|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
For those who cannot follow things I'm refering to the laws like those requiring equal radio time for the left etc.. I have yet to hear a good radio person on the right so the left must be really bad.
|
|||||||||
ringmaster Inner circle Memphis, Down in Dixie 1974 Posts |
OK, freedom of speech is the liberal position, in the U.S. at least. We live and breath the first amendment. That includes freedom of religion, American style. Right wing Christians, for the most part, don't seem to understand that to maximize religious freedom, we have to make it off limits to all government control.
Europe has different traditions. My last post on this subject. Arguing politics and/or religion on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you still look retarded.
One of the last living 10-in-one performers. I wanted to be in show business the worst way, and that was it.
|
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Crass comparisons aside, freedom is a very difficult thing. Few freedoms are or ought to be unrestricted. The basic position of JS Mill--that the only legitimate government restriction of freedom is to prevent harm--is still the most important consideration in western legal and philosophical deliberation. Of course, the devil is in the details. What counts as harm? How much harm? etc.
Freedom of religion, it seems to me, should include non-harmful practices. This rules out ritual sexual abuse, human sacrifice and a few other obvious things. Much of the rest is up for serious debate. And nobody should expect that their position will win the day every time. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky: If you don't believe in rights for people you despise, then you don't believe in rights. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
But John, isn't fostering a belief in something which's presence and even existence is undemonstrable a harm? What then can you say when someone does bad things and claims they were acting under direct orders from such beliefs? What does it mean to be an employee of a belief system?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Unless you believe in thought crimes, fostering a belief, and holding a belief is not (or better, IMHO should not be) a crime. Acting on the beliefs may or may not be.
Jack
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
The IRA have a new law there which says thou shale stop killing for a while, bejasus.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-07-24 17:12, Jonathan Townsend wrote: You'll need more context before I can speak to the question. I will give an example from where you might be wanting to go with this. In most Western states "hate speech" is a crime (I believe that the US is a notable exception to this). The rationale of "hate speech" laws is that by promoting hatred against an identifiable group, you can make it difficult for them to live normal lives within the liberal society. An obvious argument against "hate speech" laws is that the harm done by repressing free speech is greater than the harm caused by the speech. I don't pretend to be able to adjudicate the question of whether these laws are justifiable, but I do think that this is a very profitable way to frame the legitimate debate. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Actions are what they are.
Claiming actions are justified by a belief is my question. Indoctrinating others is an action.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
spatlind Special user still moving 863 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-07-24 17:45, tommy wrote: Ignorance is bliss..
Actions lie louder than words - Carolyn Wells
I believe in God, only I spell it Nature - Frank Lloyd Wright. |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
Aha! The libs are against freedom of speech! It isn't the right wanting to limit the speech of the left, it is the left in the US wanting to limit the speech of the right. As for Ireland they just made divorce legal not long ago and it was because of the religious aspect it wasn't legal. As for Tommy I believe the law was for the Republic of Ireland not Northern Ireland so the IRA doesn't come into play.
|
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-07-24 20:21, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Why is it problematic to claim that actions can be justified by beliefs? The killing of a human being has been legally justified by the belief that that person posed a real and present harm. You'll have to help me out with the indoctrination bit. If you are asking if the indoctrination of children is successfully justified in the name of freedom of religion, you're onto a very interesting and difficult question. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Magic.J.Manuel Special user I have danced upon 663 Posts |
Nothing would get done at all, if man waited so long that no one could find fault with it.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
So many questions begged that it often feels more like a Dante model more than a Milton model.
