|
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 14 2012 04:45 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote: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.
well, i am assuming the government is working as intended. if people dont like decisions made on religious principles, i would assume they wouldnt vote for people who make decisions made on religious principles.
|
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.
Freedom of religion has limits.
I am not proposing the removal of freedom of religion.
The boundaries of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both dictated by secular law. If the non-discrimination of homosexuals was one futher limitation on religions "the people" are not going to rise up in anarchy.
Like I said, "freedom of religion" is as valid a counter argument to why religions should be allowed special treatment over non religious organisations as "freedom of speech" is a valid counter argument to a libel lawsuit.
I couldn't care less if the majority of people are religious and believe with absolutely no justification that religious organisations deserve special treatment. I'm asking can you justify it without just repeating "freedom of religion" over and over?
|
On December 14 2012 04:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote: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. Freedom of religion has limits. I am not proposing the removal of freedom of religion. The boundaries of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both dictated by secular law. If the non-discrimination of homosexuals was one futher limitation on religions "the people" are not going to rise up in anarchy. Like I said, "freedom of religion" is as valid a counter argument to why religions should be allowed special treatment over non religious organisations as "freedom of speech" is a valid counter argument to a libel lawsuit. I couldn't care less if the majority of people are religious and believe with absolutely no justification that religious organisations deserve special treatment. I'm asking can you justify it without just repeating "freedom of religion" over and over?
they deserve special treatment because the people want them to deserve special treatment. that has been my whole point all along. governments do what the people want (hopefully).
|
What sort of justification would you accept? I don't feel like you're prepared to listen to much of anything.
Then again from your handle it seems you may have delusions of Robespierre so there's that, I guess.
|
It is right that religious organizations should be held accountable to laws to protect British subjects from discrimination in the same way as any other organization are.
This is a matter of right and wrong, the supposed democratic will of the people (in the unlikely event that it is actually being expressed in this bill - or in any other for that matter) is fairly low on the list of priorities. It is both wrong and illegal to discriminate against those protected under the Equality Act 2010.
If more or less people felt that anyone deserved to be treated with discrimination it would not change whether it was right or wrong.
EDIT: to second guess any counter arguments under human rights and freedom of expression, I take KwarK's line: that you can - nigh must - be intolerant to intolerance.
|
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/
|
On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
I already know there isn't an answer.
sigh
edit: I've tried to give you my reason but you haven't even acknowledged it, just kept repeating that it doesn't exist.
edit: so I guess your question is purely rhetorical then. nice.
|
On December 14 2012 05:13 Deleuze wrote:
It is right that religious organizations should be held accountable to laws to protect British subjects from discrimination in the same way as any other organization are.
This is a matter of right and wrong, the supposed democratic will of the people (in the unlikely event that it is actually being expressed in this bill - or in any other for that matter) is fairly low on the list of priorities. It is both wrong and illegal to discriminate against those protected under the Equality Act 2010.
If more or less people felt that anyone deserved to be treated with discrimination it would not change whether it was right or wrong.
EDIT: to second guess any counter arguments under human rights and freedom of expression, I take KwarK's line: that you can be intolerant to intolerance.
so, the government should do what it feels is right, not what the people feel is right. got it.
|
On December 14 2012 05:13 Deleuze wrote:
It is right that religious organizations should be held accountable to laws to protect British subjects from discrimination in the same way as any other organization are.
This is a matter of right and wrong, the supposed democratic will of the people (in the unlikely event that it is actually being expressed in this bill - or in any other for that matter) is fairly low on the list of priorities. It is both wrong and illegal to discriminate against those protected under the Equality Act 2010.
If more or less people felt that anyone deserved to be treated with discrimination it would not change whether it was right or wrong.
Additionally, it is wrong for the government to artificially lend its support de facto to church leadership when said leadership is currently embroiled in conflict with its congregations over doctrinal matters. The government has no place in this debate.
|
On December 14 2012 05:15 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
I already know there isn't an answer. sigh
On December 14 2012 04:55 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't feel like you're prepared to listen to much of anything.
Then again from your handle it seems you may have delusions of Robespierre so there's that, I guess.
See when I read that post? I sighed. I also then did you the undeserved courtesy of responding honestly and as best I could.
Thanks for doing the same 
|
That's not the post where I gave you my reason. That's the post after you ignored me trying to give me my reason.
|
has anyone else noticed the irony in the some, but not all, UK view that religion isnt important, and the some, but not all, US view that religion is important?
|
On December 14 2012 05:20 dAPhREAk wrote:
has anyone else noticed the irony in the some, but not all, UK view that religion isnt important, and the some, but not all, US view that religion is important?
I'm not entirely sure I'd call that irony, it seems rather plainly fitting imo 
|
What IS ironic is one atheist arguing with another atheist about freedom of conscience.
|
On December 14 2012 05:20 dAPhREAk wrote:
has anyone else noticed the irony in the some, but not all, UK view that religion isnt important, and the some, but not all, US view that religion is important?
I think being lax on a topic allows for better compromise. The more fanatical you are, the more you're going to see the world in black and white. An extremist would rather lose everything and be a victim for his/her cause than to be half right and keep tight lipped.
|
On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/
can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial?
|
On December 14 2012 05:18 sam!zdat wrote:
That's not the post where I gave you my reason. That's the post after you ignored me trying to give me my reason.
On December 14 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Sorry, I genuinely missed this post.
Would you mind putting it in laymans terms and explaining why it's a bad thing, in your opinon, as simply as possible?
|
On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial?
The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right?
I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist".
That's why.
|
On December 14 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:13 Deleuze wrote:
It is right that religious organizations should be held accountable to laws to protect British subjects from discrimination in the same way as any other organization are.
This is a matter of right and wrong, the supposed democratic will of the people (in the unlikely event that it is actually being expressed in this bill - or in any other for that matter) is fairly low on the list of priorities. It is both wrong and illegal to discriminate against those protected under the Equality Act 2010.
If more or less people felt that anyone deserved to be treated with discrimination it would not change whether it was right or wrong.
EDIT: to second guess any counter arguments under human rights and freedom of expression, I take KwarK's line: that you can be intolerant to intolerance.
so, the government should do what it feels is right, not what the people feel is right. got it.
Morality exist independently of the political and democratic sphere. More people wanting something to be right does not make it right.
What you have hit on however is the issue of parliamentary government: how governments identify and exercise the right act. I'm not saying this is easy by any means, indeed that is precisely how governments act, against democratic will.
To go to (that otherwise bastard) Aristotle, the good life is obtained through the good and just state. The good and just state is one free from discrimination and intolerance. This is completely and utterly ideological, but what is important, is it also reasonable? Yes it is.
|
On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why.
that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
