[POLITICS] Religious Discrimination

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

So, a little while ago, a football player called Israel Folau was fired by Rugby (Union) Australia. He's well know for making career in Union and Rugby League and has represented Australia quite a few times. He was fired over a tweet saying "Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators - Hell awaits you." He had already been given a breach of contract for similar comments a couple of years ago, and in Australia, its two breaches and your out.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/47932231

He's been fighting the dismissal since. They've gone to arbitration but to no avail. He did a GoFundMe to pay for legal cost of taking this to court and got $2m in a couple of days. Despite him and his family being rich (That's really annoyed me but a side issue.) This is still in progress.

Our Prime Minister, Scott Morrison has stated that he wants to create a Religions Discrimination Act. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/scott-morrison-promises-religious-discrimination-act-this-year-coalition-to-consult-with-labor/ar-AADGX6e?ocid=spartandhp
This would ban businesses from religiously discriminating against employees. Details have not been hashed out, and it might just include private twitter accounts.

So, why should you care about what some backwater is doing about Religious Discrimination? At the G20 on the weekend, Scott Morrison was promoting his version of what to do with Tech giants and things like the Christchurch terrorist attack. He's forcing Tech companies to show how quickly they remove such attacks from their services with public reports. This may lead to fines if the government doesn't like the results. And it sounds like China and the US like this solution. So, don't think that these ideas aren't being listened to and I could imagine somewhere like the US being really interest in Religious Discrimination laws.

These next question are only your personal understanding not what you think governments will do:
What would count as religiously protected? Does it have to come directly from a religious text or just religious beliefs? White Supremacists are also against homosexuals. Are they protect or do they have to say, "God made me do it" too? Is this only for religious people or are Atheist protected as well? The Bible talks about how the Israelites need to convert or genocide those that lived in Canaan? Are we free to promote genocide but only based on religious grounds?

Australia also has Hate Speech laws. Only individuals are allowed to prosecute alleged offenders. They have to show proof of intervening during the intervene (i.e. asking the person to stop) and it needs to be in public. I actually don't know if companies can do this, but I wonder how these two laws are going to interact.

P.S. Sorry for the length but I probably missed plenty of details trying to be as concise as possible

This is actually relatively simple.

You're allowed to believe what you want, as long as what you believe and what you practice does not cause any mental or physical harm to others.

It's relatively the same view I have with Sexual relationships. You're two dudes who love the male form and you want to get down together? Hey, great. Have a party.

You're someone who only gets off when someone is unwilling and gets hurt? Here's a number of a shrink. Either get help or if you follow through those desires, you will end up in jail without any remorse.

I'm sure your belief system is great. I support whatever peace it gives you. But it will not come at the cost of others.

You can't in good conscience, claim you should have religious freedom to state your opinions on matters while, with the same breath, say that people will suffer a fate worse than death (hell) for not sharing your supposed religious views.

This is a have your cake and eat it too scenario. Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

Saying that people will go to hell for a particular belief/practice should be tantamount to hate speech as "hell" is - in the very mind of the person who believes in it - the worst possible thing that can happen to a person. Contextually, going to hell is worse than being raped by a gang of silverback gorillas, being sawed in half from groin to gullet, being dipped in molten metal, or any other horrible fate one could think. "X go to hell" should be treated as the same as any other horrible slur directed at a group.

The hypocrisy of this asshole, who states he is being persecuted for his religious beliefs, when if anyone else had said the same things without a religious motive would have suffered the same disciplinary action from their employer as well. Religion should never grant someone privileges that are not extended to all other members of society.

ObsidianJones:

I'm sure your belief system is great. I support whatever peace it gives you. But it will not come at the cost of others.

Is it though? Is a system great if its pretty fucked up by today's standards and only something like legality, ie consequences, are preventing someone from acting out?
This is something I think modern progressives struggle with - some cultures are simply better than others.

ObsidianJones:
This is actually relatively simple.

You're allowed to believe what you want, as long as what you believe and what you practice does not cause any mental or physical harm to others.

It's relatively the same view I have with Sexual relationships. You're two dudes who love the male form and you want to get down together? Hey, great. Have a party.

You're someone who only gets off when someone is unwilling and gets hurt? Here's a number of a shrink. Either get help or if you follow through those desires, you will end up in jail without any remorse.

I'm sure your belief system is great. I support whatever peace it gives you. But it will not come at the cost of others.

Not harm you mentally? This isn't a thing because you'd have to restrict speech. We do little to stop bullying, and many people think that any speech should be protected thus all verbal bullying is acceptable

Note that our current Prime Minister is a member of a fairly extreme christian sect, much like Israel Folau.

trunkage:
Does it have to come directly from a religious text or just religious beliefs? White Supremacists are also against homosexuals. Are they protect or do they have to say, "God made me do it" too?

Yeah, seems like bigotry is a-okay as long as it's written in some dusty old book somewhere.

trunkage:

ObsidianJones:
This is actually relatively simple.

You're allowed to believe what you want, as long as what you believe and what you practice does not cause any mental or physical harm to others.

It's relatively the same view I have with Sexual relationships. You're two dudes who love the male form and you want to get down together? Hey, great. Have a party.

You're someone who only gets off when someone is unwilling and gets hurt? Here's a number of a shrink. Either get help or if you follow through those desires, you will end up in jail without any remorse.

I'm sure your belief system is great. I support whatever peace it gives you. But it will not come at the cost of others.

Not harm you mentally? This isn't a thing because you'd have to restrict speech. We do little to stop bullying, and many people think that any speech should be protected thus all verbal bullying is acceptable

Verbal Bullying is a form of violence. "Kill yourself Faggot" "Exterminate the Jews" "Death to the False Emperor", these are all calls to violence which is illegal. And depending on why someone is being bullied, ie their religion or race, it can also be hate-speech.
Bullying is only hard to prosecute because its virtually impossible to prove intention and kids can just go "Lol JK!' but when intent is provable, charges do follow. That's why that girl who convinced her mentally ill boyfriend to kill himself so she could get social media attention and sympathy is being charged with basically murder.

Silentpony:

ObsidianJones:

I'm sure your belief system is great. I support whatever peace it gives you. But it will not come at the cost of others.

Is it though? Is a system great if its pretty fucked up by today's standards and only something like legality, ie consequences, are preventing someone from acting out?
This is something I think modern progressives struggle with - some cultures are simply better than others.

No culture is better than others. If that were the case, there would be one singular culture free of crime, unfairness, and have the standard of flawlessness that others could copy. There is no such culture.

Every culture brings about despots and the unhinged. Those who do not want to conform. Why? Because it's simple Human Nature and the Bell Curve.

The Belief System will always be perverted by a Power Hungry individual who is Charismatic enough to sway people. There is not a subject known to humanity that didn't have a person try to climb at the top to gain power for themselves. Gaming, Sports, Music, Fashion, Religion, Politics, hell.. React Videos had such a controversy.

Because people were swayed doesn't speak ill of the Belief or Dogma. That's probably ok. But easily-swayed people will always flock to Charismatic Despots and believe in them because those individuals want that person to be right. Because that Charismatic Despot told them that they are special, they are on the winning team, they are the chosen ones. That makes them feel powerful. Hell, you see that with Atheists on youtube channels all the time. It's a Mob Mentality over there. One that's not too dissimilar to Faithful channels.

With everything, it's the people that make things bad. Blaming anything else is a waste of time.

trunkage:
Not harm you mentally? This isn't a thing because you'd have to restrict speech. We do little to stop bullying, and many people think that any speech should be protected thus all verbal bullying is acceptable

I didn't say it was a thing. But, unless I misread the question, it's how should Religious Freedom be upheld. This is the trade off people must accept. I will not restrict your ability to believe in the Force. That is your mind. That is your call. But when you tell me the Force told you that you must punch all Short people in the dick because they are inferior, that's an automatic no-go because you're causing harm to others.

It's essentially an expansion on all common laws. You can acquire, as long as you can legally do so. The second you go into someone's house and try to acquire what they have... well, that's bringing harm to another. That's Robbery. We have laws against it.

You have a human right to keep warm. If you need to chop down trees to do so, make sure you're not doing it in public land and you have proper licenses. Once you got that, do it in moderation and we'll be fine. You don't get to set fire to a field and say that your need for life supersedes all and it's ok.

You want to take pictures of you and your loved one doing the sex, and that loved one gets off as well as you do in putting onto the internet and having people get aroused off of it. I admire your guts. Go for it. But the second you didn't get that person's permission and you did it anyway, you violated their privacy. Punishment must come.

You have a right to do, until it crosses the line and harms others. That's the basics of almost all law.

ObsidianJones:
No culture is better than others. If that were the case, there would be one singular culture free of crime, unfairness, and have the standard of flawlessness that others could copy. There is no such culture.

One does not have to be perfect in order to be better.

ObsidianJones:
No culture is better than others. If that were the case, there would be one singular culture free of crime, unfairness, and have the standard of flawlessness that others could copy. There is no such culture.

I disagree entirely. A culture doesn't have to be perfect to be better than another one. Culture A wants to kill black and Jews. Culture B wants to kill only Jews.
Both cultures are bad, one is objectively better.

Likewise in certain fundamentalists Islamic cultures rape isn't a crime, it's a punishment. Here in the Western world, while rape is under-reported and prosecuted, its still a crime. A state or Federal judge cannot sentence a woman to be raped for not agreeing with her father. Some Imams do have that power and use it.
Does that make Western culture perfect? No, but it does make it better.

Silentpony:

ObsidianJones:
No culture is better than others. If that were the case, there would be one singular culture free of crime, unfairness, and have the standard of flawlessness that others could copy. There is no such culture.

I disagree entirely. A culture doesn't have to be perfect to be better than another one. Culture A wants to kill black and Jews. Culture B wants to kill only Jews.
Both cultures are bad, one is objectively better.

Likewise in certain fundamentalists Islamic cultures rape isn't a crime, it's a punishment. Here in the Western world, while rape is under-reported and prosecuted, its still a crime. A state or Federal judge cannot sentence a woman to be raped for not agreeing with her father. Some Imams do have that power and use it.
Does that make Western culture perfect? No, but it does make it better.

Well, we're now defining specialized things. Are we talking Culture or are we talking Institutions?

ObsidianJones:

Silentpony:

ObsidianJones:
No culture is better than others. If that were the case, there would be one singular culture free of crime, unfairness, and have the standard of flawlessness that others could copy. There is no such culture.

I disagree entirely. A culture doesn't have to be perfect to be better than another one. Culture A wants to kill black and Jews. Culture B wants to kill only Jews.
Both cultures are bad, one is objectively better.

Likewise in certain fundamentalists Islamic cultures rape isn't a crime, it's a punishment. Here in the Western world, while rape is under-reported and prosecuted, its still a crime. A state or Federal judge cannot sentence a woman to be raped for not agreeing with her father. Some Imams do have that power and use it.
Does that make Western culture perfect? No, but it does make it better.

Well, we're now defining specialized things. Are we talking Culture or are we talking Institutions?

Institutions:
a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose

Culture:
the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.

Culture includes institutions

Silentpony:
Culture:
the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.

Culture includes institutions

Exactly my point.

Muslim Culture is a culture based on Islam, shared Traditions, Local Cuisine and Dress due to their religious and geographical location.

Within Muslim Culture, you have Institutions like the "Ahmadiyya" who believe Mohammed wasn't the final Prophet, believes all religions have traces of the Divine, and bringing Islam to the entire world through only Peace.

And in the Muslim Culture, you have institutions like ISIS.

While a Culture can include many institutions, not every institution will share the same tenets. Even if they came from the same background. Therefore, not any culture can be exceptional or inferior to another because it's simply a common background. The institutions that arise from it will be varied.

So basically the argument here is "How dare you discriminate against me using my religion to discriminate against others"

Do you sometimes wish we could fit people with glasses or something that would let them see their own hypocrisy?

Palindromemordnilap:
So basically the argument here is "How dare you discriminate against me using my religion to discriminate against others"

Do you sometimes wish we could fit people with glasses or something that would let them see their own hypocrisy?

Hey, I keep pointing out business owners nonsense of saying "we can't pay more money to workers." When most of the taxes they pay go to people who can't afford to live because they aren't being paid enough. Like, if you just paid people more, they wouldn't go to the government for hand outs and the government wouldn't put pressure on then through things like tax hikes or targetting rich people.

It sort of works in reverse as evidence by Reaganomics but that also showed the flaw of most tax breaks remaining in the hands of a few, defeating is 'stated purpose.'

A religious belief is little more than an opinion on a metaphysical topic, which someone has taken deeply to heart.

I see no reason it should afford someone protections or rights that are not afforded to people who don't share it.

A religious belief is what someone reckons about something. That's all.

Silvanus:
A religious belief is little more than an opinion on a metaphysical topic, which someone has taken deeply to heart.

I see no reason it should afford someone protections or rights that are not afforded to people who don't share it.

