4 ms·

I participate in Christian festivities and find them quite joyful. It's a wonderful time of the year for most of the world. However, whether countries should a

by jeswin 8y ago

I participate in Christian festivities and find them quite joyful. It's a wonderful time of the year for most of the world. However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them. Many countries have laws against various forms of deception - and religion straddles that line (of deception) so often. If action is being taken against the people who propagate "falsety" rather than against the "mislead", the ethicality of such action is quite defensible.

friedman23 8y ago
> However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them. This isn't a democratic country, so you should rephrase your statement justifying this as "whether an authoritarian cabal should allow the propagation of a religion and mythology is entirely up to them" A person's beliefs are up to them not their government.
- jeswin 8y ago
  > A person's beliefs are up to them not their government Even democracies have rules against false advertising. We've chosen to give religion a free pass here, though the evidence to back any of its claims is quite flimsy. This subject is somewhat tough to debate. I had a wonderful Christmas day, though I'm not a believer.
- 13of40 8y ago
  > A person's beliefs are up to them not their government. How do you square that with the fact that most religious people were indoctrinated at an early age by their relatives and community, rather than developing their beliefs on their own? At the end of the day, it's not a struggle for freedom versus government control, it's a struggle over who gets to do the indoctrinating.
cslarson 8y ago
I am terrified of you and your monopoly on truth.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 8y ago
  Religious flamewar and personal attacks are bannable offenses here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this to HN.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
> However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them. Would you be okay with the country you're subject to the laws to "deciding" to put you and your family in prison for holding that opinion? Why is one thing "up to them", but this presumably not? > If action is being taken against the people who propagate "falsety" rather than against the "mislead", the ethicality of such action is quite defensible. Then show that is the case, and then defend it. Until then, why even mention the possibility? Isn't that kind of a rhetorical trick? Wouldn't you agree this straddles the line of deception, that is, that you're either "just" deceiving yourself with, or trying to deceive? Can you prove it wasn't your intent, but a honest mistake? If you err on the side of guilty, because "it might be defensible to persecute" is good enough for you, wouldn't it be fair to simply assume the worst of you? That's not how I would treat people, but when someone makes an ethical argument, the first thing you always, always do is do a quick scan of applying it to them, when it's obvious that they can't be meaning what they're saying, to explain to them what they're saying.

by jeswin 8y ago

friedman23 8y ago

> However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them. This isn't a democratic country, so you should rephrase your statement justifying this as "whether an authoritarian cabal should allow the propagation of a religion and mythology is entirely up to them" A person's beliefs are up to them not their government.

jeswin 8y ago
> A person's beliefs are up to them not their government Even democracies have rules against false advertising. We've chosen to give religion a free pass here, though the evidence to back any of its claims is quite flimsy. This subject is somewhat tough to debate. I had a wonderful Christmas day, though I'm not a believer.
13of40 8y ago
> A person's beliefs are up to them not their government. How do you square that with the fact that most religious people were indoctrinated at an early age by their relatives and community, rather than developing their beliefs on their own? At the end of the day, it's not a struggle for freedom versus government control, it's a struggle over who gets to do the indoctrinating.

cslarson 8y ago

I am terrified of you and your monopoly on truth.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dang 8y ago
Religious flamewar and personal attacks are bannable offenses here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this to HN.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

> However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them. Would you be okay with the country you're subject to the laws to "deciding" to put you and your family in prison for holding that opinion? Why is one thing "up to them", but this presumably not? > If action is being taken against the people who propagate "falsety" rather than against the "mislead", the ethicality of such action is quite defensible. Then show that is the case, and then defend it. Until then, why even mention the possibility? Isn't that kind of a rhetorical trick? Wouldn't you agree this straddles the line of deception, that is, that you're either "just" deceiving yourself with, or trying to deceive? Can you prove it wasn't your intent, but a honest mistake? If you err on the side of guilty, because "it might be defensible to persecute" is good enough for you, wouldn't it be fair to simply assume the worst of you? That's not how I would treat people, but when someone makes an ethical argument, the first thing you always, always do is do a quick scan of applying it to them, when it's obvious that they can't be meaning what they're saying, to explain to them what they're saying.