Gabriella,
Yes I was pretty sure you weren't arguing that but was not sure what the relevance of your comment about flying planes into buildings had to do with your current point about equality legislation.
The ‘planes thing was pointing out that you can justify anything when you reference your faith. The equality legislation point argued that you shouldn’t be exempt from it if you also benefit from tax breaks funded by everyone.
Exempting tax-payer funded organisations from equality legislation is a very different issue to mass murder.
Of course it is. Both though legitimise faith by privileging it over just guessing about stuff. A suicide bomber for example could say, “but clearly you think faith is better than guessing too because you allow it special privileges in your society” could he not? It’s the slippery slope point.
Exemptions occur in the public and private sector where it is judged that the exemption is justified - that's for Parliament and the courts to decide, and yes you are free to disagree with the decision, but again you have not demonstrated any special problem caused by exemption for religious organisations.
I think I have. When the defence used by the CofE for special treatment is the same defence used by the suicide bomber – ie, “faith – how should we argue against one but not the other?
No it doesn't. What I am doing is saying you are creating an issue where none exists because it is just normal human behaviour to hold beliefs and you are trying to discriminate against one category of beliefs based on your personal bias.
Yes it does. The rightness or wrongness of a position in one sphere doesn’t change because you might be able to find examples of the same rationale used elsewhere.
Absolutely. As is the rational response to any moral or political or any other non-religious belief that can be used to argue for anything. Literally.
Nope. Religious faith is religious faith – that’s the beginning and end of the conversation. It’s epistemically no better than guessing. Moral and political judgments on the other hand tend at least to have reason and evidence to support them – moral philosophy and economics as examples. That’s not to say that either provide certainty (indeed it’s a strength that they don’t claim too – another difference from religious faith by the way – because that way they’re amenable to change), but they’re qualitatively different in that respect from the finger in the air certainties of faith.
I agree, just as much as if they tried to rely on the defence "but that's my moral or political belief", then the defence must fail as it did in the case of Nelson Mandela....except where they have a justified exemption or where the court shares their belief e.g. killing in self-defence or defence of others is permissible
No, because one of those defences could be evidence. “On the basis of the evidence available to me at the time, I had no choice but to act as I did” would be taken into account by a court of law. “But that was my faith belief” on the other hand would not.
I don't see what the problem is then - this applies to all beliefs. There is an adequate legal process and you have to justify to the courts why your religious or non-religious faith or belief that led you to commit an act exempts you from being convicted of a crime.
No it doesn’t. My belief in the fact of Mars is qualitatively different from someone else’s belief that there are little green men living there.
I thought your issue was that this should not succeed as a defence against breaking the law? As far as I know, there is no suggestion that religious people are trying to use their faith as a defence against being convicted for driving vehicles into pedestrians is there?
No, but some use their faith beliefs to validate the atrocities they commit. The 9/11 hijackers for example were pious men. That’s the point.
So I don't see the problem here. If anything such criminals often cite the country's domestic or foreign policy as justification for their acts based on their belief that the government is acting immorally - including terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh and Anders Brevik. Ted Kaczynski, for example, cited the threat of industrialisation on Nature. None of them succeeded in their defence in court.
When they do that those types of defences can be weighed and taken into account or not. Public interest for example is sometimes a successful defence for breaking privacy laws. By contrast, “but that’s my faith” is evidentially white noise.
Ok - well it's part of the story that they understood that going near the tree was wrong - the story to me seems to be about self-control. If it means something else to Vlad that's between you and him.
We’re going round in circles here – there was no “wrong” in their minds if you also want the premise that they “knew only good”.
I disagree that this is a case of entrapment.
I disagree that a court would consider it entrapment.
Well, neither of us knows for sure as it hasn’t been tested. Entrapment rules vary country-by-country too, and indeed state-by-state in the US. In general though most courts would ask:
1. Did the official create an opportunity that would not otherwise have existed? (yes)
2. Did the official seek out the accused to tell them about the opportunity he’d created? (yes)
3. Did the accused have a predisposition to criminal activity? (no)
4. Did the official give any reason for not disobeying him other than, “because I say so”? (no)
5. Could the accused reasonably have understood that what they did would be criminal or even objectively wrong rather than just disobeying someone who claimed to be authoritative? (no)
Looks like a slam dunk case of entrapment to me.
I don't think being curious, skeptical or enquiring is a problem but as to whether they nevertheless follow my order despite feeling curious, skeptical or enquiring or whether they decide for themselves depends on the situation. Lots of decisions I leave to them to make, but sometimes I tell them to follow an order. If they disobey the order I will punish them on the basis that only one of us is the parent and if a decision has to be made, while I am responsible for them it means I get to make that particular decision and when they are responsible for themselves they can make that particular decision for themselves. For example, I have ordered them to do homework and threatened to punish them if they don't, no matter how skeptical they are about the benefits of Mandarin homework.
Couple of problems there. First, when they ask why, do you reply “because I say so” or do you give them reasons? If it’s the latter, the analogy fails.
Second, you’ve introduced the notion of punishment – ie, a consequence for wrongdoing. Again, that disqualifies the analogy. In the myth, the deal is that “God” says, “Look, I’m a talking snake acting on behalf of God. No really. I am I tell you. Only you just have to take my word for that. Anyways…let me draw your attention to this tree I’ve set up specially for you not to pay any attention too. And I’d rather you didn’t pay any attention to it because, well, I say so. Bye then.”
Hmmm…
Probably I would do those things even if I understood the horrible consequences - other people certainly have - inventing nuclear weapons and climate change issues spring to mind. Your analogy depends on A&E having no concept of a bad outcome - my understanding of the story is they had a concept of right and wrong.
Not according to Vlad’s premise they didn’t.
The law does not say that inventing a speed limit provides the idea and opportunity to break the speed limit and thereby induced the crime of speeding. I sometimes drive at 30mph and then I see a speed limit of 40mph - that does induce me to speed up and then the speed limit goes back down to 30 mph - and I am now driving at 35mph and the speed camera goes off - I can't rely on the defence of entrapment.
That’s right, you can’t. The tests for entrapment are different from and much tougher than that – see above.
Your entrapment argument doesn't work for me in the A&E story either.
The point rather is whether it “works” for the legal definition(s), which it does – see above.
