|
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 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?
its freedom from interference by the government, not other religious groups.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:29 Reason wrote: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? Show nested quote +
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. Show nested quote +
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. Show nested quote +
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.
Sorry now that you've very neatly quoted and answered each part of the post, if I try to do that it's going to be very difficult and messy, so I'm just going to respond in the usual fashion. I trust you are aware of your own post enough to know what point I'm responding to at any given time. I'll do it in order of course.
Yes, I think it's wrong to grant them special treatment for the same reasons as have been repeated repeatedly already. Their set of beliefs is no more or less important than the set of beliefs held by any other non religious organisation, thus special treatment and consideration for their beliefs is inappropriate and in itself discrimination.
It's not a false choice.
Homosexual couples are not "free" to marry how they please in the way that heterosexual couples are.
You either keep things like that, and continue to impinge upon this freedom, or you change that, and impinge upon the freedom of the church.
It's not a false choice, it's a very clear, very simple, very real choice.
You are right about how I am defining freedom.
I am free to go to the shops and buy a packet of crisps, because nothing prevents me from doing that.
If you take away my money, buy all the crisps before I get there or you physically stop me from going to the shop you are taking away my freedom to do that.
That's all I'm referring to. If there's nothing in the law preventing me from buying this packet of crisps or permitting somebody to prevent me from buying them I would also consider it my right to go and buy them.
So again, we've all agreed that the legislation is definitely a bad idea. The point of contention is special treatment of religious organisations and whether it is appropriate, this is merely one example. I'm not overly invested in this particular topic, but it has raised a very interesting question. I'd still like to hear more about impartial justification for why religious groups deserve special treatment.
Now, what do I mean by impartial? Well referring back to the discussion with farva and daphreak, he said that's the way it is because that's the way it is. The people want it to be so.
I'd like to ask why, and to receive justification that isn't just simply because this is their view and they are the majority.
I'd like to know why it's right, or why it's wrong. I've explained why I think it's wrong, quite simply that religious beliefs of an organised theistic nature should hold no precedence over any other set of beliefs or convictions otherwise derived.
You said your reasoning for why these beliefs should be held in higher regard and/or treated differently is because of freedom? I think that is discrimination against non organised theistic convictions, wholly inconsistent and not really an explanation at all...
|
Look dude, I'm a frickin communist. I would NEVER, EVER say that something should be some way "because of freedom." That's liberal talk.
I think the kind of freedom you are talking about when you say "Homosexual couples are not "free" to marry how they please in the way that heterosexual couples are" is a chimaera. I don't think "freedom" is about forcing a church to adopt a certain doctrine. I'm not interested in that kind of freedom. I think focusing on things like that at the expense of pragmatic policy is an enormous distraction and a fixation upon an unattainable goal at the expense of an attainable one.
I'm saying that it is a pragmatic social good to have freedom of conscience. This is to ensure the ability of the subject to take controversial moral position in order to promote rational discourse on moral-practical subjects. I don't think the state can go telling people what are the legitimate foundations for a sexual/romantic relationship, and that is what this law amounts to.
edit: simply put, you cannot legislate hearts and minds. You cannot invade them and nation-build them, either, but that's a different topic. And hearts and minds are all that matter.
|
On December 14 2012 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:53 Deleuze wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
Say, a Christian church group lobbying against a Mosque being being in their area.
On December 14 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:53 Deleuze wrote: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:
[quote]
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? its freedom from interference by the government, not other religious groups.
But surely to be protected from interference from other religions is to be interfered or mediated by governments. A government would need to intervene in order to prevent a religious group from interfering with another religious group.
I am warming to yours and sma!zdat's approaches in theory however how Anarchic are you prepared to be?
On December 14 2012 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:
Look dude, I'm a frickin communist. I would NEVER, EVER say that something should be some way "because of freedom." That's liberal talk.
I think the kind of freedom you are talking about when you say "Homosexual couples are not "free" to marry how they please in the way that heterosexual couples are" is a chimaera. I don't think "freedom" is about forcing a church to adopt a certain doctrine. I'm not interested in that kind of freedom. I think focusing on things like that at the expense of pragmatic policy is an enormous distraction and a fixation upon an unattainable goal at the expense of an attainable one.
I'm saying that it is a pragmatic social good to have freedom of conscience. This is to ensure the ability of the subject to take controversial moral position in order to promote rational discourse on moral-practical subjects. I don't think the state can go telling people what are the legitimate foundations for a sexual/romantic relationship, and that is what this law amounts to.
I'd consider that an Anarchic rather than strictly communist approach. But good on ya, I starting to see your line of thought.
|
daphreak:
+ Show Spoiler +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. 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.
The real issue is why do you believe not giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws constitutues no religious freedom?
The example has been made about sacrificial killings etc, it doesn't matter what their religious beliefs are this freedom of religion doesn't extend to murder, and all this argument supposes is that it shouldn't extend to discrimination either!
I think there should be freedom of religion too, but only to a certain extent. The vast majority of the UK agrees, that's why you can't go murdering people in the name of religion in the UK and get away with it.
I don't see why you think my request for impartial reasoning on this discrimination issue is "silly" and are attempting to equate it with the complete abolishment of freedom of religion.
|
you seem to be misconstruing what i am saying. the reason why religions should receive preference by the government is because the government's job is to do what the constituents want. it has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has everything to do with how the government should function.
|
On December 14 2012 07:11 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 06:53 Deleuze wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Say, a Christian church group lobbying against a Mosque being being in their area. Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:53 Deleuze wrote: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:
[quote]
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? its freedom from interference by the government, not other religious groups. But surely to be protected from interference from other religions is to be interfered or mediated by governments. A government would need to intervene in order to prevent a religious group from interfering with another religious group. I am warming to yours and sma!zdat's approaches in theory however how Anarchic are you prepared to be? Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:
Look dude, I'm a frickin communist. I would NEVER, EVER say that something should be some way "because of freedom." That's liberal talk.
I think the kind of freedom you are talking about when you say "Homosexual couples are not "free" to marry how they please in the way that heterosexual couples are" is a chimaera. I don't think "freedom" is about forcing a church to adopt a certain doctrine. I'm not interested in that kind of freedom. I think focusing on things like that at the expense of pragmatic policy is an enormous distraction and a fixation upon an unattainable goal at the expense of an attainable one.
I'm saying that it is a pragmatic social good to have freedom of conscience. This is to ensure the ability of the subject to take controversial moral position in order to promote rational discourse on moral-practical subjects. I don't think the state can go telling people what are the legitimate foundations for a sexual/romantic relationship, and that is what this law amounts to. I'd consider that an Anarchic rather than strictly communist approach. But good on ya, I starting to see your line of thought.
if a christian group pickets a muslim group--that is completely fine.
if a christian group advocates to the government that a muslim group should not be allowed to come to a neighborhood--that is completely fine.
if a government refuses to allow a muslim group to come to a neighborhood based on its faith--that is wrong.
if a government refuses to allow a muslim group to come to a neighborhood based on a non-religious issue--that is fine.
none of this is revolutionary by the way. its the way the U.S. Supreme Court already works. and for the most part i think their approach is good.
|
On December 14 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
you seem to be misconstruing what i am saying. the reason why religions should receive preference by the government is because the government's job is to do what the constituents want. it has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has everything to do with how the government should function.
I guess my point in that case must be that all I want is for the right thing to be done, whether that is done democratically or not I couldn't careless.
I want to good and just state of affairs to exist.
EDIT: I never said anything about being revolutionary, I know my way around American politics thank you very much  Admirably for the most part I might add.
EDIT 2: I think we ahve a fan:
On December 14 2012 07:19 KwarK wrote:
Fuck all the haters, my general forum topic turned out alright.
|
On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering.
|
|
|
On December 14 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
you seem to be misconstruing what i am saying. the reason why religions should receive preference by the government is because the government's job is to do what the constituents want. it has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has everything to do with how the government should function.
We've already established that the majority wishes it to be the case, and you are correct for government to be functioning properly it has to respect the views of the majority.
I'm not disagreeing with you..
What I was asking was, is the majority correct?
I was asking for any other kind of reasoning or justification as to why they should really deserve this treatment and we've already both agreed on this too, we don't think there is any.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
|
On December 14 2012 07:20 Kitai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering.
i've said this before, but i'll repeat. i have no problem with the law forcing the church to be consistent. if its a religious tenant that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage should not be allowed then the church should have to enforce that tenant consistently. a church shouldnt be allowed to say "we are exempt from anti-discrimination laws" and then pick and choose whether it discriminates.
i understand that people think subgroups should be allowed to "break off" from the church as they become more progressive and the law shouldnt make their actions illegal. i agree, but i think the proper process is for them to disassociate themselves from the church, and as a result no longer be exempt from the anti-discrimination laws.
take this for an example, church A claims exemption. congregation B decides it wants to do gay marriages despite being part of church a, and then do them. however, congregation B changes it mind and decides gays should burn in hell, and starts discriminating again. because they are part of church A there is no consequence to them changing their mind on principle tenants of the church. i am opposed to this picking and choosing. if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waiver. if its an illegitimate belief, it shouldnt be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
|
On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waver.
Why?
I feel it is the illegitimate beliefs that do not waver.
edit: you should not have to declare full legal schism in order to subvert doctrine.
|
On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:20 Kitai wrote:On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering. i've said this before, but i'll repeat. i have no problem with the law forcing the church to be consistent. if its a religious tenant that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage should not be allowed then the church should have to enforce that tenant consistently. a church shouldnt be allowed to say "we are exempt from anti-discrimination laws" and then pick and choose whether it discriminates. i understand that people think subgroups should be allowed to "break off" from the church as they become more progressive and the law shouldnt make their actions illegal. i agree, but i think the proper process is for them to disassociate themselves from the church, and as a result no longer be exempt from the anti-discrimination laws. take this for an example, church A claims exemption. congregation B decides it wants to do gay marriages despite being part of church a, and then do them. however, congregation B changes it mind and decides gays should burn in hell, and starts discriminating again. because they are part of church A there is no consequence to them changing their mind on principle tenants of the church. i am opposed to this picking and choosing. if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waiver. if its an illegitimate belief, it shouldnt be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
What?! So basically it's OK for the government to enforce consistency in religious organizations?
Religious history is all about congregations breaking off and forming their own churches. Now that really is something I cannot allow government to circumvent - surely we want religious bigotry to cure itself and for everyone to be nice to each other!
EDIT: essentially you're saying that religious groups need government approval - the total opposite of your underlying message surely???
|
On December 14 2012 07:33 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waver. Why? I feel it is the illegitimate beliefs that do not waver.
if you want to claim an exemption from the law based on religion, you better have a legitimate belief. (not legitimate in the sense of its a correct belief, but legitimate in that you actually believe it.) if you are going to pick and choose as you see fit then your "religion" is no more legitimate than a random forum nerd named freak on tl.net posting bullshit nobody cares about.
|
On December 14 2012 07:35 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 07:20 Kitai wrote:On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering. i've said this before, but i'll repeat. i have no problem with the law forcing the church to be consistent. if its a religious tenant that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage should not be allowed then the church should have to enforce that tenant consistently. a church shouldnt be allowed to say "we are exempt from anti-discrimination laws" and then pick and choose whether it discriminates. i understand that people think subgroups should be allowed to "break off" from the church as they become more progressive and the law shouldnt make their actions illegal. i agree, but i think the proper process is for them to disassociate themselves from the church, and as a result no longer be exempt from the anti-discrimination laws. take this for an example, church A claims exemption. congregation B decides it wants to do gay marriages despite being part of church a, and then do them. however, congregation B changes it mind and decides gays should burn in hell, and starts discriminating again. because they are part of church A there is no consequence to them changing their mind on principle tenants of the church. i am opposed to this picking and choosing. if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waiver. if its an illegitimate belief, it shouldnt be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. What?! So basically it's OK for the government to enforce consistency in religious organizations? Religious history is all about congregations breaking off and forming their own churches. Now that really is something I cannot allow government to circumvent - surely we want religious bigotry to cure itself and for everyone to be nice to each other! EDIT: essentially you're saying that religious groups need government approval - the total opposite of your underlying message surely???
i dont see it as them enforcing any religious tenants, just the law. if a religion claims an exemption, but then doesnt follow through with the requirements of the exemption, the exemption should be revoked. if congregations break off and form their own churches, they should re-register as non-exempt. no issue there. if they dont break off and the chuch allows it to continue, then the exemption should be revoked because the basis for the exemption doesnt exist.
the government is enforcing the anti-discrimination laws; its not enforcing church policies.
|
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA.
|
On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA.
thats actually a much better word, and what the US Supreme Court uses. "sincere and meaningful" belief.
|
On December 14 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:35 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 07:20 Kitai wrote:On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering. i've said this before, but i'll repeat. i have no problem with the law forcing the church to be consistent. if its a religious tenant that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage should not be allowed then the church should have to enforce that tenant consistently. a church shouldnt be allowed to say "we are exempt from anti-discrimination laws" and then pick and choose whether it discriminates. i understand that people think subgroups should be allowed to "break off" from the church as they become more progressive and the law shouldnt make their actions illegal. i agree, but i think the proper process is for them to disassociate themselves from the church, and as a result no longer be exempt from the anti-discrimination laws. take this for an example, church A claims exemption. congregation B decides it wants to do gay marriages despite being part of church a, and then do them. however, congregation B changes it mind and decides gays should burn in hell, and starts discriminating again. because they are part of church A there is no consequence to them changing their mind on principle tenants of the church. i am opposed to this picking and choosing. if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waiver. if its an illegitimate belief, it shouldnt be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. What?! So basically it's OK for the government to enforce consistency in religious organizations? Religious history is all about congregations breaking off and forming their own churches. Now that really is something I cannot allow government to circumvent - surely we want religious bigotry to cure itself and for everyone to be nice to each other! EDIT: essentially you're saying that religious groups need government approval - the total opposite of your underlying message surely??? i dont see it as them enforcing any religious tenants, just the law. if a religion claims an exemption, but then doesnt follow through with the requirements of the exemption, the exemption should be revoked. if congregations break off and form their own churches, they should re-register as non-exempt. no issue there. if they dont break off and the chuch allows it to continue, then the exemption should be revoked because the basis for the exemption doesnt exist. the government is enforcing the anti-discrimination laws; its not enforcing church policies.
So you're saying if a religious group, having broken away from another group the discriminated against gay people, declared that it would not discriminate against gay people but then suddenly decided that yes it actually would discriminate then it would be prosecuted by the law?
But surely this is as much, if not more, governmental interference: you are asking a gov to become involved in how a religious group operates, moreover you are treating religious organizations as far more homogenized than they actually are.
Your asking for a government ratified contract issued by a Church to its congregation, correct?
How is a government asserting then that the terms of this contract are non-discriminatory?
|
On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA.
The proof is in the pudding.
If they state the doctrine and don't waver it was sincere, if they waver it wasn't sincere.
I think giving them the benefit of the doubt would be a reasonable course of action when granting exemptions.
The first instance is basically "we believe this because we believe this" you can't really tell them "no you don't", also if they are permitted exemptions you can't really judge the validity of each one when the only justification is religious anyway...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
