This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Public pressure to end intolerance fostered by religion

Wuht2Ask's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by Wuht2Ask

Jay G, your question: "Is a priest who writes his congressman improperly attempting to influence policy?" Shouldn't we be confident that as an individual the priest could do that? If he were the official representative of a large Catholic voting block, maybe not?

When you ask: "..Orthodox Jews..preserving the right of Kosher slaughter of meat. How would they, as a group, protect their rights?" That behavior is probably not a right. What in the constitution would make it a right?

"Should Synagogues be allowed to lobby congressmen, etc., or should it be left to the individuals only? Isn't this the same circumstance as the priest?

With the special privilages allowed religions, arent special responsibilities called for? Like following the laws of the land?

You bring up interesting problems. They will become even more confrontational in principle with the so-called intended assimilation of relocated Muslims. Be careful what you wish for or demand Jay.

IF it is demonstrated that Kosher slaughter is torturous, in a Peter Singer scenario, would you support changing the old, very old, religious system based on new insight and information? The bible is a gathering of stories of the changes in the history of a people. Cant it still change or is it really like an unchangable Quran?

Maybe you favor the Muslim and the Menonite approach; anything invented after or before an arbitrary time and date is forbidden? What if the nation made specific laws against animal suffering? For many animals it already exists and is enforced; dogs, cats etc.

The problems dont stop with animals as you know, circumcism is about as nasty a thing to do to a child as a knife slit into the throat of an animal, isnt it? I, and every new boy child, hope you say yes, will you?

Updated: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:24:15 UTC | #512510