Why is it problematic (to who) that actions (of what sort, when, taken by who, and to what?) can be justified (to who?) by beliefs (held by who?). The killing (by who) of a human being (any?) has been legally justified (to who? when? under what circumstances?) by the belief (held by who?) that a person (who again?) posed a real and present harm (again to who and under what circumstance?). Litmus test for PC and hypocrisy - if that were true then why aren't they shown on the news as moral and patriotic observations so any interested parties can attend the verification of legal due process?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Legally, the belief test is both subjective and objective. The belief has to be actually held by the person doing the killing, and it has to be a "reasonable" belief, as interpreted by a jury.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Milgram already showed that you can get a ordinary "reasonable" people to do horrendous things when acting as an agent of authority using a white labcoat - so you probably don't need me to suggest these same people are just as wont to do much worse as agents of the man in a black robe behind a big desk with a flag etc.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-07-24 22:05, Jonathan Townsend wrote: What are you expecting in a short open-forum discussion? Frankly you're just being rude here. Quote:
Do you really need an answer to this? I say problematic to my interlocutors (you, among others) who assume to have taken a position of basic rationality. It is problematic, I suggest, because there are deeply conflicting values at play in the discussion. The weighing of issues of competing claims to priority (e.g. free speech vs free religion vs harm, etc.) is very difficult. But I don't see that it is impossible to make progress. Quote:
The killing (by who) of a human being (any?) has been legally justified (to who? when? under what circumstances?) by the belief (held by who?) that a person (who again?) posed a real and present harm (again to who and under what circumstance?). Are you serious? The example is obviously intended to suggest that there are many circumstances that could fit the general outline. Read the newspaper and pick an example. Since you're from New York, use the case of Bernhard Goetz. Maybe consider the case of a soldier (find one) who has been given orders to kill. Maybe consider a state-sanctioned executioner. This will involve a bit of work on your part. Quote:
Litmus test for PC and hypocrisy - if that were true then why aren't they shown on the news as moral and patriotic observations so any interested parties can attend the verification of legal due process? I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please give examples.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-07-24 23:01, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: I'm asking your help to frame an argument in such a way that we can get some fixed points and start comparing observations. Values seem to depend upon context. I'm asking you to specify some context so we can discuss instances and from them explore what rules are in place or desired put into place (and perhaps to what purpose). Quote:
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please give examples. The Milton Model and the Meta Model are discussed elsewhere. How can you know if someone holds a specific belief?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Ok, let's look at a serious contemporary issue. In my province in Canada, Hutterites--an Anabaptist sect--collectively farms in a large number of locations. Part of the economics of their farming is that they buy, sell and ship livestock, grains, market vegetables, feed, etc. To do this, of course, government-issued drivers' licenses are required. In 2006, some Hutterites appealed to the courts that according to their religious beliefs, having photographs taken was a violation of the Biblical second commandment. This, they argued, was an unjustified violation of their right to religious freedom. The provincial court agreed and allowed them to have picture-free licenses.
In this case, the content of the belief was ascertained by listening. Spokesmen for the Hutterites simply explained what they meant to the best of their abilities. They answered questions in court. And the judge interpreted what he heard to the best of his ability. Fallible? Of course. But I guess that the judge did quite well in inferring which beliefs were held and why. The case was appealed, and today the Supreme Court overturned the decision, ruling that the violation of religious freedom was justified by the public interest in properly identifying the operators of motor vehicles; this is an appeal to the prevention of harm. This adjudication could not have been simple, as these values are very difficult to weigh against one another. These practical judgments are difficult and are rarely decisive. Undoubtedly there will continue to be disagreement over the wisest ruling in this case. But it's hard to see what better recourse humans have than to have these sorts of weighings of competing interests and claims. For anyone who is interested, here is an early news story about the decision. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Thanks, that's a fine example and test case to explore.
Starting at the wiki now - looking for the basis of their concern about photographs. I get the feeling both the government and the Hutterites lost in this one. The stories online suggest that instead of evolving together - the Hutterites are back to feeling mistreated and the local government has not understood some of its population.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
thorndyke Regular user Canada 147 Posts |
Y'know, if I want to trash talk your religion it seems to me that you should be strong enough in your faith that you wouldn't need to even address my comments.
Go ahead and make fun of my beliefs, I have no need to sue over something so trivial, nor do I need a law to protect anything other than FREE SPEECH! |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Blashpemy illegal in Ireland (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |