Jokes are one thing, and are usually easy to identify. A 'joke' without humor is 'oftentimes' an insult.
Outside of outrageous puns and those terrible jokes 11 year olds make up, almost all humor is at the expense of something or some one.
I'm curious, so open question to the group:
What are your thoughts about religious tolerance? Is there such a thing? And should there be such a thing?
I'm completely in favor of a form of religious tolerance, specifically that granted by the state's absolute impartiality and disinterest in giving any religion, or religion in general, special treatment. The dictates of one, any, or every religion are to be equally absolutely excluded from governance, policy making, and so forth as impartiality and disinterest are entirely incompatible with their inclusion. The state should in no way subsidize, facilitate, or encourage religious practice or belief, including but not limited to hosting religious monuments on public land (find a private landowner if you want to erect a giant cross), dictating or promoting forms of prayer (including the current form of the socialist loyalty oath, aka the Pledge of Allegiance), or permitting its offices and facilities to be used by private groups for the same end (no sneaking around the ban on mandatory prayer in schools by having the local pastor or a student group do one over the PA). Each and every one of the aforementioned is a blatant case of religious partiality and as such impossible to square with actual religious freedom and civil equality.
I am against the use of violence or discrimination to expunge or eliminate religion, excepting as provided above might be construed discriminatory. In that case, I am rabidly in favor of just that discrimination (but not the violence) and want to see it carried to its fullest extent. I might even be persuaded that certain such cases should be taken as criminal justice matters rather than simple civil suits.
This concept of religious tolerance will never be acceptable to many of the religious as their doctrines require, or at the very least strongly encourage, them to impose their practices upon others in ways that range from treating their doctrines as truth to compulsory prayer and tithing. If you don't let a fundamentalist proselytize in every possible place at every possible time and make it clear that fundamentalist Christianity is mandatory for all human beings and factual and moral in all its doctrines, you're discriminating against them. To this I say "Cool!" If a religious exercise requires that the state break reasonable secular rules to accommodate it, then I would much rather the practice instead be outlawed for the protection of civil society and civil liberties.
On a personal level, I do tolerate religion. I do not advocate the use of private or state force to discriminate against or impose religiosity. I would rather it not exist at all since I disapprove of religious faith in all its forms, if some more strongly than others. I don't respect it. I certainly don't value it. The deference it receives is, I think, unfit for anything up to and including my own most cherished opinions and values. But toleration does not entail that we accept every proposition as equally valid or worthy.
I'm completely in favor of a form of religious tolerance, specifically that granted by the state's absolute impartiality and disinterest in giving any religion, or religion in general, special treatment. The dictates of one, any, or every religion are to be equally absolutely excluded from governance, policy making, and so forth as impartiality and disinterest are entirely incompatible with their inclusion. The state should in no way subsidize, facilitate, or encourage religious practice or belief, including but not limited to hosting religious monuments on public land (find a private landowner if you want to erect a giant cross), dictating or promoting forms of prayer (including the current form of the socialist loyalty oath, aka the Pledge of Allegiance), or permitting its offices and facilities to be used by private groups for the same end (no sneaking around the ban on mandatory prayer in schools by having the local pastor or a student group do one over the PA). Each and every one of the aforementioned is a blatant case of religious partiality and as such impossible to square with actual religious freedom and civil equality
<SNIP>
+1
Interestingly, as far as I know Dawkins (a man oft cited as a paragon of "militant" atheism) has never advocated the use violence or discrimination to expunge or eliminate religion.
Unfortunately, it is all too easy to find examples of the converse...
To reply directly regarding religious tolerance:
I really don't care if you believe in one God, or a hundred of them, or none. I likewise don't care if the guy down the block goes home and dresses up like a giant chicken and hops around his yard on a pogo stick yelling "Callooh Callay!" as a rite in honor of the Universal Constipated Dodo. I'd be happiest if the world had 6 billion totally different religions in it, each of which bore no resemblance to the next.
I had some very good friends in Virginia that I used to have informal Bible study with. Nobody pushing belief or nonbelief; we all just read the book and looked at what the passages might mean in context. They were awesome people and I miss them. I love reading Moff's posts on this thread, for a lot of the same reasons.
But, as Jefferson pointed out, I believe that the next man's rights end where everyone else's begin. If your religion requires you to impose Sharia law on your neighbors, then suddenly I'm an exceptionally intolerant bastard. If your religion tells you that it's OK to destroy the planet because God will magically fix it, I'm going to oppose you on that. If you want to teach mythology in public schools under the guise of "alternative scientific theories," I'll want someone to explain to the kids why your stories are totally at variance with all of the physical observations. When the Pope (a former nazi) covers up a rape-based organization while accusing me of being a nazi, I get a bit incandescent. When the president tells me that I shouldn't really be considered a citizen if I don't "have faith," I get a mite annoyed.
So I guess one could say that I go from "spectacularly tolerant" to "insanely intolerant" in a heartbeat.
+1Interestingly, as far as I know Dawkins (a man oft cited as a paragon of "militant" atheism) has never advocated the use violence or discrimination to expunge or eliminate religion.
Yeah, I remember reading The God Delusion and being rather nonplussed about it. This is the guy being described as "Darwin's attack dog"? Meh.
|
There are militant atheists as there are militant believers.Or, as they're most often used: there are "militant" (outspoken) atheists, just as there are militant (violent) believers.
If it had no effect, I'd agree with you that it's a meaningless nitpick. But I don't think that's the case, because it's increasingly being used as a very overt way of demonizing an out-group.
Quite right. By the dictionary definition, it's true that many outspoken, nonviolent atheists are indeed militant.
However, I have never seen an outspoken theist referred to as "militant" in any media source. As Kirth has pointed out, atheists earn the adjective simply by stating their opinions, whereas believers generally must commit, sponsor, and/or promote violence in order to be labeled "militant".
|
A lot of interesting stuff. . .
There are a lot of major flaws in this idea. First off, you must remember that these people are actually people. It might seem fine and dandy to you, who might not share or have any religious views, but lets look at the exact same circumstances in a different situation. Rather than religion, lets take culture. Do you also believe that hispanics should be forced to foresake all of their cultural practices except except when it doesn't affect nonhispanics? No comming of age celerations (which means that sometimes they get a free day from school or can bypass a dress code, or other little things)? Maybe all african-americans need to be legislaturally forbidden from using non-European names? Why stop there. Maybe being Democrat and Republican need to be illegal? I mean they border on a religion themselves, and oe would be hard pressed to argue that they don't manipulate and twist the government and beliefs of the world for their own agenda's.
Secondly, That is not what the country was or is based on. Not even talking about the freedom of religion, but rather that there are specifically two organizations set aside to be both outside the government and to keep the political entites of the government in line. The "church" (meaning all religious groups) and the press.
Thirdly, you are being extremely hypocritical and closed minded. Essentually saying only my opinion on what is right should be allowed. That in a political sense, only a certain group of people should be allowed to sway or guide the laws and rules, morality and the norm, but everyone should be restricted by it. Wait, isn't that oe of the big faults that atheists point at the church for as a great evil? Forcing everyone to believe and act as they do. Besides, the truth is, that is how it is. Prayer was taken out of schools because an individual felt that they shouldn't have to hear it and everyone else be damned, not the other way around.
Forth, you don't see to understand that atheists are, when comparred to all religions, in all ways a minority. But the important thing here, besides wanting the few to govern the many as dictators in a sense, is that you don't seem to understand how much religions, all religions, put into the country, the government, the economy. In both an economical and political sense, no other group, and most other groups combined simply can not compare to the benefits that charity work, free services, and donations religious organizations povide. It isn't about money. It's about time. Resources, volunteers, and locations. Almost every church or similar organization, protostant, catholic, jewish, muslim, wiccan, whatever, offers free services to their communities. Simple things like confession, soup kitchens, family services, homeless shelters, youth organizations, counciling, etc . . . Sure, there are nonreligious groups that do similar things, or to be more specific, there are groups that are specifically not religiously motivated, but they are by far much less numerous. They are the countries economical wild card, and no megacorporation's monitary contributions could compare to the amount of money these organizations save the country.
Not only are you saying we should just wipe those out of the picture, but the politics and beliefs of all those individuals are a bad thing.
First off, you must remember that these people are actually people.
At no point have I been unaware of that and I do not particularly appreciate the implication that I'm dehumanizing the religious.
It might seem fine and dandy to you, who might not share or have any religious views, but lets look at the exact same circumstances in a different situation. Rather than religion, lets take culture.
You are free to change the subject, but having done so I don't see how you intend to maintain any relevance to your objection. You may as well be telling us that you think there are problems with my position because you don't like marshmallows.
Do you also believe that hispanics should be forced to foresake all of their cultural practices except except when it doesn't affect nonhispanics? No comming of age celerations (which means that sometimes they get a free day from school or can bypass a dress code, or other little things)?
First off, I do not ask that the religious foresake all of their cultural practices. I require only that they confine those practices to those who wish to partake in them and no others. My apparently audacious demand is that they accept that they have no right to impose their faith on others.
Maybe all african-americans need to be legislaturally forbidden from using non-European names? Why stop there.
Why start there? Your objection is incomprehensible.
Secondly, That is not what the country was or is based on. Not even talking about the freedom of religion, but rather that there are specifically two organizations set aside to be both outside the government and to keep the political entites of the government in line. The "church" (meaning all religious groups) and the press.
If you think that organized religion was intended to be some kind of check on state power I can only conclude you also think Jesus and Moses rode Tyrannosauruses and used machine guns against the Romans. But even if that were true, so what? This country was based on lots of horrific, evil things like slavery, white supremacy, and rampant misogyny too. The dead are dead and piling their corpses up does nothing to improve your position or mine. They either stand or fall on their actual merits.
Thirdly, you are being extremely hypocritical and closed minded. Essentually saying only my opinion on what is right should be allowed. That in a political sense, only a certain group of people should be allowed to sway or guide the laws and rules, morality and the norm, but everyone should be restricted by it. Wait, isn't that oe of the big faults that atheists point at the church for as a great evil? Forcing everyone to believe and act as they do. Besides, the truth is, that is how it is. Prayer was taken out of schools because an individual felt that they shouldn't have to hear it and everyone else be damned, not the other way around.
Once again with the T-rex riding Moses and Jesus history. Did they speak English in your mind too? Compulsory prayer was removed from schools for quite knowable reasons, published in official documents generated by the very body that did the removing, the Supreme Court. If you really want to participate in good faith here, I would advise you refrain from inventing insulting lies. It was in no case a matter of an individual not caring to hear the prayer, but rather an objection to the notion that the state should be instructing people to pray in any form whatsoever. The objection is not one of self-interest but rather firm constitutional and moral principle, namely that the state should not dictate religious practice.
Radical, I know. In the 1780s, it was.
Forth, you don't see to understand that atheists are, when comparred to all religions, in all ways a minority. But the important thing here, besides wanting the few to govern the many as dictators in a sense, is that you don't seem to understand how much religions, all religions, put into the country, the government, the economy. In both an economical and political sense, no other group, and most other groups combined simply can not compare to the benefits that charity work, free services, and donations religious organizations povide. It isn't about money. It's about time. Resources, volunteers, and locations
If you mean to suggest that adopting religious freedom would provoke various religious groups to cease their humanitarian and charitable work, you may be correct. The Catholic Church has in fact done just that rather than comply with the law. But this demonstrates the vacuity of the very claim that religions are interested in doing good. If they were, they would in no way be impeded by religious freedom but rather at least as capable as they are now of continuing as they were. Rather should they cease these activities rather than bow to reasonable secular law binding on any other organization, we can safely dismiss their interest in humanitarian relief as no more than an a cynical public relations gambit to attract followers.
Almost every church or similar organization, protostant, catholic, jewish, muslim, wiccan, whatever, offers free services to their communities.
To their communities, of course. You have in a sentence highlighted a critical problem with depending on religious charity: it is available first and foremost not according to need but to the members of the flock. (Another, and the reason private charity will always be insufficient, is that donations fall during economic hard times when need is greatest.)
Sure, there are nonreligious groups that do similar things, or to be more specific, there are groups that are specifically not religiously motivated, but they are by far much less numerous.
And? Does your argument really boil down to the religious outnumbering the irreligious, so therefore sit down and shut up? Can you provide an actual objection to my proposal without making stuff up, changing the subject, or going off on irrelevant tangents? I'm generally up for a little bit of chasing squirrels, but I'm afraid my patience for it is rather finite.
I must ask again: what are your objections? Only one of your points even begins to address my position.
most other groups combined simply can not compare to the benefits that charity work, free services, and donations religious organizations p[r]ovide.
Should I turn around and point to how the Bill Gates foundation -- organized and run by atheists -- blows any religion you'd care to name out of the water in terms of charity? And claim that means atheists are "better"? Because I'm not going to do that. I'm going to say that a lot of religious believers do good charity. I personally know quite a number of them, and help them with it. But guess what -- so do a lot of atheists, and I help them, too.
And a lot of religious believers are selfish, greedy SOBs who don't give squat. Atheists, too. You might want to think about that a bit, before claiming superiority on those grounds.
Prayer was taken out of schools because an individual felt that they shouldn't have to hear it and everyone else be damned, not the other way around.
I taught public school for 6 years. We had a minute of silence -- it was so that kids who wanted time to pray could do so. But they were not forced to do so. So, speaking from direct, firsthand experience, your statement that "prayer was taken out of schools" is completely false. What happened is that mandatory prayer was taken out of schools.
Live and let live -- but apparently that's not good enough for you. Maybe all kids should be whipped if they don't elect to use that minute to pray to your personal God, and to Hell with theirs? This is where my tolerance starts to vanish. Rapidly.
Minute of silence was the best thing we ever had. No discrimination, for or against. Every kid gets to make their own choice; the only rule is that they have to sit still and be quiet -- many of them folded their hands, bowed their heads, and moved their lips. Some sat quietly. Some meditated. You want to replace that with some sort of theocratic deal where everyone is required to say the same prayer at the same time to the same god? Imams calling from minarets, maybe? No freedom of conscience allowed? Maybe pipe in the Ayatollah over the loudspeaker while you're at it? Because we all know the purpose of our public schools is to serve your particular religion -- whichever one it may be?
I was talking about wildly different definitions.
To me, "freedom of religion" means that everyone can practice as they see fit, or not -- left up to each person's conscience, and no one gets to tell anyone else what to do. That's what we've got.
To you, "freedom of religion" apparently means that you're free to require everyone else to pray where, when, and how you choose.
If that's how it has to be, then bring it on -- I'll oppose you to the ends of the earth. Maybe I'm outnumbered, but I don't believe your religion, and I don't care to be forced to pretend to. In school or out. And, thankfully, the Constitution says government has no authority to force me to. But of course, if you insist that nothing short of mandatory prayer for all is good enough, then you could always emigrate to Iran, where your dreams are a reality.
|
|
Do you also believe that hispanics should be forced to foresake all of their cultural practices except except when it doesn't affect nonhispanics? [...]Maybe all african-americans need to be legislaturally forbidden from using non-European names?
Well, if that's the analogy you want to make, let's do a find/replace, shall we?
Forth, you don't see to understand that blacks are, when comparred to all whites, in all ways a minority. But the important thing here, besides wanting the few to govern the many as dictators in a sense, is that you don't seem to understand how much whites, all whites, put into the country, the government, the economy. In both an economical and political sense, no other group, and most other groups combined simply can not compare to the benefits that charity work, free services, and donations white organizations povide. It isn't about money. It's about time. Resources, volunteers, and locations. Almost every white organization, [...] offers free services to their communities. Simple things like confession, soup kitchens, family services, homeless shelters, youth organizations, counciling, etc . . . Sure, there are black groups that do similar things, or to be more specific, there are groups that are specifically not white, but they are by far much less numerous. They are the countries economical wild card, and no megacorporation's monitary contributions could compare to the amount of money these organizations save the country.
Besides that sounding all the more hideous when applying your religion = race/culture analogy, that last bit is blatantly wrong in the original context as well. The massive, specially privileged tax loopholes given to religious organizations cost the country a tremendous amount of money. I won't deny that charity helps society, but if you want the economic pros of churches to count, you have to recognize the cons as well.
Not only are you saying we should just wipe those out of the picture, but the politics and beliefs of all those individuals are a bad thing.
See, this is what Moff was complaining about, and one of the many places I agree with him - putting words in someone's mouth and telling them what they believe.
Thirdly, you are being extremely hypocritical and closed minded. Essentually saying only my opinion on what is right should be allowed. That in a political sense, only a certain group of people should be allowed to sway or guide the laws and rules, morality and the norm, but everyone should be restricted by it. Wait, isn't that oe of the big faults that atheists point at the church for as a great evil? Forcing everyone to believe and act as they do. Besides, the truth is, that is how it is. Prayer was taken out of schools because an individual felt that they shouldn't have to hear it and everyone else be damned, not the other way around.
Wait, you're not Poeing us, are you? This paragraph reads like a list of the greatest hits of misconceptions about atheism:
- Atheists are close-minded- Atheists want to oust all the Christians in government and create a new atheist dictatorship
- Atheists want to force everyone else to be atheists
- You can't pray in schools
- Mandatory prayer in schools was removed because it made an atheist butthurt, not because it was unconstitutional
Beckett, I propose that you take this opportunity to ask Samnell and I any questions you might have about atheism. It truly seems to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the atheist position, and we would be happy to clarify things for you. Please, ask away, even (perhaps especially) if it's just a question of "I'm pretty sure that atheists believe X, is that true?"
