious right has gained the power that it has.

 

[yasic]

I'm not arguing for the special treatment of anybody. I get that you really don't like religious beliefs. I really understand that.

I would think the natural position would be "You can practice your religion any way you wish unless it either harms another individual or is illegal."

You on the other hand are saying "You can priactice your religion any way you wish unless it does much serious harm to another human being, or is a felony (but not a minor offense)"

I see no reason to award religion those two exceptions.