|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
On December 13 2012 21:41 KwarK wrote:
ninini, the issue I am having is why secular law doesn't apply to religion in a secular society. It's no stranger to say that baking law should apply to bakeries than religious law to apply to religions. If they are to be granted exemptions from laws that apply to every other group, be it a political party, business, private club or anything else then it must be justified beyond different treatment because they're different. A bakery is different to a political party but it's still held to the same law. Furthermore the convictions of people in political parties are just as strongly held and it is much easier to argue why political affiliation should be unrestricted.
We do have freedom of speech, but there are restrictions, like hate speech. We are supposedly free to say whatever we want, but still it's illegal to say some things. There must be exceptions. In Sweden it's illegal to show commercials about alcoholic drinks or drugs like cigarettes. That's discrimination against certain companies and the target audience. It's also illegal here to smoke in bars, in restaurants, etc. That's discrimination against smokers. Sure, they can smoke somewhere else, but you can also say that gay ppl can get married somewhere else.
If you let secular law rule over religion, we can't have freedom of religion, because you would put restrictions on the church's policies, and neither could we have freedom of choice, because you would force priests to do something that they don't agree with. So for that reason it's an exception.
I know it's the norm to persecute religious ppl these days, but it needs to stop.
|
On December 14 2012 00:55 ninini wrote:
It's also illegal here to smoke in bars, in restaurants, etc. That's discrimination against smokers. Sure, they can smoke somewhere else, but you can also say that gay ppl can get married somewhere else.
That is not an example of discrimination. Discrimination means the laws must apply differently to two people.
Neither my sister nor I may smoke in a bar in Sweden. There is no discrimination there.
My sister may marry Justin Bieber, but I may not in the state of North Carolina. That is discrimination.
When the government punishes behavior that would have wanted to engage in that is not discrimination.
It is also not discrimination when the government rewards behavior that you do not want to engage in.
Discrimination is when the laws apply differently to different people.
|
United States41961 Posts
I don't believe in freedom of religion in any sense more than I believe in freedom of bakery. I'd see them no more free to discriminate than anyone else. I agree that it would end freedom of religion but if I challenge the principe of freedom of religion then saying "but freedom of religion" is just describing my view rather than arguing against it. They'll still be as free as the baker. The freedom that people seem to confuse freedom of religion with is freedom of thought and opinion, the freedom that lets you be an anarchist or a racist or a capitalist. They're taking that principle, which is in no way under threat, and extending it to being able to act as they want as well as just thinking but saying that it should apply to religion only. It's a nonsense, you're not allowed to believe what you want because of freedom of religion, you're just allowed to believe what you want. I see no link between the freedom to think what you like, about religious matters or otherwise, and the right to have your actions legally protected.
I also see no reason why holding religion to the same basic set of rules on how you treat others is persecuting them. Refusal to grant special exemptions to pander to their desire to discriminate is hardly persecution.
|
I think that there is social value in the church as an institution which can offer resistance and counterweight to the secular authority. I think this is plenty of reason to treat the church differently. I am not a religious person and I have not attended church in many years. But I think that, unless there is a really good reason otherwise, the state should stay out of the sanctuary.
And I think this law will work against the main social goal, which is to encourage and leave open the door to doctrinal/ideological change towards acceptance of homosexuality.
|
On December 14 2012 01:05 KwarK wrote:
I don't believe in freedom of religion in any sense more than I believe in freedom of bakery. I'd see them no more free to discriminate than anyone else. I agree that it would end freedom of religion but if I challenge the principe of freedom of religion then saying "but freedom of religion" is just describing my view rather than arguing against it. They'll still be as free as the baker.
I also see no reason why holding religion to the same basic set of rules on how you treat others is persecuting them. Refusal to grant special exemptions to pander to their desire to discriminate is hardly persecution.
I see religions as similar to a any other or association.
A boxer in a boxing club who frequently cheats and deals too many low blows would not be prosecuted for assault, but instead kicked out of the club. Should the club be forced to keep him as a member until they can get an assault conviction or at least win a civil suit against him?
Now consider a political association. Can a political party kick out certain members who the party does not consider to be loyal? If Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are holding a high level political strategy meeting, can Joe Biden show up and say he wants in?
In business these sorts of laws already exist, but there is a loophole for politics. Basically if the major energy CEOs want to get together to have a conversation they need to allow others to monitor what is said and record what is said or they could run foul of anti-trust laws. Otherwise there is a risk that they may conspire to run up the price of energy.
If they are fortunate enough to be meeting with an important politician such as Vice President Dick Cheney, then Dick Cheney can claim "executive privilege."
If people are allowed to keep secrets then they must be able to restrict who can join a club. The alternative is that all meetings are open meetings.
Another issue is that minority clubs can be disrupted if they cannot keep out members of the majority.
For instance if a LGTB club forms on campus, would they be forced to allow straight members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes or Inter Varsity? What if those members join the club and then promptly vote to disband it, or to spend its money on a campaign that promotes a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Without the ability to keep out members who disagree with it, any minority association runs the risk of being hijacked at any time.
|
One thing I've noticed is that college kids, in their youthful zeal for democratic ideals, have a poor appreciation for the historical importance of religion and traditional moral values. You see, for a very long time, morality wasn't merely "do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't physically harm someone else". In fact, it it all developed very naturally over thousands and thousands of years around what was best for the stability of society. This actually extended a lot further than mere physical well-being, which is a very naive way of looking at things. I'll just stop there and you can take a few years to read up on it if you'd like.
|
On December 14 2012 01:48 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 01:05 KwarK wrote:
I don't believe in freedom of religion in any sense more than I believe in freedom of bakery. I'd see them no more free to discriminate than anyone else. I agree that it would end freedom of religion but if I challenge the principe of freedom of religion then saying "but freedom of religion" is just describing my view rather than arguing against it. They'll still be as free as the baker.
I also see no reason why holding religion to the same basic set of rules on how you treat others is persecuting them. Refusal to grant special exemptions to pander to their desire to discriminate is hardly persecution. I see religions as similar to a any other or association
That's a fair argument. I would accept that if:
Religious organisations were held to the exact same laws that other organisation are, no exceptions.
Religious organisations filed accounts and paid taxes.
Religious organisations could not perform legally binding marriages.
Children under the age of 16 were not allowed to be members of a religious organisation.
The Church of England did not get 28 (I think?) seats in the house of lords.
|
On December 14 2012 01:53 hzflank wrote:
Religious organisations were held to the exact same laws that other organisation are, no exceptions.
Yes.
On December 14 2012 01:53 hzflank wrote:
Religious organisations filed accounts and paid taxes.
Yes, assuming all organizations (including non profits) must do the same.
On December 14 2012 01:53 hzflank wrote:
Religious organisations could not perform legally binding marriages.
Organizations can perform whatever marriages they want. It is up to the state to decide what is legally binding.
In North Carolina you need a marriage license to make a marriage legally binding.
On December 14 2012 01:53 hzflank wrote:
Children under the age of 16 were not allowed to be members of a religious organisation.
Why not? They can join other organizations?
On December 14 2012 01:53 hzflank wrote:
The Church of England did not get 28 (I think?) seats in the house of lords.
As an American I think having a house of lords is hysterical to begin with and setting aside 28 seats for the Church of England is icing on the cake.
|
On December 14 2012 01:49 jdsowa wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that college kids, in their youthful zeal for democratic ideals, have a poor appreciation for the historical importance of religion and traditional moral values. You see, for a very long time, morality wasn't merely "do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't physically harm someone else". In fact, it it all developed very naturally over thousands and thousands of years around what was best for the stability of society. This actually extended a lot further than mere physical well-being, which is a very naive way of looking at things. I'll just stop there and you can take a few years to read up on it if you'd like.
Sorry for continuing this off-topic tangent, but do you have some sort of proof that the set of morals developed over thousands and thousands of years was caused directly by religion?
Some of the most immoral acts, by anyone's standards, in recorded history through today, are done by religious people in the name of religion.
I like to think this world would be much better place if people would realize it is possible to have a strong moral code without religious nonsense.
|
On December 14 2012 01:05 KwarK wrote:
I don't believe in freedom of religion in any sense more than I believe in freedom of bakery. I'd see them no more free to discriminate than anyone else. I agree that it would end freedom of religion but if I challenge the principe of freedom of religion then saying "but freedom of religion" is just describing my view rather than arguing against it. They'll still be as free as the baker. The freedom that people seem to confuse freedom of religion with is freedom of thought and opinion, the freedom that lets you be an anarchist or a racist or a capitalist. They're taking that principle, which is in no way under threat, and extending it to being able to act as they want as well as just thinking but saying that it should apply to religion only. It's a nonsense, you're not allowed to believe what you want because of freedom of religion, you're just allowed to believe what you want. I see no link between the freedom to think what you like, about religious matters or otherwise, and the right to have your actions legally protected.
I also see no reason why holding religion to the same basic set of rules on how you treat others is persecuting them. Refusal to grant special exemptions to pander to their desire to discriminate is hardly persecution.
assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. if you dont have freedom of religion though, would there be a UK government to even make laws? if the U.S. took away the freedom of religion, the government would fall and then there would be no laws. when the government no longer supports its constituents' beliefs, it no longer functions as a government--the so called "pandering."
|
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo.
|
On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo.
there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it.
|
On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it.
Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.
|
On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.
my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech.
|
On December 14 2012 04:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech.
On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo.
That's why?
We have freedom of speech in this country, but not to the extent where you can just go around saying what you want, when you want and to who you want. There isn't complete anarchy as a result of this heinous infringement on our right to free speech.
Similarly, if religious organisations weren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just like every other non religious organisation your suggestion that the government would collapse is equally as incorrect.
|
On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it.
It's not a case of banning religion or even religious practice, it's a case of banning particular kinds of religious practice. When I used to live in London, I used to hear every now and again about African people doing unspeakable harm to vulnerable people or children under their care due to exorcisms under a spiritualist/religious basis (I think there's a special police ring dedicated to it now). This would never be allowed under 'freedom of religion,' what is being discussed is no different - it is lengthening the boundary over what is not permitted at religious practice.
Your point on the dependance of government on religion is an interesting one. The whole idea of a secular government is that no one religion dominates the political authority (historically of course there is a deep running Christian doctrine to the government of the UK). It's kind of meant to work like a ban on cigarette advertising - since all companies are banned from advertising then no-one is at a disadvantage/misrepresentation of any other, so no-one minds.
In all honesty I can hardly see the British government collapse if it didn't have religious support, in fact no single party won the general election so really they don't have the support of a solid majority and still they get by.
EDIT:
my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech.
I wouldn't take it as a case in point that since religious groups are mentioned in this bill that they have a particularly string sway in the the UK.
|
On December 14 2012 04:31 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech. Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. That's why? We have freedom of speech in this country, but not to the extent where you can just go around saying what you want when you want to who you want. There isn't complete anarchy as a result of this heinous infringement on our right to free speech. Similarly, if religious organisations weren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just like every other non religious organisation your suggestion that the government would collapse is equally as incorrect.
there is a difference between taking away the freedom of religion, and infringing on the freedom of religion. and people dont hold the freedom of speech as dearly as they do the freedom of religion. its like comparing apples to oranges. if you take away the freedom of religion then you're going to have a really bad time if you're a government like the U.S. (not sure if its as bad in the U.K.).
but, thats beside the point, the constituents want a freedom of religion, and thus, the government has to follow their wishes. so, why do religions get special treatment over private organizations? because the people want it.
|
On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
Because the complete colonization of the life-world by goal-oriented cognitive-instrumental rationality (i.e. bourgeois secular authority) is a Very Bad Thing. If you want a more elaborate argument, I would recommend reading _The Theory of Communicative Action_ by Jürgen Habermas.
edit: You could also read _The Dialectic of Enlightenment_ by Adorno and Horkheimer though I do not hold as closely to their position in that text.
|
On December 14 2012 04:34 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. It's not a case of banning religion or even religious practice, it's a case of banning particular kinds of religious practice. When I used to live in London, I used to hear every now and again about African people doing unspeakable harm to vulnerable people or children under their care due to exorcisms under a spiritualist/religious basis (I think there's a special police ring dedicated to it now). This would never be allowed under 'freedom of religion,' what is being discussed is no different - it is lengthening the boundary over what is not permitted at religious practice. Your point on the dependance of government on religion is an interesting one. The whole idea of a secular government is that no one religion dominates the political authority (historically of course there is a deep running Christian doctrine to the government of the UK). It's kind of meant to work like a ban on cigarette advertising - since all companies are banned from advertising then no-one is at a disadvantage/misrepresentation of any other, so no-one minds. In all honesty I can hardly see the British government collapse if it didn't have religious support, in fact no single party won the general election so really they don't have the support of a solid majority and still they get by. EDIT: Show nested quote +my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech. I wouldn't take it as a case in point that since religious groups are mentioned in this bill that they have a particularly string sway in the the UK.
first, taking away freedom of religion and infringing freedom of religion are two separate things.
second, i didnt say the government was dependent on religions per se. they are dependent on their constituents, and when their constituents are religious then they have to "pander" to the religious views. if religions werent a strong lobbying force in the U.K. then its unlikely they would have the swagger to force an exception to the general anti-discrimination rule.
the point though is that the reason there is a freedom of religion is that the constituents want it. and the reason that they are making exceptions for religions, and not private groups, is because the people want it. governments dont work if they dont support the people's beliefs.
|
On December 14 2012 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:31 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech. On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. That's why? We have freedom of speech in this country, but not to the extent where you can just go around saying what you want when you want to who you want. There isn't complete anarchy as a result of this heinous infringement on our right to free speech. Similarly, if religious organisations weren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just like every other non religious organisation your suggestion that the government would collapse is equally as incorrect. there is a difference between taking away the freedom of religion, and infringing on the freedom of religion. and people dont hold the freedom of speech as dearly as they do the freedom of religion. its like comparing apples to oranges. if you take away the freedom of religion then you're going to have a really bad time if you're a government like the U.S. (not sure if its as bad in the U.K.). but, thats beside the point, the constituents want a freedom of religion, and thus, the government has to follow their wishes. so, why do religions get special treatment over private organizations? because the people want it.
I think you're interpreting parliamentary democracy far too openly (and naively even) , it's not like we've had a referendum on it or anything.
We basically vote for people to make political decisions for us, to be cynical they usually reneg on the commitments that got them voted in straight away - LibDems on tutition fees anyone? I appreciate you may not be aware of the context, but as a Conservative-led coalition government it is very easy to imagine that the bill may be being pushed through with the religious content due to the wishes of a few powerful Torys.
EDIT: to be clear, to simply say "it's in the bill therefore it is the will of the constituents" is not true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
