Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
explicit mentions of "religious feelings" in legal codes

Yeah ,same way as they mention rights of minorities, gays , political parties, whatever. But I do not know of specific / special laws that would protect specifically religious feelings. Maybe that's different from state to state...Maybe you can direct me to one of these laws?

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 04:55:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Denmark and Ireland have laws against blasphemy. Spain probably has as well. Poland almost certainly does, but I'm not going to dumpster dive in the wretched hive of fundagelical idiocy that is Polish religious law. Clergy has a special right to consultation at the EU level which is not extended to any other private clubs of unelected old men. And of course, in Russia you can apparently get charged with uploading YouTube videos that believers don't like.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:13:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Only that nobody has defended blasphemy laws here... No matter for you, you can't be bothered to distinguish blasphemy laws, laws to protect the exercise of religion, or libel laws. All you are interested in is your missionary zeal as a secular.
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:41:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're defending the right to prosecute on the basis of offending the feelings of believers.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:44:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
exactly. As opposed to blasphemy.
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:31:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, goodie. You admit that you advocate censorship on no basis other than that it offends religious people.

Get on the train to the 21st century, will you, because you're obviously stuck somewhere in the 18th.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:37:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, goodie. You admit that you advocate censorship on no basis other than that it offends religious people.

I do not see it like that. Censorship is one thing , prosecuting people for wrong doing is the other.
And doing this in this particular way inside of the church is wrong.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:44:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Prosecuting people for offending other people's sensibilities is censorship. No two ways about it.

And again, what actual actions did they do inside the church which should be a crime? (Aside from defacing a building, which we obviously agree on.)

You still haven't told me whether you think heathens praying in church should be a crime, and how you're going to prove that they're heathens without invoking general habitus which is not in itself criminal.

Heresy trials FTW. Welcome back to the 17th century.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:28:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Funny. If you disagree with a law you call it censorship. Are laws against racist hate speech censorship too?
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:09:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are laws against incitement to violence and there are laws against offending people. And then there are the laws protecting personality (from personal insult, defamation, etc).

So inciting people to burn down a church is not the same as insulting churchgoers, which is not the same as saying Mother of God, Virgin, become a feminist in front of the churchgoers.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:13:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you want to be technical about it, yes.

If you want to be technical about it, quotas for women on corporate boards is discrimination.

If you want to be technical about it, requiring employers to have a union contract with a real union is a restriction of their freedom of association (at least that's what the court in Strassburg thinks).

But of course in the real world, the point of hate speech laws is not to censor honest opinion, it is to prevent a politically and socially dominant group from intimidating and legitimizing violence, discrimination or repression against a politically and socially dominated group.

It is, in other words, about redressing an imbalanced power relationship between non-state actors.

Which is totally irrelevant to a Russian punk band offending the Russian Orthodox Church, because the Orthodox Church is the dominant, and punk culture the dominated, group in that power relationship.

This should not be difficult to understand. But apparently it is.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:20:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Only that nobody has defended blasphemy laws here...

vbo is.

No matter for you, you can't be bothered to distinguish blasphemy laws, laws to protect the exercise of religion, or libel laws. All you are interested in is your missionary zeal as a secular.

I have never complained about religious people suing according to the ordinary libel laws that are open to everyone (well, I have complained about the British libel laws, but that's a problem with the British libel laws in general, not special treatment of religious bigots).

The thing is: When they sue according to the real libel law, they almost invariably lose.

I never complained about laws protecting public gatherings and free association for any purpose, including the exercise of religion. What I complain about is religions demanding extra-special privileges which are not extended to trade unions, tennis players and collectors of horse porn.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:53:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Only that nobody has defended blasphemy laws here...

vbo is.

??? If you call me mentioning how I feel offended by few porno stars (calling themselves artists ???) naming my religious feelings "God's shit", than yes.


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:01:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
??? If you call me mentioning how I feel offended by few porno stars (calling themselves artists ???) naming my religious feelings "God's shit", than yes.

I don't object to you being offended.

I object to your offensive, narcissistic obsession that offending you must be made a criminal act.

Your words (bold mine):

Putting the whole shit on YouTube is another story but not less offensive...to ridicule believes of so many millions of people pointing what they ( those few so called artist, huh, fucking their political position in the museum before) happen to think about " God's shit" is definitely criminal act.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:12:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I object to your offensive, narcissistic obsession that offending you must be made a criminal act.

