When a group claims rights to practice their religion because being forced to go against their religion is unconscionable, and they get granted their religious freedom while another non-religious group equally considers being forced to live a certain way unconscionable, but don’t have the shield of religious freedom, how is that not a philosophical discussion?
Opafi@feddit.de 5 months ago
This is not a philosophical question so I’m not sure if it fits this community. Even worse, your wording is highly suggestive. If you’re so mad about your government “steam-rolling over elderly people” why don’t you vent somewhere else?
freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 5 months ago
Opafi@feddit.de 5 months ago
and they are rightfully granted their religious freedom
Great, so your hypothetical Amish have already been granted all their hypothetical wishes, so you answered your own question. You didn’t post this for answers or discussion, you have all that already. You only posted this trainwreck of a thread to have an outlet for your anger. And now that you have been mad and answered your own question, why don’t you bake some bread or do some other useful stuff after maybe deleting this whole episode from lemmy so you don’t waste other people’s time?
freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 5 months ago
Great, so your hypothetical Amish have already been granted all their hypothetical wishes, so you answered your own question.
Not hypothetical. And wrong government. You also misunderstood the quote which was speaking of a general philosophical scenario.
A US supreme court ruled that Amish (who per their religion oppose insurance) are exempt from the social security system on the basis of religious freedom. The hypothetical is obviously unanswered, as it’s Amish people in Europe and not over insurance but over forced use of on-grid technology and forced use of machines that are more complex than a word processor.
How do you even think a European gov could have protected the religious freedom of the Amish? They do not exist in Europe. US and Canada only.
You only posted this trainwreck
Your trainwreck, not mine. I was after intellectual replies by folks with a bit more civility. The train wreck is purely your hot-headed emotional rant – effectively your #threadCrap.
and now that you have been mad and answered your own question, why don’t you bake some bread or do some other useful stuff after maybe deleting this whole episode from lemmy so you don’t waste other people’s time?
Why don’t you try to practice constructive use of your own time by writing civil responses - or not writing at all? Lose the hot-head, think about the inequality of religious freedom to religious people and lack thereof to non-religious people with an equally strong moral code, and try to come up with something that avoids logical fallacy. Even better if you can display a bit of inspirational wisdom.
tchotchony@mander.xyz 5 months ago
It’s also simply not true. While there’s a big push to book an appointment online and do smaller admin stuff yourself (requesting an ID and driving license), municipalities still have to allow people to book on the spot, or help them on the kiosks available. Actual efficiency depends on the friendliness of the administrative people in question I guess, but it’s absolutely still possible to not have to go online for it.
From the flemish website (…)Maar waar ze altijd welkom zijn op het gemeentehuis als ze dat wensen. aka: They’re always still welcome to visit public services in person if they prefer to do that.
freedomPusher@sopuli.xyz 5 months ago
“have to” ≠ reality
If you go to the commune to deregister, you talk to someone who directs you to send the request via post. If you hand-deliver the request into their postbox, they simply ignore it.
If you go to the commune to reserve parking in front of your property for workers, they point to a QR code. If you insist on an offline transaction, the receptionist refuses. If you say that you need to pay cash, the receptionist says “impossible, because you must do the transaction online”.