Yes. Laws forbidding child marriage conflict with some religious practice. I for one do not believe in the religious-based right to rape little girls. I do not believe that religious entities can endanger the lives of children, for example, by brutal practices at church-run "reform schools" (Missouri has a history of these).
"My rights end at the tip of my nose." Like all simple sayings, you learn its dept over time - including that my rights to, say, engage in the religious blood sacrifice extend only to the point of sacrificing me, because sacrificing anyone (thing) else is extending my rights beyond "the tip of my nose." It also doesn't mean that I can't defend someone else against having "rights" exercised on their persons.
My mother had a saying: My rights end at the tip of my nose."
Funny, I always heard it as "YOUR rights end at the tip of my nose"!
I'll echo NancyP's exception.
One has a right to BELIEVE whatever one wants to. But society has a right to proscribe PRACTICES which violate its collective conscience (reflected in the rule of law).
Sometimes, there's going to be conflict, because religions&consciences disagree (probably the most intractable of these conflicts continues to be abortion: the religious belief that says the practice is wrong, and the religious/ethical belief that says the practice of attempting to ban it is wrong).
Religious liberty is never absolute, but is weighed against other goods that society values. Courts order medical treatment for children that violates the parents' religious beliefs, because the government can make the case that it has an interest in protecting the lives of children.
As others have pointed out, we do sometimes abridge the religious freedom of others, especially as it intersects with third parties. However, I think the first question to haggle over is, "what is a right?" For example, in the argument over SSM, one side asserts that marriage is a right. It's not clear that it is, but, even if it is, it, like the religious freedom examples, is sometimes restricted even for heterosexuals.
As another example, I happen to think we have a right to drive, though I understand I may be the only one who thinks so.
I suppose something that is determined to not be a right can be burdened by the law to a much greater extent than something that isn't. Of course, that isn't the same thing as saying such burdening is a good idea.
Sid, one of the basic problems is that we have a mythology of the "inalienable right" as objective reality.
There's not really such a thing.
Someone can alienate you from the "right" to live. Someone can alienate you from the "right" to own property. Someone can alienate you from your "right" to be paid for work. What determines rights is what the law says.
What is overlooked is that the expression is preceded by "we hold these truths to be self-evident" in other words "We agree with each other that these are entitlements." That's not the same as "This is The Truth."
That is why it is so important to some of us to cut off the head of this theocracy movement now - it's not really about gay marriage, or women's rights, though those are important parts, because they highlight the dehumanizing properties of that theocratizing movement.
11 comments:
Um, no? I sense a trick question.
No trick.
Yes. Laws forbidding child marriage conflict with some religious practice. I for one do not believe in the religious-based right to rape little girls. I do not believe that religious entities can endanger the lives of children, for example, by brutal practices at church-run "reform schools" (Missouri has a history of these).
My mother had a saying:
"My rights end at the tip of my nose." Like all simple sayings, you learn its dept over time - including that my rights to, say, engage in the religious blood sacrifice extend only to the point of sacrificing me, because sacrificing anyone (thing) else is extending my rights beyond "the tip of my nose." It also doesn't mean that I can't defend someone else against having "rights" exercised on their persons.
excuse me "its depth"
My mother had a saying: My rights end at the tip of my nose."
Funny, I always heard it as "YOUR rights end at the tip of my nose"!
I'll echo NancyP's exception.
One has a right to BELIEVE whatever one wants to. But society has a right to proscribe PRACTICES which violate its collective conscience (reflected in the rule of law).
Sometimes, there's going to be conflict, because religions&consciences disagree (probably the most intractable of these conflicts continues to be abortion: the religious belief that says the practice is wrong, and the religious/ethical belief that says the practice of attempting to ban it is wrong).
Religious liberty is never absolute, but is weighed against other goods that society values. Courts order medical treatment for children that violates the parents' religious beliefs, because the government can make the case that it has an interest in protecting the lives of children.
As others have pointed out, we do sometimes abridge the religious freedom of others, especially as it intersects with third parties. However, I think the first question to haggle over is, "what is a right?" For example, in the argument over SSM, one side asserts that marriage is a right. It's not clear that it is, but, even if it is, it, like the religious freedom examples, is sometimes restricted even for heterosexuals.
As another example, I happen to think we have a right to drive, though I understand I may be the only one who thinks so.
I suppose something that is determined to not be a right can be burdened by the law to a much greater extent than something that isn't. Of course, that isn't the same thing as saying such burdening is a good idea.
Sid, one of the basic problems is that we have a mythology of the "inalienable right" as objective reality.
There's not really such a thing.
Someone can alienate you from the "right" to live. Someone can alienate you from the "right" to own property. Someone can alienate you from your "right" to be paid for work. What determines rights is what the law says.
What is overlooked is that the expression is preceded by "we hold these truths to be self-evident" in other words "We agree with each other that these are entitlements." That's not the same as "This is The Truth."
That is why it is so important to some of us to cut off the head of this theocracy movement now - it's not really about gay marriage, or women's rights, though those are important parts, because they highlight the dehumanizing properties of that theocratizing movement.
Depends upon how much money they have and who they know... just sayin'.
this question has been running around my head in light of the events in Colorado....
Post a Comment