If it is just me it would not be necessary. But we are talking about quite a few millions of people...

And let me tell what I object about your view and your so called "progressive" group of people who are minority in practically all societies. I object your offensive, narcissistic obsession with telling everyone what to think and feel and trying to define for everyone what moral, intelligence etc. is in your narrow view.
People are different and in this time in many places free to think and feel what they want (or it seems to be the case to degree). So live with it. As they say "live and let others live". You as atheists are protected enough and just live with a fact that others can have protection too, not necessarily sharing your view.Respect and tolerance...that's what we need.
I wouldn't like PR for simple case of bad taste anyway so even if they had good message to share they would be irrelevant in my eyes. Putin made a mistake of making them martyrs.I can't see how they can make any advance for your ideology...unless it is because you like porn...


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:32:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If it is just me it would not be necessary. But we are talking about quite a few millions of people...

So let's have an auto da fe in a public square, then. Or a lynching.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:42:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If it is just me it would not be necessary. But we are talking about quite a few millions of people...

Appeal to popularity is not a valid argument.

And let me tell what I object about your view and your so called "progressive" group of people who are minority in practically all societies. I object your offensive, narcissistic obsession with telling everyone what to think and feel

I'm not telling you what to feel.

I'm telling you that mere feelings are not valid arguments for prosecuting people.

People are different and in this time in many places free to think and feel what they want (or it seems to be the case to degree). So live with it.

I have nothing against you thinking and feeling anything you like.

I object to you wanting to use the courts to force me to agree with you.

As they say "live and let others live".

Quite.

Seems like the Russian courts did not get that memo.

You as atheists are protected enough

But not equally as well as religious people.

I guess that "separate but equal" is OK in your mind.

and just live with a fact that others can have protection too,

I object to a "protection from being insulted," because that means that the most reactionary prude (or the millionth most reactionary prude - same shit) gets to define the limits of legal speech.

Respect and tolerance...that's what we need.

Tolerance I quite agree with. But apparently, in your view "tolerance" does not extend to punk bands uploading YouTube videos?

Respect, as I've said before, is something you earn. And the Russian Orthodox Church hasn't earned any.

I can't see how they can make any advance for your ideology...unless it is because you like porn...

The Russian Orthodox Church is a reactionary political organization, and as such my enemy. Any nonviolent action which harms the Russian Orthodox Church therefore has my full support.

Liking porn has nothing to do with it (not that there is anything wrong with liking porn, though I don't think I'd share Pussy Riot's tastes in that genre).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:06:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is nothing wrong in you/or PR hating Russian Orthodox Church.And you can attack it at wish using lawful tactics.
Any nonviolent action

PR violated Church's property and rules for their goals so how is this not violent. Do they need to kill someone?

Oh I am getting tired and I start to sound to my self as an echo. It is enough for now unless we have something new to say on this...Obviously there is no way for us to come to any conclusion here. Not even that we "agree on disagreeing"...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:05:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the contrary, we're very close to clearly delineating everyone's frames and, given that this is a clash of frames, agree to disagree. The disagreement is not actually about the facts of the Pussy Riot case. It's the frame through which the facts are interpreted. And the difference in frame through which to interpret evidence is invulnerable (almost by definition) to evidence.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is nothing wrong in you/or PR hating Russian Orthodox Church.And you can attack it at wish using lawful tactics.

I'll ask again, since neither you nor Katrin has ever provided a clear and unambiguous answer to this question: Which of Pussy Riot's precise, concret acts inside the church should be illegal?

Don't give me vague generalities about intent and insincerity. Concrete, actionable actions only.

Oh, and you never did give a clear and unambiguous answer to the question of whether it should be criminal to upload a YouTube video with a song you don't like set to background footage of a church. Should it?

PR violated Church's property and rules for their goals so how is this not violent.

Um, because violence requires you to actually, you know, cause bodily harm to somebody.

Do they need to kill someone?

No, slapping somebody would suffice.

Disrespecting the subsidized property privileges of the church... not so much.

Not even that we "agree on disagreeing"...

No, "agree to disagree" is not a possible outcome when one side insists on demanding that the courts repress the other side.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have never complained about religious people suing according to the ordinary libel laws that are open to everyone

Yes, you have. The complaint, possibly charge, but not conviction in the Kissing Pope Photo Affair which you cited excessively and falsely for the power of the Vatican suppressing political speech.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:38:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, that complaint was clearly about offending the religious feelings of Catholics, and attacking the dignity of the Pope.

At least that's what the Vatican claimed they were suing over. Again, I don't read Italian, so I don't know whether the Vatican was lying in its press release (admittedly a strong possibility - the Vatican does tend to lie like a rug).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:53:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The BBC article YOU linked to in your pathetic attempt to prove that political speech about the pope was prosecuted does not bear that out:

The Vatican statement said the ad was "damaging to not only to dignity of the pope and the Catholic Church but also to the feelings of believers"

So, if you have information what the actual complaint was about (if any), how about sharing it?

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't. But the quote you cited proves my point: The Vatican's lawyers clearly think that offending the Pope justifies a frivolous lawsuit.

I disagree.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:21:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You said the law was on the Vatican's side in this point. Which isn't true. So this was a complaint about personality rights: is it legal to show the kissing and twist the meaning a bit?

Additionally the Vatican claimed that Catholics were offended by a connection of their pope and the notion of sex, especially gay sex. They had to find the hard way that after the child abuse scandal this is no longer true. This will doubtless influence their decisions when to lodge complaints in future.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:41:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, considerations of realpolitik makes the Papacy less trigger-happy with the frivolous lawsuits against people who piss off the Pope.

The Thirty Years War also made the Papacy less trigger-happy with prosecuting heresy. That doesn't make the existence of statutes against heresy not-a-problem.

Either they are not invoked, and can therefore be excised without loss of generality. Or they are invoked, and must therefore be excised to protect the human rights of heretics and blasphemers.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:48:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I don't know, let's start with the Spanish constitution [PDF]
Section 16

Freedom of ideology, religion and wors-
hip is guaranteed, to individuals and communi- ties with no other restriction on their expres- sion than may be necessary to maintain public order as protected by law.

So, implicitly, "religion" and "worship" are a separate category from "ideology" since protection of ideology doesn't suffice.
No one may be compelled to make sta- tements regarding his or her ideology, religion or beliefs.
Section 27
The public authorities guarantee the
right of parents to ensure that their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions.
There is no equivalent protection of the right to have your child educated free of pseudoscience.
Section 14

Spaniards are equal before the law and may not in any way be discriminated against on account of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion or any other personal or social condition or circumstance.

Religion is, again, not opinion, nor covered under "other personal or social condition or circumstance".

Now, this is fantastic. Article 16 is developed in its own law, but only as it pertains to freedom of religion and worship (not freedom of ideology). Now check this out:

La Libertad Religiosa y de culto garantizado por la Constitución comprende, con la consiguiente inmunidad de coacción, el derecho de toda persona a:

Profesar las creencias religiosas que libremente elija o no profesar ninguna; cambiar de confesión o abandonar la que tenía; manifestar libremente sus propias creencias religiosas o la ausencia de las mismas, o abstenerse de declarar sobre ellas.

...

Quedan fuera del ámbito de protección de la presente Ley las actividades, finalidades y entidades relacionadas con el estudio y experimentación de los fenómenos psíquicos o parapsicológicos o la difusión de valores humanísticos o espirituales u otros fines análogos ajenos a los religiosos.

The Freedom of Religion and worship guaranteed by the Constitution encompasses, with the consequent immunity from coercion, the right of any person to:

Profess the religious beliefs they freely choose, or not to profess any; to change confession or abandon that once held; to manifest freely their own beliefs or the lack thereof, or to abstain from declaring on them.

So you're free to be or become non-religious, however
Outside the scope of the present law are activities, ends and entities related to the study and experimentation of psychic or parapsichological phenomena or the diffusion of humanistic or spiritual values or other analogous but not religious goal.


If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:14:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not see any problems here...Religion is mentioned amongst ideology, moral etc. And you are even protected of coercion...What is wrong there? Is it the fact that you are ALSO free to be religious as well as atheist?

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:26:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact that is mentioned separately and has its own special code of protection.

Protection of ideological freedom has not been developed in its own law.

Also, did you notice the bit where the law explicitly says that "protection of religious freedom" does not extend to "humanistic or spiritual values which are not religious"?

So, riddle me that. What, specifically, is the part of religion which is not about spiritual values and yet justifies special protection as religion?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In what you put here I do not see special law or code that protects religion.
Rather I see that you are FREE to be or NOT to be religious...what more you can ask for...
So, implicitly, "religion" and "worship" are a separate category from "ideology" since protection of ideology doesn't suffice.

What do you mean? Religion IS separate category from ideology and ideology has been mentioned in that same sentence. Nothing wrong there.

There is no equivalent protection of the right to have your child educated free of pseudoscience.

Hah you really know how to twist things. As a parent you can choose where and how to educate your child. What else do you want? You can exempt your child from religious classes if you want so why would you scrap right of those religious that want their kids to attend them? And you are privileged because religious parent CAN'T excuse his child from classes that teach Darwinism.

Religion is, again, not opinion, nor covered under "other personal or social condition or circumstance".
 

Oh that's what bothers you...you want religion to totally disappear from law...


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:51:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In what you put here I do not see special law or code that protects religion.

Can you read?

Non-religious groups are explicitly, in so many words, denied protections which are extended to religious groups.

Rather I see that you are FREE to be or NOT to be religious...what more you can ask for...

That any and all laws protecting religious sentiments apply equally to collectors of horse porn, or not at all.

Including the right to appoint teachers in schools.

What do you mean? Religion IS separate category from ideology

Not when preachers preach partisan political propaganda from the pulpit.

Only totally and utterly apolitical religion is in any way distinguishable from a political ideology.

As a parent you can choose where and how to educate your child.

No. You can't. At least not according to this law.

You have the inalienable right to choose religious indoctrination. You don't have the inalienable right to choose no religious indoctrination.

Gee, difference.

What else do you want? You can exempt your child from religious classes if you want so why would you scrap right of those religious that want their kids to attend them?

I don't.

I just want them to (a) pay for them themselves, and (b) not use school buildings for it.

If you have a hard time seeing why that's reasonable and obvious demands, then you really need to buy a ticket to the 21st century.

And you are privileged because religious parent CAN'T excuse his child from classes that teach Darwinism.

There are no classes that teach "Darwinism."

And if you can't tell the difference between classes to teach children science and classes to indoctrinate them into a particular religious sect, then you need to open your fucking eyes and look at an almanac to see what year we're in.

Oh that's what bothers you...you want religion to totally disappear from law...

I don't see anything about religion which requires any protection not accorded free assembly, free speech, free association and freedom from discrimination on grounds of exercising any of the above.

And since there is no actual religious activity that doesn't fall within one or more of those protections, explicit reference to religion is either superfluous, and should therefore not be made where concision is valued, or it indicates that religious prejudice is set above free assembly, free speech, free association and non-discrimination on grounds of the above. Which is totally, utterly and absolutely unacceptable.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:05:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Religious indoctrination in education is constitutionally protected. However, there is no constitutional right to an education in the natural sciences free from, say, flat earthers, evolution deniers, or other pseudoscience.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:34:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are twisting things and hard. Yes you are protected and even privileged as I said above. You have a choice...that's your protection. What you want is to take that choice for those who do not follow your ideology.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I'm not, I'm quoting
The public authorities guarantee the right of parents to ensure that their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions.
There is no specific language anywhere to guarantee the right to ensure children receive evidence-based natural science instruction.

There is general language to protect the right to education. And then the constition drafters feel the need to make an explicit mention of the right to religious indoctrination.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:03:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe but it is already there well established in practice of education.
Same way I can argue that I have not protection for my child to be exposed to Darwinism...all tho you are protected for your child to attend compulsory religion classes.
Do not get me wrong I have nothing against science as such and I do not see antagonism between science and God ( as churches and many of them used to preach for centuries). It was wrong. Science can be very wrong too often.We are witnessing how thanks to new developments in science science itself corrects itself.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:15:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe but it is already there well established in practice of education.

Appeal to tradition is not a valid argument.

Same way I can argue that I have not protection for my child to be exposed to Darwinism

Appeal to pseudoscience is not a valid argument.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:19:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Appeal to tradition is not a valid argument.

Custom is one of the wellsprings of law, though.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:52:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"It's the law" isn't, in and of itself, a valid argument either.

It's also against Swiss law to publish the names and account statements of tax frauds. That's not an argument for not doing it, it's an argument for making sure you get paid well enough that you never have to go back to Switzerland again.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:07:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"It's the law" isn't, in and of itself, a valid argument either.

That depends on the frame you're arguing in.

Natural rights? Legal positivism? Others?

But the choice of frame is at the level of conviction. Once you ascertain that (say) you're a legal positivist and the other guy is a natural rights advocate, that's pretty much the end of productive discussion.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"It's the law" can be trivially refuted by reducto ad absurdum: The law is not always consistent, so A and NOT(A) can be illegal at the same time. Meaning it can't be a valid argument in any frame that does not recognize copious use of special pleading as a valid argument.

(As a corollary, any authoritarian frame has to rely on special pleading for those cases where the authority - being human, and therefore imperfectly consistent - makes both A and NOT(A) taboo at the same time.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:45:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 "their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions."

That seems to give the parents the right to educate their children according to their own convictions.

If "an education in the natural sciences free from, say, flat earthers, evolution deniers, or other pseudoscience".  is part of their own moral convictions, I don't see the problem.

by IM on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But then you have to argue that evidence-based natural science is a moral conviction.

And then we're back to trying Galileo in a religious court for the temerity of looking at the world with his own eyes and drawing rational conclusions.

So, from an epistemological point of view, the law protects faith and doesn't protect evidence.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:58:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So it isn't your moral conviction that evidence based science should be taught?

It certainly is one of my moral convictions.

by IM on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:06:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It may be the conclusion of this whole debate that yes, politics reduces to moral conviction in the final analysis. Even the role of evidence depends on having the conviction that it plays a role.

And once a discussion gets to the point of ascertaining that the discussants have different convictions, maybe it's time to stop it as no more light will come out of the heat. as in this case.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:27:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't get your position on this.

Let me reformulate the constitution:

Parents have the right to expose their children to evidence based science.

What is gained in this expression that is not already included in "their convictions"?

by IM on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:40:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nothing. Children should have the right to be exposed to evidence-based education.

In principle, I'm not sure what's gained by giving parent the power to indoctrinate children in their own convictions.

Except that your wording would allow parents to fight a state school teacher who peddled prejudices not based on evidence in a science class.

Private schools are, of course, a different matter. If you don't like sectarian teaching don't take your child to a sectarian school. Which is why those kinds of legal protections of parent's rights to a particular kind of education for their children imply the need for state schools where the appropriate teaching is delivered.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:50:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In principle, I'm not sure what's gained by giving "parent the power to indoctrinate children in their own convictions."

That is another question regarding the balance of the power of the state to educate children and the parents power to educate children.

And this right to determine the religious and moral education according  to their convictions only makes sense in context of a state education system.

So you interpret this article as a right of parents to interfere with state education of their children only in the realms of religious and moral education, but not in all other school subjects.

So they couldn't complain about teaching of creationism in biology because this is not a religious or moral subject.

Yes, that is an plausible interpretation.

I interpreted moral convictions probably to generous. Is someone tried to argue that proper science education was part of his moral convictions it probably wouldn't work.

by IM on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:05:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But the article doesn't say "education on the basis of moral convictions", it says "religious and moral education on the basis of their convictions".

So generic "convictions" are protected, but only in the realm of "religious education".

Anyway, let's quote the full article for context:

Section 27 1. Everyone has the right to education.
Freedom of teaching is recognised.
2.    Education shall aim at the full development of human personality with due respect for the democratic principles of coexistence and for basic rights and freedoms.
  1. The public authorities guarantee the right of parents to ensure that their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions.
  2. Elementary education is compulsory and free.
  3. The public authorities guarantee the right of all to education, through general education programming, with the effective parti- cipation of all sectors concerned and the setting-up of educational centres.
6.    The right of individuals and legal entities to set up educational centres is recognised, provided they respect constitutional principles.
7.    Teachers, parents and, when appropriate, pupils shall participate in the control and management of all centres supported by the Administration out of public funds, under the terms established by the law.
8.    The public authorities shall inspect and standardise the educational system in order to ensure compliance with the laws.
9. The public authorities shall help the educational centres which meet the requirements established by the law.
10.    The autonomy of Universities is recog- nised, under the terms established by the law.
[PDF from Spain's Congress]

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:12:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I[f] someone tried to argue that proper science education was part of his moral convictions it probably wouldn't work.

That's interesting. Why?

(I actually agree, but you're the lawyer :-)

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:19:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"their children receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with their own convictions."

That seems to give the parents the right to educate their children according to their own convictions.

But only in the realm of religious and moral instruction. In other realms, the parents' convictions don't matter, apparently?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:43:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series