Thirith on 25/11/2015 at 11:13
I agree that there need to be limits, but that's where international law and treaties come in. If a law or a constitutional amendment contravenes these, it should be chucked out before it even comes to the vote. (As disgusted as I am by this, there's currently an initiative running that would add to our constitution that Swiss law supercedes international law. I very much hope that the Swiss won't be asshats yet again when they get to vote on this.)
I have to admit that I didn't know until a quick Google just now that the UN declared abortion rights a human right. I'd have to look into this some more to find out to what extent this is ratified law and where. I agree that women should have the right to abortion (with the usual proviso that there'd need to be a discussion as to how late in a pregnancy it should be permitted in all cases), but for the sake of the discussion let's be clear: human rights are not something inherent, they are constructed and decided on. Was abortion more 'wrong' before the UN decided that it was a human right? IMO you're talking about things as absolutes here that in legal terms aren't absolutes, and ethics are never absolute but always constructed.
In addition, with all checks and balances, there are edge cases. You talk about freedom of and from religion: some might say that this includes prohibiting religiously connoted clothes and paraphernalia (e.g. veils, crucifixes, yarmulkes). Where do you draw the line between freedom of and freedom from? Where does the private end and the public begin? Whatever you decide, you will end up restricting the rights on one side of the equation in favour of the other. Which is okay, but your last post reads as if this was a black-and-white issue.
Edit: This is even true with respect to your bit about how "One person's religions should never be used to influence another person." Religious charities collecting for Syrian refugees, because charity is the highest good: should this be prohibited? They are trying to influence others - potential donors, but beyond that people who may have political influence or who vote on refugee policies.
faetal on 25/11/2015 at 12:57
If the charity is collecting money for refugees, then religion doesn't come into it, since neither charity or altruism are religious principles. If said charity was using the collection as a vehicle for proselytising, then I'd say there was a violation.
Also, re the banning of the veil etc - freedom from religion, doesn't mean freedom from other people being religious, it means freedom from having to declare a religion. For example, in Saudi Arabia, you can be sentenced to death for apostasy.
Thirith on 25/11/2015 at 13:02
Ah, thanks for setting me right on that one. Makes more sense too.
Where do you stand with respect to, say, teachers who are visibly religious, e.g. they wear a hijab?
faetal on 25/11/2015 at 13:04
It's fine so long as they aren't using their position to proselytise.
Religion is spread as a set of ideas, not envy of the way other people dress.
Thirith on 25/11/2015 at 13:59
Out of interest, faetal (and if you don't mind answering these things in public), was your atheism or agnosticism, or was your wife's religion, ever an issue in your relationship?
faetal on 25/11/2015 at 14:22
It required careful discussion re our impending child. She wanted to raise the child Christian, I argued that it didn't seem like a fair start to lead her in any direction before she's old enough to understand what's going on. A bit of a back and forth ensued and now we've agreed that my wife can talk to our daughter about her religion after she's eleven where she'll learn about it in school anyway. If Christianity really is the undeniable truth of reality, then it's surely just as strong an option when not primed with childhood indoctrination.
Thirith on 25/11/2015 at 14:31
Thanks.
