The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why 'religion'? > Comments

Why 'religion'? : Comments

By Meg Wallace, published 22/10/2015

I argue that Article 18 applies to the adoption and manifestation of any life-stance philosophy, religious or otherwise.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All
LesP,

Everybody should have the right to express her or his opinion provided it does not humiliate, or incite hatred or violence against, some other person or group.

BUT as to your statement that '.... those who speak from a religious position [should] have their position respected....'

No. Not every opinion is worth respecting - the right to make a fool of yourself is, however, still freely available, including to 'those who speak from a religious position'. The Life of Brian catered for that absurdity pretty well.

In your case, long may it prosper.

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 22 October 2015 12:58:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I broadly agree with the article’s conclusion that freedom of religion should not be elevated above the broader rights of individuals to freedom of belief and expression. I do have some concerns with Meg’s arguments, though.

First, the argument that Article 18 is (mis)used to privilege religion over other belief systems, and to privilege some religions over others, seem to me a bit thin. Yes, religions can be privileged, but generally for other reasons, such as the charitable activities of religions, or a belief they are good for society. Of course these reasons can be challenged, and often are. But I don’t recall Article 18 ever featuring in the debate.

Second, religion is commonly a basis for discrimination in many cultures. Specifying that this particular form of discrimination is unacceptable makes sense in the same way that specifying that racial or gender discrimination are unacceptable, rather than subsuming them under a generic category of “discrimination”.

Third, religion is not merely a set of beliefs; most religions make demands on how their followers behave. Freedom to worship, for example, is an integral part of freedom of religion that would not apply to secular beliefs and values. Recognising freedom of religion can also mean tolerating behaviour on the part of certain groups that are not accepted for others – for example, in some states Sikhs are exempt from laws requiring cyclists to wear helmets, because their religion requires them to wear turbans.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 22 October 2015 2:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Find myself mostly in agreement with Joe.

And can only add, if you take a position based entirely on just a particular belief, then you must hold open in your mind that the opposite can also be true?

Even so, I believe we can't simply dismiss eyewitness accounts on the basis of similar non belief.

A here I draw your attention to a book titled life after life, which is a series of eyewitness accounts of near death experiences, which in one instance caused a drug dealer and hardened criminal to completely reform; given he said he'd seen hell and wanted none of it! And who can say we absolute certainty that was just a sick or damaged brain hallucinating? And repeated time after time in similar first person accounts?

My mother also recounts a near death out of body experience where she watched a surgical team battle for her life, which by the way included opening up her chest cavity with a small power saw and hand massaging her heart.

She was able to recount in precise detail every action and the conversion of all the players as witnessed from just above the scene!

I also draw your attention to a young man never ever exposed to the chinese or thee most complex language on earth. Waking from a long comma and reportedly able to speak flawless Mandarin!

I know the brain is capable of many unusual tricks, But draw the line at self taught flawless Mandarin while in a comma.

In any event, I believe it is high time we had a bill of irrefutable rights, which ought to include freedom of worship and assembly, but not exclusively so given I believe we can best know what to believe if those beliefs are regularly tested; sometimes by something as simple as mindful meditation; which by the way is apparently accompanied by all sorts of health benefits!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 22 October 2015 3:17:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LesP,

Despite being religious, I find myself agreeing with our atheist friends here:

What is so important about speaking in the 'Public Square'?

At the moment we could be compelled to speak in the 'Public Square' in order to safeguard our freedom of worship and following our religion, which is constantly in danger, but given an ideal situation where the state leaves us alone, when "freedom of all thought, opinions and convictions and the freedom to articulate these in our personal activities through expression, association and assembly, without unreasonable interference by the state" already prevails, then what's left to be said in the 'Public Square'?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 22 October 2015 4:01:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david t "There is no more reason to respect a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu argument than there is to respect a Muslim argument."

That is obvious but surely you do not think I have anymore regard for any of that rubbish? Well I do not.

What galls me is the obsequious crawling to these 13th century nutters. You should be ashamed, what next Hitler deserves all our respect?
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 22 October 2015 4:03:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My post was made within the context of the outworking of belief – secular or “religious” forming the philosophy a person holds. That philosophy determines actions in society.

For example; at conception all the genetic material that the individual needs for growth and development is present in a single cell. Because I hold to the sanctity of life and that “Personhood” commences at conception, I hold to the position that termination of a pregnancy is unacceptable except to save the life of the mother, or other foetus(es). I recognise that there are those who hold that “Personhood” does not commence at conception or even at birth, but I claim that my position is a valid position and needs to be considered.

But we don’t have an ideal situation where the state leaves us alone, when "freedom of all thought, opinions and convictions and the freedom to articulate these in our personal activities through expression, association and assembly, without unreasonable interference by the state"

I have enclosed links to details of a UK Pastor facing prison for entering the “Public Square” and the negative response to the Christian commentator Peter Hitchens when he debated with a panel of people dedicated to the Sexual Revolution.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6065/belfast-christian-pastor-islam

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/religious-belief-a-pathology-that-must-be-eliminated-the-new-tolerance
Posted by LesP, Thursday, 22 October 2015 5:53:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy