• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Is belief a right?

Cognisant

cackling in the trenches
Local time
Today 12:04 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11,155
---
The World War II holocaust happened because proponents of the nazi party had anti-semantic beliefs. During the crusades both Christians and Muslims routinely wiped out entire cities (including women and children) as a matter of religious belief. The British empire thought nothing of enslaving what they thought were merely savages, a practice which continued in America until the end of the civil war, indeed in the modern era "hate crime" is considered worse than regular assault or persecution.

Then there's cults and brainwashing extremist organisations...

So do people really have the right to believe whatever they want?
Or should we accept that belief comes before action and make certain beliefs a crime, as I just mentioned racism already is to some extent.
 

Analyzer

Hide thy life
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
1,241
---
Location
West
"Hate crimes" "racism" "anti-semtism" ect are all beliefs. Who or what determines what is an evil belief or not? Wouldn't that constitute a belief in itself?
 

Cognisant

cackling in the trenches
Local time
Today 12:04 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11,155
---
This thread isn't about belief in its entirety but rather specific beliefs that are unacceptable for specific reasons and I believe society (philosophers in particular) should decide which beliefs are unacceptable, for acceptable reasons.
 

kris

thbbft
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
205
---
Location
Vancouver, BC
Freedom of belief, like all freedoms, is a bit of a strained concept when you try to test its limits. The issue for me is not whether or not belief is a right -- it is --; the issue is defining the limits of that right. No rights are unlimited.

Generally, there are three barriers to freedom with which I am concerned:

i) Natural limits. You may be free to walk off a cliff high, but you are not free to have gravity suspend roadrunner style to keep you from falling to your death. Seems straightforward with physics, but with thoughts it becomes more complex as there are objective factors shaping how our thoughts and beliefs are formed.

ii) Limits of conflicting interest. When the exercise of freedom causes injury to another, the two will be weighed against each other. You're free to swing a baseball bat, but when my head is in the bat's path, my security will trump your freedom. Again, when we're talking about belief, it becomes trickier as the link between belief and injury can be abstract, and the injury itself can be abstract as well. It's hard to be objective about abstract concepts.

iii) Arbitrary impositions. The first category is self-enforcing. The second category requires rational justification. It's this third category from which we require protection. I may believe that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate, but unless I can make an objective cause that the inverse belief is injurious to the point that the law should intervene, I have no grounds for imposing my belief on others.

What I am saying here is that I recognize we should not be able to arbitrarily limit others, but realistically we will all be limited by non-arbitrary factors. Hate speech laws, for instance, are not arbitrary. They may not always be correct, but that's an issue with faulty rationale, not arbitrariness. Is that significant when pretty much everyone thinks their own view is rational? Yes, because, hypothetically, superior rationale will win out in the end.

How does that apply to beliefs in practical terms? I'll need a second post.

...proponents of the nazi party had anti-semantic beliefs.

Nazis: Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt!
Jews: But Deutschland is part of that world; how can it be above itself as well?
Nazis: Enough of your semantics. Imprison all the Jews! @#$%ing language nazis.
Romani: Isn't that last line anachronistic?
Nazis: Lock them up too! And you gays out there, you always have something sassy to say. You watch yourselves.
Gays: That's just a stereotype, just like that nonsense about all gay men being fashionable. But really, red armbands on tan shirts? What where you thinking?
Nazis: Aaarg! They're all against us. The World is against us.

And so began WWII.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 5:04 PM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
America is proof of the wisdom of letting people say whatever they want. The activity of the KKK actually served a purpose during the 60s and 70s, by showing white supremacists the logical dark underbelly of their beliefs, thereby giving MLK the upperhand. This worked in the same way that talk therapy works. We don't need a leftist inquisition to render this process tepid and impotent.
 

Decaf

Professional Amateur
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
2,149
---
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Belief should be a right, because attempting to enforce rules regarding thought is bad, mmmkay?

Practical uses of good and evil are not relative. They are culturally generated in order to promote the growth of "civilization". I may think something is good, but if it harms the members of my community, they will likely consider it evil on those grounds. Laws are put in place to codify those sentiments based on the strongest involved community. Bad stuff happens to you when you become a " them" to the strongest group. You can mitigate that somewhat by never letting one group become powerful enough to make those calls. The more inclusive a group is, generally the less xenophobic it is. It would seem like it was the other way around, but I don't think so.

Anyway, I'm typing this on a tablet, so I'm sorry for jumping around so much. Hard to lay out a comprehensive argument on a touch screen.
 

The Void

Banned
Local time
Today 11:04 PM
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
900
---
Location
In the Void
If I believe that belief is not a right then what does it make out to be?
 

Cognisant

cackling in the trenches
Local time
Today 12:04 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11,155
---
That's not clever, as I already said this thread is about specific beliefs not the entirety of belief.

Belief should be a right, because attempting to enforce rules regarding thought is bad, mmmkay?
Aww but I wanted to grow up and work in the thought police.

This worked in the same way that talk therapy works. We don't need a leftist inquisition to render this process tepid and impotent.
Great point.

What if instead of enforcing laws against beliefs there was an organisation of contentious objectors so instead of replacing the process with one that defeats it we optimise it with debaters trained in the art of winning hearts and minds?
I have ideas.... (development in progress)
 

Analyzer

Hide thy life
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
1,241
---
Location
West
This thread isn't about belief in its entirety but rather specific beliefs that are unacceptable for specific reasons and I believe society (philosophers in particular) should decide which beliefs are unacceptable, for acceptable reasons.

