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


← Moral compass: a guide to religious freedom

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by Jos Gibbons

Comment #948009 by nick keighley

It’s clear you’re unwilling to believe the French would want to follow their security-conscious fears to their logical don’t-cover-your-face conclusion, because you just know what was really on their mind. The funny thing is, law doesn’t work that way; the question isn’t whether you harbour at least one bad reason for entertaining a view, but whether you can present at least one good reason for it. Arguments must be dealt with whether or not they are suspected to be pretexts. In this context, incidentally, “good” means in line with the principles on which the state is run, e.g. in line with secularism. That’s why you deem those reasons you don’t dismiss as excuses to be bad ones the excuses are meant to cover up.

who decides what "makes sense"?

See the Baggini points I made; arguments are meant to convince more broadly than within the adherents of a societally contentious metaphysical position.

As for the corporations issues, let’s look at the example you give of:

Britsh [sic] Airways

Who had a policy jewellery not be worn outside of clothing. Seems pretty fair to me. We can argue about whether it’s a good rule, just as we can with French security regulations, but we can’t claim it amounts to religious discrimination, because it has the same verdict regardless of what jewellery depicts.

Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:20:35 UTC | #948021