4 ms·

Sure: the LDS church teaches that pre-marital sex is a sin, and engaging in it is grounds for the termination of a variety of spiritual privileges, depending on

by reb 4y ago

Sure: the LDS church teaches that pre-marital sex is a sin, and engaging in it is grounds for the termination of a variety of spiritual privileges, depending on the judgement of a local church leader. The legal freedom to live by that belief makes it a cultural right afforded to any practicing LDS person in the US. A scientist could perform research investigating the impact of those teachings. They might find that it negatively impacts the ability of LDS adults to form healthy sexual attachments with their spouses, even though marriages are prized by the church. They could then publish those findings in a credible journal. An anti-LDS government official in control of education in some state (say, California) could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children are required to attend sex-ed classes in school, and threaten parents with visits from child protection services if they refuse. Depending on the local governmental structure and voter demographics, this could pass into law relatively quickly. Thus, a researcher's decision to publish has led to interference with LDS people's cultural rights. There aren't many examples of human behavior this sequence of events couldn't apply to, if local powers (or distant ones) were so inclined. Do you think it's irresponsible for scientists to consider that?

TulliusCicero 4y ago
> could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children No, they couldn't. Your proposed scenario here is insane. This would be blatantly unconstitutional.
- reb 4y ago
  Sure, and it could then be challenged in court. And depending on the alignment of the courts, they might find in favor of the policy, setting a precedent for future law. Do you really not understand how things work in this country?
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    I do, and I understand that something this blatantly unconstitutional (and widespread enough to be notable) would get slapped down by the courts super hard before being actually acted on. Do you understand how things work in this country? When's the last time there was a statewide policy like this that explicitly targeted people of one particular religion? Especially kids going to state schools?
    - reb 4y ago
      It wouldn't target a particular religion, it would be a general policy protecting all children's right to education. LDS people being impacted would be an unfortunate side effect, not the promoted intention of the policy. I genuinely can't tell if you're being disingenuous here. I'm not personally stressed about the rights of LDS people, but the procedural scenario I'm describing isn't even remotely far-fetched.
      - TulliusCicero 4y ago
        > It wouldn't target a particular religion This makes it sound like it is indeed targeting a particular religion: > An anti-LDS government official in control of education in some state (say, California) could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children are required to attend sex-ed classes in school If what you meant was "all children, including LDS children" I think it could've been phrased a bit more clearly, because it sounds very targeted. That's the part I objected to. But yeah if you mean, "secretly/implicitly targeting" like the hijab ban in France that's nominally a religious symbol ban, I could see that happening.
        LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        > the hijab ban in France that's nominally a religious symbol ban A hijab is an extreme religious symbol, so it makes sense that it would be overrepresented in a ban of religious symbols. That's like an American calling a law racist because its impact is coincidentally not racially balanced.
        TulliusCicero 4y ago
        The intent of the law was obviously to get rid of hijabs. That's the context, and nobody really disputes that, even though the text of the law doesn't explicitly target any particular religion. I'm not sure I'd call it an extreme symbol, exactly, but I'm not a fan of the culture behind sexist cultural policies like that, where women are treated radically differently from men.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
causality0 4y ago
Since LDS children are a subset of children, they should be required to take a comprehensive and accurate sex ed course in school. You have the right to teach your kids anything you want. You do not have the right to keep them ignorant of anything you want.

by reb 4y ago

TulliusCicero 4y ago

> could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children No, they couldn't. Your proposed scenario here is insane. This would be blatantly unconstitutional.

reb 4y ago
Sure, and it could then be challenged in court. And depending on the alignment of the courts, they might find in favor of the policy, setting a precedent for future law. Do you really not understand how things work in this country?
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  I do, and I understand that something this blatantly unconstitutional (and widespread enough to be notable) would get slapped down by the courts super hard before being actually acted on. Do you understand how things work in this country? When's the last time there was a statewide policy like this that explicitly targeted people of one particular religion? Especially kids going to state schools?
  - reb 4y ago
    It wouldn't target a particular religion, it would be a general policy protecting all children's right to education. LDS people being impacted would be an unfortunate side effect, not the promoted intention of the policy. I genuinely can't tell if you're being disingenuous here. I'm not personally stressed about the rights of LDS people, but the procedural scenario I'm describing isn't even remotely far-fetched.
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      > It wouldn't target a particular religion This makes it sound like it is indeed targeting a particular religion: > An anti-LDS government official in control of education in some state (say, California) could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children are required to attend sex-ed classes in school If what you meant was "all children, including LDS children" I think it could've been phrased a bit more clearly, because it sounds very targeted. That's the part I objected to. But yeah if you mean, "secretly/implicitly targeting" like the hijab ban in France that's nominally a religious symbol ban, I could see that happening.
      - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        > the hijab ban in France that's nominally a religious symbol ban A hijab is an extreme religious symbol, so it makes sense that it would be overrepresented in a ban of religious symbols. That's like an American calling a law racist because its impact is coincidentally not racially balanced.
        TulliusCicero 4y ago
        The intent of the law was obviously to get rid of hijabs. That's the context, and nobody really disputes that, even though the text of the law doesn't explicitly target any particular religion. I'm not sure I'd call it an extreme symbol, exactly, but I'm not a fan of the culture behind sexist cultural policies like that, where women are treated radically differently from men.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

causality0 4y ago

Since LDS children are a subset of children, they should be required to take a comprehensive and accurate sex ed course in school. You have the right to teach your kids anything you want. You do not have the right to keep them ignorant of anything you want.