3 ms·

You have an inalienable right to express any view on flat earth in the US. But it doesn't matter if the state law is enforcing religious rules, like in the cas

by trasz4 3y ago

You have an inalienable right to express any view on flat earth in the US. But it doesn't matter if the state law is enforcing religious rules, like in the case of abortion ban.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 3y ago
Abortion bans aren’t “religious rules.” Abortion has been banned in officially atheist countries, like Stalinist Russia and communist Albania. Conversely, the notion of a “right to abortion” or a “right to bodily autonomy” is for all practical purposes a religious view. It’s a belief about the nature of human society and the value of human life in its various stages.
- kelnos 3y ago
  If that's the case, a right to freedom of speech is a similarly "religious view". I don't really see the distinction you're trying to make.
  - bhupy 3y ago
    Yes, that's absolutely correct. I'm a strong proponent of the right to freedom of speech (and I'm pro-choice), but we have to be clear about the fact that these are derived from axioms, which are by definition maxims derived from subjective leaps of faith and not evidence-based objectivity. I think that's Rayiner's point; you can't admonish people deriving philosophical views from the theistic beliefs and value systems they practice when the opposing side of those views are essentially derived from secular/atheistic beliefs and value systems. At some point in the chain of derived arguments and justifications, you arrive at an axiom whose only justification is "because I believe this should be so" or "because my in-group believes this should be so" or "because <authority figure> believes this should be so" — it's still a leap of faith. "Humanism" is just another subjective belief system, and its adherents are no more immune to the forces of tribalism and faith-based reasoning as adherents of older belief systems.

3 ms·

You have an inalienable right to express any view on flat earth in the US. But it doesn't matter if the state law is enforcing religious rules, like in the cas

by trasz4 3y ago

You have an inalienable right to express any view on flat earth in the US. But it doesn't matter if the state law is enforcing religious rules, like in the case of abortion ban.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 3y ago
Abortion bans aren’t “religious rules.” Abortion has been banned in officially atheist countries, like Stalinist Russia and communist Albania. Conversely, the notion of a “right to abortion” or a “right to bodily autonomy” is for all practical purposes a religious view. It’s a belief about the nature of human society and the value of human life in its various stages.
- kelnos 3y ago
  If that's the case, a right to freedom of speech is a similarly "religious view". I don't really see the distinction you're trying to make.
  - bhupy 3y ago
    Yes, that's absolutely correct. I'm a strong proponent of the right to freedom of speech (and I'm pro-choice), but we have to be clear about the fact that these are derived from axioms, which are by definition maxims derived from subjective leaps of faith and not evidence-based objectivity. I think that's Rayiner's point; you can't admonish people deriving philosophical views from the theistic beliefs and value systems they practice when the opposing side of those views are essentially derived from secular/atheistic beliefs and value systems. At some point in the chain of derived arguments and justifications, you arrive at an axiom whose only justification is "because I believe this should be so" or "because my in-group believes this should be so" or "because <authority figure> believes this should be so" — it's still a leap of faith. "Humanism" is just another subjective belief system, and its adherents are no more immune to the forces of tribalism and faith-based reasoning as adherents of older belief systems.