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?
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
-9 points (23.5% liked)
Philosophy
493 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
It’s also simply not true.
It simply is true. You’re talking about what should happen based on something you read. I’m talking about what is happening based on concrete 1st-hand experience.
municipalities still have to allow people to book on the spot, or help them on the kiosks available.
“have to” ≠ status quo reality. Apparently you missed the demonstration in Brussels a few weeks ago where hundreds of people demanded the reopening of offline public services. Some real-world test cases:
-
case 1: If you go to the commune to deregister, you fight your way past their attempt to push the online service, at which point you talk to someone in the population registry dept. who only directs you to send the request via post. If you hand-deliver the request into their postbox, they simply ignore it. (side note: ignoring postal correspondence is the same way public services in the US have started quietly unofficially imposed online transactions)
-
case 2: If you go to the commune to reserve parking in front of your property for workers, they point to a QR code on the wall. If you insist on an offline transaction, the receptionist refuses. If you say that you need to pay cash, the receptionist says “impossible, because online is the only way”.
“have to” ≠ reality also for analog payments. It is legally obligatory in Belgium for money recipients to accept cash banknotes. But it’s not enforced. Both the gov and private sector services (e.g. Vivaqua) are violating that law.
So indeed, you cannot simply trust at face value what you read is supposed to happen. You need to actually demand offline service yourself. Best to test it in Brussels; this is where some communes are experimenting with digital exclusion.
From the flemish website
(…)Maar waar ze altijd welkom zijn op het gemeentehuis als ze dat wensen.
That page is undated and that quote is no longer true. Case 2 above happened this year.
How is philosophy orthogonal to religion?
When a group claims rights to practice their religion because being forced to go against their religion is unconscionable, and they are rightfully granted their religious freedom while another non-religious group equally considers the same force to be unconscionable, but lack the shield of religious freedom (as they don’t follow a religious text that’s relevant to the matter), how is that not a philosophical discussion?
If you went to a university to get an answer to this, which discipline would you pose the question to if not philosophy department?
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?
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 what you quoted (which was speaking of a general philosophical scenario that manifests in the real world in parallel to the hypothetical Amish scenario).
Incidentally, 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 involves 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. You hi-jacked the train then off-railed it. 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. Try to show people that you’re somehow more than an annoying troll.
This seems to be a legal/law question about Belgium specifically? Not philosophy.
Namely: Does Belgium law require agencies and companies to provide offline interfaces if a religion requires not using digital services/technology.
Law is driven by philosophy. When discussing high-level laws at the constitutional level and above (international/human rights), “law” loses effectiveness as such and becomes more of a philosophical guide. It’s not concrete when specific scenarios are not pinned down, and rarely enforced as a consequence. There is an abstract human right that we have freedom of religion, but national law can often contradict human rights.
There are no Amish communities in Europe (and AFAIk, no notable religions that oppose the digital transformation). So there would be not likely be national law that protects them. The question is hypothetical. Answering it requires understanding the meaning, purpose, and history of the freedom of religion, which itself would never be elaborated in law. The law is clean, hard and fast, without history and usually without rationale.
It’s an inherently philosophical question but with legal interplay. So it’s a 10,000 foot view question of how freedom of religion gets implemented in Europe. The philosophy cannot be neglected because it’s the driver.
Namely: Does Belgium law require agencies and companies to provide offline interfaces if a religion requires not using digital services/technology.
I would guess unlikely because there are no such religions in Belgium, AFAIK. The Amish would be in for a struggle. They would have to bring a complaint to court about digital transformation excluding them with no concrete law covering them, and try to cling to that rarely enforced body of human rights law. They might prevail in a high court, but what about someone who is not Amish, but who has the same moral objections? The Amish are Christians who morally object to lots of technology but strictly speaking the anti-tech is not really driven by Christianity. It’s more of a culture that is fused with their religion, which enables them to benefit from religious protections despite Christianity not being the driver. So a non-religious person who finds the forced use technology to be as unconscionable as an Amish practicioner would be equally oppressed, but would a court recognize this? Probably not, but if Amish were to arrive, then the question is would the law be written specifically to protect the Amish or would it be generalized enough that non-religious people would benefit? It’s all a question/prediction based on philosophy, psychology, law, and history.