Religion and Atheism

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I think it's a great example.  It shows that despite evidence to the contrary, the lawmakers in those counties persist with forcing their belief onto others.  The lawmakers in those counties are allowing their beliefs to overcome evidence. It is exactly the type of thing that should be spoken up about.  But careful, don't want to offend their beliefs now. 

Stubby,

This is an unusually libertatian position for you to take.  Out of curiosity what other limits would you place upon government's ability to restrict the behavior of indivuduals?

;)

[Stubby]

Stubby,

This is an unusually libertatian position for you to take.  Out of curiosity what other limits would you place upon government's ability to restrict the behavior of indivuduals?

How do you mean, mate?  My only view is that laws like this should be based on actual evidence.  If (as the example said) the studies show that there are less accidents and deaths and unsociable behaviour when alcohol is legal, why criminalise it because the county people think it's teh ebil?

[Stubby]

In a secular society, all religions are equal, as is the right of the individual to be free from religion.

Therefore, putting the Lord's Prayer on screen before a captive audience is problematic, and the cinemas are absolutely correct in refusing to show it.

Also, there's the small fact that religious and political advertising in the UK is prohibited.

Huh.  Did not know that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

In a secular society, all religions are equal, as is the right of the individual to be free from religion.

Therefore, putting the Lord's Prayer on screen before a captive audience is problematic, and the cinemas are absolutely correct in refusing to show it.

Also, there's the small fact that religious and political advertising in the UK is prohibited.

 

Spocky,

By that logic if I say a quick grace over my meal in public I've violated others rights "to be free from" religion.  

Heck a "captive" audience is people driving home from work who see the church I attend and the blurb on the "announcement board" about what Fr. Thomas' homily is today.  If you start going for "freedom from religion" any and all outward displays of religious faith would be banned including all christmas music that is played publicly that makes referece to God.  What about religious works of art in an art history class in a public school?  They were made to evoke a sense of awe and wonder in those who see them.  Should only secular art be seen by these children?  What about religious garb?  My priest when he is about town wears a cassock.  Should he be required to wear normal clothes when not in a church setting?  

Do you really want to banish all expressions of faith to a dark corner where only those of faith can see them?  

What penalties would you impose upon me for saying lord's prayer over my meal in a restaurant before eating?  It is a public place, the people around me are, "a captive audience".  I'm quite curious at this point.

[Spockydog]

Huh.  Did not know that.

I think religious organizations are allowed to advertise for charitable purposes, but anything that seeks to convert or indoctrinate is forbidden.

 

 

[Liffguard]

 Keep that shit in churches, this is a secular nation.

 

Technically it isn't, though I still agree with your basic point.

[Spockydog]

Spocky,

By that logic if I say a quick grace over my meal in public I've violated others rights "to be free from" religion.  

Heck a "captive" audience is people driving home from work who see the church I attend and the blurb on the "announcement board" about what Fr. Thomas' homily is today.  If you start going for "freedom from religion" any and all outward displays of religious faith would be banned including all christmas music that is played publicly that makes referece to God.  What about religious works of art in an art history class in a punlic school?  They were made to evoke a sense of awe and wonder in those who see them.  Should only secular art be seen by these children?  

Do you really want to banish all expressions of faith to a dark corner where only those of faith can see them?  

What penalties would you impose upon me for saying lord's prayer over my meal in a restaurant before eating?  It is a public place, the people around me are, "a captive audience.  I'm quite curious at this point.

You're being slightly disingenious here, Scot. I have no problem with someone quietly saying Grace over their meal in a restaurant. However, were you to stand up on the table and bellow your prayer though a megaphone, I'd probably tell you to stfu. As would everyone else within earshot.

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Spocky,

Oh, so only amplified religious expressions will violate your "freedom from religion"?  Church bells should be banned, the calls to prayer from mosque minerates?  Your standard was, after all, a "captive audience".  

You haven't addressed religious dress and public displays like cassoks, the Hijab, Crusifixes, or Stars of David worn outside people cloths.  Those while not "amplified" can't be avoided and could fall into your initial "captive audience" test.  Fr. Thomas, for example frequently speaks at our local University.  Should he be banned from wearing a cassok when he speaks? 

