Originally posted by @fmfHow is it a red herring?
I understand 100% that you are using a red herring about moral education to try to distract from the question. Would people in your "good society" have any rights and freedoms? Yes, of course they would.
This is utterly silly. You are suggesting that I have adopted some highly unpopular and radical view, and then I am going to be engaging in some weird distraction tactics...
No.
That's a ridiculous accusation.
Originally posted by @philokaliaIt means that people with power are not legally permitted to discriminate against you because of your religious beliefs.
FMF, do I deserve freedom of speech & religion? IF I do, what does that even mean?
Originally posted by @philokaliaBecause the value of virtue and ethical behaviour is not in dispute.
How is it a red herring?
Originally posted by @fmfRIght, and I do not agree with that because there are some religious beliefs that are utterly worthless and do not have merit ot them, and they should not be respected under all circumstances, e.g., ones that believe in the practice of human or animal sacrifice or are fundamentally cruel.
It means that people with power are not legally permitted to discriminate against you because of your religious beliefs.
I also do not believe in it because I believe that a nation or a people should be able to prioritize their own nation and people over others, which may mean that in a Muslim state there are requirements that only Muslims hold certain positions or that there are religious tests to hold office...
Oh, SEE, this is a surprisingly complex topic and there are alternatives to the models that you propose that aren't absurd at all, but are actually advantageous.
It's also likely that you fully agree with me on point 1, but you simply say "Oh, you see, I respect religious freedom, but just not then..."
So religious freedom isn't even an absolute right for you; it is just a collection of bureaucratic words and language that doesn't have any real meaning because it can be violated whenever the societal norms ask for it to be violated.
It isn't a persuasive point anymore.
Get it?
Now... You see. ^^
Originally posted by @philokaliaI am not proposing a freedom to kill fellow citizens by way of human sacrifice.
RIght, and I do not agree with that because there are some religious beliefs that are utterly worthless and do not have merit ot them, and they should not be respected under all circumstances, e.g., ones that believe in the practice of human or animal sacrifice or are fundamentally cruel.
Originally posted by @philokaliaThings are always going to be different in a theocracy. And religious beliefs are inevitably going to lead to discrimination. It happens in the country where I live. Citizens will disagree as they view these status quos through the prism of rights and freedoms and change may or may not come accordingly.
I also do not believe in it because I believe that a nation or a people should be able to prioritize their own nation and people over others, which may mean that in a Muslim state there are requirements that only Muslims hold certain positions or that there are religious tests to hold office...
Originally posted by @philokaliaReligious freedom - to a degree - is guaranteed here where I live by the Constitution. There are significant voices calling for these rights to be cancelled and for the Muslim majority to be the basis of a new Islamic state. With your attitude to the establishment of freedom and rights, how can you take a view on the status or fate of the many millions of non-Christians in this country?
So religious freedom isn't even an absolute right for you; it is just a collection of bureaucratic words and language that doesn't have any real meaning because it can be violated whenever the societal norms ask for it to be violated.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI have a feeling that you want those freedoms and rights for yourself but don't want to be unequivocal about it because you also don't want to ascribe them to anyone else as a matter of principle.
Do you honestly think that by repeating the same questions in the exact same way can produce different results?
Do you think I didn't understand the question?
Originally posted by @philokalia"Government name"?
DO i have a righ tot not be harrassed by you making threads with my government name attached to them, misrepresenting my views?
"Harrassed"?
Originally posted by @philokaliaDo you believe you should be able to use freedom of religion, the press, speech, association, thought, movement etc. to promote your personal views on - and opposition to - what you see as "degenerate values"? Presumably yes, right?
There should be no absolute freedom of religion, the press, speech, etc. because these become tools for promotion of degenerate values and degenerate things when they are defined so broadly as to allow people to take advantage of the society.
Originally posted by @philokaliaHere is what you said:
He literally is only interested in a shallow discussion of the topic and trying to shame people into a mainstream, center-left, boring position.
"I do not really believe in some society with some extensive network of "rights" and "freedoms," so whatever "discrimination" means to you would not have similar parallels to me.
"So what are these "rights?" They are a clumsy obstacle to discussing politics in the 21st century. Not that I disagree with "rights," I know how important it is for me to pay homage to the sacred cow."
"We are ascribing "rights" to agents that have no sense of duty, nor have been integrated as productive factors into the society in any way."
"I prefer to think along the lines of duties and practical consequences than rights. And I refuse to pretend that every person in the society has to be treated with the assumption that their citizenship is valuable and wanted."
In what way does this "shame" you?
(1) I think you see the purpose of my post; you abridge the actual "right" to freedom of religion, and it becomes a clunky afterthought to whatever you are wanting to do. It is also a pretense.
One of the things that I witnessed, over the last four or five years especially, is the way that Europeans & Americans relentlessly insist that they are free, and unironically apply extreme pressure to people to conform to their norms. More than that, it is even clear in N. America & W. Europe that whatever "rights" you have can be abridged at the drop of the hat -- particularly that of free speech, and freedom of religion in places like France.
What you are suggesting is really just a phantom.
One of my mates from England pointed out that the right to 'free speech" was adopted in 1998 but this basically just enabled them to codify all of the limitations to it.
These things do not really mean anything to anyone -- so why should I pretend that they are meaningful?
And why should I pretend that I am an exception to the people who abridge the rights and freedoms of others? I am just the same as a British or American liberal that wants to limit the influence and the "rights" of his opponents.
(2) The religious minorities of some nations may be treated poorly, and that refelcts poorly on that nation.
Do you honestly think that there would be gross abuses and murders if policies shifted slightly? You have a very low estimate of people.
(3) The last time that white people were killing other white people in large numbers for reasons related to religion...?
The Soviet Union atheists massacring Christian clergy and believers, sending them away to gulags. I believe an estimated 300,000 Orthodox clergy were killed (and targeted) and there were countless other belivers who perished along with them.
And this would be part of the ideology that would have insisted that they are fighting for the universal freedom of things.
(4) Yes, you took my username, at that time which was my real name, and created a WHOLE THREAD with my name in the title of it, and now that thread appears every time you seach for my real name.
You should ask the administration to delete that thread for my privacy.
Why?
Because you attempted to convince peopel that I believe in a rightless & freedomless world, when both of us know that the reason for these distinctions is a very subtle one, and i tdoes not invovle countermanding the worth freedom & justice, but actually invovles observations about how these things are implemented...
So, instead of being lead to a thread that focuses on discussing it from a nuanced and philosophical perspective, they have an inflammatory ranting and defamation.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @fmfDo you realize you’ve been talking to yourself for the last seven posts? Come on, Kiddo. Enough.
Here is what you said:
[b]"I do not really believe in some society with some extensive network of "rights" and "freedoms," so whatever "discrimination" means to you would not have similar parallels to me.
"So what are these "rights?" They are a clumsy obstacle to discussing politics in the 21st century. Not that I disagree with "rights," I know how impor ...[text shortened]... ption that their citizenship is valuable and wanted."
In what way does this "shame" you?[/b]
Edit: Ah, Philo’s returned and just in time. Kiddo has been waiting patiently.
Originally posted by @philokaliaOn the contrary, it is absolutely real, absolutely vital, and even - in many circumstances - literally a matter of life and death.
What you are suggesting is really just a phantom.