There was a time when making your own mind up about something was paramount.  The law didn't intervene unless you were shown to be directly harming someone else.  You were allowed to buy laudnum, cannabis and take cocaine or heroin, smoke tobacco in public and even drink-drive.

Prohibition has been shown not to work for alcohol but is now used against narcotics in most Western countries.  Gradually over time, laws have been created to curb non-narcotic actions that have secondary harmful consequences to others, such as banning smoking in enclosed public spaces or banning outdoor drinking in busy town centres and on public transport.

A religious person exercising personal belief, though creating a mental cage for themselves, harms no-one else directly.  Fairly serious secondary harm can be caused however such as causing fear through threats of ostracisation from society, mental oppression, "brain washing", fund-gathering from the poor - impoverishing them further, denying contraception to followers, opposition of scientific developments and understanding, creation of conflict between followers of different groups, even up to denying adherent's children appropriate medical care.

Some wearing of religious talisman's and religious paraphernalia has been banned but I was disturbed to see one of these banning's being overturned in European Court.  This makes me Cross.  This was even after it had been upheld in a British Court.

Although the children's medical care issue noted above can be dealt with by a court order in the UK it is a struggle to get.  Is it not time that religion were seen in the same light as narcotics. After all, religions alter reality for "true" believers.  Is it not time that national laws were drafted to curb religion in society; to enforce secularisation in communal life, especially in multicultural societies, such as most Western democracies. 

Views: 190

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The only laws, in my opinion, that should be drafted are those which curb the privileges of religions. Namely, religious parents should not have the right to send their children to schools in which they will be indoctrinated. As far as the collection of money from the poor, and the denying of contraception to followers is concerned, I don't think these should be regulated against, since these people are making the decisions themselves. Granted, this is occurring under a discreet form of psychological duress, but regulation of such basic freedoms does not seem wise or ethically justifiable. What religious organisations should be compelled to do, however, is present information to adherents regarding opposition, so as to stave off 'brainwashing' in so far as that is possible. 

The case of the woman wearing her cross in the workplace is exactly the kind of privilege that should be swept away, but there should not be a blanket ban; it should be left to the discretion of the institution, so that religious paraphernalia is treated in the same way as everything else. Hence, if employees are generally allowed to select their own jewelry, what they wear can have religious connotations if they so choose. 

This is not to say that we shouldn't actively criticise religions in the public sphere. But I think the only role of the government should be to provide parity between religion and secular life. A parent who mistreats their child on religious grounds, or provides improper education, would thus be dealt with as harshly as any other neglectful parent. Enforced secularisation (if that means the prohibition of religion) is not a good idea. If, however, it means treating religion in the same way as everything else (thereby bringing it into the sphere of reasonable discourse), then I'm all for your suggestion.

RSS

Events

Blog Posts

Pisces - the fishes

Posted by Brad Snowder on December 3, 2016 at 2:07pm 0 Comments

They're Here

Posted by Jake LaFort on November 29, 2016 at 11:54am 20 Comments

Services we love!

© 2016   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service