What about religious art and music.  Should such art be prohibited from being displayed in schools and public places.  Should such music be banned from be broadcast on public airwaves (that is a form of amplification after all)?

If you can take offense at the public broadcast of a religious ad at a movie who is to say the logical extensions of your argument will not be used to quash all public displays of religious art, music, and speech under the grounds of giving people "freedom from religion".

 

[Spockydog]

Scot, I shall not bother addressing the host of straw-men you have presented. None of which are comparable to this case.

You think it's okay to offend preach to the tens of thousands of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and other religious denominations, not to mention faithless heathens like myself, who have just turned up to watch a sci-fi space fantasy? 

 

 

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Spocky,

If you ban public expressions of faith because you believe people have "freedom from religion" tell me that the examples I've presented are not ripe for being banned under the logic you've presented.

Stubby,

My point is that libertarians believe in limiting the power of government to act, in part, to prevent things like "blue laws" and "dry counties" that are enacted purely on a religious basis.

[Spockydog]

Scot, I do not believe that a cinema is an appropriate venue to be forcing prayer down people's throats. Simple as that.

And fuck your straw men. You pull this kind of shit all the time, and I will not rise to it.

 

[Stubby]

Stubby,

My point is that libertarians believe in limiting the power of government to act, in part, to prevent things like "blue laws" and "dry counties" that are enacted purely on a religious basis.

Yeah but I don't accept that what I was saying was libertarian.  I also endorse mandatory wearing of seatbelts, based on the evidence, and that is pretty much the opposite of libertarian.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Spocky,

Fine.  I simply cannot accept that limiting religious speech in that context will have no broader implications.  You may not walk the path raised by such implications but I'd be shocked if there were not others who were willing to take that route.

[and they aren't strawmen they are examples of public dispays of religious faith.  As such I was curious to see how you would react to such displays to "captive audiences" to use your words.  Further I'm not saying you support them, I'm asking you if they are consistent with the logic you offer.  You reject that assertion.  No strawman.

Stubby,

I'm sure you don't see it as libertarian.  My point is that your position in that circumstance is in one many libertarians would also advocate.  Then you could make a comment about a stopped clock and twice a day.

[Castel]

Yet not when then there is positive actual evidence other than "I believe".  That phrase (I believe) is not a trump card to overcome evidence.

Evidence whose importance depends on the values in question

 

The Church of England is bewildered by leading UK cinema chains' refusal to play their advert before the new Star Wars movie.

What are they hoping to achieve here? Mass conversion? Keep that shit in churches, this is a secular nation.

 

So? It's an advert in a theater, not government action . It seems to go against the good taste of pluralists mostly 

 

I can see why it was not shown but I don't see it as much different from a variety of other charities  or causes lobbying for their cause with cool ads. 

 

 

[Stubby]

Evidence whose importance depends on the values in question

Yeah I'm always coming down on the side of the evidence of laws that affect actual living humans.

[Stubby]

Stubby,

I'm sure you don't see it as libertarian.  My point is that your position in that circumstance is in one many libertarians would also advocate.  Then you could make a comment about a stopped clock and twice a day.

Then it's pretty much a good law then.  It affects everyone equally, is based on evidence and favours no-one.  If it happens to be something that libertarians argue for, so what?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

A law requiring all people to wear suits of 6 inch thick foam rubber padding in all air conditioned spaces would reduce injuries.  Should it be enacted?

[Stubby]

Stubby,

A law requiring all people to wear suits of 6 inch thick foam rubber padding in all air conditioned spaces would reduce injuries.  Should it be enacted?

No because it's a stupid made-up law that no-one sensible would be advocating.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

Yup, but if the only rational needed to jusity a law is its utility it could be justified.  My point is that legislation is, and should be, more involved than that.

 

[Stubby]

Stubby,

Yup, but if the only rational needed to jusity a law is its utility it could be justified.  My point is that legislation is, and should be, more involved than that.

 

Yeah I get that.  But you are misrepresenting my point.  That is that proposed laws should not be based on codifying beliefs.  Whether those beliefs are religious, anti-vaccination, federal funding of homeopathy, etc etc.  Calling that approach "libertarian" or using examples like the one you proposed is simply papering over the point.  It still has to be a sensible law in the first place.