I do know it's year 1 of n of me being crazy productive. I was already a good developer. Turns out I'm a damn good business analyst/bot farmer/and developer.
As a religious person, I find this ruling troubling.
We bend over backward for religious dietary restrictions.
Why not sincerely held secular dietary restrictions and convictions? I also suspect the ruling would have been deliberated more if this wasn't an Australian inmate requesting Australian foods.
What is a 'secular dietary conviction'? Religious restrictions are 'God says it is morally wrong to consume this'. Are you suggesting that australian culture suggests 'it is morally wrong to not eat vegemite'? I don't think that's true.
Because if it's just 'australian people like to eat X, I'm australian, thus it's morally wrong to deny me 'X', I don't see how that's reasonable. It's also a strong australian cultural norm to not be confined to a small cell every day for the rest of your life, but that norm was knowingly taken away as part this inmates' conviction and sentencing. Surely eating vegemite is a much smaller concern compared to the imprisonment.
Religion is culture. If you doubt that, go to country X and ask them about god(s) then go to every other country and ask the same. Even if one of them got it right and is following the word of god, it would still mean every other country has got it wrong, and _theirs_ is just culture.
Now, if we bend for one cultural norm, why not another? I'd say it's not that his culture shouldn't be treated like religion, it should! It's just that religion shouldn't be treated specially in the first place.
This argument appears to me unjustified. This equating between culture and religion seems especially unworkable in modern times, where cultural groups don't have single religions at all. Eg in america there is in my opinion a single shared american culture, shared across people of different religions. If we were to equate these two things, does that imply that there is no shared american culture? I just don't see how this interpretation doesn't lead to a single stretched 'culture' term which basically ends up subsuming everything about people, and don't see how it is a useful term or how it aids in thought or understanding.
In this case, the point really isn't 'culture' vs 'religion' it's 'moral' vs 'preference'. Consuming vegemite is not a moral mandate for anyone, it's just a preference, like mayonnaise, fashion, or coke.
My argument is that a religion _is in itself_ a cultural group. Religion is culture, it's just that we have given it special status because people take it (much) more seriously than any other culture.
> does that imply that there is no shared american culture?
I think you might've convinced me of this just with your comment.
Also, flip "religion" and "culture" and the post still (mostly) works, though I don't think that proves anything.
The moral/preference idea is closer, but you get a lot of gray areas like sports teams and Sunday roasts (complete with threat of excommunication for non-adherence).
Buddhism as actually practiced for the last 2500 years ascribes all kinds of deity-like features and the supernatural to the Buddha – travel Asia and you’ll see people praying to Amitabha Buddha in order to be reborn in his Pure Land, and even Theravada Buddhism that doesn't go whole hog with pantheons still holds that the Buddha was divinely immune to fire, poison, and drowning. A non-supernatural Buddha is largely a feature of the twentieth-century West, which thought it could get something in tune with a more rational era by reviving, so it thought, “original Buddhism” with questionable results. Even non-revival, supernaturally charged strands of Buddhism have their converts in the West.
Sure, and there are followers of Christ who also do all the things he said not to (Catholics). I don't take a religion's followers as good examples of the founders intents.
The intent of Buddhism's founder is ultimately unknowable. The earliest source we have, the Pali canon, already contains the supernatural and the mythological. It cannot be emphasized enough just how modern attempts to reconstruct the "original" Buddhism are, and they are simply unfalsifiable.
But strangely, if enough people said they believed in the Great Salty Kangaroo, and part of their belief was a ritual consumption of vegemite every Tuesday - the request would have been granted.
I think that prisoners should be fed normal food which makes them feel comfortable. I'm not saying that it needs to be luxury meals, but there isn't a good reason for prisons in a free country to feed their prisoners bad food.
Sincerely held secular beliefs are protected in many jurisdictions (and should be in all). Vegans have been fighting for this issue a lot, because it is an ethical principle, held as deeply, if not more, than most religions but not religious in nature (the less charitable way to put it is the ethics are based on reality instead of fictional stories. In a sensible world it would clearly receive more support from the legal system than religious beliefs…).
This seems a little different. This seems more about “enjoyment” as opposed to a sincerely held belief.
Some places also respect that. Famously, the Norwegian terrorist who killed 77 people demanded, and received, a PlayStation 3. And if this jurisdiction had similar laws as Norway they probably would have provided vegemite.
I’m inclined to agree with your initial statement but have difficulty in determining what is the standard for a sincerely held belief. That seems like a very grey area and thus subject to abuse and capriciousness.
Note that U.S. law is less progressive on this than many European nations.
Also, it’s called a sincerely held “religious” belief but it doesn’t need to be religious at all. It does lead to bad news headlines when a certain ethical belief passes the threshold in a court of law that amount to “XYZ is a religion”.
Which is a pretty weird claim because there’s no nutrient that only occurs in port and vegemite. Or what are all the Muslims around the world eating to not be deficient? Surely not vegemite, right? But he also dropped that argument later…
I'm surprised there's no possible options to provide a "secure" Vegemite sandwich or otherwise.
They do make single-serving portions, so I don't see why it couldn't be securely acquired from a supplier and doled out single-packet-by-packet and ensuring they've actually ate the Vegemite?
This is awesome. I'll use them as a backup DNS service; the paid version is significantly cheaper than spinning up a new domain server with the cheapest provider I know.
Not to downplay my own skills, but their OpenBSD infrastructure is a good idea. They'll be up when my DNS servers are down.
Cis didn't originate from gender. Cislunar, cisalpine, etc.
And it's ok for you to not identify as cis. You get to have whatever identity you want.
We are discussing a platform that censors discussion when that discussion includes trans and not trans people. Unless you are X, the platform, I don't think your identity is germane. (And once again, you are valid.)
Not sure about earlier, but during WWI cigarettes were smoked at incredible scale, to help deal with the stresses and horrors of war. Ensuring an ample supply to front-line troops was major gov't priority.
And I certainly have known cigarette smokers who explained "yes, I know they cause cancer and other bad stuff - but they also help with other serious (physical and mental) problems that I have, and I'm choosing quality of life over quantity".
reply