4 ms·

Sure, but if an exception is made for anyone based on their beliefs, it should be available to everyone universally regardless of their beliefs. Otherwise, peop

Sure, but if an exception is made for anyone based on their beliefs, it should be available to everyone universally regardless of their beliefs. Otherwise, people de facto have a different set of rights based on their beliefs. These sorts of exceptions have historically been made in deference to pragmatism, an example being not drafting bona fide pacifists into the military due to the pointlessness thereof. But deferring to pragmatism when dealing with the topic of human rights is offensive.

TeeMassive 5y ago
> Sure, but if an exception is made for anyone based on their beliefs, it should be available to everyone universally regardless of their beliefs. In the US it is, the government doesn't act as a priest determining who is or isn't part of the Faith. In Canada it is similar, the only requirement is one of sincerity and good faith. > Otherwise, people de facto have a different set of rights based on their beliefs. It only becomes a question or rights when a a restriction is applied in the first place. Religious exemptions always come up when some kind of government policy is mandated (state education, vaccines, taxes, etc.). The "additional" rights only appear as a consequence of personal agency in the first place. Which is why it was called "the canary in the coal mine of rights". > But deferring to pragmatism when dealing with the topic of human rights is offensive. Hugh? It seems to me that pragmatism has a well deserved place in every aspects of political life.