Religious Tolerance or Pass the Goat Please
How far should a country go in accepting certain religious practices.?
If religion X requires Goat sacrifice does that fall within the realms of what is to be tolerated and accepted or does it fall outside that which is to be tolerated ?
Does the same thing apply to circumcision? If it is acceptable for males, why not for females.
Should we accept the wearing of religious coverings in the same way as we should allow nude weddings etc. ?
How far do we stretch the concept of individual religious rights as they stand in relation to general public values.
Where if anywhere, should the government say your going over the line in preacticing your faith...
No Goat sacrifice for you..buddy !
Aqua
If religion X requires Goat sacrifice does that fall within the realms of what is to be tolerated and accepted or does it fall outside that which is to be tolerated ?
Does the same thing apply to circumcision? If it is acceptable for males, why not for females.
Should we accept the wearing of religious coverings in the same way as we should allow nude weddings etc. ?
How far do we stretch the concept of individual religious rights as they stand in relation to general public values.
Where if anywhere, should the government say your going over the line in preacticing your faith...
No Goat sacrifice for you..buddy !
Aqua
Comments
Replace goat by human, and the answer will become evident
Otherwise, do whatever the **** you want.
Originally posted by segovius
Heeeee'ssss baaaaackkk!!
If you think about it Aqua, none of these questions would be asked even a few decades ago.
Certainly stuff like nude weddings and such never existed because there was no need for them. Likewise with questioning religious practice, not an issue.
It is an issue now because a) the whole ***house is crumbling round our ears on every level - religious, economic, political and b) the new 'answers' and debates are merely a response to this subconscious knowledge that people are in denial about.
It's going down - chop up those lifeboats and make a raft....
In the words of JC...I have never left you...
Regarding nude weddings well they are fun on a hot day or when there is a stiff westerly breeze blowing
And the religious thing is vitally important to answer, or have you forgotten your position on that judge and his solid slab of ten commandments outside the courthouse..
I knew you'd go for the bait Sedgey...
Ps: Turn those dammed rafts into jacuzzi's with Colonic irrigation...
Man those pumps Sedge...We're sure gonna need em.
Originally posted by segovius
...tangenitally...
(recovers composure...)
(bursts again into fits of laughter...)
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I believe there's a passage of scripture in the Bible that says the faithful should obey the laws of the land. I'm too lazy to get the exact verse.
Indeed, so that covers Judeo-Christian faiths, but what about others?
Originally posted by Aquafire
How far should a country go in accepting certain religious practices.?
If religion X requires Goat sacrifice does that fall within the realms of what is to be tolerated and accepted or does it fall outside that which is to be tolerated ?
Does the same thing apply to circumcision? If it is acceptable for males, why not for females.
Should we accept the wearing of religious coverings in the same way as we should allow nude weddings etc. ?
How far do we stretch the concept of individual religious rights as they stand in relation to general public values.
Where if anywhere, should the government say your going over the line in preacticing your faith...
No Goat sacrifice for you..buddy !
Aqua
Interesting, but there is no "right" answer to the fundamental question you pose, nor has there ever been. The only people who 'believe' that they have the right answer are those who 1) do not tolerate religious dissent AND 2) see no distinction between religious and secular law. These people do exist, but I have no respect for them and so do not accept that they have the right answer.
As for the rest of us - even those of us who are religious - we acknowledge differences in religious belief and practice and also that the secular laws of any given land, where people have different religious beliefs, will not correspond to any one belief. In these circumstances, there may well be religious practices that are forbidden. I am unwilling to say that these practices are "wrong", in an absolute sense, nor that the secular consensus will always and inevitably be that they are restricted. However, I do expect that the secular laws should be obeyed.
All this is not to say, however, that all secular laws that restrict religious practices are acceptable. Minimal impairment should be the objective. Zero impairment, on the other hand, likely is not realistic. The balance between religious freedoms and other valid societal interests - including competing fundamental rights - is tricky. The balance always is being weighed and is often being readjusted. There is no right answer in any scientific sense, and never will be, as difficult as it may be to accept.
Ideally, the government does its best to protect most people's beliefs as much as possible without allowing them to harm other people. There's always going to be contradictions, ambiguities, and confusion. That's unavoidable. But I'll take what we have (along with a constant desire to do better) over total anarchy.
Originally posted by Moogs
As long as the religious practice does not infringe upon the rights of others, disturb the peace, and does not break any animal cruelty laws, I suspect the government doesn't have much to say about it. Goat-slaughter breaks animal cruelty laws, so the Satanic dirtbags have to find other ways to get themselves off.
Well the "live sheep" export from Australia and the USA to middle eastern countries, is based on the premise that their religious slaughter is different to the same act being carried out on US or AUS soil.
Strange don't you think.?.
From my POV. our governments flaunt the laws concerning animal cruelty when it appears that there is a buck or tow to be made.
Besides which, since when is slitting the throat of a goat any more cruel than putting a bullet in its head ?
In both cases the dead animal has no way of feeling pain, or even remembering it's own existence. So a bullet or anby other form of dispachment is relatively the same.
I can somewhat understand animal cruelty laws, but still, if the sheep dies quickly or is medicated so it doesn't feel pain, it shouldn't matter at all what the method or the reason for the slaughter is.