Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cuppsworth]

I think what I was trying to get at is that atheists can have perfectly valid moral objections similar to religious objections. The problem lies in how you legally codify that, because morality is a much more individualized concept, and if you extend equal protection to individual morality, it's prone to the sort of abuses I pointed out.

Then maybe there's a problem with religious exemptions in the law in the first place. Why should people get special treatment because a belief is "religious" rather than personal?

Because it's a human rights issue. Freedom of worship is recognized by the UN as a basic human right (Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights).

But Andrea Yates, for example, drowned her children because of her personal religious reasons. Who defines how far this "human rights" issue extends, and why? And how far does it extend now?

Or at least I'm pretty sure it was Andrea Yates. Maybe it was some other woman who drowned her children to keep them from "the devil".

There's a difference between practicing a religion and severe mental illness.

Or so the theists claim...

[Criptfeind]

Where are all these law breaking religions you guys are talking about. Seriously. If something is against the law then a religion is not allowed to do it. If a religion is allowed to do something it is not against the law.

Also, seriously? Yates? Why would that even be relevant. Do you think the authorities really said 'whelp. It is her religion. Nothing we can do.'?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Where are all these law breaking religions you guys are talking about. Seriously. If something is against the law then a religion is not allowed to do it. If a religion is allowed to do something it is not against the law.

The law isn't always right. Take this, for example. This law allows people to abuse and neglect their chidren if they do it in the name of religion. The states can refuse it, but they lose a portion of federal funding if they do. Thirty-one states took the money.

[Criptfeind]

I really don't see why it does so.

I mean... That is what the heading of the wiki section states but in the law itself I don't really see that anywhere.

Edit: Note: I can see how in a law case this could be used to get out of child abuse charges, but that would be more corruption then the actual laws themselves.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That is what the heading of the wiki section states but in the law itself I don't really see that anywhere.

In General.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed-- "(1) as establishing a Federal requirement that a parent or legal guardian provide a child any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian; and "(2) to require that a State find, or to prohibit a State from finding, abuse or neglect in cases in which a parent or legal guardian relies solely or partially upon spiritual means rather than medical treatment, in accordance with the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian.

[Criptfeind]

(b) State requirement
Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, a State shall, at a minimum, have in place authority under State law to permit the child protective services system of the State to pursue any legal remedies, including the authority to initiate legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, to provide medical care or treatment for a child when such care or treatment is necessary to prevent or remedy serious harm to the child, or to prevent the withholding of medically indicated treatment from children with life threatening conditions. Except with respect to the withholding of medically indicated treatments from disabled infants with life threatening conditions, case by case determinations concerning the exercise of the authority of this subsection shall be within the sole discretion of the State.

[freeformschooler]

Also, seriously? Yates? Why would that even be relevant. Do you think the authorities really said 'whelp. It is her religion. Nothing we can do.'?

Precisely. They did exactly the opposite, thus why I asked how far the religious exemption as a human rights issue extends, if they are allowed to get away with certain things but not others. I'm curious.

[Strife26]

Today on Strife explains the limits to your 1st Amendment rights, in American law at least, there is a clear distinction made between freedom of belief and freedom of practice. Freedom of belief is basically the sole freedom that is unabridgable. One's freedom to practice a belief is and can be restricted by whatever law making body wants to, restricted in most cases that the laws can't be specifically targeting a religion. It's usually a big deal when some city tells voodoo practitioners to stop sacrificing chickens in the streets.

[freeformschooler]

Today on Strife explains the limits to your 1st Amendment rights, in American law at least, there is a clear distinction made between freedom of belief and freedom of practice. Freedom of belief is basically the sole freedom that is unabridgable. One's freedom to practice a belief is and can be restricted by whatever law making body wants to, restricted in most cases that the laws can't be specifically targeting a religion. It's usually a big deal when some city tells voodoo practitioners to stop sacrificing chickens in the streets.

Thank you, Strife. Tomorrow on Strife: Strife tells us exactly how overblown or underblown China's modern-day human rights PR problems are, and what kind of heat they're getting them from the UN for all this.

I'd watch it.

[Strife26]

Actually, the full title of the show is "Strife explains the limits to your 1st Amendment rights" it's a big enough topic to cover a 15-30 minute show for a long while.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually, the full title of the show is "Strife explains the limits to your 1st Amendment rights" it's a big enough topic to cover a 15-30 minute show for a long while.

Question: Will you wreck somthing with a tank at least once every episode? This may determine if I watch your program or not.

[Strife26]

Well, tanks are awfully expensive to operate, and I'd rather not face UCMJ action by using one improperly. I'm sure that I could arrange for an animated segment featuring a tank every episode.

[Criptfeind]

Can we have a animated tank be the host with you as the voice actor?

[Strife26]

That might be possible, but it'd also be a lot more work for me as an animator. I was thinking that I'd do it live, with destructive and/or violent demonstrations, then with the ending credits being a couch-gag involving an animated tank.


Man, I want to get a gif of an abrams rolling ever forward as an avatar now.

[RedKing]

Is it wrong that I'm picturing all of this done in the style of Schoolhouse Rock?