4 ms·

This should be thrown out legally because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.". It's religion as law disguised as "But think o

This should be thrown out legally because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.". It's religion as law disguised as "But think of the children!" as usual.

erenyeager 3y ago
It’s not favoring a particular religion, and even non religious people (including for ex some radical feminists you may find) can unite against pornography propagation. It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults.
- scarface74 3y ago
  > but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable I bet these same folks would be up in an uproar if you mentioned gun control which have a lot more negative influences than seeing boobies…
- ModernMech 3y ago
  > It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults. And yet that same society will do nothing to stop the number one cause of death in children: gun violence. One has to ask why?
justrealist 3y ago
Judeo-Christian doctrine also has prohibitions against theft and murder. Should we throw those out? There's an overlap between secular and religious prohibitions, and there's no easy answer as to which rules are "religious" — you're just reflecting what's in your head as "obviously secular" and "obviously religious", and that's not how all other (secular) people view the world.
- scarface74 3y ago
  Theft and murder is one of those “your right to throw your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begin” issues. This isn’t.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    OK and what about welfare, or medicaid? Clearly a reframed version of tithing for the poor from a lot of religious traditions. Do you think we should drop those because they (a) overlap with religious teachings and (b) aren't libertarian?
    - scarface74 3y ago
      Charity and taking care of the poor didn’t start with religion. Archeologists have found evidence that cultures took care of people with broken legs until they heeled thousands of years before modern religions were invented. As far as tithing, that money doesn’t help ”the poor”. It mostly goes toward running the church (#18 https://get.tithe.ly/blog/how-churches-really-spend-their-money-20-fascinating-data-points-a-new-study https://get.tithe.ly/blog/how-churches-really-spend-their-mo...) Did you also notice that none of your examples take rights away from anyone?
      - nashashmi 3y ago
        Actually it did start with religion. Though that matter goes into prehistory. And many modern religions source their history to way back when.
  - nashashmi 3y ago
    Revealing someone's secrets, is illegal in religion, yet legal in law. While secularism have rationalized certain religious rules in their own interests like "your right to throw your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begin", they definitely did not originate with them. And though they have not rationalized everything, individuals sourcing laws from religion does not violate freedom of religion principles.
jiggyjace 3y ago
There's nothing happening in Utah that is establishing a theocracy that requires you must attend and worship a certain religion.
nashashmi 3y ago
It's civility as law. And religion has it in similar fashion.

This should be thrown out legally because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.". It's religion as law disguised as "But think of the children!" as usual.

erenyeager 3y ago

It’s not favoring a particular religion, and even non religious people (including for ex some radical feminists you may find) can unite against pornography propagation. It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults.

scarface74 3y ago
> but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable I bet these same folks would be up in an uproar if you mentioned gun control which have a lot more negative influences than seeing boobies…
ModernMech 3y ago
> It’s also not just about think of the children, but any society that cares for people will want to limit negative influences on the most vulnerable and those growing up who will become the future adults. And yet that same society will do nothing to stop the number one cause of death in children: gun violence. One has to ask why?

justrealist 3y ago

Judeo-Christian doctrine also has prohibitions against theft and murder. Should we throw those out? There's an overlap between secular and religious prohibitions, and there's no easy answer as to which rules are "religious" — you're just reflecting what's in your head as "obviously secular" and "obviously religious", and that's not how all other (secular) people view the world.

scarface74 3y ago
Theft and murder is one of those “your right to throw your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begin” issues. This isn’t.
- justrealist 3y ago
  OK and what about welfare, or medicaid? Clearly a reframed version of tithing for the poor from a lot of religious traditions. Do you think we should drop those because they (a) overlap with religious teachings and (b) aren't libertarian?
  - scarface74 3y ago
    Charity and taking care of the poor didn’t start with religion. Archeologists have found evidence that cultures took care of people with broken legs until they heeled thousands of years before modern religions were invented. As far as tithing, that money doesn’t help ”the poor”. It mostly goes toward running the church (#18 https://get.tithe.ly/blog/how-churches-really-spend-their-money-20-fascinating-data-points-a-new-study https://get.tithe.ly/blog/how-churches-really-spend-their-mo...) Did you also notice that none of your examples take rights away from anyone?
    - nashashmi 3y ago
      Actually it did start with religion. Though that matter goes into prehistory. And many modern religions source their history to way back when.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  Revealing someone's secrets, is illegal in religion, yet legal in law. While secularism have rationalized certain religious rules in their own interests like "your right to throw your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begin", they definitely did not originate with them. And though they have not rationalized everything, individuals sourcing laws from religion does not violate freedom of religion principles.

jiggyjace 3y ago

There's nothing happening in Utah that is establishing a theocracy that requires you must attend and worship a certain religion.

nashashmi 3y ago

It's civility as law. And religion has it in similar fashion.