A religious belief is what someone reckons about something. That's all.

Your personality is just a random assortment of chemicals that are funneled through life experiences and stimuli. Your 'self' as it were is there for modifiable with the correct prescription of medications, education, and 'correct' social upbringing to make you into the perfect cog for the 'betterment of the whole'.

A sense of self is just an unguided, faulty instrument to cultivation of the perfect expression of our DNA. Love is misfiring of some neurotransmitters that promotes an unhealthy attachment to a singular individual.

Look, you might not value religion. I might not see the need for it. But it's a facet of certain people's expression and/or identity in this world. We correctly allow the freedom of expression of all aspects of the individual's identity, as long as it doesn't bring Harm to an individual. We protect it. Religion has to fall into that, or we can start picking and choosing what else we can limit because we don't put that much faith (if you'll excuse the pun) into it.

Well I have always had mixed feelings about dismissing someone about something they say on social media. In my opinion a company is well within its rights to dismiss someone for potentially damaging its image. In the case of a top sports player we can assume his social media is followed by a lot of people and posting a message/tweet has the same reach as an ad on the radio or tv. As such, these messages could be used as a reason to fire the offender. However if the player made that tweet on a seperate and very private account but had his message leaked by someone he thought was his friend than its another story.

It's very messy really, but all in all I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and to at least share it privately. But with social media what is "private" and "public" becomes quite blurry.

And to be entirely clear, this is regardless of wheter or not the content is religous. I don't see why religously motivated speech or actions should be treated differently. It would be discriminatory towards non-religious people.

Abomination:
You can't in good conscience, claim you should have religious freedom to state your opinions on matters while, with the same breath, say that people will suffer a fate worse than death (hell) for not sharing your supposed religious views.

This is a have your cake and eat it too scenario. Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

Saying that people will go to hell for a particular belief/practice should be tantamount to hate speech as "hell" is - in the very mind of the person who believes in it - the worst possible thing that can happen to a person. Contextually, going to hell is worse than being raped by a gang of silverback gorillas, being sawed in half from groin to gullet, being dipped in molten metal, or any other horrible fate one could think. "X go to hell" should be treated as the same as any other horrible slur directed at a group.

The hypocrisy of this asshole, who states he is being persecuted for his religious beliefs, when if anyone else had said the same things without a religious motive would have suffered the same disciplinary action from their employer as well. Religion should never grant someone privileges that are not extended to all other members of society.

You hit the nail on the head.

This guy is a fucking hypocrite. And guess what? There is a circle of hell that houses the hypocrites.

Samtemdo8:

Abomination:
You can't in good conscience, claim you should have religious freedom to state your opinions on matters while, with the same breath, say that people will suffer a fate worse than death (hell) for not sharing your supposed religious views.

This is a have your cake and eat it too scenario. Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

Saying that people will go to hell for a particular belief/practice should be tantamount to hate speech as "hell" is - in the very mind of the person who believes in it - the worst possible thing that can happen to a person. Contextually, going to hell is worse than being raped by a gang of silverback gorillas, being sawed in half from groin to gullet, being dipped in molten metal, or any other horrible fate one could think. "X go to hell" should be treated as the same as any other horrible slur directed at a group.

The hypocrisy of this asshole, who states he is being persecuted for his religious beliefs, when if anyone else had said the same things without a religious motive would have suffered the same disciplinary action from their employer as well. Religion should never grant someone privileges that are not extended to all other members of society.

You hit the nail on the head.

This guy is a fucking hypocrite. And guess what? There is a circle of hell that houses the hypocrites.

My issue is I think we're all being Hypocrites. And we're not going to get better unless we acknowledge it and move from there.

Abomination's example is mirrored by Atheists.

"You should have an open and free mind. Be accepting of everyone. Be the opposite of close minded religious pundits."

*finds out someone is Religious*

"Shit, he must be dumb. I'm now allowed to believe this person accepts and/or is capable of everything dumb I've heard someone do in Religion's name"

ObsidianJones:
SNIP

That is a nonsensical argument. You can't say there is a difference between a belief, and a belief system. Can't have one without the other.
If in the Quran there is vague enough language than a radical or fundamentalist has the wiggle room to say rape is a punishment, not a crime, then the Quran by definition has that vague enough language. If another Islamic group chooses to interpret that differently, great, good for them! But the words are still there. The potential is still there.
And seeings how the Quran in the Islamic world is a legal system, we get to compare it to other legal systems. For example no where in the United States legal system is there vague enough language that a Judge can interpret rape to be a thing a person can be sentenced to.

