Polaris:...I believe that the rights of people to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs must be respected at all times.

So you are okay with people of the Jainism religion walking around nude, right?

Alkanadi:

Polaris:...I believe that the rights of people to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs must be respected at all times.

So you are okay with people of the Jainism religion walking around nude, right?

You missed out his qualifier

barring overwhelming state interest

taking his words out of context

mbalicki:people who (I'll repeat it again and again) use fundamentajn words according to their definitions from the Fundamento de Esperanto, just not these you happen to like.

That 'ci' is in the Fundamento means very little really. Zamenhof advised against it, hardly anybody uses it (so it's confusing) and in normative Esperanto we use 'vi'. It's inclusion in the Fundamento or even its experimental use by a handful of well known authors in no way detracts from the many arguments against its use.

Also, regardless of what you think about erinja finding use of 'ci' offensive after requesting that the proper pronoun be used instead, it's simply not true to say she advised against its use "just because she doesn't like it". You're misrepresenting the facts there.

Let's not confuse the issue. Orthohawk's meltdown resulted from his own decision to take grave and unnecessary offence at only minor disrespect shown towards his strange religiously-inspired language use. His deceitful return under a false identity and subsequent racist messages only underscore where the fault really lies.

Sfinkso:

Alkanadi:

Polaris:...I believe that the rights of people to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs must be respected at all times.

So you are okay with people of the Jainism religion walking around nude, right?

You missed out his qualifier

barring overwhelming state interest

taking his words out of context

Is it overwhelmingly against state interests to prohibit Jainist followers to be nude in public? How does this hurt the state?

I think this thread gets at something difficult about religious tolerance. (It has been correctly noted that freedom of religion, strictly speaking, is not at issue.)

My run-in with Orthohawk was about a third-gender pronoun. He took the position that they were unnecessary because there were "evidently" only two genders and to use a third-gender pronoun would be to bear false witness. I believe him sincere in reporting his religious beliefs and I'm actually very uncomfortable with the way people have dismissed his religious beliefs for not adhering to a certain, narrow form they expect.

At any rate, this puts me in a bind. If I support third-gender people, and I have someone aggressively demanding that I defer to a two-gender system because of their religion, what can I do? His comments were never about what he would do, but, unbidden, actively asserting that Caitlyn Jenner is obviously still a man and that he would continue to misgender her and other people. He said that I might be surprised by this behavior and when I told him that, no, that's what I expected from someone who wouldn't believe the testimony of another person he accused me of religious bigotry.

He never wanted me to tolerate his unusual pronoun use (I did) or leave well enough alone about his views on third person pronouns (he sought out the above exchange). He wanted me to defer to them. He felt no need to tolerate third-gender people, we might note.

Some of the attacks against Orthohawk crossed the line---I'm not going to argue the point. And shame on those who went over it. But his religion is not an excuse for his aggressive, intolerant behavior. We cross out of "tolerance" when we excuse bad behavior with religion and give bigotry a free pass because it is cloaked in scripture.

Alkanadi:

Sfinkso:

Alkanadi:

Polaris:...I believe that the rights of people to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs must be respected at all times.

So you are okay with people of the Jainism religion walking around nude, right?

You missed out his qualifier

barring overwhelming state interest

taking his words out of context

Is it overwhelmingly against state interests to prohibit Jainist followers to be nude in public? How does this hurt the state?

Where I live that is against state interest via the state law that prohibits indecent exposure.

rikforto:If I support third-gender people, and I have someone aggressively demanding that I defer to a two-gender system because of their religion, what can I do?

To my mind any stupid and bigoted idea (such as the idea that claiming non male/female gender is "false witness" ) deserves to be rejected, regardless of whether it happens to be religiously inspired or mandated. If someone asserts nonsense then I'm going to refute it, and if that upsets them because it contradicts their religion, well frankly that's their problem. I do not think that ideas should be entitled to special respect simply because they are religious, or are perceived to be a part of a religious doctrine.

deltasalmon:

Alkanadi:
Is it overwhelmingly against state interests to prohibit Jainist followers to be nude in public? How does this hurt the state?

Where I live that is against state interest via the state law that prohibits indecent exposure.

But aren't we suppose to defend religious freedoms at all times? See the problem? When Pakistan kills people for cursing the prophet, they make the same excuse about the greater good for the society.

On the other hand, if you allow anything then everyone will make their own religion, and then they can do whatever they want and it would be a mess.

Anyway, I appreciate your viewpoints. Thanks

Alkanadi:

deltasalmon:

Alkanadi:
Is it overwhelmingly against state interests to prohibit Jainist followers to be nude in public? How does this hurt the state?

Where I live that is against state interest via the state law that prohibits indecent exposure.

But aren't we suppose to defend religious freedoms at all times? See the problem? When Pakistan kills people for cursing the prophet, they make the same excuse about the greater good for the society.

On the other hand, if you allow anything then everyone will make their own religion, and then they can do whatever they want and it would be a mess.

There's a big difference between killing someone because they did something against your religion and making verbal statements of disagreement, even rude verbal statements of disagreement.

It has to do with someone else's religious freedom ending where it starts to infringe on someone else's freedom.

I don't know how various religions deal with it but Judaism has a concept of "Dina de-malchuta dina" (Aramaic, "the law of the kingdom is the law" ), in other words, that a Jew is required to follow the law of the land. I expect that many if not most religions expect their adherents to follow local laws as far as possible, and that they try to observe their beliefs in a way that are legal wherever they live, and lobby the government for a change in the law if they feel it's not possible to observe their beliefs.

Polaris:3. I, too, was incredulous that anybody would claim that being called "ci" offended them--honestly, that just seems a little overly prickly.

FYI it's not offense at being called "ci" once. It's offense at being called "ci" after expressing a preference to this person that I would rather be called "vi". I would never be offended by a random person going around calling people "ci" and also calling me "ci", but after I express my preference to that person, I would expect them to respect it, or at least attempt to respect it, even if they mess it up sometimes. Like I said earlier, it's not an insult to call someone named Michael "Mike", but if Michael expresses to you that he'd rather be called "Michael", that is the point when it is rude to continue to refer to him as "Mike", against his wishes.

Ah, also -- I expect the individual in question to be back here in a day or two, guns blazing, as soon as his new account gets out of its new account waiting period for forum posts.