I think it's impossible to monitor or regulate beliefs, at least currently. Anybody at any given moment can think of some nefarious idea or thoughts without taking action. Even with some advanced thought control technology, you would have to filter for when someone was having these beliefs for entertainment, "thought experiments", or when determining what was acceptable or unacceptable.
 

nexion

coalescing in diffusion
Local time
Today 6:04 PM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
2,027
---
Location
tartarus
'Freedom' and 'right' are political and social terms, not philosophical terms.

Do you really believe that philosophers should determine what is and isn't an 'acceptable' thing to believe? As if they are somehow more thorough or infallible in their thinking. Like with anything else which is ultimately subjective rather than subjective, you will find that "philosophers" disagree even amongst themselves as to what constitutes an 'acceptable' belief. Also, for the sake of clarification, what is a 'philosopher', and if these philosophers should disagree with each other, what does it say about their ability to determine truth value?

There is also the question of, if you are presenting this scenario as an ideal, then what is happening now that is not ideal, ie. who is determining which ideas are acceptable and which are unnacceptable? I was always under the impression that it was always the society to begin with, although not in such a simple way as codifying which things are acceptable and which are unnacceptable, but instead in the more abstract and collective unconscious where certain ideas may be generally universally rejected or welcomed.

Personally, I find that the number of ideas a society or individual rejects to be an indication of its maturity and evolutionary stage. The more ideas one disregards, the more closed he makes himself. He collapses the myriad of possibility into a single reality, which might be generally considered a good thing, but in the process, he fails to realize how much his own ideas are shaping his perception of reality, rather than his perception of reality shaping his ideas. The inevitable result is that he will be increasingly sure that his increasingly irrelevant ideas are absolutely true, until they become a mere shadow of the reality they are attempting to describe rather a mirror of the reality. (Author's note: I'm sure anyone who has been here a while and has read a lot of my posts finds this whole paragraph enormously ironic. Frankly, I don't care)

It's funny how, as one grows older, he is taught by society that the more ideas one rejects, the more knowledgeable he is. Perhaps we merely have differing definitions of 'knowledge'. Isn't the great irony in this, then, that the more society evolves, the more it is accepting ideas that it previously rejected? The spiral flows both ways, and it is at the same time increasing in both knowledge and in insanity.

Truth value is irrelevant. Beliefs are valuable for the sake of the belief.

EDIT: Ultimately, though, rejection, acceptance, they still both each have their own use. It is more important to look at the motives behind either.
 

Grayman

Soul Shade
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,418
---
Location
You basement
That's not clever, as I already said this thread is about specific beliefs not the entirety of belief.

The regulation of specific beliefs is already in existance. It is called religion and the consequence of not comforming is called hell. A very big jail cell.

We see the results, good and bad. So what do you think? Are even the good ones worth it?
 

Cognisant

cackling in the trenches
Local time
Today 12:04 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11,155
---
Seven-month-old Brandon Schaible died from bacterial pneumonia, severe dehydration, and strep—while his parents watched and prayed and, in accordance with their religious beliefs, refused to provide the child with medicine. Herbert and Catherine Schaible of Philadelphia now await trial, facing third-degree murder charges for Brandon’s death.

The atrocity is magnified by the fact that Brandon was the second Schaible child to die in this same way—from bacterial pneumonia and religiously motivated lack of medical treatment.
But by all means Grayman continue with your preaching.

Oh wait I've got some more...
Seth Ian Glaser, 17 months, died March 28, 1984, in Culver City, California of h-flu meningitis (bacterial meningitis). The parents used only a Christian Science "practitioner" and obtained no medical care for Seth. The parents said that on March 27th, Seth seemed ill and very tired, so they requested absent "treatment" from a church practitioner. At various points Seth seemed to improve, but then relapsed.

Symptoms on the 27th were fever, coughing, and rapid breathing and heart rate. The next morning the baby's body turned blue and he vomited up food. At 11 a.m. the parents decided that Seth's condition was serious and that they should take him to the "healer." However, they had to wait for a 1 p.m. appointment. En route Seth went into convulsions that lasted for 90-second periods. His arms and legs became rigid. Even at this point, Seth's parents testified that they did not seriously consider taking Seth to an emergency room. Alarmed at the severity of Seth's illness, the Christian Science practitioner called the church legal advisor who told her that they had the legal right to withhold medical care.

At 2:45 p.m. Seth stopped breathing. At this point another practitioner who reputedly had succeeded in resurrecting the dead was contacted. Not until 11 P.m. that night was Seth's body allowed to be taken by mortuary personnel. Seth's mother was charged with manslaughter and child endangerment; however, in a trial conducted without a jury, the Court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.

Natalie Rippberger, eight months, died December 9, 1984 in Santa Rosa, California, of h-flu meningitis. The parents, Mark and Susan Rippberger, had retained a Christian Science practitioner for spiritual "treatment" but would not get essential medical care for their daughter. The infection began approximately two weeks before Natalie's death. Details of the course of Natalie's illness were provided by the Christian Science "nurse," who before her conversion to Christian Science was a licensed medical nurse. (After Natalie's death the nurse left Christian Science and returned to studies in medical nursing.)

On December 4th, Natalie was going through periods in which her eyes were rolling and jerking (the disease organism attacks tissue controlling eye muscles) and her legs became rigid. On the 6th, Natalie was having very heavy convulsions. She was very rigid and her eyes were rolling back in her head. She also was very hot to the touch on the 7th, and the heavy convulsions continued. The only care provided to Natalie by the nurse involved Christian Science nursing "care": bathing, changing Natalie's sheets, bible reading, and prayer. Not once was a doctor called, although medical care has a 92 percent success rate in treating the disease.

