11 ms·

That's unbelievably silly. Having laws arbitrarily apply based on the internal beliefs someone has is incredibly inelegant. Freedom of religion should be an eme

That's unbelievably silly. Having laws arbitrarily apply based on the internal beliefs someone has is incredibly inelegant. Freedom of religion should be an emergent property of freedom of speech/thought/association/etc. For instance, it should be illegal to cruelly slaughter animals, regardless of your personal feeling on the subject. Yet certain groups get exemptions and continue otherwise illegal animal treatment because they, essentially, want to.

fennecfoxen 11y ago
RFRAs are a very useful meta-law which do things like, say, prevent prisons from requiring Muslims to shave their beards, or requiring the Jews to eat non-kosher food like pork byproducts in the prison cafeteria (or face starvation). It also prevents the Feds from raiding an Apache powwow and seizing the eagle feathers and fining the dancers hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Actual court case.) The ACLU used to support RFRA cases quite often. Prevention of animal cruelty is a compelling interest and can in fact be enforced under RFRAs, using the least-restrictive means possible.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  I think the parent poster's point was that ideological freedoms should not be limited to just religions.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  I understand the concept, it still doesn't make it right. But why should it be OK for one set of people to keep beards, just because they really want to, but not for others? Or why should one group be allowed to keep knives, because they swear it's super-important to them, when others are not allowed? If I'm just disgusted by, say, chicken, or broccoli, shouldn't my assertion to that effect be enough? Seems rather arbitrary to decide some sets of beliefs get special treatment over others, just because they were loud or big enough or "sincere" enough.
  - Sacho 10y ago
    As with all laws and governance, granting religious freedoms as opposed to freedoms of every ideology strikes a balance. Religion presents a widespread, structured set of beliefs. The structured part makes it easy to enforce a law of religious freedom, because there is a vast body of source and interpretative work to use. The widespread part means that you are making a concession to a significant part of the population. There's nothing arbitrary about the choice - it is precisely because religion is both structured and widespread that makes it a good candidate for such a law. Another example of a widespread belief that tends to get exemptions from many laws is freedom of speech(e.g. exemptions from defamation, copyright).
    - tremon 10y ago
      Religion presents a widespread, structured set of beliefs. I'd rather say that religion presents a social identity, and prescribes a set of beliefs. The identity is what matters more to most people than the beliefs. However structured it may be, you still end up with a set of arbitrary limitations based on majority rule. I agree with the GP that if some religious conventions are innocuous enough that they can be allowed for a part of the population, then they should be allowed for all, regardless of social identity. And if certain conventions are deemed dangerous, they should be disallowed regardless of religious sanctity.
  - Hondor 10y ago
    Indians are allowed to poach endangered animals?
  - SerLava 10y ago
    It's legal pragmatism. You won't kill yourself over broccoli. They will die to practice their religious beliefs. These things just aren't worth it. It's not worth it to try to restrict trivial shit - it's idiotic. We already restrict religious freedom where it counts, which is when it interferes with someone's rights.

fennecfoxen 11y ago

RFRAs are a very useful meta-law which do things like, say, prevent prisons from requiring Muslims to shave their beards, or requiring the Jews to eat non-kosher food like pork byproducts in the prison cafeteria (or face starvation). It also prevents the Feds from raiding an Apache powwow and seizing the eagle feathers and fining the dancers hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Actual court case.) The ACLU used to support RFRA cases quite often. Prevention of animal cruelty is a compelling interest and can in fact be enforced under RFRAs, using the least-restrictive means possible.

nitrogen 11y ago
I think the parent poster's point was that ideological freedoms should not be limited to just religions.
MichaelGG 11y ago
I understand the concept, it still doesn't make it right. But why should it be OK for one set of people to keep beards, just because they really want to, but not for others? Or why should one group be allowed to keep knives, because they swear it's super-important to them, when others are not allowed? If I'm just disgusted by, say, chicken, or broccoli, shouldn't my assertion to that effect be enough? Seems rather arbitrary to decide some sets of beliefs get special treatment over others, just because they were loud or big enough or "sincere" enough.
- Sacho 10y ago
  As with all laws and governance, granting religious freedoms as opposed to freedoms of every ideology strikes a balance. Religion presents a widespread, structured set of beliefs. The structured part makes it easy to enforce a law of religious freedom, because there is a vast body of source and interpretative work to use. The widespread part means that you are making a concession to a significant part of the population. There's nothing arbitrary about the choice - it is precisely because religion is both structured and widespread that makes it a good candidate for such a law. Another example of a widespread belief that tends to get exemptions from many laws is freedom of speech(e.g. exemptions from defamation, copyright).
  - tremon 10y ago
    Religion presents a widespread, structured set of beliefs. I'd rather say that religion presents a social identity, and prescribes a set of beliefs. The identity is what matters more to most people than the beliefs. However structured it may be, you still end up with a set of arbitrary limitations based on majority rule. I agree with the GP that if some religious conventions are innocuous enough that they can be allowed for a part of the population, then they should be allowed for all, regardless of social identity. And if certain conventions are deemed dangerous, they should be disallowed regardless of religious sanctity.
- Hondor 10y ago
  Indians are allowed to poach endangered animals?
- SerLava 10y ago
  It's legal pragmatism. You won't kill yourself over broccoli. They will die to practice their religious beliefs. These things just aren't worth it. It's not worth it to try to restrict trivial shit - it's idiotic. We already restrict religious freedom where it counts, which is when it interferes with someone's rights.