Fate
Squire
Posts: 1,333
|
Post by Fate on Apr 2, 2009 19:11:46 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by boosette on Apr 2, 2009 23:14:12 GMT 10
Gaaah, I want to make an intelligent comment about this, so please bear with me?
The Stolen Innocence case isn't a matter of religious freedom, it's one of child abuse. Similar with other girls who grew up in those sects. So while I theoretically don't have a problem with polygamy (and I don't, when it's among fully-informed and fully-consenting adults) there are too many cases of the practice being used as a front for the sexual abuse of young teenaged girls. (Likewise look at the girls who claim abuse at the hands of their fathers in this lifestyle - while it's by no means confined to polygamous sects, such abuse seems disproportionate within them.) And just as a personal aside, I for one would be wary of any man drawn to such a lifestyle but not claiming a polyamourous sexual orientation (and of some who do) - because that speaks to something not being right with their worldview.
So in practice - since these communities are so terrible at self-policing the behavior of their members (and at recognizing that fourteen-year-old girls aren't ready for marriage no matter how mature they think they are (no offense to our forum's young teens, but - wait til you're twenty and look back at yourself now. 99 times out of a hundred you'll facepalm and agree.)) said policing needs to be done by outside law - such as bans on polygamy.
Phelps and Jeffs are vile, noxious human beings who deserve nothing shy of the hellfire they preach, but the question that comes up is ... are they committing actual harm, or are they just exercising their vile, noxious, bigoted freedom of speech with their demonstrations and their preaching? I wouldn't want to place limits on them only to have their ilk find their way into power and place those self-same limits on me, with me/us having created the legal precedent for them to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Lindsay on Apr 3, 2009 6:31:00 GMT 10
I think religious freedom ends the same way any other freedom ends-- your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In other words, if the people are not harming 1 themselves, their children, or others in any way, I think they should be able to carry on as they wish. However, people often hurt others-- especially children, who can't make decisions for themselves-- under the guise of religious freedom. Like the teenager who died from a minor and treatable sickness after his parents refused medical treatment, or the toddler who starved to death after the leader ordered him to be punished. Blind faith is dangerous, and in some cases can be deadly. There are some cases like the above that I could accept are religious freedom-- like if the teenager had been an adult and refused treatment, that would be his choice. An adult is capable of making their own decisions, even if it means they will die without treatment. (For instance, an employee at my local 711 was stabbed and died-- his injuries, while serious, could have been treated if he had agreed to a blood transfusion, but did not as he was a Jehovah's Witness and against blood transfusions.) Honestly, some of those sects are more cult-like than anything to me. I'm wary of any "religious" group that prays upon people's insecurities to achieve a fanatical devotion to their leader. I think that's an important difference between organized religion and some of these sects-- the devotion is not to an idol or god, but rather a living, breathing person who may order them to do things in the name of a god. I also don't like the isolation of many of these groups. Living in a compound, not allowing people like government officials to know what you're up to and decreasing the possibility that anyone might come across the group or interact with the group coincidentally-- that's worrisome. What are they trying to hide? 1 Harm being defined as psychological, sexual, physical, or emotional.
|
|
Fate
Squire
Posts: 1,333
|
Post by Fate on Apr 3, 2009 12:51:35 GMT 10
I completely agree, and Wall stresses as such in her book.
But I wasn't necessarily referring to her under-age marriage and rape, though it certainly is disturbing. What I found just as concerning while reading was the amount of control exercised by the 'prophet' over the people of the FLDS. It truly is blind faith, and as Linds pointed out that can be dangerous.
I find this kind of thing very, very, very disturbing. I don't think this kind of thing should be taught to anyone, especially not young and impressionable children.
Nor do I, in fact I wrote an ten page essay once describing why I support polygamy (in both forms of polygyny and polyandry) in a non-FLDS fashion, as there are benefits to the arrangement. I would love to anthro-nerd it up sometime and tell you...
All agreed there, Phelps and Jeffs are truly evil people. But I would absolutely argue that they are doing harm. Harassing the parents of dead soldiers when they are trying to grieve. Having a five-year-old carrying a sign that says 'God Hates Fags'. Marrying a fourteen-year-old to her nineteen-year-old cousin. Terrifying people that if they don't listen to everything you say they will burn in hell. That's harm! That's all kinds of harm.
I seem to recall that Canada has the right t freedom of speech except if it promotes hate and genocide. I 100% support that. Though now that I try and find a link to back me up I cannot find one...
|
|
|
Post by boosette on Apr 3, 2009 12:59:45 GMT 10
Here's the problem, in the US:
If you limit their religious freedom or their freedom of speech, you set a legal precedent for people like them limiting their own. That's not something I'm willing to condone.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Apr 4, 2009 15:43:35 GMT 10
Oh, hell no - I can't back that up. It's a slippery slope precedent - who determines what hate speech it? Someone could say that I promote hate every time I lash out against the groups that irritate me the most. I'd like to reserve my hatred for megalomaniacs and brain washers and child molestors.
Who gets to censure which hatred is "okay"? I will fight for ANYONE's freedom to declare what they hate as much as I'll fight for my own right to say why I oppose those who do hate on such bigoted terms.
|
|
Fate
Squire
Posts: 1,333
|
Post by Fate on Apr 5, 2009 5:12:22 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Apr 5, 2009 9:01:43 GMT 10
I find it very interesting that in the incitement of hatred it specifically says "other than in private conversation" while there is no such disclaimer in the genocide issue.
Thanks for posting, though - it's interesting to review.
|
|
Mina
Rider Trainee
Posts: 73
|
Post by Mina on Apr 6, 2009 7:58:42 GMT 10
I think freedom of speech ends the moment you actually call for people to harm other people. Like the genocide issue - or smaller versions of it. We actually had a group of drunks rally against some other ethnic group and one of their shops in a kind of public forum (a local fair) and the end of it was a group of drunk idiots trying to kill people in that shop and vandalize a lot. So should freedom of speech allow an appeal like 'let's kill those bastard [add ethnicity, family, competitor of business and his employee] now be protected under freedom of speech? Because it did happen and they did try and they destroyed property, injured and killed people. There has to be some kind of fine line even for freedom of speech or religion. A religious war, one group of believers against a group of non-believers (or just people of another faith)? I expect religion to be kept out of school (except for religious education that should be an overview about religions not about a single one) and I support the notion of a syllabus that all kind of teaching versions (homeschooled, any kind of private school or public school) have to use The idea that there are kids who are tought only information that is approved by that previously mentioned sect, or only creationism or any other possible kind of willfully keeping children uneducated is a very bad one.
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on Apr 6, 2009 21:17:04 GMT 10
Religion in this instance is a manipulated platform; it's not the cause of this behaviour. I don't think curtailing religious freedom is the answer, because there's always another platform to be used.
|
|
|
Post by Katty on Apr 7, 2009 2:18:19 GMT 10
Fate, from my limited knowledge of Canada's constitution and statutorily entrenched bill of rights, your laws on religious freedom are a lot wider than you allude to (or probably realise).
Freedom of religion is a constitutional right in Canada and therefore will in most situations prevail if it clashes with your 'bill of rights' (which is only a normal piece of legislation - cf with USA's constitutionally entrenched BoR). Have a close look at the freedom of religious speech cases in Canada from the last two decades - very few of your 'incitement to genocide/hatred' type laws successfully stood against the Constitutional right to religious freedom. The criminal code provisions post above are virtually useless if someone charged with them challenges their validity.
|
|
Fate
Squire
Posts: 1,333
|
Post by Fate on Apr 10, 2009 9:54:37 GMT 10
|
|
anilaurel
Queen's Rider
Posts: 505
Gender: Other
|
Post by anilaurel on Apr 10, 2009 11:13:24 GMT 10
Also if people are charged and they don't agree they can take it to the Supreme Court.
I myself am not against polygamy either, as long as everyone is treated humanely and under the same laws other people have. (Age of marriage, right to refuse, no incest, ect.) After that it is not that bad, although i some cultures wives are ranked and that is unfair because in some homes things can get vicious.
|
|
Mina
Rider Trainee
Posts: 73
|
Post by Mina on Apr 10, 2009 11:44:36 GMT 10
Which brings us back to some rules that even religious freedom should not include, like do not harm others. But then christian missionares where not exactly a funny breed at any time either. There is some real interesting stuff in German history about how they re-wrote stories from the bible and Christian matyrs to make them more understandable for the heathen Germans from the first time of Old High German literature that we still have proof of.
Back to the topic, I think you'should have to be of age for any mind changing decisions, no matter your religion (that means marriage, having kids, but also on a more base level medical procedures(like not being able to decide for your kid that it can't have the life saving treatment) and bodymods - in the widest sense also containing female circumcising and stuff).
As others said, I am not against polygamy, but there are some basic laws it should keep to - once more borrowing from a scene- safe sane and consentual. Which takes out marriaging teenagers or kids (not able to legally consent ), forced stuff ... you need consent of all parties, and most of the other problems - though one could argue with incest (it might not fall under sane in usual cases, but there are several cases of siblings who never knew that they were related, falling love)
Basically you can borrow that saying 'safe Sane and consentual' for most situations in religious freedom and a lot of other situation.
|
|