Thirith on 24/11/2015 at 15:25
I have to say I have a slight issue with your position, faetal, and that's the following: not everyone who is homophobic or anti-abortion is so for religious reasons, and not everyone who is religious is against abortion or homosexuals. People's political views do not come prefab with their religious affiliation, even if there is probably a correlation there. People can have irrational views regardless of whether they consider themselves religious or not. Similarly, a lot of things factor into one's views; apart from anything else, I don't think it's *realistic* to say that religion ought not to have any influence on politics. A person's beliefs, whether religious or not, will influence their actions.
Here, you get reactionary religious types as much as socialists for Christ, for want of a better word. You get some who oppose sexual education in school for religious reasons, and some who want more things done for the poor and needy because that's what is godly. Should all of these political stances be disregarded equally? And should voters prove that their opinions aren't influenced by religion?
Politics isn't perfectly rational. People's opinions aren't fully logical. Singling out one deciding factor for what makes a politician's (or voter's) views off-limits strikes me as strange, insufficiently argued and in essence undemocratic - as much as there are views I consider irrational and voters that in my darker moments I would love to strip of their rights.
faetal on 24/11/2015 at 15:33
I didn't mean to infer that only religious people are prejudiced. If it seems like I'm saying that, then I've badly misrepresented myself.
Just that I don't believe that there should be an absolute veto on alterations to the state mechanisms made on religious grounds, which affect everyone.
Atheists being assholes just can't be covered in the same way - it requires more situational specificity.
If it helps, I'd also reject any changes to the legislation on the basis of atheism - i.e. removing rights from religious people based on someone's idea that there are no supernatural explanations to the universe - like banning the wearing of religious symbols. I do think that churches and religious organisations should be taxed though (excepting religious charities).
heywood on 24/11/2015 at 15:48
I am particularly concerned about the extended state of emergency in France and the lockdown of Brussels. I don't want to see martial law become the new normal response to terrorism.
I also don't want to sound like I'm trivializing the victim's deaths, but it seems like the government response is out of proportion with the degree of public danger.
And then I woke this morning to hear about Turkey shooting down a Russian Su-24 at the border. The last thing we need is a Muslim NATO member engaging in armed conflict with Russia just as the Russians are starting to get behind the battle against ISIL, but initial reports suggest it may have been warranted.
icemann on 24/11/2015 at 16:52
Our government over here used it as an excuse to bring in "retention of metadata" by all ISP's. Was said to be only on the lookout for terrorism related sites. With assurances to the people given that it wouldn't be used for chasing after those who do copyright infringement (via torrents etc).
A few months later it was announced that it would be expanded to include that also.
heywood on 24/11/2015 at 17:54
The scary thing isn't so much the retention of metadata but the on-demand availability of the data to law enforcement agencies without a warrant. Makes it easy for them to go on fishing expeditions.
Sadly, and anti-encryption laws have strong backing from law enforcement organizations all over the world. There's been a lot of hard lobbying for it in the US, led by the FBI directors, starting back in the 1990s. LEOs have been making a big deal of it again ever since last year when Apple and Google announced they would be offering strong encryption that only the device owner can unlock. So far they've put most of their effort into lobbying for back doors to be added, but if they don't get that it wouldn't surprise me if there was another push for a key disclosure law similar to what Australian law enforcement enjoys. So far, the 5th Amendment seems to be holding that back.
Muzman on 24/11/2015 at 19:33
Quote Posted by icemann
Over here in Aus, the one Islam-related issue that tends to piss everyone (non Muslims) off is the Halal meat issue. Even annoys me a little.
To go into more detail:
In kebab, ethnic style restaurants etc, Halal meat is the meat of choice. No'one has an issue there.
But in areas where there is a large amount of Muslim people, the larger food places (eg Macdonalds, KFC etc) have gone all 100% Halal meat. Now taste wise, there is absolutely no difference halal and non halal meat since the only difference is that a prayer is done over the animal after it is killed via a specific sort of knife (to my knowledge).
Many people feel that this move in meat choices discriminates against Non-Muslim people since they are given no choice for non-halal meats in these larger food outlets. And I agree totally with them on this one. Democracy = choice in my book. No choice = Not democratic on the flip side. And your only choice in such stores is to either eat meat done for a religion that is not your own, where your only choice is to eat it, or have to go to another suburb where the food is prepared differently. That to me is not Australian.
