|
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 05:32 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote: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.
i agree with what you are saying. but there is no universal code of morality, so we are forced to allow the people to decide. you guys think that homophobia is wrong, others disagree with you. who is right? there is no final arbiter other than the democractic/parliamentary process.
|
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized.
edit: I feel that there is a strange tendency among secularists to think that religion is somehow "going away," that it is only for silly stupid people who haven't been Enlightened yet with the Power of Science. For the secularist, it is only a matter of time until this old hogwash dies out and we can all worship Degrasse Tyson instead, and so that is an excuse to exercise legislative strongarm tactics to simply speed up the process or something. "Oh, nobody cares, in the future everyone will be just like me and so it will all be okay." I think these people are in for a rude awakening.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized.
I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling.
|
I really don't see why a government should be evolved in Marriage to begin with. I feel it gives undue credibility to the whole thing and is often used as a tool to discriminate against people who don't fit a mould, gay or straight. I kind of feel that any adult should be able to make a contract with any other adult and if in that contract they decide to use the word marriage and define it as how they want.
Like when I hear about people dying alone because a hospital has a policy of only immediate family can be in the room or when parents that abandoned there kids for being gay decades ago have power of attorney over their significant other, it just reinforce to me that the government really doesn't have a place in deciding what relationships should matter or be recognized.
|
On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling.
im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it.
|
Sure. I also think that calling it a "service" is begging the question. A "service" is not necessarily a "service", if you get my drift 
Besides the secularist/capitalist axiom of universal commensurability (the idea that all things should be able to be exchanged for all other things across a unified medium of exchange), which I don't accept, there's "no good reason" to say that a religious ritual should be a considered a "service" from the point of view of legislation. I don't think religion is a business (some "religions" are businesses, this to me just means they are bad religions).
On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling. im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it.
yes, that's what stifles doctrinal progress towards acceptance of homosexuality.
|
On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote: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.
The reasoning must be impartial because I said so?
I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.
Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it!
I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round...
|
On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote: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. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round...
"Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority".
|
On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote: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. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority".
when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways.
|
On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:
The reasoning must be impartial because I said so?
After the revolution, I'm putting this up in stone above the Palace of the Chairman.
|
On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote: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. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways.
Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase?
Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol 
|
On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote: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. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority".
Then what kind of robust reasoning do they subscribe to? Please enlighten me. That's all I'm asking for.
sam!zdat:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized.
edit: I feel that there is a strange tendency among secularists to think that religion is somehow "going away," that it is only for silly stupid people who haven't been Enlightened yet with the Power of Science. For the secularist, it is only a matter of time until this old hogwash dies out and we can all worship Degrasse Tyson instead, and so that is an excuse to exercise legislative strongarm tactics to simply speed up the process or something. "Oh, nobody cares, in the future everyone will be just like me and so it will all be okay." I think these people are in for a rude awakening.
We are talking about two different things here though. This legislation does indeed prevent doctrinal progress towards an acceptable of homosexuality, which is definitely not good. I think most people here are in agreement of that.
The way it does this is to give undeniable rights to the church to be allowed to discriminate in ways that other non religious organisations are not, and it's has been suggested (and I obviously agree) that this different treatment for religious organisations is wrong.
You've said you think we need to allow as much freedom as possible in order for a society to be healthy. I'm not going to agree or disagree with that, but if that's true you then need to weigh the freedom of gay couples to get married just like everyone else against the churches right to discriminate against them.
I think the rights of these people are more important than the infringment upon the current official doctrine of any religious organisation that takes place by allowing them the same treatment as heterosexual couples.
This now does actually bring up the issue of forcing the church to do things they don't want to, and perhaps avoiding this tricky situation is the very reason this half-compromise of a bill is being suggested.
That said, like most others, I don't think it's a good idea.
On December 14 2012 06:24 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:
The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? After the revolution, I'm putting this up in stone above the Palace of the Chairman.
As entertaining as you find this piece of comedy, it's just a way of saying it has to be impartial because you are talking to me and that's what I've asked for?
You seem to think I'm going into dictator mode and introducing a new world order, all I'm saying is I'm not happy with "the majority says so so just accept it" as an explanation, and I'd like some impartial justification for why the majority is right?
Is that such a crime?
|
On December 14 2012 06:05 sam!zdat wrote:Sure. I also think that calling it a "service" is begging the question. A "service" is not necessarily a "service", if you get my drift Besides the secularist/capitalist axiom of universal commensurability (the idea that all things should be able to be exchanged for all other things across a unified medium of exchange), which I don't accept, there's "no good reason" to say that a religious ritual should be a considered a "service" from the point of view of legislation. I don't think religion is a business (some "religions" are businesses, this to me just means they are bad religions). Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling. im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it. yes, that's what stifles doctrinal progress towards acceptance of homosexuality.
I'm warming to your approach sam!zdat. Tell me, why do you not the axiom?
|
On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote: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. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol
regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason.
|
On December 14 2012 06:29 Reason wrote:
Then what kind of robust reasoning do they subscribe to? Please enlighten me. That's all I'm asking for.
Well, I'm not a fan of the game of pejorative ideological "pin the tail on donkey", meaning I don't really think use of the word "they" as it reflects on religious people as a group worthy of categorical definition makes sense. There sure are some conservative, fundamentalist religious folk who very desperately cling to their majority status, but there are also a ton of people who go to church, consider themselves Christian, question God and the bible, and believe in progressive social policy. The label "religious" does not entail the sort of caricatured, Neil Degrasse Tyson fueled conception many people seem to take as fact.
|
On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote: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. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason.
I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree.
I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to.
Farva:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote: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. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". On December 14 2012 06:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:29 Reason wrote:
Then what kind of robust reasoning do they subscribe to? Please enlighten me. That's all I'm asking for. Well, I'm not a fan of the game of pejorative ideological "pin the tail on donkey", meaning I don't really think use of the word "they" as it reflects on religious people as a group worthy of categorical definition makes sense. There sure are some conservative, fundamentalist religious folk who very desperately cling to their majority status, but there are also a ton of people who go to church, consider themselves Christian, question God and the bible, and believe in progressive social policy. The label "religious" does not entail the sort of caricatured, Neil Degrasse Tyson fueled conception many people seem to take as fact.
On December 14 2012 04:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:51 Reason wrote: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).
Have I misunderstood here?
That's exactly the flimsy reasoning that I'm arguing against...
He said that's the way it is, I said that's not good enough and now you've claimed that's not how it is.
Well tell me, how is it? Your response so far is basically "I don't know but they are smart too and have good reasons, but I don't know"
|
On December 14 2012 06:29 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized.
edit: I feel that there is a strange tendency among secularists to think that religion is somehow "going away," that it is only for silly stupid people who haven't been Enlightened yet with the Power of Science. For the secularist, it is only a matter of time until this old hogwash dies out and we can all worship Degrasse Tyson instead, and so that is an excuse to exercise legislative strongarm tactics to simply speed up the process or something. "Oh, nobody cares, in the future everyone will be just like me and so it will all be okay." I think these people are in for a rude awakening. We are talking about two different things here though. This legislation does indeed prevent doctrinal progress towards an acceptable of homosexuality, which is definitely not good. I think most people here are in agreement of that. The way it does this is to give undeniable rights to the church to be allowed to discriminate in ways that other non religious organisations are not, and it's has been suggested (and I obviously agree) that this different treatment for religious organisations is wrong.
Can you elaborate on why?
You've said you think we need to allow as much freedom as possible in order for a society to be healthy. I'm not going to agree or disagree with that, but if that's true you then need to weigh the freedom of gay couples to get married just like everyone else against the churches right to discriminate against them.
False choice. Gay couples can get married in a different church, and from the point of the view of the state the church ceremony is irrelevant. You think legislating that their church must marry them is going to solve any of their problems?
edit: also I'm not talking about "Freedom" as some vague liberal buzzword. Specifically I'm talking about freedom of conscience. Ability to get married isn't freedom in that sense, so I wouldn't see it as an equivalent thing.
edit: this may really be the sticking point. I don't think "freedom to get married" and "freedom to discriminate" are the same kind of freedom, so I've no problem at all treating them differently.
I think the rights of these people are more important than the infringment upon the current official doctrine of any religious organisation that takes place by allowing them the same treatment as heterosexual couples.
What rights does it infringe upon if they can still get married, just not in that church? Sure, it sucks that your community doesn't accept you, but the government can't fix that with legislation. I don't see the point of a right to get married in any church, not practical or sensical. I don't have the right to get married in a Hindu ceremony, for example, not being a Hindu. I think that's a better analogy. I wouldn't go campaigning for the right to get a Hindu wedding.
This now does actually bring up the issue of forcing the church to do things they don't want to, and perhaps avoiding this tricky situation is the very reason this half-compromise of a bill is being suggested.
Yes, that's what they're trying to do, and it's an abysmal failure.
The only solution is to guarantee full secular equality and leave the religious stuff to the churches.
Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:24 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:
The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? After the revolution, I'm putting this up in stone above the Palace of the Chairman. As entertaining as you find this piece of comedy, it's just a way of saying it has to be impartial because you are talking to me and that's what I've asked for? You seem to think I'm going into dictator mode and introducing a new world order, all I'm saying is I'm not happy with "the majority says so so just accept it" as an explanation, and I'd like some impartial justification for why the majority is right? Is that such a crime?
I'm not sure what you mean by impartial. I just thought it was funny because I think all mises en abyme are funny, that being the crisis of our age and all.
|
On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote: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. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to.
my post:
assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws.
now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination.
|
On December 14 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to. my post: Show nested quote +assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination.
How do you reconcile the fact that one religious group might want to impinge upon the freedom of religion of an other religious group? How is this not applicable to a religious group impinging upon any other group?
|
On December 14 2012 06:53 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:
[quote]
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. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to. my post: assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination. How do you reconcile the fact that one religious group might want to impinge upon the freedom of religion of an other religious group? How is this not applicable to a religious group impinging upon any other group?
can you give an example so we can have a more concrete thought experiment to work with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
