|
Post by goz on May 16, 2019 21:40:22 GMT
For those of you with the ability to read and understand reasonably complex concepts, here is quite a long wordy article about religious freedom as it is a hot topic here in Australia at the moment, owing to one of out top rugby players about to have his $4million dollar playing contract cancelled for persistently posting on social media about how Homosexuals adulterers liars and various other categories of individuals will go to Hell unless they repent and accept Jesus. He was warned an persisted The verdict is guilty and hi penalty will be announced soon.. BTW, the article is arguing for continued religious freedoms, or t least warning of wider implications of a precedent in this rugby decision www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-folau-verdict-aside-labor-threatens-religious-freedom-in-schools/ar-AABrXlb?ocid=spartandhp
One of the most interesting paragraphs/section is
Any comment is welcome on the topic, however here is a specific question.
Do you think that the right to religious freedom is equal to the right to equality as a human right? This comes up in all discussions as religious people want to discriminate against people who THEY see as lesser or different or sinning, allegedly due to what they perceive their religion promotes. Should they be allowed to?
Think of the issue with the cakes for homosexual weddings. The issue basically came down to whether religious cake makers could discriminate against homosexuals on their religious grounds which were in effect that they viewed homosexual as lesser people and 'sinners'.
The same with the woman who refused to issue marriage licences to homosexuals. Those religious people are asking that they be allowed to discriminate. ( that is what the term exemptions was talking about for religious schools and institutions. )
My personal view on religious freedom is that any individual should have total religious freedom to believe whatever they like and practice that belief under two provisos.
1. It does NOT infringe on the rights of others. 2. It is in a private arena and NOT the public or secular arena.
I believe that Religious institutions have those right based on those two provisos.
I think that they cab technically high staff and accept students who they think are in alignment with their religious ethos, as long as they don't discriminate against that person's rights. For example: I don't think that religious institutions have the right to ask or know or find out whether a student or teacher is gay (especially students due to their age and vulnerability) and should hire on merit if the candidate otherwise expresses their concurrence with the religious ethos of the school.
Overall I guess this then boils down for me, that I don't actually think that religious institutions SHOUL be bigoted and discriminate on the basis of sexuality, however if they insist that forms part of their ethos, there should be legal protections for everyone against such discrimination.
In the case of the rugby player, I think he has every right to express his views in his own sphere of influence and NO right to publicly use his influence as a well paid sporting star to project a religious view that is totally against the inclusivity of the ethos t=of the game of rugby which welcomes ALL to play and participate.
Overall I believe in the right of non-religious people to have 'freedom FROM religion'.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on May 18, 2019 3:42:41 GMT
For those of you with the ability to read and understand reasonably complex concepts, here is quite a long wordy article about religious freedom as it is a hot topic here in Australia at the moment, owing to one of our top rugby players about to have his $4million dollar playing contract cancelled for persistently posting on social media about how Homosexuals adulterers liars and various other categories of individuals will go to Hell unless they repent and accept Jesus. He was warned and persisted. The verdict is guilty and his penalty will be announced soon.. BTW, the article is arguing for continued religious freedoms, or at least warning of wider implications of a precedent in this rugby decision www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-folau-verdict-aside-labor-threatens-religious-freedom-in-schools/ar-AABrXlb?ocid=spartandhp
One of the most interesting paragraphs/section is
Any comment is welcome on the topic, however here is a specific question.
Do you think that the right to religious freedom is equal to the right to equality as a human right? This comes up in all discussions as religious people want to discriminate against people who THEY see as lesser or different or sinning, allegedly due to what they perceive their religion promotes. Should they be allowed to?
Think of the issue with the cakes for homosexual weddings. The issue basically came down to whether religious cake makers could discriminate against homosexuals on their religious grounds which were in effect that they viewed homosexual as lesser people and 'sinners'.
The same with the woman who refused to issue marriage licences to homosexuals. Those religious people are asking that they be allowed to discriminate. ( that is what the term exemptions was talking about for religious schools and institutions. )
My personal view on religious freedom is that any individual should have total religious freedom to believe whatever they like and practice that belief under two provisos.
1. It does NOT infringe on the rights of others. 2. It is in a private arena and NOT the public or secular arena.
I believe that Religious institutions have those rights based on those two provisos.
I think that they can technically hire staff and accept students who they think are in alignment with their religious ethos, as long as they don't discriminate against that person's rights. For example: I don't think that religious institutions have the right to ask or know or find out whether a student or teacher is gay (especially students due to their age and vulnerability) and should hire on merit if the candidate otherwise expresses their concurrence with the religious ethos of the school.
Overall I guess this then boils down for me, that I don't actually think that religious institutions SHOULD be bigoted and discriminate on the basis of sexuality, however if they insist that forms part of their ethos, there should be legal protections for everyone against such discrimination.
In the case of the rugby player, I think he has every right to express his views in his own sphere of influence and NO right to publicly use his influence as a well paid sporting star to project a religious view that is totally against the inclusivity of the ethos of the game of rugby which welcomes ALL to play and participate.
Overall I believe in the right of non-religious people to have 'freedom FROM religion'.
That's a lot of words, even without clicking on the link. And, it's a complex and pivotal issue. So, I will answer some of the specific questions. I absolutely agree. I think it was Christopher Hitchens that addressed this in his book, god is not great: How Religion Poisons Everything, that he is respectful of other people's religious beliefs by attending their children's bar mitzvahs and weddings and funerals, but in return they do not respect his atheism. They have to proselytize. I can't find the exact statement; I've loaned out my copy of the book. But in essence, he is speaking of the right to have freedom from religion. I also agree with your statement: But we also need to add the right to not believe any religion, and the right to not be pestered by those who do believe. I have finally added to my driveway a reflective rope with "No Trespassing" and "Private Property" signs on it, just to keep the Jehovah's Witnesses from getting to my front door. Even if I do not answer the door, they leave literature. I don't walk around a neighborhood, knocking on doors, trying to convince people to be atheists, and leaving literature if they don't answer. I'm fairly certain that if I tried that, the police would be called at some point. I'm uncertain about the soccer player. There are celebrities in the USA that are known to be Scientologists, or Catholics, or Evangelicals, but I've never heard about any of them proselytizing in the secular arena. I can't think of any celebrity or athlete having done that in the US, though they do show up at clearly identified religious gatherings. That's a private venue, and doesn't infringe on anyone else's belief system. When I was a teenager, there was a group called the "Fellowship of Christian Athletes". They would speak at, again, private events, but I always thought it was wrong for them to use their athletic fame to promote a religious belief system. In this day and age of social media, everyone has access to everyone else, and I find it appalling that the POTUS actually uses Twitter to comment (badly) on political issues. So that does make this issue more pressing. I do know that where I was last employed, no one was allowed to promote anything that wasn't related to the business itself. No Girl Scout cookies, no religious tracts, no Tupperware parties, period. If you did, you risked losing your job. The company was paying it's employees to work, and if you were working, there was no opportunity to do anything else. Another co-worker and I had a common interest - art and photography - but we NEVER discussed it during business hours or even on the company property. Cell phones were not allowed in the building. Personal use of computers was a fire-able offense. And rightly so; if someone is paying you to do a job, you play by their rules. If we wanted to continue to work there, we played by their rules. I railed at the attendance policies, but the bottom line was, they pay you, they make the rules. So, I guess the soccer player needs to be fired. It's a fine line, these freedoms and rights, and it does need discussion. I hope others chime in on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 18, 2019 13:06:21 GMT
1. It does NOT infringe on the rights of others. 2. It is in a private arena and NOT the public or secular arena.
Those two, simple, concepts should say it all where religion and the rights of religious opinion ought to begin and end in a secular society. Unfortunately, most religions incorporate within their ranks a sizeable body of the totally unreasonable and 'God-inspired' sort who are congenitally incapable of respecting or even comprehending dicta that rational. So, since that is the case, my feeling is that secular law needs to step in and place the checks and balances on those members of any and all religious bodies who refuse to respect the rights of others in the secular sphere.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 18, 2019 13:07:28 GMT
1. It does NOT infringe on the rights of others. 2. It is in a private arena and NOT the public or secular arena.Those two, simple, concepts should say it all where religion and the rights of religious opinion ought to begin and end in a secular society. Unfortunately, most religions incorporate within their ranks a sizeable body of the totally unreasonable and 'God-inspired' sort who are congenitally incapable of respecting or even comprehending dicta that rational. So, since that is the case, my feeling is that secular law needs to step in and place the checks and balances on those members of any and all religious bodies who refuse to respect the rights of others in the secular sphere. lol at thinking speech should be banned.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 18, 2019 13:10:31 GMT
1. It does NOT infringe on the rights of others. 2. It is in a private arena and NOT the public or secular arena.Those two, simple, concepts should say it all where religion and the rights of religious opinion ought to begin and end in a secular society. Unfortunately, most religions incorporate within their ranks a sizeable body of the totally unreasonable and 'God-inspired' sort who are congenitally incapable of respecting or even comprehending dicta that rational. So, since that is the case, my feeling is that secular law needs to step in and place the checks and balances on those members of any and all religious bodies who refuse to respect the rights of others in the secular sphere. lol at thinking speech should be banned. Banning speech isn't the issue here, though I don't expect you to be able to shed your myopic pro-religion uber alles stance sufficiently to get that, lol.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 18, 2019 21:27:27 GMT
Requiring a business to write a message on a cake is not a right. Requiring a sports hero to say nice things about you is not a right. Luckily no-one is proposing that here.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 18, 2019 21:28:36 GMT
Requiring a business to write a message on a cake is not a right. Requiring a sports hero to say nice things about you is not a right. No, and operating your Mammon-serving business on lines that try to mimic that of a religious dogmatist's isn't exactly a 'right' either.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 19, 2019 11:18:23 GMT
Requiring a business to write a message on a cake is not a right. Requiring a sports hero to say nice things about you is not a right. I personally couldn't care less about a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple, I would just go somewhere else, or this sports hero espousing his beliefs, because ultimately, he is the one who is playing the fool and coming across as a dense and ignorant clown, and homos were not the only ones his vitriol was aimed at. There are always going to be a consequence for attitude that is based on personal prejudice, bigotry and ignorance that is born out of a deluded notion of a sky fairy and it is understandable if it gets called out upon. If he wasn't religious, yet still held similar views, the same would happen. Good point. Let the marketplace deal with those types. They live and die by it anyway, so if their own prejudices doom them to eventual bankruptcy, they can always ask god for financial help I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 19, 2019 11:37:59 GMT
Good point. Let the marketplace deal with those types. They live and die by it anyway, so if their own prejudices doom them to eventual bankruptcy, they can always ask god for financial help I suppose. That logically applies to racial discrimination, too. Would you support repealing the laws that make racial discrimination illegal?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 19, 2019 12:11:22 GMT
lol at thinking speech should be banned. His speech wasn't banned, he himself was. He can say whatever the frick he wants all the name of Jesus, but he can take on the burden of his own attitude and wear it. He is a figure in the public eye, a role model for some and if his distorted ideals are not going to represent what is acceptable in the eyes of most, WHO ARE NOT DELUDED, then a consequence will ensue. He has dug his own hole and what he believes belongs in his own space and place of worship. I know. I don't care about that dude.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on May 19, 2019 12:15:43 GMT
Unless you are ready to fight for the "religious freedom" to stone children to death for being disobedient, then please shut up about your "religious freedom" to hate gays and deny them basic rights.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 19, 2019 12:22:42 GMT
I know. I don't care about that dude. If anything, he has put more of a scourge on Christianity by his words and attitude, rather than help to endorse it, which is what his original attention was, due to his beliefs.
His thinking isn't the thinking of a lot of Christians. Otherwise, it wouldn't be of note. However,m ignoring that, the dude should not keep his beliefs to himself. Speech included public speaking and if any other goober, religious or otherwise, can say something stupid, he can too. If anything stupid people saying stupid stuff warns people not to be around it more than it influences people.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 19, 2019 13:29:33 GMT
Good point. Let the marketplace deal with those types. They live and die by it anyway, so if their own prejudices doom them to eventual bankruptcy, they can always ask god for financial help I suppose. That logically applies to racial discrimination, too. Would you support repealing the laws that make racial discrimination illegal? First of all, demonstrate to me precisely how that 'logically' applies to racial discrimination, or the repeal of those laws prohibiting it. Secondly, I'm no fan of laissez-faire capitalism, the sort that can be used to support the racial discrimination within it that you mention. And stop trying to conflate discrimination based on race, which is an inhering physical fact (and as sexual orientation is increasingly being shown to be, as well) with discrimination based on religious practice, which is not.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 19, 2019 13:44:51 GMT
That logically applies to racial discrimination, too. Would you support repealing the laws that make racial discrimination illegal? First of all, demonstrate to me precisely how that 'logically' applies to racial discrimination, or the repeal of those laws prohibiting it. Secondly, I'm no fan of laissez-faire capitalism, the sort that can be used to support the racial discrimination within it that you mention. And stop trying to conflate discrimination based on race, which is an inhering physical fact (and as sexual orientation is increasingly being shown to be, as well) with discrimination based on religious practice, which is not. It's discrimination based on thought which often is not as voluntary as a theophobiac wishes it were. That sucks too.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 19, 2019 14:09:06 GMT
First of all, demonstrate to me precisely how that 'logically' applies to racial discrimination, or the repeal of those laws prohibiting it. Secondly, I'm no fan of laissez-faire capitalism, the sort that can be used to support the racial discrimination within it that you mention. And stop trying to conflate discrimination based on race, which is an inhering physical fact (and as sexual orientation is increasingly being shown to be, as well) with discrimination based on religious practice, which is not. It's discrimination based on thought which often is not as voluntary as a theophobiac wishes it were. That sucks too. Thought is not always voluntary, but practice generally is. It's certainly voluntary insofar as a shopkeeper making the decision whether or no to provide service to a customer based on whatever criteria. You're attempting to infer that because someone is prohibited from acting on a thought in the real world they are also prohibited from having that thought within the privacy of their own mental space. That's complete nonsense, and the kind of smokescreen theophiles tend to mistake for dazzling insight.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 19, 2019 14:15:29 GMT
That logically applies to racial discrimination, too. Would you support repealing the laws that make racial discrimination illegal? First of all, demonstrate to me precisely how that 'logically' applies to racial discrimination, or the repeal of those laws prohibiting it. OK. A baker refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because his religion opposes gay marriage. You say the marketplace can deal with it, and a law isn't needed. Logically then, the marketplace rather than the law can also deal with a baker who refuses to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple because his religion opposes interracial marriage. There should be no need for a law against such discrimination. Likewise then, there is no reason to be a fan of a laissez-faire capitalism that supports discrimination against gay people either. (In the past, segregationists would cite their religious convictions as justification. But we passed laws against exercising that false notion of "religious freedom".)
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 19, 2019 14:29:32 GMT
First of all, demonstrate to me precisely how that 'logically' applies to racial discrimination, or the repeal of those laws prohibiting it. OK. A baker refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because his religion opposes gay marriage. You say the marketplace can deal with it, and a law isn't needed. Logically then, the marketplace rather than the law can also deal with a baker who refuses to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple because his religion opposes interracial marriage. There should be no need for a law against such discrimination. Likewise then, there is no reason to be a fan of a laissez-faire capitalism that supports discrimination against gay people either. (In the past, segregationists would cite their religious convictions as justification. But we passed laws against exercising that false notion of "religious freedom".) Check the bolded part of that quote against my original statement. I at no point said, or implied, that laws were not needed to protect against the violation of civil rights, whether in the marketplace or anywhere else. My sole contention was that a shop owner who makes a point of these types of routine discrimination and refusal of service based on inane criteria will likely, in today's climate, find him or herself losing business/revenue as a result of having those who choose to vote with their wallets take their business elsewhere. That was the intent of my remark in stating that the marketplace should deal with those types. And if you read the entirety of my post, rather than selectively quoting it, you'd easily see that I stated that discrimination based on inhering physical fact, which homosexuality is being persuasively shown as being based in, shouldn't be legally permitted any more than discrimination based on race. If anything, it's the discriminatory business owner who attempts to appeal to civil rights law by claiming he or she should have some manner of legally protected 'right' to discriminate against certain members of the purchasing public!
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 19, 2019 15:16:08 GMT
OK. A baker refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because his religion opposes gay marriage. You say the marketplace can deal with it, and a law isn't needed. Logically then, the marketplace rather than the law can also deal with a baker who refuses to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple because his religion opposes interracial marriage. There should be no need for a law against such discrimination. Likewise then, there is no reason to be a fan of a laissez-faire capitalism that supports discrimination against gay people either. (In the past, segregationists would cite their religious convictions as justification. But we passed laws against exercising that false notion of "religious freedom".) Check the bolded part of that quote against my original statement. I at no point said, or implied, that laws were not needed to protect against the violation of civil rights, whether in the marketplace or anywhere else. My sole contention was that a shop owner who makes a point of these types of routine discrimination and refusal of service based on inane criteria will likely, in today's climate, find him or herself losing business/revenue as a result of having those who choose to vote with their wallets take their business elsewhere. That was the intent of my remark in stating that the marketplace should deal with those types. And if you read the entirety of my post, rather than selectively quoting it, you'd easily see that I stated that discrimination based on inhering physical fact, which homosexuality is being persuasively shown as being based in, shouldn't be legally permitted any more than discrimination based on race. If anything, it's the discriminatory business owner who attempts to appeal to civil rights law by claiming he or she should have some manner of legally protected 'right' to discriminate against certain members of the purchasing public! Come off it. I didn't misrepresent anything you said. Your words: "Let the marketplace deal with those types. They live and die by it anyway, so if their own prejudices doom them to eventual bankruptcy, they can always ask god for financial help I suppose." So, if the marketplace with its threat of bankruptcy is sufficient, you are unmistakably implying that we don't need laws barring discrimination against gay people. And then this same principle would apply to discrimination against racial minorities. The marketplace and the threat of bankruptcy ought to be enough, and laws should not be needed. But NOW (a switch) you've stated, "discrimination based on inhering physical fact, which homosexuality is being persuasively shown as being based in, shouldn't be legally permitted any more than discrimination based on race." So, now you call (and I agree) for the LAW to deal with those who discriminate against gay people, rather than just "let the marketplace deal with those types".
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 19, 2019 15:40:44 GMT
Check the bolded part of that quote against my original statement. I at no point said, or implied, that laws were not needed to protect against the violation of civil rights, whether in the marketplace or anywhere else. My sole contention was that a shop owner who makes a point of these types of routine discrimination and refusal of service based on inane criteria will likely, in today's climate, find him or herself losing business/revenue as a result of having those who choose to vote with their wallets take their business elsewhere. That was the intent of my remark in stating that the marketplace should deal with those types. And if you read the entirety of my post, rather than selectively quoting it, you'd easily see that I stated that discrimination based on inhering physical fact, which homosexuality is being persuasively shown as being based in, shouldn't be legally permitted any more than discrimination based on race. If anything, it's the discriminatory business owner who attempts to appeal to civil rights law by claiming he or she should have some manner of legally protected 'right' to discriminate against certain members of the purchasing public! Come off it. I didn't misrepresent anything you said. Your words: "Let the marketplace deal with those types. They live and die by it anyway, so if their own prejudices doom them to eventual bankruptcy, they can always ask god for Fifinancial help I suppose." So, if the marketplace with its threat of bankruptcy is sufficient, you are unmistakably implying that we don't need laws barring discrimination against gay people. And then this same principle would apply to discrimination against racial minorities. The marketplace and the threat of bankruptcy ought to be enough, and laws should not be needed. But NOW (a switch) you've stated, "discrimination based on inhering physical fact, which homosexuality is being persuasively shown as being based in, shouldn't be legally permitted any more than discrimination based on race." So, now you call (and I agree) for the LAW to deal with those who discriminate against gay people, rather than just "let the marketplace deal with those types".
Your statement is that I'm 'unmistakably' stating there is no need for civil law. Saying that bankruptcy likely faces the discriminator in the marketplace, due to his actions, doesn't obviate the need for civil laws. That's you're interpretation of my words, and not the correct interpretation either. And you're misquoting my post, which reads: First of all, demonstrate to me precisely how that 'logically' applies to racial discrimination, or the repeal of those laws prohibiting it.Secondly, I'm no fan of laissez-faire capitalism, the sort that can be used to support the racial discrimination within it that you mention. And stop trying to conflate discrimination based on race, which is an inhering physical fact (and as sexual orientation is increasingly being shown to be, as well) with discrimination based on religious practice, which is not.Where was the 'switch' you were referring to? Because I posted that observation in my second response doesn't mean it didn't apply to the first as well. Jebus, spare me from debaters who think the way to score points is by taking their opponent's words and re-tailoring them, or who try to plant their own inferences into plain statements.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 19, 2019 17:04:45 GMT
Come off it. I didn't misrepresent anything you said. Your words: "Let the marketplace deal with those types. They live and die by it anyway, so if their own prejudices doom them to eventual bankruptcy, they can always ask god for Fifinancial help I suppose." So, if the marketplace with its threat of bankruptcy is sufficient, you are unmistakably implying that we don't need laws barring discrimination against gay people. And then this same principle would apply to discrimination against racial minorities. The marketplace and the threat of bankruptcy ought to be enough, and laws should not be needed. But NOW (a switch) you've stated, "discrimination based on inhering physical fact, which homosexuality is being persuasively shown as being based in, shouldn't be legally permitted any more than discrimination based on race." So, now you call (and I agree) for the LAW to deal with those who discriminate against gay people, rather than just "let the marketplace deal with those types".
Your statement is that I'm 'unmistakably' stating there is no need for civil law. Saying that bankruptcy likely faces the discriminator in the marketplace, due to his actions, doesn't obviate the need for civil laws. That's you're interpretation of my words, and not the correct interpretation either. And you're misquoting my post, which reads: First of all, demonstrate to me precisely how that 'logically' applies to racial discrimination, or the repeal of those laws prohibiting it.Secondly, I'm no fan of laissez-faire capitalism, the sort that can be used to support the racial discrimination within it that you mention. And stop trying to conflate discrimination based on race, which is an inhering physical fact (and as sexual orientation is increasingly being shown to be, as well) with discrimination based on religious practice, which is not.Where was the 'switch' you were referring to? Because I posted that observation in my second response doesn't mean it didn't apply to the first as well. Jebus, spare me from debaters who think the way to score points is by taking their opponent's words and re-tailoring them, or who try to plant their own inferences into plain statements. Where's the switch? The switch is when you post this (what prompted my response): "Good point. Let the marketplace deal with those types. They live and die by it anyway, so if their own prejudices doom them to eventual bankruptcy, they can always ask god for financial help I suppose."
But you also post that there should be laws to deal with businesses that discriminate against gays. In an academic setting, those would be the stated opposing propositions in a debate. Say one of those, but also say the other, then you've made a switch. Sadly, this sentence of yours only highlights your confusion. Discrimination BASED ON RACE (or sexual orientation) refers to the VICTIM, and you say that it's not comparable to "discrimination based on religious practice". But the only "religious practice" we've been talking about is not the religion of the victim, but the religion of THE ONE DOING THE DISCRIMINATING. So the sentence is incoherent.
If it's your position is that it's not enough to let the market deal with discrimination against gays, and that laws are needed to deal with it, then fine. I agree with that, and I would have had no reason to respond to that post of yours in the first place.
|
|