Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36
Like Tree9Likes
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Trivium
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By astromark
  • 2 Post By SowZ37
  • 1 Post By shlunka

Thread: Moving beyond religious/magical/astrological justifications (labelled "religious freedoms")

  1. #1 Moving beyond religious/magical/astrological justifications (labelled "religious freedoms") 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    Imo a modern 21st century state should not (or should be able not to) recognize justifications based on religion, magic, mythical characters, astrology, paranormal activity and fen shwei. It appears that many states have "freedom of religion" described as a "right", which to me is both similar to freedom of magic and used as an excuse to deny other rights by invoking the freedom of religion as the justification for limiting the other rights or granting special privileges or special decision process. There should be no special privilege, derogation or special penalties based on the religious, magical, astrological nature of the object or case.

    If a red light requires for people to stop at an intersection (or some other rule or code), only non religious non magical non astrological justifications should be used as a basis for exception(ex: emergency vehicles, etc). It should not be allowed for someone to claim that he should be exempt (or singled out) because he wishes to exercise his freedom of religion (freedom of magic, mysticism, astrology, fen shwei).

    Does this sound like a strange point of view? (for me the opposite is strange)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Are there any "limitations" today that you can cite? Only educated people won't become caught up in any "mythacal" nonsense and not become conned into accepting shuch beliefs.


    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    " today that you can cite?" I am talking hypothetically. Ex: A school as a rule about no weapons of any kind being allowed in the school, and people claiming that a weapon is a religious symbol and that the school rule infringes upon their religious freedom.
    Ex: Someone claiming that his (interpretation of) religion forbids him from speaking to a woman police officer so he should not listen to/comply etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman precious siraj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Still searching true and relative place of my birth, in cosmos
    Posts
    91
    why have you singled out religion and astronomy and magic?
    what about politics , science , sociology , and human nature?

    I am of the view that any rule which help human being to be helpful to others (wether it is social, political , religious etc) need to be followed. center piece of every rule made should revolve around welfare of mankind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Everybody has myths they believe in, some just happen to be religion based. For example, some people believe in a right to life, a right to free speech, a right to health care, etc. Is there any scientific evidence of that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman precious siraj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Still searching true and relative place of my birth, in cosmos
    Posts
    91
    overall freedom should hinder news papers or magazines to post ANYTHING about religious persons and places.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    "why have you singled out religion and astronomy and magic?"
    Because Religion is used to make demands while expecting that they are not to be questioned because "thats what god says" "thats what the holy book says" "thats the way it is". If its helpful it doesnt need to be religious, its just helpful/functional/pleasant, the perception of magic/holy/divine/supernatural/astrological is irrelevant in a modern society.


    overall freedom should hinder news papers or magazines to post ANYTHING about religious persons and places.

    I do not understand what you mean by this, could you say it in another way or give an example since I am curious to know more about your point of view (you give the impression that you might be/are a religious person and this is a unique opportunity to better understand)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman precious siraj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Still searching true and relative place of my birth, in cosmos
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    the perception of magic/holy/divine/supernatural/astrological is irrelevant in a modern society.
    to what extent?


    (you give the impression that you might be/are a religious person and this is a unique opportunity to better understand)
    this is not a place to kick start a discussion based on religion. Remaining neutral, I love to advocate that all religions should be respected like we respect and follow science. both have their own rules and regulations with many followers. So I cant risk and say something which hurt somebody here. sorry icewendigo (I know what you wanted to listen from me)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    "to what extent?"
    It is not needed. You can consider that a bolt on a bridge is a capricorn bolt, personally believe its better as a capricorn bolt, but there is no need to write capricorn/holy/magical as a characteristic of a bolt on a blueprint. Such a characterization is not needed, irrelevant. With regards to laws and rules, something should be permitted or not permitted, period. Imo, if something is permitted it should be permitted regarless of whether someone claims its holy/religious/magical and if something is not permitted (ex: A gun on an airplane for a passenger) it should be not permitted even if someone claims its a religious symbol/magical hand gun/Fen Shwei compliant handgun/effective against ghosts pistol, such justification to differentiate/justify what is permitted vs not permitted. IF a public pool in a community that does not discriminate between men and women as much as in other cultures has a public pool open to all, one should not invoke a religious reason to claim they want the public pool to be only available to men (or to women), religion is not a valid reason to justify discrimnation that is unacceptable to the values of a community.
    Does this help understand my point of view (the extent?)

    "Remaining neutral" theres no problem if you dont want to talk about you personal religious views, no problem I understand. I would appreciate if you could explain what you meant by the sentence "
    overall freedom should hinder news papers or magazines to post ANYTHING about religious persons and places."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    "to what extent?"
    It is not needed.
    I don't think that's a good standard. I enjoy riding my bicycle for example but don't think there should be rules that prevent me from doing so.

