Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom on January 25, 2013 at 10:09am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karl Mugele on January 25, 2013 at 11:19am

I certainly don't mean the prohibition of religon, just the prohibition of public displays of religion, the prohibition of public preaching, the prohibition of dogmatic enforcement, within a rligious sect, against human rights.

I appreciate the liberal nature of your post but there are a couple of issues I have:  1. town centre preaching...there is a preacher who sets up his whiteboard in the place where there are benches and lots of young impressionable kids sit to eat their lunch on a Saturday in my city.  He hasn't been criminal record checked, he hasn't been vet checked...he just appears there and hammers on every Saturday about how everyone should believe...his audience are mostly sub-18 kids sitting with mates and he is quite prepared (I've watched him)  to shove leaflets into hands and invite them to meetings - where? a non-existent alien being lonly knows...

2. In the UK there is not a parity between secualr and religious life unless perhaps if you are CofE.  There are law makers in the House of Lords who's only reference is that they are high ranking clergy...of the CofE.  There are not equivalent Zoroastrians, or Chinese Shaman.

• ▶ Reply