Author Topic: And this is bad .....why???  (Read 1739 times)

Attila

  • The Believer That Wasn't There
  • *
  • Posts: 282
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2011, 04:37:04 AM »
I'm siding with Whitney on this one.  While you can't allow religious practices to completely dominate business and the affairs of state, curbing personal freedom is a rejection of all the progress that was made in the Enlightenment. Freedom in matters of religion/non-religion is one of the hallmarks of a liberal democracy.  If you go back on that, you move toward a totalitarian state, which is what we all (I would hope) want to avoid. 
If missionaries had no power to constrain the living styles of the indigenous inhabitants then their presence (deprived of all authority) would be annoying but tolerable. Sadly you seem to wish to ignore the role that missionaries played in the past and continue to play in the present in "civilising" the primitive savages. In Colombia, the native population was declared "minors by law" and placed under the tender care of missionaries. You might want to read up on the role missionaries played in the "pacification of savages" in your own country.
If you find this sort of behaviour worthy of protection, there's really not much I can say.

Whitney

  • Global Moderator
  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7358
  • Gender: Female
  • Mysteriously Absent - Like God
    • http://fellowshipoffreethought.org
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2011, 01:04:20 PM »
I'm siding with Whitney on this one.  While you can't allow religious practices to completely dominate business and the affairs of state, curbing personal freedom is a rejection of all the progress that was made in the Enlightenment. Freedom in matters of religion/non-religion is one of the hallmarks of a liberal democracy.  If you go back on that, you move toward a totalitarian state, which is what we all (I would hope) want to avoid. 
If missionaries had no power to constrain the living styles of the indigenous inhabitants then their presence (deprived of all authority) would be annoying but tolerable. Sadly you seem to wish to ignore the role that missionaries played in the past and continue to play in the present in "civilising" the primitive savages. In Colombia, the native population was declared "minors by law" and placed under the tender care of missionaries. You might want to read up on the role missionaries played in the "pacification of savages" in your own country.
If you find this sort of behaviour worthy of protection, there's really not much I can say.

Your example is a bad reason to limit religious freedom....it's just an example of a dumb government passing dumb laws that give missionaries power they shouldn't have.  It's important to fix the problem; not just what you find annoying.

Attila

  • The Believer That Wasn't There
  • *
  • Posts: 282
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2011, 01:12:55 PM »
I'm siding with Whitney on this one.  While you can't allow religious practices to completely dominate business and the affairs of state, curbing personal freedom is a rejection of all the progress that was made in the Enlightenment. Freedom in matters of religion/non-religion is one of the hallmarks of a liberal democracy.  If you go back on that, you move toward a totalitarian state, which is what we all (I would hope) want to avoid. 
If missionaries had no power to constrain the living styles of the indigenous inhabitants then their presence (deprived of all authority) would be annoying but tolerable. Sadly you seem to wish to ignore the role that missionaries played in the past and continue to play in the present in "civilising" the primitive savages. In Colombia, the native population was declared "minors by law" and placed under the tender care of missionaries. You might want to read up on the role missionaries played in the "pacification of savages" in your own country.
If you find this sort of behaviour worthy of protection, there's really not much I can say.

Your example is a bad reason to limit religious freedom....it's just an example of a dumb government passing dumb laws that give missionaries power they shouldn't have.  It's important to fix the problem; not just what you find annoying.
Maybe that's what the government in Kazakhstan was trying to do. Which is why I asked the question which is the title of this thread in the first place. So we've come full circle.

Sandra Craft

  • Surprisingly OK
  • Global Moderator
  • The Cure for Boredom is Curiosity. There is No Cure For Curiosity.
  • *****
  • Posts: 9103
  • Gender: Female
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2011, 01:57:54 PM »
I think cutting off your nose to spite your face may be a fitting phrase for this topic.  Obviously religion does do some damage but the actions necessary to stop the damage in many cases just moves the damage elsewhere at best and can make it worse.

If we're talking about things like registering religious groups and limiting access to religious materials, I'd agree that's on a slippery slope (but I don't know anything about what's going on in Kazakhstan, other than this article).  But in the case of limiting foreign missionaries access to and control over native populations, I think a little nose cutting might be unavoidable.  In that situation, it seems like one miscarriage of justice might be necessary to fight another miscarriage of justice, and we're stuck choosing the lesser evil.
Sandy

  
"I think this is the prettiest world -- as long as you don't mind a little dying, how could there be a day in your whole life that doesn't have its splash of happiness?"  from The Kingfisher, by Mary Oliver

Attila

  • The Believer That Wasn't There
  • *
  • Posts: 282
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2011, 03:40:10 PM »
Let's hear it for [hushed tones]Religious Freedom[/hushed tones].
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/bet-shemesh-haredi-jews-school
Yes, I know. Religious practices are basically harmless. This is but a taste of the sort of things I was trying to explain. This is better written and more graphic. No don't ban them, but maybe a little restraint in deference to the rights of the non-holy.

Whitney

  • Global Moderator
  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7358
  • Gender: Female
  • Mysteriously Absent - Like God
    • http://fellowshipoffreethought.org
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2011, 06:42:22 PM »
There is a difference between restraining religious freedom and restraining people from bothering other people.  Once they impede on the freedom of others their freedom stops.  Those who harm others or prevent them from going home should be arrested.  Those who just want to yell like idiots can be pulled back into designated protest areas...just like how westboro baptist is handled.  Yes what some groups say is horrible but in order to protect freedom of speech and religion for everyone the bad speech/views has to be taken with the good.

Attila

  • The Believer That Wasn't There
  • *
  • Posts: 282
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2011, 07:21:35 PM »
There is a difference between restraining religious freedom and restraining people from bothering other people.  Once they impede on the freedom of others their freedom stops.  Those who harm others or prevent them from going home should be arrested.  Those who just want to yell like idiots can be pulled back into designated protest areas...just like how westboro baptist is handled.  Yes what some groups say is horrible but in order to protect freedom of speech and religion for everyone the bad speech/views has to be taken with the good.
So I guess we agree.  :)

Ecurb Noselrub

  • No Wall in my name!!!
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6289
  • Gender: Male
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2011, 01:42:44 AM »
There is a difference between restraining religious freedom and restraining people from bothering other people.  Once they impede on the freedom of others their freedom stops.  Those who harm others or prevent them from going home should be arrested.  Those who just want to yell like idiots can be pulled back into designated protest areas...just like how westboro baptist is handled.  Yes what some groups say is horrible but in order to protect freedom of speech and religion for everyone the bad speech/views has to be taken with the good.

Exactly.  You can limit one group harassing another group without limiting essential religious freedoms.  Religious freedom is in the same class as freedom of speech, press, assembly, conscience, etc.  It's absolutely fundamental.  Remember, religious freedom includes the right not to believe in any particular god, which means it includes the right to believe in no gods at all. Religious freedom protects the atheist as much as it protects the believer.  If I start infringing upon your freedoms with my religion, or you start infringing upon my rights with your atheism, that defines the limit of the freedom.

By the way, you seem to be endorsing the exercise of authority by the Kazakhstan government.  So, authority is OK when it agrees with your position, eh? 

Whitney

  • Global Moderator
  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7358
  • Gender: Female
  • Mysteriously Absent - Like God
    • http://fellowshipoffreethought.org
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2011, 03:10:46 AM »
By the way, you seem to be endorsing the exercise of authority by the Kazakhstan government.  So, authority is OK when it agrees with your position, eh? 

I think I've been saying this whole time that freedom is important even if it means having to allow stuff that the majority don't agree with....so I don't get how you came to the above conclusion...

Attila

  • The Believer That Wasn't There
  • *
  • Posts: 282
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2011, 04:44:58 AM »
Obviously not Bruce. You're simple not paying attention or the ideas are getting a bit too much for you. If the Italian government bans food additives containing high levels of heavy metals I can support the content of the action without supporting the method by which such action was arrived at. Am I getting a little too technical for you, Brucie? Bloody 'ell, people of faith are soooo thick! In the Kazakhstan situation it would have been nice if the the intended recipients of the missionaries' sick garbage were the one's who decided if they wanted this vermin around or not. Get it?

Ecurb Noselrub

  • No Wall in my name!!!
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6289
  • Gender: Male
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2011, 02:49:26 PM »
By the way, you seem to be endorsing the exercise of authority by the Kazakhstan government.  So, authority is OK when it agrees with your position, eh? 

I think I've been saying this whole time that freedom is important even if it means having to allow stuff that the majority don't agree with....so I don't get how you came to the above conclusion...

Whitney, I must have been drunk.  I meant to direct this last comment at Attila.  Sorry - he's the one who is waffling on the use of authority, not you.

Ecurb Noselrub

  • No Wall in my name!!!
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6289
  • Gender: Male
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2011, 02:59:38 PM »
Obviously not Bruce. You're simple not paying attention or the ideas are getting a bit too much for you. If the Italian government bans food additives containing high levels of heavy metals I can support the content of the action without supporting the method by which such action was arrived at. Am I getting a little too technical for you, Brucie? Bloody 'ell, people of faith are soooo thick! In the Kazakhstan situation it would have been nice if the the intended recipients of the missionaries' sick garbage were the one's who decided if they wanted this vermin around or not. Get it?

Nice distinction.

Will37

  • Doesn't Believe in Mother Goose
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Gender: Male
Re: And this is bad .....why???
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2012, 01:31:11 PM »
bans foreigners from setting up faith groups, and severely limits where religious literature can be bought.

This part is bad...it limits individual freedom.  And I'm guessing this  is a response to the growing European fear that Islam will take over....laws/policy created out of fear tend to lead to bad things  (red scare, japanese concentration....)
1. But Kazakhstan is almost entirely in central Aisa and only very marginally  in Europe. It is also 70% islamic.
2. In terms of taking over, how many Islamic countries are being invaded/bombed/... by Europeans/Americans (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen ...). How many European countries are being invaded/bombed/... by Islamic countries??
(uh ..... uh... uh ....)
3. Would you be in favour of a prayer room in the Texas Capital building (maybe there's one there already)
4. If you saw first-hand the unspeakable harm that foreign missionaries are doing, you would be standing up and applauding this move. Of all the evils committed by "the faithful" foreign missionary work is about the worst.
5. Why is limiting where religious literature can be bought any worse than limiting where alcohol/cigarettes can be bought. This is certainly true in Canada (the LCBO in Ontario, the SAQ in Québec)

I don't know is Nazarbayev is paying you or if you're just trying to rationalize actions whose context you have made no effert to understand.  There may be a kernal to this legislation that is intended to combat the influence of growing Islamist groups in the region but far more so this is yet another power grab by Nazarbayev (and old hanger on from the CCCP days) to grab more power.  This is the modus of the region.  Respond to western, Russian, Chinese, et cetera concerns about the proliferation of terrorist groups in the region by introduce measures to further solidify your grip on power but may have the happy by product of curbing terror. 

As for number 5.  I truely don't know where to begin.  Maybe because freedom of speech is a centeral pillar to any liberal democracy or any country that hopes to become a liberal democracy while alcohol consumption, although highly enjoyable, is not.  Therefore, regulating the proliferation of speech based on content is a much more serious thing, particularly in a country run by an old Soviet strong man, then regulating alcohol sale.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 01:35:11 PM by Will37 »
'Out of a great number of suppositions, shrewd in their own way, one in particular emerged at last (one feels strange even mentioning it): whether Chichikov were not Napoleon in disguise'
Nikolai Gogol--> Dead Souls

'Коба, зачем тебе нужна моя смерть?'
Николай Иванович Бухарин-->Letter to Stalin

'Death is not an event in life: we do not live to exp