Freedom of religion and belief – not a license to interfere with others

Posted on September 9, 2015 | 13 Comments

Shopping

This is so relevant.

I am all for freedom of religion and belief – but that does not give adherents of these religions or beliefs the right to interfere with my life.

And, seriously, if I demand my right of freedom from such interference this does not deny the rights of those adherents to their belief. To claim that it does it just childish.

Similar articles

This entry was posted in belief, religion and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 responses to “Freedom of religion and belief – not a license to interfere with others”

  1. soundhill1 | September 9, 2015 at 2:48 pm |

    Ken you recently asked about life. I suggest that one of its marks is that it sets out to bring about order. (Entropy consideration). Maybe a cat or dog is not accurate about covering up its poos. What should be done? Help it with things it cannot do like a clean litter box.

    Like

  2. Richard Christie | September 9, 2015 at 7:36 pm |

    Brian, if by that bizarre comment you are angling to ask Ken to go back and clean up all the crap you’ve written on this blog, well, odds on, it won’t be happening.

    Like

  3. Dani | September 9, 2015 at 10:56 pm |

    I find buying pork a strange example, beliefs that animals should be killed for meat interferes with the interests of the animal which wants to live.

    Like

  4. David Fierstien | September 10, 2015 at 2:06 am |

    Yes,
    County Clerk Kim Davis has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of her religious beliefs. She is putting her $80,000 per year public service job on the line to make a point.

    First question: Why does she still have a job?

    Second question: If she refused to give a marriage license to an interracial couple, or a black couple, would she still have a job? I think the answer would be a definite NO.

    Third question: So why does she still have a job? (If she’s smart she already has a publicist.)

    Like

  5. Ken | September 10, 2015 at 10:24 am |

    Dani, I do not eat animal meat myself – but such meat eating is legal. Given this I do not insist that meat eaters be denied the possibility of buying their food.

    Like

  6. Richard Christie | September 10, 2015 at 10:57 am |

    If I might quote Flanders and Swan (debating cannibalism) “if God hadn’t meant us to eat each other, why did he make us of meat?”

    Like

  7. Dani | September 10, 2015 at 11:09 pm |

    It is just an interesting set of ideas, the post to me was saying:
    “I want freedom from other people’s beliefs interfering with my life”

    Which is perfectly reasonable… you wouldn’t agree with others interfering with your life if it were legal, would you?

    Then the meme is supporting interfering with others’ (animals’) lives by killing them and causing them suffering (castration, squashing of piglets, factory farming, possibility of conscious slaughter).

    So is it just because they are animals that you are accepting of the law saying their freedom from suffering and lives mean very little in regards to human enjoyment (not in cases of survival)?

    Why should we take what the law says as any moral compass? If we had done this, we would have never made progress in society.

    p.s I did not at any point suggest forcing anyone to stop eating meat.

    Like

  8. Ken | September 11, 2015 at 5:03 pm |

    Dani, you are blindly trying to kick open the wrong door – and the door which (in my case anyway) has been wide open for years.

    The meme does not do what you claim. It in no way supports anything, the use of contraception, eating pork, denying marriage equality, smoking or whatever.

    It simply highlights the anti-democratic stance of attempting to impose one’s views on others by attempting to deny a legal right to others and in the process not doing one’s job.

    I do not eat animal meat for reason’s similar to Peter Singer’s. As a consequence, I would not work in a slaughter-house. However, I would work in a supermarket and would carry out the legal requirements of the job. I disagree with smoking and I don’t personally smoke or eat animal meat. But I would not refuse to do my job or attempt to impose my views illegally on others.

    No, the law does not serve as the final moral compass – we work that out for ourselves. But the law does fulfill an important function in social exchange. If a supermarket employee sells liquor or tobacco to a minor they are breaking the law. Similarly, if they refuse to sell condoms, meat, etc., they are breaking the law – they should either leave the job or be sacked.

    You yourself indicate you do not suggest forcing anyone to stop eating meat – I take that to mean that if your were a supermarket employee you would not behave in the way that religious fanatic did in the US.

    So, I cannot see why you object to the meme.

    Like

  9. Dani | September 14, 2015 at 7:06 pm |

    I just pointed out that pork is a strange example in an article titled “Freedom of religion and belief – not a license to interfere with others”. I object to the meme only because it is my opinion that if you’re supportive of not interfering with others’ lives (others including animals), you probably wouldn’t want to use the right to kill others as an example, just as I would find the right to be freely sexist or racist, or to smack your children a bizarre example, irrespective of how legal it is.

    There are plenty of examples of religion trying to interfere with people’s lives, which don’t include the right to kill or cause suffering. Why not simply include those?

    Like

  10. Ken | September 14, 2015 at 7:39 pm |

    Surely, Dani, my post makes clear that I am objecting to interference with the legal rights in general.

    But you seem confused, you say you are opposed to forcing people not to eat meat. So what would you do if you were a check out operater – refuse to serve meat eaters or not?

    And if you refused to serve customers – would you as a matter of conscience resign from the job?

    Like

  11. Dani | September 14, 2015 at 7:46 pm |

    If I had to work as a check-out operator, I would not refuse to serve meat eaters. What I am opposed to is just that freedom to kill others is the best choice of example when talking about beliefs interfering with others’ lives. Again, there are plenty of other examples that could be used.

    Like

  12. Ken | September 14, 2015 at 7:58 pm |

    And are used, Dani.

    Even this example of the Islamic operator does not relate to meat eating or death of animals – just religious dietary bans.

    Like

  13. soundhill1 | September 19, 2015 at 9:44 pm |

    Some people don’t like religion, claiming it is anti-science. I think it is important, when reacting against something, to really understand.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.