Massimiliano B wrote:No, they are not. When I say "my beliefs" I mean that my beliefs are not an arbitrary whim, but something which depends on a religious or philosophical tradition - as I said in another post.
That's immaterial. We're talking about a general principle which could be applied to any
parent with a child in the school. Either (a) the state commits to investigating each case in order to distinguish beliefs which are based in "a religious or philosophical tradition" from mere whims or (b) we take any and every statement a parent makes about their beliefs at face value. You are clearly espousing (b). That would mean that any
parent could withdraw their child from any
class on a whim and--as long as they claim that it was based on a "sincerely held belief"--their right to do so could not be challenged. (Because you claim above, "You don't have the right to question the si[n]cerity of my beliefs".)
I don't understand how you can keep missing the point on this. Any principles you assert in order to educate your children according to your beliefs have to apply equally to everyone
--that's a very basic principle of the charter you're so fond of quoting. You cannot simply assume that they will not be invoked lightly or cynically. (A rudimentary understanding of Kant's categorical principle
would come in handy here.)
Massimiliano B wrote: linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:unless I believe something which is against life and rationality.
But how does one define "rationality" in a philosophically-independent manner? There is widespread belief in the freethought community that religion is inherently irrational. How do you refute that?
The only irrationality of religion is the fact that it relies on a revelation from a supernatural being (but this irrationality is valid only from an atheistic point of view).
And from an atheistic point of view, that's a whopper of an irrationality.
Massimiliano B wrote:However, the consequences of this initial irrationality are not irrational. Indeed, Buddhism, Christianity, Islamism, and the other religions, have in common the principle of the defense of life and of the respect of all its forms.
""If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death
. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again." (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Massimiliano B wrote: linguoboy wrote:
Massimiliano B wrote:Satanism, in my opinion, is against life and rationality.
But why should your opinion be privileged above the sincerely-held beliefs of a Satanist?
(We are not talking about "my" opinion, but about the opinions of a religious person).
That doesn't alter the question: Why should the opinion of one "religious person" be privileged above the sincerely-held beliefs of another?
Massimiliano B wrote:Religion is in favour of life, while Satanism is against life. So, the former is good, while the latter is a danger for society.
Massimiliano B wrote:(I haven't really anything else to add).
No, you don't. You just keep repeating the same circular, unsubstantiated arguments. You feel the state should make special exceptions on account of your irrational belief system; I believe it shouldn't. It can't accommodate us both.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons