User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 79

  1. #61
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post

    At this point, I feel like religion and religious are words that mean nothing in particular but are tagged onto anything that someone wants to receive reverence without justification.

    Which is to say it is a notion that is not grounded in reality, but you find it helpful to frame things this way.

    Show me one case where the first amendment was used to force someone to revere another religion.

    The first amendment protects you from being forced to revere any religion that's why it was created.

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Business owners can turn down business for whatever reason. The law does not force businesses to take all comers.

    It may be simpler to just not offer service and not give a reason.
    I suspect that this was said tongue in cheek, but I think this may actually be the crux of the problem. Businesses can refuse service for "any" reason, but refusing service for certain specific reasons is clearly problematic socially and legally. Businesses don't normally refuse service since it is against their interests to do so, but now some people have found a reason compelling enough to sacrifice their economic well-being and it may not just be a blip by some yahoos. I don't think we'll find a workable solution until we address that paradox.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  3. #63
    A Mystery Jacques Le Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    XNTP
    Enneagram
    359
    Posts
    879

    Default

    Religious Freedom does not exist, freedom of thought is more appropriate.
    Always forward, never back!

    "I always love talking to people and hearing their story. People always have a good life story to tell ya know?"



    My blog in regular blogs

  4. #64
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

    I'm not sure why Adams thinks the Constitution is inadequate for a secular or non-religious people. Jefferson thinks the purpose of government is to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a secular people don't believe in this premise (that our rights come from a Creator and that the purpose of govt is to protect those rights), I can how how difficult it may be for them to accept and abide by the laws contained in the Constitution. There is some evidence of this in the attempt by secular leftists to pack the courts with the intent to bastardize the Constitution; they've pretty much eliminated the 10th amendment; they're working on getting rid of the 2nd amendment and they're not too fond of the 4th amendment either. As Barack Obama put it, the Constitution is fundamentally flawed because it does not allow for redistributive change (marxist crap).
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  5. #65
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Which is to say it is a notion that is not grounded in reality, but you find it helpful to frame things this way.

    Show me one case where the first amendment was used to force someone to revere another religion.

    The first amendment protects you from being forced to revere any religion that's why it was created.
    I think making a specific point to be able deny service to gays as exactly that.
    I suppose you would be standing on an even platform if you think it is also okay for a person or business to deny someone service because they are religious, but I have not seen you mention that position, no less bothering to give it the effort you are giving this whole gay thing. If you don't think it's alright to deny someone service based on religion, then you are just flatly giving preferential treatment to religion and calling freedom (which is what I think so-called religious freedom usually is).

    But hey, I also mean tax exemption status for churches for example. Why does any tax payer have to hold that up? Churches (in the literal physical sense) and religious organizations (in the abstract sense) certainly benefit from the effects of tax payer money, so they're basically taking a free ride. Every time someone has told me that this is justified, it's based on some idea of religious freedom, so in turn I think one might as well make up a religion for any venture they want to take and slouch on their taxes.

    Anyhow, you make an assumption that my statement was very strictly legal, and it wasn't. Life is not guided by people trying to follow the constitution to the word, and people differ in how they interpret the constitution when they bother thinking about it, anyhow. I've often pointed out that the Bible is in many ways a horrible book, just a really shitty book, and asserted that its perception as a religious text is the source of all its respect which it would not have without that trapping. But since it does, people then go on the find all kinds of supposed value in it that they for some reason don't find Lord of the Rings. That kind of thinking can and does influence everything, including politics. If I burned a pile of Bibles in public or a burned a pile of copies of Moby-Dick, do you think the reactions would be the same? Do you think the difference reflects a difference in how people might legislate or govern?

    The question, again, is: What can I claim to be a religious belief or act and what protections can I get for that?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #66
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Yeah, when half my friends and I are in a gulag I'll remember you said this.
    You think if someone with the power to take away your general freedom wants to send you to a gulag, religious freedom will save you? How cute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    It seems to me that if I wanted to impose my religious beliefs on everybody the best way to do that would be to get rid of religious liberty in order to suppress opposition and then just redefine liberty itself to fit my own personal beliefs.
    Or just vote for Rick Santorum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    If you get rid of religious liberty the only institution with the right to tell us how to live is the state. And the state has pretty powerful means of persuasion at it's disposal.
    Too much folly in this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    No. Religious freedom is distinct from other freedoms. The reason is that it forces the government to recognize that there are other institutions that can determine how we ought to live.
    Since you bring it up again, let's take it seriously.

    Religion is not an institution. As someone with such a wide interpretation of what religious belief means, you will agree that religion is a label put on a system of beliefs of religious content. Churches, we can agree, are institutions. But where does this right to tell us 'how we ought to live' come from? Is that something churches are meant and allowed to do, legally? I hope not. If they were, however, why would they have such power and the National Marxist League not? They have a system of ideological beliefs as well, and they do like to tell their members how they ought to live. And what about parents? They provide their children with a system of ideological beliefs and very much tell them how they ought to live. Do we need family freedom, too? Or should freedom be enough?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Without such recognition there are only two agents that determine how people should live and those are the state and the individual. In such a situation it's MUCH easier for the state to marginalize and discriminate against minority views.
    Is this true in the US? Because where I live, this sounds crazy.

  7. #67
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I suspect that this was said tongue in cheek, but I think this may actually be the crux of the problem. Businesses can refuse service for "any" reason, but refusing service for certain specific reasons is clearly problematic socially and legally. Businesses don't normally refuse service since it is against their interests to do so, but now some people have found a reason compelling enough to sacrifice their economic well-being and it may not just be a blip by some yahoos. I don't think we'll find a workable solution until we address that paradox.
    That in general is why I view this as not just trying to adhere to one's beliefs but needing to make some big public statement against other beliefs. The debate (and I'll be fair, it happens on both ends) is less about having freedom to do what one wants and instead more about promoting one's cause and setting the turf boundaries due to how they have been shifting so much in recent years. People feel like their boundaries are being violated and they're pissed, so they are getting in each other's faces. Again, I will note that for years on end it was the LGBT end that was forced into hiding and having their boundaries violated and the Christians did not stand up for them; in fact, as a group, people who labeled themselves as "Christian" were the main oppressors; so while I feel some empathy at their frustration, in the big scheme of things it's pretty much karma playing itself out at this point.
    @Amargith made some points in the other thread about how far does religious freedom extend in the business realm -- mainly, if a company is large enough, why can't they have people who CAN accommodate certain requests on their payroll, even if others cannot out of some kind of religious conscience? But I think the main problem is that there are many small companies that are comprised by only the owners and/or by a small group of people with shared ideology. So the boundary between company and owner is being heavily blurred. Typically COMPANIES wouldn't have religious values attached; only people can hold religious values. If companies have religious values attached, it's because the people in charge of the company hold certain values and are attaching them to the COMPANY itself. But that to me blurs the line, there's no distinguishing the company from the individual -- which seems to fly in the face of the financial aspects of having a company in the first place, to create a financial boundary between owner and company so that if the company goes under, the owner's property is not touched. Which is it? is the company just the owner doing business, or is it a secular agency doing business who happens to have some religious people in charge of it?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #68
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    @Amargith made some points in the other thread about how far does religious freedom extend in the business realm -- mainly, if a company is large enough, why can't they have people who CAN accommodate certain requests on their payroll, even if others cannot out of some kind of religious conscience? But I think the main problem is that there are many small companies that are comprised by only the owners and/or by a small group of people with shared ideology. So the boundary between company and owner is being heavily blurred.
    The exemption only applies to closely held companies. The larger the company the less of a right of religious exemption it has.

  9. #69
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The exemption only applies to closely held companies. The larger the company the less of a right of religious exemption it has.
    As an odd side note, does SCOTUS' removal of restrictions on larger companies in terms of campaign contributions, so they can contribute as per individuals would, have any bearing on this? Yes, I'm thinking broadly more in terms of principle and it might not have any legal connection, but it comes to mind as we discuss the religion aspect so I thought I'd mention it.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #70
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,776

    Default

    i think the world would be a better place if, they followed this philosophy: if it's not broke don't fix it. if it simply makes you uncomfortable but doesn't harm yourself or anyone else, leave it alone. People are generally assholes, be nice to them anyways, they'll be more likely to be nice back. Believe what you want (I mean spirtually), but don't drag other people, or use those beliefs to persecute others.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

Similar Threads

  1. Another blow to religious freedom
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 12:38 PM
  2. Problem of Religious bigotry
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 03:57 PM
  3. Religious Testimonies & Authenticity
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-06-2011, 12:37 PM
  4. Yet another Islamist atrocity against religious freedom and free speech...
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-13-2010, 09:01 PM
  5. religious nutbars
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 06:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO