Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[Unfettered]

On the balance of probability however, beliefs for which there are testable evidences, are superior to those beliefs without testable evidence, such as religious claims. Superior meaning, in this context, more reliable. More probable.

Understood. I'm only speaking to the nature of a belief and its relationship to the operation of government on human rights.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That depends on whether or not a person holds a belief related to maskwearing and personal safety. All beliefs are religious in nature as they are extensions of conscience and judgment and point to things not provable or immediately known. If I say "I believe God will save me from getting COVID-19," or I say, "I believe maskwearing will save me from getting COVID-19," I have expresses a religious view in either case. I can't prove either in the moment I speak them. The object of one's belief does not bear on the question of a statement's religiosity; the fact of one's belief is what makes the nature of the statement religious, or not.

Does that clarify?

I don't agree that all beliefs are "religious in nature."
Especially ones that don't involve a supernatural deity and don't involve faith and worship of said deity.

Assessing scientific data in order to make an informed decision about one's health is an evidence-based position that doesn't require a deity and doesn't require any faith or worship.

 

[Little Dragon]

The lost tribes of Israel didn't just cease to exist. Britsh = bryt eysh, meaning covenant male, and Saxon is like Isaac-son. Isaac was the son of Abraham was was of the covenant of circumcision, his half brother Ishmael was not.

Now. I am a reasonable person and are prepared to accept at face value many things. However that's the first time anyone has ever claimed that to me. Do I believe it? Not really. The Origins of the British, by Professor Stephen Oppenheimer, a book on my shelf, tells a very different story.

 

[Ebionite]

I swear allegiance only to the infinite void.

Interestingly, your name of Little Dragon relates to the symbolism of the common law. There's the white dragon of King Alfred, the black dragon of the old city of London (previously the Roman settlement of Londinium), and the red dragon of the Prince of Wales.

 

[Little Dragon]

Understood. I'm only speaking to the nature of a belief and its relationship to the operation of government on human rights.

Of course, although masks are supposed to protect others from the wearer, not the other way round, so much.

 

[Unfettered]

I don't agree that all beliefs are "religious in nature."
Especially ones that don't involve a supernatural deity and don't involve faith and worship of said deity.

Assessing scientific data in order to make an informed decision about one's health is an evidence-based position that doesn't require a deity and doesn't require any faith or worship.

I appreciate your disagreement, but what you seem to be overlooking is that the question of whether or not government (ie, anyone outside of myself) may infringe my rights is fully a moral question. An ethical question. A question of the law. IE, a religious question. It has nothing to do with science or scientific data or statistics. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asserts this:

Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs. Religious Discrimination

This is why I assert that, as it pertains to interaction between person and government, all beliefs held and expressed by the person are religious in nature. The law recognizes them all as "religious" and does not discriminate based on an interpretation of "religion" yoked to a deity.

 

[Little Dragon]

but what you seem to be overlooking is that the question of whether or not government (ie, anyone outside of myself) may infringe my rights is fully a moral question.

Also a pragmatic question or consideration. For the greatest good, in this context, the good of protecting public health and protecting health services from being overwhelmed. I see no issue with infringing on any and all human rights, if and only if, the seriousness of the situation demands it. For example. If a flight attendant is banned from wearing a cross at work, this would be an infringement of her right to freedom of religious expression, under the ECHR, however it could (and was) found by the ECJ that wearing the cross, also violated her employer's right to insist upon a uniform dress code for all staff, as required by contractual agreement. It was held by the ECJ that the right of the employer to expect compliance with uniform overruled her right to wear a cross. The infringement on her religious expression was minimal. The effect for the airline, was potentially more damaging, regarding business representation, if people could just wear (effectively) whatever ornaments they liked. Balance of competing interests. The winner is the one with the most to lose.

 

[Ebionite]

Now. I am a reasonable person and are prepared to accept at face value many things. However that's the first time anyone has ever claimed that to me. Do I believe it? Not really. The Origins of the British, by Professor Stephen Oppenheimer, a book on my shelf, tells a very different story.

There's also the symbolism of Daniel and the prophecy of Ephraim and Manasseh.

And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.
The first [was] like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
Daniel 7:3-4

The lion is the prominent animal of the Coat of Arms of England, and the eagle is the prominent animal of the Great Seal of the U.S.A.
The separation of the wings from the lion relates to the Declaration of Independence.

