Religion Ranting Topic

[Life]

the father and god are the same thing.

ah, so say there was a law such that you had to sell to people regardless of race, orientation. etc. etc., what then perhaps?

then why ever make shellfish an abomination. oh, because the holy books are riddled with contradiction lol.

that's only because the old testament is archaic and cruel. christians like the nice god of the new testament.

Question. Why is it so bad when I say something like that about Islam (which is practiced in said form across many countries) but your shot about my book is acceptable?

Not offended, just interested.

And Jews don't take anything that the New Testament says as binding for us. In fact, if it isn't in the "five books of Moses" or the Mishna (not Talmud, Mishna), it isn't Jewish law.

[Irysa]

I'm not sure if this is the correct topic to continue this line of discussion in, but I find it dissapointing that Phoenix's excellent rebuttal regarding the whole question of "Freedom of Religion" has gone largely ignored.

the simplest way to put it is that you aren't granted extra freedoms because you're religious. as an agnostic, if i can't turn away homosexuals, as a christian you cannot.

Essentially, faith is irrelevant to this argument unless the people advocating for their freedom to discriminate are specifically asking for some kind of clause within the law that permits certain types of discrimination by those with particular faiths or idealogical leanings.

Phoenix's statement should have brought more clarity to he discussion because it now becomes obvious that most people are actually just advocating for an ability to freely discriminate against people for things out of their control.

This is a fairly difficult position to defend, unless you are squarely Libertarian and believe the state's power cannot be used in a positive manner.

To defend this stance, trying to float "why it could be okay if the law allowed this" isn't really sufficient, instead one has to explain why they think the state has any business involving itself in anything (presumably, the common good), and why not permitting discriminatory behaviour somehow doesn't fit under that banner.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Irysa

[-Cynthia-]

As a bisexual, I'm a bit ashamed of the way the LGBT community goes on witch hunts for people who don't agree with us. Like the Chik-fil-A controversy a few years ago. The private views of the owner are fine. They never even really discriminated against LGBT further than saying they didn't agree with it. And you know what? I ate Chik-fil-A with my girlfriend several times, and it was never a big deal. I believe that the free market will take care of people who are openly discriminatory, and if it's a privately held view, who cares?

Chik Fil-A's owner donated to anti-gay marriage advocacy groups. They do hire LGBT employees and serve LGBT customers without issue so I agree that they shouldn't be villified to the extent some people did, but boycotting a business that gives money to organizations against your political/moral/religious/whatever beliefs seems reasonable.

[Phoenix Wright]

Question. Why is it so bad when I say something like that about Islam (which is practiced in said form across many countries) but your shot about my book is acceptable?

Not offended, just interested.

And Jews don't take anything that the New Testament says as binding for us. In fact, if it isn't in the "five books of Moses" or the Mishna (not Talmud, Mishna), it isn't Jewish law.

i'm still trying to understand why you think i think islam deserves a pass. let me put my beliefs out there as bluntly as possible:

no religion deserves a pass for the evils that are done in their name. every religion is at fault for allowing followers to become militant throughout the history of the religion. i do not fault the followers completely, in fact i lay blame primarily on religious leaders.

i know jews don't follow the new testament. when i said "half the bible," i was very obviously referring to the old testament, ie the torah.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Yojinbo]

There's no clear line where Ideology ends and Religion begins. All religions, and this surely includes Islam for me, are ideologies - and many ideologies that aren't typically identified as religion require a certain amount of faith. Hitlerism and Stalinism both demanded absolute, unqestioned faith in a single "entity", much in the same way as abrahamic religions do. To me that amounts to pretty much the same thing in each case, whether it's christianity, hitlerism, islam, stalinism, judaism or whatever: it's ultimately a tyrannical ideology [or even a fascist one as one might argue]. Looking at things from this angle it's pretty easy for me to see where PW is coming from.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Yojinbo

[tuvarkz]

the father and god are the same thing.

ah, so say there was a law such that you had to sell to people regardless of race, orientation. etc. etc., what then perhaps?

then why ever make shellfish an abomination. oh, because the holy books are riddled with contradiction lol.

that's only because the old testament is archaic and cruel. christians like the nice god of the new testament.

Father and God are not the exact same thing for Christians, and this is a very bloody fucking important theological point (I may not be a Christian anymore, but I did go through a considerably large amount of christian texts while making my decision to abandon the religion). God is the Trinity of Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, and this has been part of Christian canon as early as Nikaea.

Then it wouldn't be sinful to abide by the law. For further explanation

For the same reason that pig meat and other stuff was made sinful in the old testament. In the climate of the region where Judaism originally popped up, such kind of foods spoiled quite easily and were damaging to eat-it was quite understandable that in absence of germ theory or any sort of scientific method to explain things, the best way to convince people to not eat what could possibly even kill them was 'God forbids you to eat that'. Catholicism was adapted to the times of the Roman Empire, particularly due to the technological advancements in the millenia between Abraham and Jesus and a far larger geographical reach due to the Roman Empire's expansion.

Yes indeed. And that why it's an important point that many Christians do argue that New Testament content supercedes the Old Testament content. Christianity is not an entirely static religion. The Old Testament is kept there as a reference of what was in the past and for things that may still apply currently.

