On the interpretation of religious texts by The Lords of Distortion

Thargor

Absolam wrote: »

Well, a higher tax rate on high earners is a legal discrimination against a minority, and I'd certainly be ok with that. Would you?

No its not, at all. Lord of distortion indeed...

Absolam

Thargor wrote: »

No its not, at all. Lord of distortion indeed...

No?
Are high earners a minority?
Does taxing high earners more than low earners create a distinction between high earners and low earners?
Is it legal to do so?
I think it satisfies all those conditions, so yes, a higher tax rate on high earners is a legal discrimination against a minority.

But if you think it's not at all, I'm sure you can present a cogent case.

robindch

Many posts moved here from the "Hazards of Belief"

Absolam

Seeking drummer. Must have own kit and be comfortable moving to a different beat. Apply below.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

That is probably fascinating to some people in fairness. It doesn't really help me distinguish between the two things I was asking you, so I'm guessing you're giving your opinion on what you think is actually happening in Malaysia; in which case to help you along I think the word Allah is more a specific name for the deity in Islam than a 'local word for god'. Given that, you can see why Muslims wouldn't want Christians to be using it to describe the Christian deity, and being a majority in the country, you can probably see how they can enforce their will on a minority. Should they? Most of us here believe in freedom of speech so our majority view would probably be no. But then, we're not in the majority there so who are we to say? Pretty much nobody as far as they're concerned.

here is a bit more information , so by your standards malaysia doesnt raise any red flags for you? democracy <check> islamic ethos <check> minority subject to the religious whims of the majority <check>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Malaysia

Conversion from Islam[edit]
Muslims who wish to convert from Islam face severe obstacles. For Muslims, particularly ethnic Malays, the right to leave the Islamic faith and adhere to another religion is a controversial question. The legal process of conversion is also unclear; in practice it is very difficult for Muslims to change their religion legally.[22]
In 1999 the High Court ruled that secular courts have no jurisdiction to hear applications by Muslims to change religions. According to the ruling, the religious conversion of Muslims lies solely within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts.

Revathi Massosai[edit]
Revathi Massosai is a Malaysian woman who was raised as a Hindu but her identity card designates her as a Muslim. She has declared her religion to be Hindu and has petitioned unsuccessfully to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card. Massosai married a Hindu man, but her marriage is not recognised by the Malaysian government because of the religion issue. Massosai was incarcerated for six months in an Islamic re-education camp because of her attempts to renounce Islam in favour of the Hindu religion.[30] Revathi was denied the guardianship of her new born baby and was not allowed to meet her Hindu husband.

Proselytizing[edit]
Proselytizing of Muslims by members of other religions is not technically prohibited by federal law, even though Muslims may proselytise. It is however prohibited in 10 of the 13 states (i.e. excepting Penang, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territories) and can lead to lengthy jail sentences and many strokes of the rotan (whipping). Most Christian and a few other religious groups in Malaysia put a standard disclaimer on literature and advertisements stating "For non-Muslims only".[35]

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

here is a bit more information , so by your standards malaysia doesnt raise any red flags for you? democracy <check> islamic ethos <check> minority subject to the religious whims of the majority <check>

What red flags are you thinking it's supposed to raise for me, exactly? Ought I to be throwing my arms in the air, renouncing democracy and advocating a return to monarchy?
Or are you returning to your original point and claiming once again that if something is not condemned it is therefore condoned? I don't think you've offered anything in the meantime that would incline me to agree I'm afraid....

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

What red flags are you thinking it's supposed to raise for me, exactly? Ought I to be throwing my arms in the air, renouncing democracy and advocating a return to monarchy?
Or are you returning to your original point and claiming once again that if something is not condemned it is therefore condoned? I don't think you've offered anything in the meantime that would incline me to agree I'm afraid....

eh no , the alternative is to have a constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority. Democracy is fine once individual rights are strong enough to protect individuals going about the normal business of life.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

eh no , the alternative is to have a constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority. Democracy is fine once individual rights are strong enough to protect individuals going about the normal business of life.

Is that the red flag it's supposed to raise for me, or is it another in the series of non sequiturs?

Regardless, who decides what goes in the constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Is that the red flag it's supposed to raise for me, or is it another in the series of non sequiturs?

Regardless, who decides what goes in the constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority?

Eh that majority rule without a strong constitution is unethical as we can see in countries like malasyia or Uganda another democracy this time Christian trying to bring in the "kill the gays bill" with the help of some evangelical christians.

Who decides is not relevant , but a sign of maturity would be seeing how well individuals are protected . if the constitution is a stitch up by the local popular religion then it is going to be a more flawed document.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Eh that majority rule without a strong constitution is unethical

I don't thank anyone has been advocating majority rule without a strong constitution though, have they? Whether or not it's unethical is probably up for debate but it hardly matters; democracy is still a system of majority rule regardless of whether there is a strong, or well executed, or carefully constructed constitution, or even if there is a constitution at all.

silverharp wrote: »

Who decides is not relevant .

Is that an honest answer? Are you prepared to say that a democracy whose entire constitution, determining the extent of all the rights of all of its citizens, is determined solely by a Pope or King appointed by God, is still a democracy?

Or do you think, really, that in order to be a democracy who decides what's in the constitution is entirely relevant, because who makes decisions is pretty much the definition of a democracy?

silverharp wrote: »

but a sign of maturity would be seeing how well individuals are protected.

How is it a sign of maturity?
Maybe you could give us your, say, top three and bottom three constitutions from around the world by maturity to exemplify what you mean?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I don't thank anyone has been advocating majority rule without a strong constitution though, have they? Whether or not it's unethical is probably up for debate but it hardly matters; democracy is still a system of majority rule regardless of whether there is a strong, or well executed, or carefully constructed constitution, or even if there is a constitution at all.

well you seemed to be , which do you prefer a Religious country like the USA that has a secular constitution or a religious country that has a religious biased one?

Absolam wrote: »

Is that an honest answer? Are you prepared to say that a democracy whose entire constitution, determining the extent of all the rights of all of its citizens, is determined solely by a Pope or King appointed by God, is still a democracy?

I just meant I have no one particular answer , I'd expect there there are well documented processes in preparing a constitution , the final document of course should be voted on by the people. What I'd expect of a more advanced doument is one that set out to do "no harm" The Malaysia example would conclude that badly written constitutions do harm

Absolam wrote: »

Maybe you could give us your, say, top three and bottom three constitutions from around the world by maturity to exemplify what you mean?

Well lets keep it simple as I have mentioned them , the US constitution versus the Malaysian one. In a heartbeat I would pick the US one as I can see in a heartbeat that it doesnt care about religion or who I might marry and how I might raise my kids. The Malaysian one does care by default due to its lack of protection

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

well you seemed to be ,

I' sure if I did (and I'm sure that I didn't) you could quote me doing so?

silverharp wrote: »

which do you prefer a Religious country like the USA that has a secular constitution or a religious country that has a religious biased one?

I prefer a country where a majority of the people determine their laws and constitutions democratically, regardless of the phrasing they use to describe it. Is there a system you think is better?

silverharp wrote: »

I just meant I have no one particular answer , I'd expect there there are well documented processes in preparing a constitution , the final document of course should be voted on by the people. What I'd expect of a more advanced doument is one that set out to do "no harm" The Malaysia example would conclude that badly written constitutions do harm

That's a substantially different statement from what you said, you said:

silverharp wrote: »

Who decides is not relevant .

Given your new persperctive, can you now tell us, who, in a democracy, decides what goes in the constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority?

silverharp wrote: »

Well lets keep it simple as I have mentioned them , the US constitution versus the Malaysian one. In a heartbeat I would pick the US one as I can see in a heartbeat that it doesnt care about religion or who I might marry and how I might raise my kids. The Malaysian one does care by default due to its lack of protection

Well firstly, I wasn't asking which you would pick, I was asking which ones you rate top and bottom according to maturity. What is mature in the American Constitution that is not mature in the Malaysian one? Or is it the other way round?
Secondly, you're saying 'the Malaysian one does care by default due to its lack of protection'. Personally I'd say not addressing something demonstrates a lack of care for it; certainly my personal lack of protection for endangered cockroaches in Dublin bedsits is not a default indication of my care for them, quite the contrary. Perhaps are you returning to your original proposition and trying to tell us again that failing to condemn is condoning? You have yet to advance any argument to back that notion up I'm afraid.
But I suppose since you're picking constitutions, the real question has to be; aren't the Malaysian people also allowed to choose?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I' sure if I did (and I'm sure that I didn't) you could quote me doing so?

I'm not sure you can even have a tyranny of the majority without democracy. Regardless, given choice between the tyranny of the majority or the minority, I think I'm inclined to the populist course...

You appear to relish the "tyranny of the majority" instead of having a more reasonable view that any particular minority deserve to be protected from the majority if it could be deemed that he minority could be wronged by the attitudes of the majority.

Absolam wrote: »

I prefer a country where a majority of the people determine their laws and constitutions democratically, regardless of the phrasing they use to describe it. Is there a system you think is better?
..., who, in a democracy, decides what goes in the constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority?

it would be a measure of of the process , it the local religion is given the power to screen and amend the constitution before its presented to the people then its a weak process likely to create a weak constitution. If the government of the day setup an independent commission made up of various experts etc. then the constitution will likely look out to protect minorities.

Absolam wrote: »

Well firstly, I wasn't asking which you would pick, I was asking which ones you rate top and bottom according to maturity. What is mature in the American Constitution that is not mature in the Malaysian one? Or is it the other way round?
Secondly, you're saying 'the Malaysian one does care by default due to its lack of protection'. Personally I'd say not addressing something demonstrates a lack of care for it; certainly my personal lack of protection for endangered cockroaches in Dublin bedsits is not a default indication of my care for them, quite the contrary. Perhaps are you returning to your original proposition and trying to tell us again that failing to condemn is condoning? You have yet to advance any argument to back that notion up I'm afraid.
But I suppose since you're picking constitutions, the real question has to be; aren't the Malaysian people also allowed to choose?

Of course the Malaysians are free to choose but I can judge their state as being backward because they dont protect religious minorities. Not treating all citizens equally is setting out not to protect them, in the Malaysian example they specifically allow for religious courts to have a monopoly in the lives of people outside of the general legal system.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

You appear to relish the "tyranny of the majority" instead of having a more reasonable view that any particular minority deserve to be protected from the majority if it could be deemed that he minority could be wronged by the attitudes of the majority.

In short then, you can't quote me advocating majority rule without a strong constitution? Much easier to say it out straight in fairness
Nor have I ever said I relish the tyranny of the majority; you may recall it was Marianbads term for democracies, let alone said I don't believe that any particular minority don't deserve to be protected from the majority if it could be deemed that he minority could be wronged by the attitudes of the majority.
Seriously, when I said quote me, I didn't mean make up nonsense and ascribe it to me!

silverharp wrote: »

it would be a measure of of the process , it the local religion is given the power to screen and amend the constitution before its presented to the people then its a weak process likely to create a weak constitution. If the government of the day setup an independent commission made up of various experts etc. then the constitution will likely look out to protect minorities.

Oh, absolutely, measuring processes sounds brilliant. Independend commissions made up of various experts, great idea. But to be clear, who, exactly, when all processes are measured and independent commissions commission and suchlike, in a democracy, decides what goes in the constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority?

silverharp wrote: »

Of course the Malaysians are free to choose but I can judge their state as being backward because they dont protect religious minorities.

