[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4695

File: 1579053155757.jpg (938.27 KB, 900x1200, 3:4, box.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

One of the things they don't really explain well in America: we are to value religious freedom, to not prejudice someone for their religion, however this duty obliges religion to fit into a box where God or The Gods can not encourage criminal or antisocial behavior.  Or perhaps even unprofessional behavior.  Organizations that see God commanding otherwise are called extremist or fundamentalist, and will not be legitimate parts of a religious or faith community.

People who do not understand can see a person obeying Holy commands in a literal sense, attribute that behavior to a religion, and begin to fear or hate other people associated with the religion.  They may become Islamophobic, for example, but that's because they don't understand box theory.

I guess my argument is that a) box theory is correct, and b) not understanding box theory is a big cause of religious prejudice.

 No.4696

This doesn't seem to explain much of what "box theory" is.

 No.4697

>>4696
Well, perhaps I didn't specify  sufficiently.  The theory is that religion will be so defined as to never cause criminal or anti-social behavior.

 No.4698

>>4697
I can now think of other places for confusion.  Probably people are looking for an established evidence-tested model to predict material outcomes in a field of science, if so, we'd best downgrade the idea to merely a notion.  The only test is whether the notion and that which logically follows agrees with American sentiments  on the issue of religion and could be expressed generally without punishment by instutions -- whether it is politically correct.  I should say also I think of the scope as applying in modern times to America or states with a similar sense of religious freedom.

 No.4699

>>4695
I instantly convert to unicorn froot loops religion

 No.4700

I never understood the way many people interpret freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion, as a cornerstone of a free society and codified in many legal systems as such, to me means that one is not to be legally prosecuted, socially ostracized, discriminated against, or otherwise given shit for holding a particular religious belief or following a religious tradition, or the lack thereof. As I see it, it does not mean that society is to accept forms of behavior from you that it wouldn't accept from others, because it is part of your religion.

Many people have laid claim, and many legal systems have confirmed this claim, to being allowed to partake in behaviors that society otherwise rejects, because it is proscribed by their religion. As I see it, that is taking freedom of religion way too far. Freedom of religion means society cannot reject a strange but harmless behavior to spite followers of a religion; but it does not mean that society must accept harmful behavior to avoid offending followers of a religion, either.

Freedom of religion is a protection against society stopping you from doing what you want to do because of your religion. It is not a license to be exempt from societal standards that are set independently from any religion.

In that framework:
>however this duty obliges religion to fit into a box where God or The Gods can not encourage criminal or antisocial behavior
It does not oblige religion in this way. Rather, society obliges all people living in it to behave this way, and does not give particular exemptions to people based on what religions they follow.

>People who do not understand can see a person obeying Holy commands in a literal sense, attribute that behavior to a religion, and begin to fear or hate other people associated with the religion.
If I see people behaving in a way that their religion proscribes but society rejects, then yes, I do attribute that behavior to religion, which I think is right and proper.

And yes, I am distrustful of people who interpret their religion as license to behavior I take issue with. Religious communities vary quite wildly to the degree that they encourage and support this sort of behavior; I am distrustful of religious communities to the degree that they do this.

>They may become Islamophobic, for example, but that's because they don't understand box theory.
Because they don't understand box theory? Or because the person obeying the holy commands doesn't understand box theory?

 No.4702

File: 1579174499375.png (193.37 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, justice.png) ImgOps Google

>>4700
>not to be legally prosecuted, socially ostracized, discriminated against
My understanding of American law is not very good, but I think association is seldom enough for the state to punish an individual very much, the state requires evidence of a probable or past harm, and association is seldom enough.  I guess my question might be, do you think responses by private enterprise or social groups to a person's religious choice should operate differently then a choice to belong to a political group?

 No.4703

>>4700
>Because they don't understand box theory? Or because the person obeying the holy commands doesn't understand box theory?
Well, unless an islamophobe and Muslim exist in the same person, these are two separate, although interconnected problems.  I was raised religious, and although The Christian God, when asked whether it was right to pay taxes, said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, Give unto God what is God's," to mean, I think, a degree of subjectivity to the state, it was taught that God reigned above all, and when it really came to it, following God's will outranked obedience to law or social order.  So that is one problem.  Believing God can oblige criminal or harmful behaviors in others is the problem that creates fear of religion, I think.

 No.4704

>>4702
Its not the law itself, well, I mean it kindof is, but I think the bigger issue is inconsistency. If youre rich and famous, you can rape someone on the street or kill someone and lawyer your way out of it, but if you're poor and not famous, you could end up in a private prison that squirms its way into essentially making you a slave for the rest of your life, for something like smoking weed. Depends on the judge and jury's mood and your budget to an astronomically larger degree than the actual laws on the books.

 No.4749

>>4704
So, a rich person would have greater freedom for religious practice because not so confined by the box of state enforcement?  Or put another way, their Gods will be more powerful?


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]