In the spring of 1984, six months before Natalie's death, two sets of Christian Science parents were already under indictment in California for the death of their children because of their refusal to obtain medical care for them. Both children died of h-flu meningitis. In December, the Rippbergers called California Christian Science Church officials for advice about their desperately ill child. It is inconceivable the Church official spoken to by the Rippbergers did not know of the two indictments. According to Rippbergers' testimony, the official must have told them that they could legally withhold medical treatment from Natalie. Nevertheless, Natalie's parents, Mark and Susan Rippberger, were charged with felony child endangerment and involuntary manslaughter. Both were convicted of felony child endangerment.

Shauntay Walker, age four, died March 8, 1984, in Sacramento, California, of h-flu meningitis. Shauntay was home sick from her pre-school for 17 days. She received no medical care, only Christian Science "care." Shauntay's cousin, Danyelle, saw her 6 days before her death. Danyelle reported that Shauntay seemed unable to move her arms and legs and that her body was stiff. Shauntay's aunt, Claudia, reported that on March 8th, Shauntay was comatose and had lost a lot of weight. She told Shauntay's mother, Laurie, to take Shauntay to the doctor, but Laurie refused. Claudia then told Laurie she would notify the authorities about Shauntay's condition. Laurie responded to her sister's threat by moving her children to the home of another Christian Scientist. Shauntay died there a few hours later.

A Christian Science practitioner was retained by Laurie Walker for her daughter on February 21st-over two weeks before her death. She visited Shauntay only twice during her deadly illness. The practitioner denied seeing the symptom of Shauntay's stiff neck (an immediate sign of possible meningitis) and lack of responsiveness pointed out to her by Laurie. Laurie Walker was charged with involuntary manslaughter, and on June 21, 1990, over six years after her daughter's death, she pled guilty to that charge in a negotiated plea which left her no room to appeal. Laurie was sentenced to 600 hours of community service, and was instructed by the Court to provide medical care for her remaining daughter until the daughter's eighteenth birthday. Ms. Walker is currently appealing the decision.

Amy Hermanson, age seven, died September 30, 1986, in Sarasota, Florida, of untreated juvenile onset diabetes. Her parents refused to provide her with necessary medical care. Her illness began in late August of 1986. The course of her illness is documented in the testimony from the trial of her parents for felony child abuse and third degree murder.

In August, Amy became thinner, her bones started to protrude through her skin, she developed dark circles under her eyes and her skin developed a bluish tinge. At school she often could not keep awake and would put her head on her desk and fall asleep. Amy's aunt reported that in the 2 weeks before her death Amy had lost 10 pounds, that her eyes were sunken and were functioning separately and that she could barely walk and often had to be carried.

On Friday, August 26th, four days before her death, Amy's appearance was skeletal, according to a teacher. Amy told the teacher that she had been vomiting a lot and had been unable to sleep for a few nights. At the end, Amy had lapsed into a coma; she was lying on a bed without sheets; the sheets were found soaking nearby in several buckets with black vomit on them.

A Christian Science "practitioner" had been retained to "treat" Amy, with prayer, on August 22nd. Following Amy's death, Chris Hermanson, Amy's mother, stated that Amy had been healed by Christian Science the morning of her death, but that Amy had make her own decision to pass on. Mrs. Hermanson had constantly claimed during Amy's illness that Amy was having an emotional problem deciphering her identity. She also states that Amy had become sick because of negative vibrations received from outside the home. Amy's parents were charged with felony child abuse and third degree murder. Both were convicte on the charge of third degree murder.

Ian Lundman, age 11, died May 9, 1989, in Minneapolis, Minnesota of medically untreated juvenile onset diabetes. His mother and stepfather, as Christian Scientists, had the boy treated by a church practitioner instead of a medical doctor. Ian died in a diabetic coma.

On October 9th, 1989, the parents and the Christian Science practitioner attending Ian were indicted for manslaughter by a grand jury. However, in April, 1990, a trial court judge dismissed all of the manslaughter charges, citing a Minnesota religious exemption statute. A Minnesota court of appeals upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the charges and in September, 1990, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled 4-2 to uphold the dismissal of the charges. All three courts based their rulings on the due process fair notice requirements of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They determined that the Minnesota religious exemption law gave the parents the right to assume they could withhold medical care and, therefore, the parents were not given "fair notice" that their behavior was criminal.

Ian Burdick, age 15, died November 10, 1987, in Sherman Oaks, California, of diabetes without medical care. At his death Ian was 5'8" tall and weighed 87 pounds. A Christian Science nurse and practitioner had been retained to treat Ian's disease.

Robyn Twitchell, age two, died in April, 1986, in Boston, Massachusetts, of a bowel obstruction. A simple operation to remove the twisting of the bowel would have most likely saved Robyn's life. Robyn was seriously ill over a five day period; he was in severe pain, vomiting intermittently and he had serious difficulty eating and sleeping. The parents, David and Ginger Twitchell, contacted a church practitioner the first day of Robyn's illness. The practitioner treated the boy's serious medical illness only by prayer. Subsequently, Robyn's illness became "much worse": he was shaking and vomiting and then became unresponsive. Still the parents and the practitioner did not seek medical help, preferring instead to use prayer as the only treatment.

According to medical experts who testified at the inquest, common practice among parents in the community with a child manifesting Robyn's symptoms would have been to wait no longer than 48 hours before seeking medical attention. In July, 1990, the Twitchells were convicted of manslaughter.

Elizabeth Ashley King, age 12, died June 5, 1988, in Phoenix, Arizona, of bone cancer. She was out of school and sick at home from November 1987 to May 1988. Though school officials knew the Kings were Christian Scientists, they allowed the parents to set up a home study program for the girl. In May, alarmed neighbors (not the school officials) realized they had not seen Ashley for months and notified Child Protective Services. A court order was obtained to have Ashley examined at Phoenix Children's Hospital.