So is backwards the same as immature, or the same as mature? And whilst no one can deny (in this State) that you're entitled to proselytise your judgement on their State, it's fair to say it is their State, and it really is more up to them than you how they run it, don't you think?
I don't think you're in a position to invade them and start dictating what you want in their Constitution, for instance.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

The usual reason given for saying that it is not legal to have non denominational schools in Ireland is Rule 68 of the Rules for National Schools (1926) ....

It is actually quite funny that they saw fit to include a special Chapter 10 titled "Secular Instruction" ie reading writing maths geography etc.. after Chapter 9 "Religious Instruction".
Its almost like a rule to remind the old Christian Brother dudes that they should at least try to teach the kids to read and write, after the all important "religious instruction" has been taken care of.

Also slightly amusing is this account of an Irish Department of Justice delegate squirming before a UN hearing, where she says..

There is no obstacle to the establishment of secular or non-denominational schools if sought by a sufficiently-large number of parents if the required for patronage are fulfilled

Not sure how this would play with the Dept. of Education, but it indicates to me anyway that Rule 68 is currently in the same position that the 1861 abortion act was in after the x-case Supreme Court decision. Its still hanging around, but its effectively unenforceable and illegal in itself, due to subsequent changes which have overridden it, and therefore it's just waiting around like a bad smell for a govt. minister with sufficient cajones to officially and finally delete it.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

It is actually quite funny that they saw fit to include a special Chapter 10 titled "Secular Instruction" ie reading writing maths geography etc.. after Chapter 9 "Religious Instruction".
Its almost like a rule to remind the old Christian Brother dudes that they should at least try to teach the kids to read and write, after the all important "religious instruction" has been taken care of.

Well, it was 1926 so there was a bit of a different perspective at the time. What strikes me is the upfront commitment to separating religious education and providing for those who did not wish to receive it;it reads to me as tackling all the impediments of religious instruction to secular instruction and removing them before moving on to the substantive issues of proper education. Within the context of course that no one sensible could imagine that religion in general isn't a Good Thing, which wasn't exactly an unusual point of view at the time.

recedite wrote: »

Also slightly amusing is this account of an Irish Department of Justice delegate squirming before a UN hearing[/URL], where she says..

Interesting though that the UN Rapportuer acknowledged the existence of non denominational schools in Ireland "The number of non-denominational school is still minuscule", which rather flies in the face of the notion that there can't be non denominational schools in Ireland.

recedite wrote: »

Not sure how this would play with the Dept. of Education, but it indicates to me anyway that Rule 68 is currently in the same position that the 1861 abortion act was in after the x-case Supreme Court decision. Its still hanging around, but its effectively unenforceable and illegal in itself, due to subsequent changes which have overridden it, and therefore it's just waiting around like a bad smell for a govt. minister with sufficient cajones to officially and finally delete it.

I can't actually see anything comparable between the two, but I certainly don't see any evidence of a desire in the DoE to enforce Rule 68 (though it does seem fairly enforceable), and I'm not certain what obligation anyone other than Minister for Education could put them under to do so? Could for instance the RCC take any legal action against the DoE for failing to enforce its' own rules if the DoE authorised the opening of 1,000 new non denom schools next week?

recedite

Well I think "miniscule" might refer to one or two entirely private schools, ie not in receipt of any state funding and not required to teach the Irish language or religion.

The legality of Rule 68 would be tested if say, hypothetically speaking ,
the ET schools announced tomorrow that they were henceforth to be known as non-denominational schools, perhaps in order to distinguish them from the ETB (formerly known as VEC) schools. Because ET does not give any denominational religious instruction, whereas ETB segregates kids into a multitude of groups for that purpose.
Would our Dept of Education then withdraw state funding from the ET schools, or would they delete Rule 68? They can't have a school patron openly in breach of departmental rules.
I am certain that ET now hold such a strong position in Irish society that Rule 68 would quickly and quietly disappear.
Its an interesting discussion, but in the wrong thread, so I'll say no more on it.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Well I think "miniscule" might refer to one or two entirely private schools, ie not in receipt of any state funding and not required to teach the Irish language or religion.