    I think the litmus test is if the behavior in question can be clearly shown to harm other individuals (not the person doing it), or society as a whole. I'm strongly against motorcycle helmet laws for example, the one riding is the only one put at significant risk. Teaching creationism to school children is likely to reinforce their habits against reasoning, just at a time when we should be teaching kids how to reason, do logic, and how science works for the betterment of society--therefore it should be restricted.
    precious siraj likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    I enjoy riding my bicycle for example but don't think there should be rules that prevent me from doing so.


    No one is saying "Women should be discriminated and not be allowed in a pool because Lynx enjoys riding his bike" and they should also not say "Lynx should not ride his bike because God told me he should not" or "The bible, as I am interpreting it, says though shall not ride that which has no legs, therefore my interpretation of the bible should be the basis for law prohibiting bicycle riding"



    "I think the litmus test is if the behaviour in question can be clearly shown to harm other individuals (not the person doing it), or society as a whole."

    You are illustrating that references to religion are not needed and not relevant.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    To some degree I wonder why you posted. For example the US Supreme Court ruled in the late 19th century that religious arguments in their own right could not be used to restrict otherwise permitted behaviors. Taking it another way, in cases where a behavior restriction wasn't reasonable (even if not Constitutionally restricted), religious rights can be asserted on the balance. For example a few years ago an Islamic mother won a case against a swimming pole owner after they toss her out if she didn't remove her head piece--even though she was there to watch her kids not take a swim. Is there any place in Europe where the laws don't view things this way?

    Are you proposing something that already doesn't exist? Are you proposing that the women should have been allowed to wear her head piece without making a religious based argument?

    Or is your position that the swimming poll owner should have just been able to dismiss her concerns and make up his own rules?

    Or any time anyone wants to do something there's not an effective remedy to stop that behavior regardless of what an owner thinks?
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; April 9th, 2014 at 04:15 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    You don't seem to understand what freedom of religion is. Freedom of religion is not justification based on myth, in fact these people shouldn't really have to justify their views to anyone, certainly not you who comes accross as a fascist (finally a correct use of this word in a debate) suppressing the views of a culture you don't agree with and deem to be primitive. It's not just magic it's tradition and conduct that these people have practiced for hundreds of years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    "to what extent?"
    It is not needed.
    I don't think that's a good standard. I enjoy riding my bicycle for example but don't think there should be rules that prevent me from doing so.

    I think the litmus test is if the behavior in question can be clearly shown to harm other individuals (not the person doing it), or society as a whole. I'm strongly against motorcycle helmet laws for example, the one riding is the only one put at significant risk. Teaching creationism to school children is likely to reinforce their habits against reasoning, just at a time when we should be teaching kids how to reason, do logic, and how science works for the betterment of society--therefore it should be restricted.
    I'm really not sure what I think about motorcycle safety... I can certainly agree with your attitude towards paternalism, but I think there are instances where people are not of sound mind or are too ignorant to make a decision about their own safety (and believe me i'm not a fan of the state enforcing laws, tbh i'd prefer it if it was enforced by the community, a general: 'hey don't do that asshole' view). I do agree though reasonable adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt society.

    I don't agree with banning creationism though, I have little more than dislike of it but the family should decide the education their children get, if religious values are important to the family then they should be taught.
    Last edited by Trivium; April 9th, 2014 at 04:35 PM.
    Harold14370 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman jgoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    You don't seem to understand what freedom of religion is. Freedom of religion is not justification based on myth, in fact these people shouldn't really have to justify their views to anyone, certainly not you who comes accross as a fascist (finally a correct use of this word in a debate) suppressing the views of a culture you don't agree with and deem to be primitive. It's not just magic it's tradition and conduct that these people have practiced for hundreds of years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    "to what extent?"
    It is not needed.
    I don't think that's a good standard. I enjoy riding my bicycle for example but don't think there should be rules that prevent me from doing so.

    I think the litmus test is if the behavior in question can be clearly shown to harm other individuals (not the person doing it), or society as a whole. I'm strongly against motorcycle helmet laws for example, the one riding is the only one put at significant risk. Teaching creationism to school children is likely to reinforce their habits against reasoning, just at a time when we should be teaching kids how to reason, do logic, and how science works for the betterment of society--therefore it should be restricted.


    I don't agree with banning creationism though, I have little more than dislike of it but the family should decide the education their children get, if religious values are important to the family then they should be taught.
    Families should be responsible for assuring freedom of thought for future generations instead of thwarting it. Teaching creationism or simply any tradition that inherently rules out criticism (religions, for example) will not do any favour to critical thinking. And thinking for oneself usually leads to empowerment (or discrimination in some places and death in other even worse places).

    On a side note, it's not just belief in the supernatural that becomes a spanner in the works; on the whole it's traditions and any kind of ritualised behaviour that can potentially do just the same. Religions would just be part of the big picture.

    So people have been doing something for hundreds of years? So what? Is it still useful or has it become a hindrance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by jgoti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    You don't seem to understand what freedom of religion is. Freedom of religion is not justification based on myth, in fact these people shouldn't really have to justify their views to anyone, certainly not you who comes accross as a fascist (finally a correct use of this word in a debate) suppressing the views of a culture you don't agree with and deem to be primitive. It's not just magic it's tradition and conduct that these people have practiced for hundreds of years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    "to what extent?"
    It is not needed.
    I don't think that's a good standard. I enjoy riding my bicycle for example but don't think there should be rules that prevent me from doing so.

    I think the litmus test is if the behavior in question can be clearly shown to harm other individuals (not the person doing it), or society as a whole. I'm strongly against motorcycle helmet laws for example, the one riding is the only one put at significant risk. Teaching creationism to school children is likely to reinforce their habits against reasoning, just at a time when we should be teaching kids how to reason, do logic, and how science works for the betterment of society--therefore it should be restricted.


    I don't agree with banning creationism though, I have little more than dislike of it but the family should decide the education their children get, if religious values are important to the family then they should be taught.
    Families should be responsible for assuring freedom of thought for future generations instead of thwarting it. Teaching creationism or simply any tradition that inherently rules out criticism (religions, for example) will not do any favour to critical thinking. And thinking for oneself usually leads to empowerment (or discrimination in some places and death in other even worse places).

    On a side note, it's not just belief in the supernatural that becomes a spanner in the works; on the whole it's traditions and any kind of ritualised behaviour that can potentially do just the same. Religions would just be part of the big picture.

    So people have been doing something for hundreds of years? So what? Is it still useful or has it become a hindrance?
    Useful for most people, why do you think they do it? There's no reason to adapt if what you're doing works well enough for you. You seem to think education is about critical-thought, on the contrary most people on a daily basis don't require the faculty of critical thought...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Useful for most people, why do you think they do it? There's no reason to adapt if what you're doing works well enough for you. You seem to think education is about critical-thought, on the contrary most people on a daily basis don't require the faculty of critical thought...
    It is required to run a modern society and an essential part of effective representative/democratic systems as well as growing the sort of jobs to compete with the rest of the world. (tempted to look up the many Jefferson quotes). While I would like to think most parents know best, the reality is most do not know much more than their parents--it is their default parenting style. And if that style takes its clues from religion text that parenting style is often an abusive one that uses excessive physical discipline, teaches bigotry, and short circuits reasoning with emotionally bond superstitious belief before a child's brain even developed the ability to reason. At a societal level it becomes a large scale drag on economic opportunity (and low social mobility in the US) and recipe for anti-intellectual political representation.
    adelady and jgoti like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman jgoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jgoti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    You don't seem to understand what freedom of religion is. Freedom of religion is not justification based on myth, in fact these people shouldn't really have to justify their views to anyone, certainly not you who comes accross as a fascist (finally a correct use of this word in a debate) suppressing the views of a culture you don't agree with and deem to be primitive. It's not just magic it's tradition and conduct that these people have practiced for hundreds of years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    "to what extent?"
    It is not needed.
    I don't think that's a good standard. I enjoy riding my bicycle for example but don't think there should be rules that prevent me from doing so.

    I think the litmus test is if the behavior in question can be clearly shown to harm other individuals (not the person doing it), or society as a whole. I'm strongly against motorcycle helmet laws for example, the one riding is the only one put at significant risk. Teaching creationism to school children is likely to reinforce their habits against reasoning, just at a time when we should be teaching kids how to reason, do logic, and how science works for the betterment of society--therefore it should be restricted.


    I don't agree with banning creationism though, I have little more than dislike of it but the family should decide the education their children get, if religious values are important to the family then they should be taught.
    Families should be responsible for assuring freedom of thought for future generations instead of thwarting it. Teaching creationism or simply any tradition that inherently rules out criticism (religions, for example) will not do any favour to critical thinking. And thinking for oneself usually leads to empowerment (or discrimination in some places and death in other even worse places).

    On a side note, it's not just belief in the supernatural that becomes a spanner in the works; on the whole it's traditions and any kind of ritualised behaviour that can potentially do just the same. Religions would just be part of the big picture.

