Thread: Another blow against religious freedom

Pragmatist,

When the power hungry, narrow minded idiots who don't care about creating a pluralistic society take over and take away all your freedoms, I hope you remember that you didn't care about others rights. Your posts suggest you are a results oriented, materialistic, top down loving statist. Good luck with that as we take it to the streets. You are going to lose.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

In this one case, looks like you are partly correct. Notice the phrase that "could not be covered." An earlier ruling said it would not matter and there was a negotiation over it. Finally, the environment itself was deemed irreversibly religious. Coercion by object. No speech necessary. This is a direct result of the 1962 ruling where Justice Black rules that implied coercion was an establishment. Again, compare to the fact that the government is directly coercing a religious institution by policy.

Connecticut Schools

Your argument is here is factually wrong and and illogical on its face--in three ways. First, not allowing something to be used for a particular purpose is not coercive at all--the building can always be used for its religious purpose, which has nothing to do with the secular purpose of a graduation. There is no coercion except the coercion that would occur of non-Christians were compelled to engage with Christian symbols in order to accomplish a secular purpose like attending a graduation.

Second, symbols are speech. Full stop.

Third, the fact that the symbols 'could not be covered' makes the building inappropriate for a graduation per se. It's not the building itself, but the symbols that make it objectionable, because they are RELIGIOUS SPEECH.

The linguistic confusion is intentional. Secular thought was originally (as coined) intended to be scientific. Anything based on values is not science. Saying we must cover the poor and that it is a "right" is a statement of belief, not science.

I suppose on this level, you have a point. But medicine is not an entirely value-free activity. But calling those values 'dogma' is a misnomer. The values that spring from science are based on observable, measurable phenomena. Dogma is derived from the interpretations of ancient texts. That's why the question of contraception is so much less contentious than the question of abortion. With abortion, there are empirical arguments about the nature of the fetus at various stages: Is it independently viable? Can it feel pain? Is it self-aware? These are reasonable questions, examinable through empirical study and about which different observers can draw different conclusions. Contraception is an entirely different kind of question, since we're never talking about more than a collection of cells. Yes, DOGMA suggests that these cells have a soul and therefore must be protected, but objective data cannot do this.

Originally Posted by Rasselas

I suppose on this level, you have a point. But medicine is not an entirely value-free activity. But calling those values 'dogma' is a misnomer. The values that spring from science are based on observable, measurable phenomena. Dogma is derived from the interpretations of ancient texts.

Watch as we segue from science to Dogma, with one popular (among the left) piece of dogma (from the word dogmatic, meaning "asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated."

Science: CO2 retains heat.

Science: The temperature has been going up as Co2 has gone up.

Unproven supposition: CO2 causes the increase in temperature.

Unproven supposition approaching Dogma: CO2 is the primary driver of climate

Dogma: CO2 is toxic, a pollutant and proof that mankind is killing the planet.

It's fairly easy to do the same thing with the idea that a 7 month fetus is not a person and does not deserve protection under the law. There is no scientific basis for that conclusion and how could there be?

In similar fashion the idea that all health insurance distribution channels must offer the same protections and that the "must" is more important than the free speech rights of religious people is a point of dogma.

So does a society deal with the issues surrounding dogma? It does not impose. It allows the people to influence one another. It established rights that are not subject to the majority and leaves everything else up to the majority.

Obamacare was rushed through. It is filled with dogma. And we are seeing how little it has been thought through.

Originally Posted by splansing

In a nutshell, people like kmiller hate America and don't want us to be free.

But you don't even believe I think what I say, so what's the point in talking to you? I want the kind of state any enlightened atheist would want. I want true secularism, where all dogma is treated just the same. With a lot of scientific examination.

Your silly mumps example is a perfect one.

Do you think deciding to not use contraceptives is the same thing as not getting a mumps vaccine?

Prove to me that abortion is good for any mother who does not have a medical reason to not be pregnant.

In a secular society, conflicting dogma would be debated, not decided without any involvement from citizens.

Originally Posted by splansing

You see what I mean? "I'm an enlightened individual who just wants things to be fair! What I mean is, abortion is evil...prove to me it's good for anyone without complications!!!"

You're right: there is probably no point in you talking to me.

There is no way to resolve the dogma of rights of the pre-born vs rights of the mother so the court just imposed a dogma. But that's dogma we already have. So to try and create a pluralistic society, you have to create compromise and that doesn't sell. Dogma sells. For example, I have proposed limited rights for viable fetuses, some point in their development where the rights of the mother and the now viable child are more balanced than they are now. With the right political leadership, that could happen and we would have more peace and unity than we have now. We are just caught in our own extreme views