I would suggest freedom of thought and freedom of religion are incompatible
But dont get me wrong, I wouldnt put my shiny black jackboot down on superstition immediately. First I'd try separating church and state, removing any religious element from education and promoting critical thinking in schools. Basically the equivalent of putting the fag packets out of sight behind the counter. If there were any left after, say, 50 years, I'd treat it as a mental health issue.
But what I wouldnt do is enshrine in law the right to believe in the supernatural
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 12:16, Share, Reply)
But it's hard to see how denying someone the right to believe stupid stuff would be desirable, or enforceable.
Undesirable, because you have to admit your own fallibility. Even if your argument is strong, humans have been known to make mistakes.
Unenforceable, because... well, because.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 13:45,
Share,
Reply)
Its problematic because there used to be a clear line between medical science and alternative therapies
but, now medical science has been found to be heavily skewed by pharmaceutical companies
And there's the whole issue of what a rational belief is, and how to put that in law. Are they beliefs based on a rational method, or are they beliefs that are held by the majority (both of these definitions of rationality are used in cases of medical negligence).
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 13:57, Share, Reply)
I think there's a big difference between tolerating stupidity and enshrining that tolerance in law
A civil society should be able to tolerate stupidity but should also strive towards reducing it. A law protecting it as a human right is neither helpful or desirable.
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 13:58, Share, Reply)
I think that's enshrined in laws guaranteeing access to education
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 14:01, Share, Reply)
access to education is guaranteed as a human right in this act
but so is the right of parents to be able to expect an education for their children that conforms with their religious convictions, regardless of how wrongheaded those convictions might be.
That's the most worrying bit.
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 14:18, Share, Reply)
the right of parents to expect education for their children to conform with their religious convictions
is breaking the right of those children to the freedom of thought
no single right is absolute, but is limited and complimented by other rights
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 14:22, Share, Reply)
The act limits the freedom of 'religion' (the institution) in the freedom of thought, conscience and religion (religious belief)
Its important, when muslim, sikh, and hindu adults in Britain are being disowned and mistreated by their parents and family because they convert to another religion or choose atheism.
And what's wrong with irrational belief, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else? We'd end up attacking any beliefs based on metaphysical postulates.
Isn't it irrational that there are many people who believe in scientific facts because 'they were told it at school' or that 'scientists believe it, therefore I believe it'?
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 13:50, Share, Reply)
^ this
And anybody telling you they intellectually 'chose' their religion or atheism is a liar. People believe what they happen to believe.
Low intelligence might make someone more likely to just believe what their parents believe but anyone who thinks that religious=stupid and atheist=clever is an idiot, which would be obvious enough if they ever tried to debate some like Rowan Williams or Mohammed Ansar for example.
(
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 17:26,
Share,
Reply)
stupid/clever isnt a particularly useful way of looking at it
indoctrinated/enlightened might be better. There's hope for even the most credulous. That's the real Good News
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 20:39, Share, Reply)