    So people have been doing something for hundreds of years? So what? Is it still useful or has it become a hindrance?
    Useful for most people, why do you think they do it? There's no reason to adapt if what you're doing works well enough for you. You seem to think education is about critical-thought, on the contrary most people on a daily basis don't require the faculty of critical thought...
    Of course people don't go around questioning everything. They do things by habit because it's more economical for the mind and that's fine, as long as you don't suppress the option of adapting to new circumstances and accepting new knowledge. And that's what traditions and religions can do: they suppress self-criticism, sometimes with mild effects (the Virgin Mary was actually a virgin) and sometimes with rather sad consequences (the earth is 6,000 years old or so).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman jgoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    88
    Ah, Lynx_Fox beat me to it.

    The above said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Useful for most people, why do you think they do it? There's no reason to adapt if what you're doing works well enough for you. You seem to think education is about critical-thought, on the contrary most people on a daily basis don't require the faculty of critical thought...
    It is required to run a modern society and an essential part of effective representative/democratic systems as well as growing the sort of jobs to compete with the rest of the world. (tempted to look up the many Jefferson quotes). While I would like to think most parents know best, the reality is most do not know much more than their parents--it is their default parenting style. And if that style takes its clues from religion text that parenting style is often an abusive one that uses excessive physical discipline, teaches bigotry, and short circuits reasoning with emotionally bond superstitious belief before a child's brain even developed the ability to reason. At a societal level it becomes a large scale drag on economic opportunity (and low social mobility in the US) and recipe for anti-intellectual political representation.
    Is there any conclusive evidence that a lack of critical thought is bad for an economy? Most jobs don't require that much thought, actually i'd argue to the contrary, an intellectual workforce is in many respects worse as they demand more from their employers and detest certain jobs. I completely understand what you're saying, but i'm valueing the communities over the state here. A democracy exists so that the people decide what is they want, if the people want an anti-intellectual political representation that upholds traditional values, i'll sadly have to disagree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by jgoti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jgoti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    You don't seem to understand what freedom of religion is. Freedom of religion is not justification based on myth, in fact these people shouldn't really have to justify their views to anyone, certainly not you who comes accross as a fascist (finally a correct use of this word in a debate) suppressing the views of a culture you don't agree with and deem to be primitive. It's not just magic it's tradition and conduct that these people have practiced for hundreds of years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    "to what extent?"
    It is not needed.
    I don't think that's a good standard. I enjoy riding my bicycle for example but don't think there should be rules that prevent me from doing so.

    I think the litmus test is if the behavior in question can be clearly shown to harm other individuals (not the person doing it), or society as a whole. I'm strongly against motorcycle helmet laws for example, the one riding is the only one put at significant risk. Teaching creationism to school children is likely to reinforce their habits against reasoning, just at a time when we should be teaching kids how to reason, do logic, and how science works for the betterment of society--therefore it should be restricted.


    I don't agree with banning creationism though, I have little more than dislike of it but the family should decide the education their children get, if religious values are important to the family then they should be taught.
    Families should be responsible for assuring freedom of thought for future generations instead of thwarting it. Teaching creationism or simply any tradition that inherently rules out criticism (religions, for example) will not do any favour to critical thinking. And thinking for oneself usually leads to empowerment (or discrimination in some places and death in other even worse places).

    On a side note, it's not just belief in the supernatural that becomes a spanner in the works; on the whole it's traditions and any kind of ritualised behaviour that can potentially do just the same. Religions would just be part of the big picture.

    So people have been doing something for hundreds of years? So what? Is it still useful or has it become a hindrance?
    Useful for most people, why do you think they do it? There's no reason to adapt if what you're doing works well enough for you. You seem to think education is about critical-thought, on the contrary most people on a daily basis don't require the faculty of critical thought...
    Of course people don't go around questioning everything. They do things by habit because it's more economical for the mind and that's fine, as long as you don't suppress the option of adapting to new circumstances and accepting new knowledge. And that's what traditions and religions can do: they suppress self-criticism, sometimes with mild effects (the Virgin Mary was actually a virgin) and sometimes with rather sad consequences (the earth is 6,000 years old or so).
    I'm not a black and white thinker and i'll admit this is certainly a problem, tradition for its own sake is problematic but you have to remember life is lived in the concrete reality, whether or not someone thinks that the Earth is 6,000 years old is irrelevant to most peoples lives, which they should be allowed to live freely. It's not like they don't have the option to get a more scientific education (pretty sure there are public libraries in every US state).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Is there any conclusive evidence that a lack of critical thought is bad for an economy?
    Are you serious? Education is akin to critical thinking:
    astromark likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Is there any conclusive evidence that a lack of critical thought is bad for an economy?
    Are you serious? Education is akin to critical thinking:
    All this suggests is that people that have a higher level of education are more likely to have a job... not that it has a positive effect on the economy. Who is going to do the menial jobs if everyone has a post-graduate degree?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post

    All this suggests is that people that have a higher level of education are more likely to have a job... not that it has a positive effect on the economy.
    See second chart left side.

    Who is going to do the menial jobs if everyone has a post-graduate degree?
    A horse asked a combine....
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post

    All this suggests is that people that have a higher level of education are more likely to have a job... not that it has a positive effect on the economy.
    See second chart left side.

    Who is going to do the menial jobs if everyone has a post-graduate degree?
    A horse asked a combine....
    Call me a skeptic but i'd need more information to make a conclusion than that. For one, 40 years in an economy is a very long time and it's hardly surprising that GDP has increased. Secondly this only includes 'test scores', now I don't know much about the US education system but to what extent can passing these be placed on critical thinking? How are they comparing test scores from 1960 to 2000 as well? Do these use the same system?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    It's from a lengthen piece which fortunately for us is open source.
    https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/...pdf?sequence=1

    I'll just draw you to several pieces of it Table 2, chapters 3.1, 3.2 show a series of meta studies that reflect GDP of the nation rather strongly related to both number of years in education, as well as specific educational achievements.

    Page 49:
    "To create our measure of quality of education employed in this study, we use a simple average of the transformed mathematics and science scores over all the available international tests in which a
    country participated, combining data from up to nine international testing occasions and thirty 50 individual test point observations.60 This procedure of averaging performance over a forty year period
    is meant to proxy the educational performance of the whole labor force, because the basic objective is not to measure the quality of students but to obtain an index of the quality of the workers in a country.
    If the quality of schools and skills of graduates are constant over time, this averaging is appropriate and uses the available information to obtain the most reliable estimate of quality. If on the other hand there
    is changing performance, this averaging will introduce measurement error of varying degrees over the sample of economic data (1960-2000). The analysis in Hanushek and Wößmann (in process) shows
    some variation over time, but there is no clear way to deal with this here.
    ....
    By now, there are a total of 77 countries that have ever participated in any of the nine international student achievement tests in mathematics and science. 50 of these are included in the analyses of
    economic growth. 25 countries are not included in the growth database due to lack of data on economic output or because they drop out of the sample for a standard exclusion criterion in growth analyses (15
    former communist countries, 3 countries for which oil production is the dominant industry, 2 small countries, 3 newly created countries, 2 further countries lacking early output data). Two countries
    (Nigeria and Botswana) turn out to be strong outliers in the growth regressions and are therefore dropped from the sample.61

    The point is cognitive skill, education level and overall national growth, particularly in open and diversified economies (in narrow economies it breaks down...such as some of the petro states) are strongly related in multiple studies.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    "Are you proposing that the women should have been allowed to wear her head piece without making a religious based argument? "

    Yes. Why should she be allowed to wear a scarf by virtue of religion, while someone of another religion, or without religion, or claiming that his scarf is magical, or that the scarf is not magical at all, not be able to do the same thing? Imo eitherr its not allowed for all or its allowed for all. (or functional argument, like blind, handicap etc)


    on the other side, the swimming pool authority should make rules based on functional parameters, like if hair clogs that specific type of filtration system, it could be said that a bathing cap is required, but there should not be a factor to prohibit religious or magical bathing caps or to force people to wear a religious or magical bathing cap, imo religious should not be a factor for any decision/rule.

    is it correct that the case you have been refering to was won "because" it was argued that religion was a reason not to enforce the rule? (or was it won without resorting to religion as an argument)?

    btw sorry if my questions sound strange or if the answers sound obvious to you. And thanks for those of you not saying im a fascist militarist pro-warmongering ah hominem etc.
    Last edited by icewendigo; April 9th, 2014 at 08:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    I have a issue with rules. Actually a lot of us have issues with rules.. The point I want addressed is.
    ~ Rules because you should. ~ Not because you can. If your morality dictates a rule for you that is fine until it imposes on me or any other. With obvious exceptions as to rules of privacy and accident prevention and the costs to society do figure in some rules.. and should. What side of the roadway must you be on is a rule for the freedom of traffic flow and minimizing accident risk. Rules like the helmet law are imposed so as to reduce the cost on society of brain injury accidents. I would imagine a advisory rule.. and not policed. Imposing a strand of common sense would be treated as a school subject. We need more of it. I would rescind all speed restrictions law while imposing a 'Dangerous speed' rule. You endanger me. You will lose your right to drive. Education of common sense would become the goal of educators. Not doctorats for christmas.. You do not require a Phd to drive a courier van.. and eventually to this subject. Religious belief would be generally discouraged as unreal and fictitious mythology. The education system would be granted the responsibility of self responsibility and the consequence of ignorance. Foolish indoctrinations would be discouraged., but never illegal. You must always have the freedom to be wrong.. I would make Education the biggest government department. Above the military defence forces.
    jgoti likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Imo a modern 21st century state should not (or should be able not to) recognize justifications based on religion, magic, mythical characters, astrology, paranormal activity and fen shwei. It appears that many states have "freedom of religion" described as a "right", which to me is both similar to freedom of magic and used as an excuse to deny other rights by invoking the freedom of religion as the justification for limiting the other rights or granting special privileges or special decision process. There should be no special privilege, derogation or special penalties based on the religious, magical, astrological nature of the object or case.

    If a red light requires for people to stop at an intersection (or some other rule or code), only non religious non magical non astrological justifications should be used as a basis for exception(ex: emergency vehicles, etc). It should not be allowed for someone to claim that he should be exempt (or singled out) because he wishes to exercise his freedom of religion (freedom of magic, mysticism, astrology, fen shwei).

    Does this sound like a strange point of view? (for me the opposite is strange)
    Creating a society in which all ideas and view points are permitted, anything less is unscientific and immoral. I understand you are talking about disallowing exceptions to rules based on religious freedoms, but personally I would rather err on the side of being too permissive in this area and foster an environment of open discourse than create one that further biases individuals to hold certain viewpoints because the majority holds said viewpoint. If, for example, I did not allow Sikhs into a building because many carry miniature swords wherever they go, I have limited my ability to learn about that idea. Sometimes, my curiosity is beaten out by self preservation. I would not allow someone with an armed grenade into my home, even though that may keep me from learning about that individuals beliefs. I must weigh risk vs. accommodating for different cultural/religious belief systems. When reasonable, I lean towards accommodation. Granted, certain beliefs interest me less than others. That does not mean those beliefs should be less accessible to others who are interested in different things than I am.

    Note: Freedom of ideas in no way gives ideas immunity to critique or even ridicule. Criticism of an idea is, in itself, an idea. And not all ideas should be permitted to be put into practice. Nonetheless, they should be permitted to be had regardless of how ignorant or disgusting the idea.
    scoobydoo1 and DianeG like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    I tend to hold a similar view, with the exception of your first sentence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I tend to hold a similar view, with the exception of your first sentence.
    How so? That limiting ideas is unscientific or immoral? (Or both/something else, I suppose.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    How so? That limiting ideas is unscientific or immoral? (Or both/something else, I suppose.)
    My outlook on morality differs somewhat from the average folk, and that will have to suffice for now till I get to know you a little better.

    As for unscientific, I will only add that a subject can only be (un)scientific if it is a subject of a formalized study. Allowing or disallowing ideas and/or perspectives of a religious nature when in attempts to create a society does not fall into the realm of being (un)scientific in my view. Creating a society where rocknroll music is the only form of music permissible is no more (un)scientific than it is to only permit A-cappella music.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    How so? That limiting ideas is unscientific or immoral? (Or both/something else, I suppose.)
    My outlook on morality differs somewhat from the average folk, and that will have to suffice for now till I get to know you a little better.

    As for unscientific, I will only add that a subject can only be (un)scientific if it is a subject of a formalized study. Allowing or disallowing ideas and/or perspectives of a religious nature when in attempts to create a society does not fall into the realm of being (un)scientific in my view.
    If I rephrased the statement to say that a society in which the free expression of all ideas/a society that disallows certain opinions is not fostering science, or at the very least could foster it more with greater freedom of ideas?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    If I rephrased the statement to say that a society in which the free expression of all ideas/a society that disallows certain opinions is not fostering science, or at the very least could foster it more with greater freedom of ideas?
    Personally, I would drop the original first sentence entirely, but retain the rest of what you have said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    If I rephrased the statement to say that a society in which the free expression of all ideas/a society that disallows certain opinions is not fostering science, or at the very least could foster it more with greater freedom of ideas?
    Personally, I would drop the original first sentence entirely, but retain the rest of what you have said.
    Sure, I understand that. Especially concerning views on morality.

    Another reason I would err on permissiveness as far as science is concerned, and this is probably a emotional reason, is that I don't want to be like people throughout history who have actively and often violently opposed science in their absolute confidence they were correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    I disagree utterly that someone should be allowed to do something prohibited based on functional/security/coordination reasons because its religious/magical/astrological, nor banning something that causes no functional/security/coordination problems on the grounds that it is religious/magical/astrological. That is not a society I would want to live in. If red lights at intersection are coordinating circulation with a given level of security, I would not allow someone to run thru them because is religion/magic/astrology says he should, I dont accept any religious/mythical/magical/astrological accommodation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post

    All this suggests is that people that have a higher level of education are more likely to have a job... not that it has a positive effect on the economy.
    See second chart left side.

