What religious freedom *isn't*

[kengr]

Reading an article conuly linked to:
The future of sex ed has arrived. Is America ready?

Several bits got me thinking about the many problems with people and the concept of religious freedom. the quote below will do.

Meanwhile, many parents say CHYA violates their parental rights. “This law doesn’t respect our beliefs and rights as parents to teach our children how they should behave and live,” one mom, Ofelia Garcia, tells me.

No, law doesn't do a *thing* to that right. What it *does* do, and the state has every right to do is teach their children that their parents beliefs aren't the only ones out there

So what they are *actually* complaining about is that the state won't let them keep their kids ignorant of different beliefs.

IMHSHO, the way freedom of religion *should* be taken is this:

You can have any religious beliefs you care to. You can *not* impose those beliefs on others. Nor may you require them to act in accordance with your beliefs.

And that's where almost the protests of "religious freedom" from Christians and conservatives come from. They want other people to live their lives in accordance with the *protester's* beliefs.

It doesn't help that many of those folks not only think that you have to follow their "moral code", but in fact believe that it's not possible to be against things like murder, rape and theft *without* invoking a moral code set by some higher power.

Sorry folks, it's possible to derive all the necessary laws from first principles. Things like personal autonomy, preventing harm to others, and the idea of personal property.

Comments

[conuly]

Note: There are no loopholes for personal property including your own children, parents, or spouse.

[kengr]

Well, "personal autonomy" *should* imply "people are not property". But some folks need to be hit with the BIG cluebat.

[conuly]

You know how people are.

Sigh

[dialecticdreamer]

I am so frustrated. THIS is the kind of sex ed information I sought out for my boys, starting back in the middle 1990's, when they were in early elementary school grades.

I distinctly remember reviewing the materials for my older son's first "sex ed" type talk in fourth grade. I read it all. In the end, I decided that he would get an hour a day for five days to sit and read whatever he liked in the library, instead of putting up with the narrow, limited, and heavily biased information. The HIV/AIDS mention was downright horrifying-- pure scaremongering. I lost a good friend to AIDS, and there's no way I was going to let the school teach information debunked five years before.

Parents are arguing against those things not because they want their children to be ignorant, but because they seem to believe that if their kids don't know about these ideas, then the "problems" won't happen. For the same reason, parents did not allow the word "cigarette" or anything in media which showed someone smoking, or use the same kind of intense censorship to blot out references to alcohol.

I had plenty of unprofitable, frustrating discussions with parents on the topics, and was assured that my "horrible parenting" would endanger THEIR children, using pretzel logic that still makes me scratch my head.

It's not about sex ed; it's about the right to dictate One True Way, and anyone who thinks that they have the right to make me or my children conform to their... preferred mythology... can take a very long walk off a very short pier.

Re: Sigh

[kengr]

Pity there's approximately *zero* chance of implementing the Kingdom of Valdemar's guiding principle ("There is no 'One True Way'") here.

Also, remember that for them *they* have The Truth and *you* are pushing a "preferred mythology".

That's why I phrased some of my arguments the way I did.

It *should* be a "render unto Caesar" situation.

You can teach your kids anything you want, but they still have to learn what the school teaches. And if your teaches come up short after the kids think about them, that's not the *school's* fault.

Re: Sigh

[dialecticdreamer]

Honestly, too many parents use faith as a substitute for THOUGHT. It's not just Christians, but it does bother me a great deal because it seems like a huge step backwards for society as a whole.

Re: Sigh

[kengr]

I think it was Heinlein who had a character say something about people putting some ideas in a mental boxed labelled "sacred: do no touch"

Re: Sigh

[fayanora]

Robert Anton Wilson said "when dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases."

Re: Sigh

[kengr]

I dare you to tell Alex that next time he's getting all dogmatic in one of his rants.... :-)

Re: Sigh

[fayanora]

We are Locutus of Christ. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Let us tell you about the Good News, or we will make you.

Re: Sigh

[dialecticdreamer]

I debated theology with ministry students for FUN. I nearly made one cry when I was barely eighteen and had HALF the amount of topical reading under my belt as I do now.

Locutus would NOT want my distictiveness- the hive would collapse under my questions!

Re: Sigh

[kengr]

http://www.sandraandwoo.com/2012/05/31/0381-larisa-will-burn-in-hell/

Re: Sigh

[dialecticdreamer]

HEHHEHEHEHEHEHE.

But I'm not blonde...

ROFLMAO

Re: Sigh

[fayanora]

LOL

Re: Sigh

[we_are_spc]

And then the parents expect their kids to follow that faith blindly. Hence them not wanting them to hav access to information to the contrary.

...

Now I think about it, it's part of the reason I left a certain organization along with a myriad of other reasons.

...

I am much more tolerant because of it, though, and I regret nothing.

-Trausio~

Re: Sigh

[dialecticdreamer]

I'm currently writing a story for the Strange Family where the idea of tolerance versus faith is being tested, and trying to do that while maintainin respect for other religions is going to be more difficult than writing the plot or dialogue.