And in that light, yes we do get to say our culture is better because we don't have the 'Yes maybe rape' clause, even if some of the other culture is choosing not to use the 'Yes maybe rape' clause.

ObsidianJones:

Your personality is just a random assortment of chemicals that are funneled through life experiences and stimuli. Your 'self' as it were is there for modifiable with the correct prescription of medications, education, and 'correct' social upbringing to make you into the perfect cog for the 'betterment of the whole'.

A sense of self is just an unguided, faulty instrument to cultivation of the perfect expression of our DNA. Love is misfiring of some neurotransmitters that promotes an unhealthy attachment to a singular individual.

Well, parts of self are modifiable. Other parts are inherent or otherwise innate.

Otherwise, I have no great problem with describing personality/ self in chemical terms... although I do have a problem with attaching that concept to value judgements (such as "betterment of the whole" or "unhealthy attachment").

ObsidianJones:

Look, you might not value religion. I might not see the need for it. But it's a facet of certain people's expression and/or identity in this world. We correctly allow the freedom of expression of all aspects of the individual's identity, as long as it doesn't bring Harm to an individual. We protect it. Religion has to fall into that, or we can start picking and choosing what else we can limit because we don't put that much faith (if you'll excuse the pun) into it.

Hence my stipulation that the same rights and freedoms apply that anybody else is entitled to.

The topic at hand is quite aside from common-or-garden freedom of expression, though: it is about making additional allowances for hate speech when it has some spurious connection to religious ideas.

That's what's nonsense. It shouldn't matter one fig where somebody has derived their opinion; it should be an utter irrelevance.

Silentpony:
That is a nonsensical argument. You can't say there is a difference between a belief, and a belief system. Can't have one without the other.
If in the Quran there is vague enough language than a radical or fundamentalist has the wiggle room to say rape is a punishment, not a crime, then the Quran by definition has that vague enough language. If another Islamic group chooses to interpret that differently, great, good for them! But the words are still there. The potential is still there.
And seeings how the Quran in the Islamic world is a legal system, we get to compare it to other legal systems. For example no where in the United States legal system is there vague enough language that a Judge can interpret rape to be a thing a person can be sentenced to.

And in that light, yes we do get to say our culture is better because we don't have the 'Yes maybe rape' clause, even if some of the other culture is choosing not to use the 'Yes maybe rape' clause.

Nonsensical Argument? Are you serious? We're gamers. We play video games. We don't play all video games. We don't play the video games we mutually like the same way. We don't like every genre that the other likes. Some people are for Epic, some people don't care, some people are die hard against it. Some love Microtransactions and others are thinking of getting out of the Hobby because of them.

We are Americans, I doubt we have the same ideals. But we were raised in an American Culture. Most Americans in the forum don't even believe in Gun ownership. Even though the right to do so has been basically preached to all of us since birth. And it's right there in our Bill of Rights. We're supposed to be a Secular State but religion has as much sway as politicians.

And you want to speak about what's in a document? America hasn't even fully recognized that Women have Equal Rights. We're two steps away from the Handmaid's Tale here as well. What a culture that let that slip by, hmm?

To say it's a Nonsensical Argument is to literally look at the World and ignore what it is showing you.

Silvanus:
Well, parts of self are modifiable. Other parts are inherent or otherwise innate.

Otherwise, I have no great problem with describing personality/ self in chemical terms... although I do have a problem with attaching that concept to value judgements (such as "betterment of the whole" or "unhealthy attachment").

What I was referring to with Betterment of the Whole and Unhealthy Attachment were variations of ideals that totalitarian states had which believed their citizens were only there to serve the government and nothing more.

The more nations strip concepts like that away from people (freedom of expression, love, thought), the more they tend to resemble pre-totalitarian societies.

Hence my stipulation that the same rights and freedoms apply that anybody else is entitled to.

The topic at hand is quite aside from common-or-garden freedom of speech, though: it is about making additional allowances for hate speech when it has some spurious connection to religious ideas.

That's what's nonsense. It shouldn't matter one fig where somebody has derived their opinion; it should be an utter irrelevance.

I agree that Hate Speech shouldn't be allowed for any reason, nor any harm to others due to beliefs. As I said in my first response to this thread, that anyone should be allowed to believe in anything as long as it doesn't bring mental or physical harm to others.

ObsidianJones:
SNIP

So you're saying states not ratifying the Equal rights for women's bill is the equivalent of other countries specifically saying women do not have equal rights?

That not explicitly being recognized as equal is the same as being explicitly recognized to not be equal? That 1=-1

And how do you square this 'All cultures are equal, full stop!" mentality with the circle of historical development? Like do you think the America of 2019 is literally, full stop, just as bad as the America of 1819? That although things have changed, medicine, women's rights, blacks no longer slaves, white men aren't the only ones in power, that those changes mean literally nothing and that both cultures, while not being the exact same, are 100% equal? 'cause that's the argument you're putting forward. No one culture is better than another. So no one incarnation of a culture can be better than the incarnation of another culture.

ObsidianJones:

What I was referring to with Betterment of the Whole and Unhealthy Attachment were variations of ideals that totalitarian states had which believed their citizens were only there to serve the government and nothing more.

The more nations strip concepts like that away from people (freedom of expression, love, thought), the more they tend to resemble pre-totalitarian societies.

Well, sure, but nobody is wanting those freedoms stripped away.

Society goes to hell when freedoms are unequally afforded to people, as well.

ObsidianJones:

I agree that Hate Speech shouldn't be allowed for any reason, nor any harm to others due to beliefs. As I said in my first response to this thread, that anyone should be allowed to believe in anything as long as it doesn't bring mental or physical harm to others.

Well, then we might be in agreement in how to approach this, practically at least.

You mentioned protections, though-- what form do you have in mind? The entitlements that religions currently enjoy go far beyond what is afforded to people for their non-metaphysical opinions-- such as tax-free status, influence over education (regardless of evidence), and enormous media presence.

Silvanus:
A religious belief is little more than an opinion on a metaphysical topic, which someone has taken deeply to heart.

I see no reason it should afford someone protections or rights that are not afforded to people who don't share it.

A religious belief is what someone reckons about something. That's all.

I think we should just get rid of the term religious in this debate. That automatically makes it feel like only those that go to church get protection and that's nonsense. Why are their beliefs more special than an agnostic/ atheist? (Other than the typical "Christians are the best" mentality.) Because they go to church? I thought we got rid of these shenanigans with concept of Jefferson's Wall. I thought we rehashed this with the Sharia Law panic of... I want to say 2010. The fact that Christians are doing more to make Sharia Law possible in Western countries than those nasty libtards is ironic.

When you realise that Praeger U and its ilk have been saying that the West is synonomous with Judeo-Christian culture is just trying to sell this religious freedom idea, particularly only applying to Christians and no others, you realise that virtue signalling/dog whistling is real. Also, the fact that the West develop IN SPITE of Judeo-Christian culture is just not a concept they seem to be able to grasp.

If you want to protect beliefs, its everyone's or no one's. Christianity (or any other religion) is not special. If I wanted something like that, Id move to Tehran.

If people were worried about discrimination against Christians, they'd be better off looking at areas like Indonesia, the Middle East, and China.

I have no sympathy for Folau. He can be a bigot if he wants, but this isn't an issue of free speech, it's an issue of him breeching his contract.

Hawki:
I have no sympathy for Folau. He can be a bigot if he wants, but this isn't an issue of free speech, it's an issue of him breeching his contract.

Essentially he's stating that "Yeah, but I did it religiously, so that makes it okay." and one could then think "Can I apply that to theft, or murder?"

"Yes, I did kill them, but I did so with my religious beliefs in mind - don't persecute me!"

Abomination:
You can't in good conscience, claim you should have religious freedom to state your opinions on matters while, with the same breath, say that people will suffer a fate worse than death (hell) for not sharing your supposed religious views.

This is a have your cake and eat it too scenario. Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

Saying that people will go to hell for a particular belief/practice should be tantamount to hate speech as "hell" is - in the very mind of the person who believes in it - the worst possible thing that can happen to a person. Contextually, going to hell is worse than being raped by a gang of silverback gorillas, being sawed in half from groin to gullet, being dipped in molten metal, or any other horrible fate one could think. "X go to hell" should be treated as the same as any other horrible slur directed at a group.

The hypocrisy of this asshole, who states he is being persecuted for his religious beliefs, when if anyone else had said the same things without a religious motive would have suffered the same disciplinary action from their employer as well. Religion should never grant someone privileges that are not extended to all other members of society.

I mean I agree with the sentiment, but then you need to realise this is the core tenants of many religions "Believe in this particular one or God will punish you." It's designed into them that they need to save us all from hell so they have to spread the message, in a weird way if you actually believed in hell its arguably worse not to try your best to save us from the worst torment for eternity, real insidious design there. Everyone who is christian pretty much believe you are going to hell if you aren't one of them, it's their big motivator to evangelise, they just don't say it.

Also OP: being atheist essentially means having slightly less rights than other citizens who get religious based concessions, of course the atheist won't get anything good for them in a religious discrimination bill. Stating the very core of atheist belief, that god isn't real, is considered discrimination or hateful by religious people, only they get to evangelise because when the atheist does its considered hateful.

Silentpony:
So you're saying states not ratifying the Equal rights for women's bill is the equivalent of other countries specifically saying women do not have equal rights?

That not explicitly being recognized as equal is the same as being explicitly recognized to not be equal? That 1=-1

And how do you square this 'All cultures are equal, full stop!" mentality with the circle of historical development? Like do you think the America of 2019 is literally, full stop, just as bad as the America of 1819? That although things have changed, medicine, women's rights, blacks no longer slaves, white men aren't the only ones in power, that those changes mean literally nothing and that both cultures, while not being the exact same, are 100% equal? 'cause that's the argument you're putting forward. No one culture is better than another. So no one incarnation of a culture can be better than the incarnation of another culture.

What I'm doing is reporting the fact that America can't get it's act together to ratify Equal Rights for Women into the Constitution. You talk about a document and how people can interpret it in ways to commit vile acts? How about the most important document in this Nation's history can't even fully state that women are equal under the law. Do you want to have conjecture on what would happen with that if it was common knowledge?

I 'square' all Cultures are equal with the simple fact that all cultures are populated with humans. Each human has infinite capability for malice, kindness, bravery and cowardice. They can be lions and leaders, or criminals the likes of which we have never seen. No culture is devoid of this capability to produce varying people.

The ideals we consider unquestionably vile are vile to our sensibilities. Hey, Austria is a nice place. It's sexual age of consent is 14. That is way too young for me, but it's because of the sensibilities I was raised with. Should I shun Austrians for being Statutory Rapists? Which they would be if they came over here and tried to have sex with a 14 year old.

Since every person has the capability of change, every culture has the capability of change. That's what I value.

Silvanus:
Well, sure, but nobody is wanting those freedoms stripped away.

Society goes to hell when freedoms are unequally afforded to people, as well.

Undeniably so. Hence why I feel that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others in a harmful manner. Power unfairly distributed is Power unfairly consolidated.

Well, then we might be in agreement in how to approach this, practically at least.

You mentioned protections, though-- what form do you have in mind? The entitlements that religions currently enjoy go far beyond what is afforded to people for their non-metaphysical opinions-- such as tax-free status, influence over education (regardless of evidence), and enormous media presence.

I... did?

The closest I got was referring to Protecting Freedom of Expression as long as it doesn't harm others.

ObsidianJones:
Look, you might not value religion. I might not see the need for it. But it's a facet of certain people's expression and/or identity in this world. We correctly allow the freedom of expression of all aspects of the individual's identity, as long as it doesn't bring Harm to an individual. We protect it. Religion has to fall into that, or we can start picking and choosing what else we can limit because we don't put that much faith (if you'll excuse the pun) into it.

That's it. Just the expression of it. You believe in the Force like the Jedis? Cool. You can do that. Go ahead.

... and that's about it.

trunkage:
I thought we rehashed this with the Sharia Law panic of... I want to say 2010. The fact that Christians are doing more to make Sharia Law possible in Western countries than those nasty libtards is ironic.

Look no further than the Park51 (AKA the "Ground Zero Mosque") lunacy.

If you want to protect beliefs, its everyone's or no one's.

Should be. Polygamy was banned in the US to suppress the Mormon church. Ritual peyote use as part of Native American religious ceremony was ruled by SCOTUS outside the protection of free exercise. Let's not forget the bans on niqab and burkas that are consuming the West like wildfire. Religious freedom, more often than not, is anything but.

And indeed, there are cases and circumstances where religious freedom shouldn't be absolute. Underage marriages and grooming represent the dark side of Mormonism. Alfred Smith and Galen Black worked at a drug rehab clinic for fuck's sake, and there's a compelling interest in preventing employees from working while impaired, even if impairment came from religious observation. But, those circumstances don't justify infringing on religious exercise beyond the absolute minimum, and the power to infringe should lie exclusively with the state.

That said, being a tit on social media isn't a reasonable exercise of religious expression. Religious discrimination in this case would have been termination for professing Christianity. If he had a "don't be a tit on social media" clause, he certainly violated that, so fuck 'em.

Eacaraxe:

trunkage:
I thought we rehashed this with the Sharia Law panic of... I want to say 2010. The fact that Christians are doing more to make Sharia Law possible in Western countries than those nasty libtards is ironic.

Look no further than the Park51 (AKA the "Ground Zero Mosque") lunacy.

If you want to protect beliefs, its everyone's or no one's.

Should be. Polygamy was banned in the US to suppress the Mormon church. Ritual peyote use as part of Native American religious ceremony was ruled by SCOTUS outside the protection of free exercise. Let's not forget the bans on niqab and burkas that are consuming the West like wildfire. Religious freedom, more often than not, is anything but.

And indeed, there are cases and circumstances where religious freedom shouldn't be absolute. Underage marriages and grooming represent the dark side of Mormonism. Alfred Smith and Galen Black worked at a drug rehab clinic for fuck's sake, and there's a compelling interest in preventing employees from working while impaired, even if impairment came from religious observation. But, those circumstances don't justify infringing on religious exercise beyond the absolute minimum, and the power to infringe should lie exclusively with the state.

That said, being a tit on social media isn't a reasonable exercise of religious expression. Religious discrimination in this case would have been termination for professing Christianity. If he had a "don't be a tit on social media" clause, he certainly violated that, so fuck 'em.

We'll find out. It's going to the courts. They might not have specified homophobia in the contract but not being a tit was there. (Possibly not exact wording.) So there may be some legal recourse there. It's the problem with contracts. It's hard to write down everything that might come up in the future.

But I'd agree, its not the Christianity that was the issue. It's the discrimination against someone you dont like just because you say God says so that's the issue. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how holy it is

ObsidianJones:
SNIP

So...yes. You think America where states have not ratified the Equal Rights clause are equal to Islamic states where women do not have any rights. These two are equal in your eyes because both cultures are made up of people, and "Each human has infinite capability for malice, kindness, bravery and cowardice"Which no, to most people malice is nonsensical. Being evil is not just as easy as being nice and no regard to what variable means in respect to different cultures, "No culture is devoid of this capability to produce varying people"

Here's a fun little mental exercise. Think of cultures as dice. Lets make fundamentalist Islamic cultures a D3, lets make American modern culture a D10, Netherlands a D20, and Star Trek Federation a D100. Every human born into these cultures rolls their respective dice to see how moral they are. To your credit every single culture is capable of rolling a 1, a 2 or a 3. Every single one is capable of producing a right bastard.
However, some cultures have extra numbers added on. Those numbers are Representative of separation of church vs state, bills of rights, democracies, oversight, educated populace, etc...
So while any one person can be a bastard regardless of culture, some cultures have a way higher chance of producing someone not a bastard, based on the variables offered.
A 1 is a 1 is a 1. Always the lowest. But the highest can be a 3, a 10, a 20 or a 100. And those are different numbers. Meaning different variables, ie values, per culture.

ObsidianJones:

I... did?

The closest I got was referring to Protecting Freedom of Expression as long as it doesn't harm others.

ObsidianJones:
Look, you might not value religion. I might not see the need for it. But it's a facet of certain people's expression and/or identity in this world. We correctly allow the freedom of expression of all aspects of the individual's identity, as long as it doesn't bring Harm to an individual. We protect it. Religion has to fall into that, or we can start picking and choosing what else we can limit because we don't put that much faith (if you'll excuse the pun) into it.

That's it. Just the expression of it. You believe in the Force like the Jedis? Cool. You can do that. Go ahead.

... and that's about it.

Ah, right. I took that line-- "we protect it. Religion has to fall into that"-- to mean that society offers broad protections for religion because of freedom of expression, not just that the same protections apply.

After all, as it stands, religious institutions enjoy substantial additional entitlements.

Silentpony:

A 1 is a 1 is a 1. Always the lowest. But the highest can be a 3, a 10, a 20 or a 100. And those are different numbers. Meaning different variables, ie values, per culture.

This seems awfully close to arguing that some countries cannot produce good people, or are very unlikely to. Which is reductionist bollocks, of course.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here