Doctors determined that Ashley had bone cancer that had progressed too far to be arrested with medical treatment. The tumor on her leg was over one yard in circumference; it had metastasized to her lungs. Her heart had enlarged from the strain of pumping extra blood to the tumor. Ashley told nurses and doctors: "I'm in so much pain...You don't know how I've suffered."

Given the terminal prognosis, the state agreed to have Ashley placed in a Phoenix Christian Science nursing home. This was done despite the protests of one of the doctors who examined Ashley: he said Ashley was experiencing one of the worst kinds of pain known to mankind. Ashley died 24 hours after being committed to the home. Nursing home records show 71 calls to the Christian Science "practitioner" for "treatment" (i.e., prayer) of Ashley's pain. Indeed, this is the only kind of treatment a Christian Science nursing home will provide for pain. The parents, John and Catherine King, pleaded no contest to the felony of reckless endangerment in their daughter's death.

Kimberly Sartore, age one, died in 1969 in Alaska of medically untreated meningitis. Kimberly's father was charged with and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. However, the conviction was overturned when the Alaskan legislature passed a religious exemption law, and the conviction was expunged from Mr. Sartore's record.

Matthew Swan, 16 months, died in 1977 in Detroit, Michigan, of h-flu meningitis. The parents had retained Christian Science practitioners to treat Matthew.

Lisa Sheridan, age five, died in 1967 in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, after a three week battle with pneumonia without medical care. Lisa received Christian Science prayer treatment over the entire course of her illness. Lisa's mother was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Clayton Scott Zimmern, age nine, died in 1968 in Park Forest South, Illinois, of injuries sustained when he was struck by a car while riding his bicycle near his home. The driver of the car immediately called the police, but by the time they arrived, Mr. Zimmern had removed his son to their house. Gregory Johns, Park Forest South Police Chief, reported that Mr. Zimmern, a Christian Scientist, told police that his son did not require medical attention. Mr. Zimmern repeated this when police called him later that evening. When Mr. Zimmern finally did call the police to his house, it was only to tell them that his son had died. Clayton's parents never brought their son to a hospital.

And more...
Michael Schram, age 12, from Mercer Island, Washington, died in 1979 from a ruptured appendix after several days of prayer and "spiritual healing." Michael received no medical attention because his mother is a Christian Scientist. Michael's father, Jack Schram, was unaware of the situation because his ex-wife, Betty, had custody of the child. Betty Schram and Juanita Caldwell, a Christian Science practitioner, prayed over Michael for several days before his death. For three days after his death, the two women continued to pray in an attempt to resurrect Michael's lifeless body. A funeral home contacted state officials about the suspicious nature of the child's death. The medical examiner referred the autopsy report to the prosecuting attorney and to Michael's father who is not a Christian Scientist, for possible legal action.

Ronald Rowan, age 11, from Tallmadge, Ohio, died in 1979 as a result of extreme dehydration and ultimately aspiration asphyxiation. The medical examiner concluded that Ronald had to have been seriously ill for at least a week; he must have been running a fever and vomiting several days before his death. He was too weak to expel vomitus from his mouth and was asphyxiated. Ronald did not receive medical care because his parents are members of the Christian Science Church.

Andrew Pinkham, age three, from Orinda, California, died from pneumonia after his parents refused to take him to a doctor because of their religious beliefs. Andrew's symptoms were described as six days of fever, loss of appetite, and in the last day, labored and rapid breathing. During these six days, Andrew's parents and a Christian Science practitioner prayed at his bedside.

Kris Ann Lewis, age 13, from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, died of bone cancer in June of 1981. In June of 1980, her mother, a Christian Scientist, had taken her to the hospital suspecting that she may have a broken bone. When doctors made a preliminary diagnosis of bone cancer, her mother insisted that they were incorrect and left with her daughter.

Six weeks later the hospital learned that Kris was receiving treatment from a Christian Science practitioner. Mrs. Lewin refused any communication from the hospital on the advice of an attorney provided by the main Christian Science Church in Boston.

The hospital filed an abuse report with Protective Services who determined that the mother was within her rights because of Pennsylvania's religious exemption law. The coroner held an inquest and recommended that manslaughter charges be brought against Mrs. Lewin, but the District Attorney found that her right to choose spiritual healing was protected by a religious exemption clause in Pennsylvania's child abuse and neglect statutes. The Christian Science practitioner that treated Kris Ann testified in court that she did not report the case to state officials, as Pennsylvania law requires, because she did not believe the child was being neglected or abused.

Debra Ann Kupsch, age 9, from Wisconisn, contracted diphtheria at a Christian Science Camp in Colorado, where she was sick for one week. She came in contact with other unvaccinated children, and died shortly after her arrival home, only after her parents sought medical care as a final effort. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control had to track down and test the other children from the camp at a cost of nearly $20,000, yet no neglect report was filed by her Christian Science practitioner, as Colorado law required.

And more...
Faith Tabernacle

The Faith Tabernacle Congregational was founded in 1987 in Philadelphia during a religious revival. The Church doctrine claims that the Bible opposes "all medical and surgical practice whatever." Presently, the Church has about 18,000 members, mostly in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Justin Barnhart, age two, died September 1981, in Beaver Valley, Pennsyslvania of a Wilm's tumor which grew larger than a volleyball in the child's abdomen. The parents, William and Linda Barnhart, withheld medical care from their son because of their religious beliefs. With early medical intervention, this form of childhood cancer has a better than 90 percent cure rate. The parents were convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 1982 by the county court. Although Pennsylvania had a religious exemption law in the code dealing with reporting of child abuse and neglect, the prosecution successfully argued that he law did not apply to criminal charges. In September 1988, the United States Supreme Court voted 9-0 against reviewing the state conviction of the parents.