Apparently there are 45 private primary schools which are not state funded, though at a glance a large proportion would appear to be denominational, at least by their names.

recedite wrote: »

The legality of Rule 68 would be tested if say, hypothetically speaking , the ET schools announced tomorrow that they were henceforth to be known as non-denominational schools, perhaps in order to distinguish them from the ETB (formerly known as VEC) schools. Because ET does not give any denominational religious instruction, whereas ETB segregates kids into a multitude of groups for that purpose. Would our Dept of Education then withdraw state funding from the ET schools, or would they delete Rule 68? They can't have a school patron openly in breach of departmental rules.

Well, if they could convince an Inspector that a religious spirit informed and vivified the whole work of the school in an entirely non denominational fashion, it doesn't appear they'd fall foul of the rule anyway? Of course, that would depend on an Inspector actually examining their religious spirit, something which they don't appear to do anyway. It's difficult to hold a patron to account for breaching a rule when you haven't inspected their compliance; doubly difficult when you've already assigned responsibility to the patron for deciding what the curriculum for that area is anyway (The development and implementation of the curriculum in religious education in primary schools remains the responsibility of the relevant patron bodies.)

recedite wrote: »

I am certain that ET now hold such a strong position in Irish society that Rule 68 would quickly and quietly disappear.
Its an interesting discussion, but in the wrong thread, so I'll say no more on it.

I suspect it's far more likely that Rule 68 would simply continue to be ignored until the Dept received direction on the necessary metrics for assessing how "a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school". That's a couple of years work for an Oireachtas select committee right there.

Peregrinus

As already pointed out, rule 68 does not either explicitly or by implication require a school to have any denominational link or identity, and I think it’s just flat-out wrong to say that it bans “non-denominational schools”.

What it bans, or appears to ban, is non-religious schools, i.e. schools not informed and vivified by a religious spirit. So if you want a confrontational challenge to rule 68, what you need is a school patron who will say that they are going to run a school without any religious spirit.

What this would do, I think, is to raise the awkward question of what the status of the Rules for National Schools is, anyway. SFAIK the Education Acts passed by the Oireachtas do not give the Minister any power to issue legally-binding Rules for National Schools. But we have a constitutional separation of powers in Ireland; legislation must be enacted either by the Oireachtas or in exercise of a power delegated by the Oireachtas. I think it’s strongly arguable, to put it no higher, that the Rules don’t have the force of law; they represent the Minister’s policy with respect to how managers ought to conduct national schools. If so, the question of how to implement that policy - and in particular the question of how vigorously to implement it - is a matter for the Minister.

We might end up with a situation in which Rule 68 is understood as expressing a policy preference - the Minister’s policy is that schools ought to be informed and vivified etc etc. But his way of implementing that policy is (a) to state it in the Rules, and (b) to leave it to patrons to decide how to give effect to it. (And it’s not difficult to come up with credible arguments of both policy and principle as to why he should leave it to patrons.)

What that would show, in fact, is that it’s simply not correct to say that non-denominational or non-religious schools are illegal in Ireland. The true position would be that Ministerial policy is that schools should be religious, if not denominational, but that it’s up to school patrons to decide how this should be done, and the Minister will not second-guess their decisions.

Of course, there’s a degree of speculation there, but I don’t think it’s wild speculation. The Minister does take a pretty hands-off approach with regard to the religious side of school life, and realistically I can’t see any Minister wanting to dictate how a religious spirit ought to be expressed. (And I can see strong constitutional objections to an Minister doing so. If the separation of church and state means anything at all, it means that state authorities like the Minister have no competence to direct people about how to express or realise religious beliefs or convictions.) My guess is that when it comes to religious spirit, the Minister will simply draw patrons’ attention to Rule 68 and tell them to work out for themselves how best to apply it in the circumstances of the school they patronise.