And his father refused, and said, I know [it], my son, I know [it]: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
Genesis 48:19

Ephraim, the younger son, relates to the Commonwealth.

Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty [is] a fading flower, which [are] on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!
Isaiah 28:1

Church accused of 'politicising' place of worship over Pride flag row

A historic church's controversial plan to display a gay Pride flag on its altar is to be ruled on in a landmark legal case after protesters complained it was 'politicising'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Unfettered]

Of course, although masks are supposed to protect others from the wearer, not the other way round, so much.

I feel like we're heading back to territory we've already been to. Or maybe that was another thread. I'm losing track. Either way, I don't want to keep hashing the same thing. There is a clear chasm of understanding here. I understand that there is no point whatever in asserting that people have rights that can't be infringed without cause and due process, if government may arbitrarily suspend them. Those two ideas cannot coexist. Government's job is not to protect us from one another, but to protect our rights from unjust infringement by anyone. No other course will produce anything but damage and destruction, as we've seen every time government has crossed that line.

 

[SomeRandom]

The lockdowns were inconsistent.
Allow going to a store to buy booze, but not paint.
Allow travel to a state park, but not to a vacation home.
This wasn't just "flawed".
It bespeaks an agenda of preserving income to the
state at the expense of public health....that is, if
we're to accept that officials really believe that
the lockdown was appropriate.

I'm OK with reasonable restrictions. But total
lockdowns are a cure worse than the disease,
especially when imposed with self serving &
dangerous inconsistency by corrupt officials.

You guys weren’t allowed to order booze online?
We can still do that here as a result of our lockdowns and honestly I think that’s a better overall public health feature. Avoids drunk drivers a bit easier lol
(And to be fair we can get paint from our local stores through online shopping features now.)

Actually to tell the truth I feel like our lockdown restrictions (which are no longer in effect where I live) just made everyone lazy as hell lol
You can get practically everything online these days, even if the shop is walking distance from you. But it did allow for a whole bunch of other jobs to open up. So eh, I guess that’s beneficial overall?

 

[Unfettered]

Also a pragmatic question or consideration. For the greatest good, in this context, the good of protecting public health and protecting health services from being overwhelmed. I see no issue with infringing on any and all human rights, if and only if, the seriousness of the situation demands it. For example. If a flight attendant is banned from wearing a cross at work, this would be an infringement of her right to freedom of religious expression, under the ECHR, however it could (and was) found by the ECJ that wearing the cross, also violated her employer's right to insist upon a uniform dress code for all staff, as required by contractual agreement. It was held by the ECJ that the right of the employer to expect compliance with uniform overruled her right to wear a cross. The infringement on her religious expression was minimal. The effect for the airline, was potentially more damaging, regarding business representation, if people could just wear (effectively) whatever ornaments they liked. Balance of competing interests. The winner is the one with the most to lose.

Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment you express about the greater good, etc., but I just don't believe it's moral. I mean, when the natural course of events exposes me to risk, I do not agree that anyone has the right to subject someone else to injury—of any kind or on any level, no matter how trivial I may believe it to be—so that I can be spared. That is selfish and uncivilized, and it does not become civilized because the sample size increases. Some things are just always wrong. It is when the natural threats are greatest that the law becomes most important. It is always barbaric to cause the innocent to suffer; it is never charitable. We must find a different path—a moral path—to protecting the innocent who are in nature's crosshairs.

I don't think the example you shared is a good comparison because the application of the law merely exposes who had a given right in a given situation, and who did not. The rights aren't created by government, they are discovered through discussion and/or adjudication. Nor is it about "balancing" rights. I have never known a circumstance where two persons each had a right to do something that directly infringed on the right of the other. It is always shown that one or the other always had a given right in that set of circumstances, and the other never had the right that would collide with the former.

For example, if it is lawful for an employer to impose on employees a dress code, then it was lawful before government got involved (it was always lawful)—the question of rights in that situation just hadn't yet been adjudicated. And if the employer always had that right, then the would-be employee never had the right to wear something that would have been a violation of the dress code. It's not a case of balancing rights, because there was never anything out of balance. The employee didn't start out having a right to work for the employer that had to be balanced with the employer's right to have a dress code—the employer always had the right to establish the dress code, and the employee always had to yield if she wanted the job. So the only way the would-be employee could ever be exposed to the restrictions of the dress code would be to freely agree to the code in advance. Which means no right was infringed. No balancing.

 

[Revoltingest]

You guys weren’t allowed to order booze online?
We can still do that here as a result of our lockdowns and honestly I think that’s a better overall public health feature. Avoids drunk drivers a bit easier lol
(And to be fair we can get paint from our local stores through online shopping features now.)

Actually to tell the truth I feel like our lockdown restrictions (which are no longer in effect where I live) just made everyone lazy as hell lol
You can get practically everything online these days, even if the shop is walking distance from you. But it did allow for a whole bunch of other jobs to open up. So eh, I guess that’s beneficial overall?

The web made a great leap forward
(not the Mao kind) here during the
pandemic.

 

[Little Dragon]

The employee didn't start out having a right to work for the employer that had to be balanced with the employer's right to have a dress code—the employer always had the right to establish the dress code, and the employee always had to yield if she wanted the job.

The employee however has a right to freedom of religious expression, before, during and after employment, regardless of any contractual agreement she or he or they, signed. Therefore that human right has to be considered on balance with her employer's right to insist upon a uniform dress code. It's that simple really. The ECJ in this case found that the employers right was more significant, in this particular case, that does not mean, other violations of religious freedoms will not be upheld.

 

[Little Dragon]

The rights aren't created by government, they are discovered through discussion and/or adjudication.

I can't agree, if a human right is not supported by legally enforceable legislation, then it is merely an aspiration, an opinion, but one that cannot give relief to those that have had their right(s) violated by some government body or organ of state etc..
Human rights are not necessarily absolute, inalienable certainly.

 

[Little Dragon]

I do not agree that anyone has the right to subject someone else to injury—of any kind or on any level, no matter how trivial I may believe it to be—so that I can be spared.

Imagine, me and you are intelligence operatives, for our governments. We've apprehended a suspect whom we know for certain, has planted a small but robust nuclear device in one of our cities, now he or she or they, the terrorist, won't tell me or you, the deactivation code or the location of the device. The city houses over 2 million people say. What do we do next? Do we use enhanced interrogation techniques, to get the information out, or do we simply wait until either the terrorist tells of their own free will, or until the device detonates, killing hundreds of thousands of men women and children.
I would argue to you that we'd better get the car battery and crocodile clips out and quick. Because, I think the terrorist's right not to be tortured, is superseded by the right of thousands, to live (and thousands more not to be seriously injured). What would you say to me?

 

[Revoltingest]

The employee however has a right to freedom of religious expression, before, during and after employment, regardless of any contractual agreement she or he or they, signed.

The "during employment" expression of religion
will have limits. It's crucial that I limit this because
it could be found discriminatory in the residential
real estate business. Many tenants are easily offended
these days, & one dare not risk the appearance that
any particular religion is favored or disfavored.

Rights are seldom (if ever) absolute, but are
balanced against competing interests of society.

 

[Little Dragon]

Rights are seldom (if ever) absolute, but are
balanced against competing interests of society.

100% agreement.

 

[Ebionite]

Now. I am a reasonable person and are prepared to accept at face value many things.

I've mentioned how religious prejudice has a basis in law before in the context of Article 9. One of the ways that this is expressed is by referring to men as persons (persons don't have the natural rights that men have):

PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a "thing" is the object over which rights may be exercised. - Artificial persons. Such as are created and devised by law for the purposes of society and government, called "corporations" or "bodies politic." - Natural persons. Such as are formed by nature, as distinguished from artificial persons, or corporations. - Private person. An individual who is not an incumbent of an office.
Black's Dictionary of Law, 2nd edition

Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.
William Blackstone.

The Monarch is head of the Anglican Church. Yet neither determine the law. Parliament is sovereign.

Synchronicity bonus (post #666).

The idea that Parliament is sovereign is consistent with atheism, since it rejects that idea that the law of deity has a role to play in the affairs of men. It's also inconsistent with the meaning of an oath of allegiance as being an act of religion.

 

[Little Dragon]

Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty,

I don't believe in natural rights. A naive and unscientific concept.

 

[Little Dragon]

The idea that Parliament is sovereign is consistent with atheism, since it rejects that idea that the law of deity has a role to play in the affairs of men. It's also inconsistent with the meaning of an oath of allegiance as being an act of religion.

Good for atheists then. I am not an atheist of course, just a democratic socialist (or is it socialist democrat?). Parliament is sovereign, the Monarch can sign off on acts of parliament, but his majesty's royal assent however, is not required, by law. It's a constitutional formality.