    Who is going to do the menial jobs if everyone has a post-graduate degree?
    A horse asked a combine....
    Call me a skeptic but i'd need more information to make a conclusion than that. For one, 40 years in an economy is a very long time and it's hardly surprising that GDP has increased. Secondly this only includes 'test scores', now I don't know much about the US education system but to what extent can passing these be placed on critical thinking? How are they comparing test scores from 1960 to 2000 as well? Do these use the same system?
    I will only concern one part of your post, the others I feel incapable of addressing in a meaningful manner. (1) Does it take intelligence to spot grammatical errors? E.g "I like pie, however, pie is bad for me." My knowledge of grammatical applications (concerning "however") is strictly derived from learning it, memorizing it, and applying it. Those three actions relate to fluid intelligence, the occasional exception being long-term memory. This assumes that particular grammatical rule is taught to the students, and how much it is stressed/reiterated. I.E, an AP English class will reiterate that grammatical rule more frequently than a standard English class. There comes the issue of who can take AP English classes and whether or not there are significant IQ distinctions between AP/non-AP students. To take an AP class costs time and money. Some can't afford to take the classes, others cannot indirectly afford the class due to economic restrictions, (Parents may require their child to work a job outside of school for either monetary reasons or to instruct discipline. Child may also assist parents in their place of business, which IMO would be more common in lower economic professions such as farming, mechanics, etc). I've had a job for over a year now, albeit part time. Between the job and school, school taking my time between 6am-7pm (The latter time due to me being the only rider of the bus, I will not burden the requirement of bus driver for my own convenience. As a consequence I go to the workplace of my mother, and assist them.) Go to sleep at 9pm, giving 2 hours of spare time for homework/studying/eating/showering/feed animals. Ergo, I would be at a huge disadvantage compared to someone who has more spare time and/or high economic parental professions. Which would lead to me being less likely to know the grammatical rule to "however" than someone of higher economic status.

    Following is an example of SAT "critical reading"...

    1 After observing in countless documentaries, television
    2 shows, editorial commentaries, obituaries, lyrics, presidential
    3 speeches, formal dinners, ceremonies, and tabloids the rabid use
    4 of the word justice, I decided to clear some common
    5 misconceptions on the nature and meaning of justice.


    6 Justice is not retribution. At best, retribution is vigilantism.
    7 The wild urges of our instinct and emotion, however, cannot
    8 qualify as justice. We have seen, particularly in the form of
    9 lynch mobs, that vigilantism is hardly justice and is in fact
    10 many times injustice. Attempts to model justice on the idea of
    11 retribution are outdated and outmoded. While the scales of
    12 justice typically reflect the image of justice, the concept of
    13 equal retribution is an anachronism that dates from the times
    14 of Hammurabi and Moses. Few would argue that a woman who is
    15 fatally attacked by an alligator is rendered justice when the
    16 alligator is put to sleep. Even fewer would suggest that a
    17 rapist receiving his own displeasure is justice. To return an
    18 injustice in kind is usually impossible; in many cases, the
    19 context of the injustice as evil as the deed itself. In fact,
    20 one of the traditional arguments against capital punishment has
    21 been that the pain inflicted upon the criminal can never equal
    22 the suffering that the victim (and his/her family) endured by
    23 the sudden and malicious nature of the crime. Thus, if even
    24 capital punishment is not a reliably just punishment for a
    25 heinous crime, the scales of justice could never be balanced,
    26 and so retribution could not be the sole component of justice.


    27 Justice is not fairness. Justice is always fair but what is fair
    28 cannot always be just. Consider the destitute man who suffers
    29 from mental illness and poverty. We say that social justice can
    30 only occur through helping this poverty-stricken man, a fair
    31 action indeed. At the same time, a passer-by who does not even
    32 acknowledge the itinerants existence acts fairly; after all,
    33 Perhaps that passer-by helps no man but himself. However, nobody
    34 would call the passer-by a just man on the basis of his fair
    35 actions. Fairness implies only equality of treatment, but
    36 justice tends to encompass what that treatment will be. A line,
    37 therefore, must be drawn between what is fair and what is
    38 actually just.

    Now one of the questions...

    Which of the following attempts at justice would the author consider arcane?
    (A)Providing welfare for citizens.
    (B)Requiring treatment for the criminally insane.
    (C)Forcing students to sign a pledge of academic honesty
    (D)Creating a support network for victims of domestic violence.
    (E)Mandating the equal allotment of resources after a divorce

    The student would have to know the meaning of "arcane" which again relates to my initial point of AP, concerning exposure to obscure vernacular (which also correlates to higher economic home environments, and is a poor reflection on cultivatable intellect). The essay makes the following statements "the scales of justice could never be balanced" as it is related to attempting to treat convicted criminals with the same pain/suffering they inflicted upon their victims, the reason is due to "traditional" arguments that reason a criminal's suffering should never equal their victims. This conflicts with the initial criticism of "outdated" and or "anachronisms", as the author uses an ad populum reference of past populations to justify their assertion. This has the possibility of suggesting to the reader that (A) The author is hypocritical, and therefore the answer must also be hypocritical. Ergo,A would be logical, as the student doesn't equate justice to fairness. (B)Author is cherishing traditional values. Ergo, E would be logical, as his mentioned group was tradition, therefore they would find equal allotments post-divorce to be arcane, ergo the student would also find said allotments arcane.

