issuevoter wrote on Mar 2
nd, 2019 at 7:58am:
The Reboot wrote on Mar 1
st, 2019 at 7:02pm:
And? This is the philosophy forum. Plenty of philosophers "generalize" without getting too into these debates. Otherwise we're just debating left vs right politics when there are other subforums for that.
I am very well aware that not all muslims are terrorists. Like I also know that not all aboriginals are smelly drunks with snot dangling out of their noses. Not all Catholics are kiddyfiddlers either. But the ones most passionate for their cause are the loudest. What would these "extremists" be, if they followed their own religion? Murderers, pedophiles, psychopaths, lunatics.
Where is the separation of law and state when many laws i.e suicide and euthanasia are illegal because of religious thinking?
Why do we have to have "Halal" certified foods?
Why is it considered sane to believe in myths that are not scientifically proven, but not sane to believe in aliens when it is in fact that alien idea which is more plausible? Why is it okay to believe in L.Ron Hubbard's aliens, but nobody else's?
If you think you will burn in hell for eating a slice of bacon, it's religious freedom.
If you think you will die of cancer if you drink chlorinated water, you're a nutjob.
Highlight: I think you meant separation of Church and State.
Once again, I don't disagree with the general idea, but there are some points I would have to challenge from a philosophical standpoint:
I don't see where Halal food comes into this. We can eat any foods we like, Halal or otherwise.
I don't think there is a blanket acceptance of Hubbard's aliens, and I am not alone. (Get it? Damn I'm funny!)
The comparison between religious Porkophobia and cancer by chlorinated water is hard for me to make. The former is doctrine, the latter is a rejection of science. They are not philosophically equivalent. Any nut job assessment would be too broad for me.
In the religious thinking of laws governing suicide and euthanasia, you are also stretching the point. Even though Australian society has a European and Christian tradition, the laws in question are not enforced for religious doctrine. Our government has evolved beyond such strictures. These legislative choices may appear to be Christian, but the lawmakers were free to make their own moral choices.
Your essential question, "Why is one unsubstantiated idea ridiculed, when others are not?" is perfectly valid. I think the reason is that Humanity, like Lewis Carroll's character, can believe six impossible things before breakfast. I would say that includes contradictions. How? By not recognising the ramifications of a belief.
I did, yes. My apologies, I sometimes mess up my wording when in a chemically altered state.
To address your challenges:
1. What does it mean to eat halal?
Halal is an Arabic word that means "permissible." In terms of food, it means food that is permissible according to Islamic law. For a meat to be certified "halal," it cannot be a forbidden cut (such as meat from hindquarters) or animal (such as pork.) [according to google]
A religious doctrine dictates what people following that faith eats. Now in Australia, we get "Halal Certified" food to pander to this faith. True, everyone can eat whatever they like and there are no laws that EVERYONE has to eat that way. Yet the spotlight and emphasis on, "this is part of the doctrine, you have to eat this food if you want to be approved in Islam" is still there.
2. True, most people laugh at scientology yet it is a recognised organized religion backed and supported by Hollywood celebrities. Does Tom Cruise and John Travolta cop the same criticism as David Icke does for his belief in an ancient bloodline of reptilian aliens taking over the world?
3. The comparison. Doctrine or not, isn't going to hell for eating pork also a rejection of science?
4. Stretching the point perhaps, but many lawmakers are religious. There is a
struggle to get these types of laws changed because of the backlash of the religious community.
Forum
Pages: 