(Edited to correct quote tags...the bane of my existence!)
|
|
First off, you must remember that these people are actually people.
At no point have I been unaware of that and I do not particularly appreciate the implication that I'm dehumanizing the religious.
Not dehumanizing them, but rather implying that those with a religious view need to leave that at the house so that all schools, jobs, or anything that involves anyone not religious (of any kind) would ever have to be interfered with. If I am misunderstanding you, then I apologize, but to me it really sounded like you are implying that religion should not b a part of anything beyond a persons individual household, ad only if those practices are nuetered to a certain universal legal point.
It might seem fine and dandy to you, who might not share or have any religious views, but lets look at the exact same circumstances in a different situation. Rather than religion, lets take culture.
You are free to change the subject, but having done so I don't see how you intend to maintain any relevance to your objection. You may as well be telling us that you think there are problems with my position because you don't like marshmallows.
Not changing the subject. I was trying to show what you where suggesting in a different light, butoterwise the exact same way. Essentually the seperate but equal idea that came from the early segrigation.
Do you also believe that hispanics should be forced to foresake all of their cultural practices except except when it doesn't affect nonhispanics? No comming of age celerations (which means that sometimes they get a free day from school or can bypass a dress code, or other little things)?
First off, I do not ask that the religious foresake all of their cultural practices. I require only that they confine those practices to those who wish to partake in them and no others. My apparently audacious demand is that they accept that they have no right to impose their faith on others.
Which is fine and I agree with. But that isn't what it seemed you where suggesting, but rather that they be ignored when anyone else might have to around them. For lack of a better word, corrupted by or aggriveted from them. (I know you didn't mean that in that way)
Maybe all african-americans need to be legislaturally forbidden from using non-European names? Why stop there.
Why start there? Your objection is incomprehensible.
Maybe you should reread what you said. Like I mentioned, a lot of times that these arguements come up, there is certain language barrier, but
Secondly, That is not what the country was or is based on. Not even talking about the freedom of religion, but rather that there are specifically two organizations set aside to be both outside the government and to keep the political entites of the government in line. The "church" (meaning all religious groups) and the press.
If you think that organized religion was intended to be some kind of check on state power I can only conclude you also think Jesus and Moses rode Tyrannosauruses...
Maybe you should explain why you don't think this is true? Not the snarky dinosaur thing, which no I do not believe.
(seems youeddited a lot so this has changed since I first bean to respond). . .but rather an objection to the notion that the state should be instructing people to pray in any form whatsoever. The objection is not one of self-interest but rather firm constitutional and moral principle, namely that the state should not dictate religious practice.
And? Does your argument really boil down to the religious outnumbering the irreligious, so therefore sit down and shut up?
No. I am saying that there are a lot of people that you are discounting and it really seems that YOU are suggesting they sut down and shut up. That is the point I'm trying to illistrate. Ayone that dosn't believe as you do needs to shut up.
Can you provide an actual objection to my proposal without making stuff up, changing the subject, or going off on irrelevant tangents? I'm generally up for a little bit of chasing squirrels, but I'm afraid my patience for it is rather finite.
I have not changed the subject a single time. Only shown it in a different light. In fact, I am trying to remain on tipic and I see you trying to jump off of it a lot rather than defend or explain what you mean, if it is being misunderstood.
I must ask again: what are your objections? Only one of your points even begins to address my position.
My objects are that on the surface you seem to think you are saying I believe that people should be able to believe in whatever they want, (within some obvious moral limits like not practicing ritul human sacrifice or rape), but what you are really saying, or at least how it is comming out is that people should only be able to believe/practice according to what you, (or someone else) accepts as ok.
I am not trying to be confrontational, so if I have made a mistake about your views, please explain how and where.
|
|
Should I turn around and point to how the Bill Gates foundation -- organized and run by atheists -- blows any religion you'd care to name out of the water in terms of charity? And claim that means atheists are "better"? Because I'm not going to do that. I'm going to say that a lot of religious believers do good charity. I personally know quite a number of them, and help them with it. But guess what -- so do a lot of atheists, and I help them, too.
And a lot of religious believers are selfish, greedy SOBs who don't give squat. Atheists, too. You might want to think about that a bit, before claiming superiority on those grounds.
That's actually my point. No they don't. Not in the sense that is really important to the governmental, economic point I am talking about. I am not saying they are bad, or shouldn't get credit. What I am saying though, is that religious organizations do things that no other group does on that level, and it is an invaluable boon to each city/state/region. If most cities had a Bill Gate's community center, that would be along the same lines.
But that is a litle irrelevant to what was saying. What I was pointing out is that it is pretty bad to suggest that people keep out their personal views when they vote, or consider passing laws, or whatever, and especially when the only real group of people suggested are those with religious views. A lot of those people doing charity work, religious or not should have the exact same right to vote for whatever they want, and for whatever reasons they want. Even if it is religious based reasoning, just like if it where racially based, culturally based, or whatever.
|
|
See, this is what Moff was complaining about, and one of the many places I agree with him - putting words in someone's mouth and telling them what they believe.
That is exactly what it seems Samnell is saying. If I am reading it wrong, then show me how.
Beckett wrote:
Thirdly, you are being extremely hypocritical and closed minded. Essentually saying only my opinion on what is right should be allowed. That in a political sense, only a certain group of people should be allowed to sway or guide the laws and rules, morality and the norm, but everyone should be restricted by it. Wait, isn't that oe of the big faults that atheists point at the church for as a great evil? Forcing everyone to believe and act as they do. Besides, the truth is, that is how it is. Prayer was taken out of schools because an individual felt that they shouldn't have to hear it and everyone else be damned, not the other way around.
Wait, you're not Poeing us, are you? This paragraph reads like a list of the greatest hits of misconceptions about atheism:
- Atheists are close-minded
- Atheists want to oust all the Christians in government and create a new atheist dictatorship
- Atheists want to force everyone else to be atheists
- You can't pray in schools
- Mandatory prayer in schools was removed because it made an atheist butthurt, not because it was unconstitutionalBeckett, I propose that you take this opportunity to ask Samnell and I any questions you might have about atheism. It truly seems to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the atheist position, and we would be happy to clarify things for you. Please, ask away, even (perhaps especially) if it's just a question of "I'm pretty sure that atheists believe X, is that true?"
It is not that am misunderstanding atheism. I may be misunderstanding what was originally said, which really had nothing to do with atheism per se, but rather a point of view.
I do not believe that all atheists are close minded, or even most. No more and no less than any religious group of people, because they are all people and have flaws.
I do not believe atheists, as a group want to oust all christians, (or religions). I do however think that was what Samnell suggested in that post.
I do believe that there are a lot of atheists who do, to a point, want everyone to be atheists, (not neccessarily by "force"), so that humanity can progress to something new and better.
I do not believe anyone should be forced to pray in school, and that is not at all what I am suggesting. However, many schools colleges or similar groups ar legally forbidden from allowing their students to do this in an organized since. That is literally to say that you can not have a prayer group on the campus. How is that any different from saying that you (not you specifically, but a general somebody) should be allowed from forcing others to pray in school. But it is being suggested that one is ok and the way it should be while the other is wrong.
I taught public school for 6 years. We had a minute of silence -- it was so that kids who wanted time to pray could do so. But they were not forced to do so. So, speaking from direct, firsthand experience, your statement that "prayer was taken out of schools" is completely false. What happened is that mandatory prayer was taken out of schools.
Like I said, I don't think that anyone should be forced to pray in school, and that being taken out, I fully agree. However, tha is not all that changed. It DID change so that now (in some places), no prayer is allowed at all. Legally. How is that not the same thing, just changed groups.
Live and let live -- but apparently that's not good enough for you. Maybe all kids should be whipped if they don't elect to use that minute to pray to your personal God, and to Hell with theirs? This is where my tolerance starts to vanish. Rapidly.
Not at all, and this is getting tothe point of name calling. No, I think that Live and let live IS CORRECT and good, but not when it only benefits one group, (in this case those who do not have a religion) and I think it is just as immoral to force a group to pray as it is t force everyone to not be allowed to. A moment of silence is perfectly fine in my eyes, as is being able to have student religious groups. But by removing the prayer from school, you (general you again) have also taken that away from others, which is the exact same thing theother way around.
Not dehumanizing them, but rather implying that those with a religious view need to leave that at the house so that all schools, jobs, or anything that involves anyone not religious (of any kind) would ever have to be interfered with. If I am misunderstanding you, then I apologize, but to me it really sounded like you are implying that religion should not b a part of anything beyond a persons individual household, ad only if those practices are nuetered to a certain universal legal point.
You are misunderstanding me. I am saying that religious should receive no special favors or special treatment, no subsidy, no assistance, and no facilitation whatsoever from the state because all of that effectively imposes religion upon us through state offices. I am not saying that students cannot pray silently before they eat their lunch or have a test. (By law they can, so I hope you will stop with this silly story about how prayer was removed from the schools.) I am not saying that the religious should not be able to go outside wearing t-shirts with Bible verses on them, wear crosses, have to pick an alias if their given name comes from the Bible, or any of that.
I am saying that if anybody’s religious practice requires they receive that state aid and/or demands them impose upon others, the state should take active steps to ensure it does not happen. Additionally if anybody’s religious practices require them to break reasonable secular laws, they should not have any special right to do so but rather should face the same penalty as any other person would for breaking such laws. If one wants to call that discrimination, then three cheers for discrimination.
And yes, that does extend to excluding religion entirely from policymaking. As soon as it’s included, faith (and often a very specific one, though one establishment or ten billion is still establishment) is being imposed by state act just as it is when the state establishes chaplains, prayers, and the rest. If the only objection a voter or a lawmaker has to a proposed policy is religious, then this person should vote in favor of the policy. If the only reason to support the policy is religious (like abstinence-only education) then the votes should be against.
For example, many religious people object to the use of contraception. This is on purely religious grounds. They have the dogma the sex is for procreation only and so if you’re not trying to make a baby, you should not have sex. That’s fine for them. I think it’s a deeply silly idea, in fact even a bit unhealthy, but they are welcome to eschew contraception and have as little sex as they care to. I would be against requiring them to use contraception or have lots and lots of sex when they just don’t want to. There’s no good reason to insist on any such thing.
But if the religious insist that the rest of us are denied contraception, that’s imposing a religious practice on those of us who don’t want it. That’s true if they pass laws in the Congress to that effect or if they try to use a state-granted monopoly on pharmaceutical distribution (a pharmacist’s license) to bar access to contraception. Neither of these is remotely acceptable and should be rejected by both the irreligious and religious alike. If a pharmacist truly cannot cope with that situation, then that’s tough. I bet most rabbis would have trouble being bacon cheeseburger tasters too.
Does that clear things up? If not, questions are welcome. We can even go into specifics cases and issues you like. (I'm against the Swiss ban on minarets, if it makes you feel better.) I think the rest of your post flows from the misconception, so I’ll leave it aside unless you think something from it is still relevant.
Just one more thing:
No, I think that Live and let live IS CORRECT and good, but not when it only benefits one group,
That objection would make sense if we presently had the kind of situation where there was clear equality between the religious and irreligious, but we do not. In virtually every situation the state tilts drastically in favor of privileging religion over irreligion. (And many of the religious gripe endlessly about the few exceptions.) Establishing live and let live will require that the religious lose their huge subsidies and considerable state aid, just like white people had to lose privileges for black people to have equal rights. This will, of course, feel like horrific persecution.
Samnell, how would you apply your statements to military chaplains? In that the state is using taxpayer money to support religious services and personnel? I'm not making any case against the Chaplin Corp, just curious about how it should be treated.
I am entirely opposed to chaplains in any and every government institution. If soldiers wish to go to church, synagogue, get naked and dance around trees, or whatever they can do it off base, off duty, and on their own dime.
I understand that may be difficult for soldiers who are stuck in situations where they can't just hop away once a week, like on a submarine in the middle of the Pacific, but that's an unavoidable consequence of the job they chose. Should soldiers require psychological help as a consequence of their job, then they should be referred to trained therapists and I have no objection at all to the military providing them as part of its compensation package just as it subsidizes other forms of medical care.
|
|
You are misunderstanding me. I am saying that religious should receive no special favors or special treatment, no subsidy, no assistance, and no facilitation whatsoever from the state because all of that effectively imposes religion upon us through state offices.
Could you explain this more? What special favors do you mean? What I am thinking is things along the lines of tax exemptions for churchs of 100+ members, press passes (rarely), priest/penitent priveledge, and things like that. Except those things are specifically there to allow religious figurescommunities to perform their jobs, the things I mentioned above, to the communities, at a significantly lower cost to the city/state/counry than it would be for the state to hire people to do those jobs.
I am saying that if anybody’s religious practice requires they recieve that state aid and/or demands them impose upon others, the state should take active steps to ensure it does not happen. Additionally if anybody’s religious practices require them to break reasonable secular laws, they should not have any special right to do so but rather should face the same penalty as any other person would for breaking such laws. If one wants to call that discrimination, then three cheers for discrimination.
Wht do you mean by state aid? Or imposing on others? If it's the prayer thing, I think we all agree no one should force another to pray, or to take part in something of that nature. But I do have an issue when tha right is taken away from everyone and called impartiality and legally fair, when it is anything but.
But also what are "reasonable securlar laws"? Who gets to pick? The government that is suppossed to be ruled by the people and there for the sole purpose of protecting their freedoms?
And yes, that does extend to excluding religion entirely from policymaking. As soon as it’s included, faith (and often a very specific one, though one establishment or ten billion is still establishment) is being imposed by state act just as it is when the state establishes chaplains, prayers, and the rest. If the only objection a voter or a lawmaker has to a proposed policy is religious, then this person should vote in favor of the policy. If the only reason to support the policy is religious (like abstinence-only education) then the votes should be against.
Why? Religion is part of who a person is. That is exactly why I compaired it to culture, race, politics, or any other facate of a persons belief. If a person believes something, because they are muslim, and vote according to that, why is that wrong vs a person voting for something only for the reason that it will help the black community, or democrats, or their particular career, or the science(s) they are interested in, or any of a billion things?
This has nothing to do with a religious collective forcing others to do, believe, or act a certain way. That is a completely different issues, which I think we both agree on.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Why? Religion is part of who a person is. That is exactly why I compaired it to culture, race, politics, or any other facate of a persons belief. If a person believes something, because they are muslim, and vote according to that, why is that wrong vs a person voting for something only for the reason that it will help the black community, or democrats, or their particular career, or the science(s) they are interested in, or any of a billion things?
That's a false analogy. I can't change my race, or the culture I was raised in, but I can easily change my religion, political belief or any other belief.
|
|
Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with it. Obviously, if something that influences your opinion on a subject changes, your overall opinion will likely change as well. Notice I had originally included both things that could and could not be changed? Also, while you might not be able to change your race, you can remove yourself from being associated with or counted as part of that group in many ways.
Please explain the relevence.
Would you be more comfortable with two seperate analogies, or removing one group or the other?
Could you explain this more? What special favors do you mean? What I am thinking is things along the lines of tax exemptions for churchs of 100+ members, press passes (rarely), priest/penitent priveledge, and things like that. Except those things are specifically there to allow religious figurescommunities to perform their jobs, the things I mentioned above, to the communities, at a significantly lower cost to the city/state/counry than it would be for the state to hire people to do those jobs.
I mean the things you listed, among others.
If a religion can’t keep its church because it can’t pay property taxes, that’s tough. If my local bookstore, of which I’m quite fond, can’t pay its taxes then it will close down. If my local cinema can’t pay its taxes, it too will close down. So too the local restaurants, gun shops, comic store, factories, and any other private business. Why should my local churches be any different? That it is is a clear subsidy to religion, granting religious businesses an advantage over secular businesses.
If a priest decides to obstruct justice, he belongs in jail. If his job requires that he obstruct justice, then it sounds to me like he’s a member of an organized crime outfit. He cannot excuse himself by saying he’s a priest, only bring other priests under suspicion by so doing.
If, as you say, religions need nonprofit status and the benefits it brings in order to provide public services, then that’s fine. They can do all the paperwork and come under identical scrutiny, reporting requirements, and so forth as secular nonprofits face. This is not how it actually works right now. Instead they are presumed to be nonprofits by virtue of being churches, which is absurd.
Wht do you mean by state aid?
I mean, among other things, tax exemptions, priest/penitent privilege, drawing money from the state to engage in religious activity, using money given for other reasons for religious purposes, having donations to the organization be tax free, having positions as religious officiants for state bodies, carrying out religious ceremonies during state functions, the list goes on and on.
Or imposing on others? If it's the prayer thing, I think we all agree no one should force another to pray, or to take part in something of that nature. But I do have an issue when tha right is taken away from everyone and called impartiality and legally fair, when it is anything but.
All the aforementioned things are religious impositions. Any state act which promotes, encourages, endorses, or facilitates religious worship, practice, or belief of one kind of many kinds, is an imposition.
You continue to say you’re against forcing people to take part in religious exercises, but then you complain that compulsory religion in the public schools is a right that was taken away wrongly. This is how privilege works: If one group is privileged above another wrongly, then that group needs to get that privilege taken away. That is fairness. You seem to want to have your candy and then be told you don’t have to brush your teeth. I am unsympathetic.
But also what are "reasonable securlar laws"? Who gets to pick? The government that is suppossed to be ruled by the people and there for the sole purpose of protecting their freedoms?
The judiciary is the branch of government we rely upon to make sure the majority doesn’t grant itself numerous rights and then deny those same rights to the minority. You must know this, as you’ve complained about it in at least two different posts on this very thread. It’s hardly a perfect mechanism and it can take centuries to get around to working, as it did in banning compulsory prayer in the schools, but it’s what’s available to us.
Why? Religion is part of who a person is. That is exactly why I compaired it to culture, race, politics, or any other facate of a persons belief. If a person believes something, because they are muslim, and vote according to that, why is that wrong vs a person voting for something only for the reason that it will help the black community, or democrats, or their particular career, or the science(s) they are interested in, or any of a billion things?
Freedom of conscience, as safeguarded in the separation of church and state. I’m quite aware that legislators and voters are not actually going to do that for themselves, but then we go back and rectify things through the judiciary. If religious observances, such as abstaining from contraception or abortion, being required to or encouraged to pray by state officials or in state facilities, are given force of law they are obvious establishments of religion.
It’s actually trivial to set aside your religion and make decisions on what you think best for everybody, whether they agree with your religious convictions or not. Pro-choice Catholics do it routinely, declaring their personal objection to abortion but also insisting that they have no right to impose their religious convictions on the matter upon others. So do plenty of Christians who support same-sex marriage. I even laid out a method you can use in the previous post: If you are in favor of Policy X only because of your religion, you must vote against it. If you are opposed to Policy X only because of your religion, you must vote for it.
Goodness knows I effectively do the reverse. I routinely vote for politicians despite the fact that I disagree with their religious opinions. I reject certain policies that would be very injurious to religion despite the fact that I’d really like to see religion pass into the history books.
|
|
I mean the things you listed, among others.
If a religion can’t keep its church because it can’t pay property taxes, that’s tough. If my local bookstore, of which I’m quite fond, can’t pay its taxes then it will close down. If my local cinema can’t pay its taxes, it too will close down. So too the local restaurants, gun shops, comic store, factories, and any other private business. Why should my local churches be any different? That it is is a clear subsidy to religion, granting religious businesses an advantage over secular businesses.
But actually, they don't. You can freely donate money, which would be tax free to your local bookstore, gun shop, comic store, or whatever. Churches generally do not have a business, per se, and suggesting that donations be taxed is kind of rediculous. That would be the same money being taxed 3 times. 1 when the person first earns it, a second time when they have to account for it in their annual tax (rather than as a donation write-off), and lastly as an income for the church, which mostly go to funding various free community aid programs (depending on the church), such as soup kitchens, good will, places to stay for abused children/spouces.
If a priest decides to obstruct justice, he belongs in jail. If his job requires that he obstruct justice, then it sounds to me like he’s a member of an organized crime outfit. He cannot excuse himself by saying he’s a priest, only bring other priests under suspicion by so doing.
I assume that you mean the sanctity of confession? Did you know that doctors, lawyers, mental health professionals, nurses, and similar completely secular professions also have this? Each and every one has stipulations, (usually the exact same ones), determined by the state. Typically, it does not cover abuse.
If you are talking about rapes/molestations, and if they are infact found guilty, I fully agree they need to be punished the exact same as anyone else who did so. I don't think anyone argued that.
If, as you say, religions need nonprofit status and the benefits it brings in order to provide public services, then that’s fine. They can do all the paperwork and come under identical scrutiny, reporting requirements, and so forth as secular nonprofits face. This is not how it actually works right now. Instead they are presumed to be nonprofits by virtue of being churches, which is absurd.
No, this is not actually correct. The individual church must meet specific requirements for non-profit status. Typically ths includes having a set number of active members, a set number of monthly or weekly meetings, a administration council, a public location, and other things. Just like everyone else, there is a lot of accounting, and unlike most other organizations, churchs usually get scrutinized more for taxes and accountability than other charitable groups.
Wht do you mean by state aid?
I mean, among other things, tax exemptions, priest/penitent privilege, drawing money from the state to engage in religious activity, using money given for other reasons for religious purposes, having donations to the organization be tax free, having positions as religious officiants for state bodies, carrying out religious ceremonies during state functions, the list goes on and on.
You do understand that any and all organizations can do these things. They don't just hand them out to churches, right? Churches, actually have to go to their civil offices and rent space at functions, request permission to make public prescence, and to conduct their ceremonies. Just like each booth at a town fair. They do not get anything that no one else can not also get.
But I guess my question boils down to, why is your religious view more important, more fair than the next guys? Maybe he wants to enjoy a ceremony? Who are you to tell him/her it is okay for your religious opinion to dictate how they can practive theirs?
But also what are "reasonable securlar laws"? Who gets to pick? The government that is suppossed to be ruled by the people and there for the sole purpose of protecting their freedoms?
The judiciary is the branch of government we rely upon to make sure the majority doesn’t grant itself numerous rights and then deny those same rights to the minority. You must know this, as you’ve complained about it in at least two different posts on this very thread. It’s hardly a perfect mechanism and it can take centuries to get around to working, as it did in banning compulsory prayer in the schools, but it’s what’s available to us.
The same judiciary government that you say should disallow anyone that feels their religion should play any part in their "impartial" decision? I'm begining to have a hard time believing you are serious on this part.
Why? Religion is part of who a person is. That is exactly why I compaired it to culture, race, politics, or any other facate of a persons belief. If a person believes something, because they are muslim, and vote according to that, why is that wrong vs a person voting for something only for the reason that it will help the black community, or democrats, or their particular career, or the science(s) they are interested in, or any of a billion things?
Freedom of conscience, as safeguarded in the separation of church and state. I’m quite aware that legislators and voters are not actually going to do that for themselves, but then we go back and rectify things through the judiciary. If religious observances, such as abstaining from contraception or abortion, being required to or encouraged to pray by state officials or in state facilities, are given force of law they are obvious establishments of religion.
It’s actually trivial to set aside your religion and make decisions on what you think best for everybody, whether they agree with your religious convictions or not. Pro-choice Catholics do it routinely, declaring their personal objection to abortion but also insisting that they have no right to impose their religious convictions on the matter upon others. So do plenty of Christians who support same-sex marriage.
But, in all honesty neither same-sex marriages or abstaining from contraceptives are strictly "religious". The religions might give a bsis for the individual being against that, but not really a part of the religion itself. Like I was saying, only one facat of the person, and not every individual in a group is going to believe the exact same way. However, there are a great deal of non-religious groups against all of those things, for their own reasons.
People may not want same-sex marrages for the fear that it will destroy many of the benefits that marrage offers, fear because it is an easy way for terrorists to get into the country legally, because of their own views on homosecuallity, or whatever.
Others do not like birth control because onf the way it makes their bodies and menstral cycles react, hate or have a reaction to condoms, believe in more natural births/pregnancies and what to be surprized, or believe that abstinance is a good thing, religion not entering the picture.
Abortion, many see it is simple murder. I shouldn't need to really go into that one.
I even laid out a method you can use in the previous post: If you are in favor of Policy X only because of your religion, you must vote against it. If you are opposed to Policy X only because of your religion, you must vote for it.
<not beig serious>Policy X = making rape/murder/theft legal. My religion is against that, . . .</not beig serious>
Goodness knows I effectively do the reverse. I routinely vote for politicians despite the fact that I disagree with their religious opinions. I reject certain policies that would be very injurious to religion despite the fact that I’d really like to see religion pass into the history books.
Voting for someone whose religious or whatever views you don't fully agree with is a different thing than suggesting we should vote for all the things our religion is against, (or vice versa).
But actually, they don't. You can freely donate money, which would be tax free to your local bookstore, gun shop, comic store, or whatever.
I’m sure the IRS would be fine with me writing off my AP subscription or my monthly porn bill as charitable donations. Do you also have any bridges you’d like to sell me?
Churches generally do not have a business, per se, and suggesting that donations be taxed is kind of rediculous.
They take in income. They provide services. How is a church different from a maid service, or one of Nevada’s legal brothels? Or the psychiatrist’s office down the street? Exchanging money for goods and services sounds like a business to me. Hell, my father was removed from the rolls of his last church because he stopped giving them money.
That would be the same money being taxed 3 times. 1 when the person first earns it, a second time when they have to account for it in their annual tax (rather than as a donation write-off), and lastly as an income for the church, which mostly go to funding various free community aid programs (depending on the church), such as soup kitchens, good will, places to stay for abused children/spouces.
Your employer earns money. That income is taxed. From that money, which has been taxed, he pays you. You pay tax on that money. You then go to a store and buy yourself some new underwear. The store pays tax on that money, which is revenues after all, and also pays employees with some of it. The employees then owe tax. They use the remainder of the money to pay for things they want to buy from another business that is also taxed.
What you’re describing sounds perfectly normal to me. Money is taxed any number of times, as it should be.
I assume that you mean the sanctity of confession? Did you know that doctors, lawyers, mental health professionals, nurses, and similar completely secular professions also have this? Each and every one has stipulations, (usually the exact same ones), determined by the state. Typically, it does not cover abuse.
I am aware that legitimate professionals with reasonable public health or legal reasons have similar privileges. If a priest wants such a privilege, he should go to school and become a state-certified lawyer, doctor, therapist, or the like. To my knowledge there is no state certification for priests and I don’t think there should be. Do you want the government telling you who is and is not qualified to preach in your church? That too would be establishment in my eyes.
I did have child rape international in mind, but it wasn’t all I had in mind. Why should confessing a crime to a priest be a protected right when confessing one to a bartender or any other random person on the street is not?
No, this is not actually correct. The individual church must meet specific requirements for non-profit status. Typically ths includes having a set number of active members, a set number of monthly or weekly meetings, a administration council, a public location, and other things. Just like everyone else, there is a lot of accounting, and unlike most other organizations, churchs usually get scrutinized more for taxes and accountability than other charitable groups.
What does having a public location, X number of members, X number of meetings, and the like have to do with deserving charitable nonprofit status? You’re telling me that just being a church isn’t enough to be a charitable non-profit, but then the requirements you describe are nothing more than being a church. I dare say I could find enough people to meet them for Samnell’s Crazy No-Tax Church of Fraud too. Think the IRS should let that one go?
To distinguish between the two is going to require the government to decide what is and what is not an acceptable, legitimate religious organization. If you’re comfortable with that, it’s only because you’re confident your own clubhouse would meet the scrutiny of state inquisitors. I call the very act an act of establishment of religion.
You do understand that any and all organizations can do these things. They don't just hand them out to churches, right? Churches, actually have to go to their civil offices and rent space at functions, request permission to make public prescence, and to conduct their ceremonies. Just like each booth at a town fair. They do not get anything that no one else can not also get.
I’d like to see the website of the federal bureau for the licensing of religious practice. Until then I plain don’t believe you. You also neglected several things that obviously only religious groups do which I listed above and shall repeat:
I mean, among other things, tax exemptions, priest/penitent privilege, drawing money from the state to engage in religious activity, using money given for other reasons for religious purposes, having donations to the organization be tax free, having positions as religious officiants for state bodies, carrying out religious ceremonies during state functions, the list goes on and on.
But I guess my question boils down to, why is your religious view more important, more fair than the next guys? Maybe he wants to enjoy a ceremony? Who are you to tell him/her it is okay for your religious opinion to dictate how they can practive theirs?
My view is not in any way religious. But you have misunderstood me again, which is puzzling because I think I’ve been extremely clear now. I don’t care one bit if the next guy wants to go out to a whorehouse, smoke crack, watch NASCAR, put up a velvet picture of Elvis in his den, chew gum, read comic books, go to church, or any of that. It’s none of my business what entertainments people partake of in their private life, provide they’re not mistreating others in the course of recreation. I am not in the slightest trying to dictate how one does or does not go to church, where one goes, how often, or any of that.
What I am saying is that when your religious practice demands state support, you’re out of luck. Part of living in a non-theocracy means accepting that the state doesn’t dictate, encourage, support, or facilitate religious activity or any kind. You have the right to do it, but not to call on the state to impose your religious structures or observances on others. That’s as true for Muslims who want Sharia law as it is for Christians who are against same-sex marriage.The same judiciary government that you say should disallow anyone that feels their religion should play any part in their "impartial" decision? I'm begining to have a hard time believing you are serious on this part.
I’m completely serious. The main reason I think we should keep the judiciary around and keep it independent is so it can use its powers of judicial review to stop the majority from using the minority as its personal toilet. We all deserve the same rights. The references I have made to religious motivations being excluded from lawmaking (since the laws also apply to people who disagree with religious convictions), refer implicitly to the Lemon test.
I’m not entirely happy with the Lemon test on a personal level, but it’s not something I just made up.
People may not want same-sex marrages for the fear that it will destroy many of the benefits that marrage offers, fear because it is an easy way for terrorists to get into the country legally, because of their own views on homosecuallity, or whatever.
The animus against homosexuality is exclusively religious in character. The foes of same-sex marriage aren’t subtle about it. You must be aware of their arguments. It boils down to God owning marriage and God hates gays, so that’s the end of it. Strict theocracy.
This is not to say that there are no good, decent religious people who are in favor of same-sex marriage. There certainly are. We’ve even had some in this very thread.
Others do not like birth control because onf the way it makes their bodies and menstral cycles react, hate or have a reaction to condoms, believe in more natural births/pregnancies and what to be surprized, or believe that abstinance is a good thing, religion not entering the picture.
You are ignoring the context of the comment. I did not say, and in fact explicitly dismissed, the notion that contraception should be mandatory. The position you, by contrast, are defending is that contraception should be banned. That’s whacky.
Abortion, many see it is simple murder. I shouldn't need to really go into that one.
People believe all kinds of truly insane things, and that’s a popular one. (Apparently a single cell is a unique life every bit as precious and worthy of defense as that of an adult female when it's in a uterus, but it's just trash when you get a haircut.) They clearly get it from the religious idea that a soul is created at the union of a sperm and egg. It’s extremely clear from their literature and arguments. If they were interested in when human life really began, they wouldn’t be listing the union of two cells but rather looking back at Africa somewhere around a hundred thousand years or so ago.
Voting for someone whose religious or whatever views you don't fully agree with is a different thing than suggesting we should vote for all the things our religion is against, (or vice versa).
On the contrary, voting for things your religion condemns is the very act of respecting the rights of others to hold different convictions. To refuse to do so absent some reason aside one’s religions convictions is the very act of imposing your religion upon them.
As I told a religious friend a year or two ago, I do not want the religious to renounce their faith and thus come to agree with me on X. I don’t want them to change the dictates of their faith so that X is ok by it and thus they can agree with me on X. I want them to accept that we are all human beings who ought to possess precisely equal rights and that among those rights is the right to peacefully and equally coexist despite the fact that this means people, myself included, will do things that their religion condemns and that condemnation is not sufficient reason to demand that these things be outlawed.
I think it’s a rather bad thing to be involved in a church and religions, especially the kind popular in the US, tend to teach very bad values. (Occasionally good stuff too, but mostly bad.) In fact I think some of them teach stuff that’s pretty much pure evil. I would very much rather that nobody went to church, or even thought going to church was a good idea. I’d like to see all the places closed down. Maybe the architecturally or historically significant ones could be preserved as tourist spots.
But I accept that the religious and irreligious should be able to lead their private lives and consume the entertainment of their choice in peace so long as no one’s rights are being violated. So if the state decided to ban a religion, or all religions together, or act for no good secular reason to compel religions to abandon or modify certain practices, I would be powerfully opposed. Hence I am against the Swiss minaret ban, because it’s transparently a backdoor way to outlaw mosques.
But let me say it just one more time and perhaps it will sink in: I do not support outlawing religion.
|
|
Samnell, how would you apply your statements to military chaplains? In that the state is using taxpayer money to support religious services and personnel? I'm not making any case against the Chaplin Corp, just curious about how it should be treated.I am entirely opposed to chaplains in any and every government institution. If soldiers wish to go to church, synagogue, get naked and dance around trees, or whatever they can do it off base, off duty, and on their own dime.
I understand that may be difficult for soldiers who are stuck in situations where they can't just hop away once a week, like on a submarine in the middle of the Pacific, but that's an unavoidable consequence of the job they chose. Should soldiers require psychological help as a consequence of their job, then they should be referred to trained therapists and I have no objection at all to the military providing them as part of its compensation package just as it subsidizes other forms of medical care.
Chaplains are members of Special Staff to commanders. As such, they're used extensively as nonreligious, philosophical moral and ethical educators to units (and commanders). They're the experts in the realm of military ethics and, for example, the 'Army Values.' They're also, usually, the most knowledgeable people a unit has with regard to the religious and cultural customs of the various places we find ourselves training and fighting. 90% of a chaplains time is spent in counseling; 9% in guidance to warfighting, and 1% serving as religious leaders (priests, pastors, what have you.).
|
|
I’m sure the IRS would be fine with me writing off my AP subscription or my monthly porn bill as charitable donations. Do you also have any bridges you’d like to sell me?
No, because a you are purchasing something. You can however donate, a completely different thing. Make it clear you are donating, get a reciet that says amount and date and that it is a donation. Works the same way for any charity, political donations, etc. . . There are even laws to donate to an individual (as a 1 time thing so not to be abussed).
A lot o social clubs work the same way, so again, it is not a religious only benefit. I am not sure, but pretty certain AA, groups for coping single parents, and things like that do.
They take in income. They provide services. How is a church different from a maid service, or one of Nevada’s legal brothels? Or the psychiatrist’s office down the street? Exchanging money for goods and services sounds like a business to me. Hell, my father was removed from the rolls of his last church because he stopped giving them money.
Because it is more like granting money to hold in trust to go towards a lit of different things. All those community services, to buy food, or rent space for church events, church donations to various causes. I'm sorry for your father, and yes thre are bad churches. I am not arguing that.
Beckett wrote:
I assume that you mean the sanctity of confession? Did you know that doctors, lawyers, mental health professionals, nurses, and similar completely secular professions also have this? Each and every one has stipulations, (usually the exact same ones), determined by the state. Typically, it does not cover abuse.
I am aware that legitimate professionals with reasonable public health or legal reasons have similar privileges. If a priest wants such a privilege, he should go to school and become a state-certified lawyer, doctor, therapist, or the like. To my knowledge there is no state certification for priests and I don’t think there should be. Do you want the government telling you who is and is not qualified to preach in your church? That too would be establishment in my eyes.
I did have child rape international in mind, but it wasn’t all I had in mind. Why should confessing a crime to a priest be a protected right when confessing one to a bartender or any other random person on the street is not?
First off, most priests or whatever religious tile they go by are professionals. They have a masters degree in religion, psychology, administration, or someting along those lines. Secondly, they are usually stte certifies. Each state, and county has their own rules, but usually include presentation of credintals and diplomas, understanding state laws in regards to what must be reported, marriage laws, and similar things, and be in good standing with a religious group before thy can do anything as a religious figure.
Lastly, I want to point out that I personally do think most churches should be closed down. Going to church, or having a church is not a part of my faith, and I am not religious in that snce. So I fully understand what you are saying in regards to being able to lay aside what you believe to vote for something else. That's exactly what I am doing here.
Beckett wrote:
No, this is not actually correct. The individual church must meet specific requirements for non-profit status. Typically ths includes having a set number of active members, a set number of monthly or weekly meetings, a administration council, a public location, and other things. Just like everyone else, there is a lot of accounting, and unlike most other organizations, churchs usually get scrutinized more for taxes and accountability than other charitable groups.
What does having a public location, X number of members, X number of meetings, and the like have to do with deserving charitable nonprofit status? You’re telling me that just being a church isn’t enough to be a charitable non-profit, but then the requirements you describe are nothing more than being a church. I dare say I could find enough people to meet them for Samnell’s Crazy No-Tax Church of Fraud too. Think the IRS should let that one go?
To distinguish between the two is going to require the government to decide what is and what is not an acceptable, legitimate religious organization. If you’re comfortable with that, it’s only because you’re confident your own clubhouse would meet the scrutiny of state inquisitors. I call the very act an act of establishment of religion.
That is right, I am telling you it isn't enough, because you seem to think it is simple and easy. Sunday services or other religious days do not count for weekly meetings, and hiring an administrative board isn't easy. The church needs to purchase land as a headquarters prior to any kind of benefits.
People do your church frued all the time, because of things like the universale life chruch. It's nothing new, and yes, as long as you can get whatever your state requires, you could do that.
Beckett wrote:
But I guess my question boils down to, why is your religious view more important, more fair than the next guys? Maybe he wants to enjoy a ceremony? Who are you to tell him/her it is okay for your religious opinion to dictate how they can practive theirs?
My view is not in any way religious. But you have misunderstood me again, which is puzzling because I think I’ve been extremely clear now.
How not? Are you not specifically pin-pointing religion? Your religious views are clear, sure, and while I respect your opinion. You say on one hand you want impartiallity to religions, but then the other hand grasps for ultimate power in the atheist "religion" todictate what anyone else can practice.
What I am saying is that when your religious practice demands state support, you’re out of luck. Part of living in a non-theocracy means accepting that the state doesn’t dictate, encourage, support, or facilitate religious activity or any kind. You have the right to do it, but not to call on the state to impose your religious structures or observances on others. That’s as true for Muslims who want Sharia law as it is for Christians who are against same-sex marriage.
There is a big disconect here. Qualifying for and tking advantage of laws intended to be used, and which any group out there as equally and impartially able to be granted is n no way the government giving special anything to religion. However, taking that away, but only from religious groups, like you are suggesting IS showing atheist and anti-religious groups special favor.
Beckett wrote:
The same judiciary government that you say should disallow anyone that feels their religion should play any part in their "impartial" decision? I'm begining to have a hard time believing you are serious on this part.
I’m completely serious. The main reason I think we should keep the judiciary around and keep it independent is so it can use its powers of judicial review to stop the majority from using the minority as its personal toilet. We all deserve the same rights. The references I have made to religious motivations being excluded from lawmaking (since the laws also apply to people who disagree with religious convictions), refer implicitly to the Lemon test.
I’m not entirely happy with the Lemon test on a personal level, but it’s not something I just made up.
So you must also believe that culture, history, race, and all those other things must fit into the same catagorie, correct?
Beckett wrote:
People may not want same-sex marrages for the fear that it will destroy many of the benefits that marrage offers, fear because it is an easy way for terrorists to get into the country legally, because of their own views on homosecuallity, or whatever.
The animus against homosexuality is exclusively religious in character. The foes of same-sex marriage aren’t subtle about it. You must be aware of their arguments. It boils down to God owning marriage and God hates gays, so that’s the end of it. Strict theocracy.
No, it isn't. I will conceed that there are a lot of religious people against it, but there are plenty of atheists, agnostics, or anythingelse out there, to. Also, there are entire "gay churches".
I don't have any problem with homosexuality, but am hesitant about homosexual marriage, because it opens up a huge door to allowing in terrorists and what would otherwise be illegal immigrants, and we are not ready for that. From a religious point of view, it is not my place to judge them, and I have a lot of gay friends.
This is not to say that there are no good, decent religious people who are in favor of same-sex marriage. There certainly are. We’ve even had some in this very thread.
More power to them.
Beckett wrote:
Others do not like birth control because onf the way it makes their bodies and menstral cycles react, hate or have a reaction to condoms, believe in more natural births/pregnancies and what to be surprized, or believe that abstinance is a good thing, religion not entering the picture.
You are ignoring the context of the comment. I did not say, and in fact explicitly dismissed, the notion that contraception should be mandatory. The position you, by contrast, are defending is that contraception should be banned. That’s whacky.
No, I was shwing you that it also is not a religious vs non-religious issue, as there are people on both sides for and against it.
Beckett wrote:
Abortion, many see it is simple murder. I shouldn't need to really go into that one.
People believe all kinds of truly insane things, and that’s a popular one. (Apparently a single cell is a unique life every bit as precious and worthy of defense as that of an adult female when it's in a uterus, but it's just trash when you get a haircut.) They clearly get it from the religious idea that a soul is created at the union of a sperm and egg. It’s extremely clear from their literature and arguments. If they were interested in when human life really began, they wouldn’t be listing the union of two cells but rather looking back at Africa somewhere around a hundred thousand years or so ago.
And yet, atheists world wide also believe that killing a fetus is murder, go figure. Again, the blame is not religious, it is people, on both sides.
Beckett wrote:
Voting for someone whose religious or whatever views you don't fully agree with is a different thing than suggesting we should vote for all the things our religion is against, (or vice versa).
On the contrary, voting for things your religion condemns is the very act of respecting the rights of others to hold different convictions. To refuse to do so absent some reason aside one’s religions convictions is the very act of imposing your religion upon them.
I don't believe it is. I believe it is everyone right to both petition towards and fight for what they believe it right, from a religious view or not. Even it that belief is not fighting for what they believe. I can still respect other's rights to hold different convictions, and probably even moreso, as I learn more about what those beliefs are and why. Simply letting anything go, is not respecting them. It's howing how little you actually care for them.
I think it’s a rather bad thing to be involved in a church and religions, especially the kind popular in the US, tend to teach very bad values. (Occasionally good stuff too, but mostly bad.) In fact I think some of them teach stuff that’s pretty much pure evil.
I am realy curious for examples here. Do you mean specifically catholic/christin churchs? What about things like buhddism, all about betterment ofthe world, self, and soul?
I'm probably going to stop replying after this. We are just getting way to long winded and I also don't want to start getting confrontational or driving others away. Thank you for teaching me something, and I hope we can continue in less long threads.
I don't have any problem with homosexuality, but am hesitant about homosexual marriage, because it opens up a huge door to allowing in terrorists and what would otherwise be illegal immigrants, and we are not ready for that.
You can't be serious?
Kudos to Samnell for having the patience that I don't.
I was about to say that I've got another post or two in me before giving up, what with the blatant contradictions. He's not in favor of state-imposed religion, but he's absolutely against removing state religious impositions. That's... Well I've tried in the past but I just do not know what to do with that. I usually get wildly frustrated, which I'm sure people find entertaining, but is hardly fun for me.
Then I read this for the third time and realized that I hadn't misread it:
I don't have any problem with homosexuality, but am hesitant about homosexual marriage, because it opens up a huge door to allowing in terrorists and what would otherwise be illegal immigrants, and we are not ready for that.
Sorry Beckett. My self-loathing isn't strong enough right now to want to plumb the depths of how disgusting that comment is.
I suppose I would still answer specific factual questions but yeah, I'm done with the rest. Damn.
|
I don't have any problem with homosexuality, but am hesitant about homosexual marriage, because it opens up a huge door to allowing in terrorists and what would otherwise be illegal immigrants, and we are not ready for that.You can't be serious?
I have been trying to stay out of the thread save for more cursory glances. The in my opinion, warped mentality of some posters leave me quite speechless. I feel I need to speak up here.
I may not agree with 'homosexual' marriage. Mainly, because to me, marriage is a religious institution and is not something the state should have a say in one way or the other. Marriage however, has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, or immigration. Even by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
I am left with nothing more to ask than "what are you smoking?"
Odin-ism (Sorry for not actually knowing enough to use the correct term)
Asutra
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
[
I may not agree with 'homosexual' marriage. Mainly, because to me, marriage is a religious institution and is not something the state should have a say in one way or the other. Marriage however, has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, or immigration. Even by the wildest stretch of the imagination.I am left with nothing more to ask than "what are you smoking?"
I agree with you on both counts, the marriage and smoking parts. I think that the term marriage should be a purely religious affair, and unions should be civil unions. You go to the courthouse, you fill out the appropriate legal paperwork, you're officially in a civil union. If you want to do a religious ceremony, fine, but it ain't legal until you get the paperwork. Any consenting adult can enter into a union with any other consenting adult, end of story.
And seriously, Beckett, don't bogart the brew, man. Share that stuff with your fellow man. Terrorists? Illegal immigrants? Huh?
|
|
Odin-ism (Sorry for not actually knowing enough to use the correct term)Asutra
I thought it was Asatru?
...Yes, Wikpedia confirms it as Asatru, although Odinism is also correct. The technical term is apparently "Germanic Neopaganism".
Beckett, assuming you're still reading, I can only ask you if you object to heterosexual marriage as well?
My desire to remain civil prevents me from typing further.
Okay. So, what have we learned, kids?
Samnell, being homosexual, is very likely a terrorist.
Odin's followers have pretty good taste in names.
Compartmentalization is not your friend.
Don't forget to read section 8 of your text...
This thread fell a part in the last few pages...where is Erian_7?
Still having computer issues?
I'd like if we got back to the civil discussion part, and less with the "legal butt secks is a gateway drug for terrorism".
I think that the term marriage should be a purely religious affair, and unions should be civil unions. You go to the courthouse, you fill out the appropriate legal paperwork, you're officially in a civil union. If you want to do a religious ceremony, fine, but it ain't legal until you get the paperwork. Any consenting adult can enter into a union with any other consenting adult, end of story.
+1
I thought it was Asatru?
Probably so. Been hijacked by neo-nazi skinheads, and I can't stand those guys. Drives 'em up a tree if you make fun of the stuff the don't really believe anyway.
I thought it was Asatru?Probably so. Been hijacked by neo-nazi skinheads, and I can't stand those guys. Drives 'em up a tree if you make fun of the stuff the don't really believe anyway.
I used to work with a guy that believed in Thor. He refused to work Thursdays. True story, unfortunately.
I used to work with a guy that believed in Thor. He refused to work Thursdays. True story, unfortunately.
I really know better, but I'm curious: Somehow more "unfortunate" than a Christian who refuses to work on Sundays?
I used to work with a guy that believed in Thor. He refused to work Thursdays. True story, unfortunately.I'm curious: Somehow more "unfortunate" than a Christian who refuses to work on Sundays?
I don't know any Christians who refuse to work Sundays. I know alot of them who would prefer not to, but still work the schedule they are given, and work OT when asked, until they can land a mon-fri gig.
No sane person I know gets a job, then tells them after working there for 3 years, "I beleive in (insert deity here) and can no longer work (insert religiously appropriate day here)."
If you know people like this, I'm sorry.
In the interest of full disclosure:
I believe that God created the universe.
I do not care about the specifics of how He did it.
I believe that Jesus is the son of God, died and rose 3 days later.
I do not care what calendar day he was born on.
I believe the teachings of Jesus supercede the old testament.
I believe that homosexuality is between God and the individual.
I do not believe I was created to act as God or Jesus' judge advocate general.
I hope how I live my life glorifies Jesus.
I do not ask others to do so for me.
I believe the Holy Spirit acts as a guide for those who follow Jesus.
I do not believe I am "possessed".
This should suffice.
No sane person I know gets a job, then tells them after working there for 3 years, "I beleive in (insert deity here) and can no longer work (insert religiously appropriate day here)."
If you know people like this, I'm sorry.
Don't Orthodox Jews abstain from work on the Sabbath? This was an "issue" with Leibermann when he was Gore's running mate, if I'm not mistaken.
(Apologies to Orthodox Jews if I'm in error.)
Edit: Sorry, re-reading your quote I missed the "after 3 years part". But then, I suppose, someone converting to Judaism could make this claim after 3 years.
Greg
I used to work with a guy that believed in Thor. He refused to work Thursdays. True story, unfortunately.I'm curious: Somehow more "unfortunate" than a Christian who refuses to work on Sundays?I don't know any Christians who refuse to work Sundays. I know alot of them who would prefer not to, but still work the schedule they are given, and work OT when asked, until they can land a mon-fri gig.
No sane person I know gets a job, then tells them after working there for 3 years, "I beleive in (insert deity here) and can no longer work (insert religiously appropriate day here)."
If you know people like this, I'm sorry.
I grew up in an area where there were several Christian denominations that prohibited working on Sundays (or at least, local congregations of several denominations that did). I've also worked with several observant Jews who negotiated their work schedule around their Sabbath observances.
I share neither of those beliefs, but I think it's fine for people to negotiate an agreeable compromise with their employer to accommodate the requirements of their religion. If a compromise can't be reached that satisfies the employer and accommodates the religion, then it's a problem, but it's usually not hard to come up with a reasonable compromise.
I used to work with a guy that believed in Thor. He refused to work Thursdays. True story, unfortunately.I'm curious: Somehow more "unfortunate" than a Christian who refuses to work on Sundays?I don't know any Christians who refuse to work Sundays. I know alot of them who would prefer not to, but still work the schedule they are given, and work OT when asked, until they can land a mon-fri gig.
No sane person I know gets a job, then tells them after working there for 3 years, "I beleive in (insert deity here) and can no longer work (insert religiously appropriate day here)."
If you know people like this, I'm sorry.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with Chick-fil-A?
;)|
|
I used to work with a guy that believed in Thor. He refused to work Thursdays. True story, unfortunately.I'm curious: Somehow more "unfortunate" than a Christian who refuses to work on Sundays?I don't know any Christians who refuse to work Sundays. I know alot of them who would prefer not to, but still work the schedule they are given, and work OT when asked, until they can land a mon-fri gig.
No sane person I know gets a job, then tells them after working there for 3 years, "I beleive in (insert deity here) and can no longer work (insert religiously appropriate day here)."
If you know people like this, I'm sorry.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with Chick-fil-A?
;)
Does not apply, Chich-fil-A is a company with a standing policy of not being open on Sundays. It is not an employee who is trying to get a set day off after being employed for a while.
I used to work with a guy that believed in Thor. He refused to work Thursdays. True story, unfortunately.I'm curious: Somehow more "unfortunate" than a Christian who refuses to work on Sundays?I don't know any Christians who refuse to work Sundays. I know alot of them who would prefer not to, but still work the schedule they are given, and work OT when asked, until they can land a mon-fri gig.
No sane person I know gets a job, then tells them after working there for 3 years, "I beleive in (insert deity here) and can no longer work (insert religiously appropriate day here)."
If you know people like this, I'm sorry.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with Chick-fil-A?
;)
heh, they ain't open on Sundays :P
I share neither of those beliefs, but I think it's fine for people to negotiate an agreeable compromise with their employer to accommodate the requirements of their religion. If a compromise can't be reached that satisfies the employer and accommodates the religion, then it's a problem, but it's usually not hard to come up with a reasonable compromise.
This.
Does not apply, Chich-fil-A is a company with a standing policy of not being open on Sundays. It is not an employee who is trying to get a set day off after being employed for a while.
Maybe the Thor guys was a recent convert. I don't know, and frankly I don't see why it matters. I was simply demonstrating that it isn't all that unusual for someone (like, say, the founder of Chick-fil-A) to not want to work on a particular day for religious reasons.