Five children of the Winterbourne family of suburban Philadelphia died of pneumonia between 1971 and 1980 without receiving medical attention. Roger Winterbourne, the father, stated: "When you believe in something, you have to believe it all the way. If you only believe in it part way, it's not a true belief."

Baby Girl and Baby Boy Still, of Germantown, Pennsylvania, died in February 1989 after their mother, Deborah, gave birth to the twins without the aid of a doctor or midwife. After 8 hours the father noticed his 5 lb. Infant girl had stopped breathing, and he called a funeral home. The next day police took her 3 lb. Brother to a hospital where he was pronounced dead. The twins were born 6 weeks prematurely, but a leading area neonatologist said that 95 percent of babies born six weeks prematurely who are treated in a hospital do survive.

Melinda Sue Friedenbeger, age 18 weeks, died of starvation and dehydration on April 25, 1991, in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Parents John and Kathy Friedenbeger reported she had had a fever, vomiting and diarrhea for the last several days of her life. They were charged with involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child.

Clayton Nixon, age eight, also died in Altoona, Pennsylvania, on January 6, 1991, of dehydration and malnutrition after contracting ear and sinus infections which caused continuous vomiting. He was four feet tall at his death but weighed only 32 pounds. His parents, Dennis and Lorie Nixon, have also been charged with involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment.

In early 1991, six children died in the Philadelphia area of measles. Five of the children's parents belonged to the Faith Tabernacle and had religious objections to vaccinations. (The sixth child's parents belonges to the First Century Gospel Church which also objects to medical care.)

How many children need to die Grayman, HOW MANY!?!
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 11:04 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
---
Location
stockholm
You have the right to believe what you want, but not the right to act or not act in accordance with those of your beliefs which are incompatible with the goddamn law.

I don't get this thread it's stupid, it's trying to pin down a bunch of issues on a matter which they have nothing to do with. Namely whether you should have the right to believe what you want. You should for obvious issues having to do with why thought crimes fucking suck which I cba to repeat.
 

Grayman

Soul Shade
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,418
---
Location
You basement
But by all means Grayman continue with your preaching.

Oh wait I've got some more...


And more...


And more...


How many children need to die Grayman, HOW MANY!?!

Why did you assume I was promoting religion. ... curious...:confused:
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 11:04 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,384
---
So do people really have the right to believe whatever they want?
Of course they do. They just don't have the right to act on them, whenever and however they feel like. Other people have opinions too.

Or should we accept that belief comes before action and make certain beliefs a crime, as I just mentioned racism already is to some extent.
We already do.

Ever read "L'Etranger" by Albert Camus? It's about a guy who is sentenced to death, not because he killed someone, but because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral (He did shoot someone dead. But the main reason he was given the death penalty, and not some lesser punishment, was because he was regarded as a remorseless psychopath, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't cry at his mother's funeral.)
 

kris

thbbft
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
205
---
Location
Vancouver, BC
You have the right to believe what you want, but not the right to act or not act in accordance with those of your beliefs which are incompatible with the goddamn law.

True at the extremes, perhaps, but there is a lot of grey area in the middle, especially in the face of questionable beliefs and questionable laws.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 11:04 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,384
---

nexion

coalescing in diffusion
Local time
Today 6:04 PM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
2,027
---
Location
tartarus
I still say you're asking a political and legal question rather than a philosophical and moral one, at least in so much as 'right' is a legal construct. But if you want to look at the issue in the 'objective' lens of moral and ethical theory, the simplest and least assuming answer is that there isn't one.

A better question is, morally, how can belief NOT be a right? Or rather, morally, how can the concept of 'right' even exist? Everyone is basically free to do or believe as he pleases, regardless of what consequences those actions or beliefs may have. There is no higher moral authority whatsoever, and certainly no single individual or entity who have a real objective say in saying what is and is not a right.

To put it simply, objectively, there is no moral grey. Or black, or white. There is only what is, a single, unified whole. Morality is something contrived within each individual, aka subjective. Those articles you posted about people dying because of others' beliefs in spiritual healing or the like. Maybe someone believes in that, and because of that, someone dies. This person feels a heavy burden on his moral consciousness because his belief directly led to that person's death. That is fine. But let's say this person feels no remorse whatsoever over the death of this person. Maybe he feels that he did not pray hard enough, or that it was just his preordained time to go. That is also fine.

Again, it is a legal question. Philosophy doesn't, or shouldn't, concern itself with the ramifications certain beliefs have, and whether these beliefs should be a person's 'right' or not. Indeed, philosophy doesn't concern itself with much of anything, at least not at its core. It only looks at ideas for their own sake. Leave the prescriptive ethics to legislators who feel they have a right to impose their own view of how reality should be onto reality. Leave the empirical analysis to scientists who feel they have a right to impose their own view of how reality is onto reality.

That is all.
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:04 PM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
---
There are no beliefs that are wrong, as there is no wrong or right when an individual relates only to oneself and ones thoughts.

Actions relating to other individuals may be perceived as wrong and these actions should be prevented when the safety of individuals is considered important. Which is a belief.

Limiting or punishing beliefs and thoughts is a belief, as was already stated and also is a crime/wrongdoing commited against the individual freedom and privacy.
 

kris

thbbft
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
205
---
Location
Vancouver, BC
It is wrong to believe that belief is wrong

therefore, right

Not sure I get what you're saying; the sentence didn't state or imply it was wrong to believe that belief is wrong. Even if it is not a right, it could be other things such as a privilege, a mandate, or possibly a crime. In those instances, the belief would remain a belief, and would also happen to not be a right. Alternatively, the belief that belief is not a right could simply be factually incorrect, yet the statement would still be internally consistent.

If I believe belief is not a right:

  • the status of my belief is not contingent on belief being a right
  • the status of belief as a right is not contingent my belief
It seems coherent to me.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow 8:34 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
7,065
---
I don't believe belief is a right, but I don't believe anyone has the right to limit it.
 

Analyzer

Hide thy life
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
1,241
---
Location
West
Not sure I get what you're saying; the sentence didn't state or imply it was wrong to believe that belief is wrong. Even if it is not a right, it could be other things such as a privilege, a mandate, or possibly a crime. In those instances, the belief would remain a belief, and would also happen to not be a right. Alternatively, the belief that belief is not a right could simply be factually incorrect, yet the statement would still be internally consistent.

If I believe belief is not a right:

  • the status of my belief is not contingent on belief being a right
  • the status of belief as a right is not contingent my belief
It seems coherent to me.

It is the right of an individual to believe, a belief is a right*. If you argue against this statement you fall into a performative contradiction because they very act of you saying/arguing it is wrong your presupposing that you have the right to believe something different yourself.

*Rights are subjective to the individual - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics
 

Grayman

Soul Shade
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,418
---
Location
You basement
Not sure I get what you're saying; the sentence didn't state or imply it was wrong to believe that belief is wrong. Even if it is not a right, it could be other things such as a privilege, a mandate, or possibly a crime. In those instances, the belief would remain a belief, and would also happen to not be a right. Alternatively, the belief that belief is not a right could simply be factually incorrect, yet the statement would still be internally consistent.

If I believe belief is not a right:

  • the status of my belief is not contingent on belief being a right
  • the status of belief as a right is not contingent my belief
If you beleive your belief is not a right then ... you dont hav ethe right to believe that your belief is not a right. Therfore it doesn't matter that you believe that your belief is not a right, because you did not have the right to believe that anyways.
....

What analyzer said... I just went back and read it.
 

MentalBrain

Member
Local time
Today 5:04 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
80
---
I think there are way too many issues with the logistics of regulating belief for it to be anything other than a right. For instance, how do you track beliefs? If you track them through actions, then you're not regulating the belief itself, you're regulating actions that arise from that belief, which is basically a stricter version of what the law already does, and might be an unreasonable restriction on personal freedom, depending on what actions are regulated. Another issue is that, whether or not belief IS a right, people BELIEVE it is. They don't necessarily believe EVERYONE has the right to believe ANYTHING they want, but each person believes they themselves possess that right. Therefore, restrictions on belief, justified or not, will result in rebellion and protest at the perceived injustice. The only way to pull off the regulation of belief would be to go full-on Oceania police state. Look at attempts to regulate beliefs across history. Protestants were heavily persecuted, and in some cases prosecuted, but every flavor of Protestant belief is still around. It all comes down to "You cannot kill an idea." Beyond which, we can only sit here and discuss this comfortably because we're talking about hypothetical regulation of "belief" as a vague concept, or of certain specific beliefs we don't hold. But keep in mind that history has many examples of attempted belief control that focus on beliefs every one of us here would hold dear. Copernicus and Galileo were persecuted by the church for pushing a heliocentric model of the solar system. I mean, imagine if separation of church and state wasn't a thing, and the beliefs of the state disagreed with your personal beliefs. You'd be persecuted, and yes, maybe even prosecuted, solely for the act of DISAGREEMENT. Not because disagreement itself is harmful, but solely because it's illegal. I don't think that's something any of us want to go through.
 

StevenM

beep
Local time
Today 6:04 PM
Joined
Apr 11, 2014
Messages
1,077
---
There are many different types of beliefs.

For instance, there are irrational beliefs, debatable beliefs, and beliefs based on fact.

"Everybody hates me" is an example of an irrational belief.
"There is a God who created everything" is a debatable belief.
"If I start smoking, I may become addicted" is a belief based on fact.

Our perception of the events in our life are based on our beliefs. Also, our beliefs do play a role in our decisions, judgements, and feelings.

When it comes to irrational beliefs, and beliefs going against fact, then it is up to the person to gain education of the subject. This process of finding facts to correct irrational beliefs should be a natural part of life for humans, and it is a life-long effort.
Having irrational beliefs is natural for humans, and it allows us to expand and grow, and also adds colour to life.

When it comes to other people's beliefs, it is important to note that they conceptualized their belief on observed trends. When correcting somebody's irrational belief, (or your own) I'd encourage suggesting facts, evidence and unbiased trends that disprove the irrational belief. But most of the work is in hoping that the other person does believe the factual evidence, and that they set to work in themselves to change their outlook. It is only in their power to do so.
 

Attreyu

Member
Local time
Today 4:04 PM
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
35
---
The World War II holocaust happened because proponents of the nazi party had anti-semantic beliefs. During the crusades both Christians and Muslims routinely wiped out entire cities (including women and children) as a matter of religious belief. The British empire thought nothing of enslaving what they thought were merely savages, a practice which continued in America until the end of the civil war, indeed in the modern era "hate crime" is considered worse than regular assault or persecution.

Then there's cults and brainwashing extremist organisations...

So do people really have the right to believe whatever they want?
Or should we accept that belief comes before action and make certain beliefs a crime, as I just mentioned racism already is to some extent.

Belief is something you go by without proof (or after circumventing all rationality) ... as such freedom of belief translates as "freedom of delusion".

My religion states that you need to be mind controlled and converted out of your ignorance, so you ought to respect that and capitulate.

The main religions profess peace as a ruse for veiled sophism wrapped in aggression and transgression. It is no different than a thief coming to your house and saying "I come in peace to take things from you (your mind itself), if you react, then you are the one who initiates violence"
 

Sinny91

Banned
Local time
Today 11:04 PM
Joined
May 16, 2015
Messages
6,299
---
Location
Birmingham, UK
I think that as a species we should endeavor to create a global bill of moral baselines which we collectively agree to not deviate from.

Essentially, the basic principles of international law.

Such as the fact that each human being should be treated equally no matter race nor creed, and each individual judged on his her individual merit.

As a species we are divided, we lack collective coherency.
We have many hurdles to surpass until we can achieve this evolved state.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Tomorrow 12:04 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
I think that as a species we should endeavor to create a global bill of moral baselines which we collectively agree to not deviate from.

Essentially, the basic principles of international law.

Such as the fact that each human being should be treated equally no matter race nor creed, and each individual judged on his her individual merit.

As a species we are divided, we lack collective coherency.
We have many hurdles to surpass until we can achieve this evolved state.

Would that really be a good thing? Collective coherency sounds like something that impedes progress and innovation. Basically it would make everyone a conformist, not something I find appealing.
 

Sinny91

Banned
Local time
Today 11:04 PM
Joined
May 16, 2015
Messages
6,299
---
Location
Birmingham, UK
Would that really be a good thing? Collective coherency sounds like something that impedes progress and innovation. Basically it would make everyone a conformist, not something I find appealing.

On the contrary, collective cohesion would aid progress and innovation, think Star Trek universe, and what they portray that we are capable of once we have the wisdom to overcome our sinful and materialistic pit falls.

No matter how many laws we write, we cannot legislate morality, but we can attempt to set the bar for mortality via leading by example.

Look at how glorious the concept of the original American Constitution was,..for us to progress as a species we need some sort of cohesion, the alternative is self destruct, as recorded throughout history, since the dawn of man.

I was just reading some Edgar Cayce..

Excerpts; The World Affairs Readings.
(Some cool stuff about today's geo - politics in there)

For that ye see in earth is a pattern of that in the mind... and is as a shadow of spiritual truth, life and light..

“...the Lord is not a respecter of persons...” All of humanity are one family.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Tomorrow 12:04 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
I think the people in the Star Trek universe are naive/unpragmatic/idealistic idiots and that such a version of humanity would have been wiped out a hundred times over if not for it being a moralistic fictional work.
 

Sinny91

Banned
Local time
Today 11:04 PM
Joined
May 16, 2015
Messages
6,299
---
Location
Birmingham, UK
Can you expand on why?

I am aware that it's not a perfect analogy, but it is a convenient one.

Globalisation is occurring whether we like it or not, the course of action that remains to be chosen is in which direction will this globalisation transpire.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Tomorrow 12:04 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
I have an exam tomorrow and I have a feeling expanding on this will take me some time so I'll get back to you after that.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 10:04 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
In "3001: A Final Odyssey" all humans of the future are fitted with a neural interface that interacts directly with the human brain. With such a tool comes an incredible capacity for learning and true virtual reality. As a result the human race's overall intelligence and understanding of the world is vastly increased.

So too does the neural interface allow for the early detection of neurological anomalies, such as mental illnesses, psycho/sociopathy and the like. These people are preemptively treated or segregated from the rest of society and eventually, it becomes a necessity of day to day life to have your own neural interface equipped - it's used to operate all the basics of the world, from food dispensers to opening doors.

With a decrease in mental illness and an increase in intelligence (the average person in this society has an IQ score roughly equivalent to what would be about 130 today) the occurrence of religion and crime are reduced to statistical anomalies.

On one hand we could argue that this is thought-policing. On another could be considered that irrespective of that, the overall benefits outweigh the cost. The book doesn't mince words and religion is just one of the things it talks about needing to be abolished for the world to truly flourish as a unified whole.

I wonder how many people today would approve and want to live in the kind of society described in "3001: A Final Odyssey" by Arthur C. Clarke?
 

Haim

Worlds creator
Local time
Tomorrow 2:04 AM
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
817
---
Location
Israel
I think that as a species we should endeavor to create a global bill of moral baselines which we collectively agree to not deviate from.

Essentially, the basic principles of international law.

Such as the fact that each human being should be treated equally no matter race nor creed, and each individual judged on his her individual merit.

As a species we are divided, we lack collective coherency.
We have many hurdles to surpass until we can achieve this evolved state.
What is the difference between that and the current common law?
 

Cognisant

cackling in the trenches
Local time
Today 12:04 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11,155
---
I think that as a species we should endeavor to create a global bill of moral baselines which we collectively agree to not deviate from.

Essentially, the basic principles of international law.

Such as the fact that each human being should be treated equally no matter race nor creed, and each individual judged on his her individual merit.

As a species we are divided, we lack collective coherency.
We have many hurdles to surpass until we can achieve this evolved state.
Would that really be a good thing? Collective coherency sounds like something that impedes progress and innovation. Basically it would make everyone a conformist, not something I find appealing.
I think the gains in efficiency might outweigh the loss of gains from conflict, which I say with a complete lack of irony, conflict is an excellent driver of technological progress.

Still a little conflict goes a long way, I'd happily live in Arthur C. Clarke's envisioned future but I understand many people wouldn't want to compromise the sanctity of their body with a neural interface, they'll probably resist, voila conflict :D
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 10:04 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
Setting aside the neural interface, there's a few major things that I think would coincide with global cooperation from AC's world.

1. Religion is gone
2. Population is down to less than 1 billion
3. Food production is fully efficient. Meat is abolished as a food source and lots of food is synthetic.
4. Everyone's aware that they're no longer alone in the galaxy, so there's more of a unified racial goal.

So it's a unified society of regulated abundance, with a common set of goals and beliefs. It's the most plausible idea for a future society where we haven't blown each other up that I can think of.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 4:04 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,431
---
Location
with mama
During the Enlightenment people became more aware of what is called rationality. Rationality is a different kind of thinking than religion and absolute authority. This can be seen in the declaration of independance.

Inalienable Rights - alienation is exclusion from the group ie excommunication from the church for free thought.

Life - If you exist then you do what you need to survive, a darwinian impulse that makes you responsible for staying alive. People who try to own you can deny you your survival.

Liberty - What you are allowed to do by others. If someone owns you then they can tell you what to do. Self ownership make you the authority of your Life.

Pursuit of Happyness - The authorship of your own moral standing to be who you are meant to be, the meaning of your Life.

Beliefs I would say are free thought or can be. It all has to do with independance. Rights imply those things which a human being does naturally like breathing. Breathing is a Right in that you can see that it's just part of being human. Anything less is to have another person take authority over you. Some beliefs are stupid but that doesn't mean you can take away peoples rights. You cannot take away their humanity because if you do that to them then they can do that to you also. War is telling people what to think and do and believe without consent. If I believe chocolate is better than vanilla that is not something to fight about. It's not like I am forcing you to eat chocolate ice cream. People who impose their will on others usually are prevented from doing so. You cannot legally imprison a child for believing in santa. If people are dumb that does not matter except when they become dangerous. Knowing why they are violent may have nothing to do with chocolate ice cream but if you cannot separate violent beliefs from binene beliefs then you are saying that "violence is O.K. because you agree with them that not eating chocolate ice cream must be punished" makes liking chocolate ice cream a violent belief and therefore not a right. If I believe chocolate ice cream is the best flavor that is my right and it is not violent. Violence takes away the rights of others regardless of belief.
 

EditorOne

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:04 PM
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
2,695
---
Location
Northeastern Pennsylvania
I think Kris's original post pretty much covers it.

I would point out that the county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue licenses for gay marriage is demanding not just the right to have her belief, but the right to implement it. The harm, compared to, say, a Nazi insisting on the right to enslave and incinerate Jews, is not in the same league. The principle would seem to be the same: I'm not only allowed to believe something, but you must allow me to inflict harm on others or else you are interfering with my right to believe.

I think allowing people to act on their beliefs without constraint is much like handing a gun to the village psychopath because the Second Amendment says he's entitled to it, or permitting Jeffrey Dahmer to indulge his cannibalism because he believes he can get his friends to stay with him that way. It's neither reasonable nor smart and will hurt both individuals and the community.

An old insight from my Constitutional Law classes: "You're right to throw a punch stops short of my nose."
 

Ex-User (11125)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:04 PM
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
1,532
---
For instance, how do you track beliefs? If you track them through actions, then you're not regulating the belief itself, you're regulating actions that arise from that belief

yeah.
policing and tracking beliefs would reduce people to cognitive subjection
obviously screams totalitarianism...why would anyone wish for that

Collective coherency sounds like something that impedes progress and innovation. Basically it would make everyone a conformist, not something I find appealing.
yeah a world of collective coherency sounds monotonous, uninspired and boring
 

Yellow

for the glory of satan
Local time
Today 4:04 PM
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
2,897
---
Location
127.0.0.1
I always thought the idea that "rights" exist at all was a belief. I believe we should afford one another certain rights. But I think some things should be considered privileges rather than rights. We give people the right to exist and to speak their mind, and some should even have the privilege to live by their beliefs. Whether or not they have that privilege could perhaps depend on whether the infringe on the rights of others?
 

Rualani

You Silly Willy
Local time
Today 11:04 PM
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
145
---
Location
Somewhere in Indiana
:Yellow
I always thought the idea that "rights" exist at all was a belief. I believe we should afford one another certain rights. But I think some things should be considered privileges rather than rights. We give people the right to exist and to speak their mind, and some should even have the privilege to live by their beliefs. Whether or not they have that privilege could perhaps depend on whether the infringe on the rights of others?
Only thing I would add, is that there are tricky situations where beliefs propagate and create a volatile atmosphere which could then lead to a possible infringement on peoples right. If it hasn't reached that point, can intervention be justified? I think it has been in the past... but I'm still not sure what I think about it.
 

MosMaiorum

Member
Local time
Today 6:04 PM
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
26
---
The ability to believe comes a priori to the consciousness that allows for human life, so it isn't coherent to say that there is or is not a "right to believe."
 

Grayman

Soul Shade
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,418
---
Location
You basement
The ability to believe comes a priori to the consciousness that allows for human life, so it isn't coherent to say that there is or is not a "right to believe."

Well, yes but it doesn't mean a person has the right to act upon those beliefs.
 

MosMaiorum

Member
Local time
Today 6:04 PM
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
26
---
Well, yes but it doesn't mean a person has the right to act upon those beliefs.

The same issue I described above applies here.

Can you imagine living a life in which you cannot act on your beliefs? If you think about it hard enough, you'll discover that you can't. It's not a coherent concept. Human beings have to voluntarily act, and when we do voluntarily act, we inevitably act on the basis of our beliefs. When we decide to perform an action, we seek to achieve a certain end—and that entails acting on our beliefs about the universe and, more specifically, the causality of our actions.

Beliefs are a priori to human life, and the ability to act is a priori to human life. We cannot voluntarily act without applying our beliefs. Therefore, the ability to act on our beliefs is a priori, as well.

The concept of "rights" presupposes the existence of entities to which rights can be granted. To logically preclude human existence is to preclude the meaningfulness of the concept of "rights."
 

Grayman

Soul Shade
Local time
Today 3:04 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,418
---
Location
You basement
And when beliefs conflict? I believe you should be dead and you believe you have the right to live. Who has the right to defend their beliefs?
 
Top Bottom