I happily eat halal meat when it's from kebab stores, my girlfriend's place (since she + her family is Muslim) or specialty stores etc, my
only issue is in the lack of choice aspect to it all.
Some of the more ignorant racists/bigots (eg the Reclaim Australia extremist movement) say "Halal meat funds terrorism", which is the most STUPID thing I've ever heard. But when it's just an issue over the lack of choice, then that is one issue where I'm in COMPLETE agreement.
Eh, choice is overrated sometimes. You don't have any choice to go and buy meat not killed and prepared to Australian cleanliness standards either. Not without a certain amount of travel and inconvenience anyway. And certainly not from a major chain.
These places get halal certification on meat largely because the source suppliers have all gotten it so that they can sell their meat to muslim countries (something that's been happening for a very long time). Then the nature of that certification varies a bit and some more devout types don't approve of it anyway.
What actually happens depends somewhat on the anatomy of the animal. Steggles and Ingham produce about 80% of the chicken in Aus and both are halal certified. So even if you don't see the label, you're probably eating it. The thing is, they didn't have to change anything about their process to get it. A check of the method and a blessing and you're good to go.
Beef and sheep get a bit more complicated and apparently can vary quite a bit. Some are very particular with their processes (and the Yemeni come and check and things like that). The larger producers get a bit of a more casual blanket approval of method.
The thing is, looking at it it's a bit of a rubber stamp racket really, with loads of different certifications agencies and things of that sort. As ever with religious approval for things. That's not a great thing, but also at worst silly and virtually harmless. I mean, where I live every year the fishing fleet is blessed in an elaborate catholic ceremony. If I want the good local fish I have to get Catholic Fish! They don't even feel the need to advertise the fact with a little cross or something on the window at the restaurant door.
There's a secular argument that this sort of thing might be generally bad news. But really I haven't seen that we've bastardised our standards to accommodate this stuff. You get a certification to improve a brand or product's market share. It's just another tick that enables a certain kind of trust for certain kinds of people so that they'll give you their money. Same as it ever was.
faetal on 24/11/2015 at 20:36
The organic / bio label is a load of lip service horse shit most of the time too.
The UK has become kind of authoritarian nightmare since 9/11 and it'd be easy to shake it off as being unintentional or genuine over-reaction if the vast majority of uses of anti-terror legislation weren't towards peaceful protesters.
Thirith on 25/11/2015 at 07:59
Quote Posted by faetal
I didn't mean to infer that only religious people are prejudiced. If it seems like I'm saying that, then I've badly misrepresented myself.
Just that I don't believe that there should be an absolute veto on alterations to the state mechanisms made on religious grounds, which affect everyone.
IMO if a law is proposed and it's voted for on religious grounds, at least in part, that's democratically valid, even if I may disagree with the law in question. E.g. there was a vote last year in Switzerland about whether health insurances should be required to cover abortions or not. It was rejected, but if the majority had said yes, which would've been partly for religious reasons, then that would've been a valid democratic result, as far as I'm concerned. A questionable, counterproductive one, definitely, but the democratic process doesn't determine what sort of political reasoning is valid, as long as such a law isn't against more fundamental national or international law.
Similarly, the infamous Swiss anti-minaret constitutional amendment, as braindead as it is, was the result of valid democratic processes. Was the reasoning religious? Anti-religious? Or just good, old-fashioned tribalism and xenophobia? It was definitely not based on reason. I'm not sure how such irrational decisions could be prevented, at least beyond the checks and balances that are already there in the constitution and in international laws adopted by Switzerland.
If religion were allowed to annul the democratic process in one way or another, that'd be an entirely different issue.
faetal on 25/11/2015 at 09:40
There need to be limits to democracy though. For example, even if it was considered popular opinion in your country, you wouldn't put to the vote to deport all non-white people, because that would be an objective violation of human rights. Likewise if a majority Christian country voted to ban abortion, that would be infringing on the human rights of those who don't agree. Democracy is the layer of governance that sits above a core of inalienable rights. Places where that isn't true tend to be considered theocracies (see Saudi Arabia for example) or dictatorships (see North Korea). The most involvement the state and religion should have with each other is non-interference. The state should not prohibit people from being able to be privately religious. Religious organisations should not try to dictate the function of the state.
One person's religions should never be used to influence another person, be it violent or even doorstep proselytising. Freedom of and from religion.
