Telchar wrote:So you also object to parents giving children polio vaccines? If permanence, rather than results, is your issue then it would seem we are at an impasse.
I would object to it if there were zero arguments in favor of polio vaccines that were not religious based. Fortunately, there are many arguments in favor of polio vaccines that are quite good; namely, health related arguments.
Telchar wrote:So you also object to parents participating in kosher/halal cleanliness traditions? You keep jumping back and forth from permanence to more general religious oppression arguments and it makes it confusing to sort through which you think is bad, children forced into religious tenants, or just those that are given irreversible religious tenants (I use given their as it's the best word I could think of, not to make light of the situation).
And, unless you live in another area of the world, those people getting married are consenting adults. Adults trying to force all adults to do things based solely on religious reasons=definitely suspect but not always bad. Adults forcing their children, not all children, to abide by religious rules=mostly okay. That boundary will always be somewhat arbitrary and this court decided to remove circumcision from that "mostly okay" category. Frankly, I agree but my agreeing has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with physical effects.
Is being raised in a halal home less permanent? Am I able to recover those years in some fashion? Is your claim that a parents religion doesn't have permanent influence outside of ones genitals? Or are you just not comfortable regulating that? Yes, parents are allowed to make decisions that effect their kids permanently and some of those decisions, good or bad, may have religious genesis. That is not a reason to ban anything.
The permanence is tied to it. Parents can not obligate a child to stick with those restrictions for their entire life. Parents can
force a child to stick with circumcision for their entire life. Religious parents are going to do religious things in their household, but once you leave that household you are no longer bound by them, unless what they did was permanent. You cannot recover those years, but it is not a permanent restriction, because you can leave and never be bound by it ever again.
It's not just forcing them to abide by religious rules while the child is under their supervision, it's forcing them to abide by those religious rules while the child is alive. I still dislike the former, but I am not sure that there is any solution to it that is better than the issue itself. The later, however, does not have that problem; you can ban parents from forcing those permanent, irreversible, purely religious (I have used "purely religious" several times over this discussion intentionally) on their child. The child can later choose to accept that permanent restriction themselves at a later date, if they so choose.
Telchar wrote:Put another way: My parents were Christian and decided to circumcise me. Is that okay because it wasn't religious for them? They weren't forcing a token of their religion on me permanently so does it meet your litmus test? Is their perhaps some other standard by which we should judge these things?
Did they have reasons for it that weren't purely religious? Reasons wherein it might improve the quality of life for someone? If so, then it's completely incomparable to what I'm arguing against. "I'm going to do this permanent to my child, solely
because my religion says so." is a terrible thing to do. "I'm going to do this to my child, because of [benefits xyz], and hey! My religion also thinks it's the bee's knees too!" is not a terrible thing to do.
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I don't think that's clear at all. For example, suppose someone thinks murder is wrong (and should be forcibly prevented) because it violates the Wiccan Rede. That's a religious reason, but it's hardly a bad one.
Looking at the Wiccan Rede ("don't cause harm" as wikipedia has lead me to summarize it) there are easy arguments to be made for it being a good principal on its own. Just because people have also made it a religious principal does not change the fact that there are good, non-religious arguments for it. It is why I have tried used "purely religious" often in this discussion.
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Just to be clear where I'm going with this, I don't see any principle behind your invocation of freedom of religion beyond the fact that you think all religions happen to be wrong and thus think that all reasoning that proceeds from religious premises is unsound.
To clarify, it's both freedom of and freedom from religion; both at the same time. I am fine with others having any religious belief system of theirs that can they are able to have. I am also very strongly against them imposing that belief on anyone other than themselves. I would not call that thinking that "all religions happen to be wrong" -- I would say it is highlighting the extent to which religion can be and often is a very personal thing, and how the structure for it ultimately relies on belief
, which I do not see as a good cornerstone to be using for your decisions that will permanently and unalterably affect someone else that does not -- and specific for this discussion, currently can not -- share that belief.
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Your argument looks like this: (1) people shouldn't be allowed to impose things for poor reasons; (2) religious reasons are poor reasons; so, (C) people shouldn't be allowed to impose things for religious reasons. But in that case, (C) isn't so much a substantive principle as it is a special case of some more general principle, (1). As I see it, you're appealing to (C) as something that should be obvious, but it isn't obvious until you've established (1). So I wish you would argue for (1) instead of pretending that religion has some *special* unenforceability that everyone can agree on.
I should have to establish that forcing something on someone else for a reason that is bad is not something you should be able to do? I'm not sure how you expect me to go about that in any detail, I would hope it would be obvious.