Rather than trying to get an existing school patron to confront the Minister over this, which might be difficult, a better way to proceed might be for an advocacy group for nonreligious parents to challenge the propriety of Rule 68, arguing that the Minister has no business to adopt a policy that all schools should be informed by a religious spirit; that such a policy is discriminatory; and that it violates constitutional guarantees regarding freedom of religion.

mass_debater

This thread stopped being funny some pages ago, can a mod move the discussion posts to their own thread

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think you're in a position to invade them and start dictating what you want in their Constitution, for instance.

Where did I say invade???? Im just rating their constitution as weak as it lets the majority dictate to the minority which you seem to value when a democracy can prevent this.
Have to lol that I am defending the rights of Christians in Malaysia to a Christian :pac:

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Where did I say invade????

You didn't; I did, when I was saying you're probably not in a position and impose a constitution on them that they haven't chosen for themselves.

silverharp wrote: »

Im just rating their constitution as weak as it lets the majority dictate to the minority which you seem to value when a democracy can prevent this.

So, which Constitution is strong then? The American Constitution is equally amenable to change by the majority (75% if memory serves). So the US could change it's Constitution and declare Islam the State religion, if a majority of the people were determined to do so.
By the way, is weak a substitute for backwards? You never mentioned whether backwards was a substitute for mature (or immature). It's just you keep changing your terms, so it's hard to tell if you're still talking about the same thing?

silverharp wrote: »

Have to lol that I am defending the rights of Christians in Malaysia to a Christian :pac:

Really?

PopePalpatine

Remember, tyranny of the majority isn't a problem when it's not YOU who has to sit at the back of the bus.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

You didn't; I did, when I was saying you're probably not in a position and impose a constitution on them that they haven't chosen for themselves.

So, which Constitution is strong then? The American Constitution is equally amenable to change by the majority (75% if memory serves). So the US could change it's Constitution and declare Islam the State religion, if a majority of the people were determined to do so.
By the way, is weak a substitute for backwards? You never mentioned whether backwards was a substitute for mature (or immature). It's just you keep changing your terms, so it's hard to tell if you're still talking about the same thing?

Really?

Have you observed many constitutions amended taking away rights from people? When constitutions are amended its normally to expand rights . I'm not sure where your quibble with my terms come , clearly some countries are less civilised than others for instance ones that let shria law take presedence over judicial law.
And as for my last point maybe I'm wrong are you a scientologist? Muslim? Christian?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Have you observed many constitutions amended taking away rights from people? When constitutions are amended its normally to expand rights .

Have you observed any that don't allow rights to be taken away the majority want to take away?

silverharp wrote: »

I'm not sure where your quibble with my terms come , clearly some countries are less civilised than others for instance ones that let shria law take presedence over judicial law.

Well, mature doesn't mean the same thing as backwards, backwards doesn't mean the same thing as weak, weak doesn't mean the same as civilized. If you're going to use words with different meanings as if they're interchangeable, you'll end up quibbling before you even get to what your notion of civilised means. In case you're interested though, Sharia law includes judicial law. Something many civilised people are aware of.

silverharp wrote: »

And as for my last point maybe I'm wrong are you a scientologist? Muslim? Christian?

Maybe you are wrong. Though it is nonetheless worth noting your inclination to come to a conclusion before enquiring after the facts.

silverharp

What religion are you?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

What religion are you?

How relevant is it?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

How relevant is it?

So I can understand why you are slow to be critical of muslum democracies that persecute Christians. If you are Muslim for instance then it might be relevant.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

So I can understand why you are slow to be critical of muslum democracies that persecute Christians. If you are Muslim for instance then it might be relevant.

I should imagine being slow to be critical is an attribute shared by sensible atheists and religious alike. I'm fairly sure the world would be a worse place if people were quick to leap to conclusions without considering facts, aren't you?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I should imagine being slow to be critical is an attribute shared by sensible atheists and religious alike. I'm fairly sure the world would be a worse place if people were quick to leap to conclusions without considering facts, aren't you?

So what religion are you? If you are christian then you are not supposed to hide your light under a bushel?

It would be logical to be critical of law that creates harm , you might be slow to be critical if you personally support the harm being not corrected.