    Several of the answers also overlap... is not treating the criminally insane, providing welfare, mandating equal allotments, creating support networks, and forcing all students to sign a pledge, are they not all means of "fairness" and not justice? Treating the insane results in some "cured", less insane members means more normal members. Providing welfare obviously dissolves some augmented divisions between economic classes. Equal allotments are self explanatory. Support networks allow the abused to recover, becoming more normal. Forcing all students (author doesn't bother to say how many students, therefore the reader is left with an ambiguous numerical value) to sign, "all" suggests equality.

    The entire passage concerned the author's criticism of how "fairness" was not "justice". Therefore, since the author believes fairness is not justice, the author's opinion must follow suite. I.E, the answer least concerning justice and most concerning equality (fairness) is correct. (A) Most directly correlates to fairness. (A) is also the wrong answer, (E) is the correct answer. (E) has the 2nd least correlation to the "fairness not being justice" fallacy of the author's ad populum argument.

    Argument for (E) being correct, is that only (E) concerns recompense. Yet, all answers asides from (C) are examples of recompense, recompense for being domestically abused, recompense for being economically underprivileged, recompense for being raised in an environment conducive to insanity/criminal action. Also, the pro (E) argument states that (E) most closely resembles the archaic form of equal distribution "fairness". But, the answer must be the one that is the most arcane, therefore the most archaic could not be the answer. Also take into account the author's ad populum towards past populations (archaic populations), the author revered the past, I.E the author wouldn't likely find something that was archaic to be arcane. Due to the author apparently valuing traditional values, we can assume the author was raised in a home where traditional values were used. I.E, the author wouldn't find traditional values to be arcane.

    When I took my SAT, my math score (nearly perfect) was juxtaposed to my abysmal critical reading score, lowering my opportunity for college. I cannot desist from "overanalyzing", a term which I consider archaic and misplaced in itself, as a consequence it seems I am a poor critical read (perhaps I am). In my opinion, albeit not remotely a professional and perhaps not even an educated one, using academic tests (at least the SAT) to gauge critical thinking ability, is archaic bullshit.
    scoobydoo1 likes this.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Imo a modern 21st century state should not (or should be able not to) recognize justifications based on religion, magic, mythical characters, astrology, paranormal activity and fen shwei. It appears that many states have "freedom of religion" described as a "right", which to me is both similar to freedom of magic and used as an excuse to deny other rights by invoking the freedom of religion as the justification for limiting the other rights or granting special privileges or special decision process. There should be no special privilege, derogation or special penalties based on the religious, magical, astrological nature of the object or case.

    If a red light requires for people to stop at an intersection (or some other rule or code), only non religious non magical non astrological justifications should be used as a basis for exception(ex: emergency vehicles, etc). It should not be allowed for someone to claim that he should be exempt (or singled out) because he wishes to exercise his freedom of religion (freedom of magic, mysticism, astrology, fen shwei).

    Does this sound like a strange point of view? (for me the opposite is strange)
    It's not a strange point of view, but it is a bit of a straw man argument. Most freedom of religion arguments just proscribe the freedom to do what you want unless it harms others. And where there is the possibility that it might harm others, that is when it becomes controversial - but that is true ANY time two rights conflict.Some court cases are about a simple injustice done to another - he stole my car. But other legal issues involve resolving a conflict when two legit rights conflict. You're a carpenter who uses loud power tools in his garage every night - I'm the next door neighbor who likes to sit on my front porch with a cup of tea.

    The most recent case involving religion is the supreme court case involving Hobby Lobby, who claimed it was against their religion to pay for health care that provided birth control. And it makes sense to ask, is there any thing more compelling about their argument because it involves religion? Or would it not matter if they argued we won't provide healthcare that vaccinates children because we believe it's dangerous, we won't pay for Viagra because sex is not necessary for basic health, or we won't pay for health care that involves psychiatry, treatment for addictions, or life saving measures for people over 80. Is religion "special", or is this still just a simple matter of deciding whether one person exercising their freedom restricts or interferes with another's.
    Last edited by DianeG; April 13th, 2014 at 11:51 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 9th, 2013, 09:45 AM
  2. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 06:37 AM
  3. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 11:35 AM
  4. Hawking's Statement vs. "Religious Science-Guy"...
    By LunchBox in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 7th, 2010, 11:22 AM
  5. "A new engine with no moving parts..."
    By Deathridesahorse in forum Physics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 31st, 2008, 07:14 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •