Why should people have the right to manifest religious beliefs specifically enshrined...

Why should people have the right to manifest religious beliefs specifically enshrined? What does this offer that freedom of expression/assembly wouldn't?

Other urls found in this thread:

xvideos.com/video16518291/kcsweetness-mfc-201512042210
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

based

Thicc haunches

I want to terrorize that.

Answer the question comrades

I didn't see a question.

Changing your flag to le communism flag doesn’t change the fact you are a fucking leaf

>a fucking leaf
>is also a commie
No surprises there.

t. amerilard brainlet who doesn't understand the question

I understand your question, I’m just not going to give you the satisfaction of answering it

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP

Why should people have the right to manifest scientific beliefs specifically enshrined? What does this offer that freedom of expression/assembly wouldn't?

>> 146305819

Rape yourself trudeau.

No (((you)))’s for nigger tier posts, and no bump.

Sage in every field.

They don't and they shouldn't. Some courts enforce a limited right to manifest religious beliefs. Why is this a good thing?

Freedom to sacrifice animals

First intelligent answer

Because religion is divine in origin while earthly matters are secular.
Divine matters require reverence and a special status to give the society a monolithic object of worship that is beyond criticism. Thus a society can organize around said object and form an actual, functional civilization.
Now give me sauce

FUCK IT im becoming a COMMUNIST

we need to share DAT ASS with the WORKING CLASS

Don't have sauce, sorry.

How does your answer function in a supposedly secular society?

Kek

People have a long and sordid history of fighting over religion. They must have thought if they weren't that specific then somebody might try to exclude religious stuff.

quads

It doesn't, civilization doesn't. This is the reason for current societal division and unrest. We lack common values and a civilizational purpose (or a founding myth), without them there simply can be no co-operation at this scale. And it's only going to get worse, until some breaking point is achieved and transcendence is recognized as a necessity in human life.
Materialistic, nihilistic rationalism can't offer people any satisfaction beyond shopping and fornication.

What about faith and love for our institutions, and a social drive to improve them.

And what does freedom to manifest religious belief offer that freedom of expression and assembly wouldnt or couldnt?

Sup Forums really is brainlet town lmfao, you losers got conned by Russians during the election and you cant even offer a coherent thought on a simple topic kek

>What about faith and love for our institutions, and a social drive to improve them.
If there is no higher reason for the existence of those institutions they are no different from any other material object (metaphysically).
Radical materialism means that if everything is of a single substance, nothing is important or special in any objective way. Therefore nihilistic people default to hedonism in their lack of meaning.
>And what does freedom to manifest religious belief offer that freedom of expression and assembly wouldnt or couldnt?
I mean that for a religion to function as a pillar of society it must be shielded from criticism and irreverence etc by institutions. A religion must be considered holy and can't be tainted in any way.

Because while there is some overlap, freedom of expression/assembly/association fails to protect religious groups sufficiently.

Freedom of religion was conceived as a way to avoid the unrest and turmoil that has historically come with the persecution of various peoples for their religious beliefs. This isn't something that has happened once or twice, it has been a common theme throughout history, which is why protecting religious freedoms was enshrined in various legal codes well before the advent of the modern conception of human rights.

Conscientious objection and the right to not face discrimination because of your religious beliefs are just some examples of freedom of religion protecting peoples' rights in a way that freedom of expression/association/assembly don't.

is their a picture of her face?

Fuck off leafnigger

ty for your thoughts

Are you asking why people should have the right to do the stuff in private?
Who says "specifically enshrined" in that poetic grammar mechanic on /pol while posting the virgin mary?

As to the second question, secrecy?

meh.

So far we have

Animal Sacrifice
Conscientious Objection
Right to not face discrimination (Argument is a little weak, imo. Could be covered by other anti-discrimination legislation. I'm focusing on the right to specifically act out religious beliefs)

as specific acts which justify the inclusion of the right to manifest religion in a constitutional setup. Any other ideas?

I actually like the secrecy idea. The right to not speak in some cases? I think there might be something there.

I'm not saying in private, I;'m saying that certain constitutions will give a specific "right to manifest (act on) religious belief", and I'm wondering what that would entail which the right to freedom of expression/thought/assembly wouldn't'.

Historically it was to prevent different Christian sects from persecuting each other, and specifically to prevent government authority from being wielded to persecute.

Which ways would manifestation of belief stop government persecution?

That question is phrased poorly, I see your point

HOLYSHIT GUYS I FOUND HER!!

xvideos.com/video16518291/kcsweetness-mfc-201512042210

swiggity swoogity gimme that booty!

THE LEFT BEHIND EVERY SHITPOST

wtf i'm a godless commie now

more butts

Did u get that from a bread I made on /s/ yesterday?

THEY MUST ALL BE SHARED WITH THE WORKING CLASS

COMMUNISM IS REDPILLED NOW

You're either arguing semantics or from a position of rights being granted.

...

It's not semantics. A right to manifest religious belief may imply real world harms, for example, insisting a child not be given a blood transfusion due to interpretation of religious text, or circumcision of both boys and girls. So, what are the benefits that it offers? Some courts have implemented it.

Freedom of expression/assembly primarily covers the forum externum.

Freedom of religion relates to both the forum externum and the forum internum. It encompasses more than just expressing your beliefs or congregating with other adherents. It is fundamentally about what goes on in your head as a human being, about your very identity and culture.

This is why we privilege religious beliefs above secular beliefs. There shouldn't be constitutional protections preventing me from being fed pork or having to work on Saturdays as a conscript just because I express a dislike for those things. But it's a different matter entirely if I'm an observant Jew - forcing me to do those things would be an assault on my very identity and culture.

Now certain secular beliefs can gain the same gravitas as religious beliefs. If I'm an ethical vegan, should the army be able to give me non-vegan rations? This is why freedom of religion is usually paired with freedom of conscience. But it's important that religious beliefs start with a presumption of seriousness. Otherwise you get judges trying to determine which religious beliefs are worth protecting and which aren't - which can create all kinds of problems when you have religious minorities whose beliefs are at odds with the general orthodoxy.

The legislation which inspired this thread is the ECHR, which lists the forum internum in a right to "belief", as well as a more limited right to manifest said beliefs.

I'm coming to a conclusion that religious protections should be able to be used in the negative - an opt out of sorts. Conscientious objection, work on a Saturday, etc. Where I have issues is religious manifestation in the positive where it wouldn't be covered by freedom of expression. For example, circumcision or refusal of blood transfusion on behalf of a minor. Thoughts?

based mods deleting my pic but leaving my thread, you guys are alright

Things get a little more complex with children. The way the law has developed in this area in the UK - and you'll have noticed this with the Charlie Gard case if you followed that at all - is that parents have duties towards their children. To act in their best interests, to look after them. This is at odds with the more traditionalist view: i.e. I'll raise my children how I damn well please and decide what's best for them.

At this point you get an interesting intersection of rights. Do parents really have the right to decide that their child should be circumcised or refused a potentially life-saving blood transfusion for religious reasons when it could quite easily be argued that neither is in the best interests of the child? I somehow suspect that the transfusion would be enforced against the parents' wishes but the circumcision permitted. But I really do wonder about the latter too and our attitudes to male genital mutilation in general.

In Canada, the blood transfusion situation did arise, and the Supreme Court backed the ordering of the transfusion against the wishes of the parents/child herself.
Circumcision is all well and good, against all logic.

Thanks for raising an interesting question on a Sunday night user. I'm off to bed now but I'll be thinking about this on the way to work tomorrow.

Thanks for your contributions, m8