Freedom of Religion

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

A_Seagull wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:34 am One does not need a treatise such as Locke's to know that one has an inherent freedom...
You mean "right"?

If you're free to do something, you don't need a right. You only need to be able to invoke a right when that freedom is in danger of not being allowed you.

And to advocate for your right -- over and against a rational skeptic -- you need to be able to say why it is incumbent upon them to acknowledge this right, in relation to you. Or to be able to campaign for the enshrinement of that right in law, you need to be able to explain to lawmakers why they owe you this right. If you cannot, then you cannot have that right.

And for that, the kind of legitimative explanation Locke offers is exactly what you need.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by A_Seagull »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:32 am
A_Seagull wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:34 am One does not need a treatise such as Locke's to know that one has an inherent freedom...
You mean "right"?

If you're free to do something, you don't need a right. You only need to be able to invoke a right when that freedom is in danger of not being allowed you.

And to advocate for your right -- over and against a rational skeptic -- you need to be able to say why it is incumbent upon them to acknowledge this right, in relation to you. Or to be able to campaign for the enshrinement of that right in law, you need to be able to explain to lawmakers why they owe you this right. If you cannot, then you cannot have that right.

And so now we are back to politics. And in a democracy that means a majority, which was what I was talking about before.

And if its not a democracy but a dictatorship of some form , then the dictator or whoever is not going to be interested in any philosophical treatise anyway.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

A_Seagull wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:39 am And so now we are back to politics.
No, we aren't.

I just point out to you that the thing to which you are looking for a ground for "rights" cannot provide what you're looking for. Instead, any political or legal rights have to be proven on the basis of something that comes before all "rights," and before all legislation. It has to be something that's intrinsic to every human.

If any government system is used by us as the basis for rights, then that governmental system has complete power to take that right away...and we would have absolutely no rational recourse, no basis for complaint.

Are you happy with that implication? Because it means that if the government is evil, then anything they do to their people is legitimate -- because their people have absolutely no rights beyond what their particular political system or (in democracies) majority gives them.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

a ground for "rights"

Post by henry quirk »

Here's two...

1-I exist, value myself, value my autonomy. Strike at my existence, at 'me', at my autonomy: I self-defend. If I win: I've successfully asserted and defended my existence, myself, my autonomy. If I lose: I'm dead or enslaved. So: a ground for 'rights' is my valuing of my existence, myself, my autonomy.

2-Crom (what I call the Clockmaker) arranged Reality to work in a certain way: I'm the product of that 'working'. I take this to mean: my valuing of my existence, myself, my autonomy is normal, natural; and my existence, myself, my autonomy are meant to be asserted and defended. So: a ground for 'rights' is 'Natural Law' or 'Natural Order'.
11011
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:42 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by 11011 »

how is the ethic presently used?

i believe originally it just meant you wouldn't be persecuted for holding different religious beliefs and practices. it was an affiliative thing, identifying with another religion was treason against god, etc, so freedom of religion put an end to that.

since the corporatization and monopolization of religion in society currently doesn't infringe on people's private religious beliefs and practices (regardless of scope), what is the flaw?

the right protects what it intends to protect.

perhaps you are saying the ethic is no longer socially relevant and needs to be updated - as people increasingly associate religion with public not private - to reflect the religious needs or desires of people today?

or perhaps another law is more relevant, like anti-trust?
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by A_Seagull »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:44 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:39 am And so now we are back to politics.
No, we aren't.

I just point out to you that the thing to which you are looking for a ground for "rights" cannot provide what you're looking for. Instead, any political or legal rights have to be proven on the basis of something that comes before all "rights," and before all legislation. It has to be something that's intrinsic to every human.

If any government system is used by us as the basis for rights, then that governmental system has complete power to take that right away...and we would have absolutely no rational recourse, no basis for complaint.

Are you happy with that implication? Because it means that if the government is evil, then anything they do to their people is legitimate -- because their people have absolutely no rights beyond what their particular political system or (in democracies) majority gives them.
A foundation for a theory that is based on the concept of god is one that is founded on fantasy and hence is useless.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Freedom of Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

A_Seagull wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:03 am A foundation for a theory that is based on the concept of god is one that is founded on fantasy and hence is useless.
Well, that's the debated point, isn't it? And you might think so. But you can be glad that so long as it remains at least debated, there's some durability to human rights in some societies. When it's not...well, we know what happens then.

One thing is clear, though: no God, no universal human rights. Just local "rights" that are completely disposable by the local government; and there's no way to advocate for them anymore.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"One thing is clear, though: no God, no universal human rights. Just local "rights" that are completely disposable by the local government; and there's no way to advocate for them anymore."

Yeah, this doesn't sit well for me: whether 'rights' are god-given or simply locally asserted, a body is still gonna have to defend them, still fight when need be.

Jehovah (or Crom) may be the ground for the 'rights' but neither seems all that hot to intervene when 'rights' are infringed upon (especially Crom). The front line action is always attended to by the grunts.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re:

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:07 pm "One thing is clear, though: no God, no universal human rights. Just local "rights" that are completely disposable by the local government; and there's no way to advocate for them anymore."

Yeah, this doesn't sit well for me: whether 'rights' are god-given or simply locally asserted, a body is still gonna have to defend them, still fight when need be.

Jehovah (or Crom) may be the ground for the 'rights' but neither seems all that hot to intervene when 'rights' are infringed upon (especially Crom). The front line action is always attended to by the grunts.
Well, this is the huge problem, as I see it. I'm quite content for people to believe according to the best leadings of their own consciences -- in fact, I'd want it no other way, under any circumstances. But I also what to live in a place where our right to basic human decencies is well-secured, and people can explain to each other why human rights are necessary and obligatory -- even when, or especially when, the government undertakes to remove them.

I want a secure defence for basic rights: but how to find it, when there is no specialness assignable to being human? At one time, we just all said, "Human rights were given us by God." Now, when people no longer say that, we are thrown upon the tender mercies of government...and I just don't trust those guys at all.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"I want a secure defence for basic rights: but how to find it, when there is no specialness assignable to being human?"

I sympathize but here's the thing: tyrannts, dictators, enslavers have always been with us, and always will be with us. Unless Jehovah (or Crom) takes a direct hand in opposing such folks, the job is ours. And such a job isn't done with diplomacy (or 'voting' :roll:) but in war. Hell, Jehovah incorporated specifically to raise us up and now -- over two millennium later -- man largely still cannibalizes, still squats in the mud. No, the grounding of 'rights' is in the god, but the assertion and defense of 'rights' comes from man in bloody conflict with man.

#

"At one time, we just all said, "Human rights were given us by God." Now, when people no longer say that, we are thrown upon the tender mercies of government...and I just don't trust those guys at all."

But that's simply not true, Mannie.

For most of man's time on this Earth there's been no regard for the individual and his 'rights'. Only recently has man begun to pay lip service to 'rights', and this was a local, not global, development. Today: huge sections of the planet are dominated by tyrannts, dictators, and enslavers. Even here, in the U.S. the individual (as sovereign) is under assault, and 'rights' (Crom-derived) are eroded. You're right not to trust the 'governors' (mostly would-be tyrannts, dictators, and enslavers). I think, however, that mistrust should extend to the bulk of men, most kept in check only by circumstance, not ethic. 'Eternal Vigilance' (and, I believe, a loaded shotgun) are the means by which we keep such folks at bay and in their place. It would be wonderful if all men could agree on the sanctity of a human life, the sovereignty of the individual, the minimal social contract (we leave one another be), but most men don't agree on what seems evident, will not agree on what is sublime. There is no Utopia for us. Large-scale human 'peace' is an unnatural thing and it never lasts.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re:

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:06 pm "At one time, we just all said, "Human rights were given us by God." Now, when people no longer say that, we are thrown upon the tender mercies of government...and I just don't trust those guys at all."

But that's simply not true, Mannie.

For most of man's time on this Earth there's been no regard for the individual and his 'rights'. Only recently has man begun to pay lip service to 'rights', and this was a local, not global, development.
That's true. When I say, "at one time," I can only go back as far as the 18th Century. It took that long for someone to shape up a conception of universal human rights, and a bit longer for the idea to take hold. And even now, most of the world operates differently. However, it was a good thing for Western society when that "one time" happened, and it's increasingly been a bad time as that has eroded.

The worst may well be yet to come. Absent a basis for human rights, it's certain to come, and it's likely to come faster.
I think, however, that mistrust should extend to the bulk of men, most kept in check only by circumstance, not ethic. 'Eternal Vigilance' (and, I believe, a loaded shotgun) are the means by which we keep such folks at bay and in their place. It would be wonderful if all men could agree on the sanctity of a human life, the sovereignty of the individual, the minimal social contract (we leave one another be), but most men don't agree on what seems evident, will not agree on what is sublime. There is no Utopia for us. Large-scale human 'peace' is an unnatural thing and it never lasts.
I can't say I disagree with you about that.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"...it was a good thing for Western society when that "one time" happened, and it's increasingly been a bad time as that has eroded."

Agreed.

#

"The worst may well be yet to come. Absent a basis for human rights, it's certain to come, and it's likely to come faster."

Agreed. If Man is just another animal there is no obligation to treat him as anything than an animal: all manner of atrocities can heaped on him (are being heaped on him).

Expect more of :fist: :gun: :boom: countered by :fist: :gun: :boom:
Post Reply