[Tryhard]

I'm not sure if this is the correct topic to continue this line of discussion in, but I find it dissapointing that Phoenix's excellent rebuttal regarding the whole question of "Freedom of Religion" has gone largely ignored.

the simplest way to put it is that you aren't granted extra freedoms because you're religious. as an agnostic, if i can't turn away homosexuals, as a christian you cannot.

Essentially, faith is irrelevant to this argument unless the people advocating for their freedom to discriminate are specifically asking for some kind of clause within the law that permits certain types of discrimination by those with particular faiths or idealogical leanings.

Phoenix's statement should have brought more clarity to he discussion because it now becomes obvious that most people are actually just advocating for an ability to freely discriminate against people for things out of their control.

This is a fairly difficult position to defend, unless you are squarely Libertarian and believe the state's power cannot be used in a positive manner.

To defend this stance, trying to float "why it could be okay if the law allowed this" isn't really sufficient, instead one has to explain why they think the state has any business involving itself in anything (presumably, the common good), and why not permitting discriminatory behaviour somehow doesn't fit under that banner.

I can't say I agree with it at all, but I thought that people are trying to argue that if you are agnostic, or any other religious identity, you should be able to turn away homosexuals as well.

Being religious and being able to try and justify "I can't sell you this cake because I think you're evil" is made easier, however.

It pretty much clearly is the freedom to discriminate that people are advocating. "Freedom of religion" just seems like coded language for this like you said.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Tryhard

[Life]

1) the bible says that if a man rapes a woman he pays 50 silver shekels and gets to marry her. that's not how marriage or rape laws work in this country.

2) the bible says shellfish are an abomination. shellfish are legal for consumption in this country.

3) whilst i agree that being jailed for hate speech is silly, saying those nations don't have freedom of speech is equally silly.

4) am i actually saying that?

how is outlawing discrimination discriminating the discriminators? what the actual fuck are you talking about?

it's like saying the civil rights act discriminated against racists. it is absolutely the opposite.

1) Again, if you quote my book at me, you play by my rules.

That is a major misinterpretation of the line. I can tell you that because I went over the Hebrew version.

First of all, there is no mention of rape. What it does say is that if a man sleeps with a virgin girl, he must pay 50 shekels of silver (which was a lot of money) and then they should marry because he has taken her virginity and it would be an insult to her to simply cast her away. Marriage in Judaism protects the wife more than it does the husband.

There is no rape in that sentence. In the future, use Mechon Mamre to validate lines from the Torah rather than any other source.

2) Ok. Shellfish is legal to sell. Great. There is no law saying that I have to eat it.

Gay marriage is legal in the USA. Great. There is no law saying that I have to take part... unless the court considers Fancy Cakes as presidence. Then there is.

Ironically, this is why I brought up that bacon hypothical. Because you went on to ask me about it but using shellfish rather than pig.

3) A limit on free speech means that speech is not truly free. I'm not saying "go out and declare war on other people" but I do value the ability to speak without legal reprecussions. Actions are where I draw the line.

4) No. I'm using examples like Fancy Cakes or Hobby Lobby. Racism is not sanctioned under freedom of religion and you know that.

Speaking of Hobby Lobby, what is your opinion on Hobby Lobby?

[Irysa]

Oh hey, if this thread is now apologists on the Old Testament, how about this one?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+15%3A32-36&version=NKJV

Stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Irysa

[tuvarkz]

Oh hey, if this thread is now apologists on the Old Testament, how about this one?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+15%3A32-36&version=NKJV

Stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

I'm not defending the Old Testament, just bringing up that it's largely superseded in most of its cruent parts by the New Testament. Colossians 2:16 abolishes the necessity of celebrating the Sabbath. Further Explanation. Christian doctrine is significantly less strict on the ritual aspect of the religion, but places more significance on the intent in one's actions (Theology remains dogmatic, though).

Edited August 28, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Irysa]

I mean even if you're saying "it doesnt apply anymore" (funny considering how many half baked Christians like to bring up the Ten Commandments in discussions about the law, where keeping the Sabbath is explictly there) the fact is it was a law at one point, and that the immortal creator of the universe decided that it was appropriate to sentence a man to one of the most brutal forms of execution possible for picking up sticks. People who are often quick to talk about Islam's death penalty for apostasy would probably be equally as critical of that passage if it had not existed in the Torah and had instead existed in the Quran; this in itself is questionable.

And doesn't it still apply for Jews?

EDIT: Clarification, the reason this was brought up at all was because of this quote

You also missed the part where the government cannot pass laws contrary to the religion's belief. Otherwise you don't have freedom of religion.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Irysa

[Espinosa]

I mean even if you're saying "it doesnt apply anymore" (funny considering how many half baked Christians like to bring up the Ten Commandments in discussions about the law, where keeping the Sabbath is explictly there) the fact is it was a law at one point, and that the immortal creator of the universe decided that it was appropriate to sentence a man to one of the most brutal forms of execution possible for picking up sticks. People who are often quick to talk about Islam's death penalty for apostasy would probably be equally as critical of that passage if it had not existed in the Torah and had instead existed in the Quran; this in itself is questionable.

And doesn't it still apply for Jews?

What's your descriptor of choice for Christians who have found that particular commandment still relevant with a tiny bit less straightforward interpretation?

[tuvarkz]

I mean even if you're saying "it doesnt apply anymore" (funny considering how many half baked Christians like to bring up the Ten Commandments in discussions about the law, where keeping the Sabbath is explictly there) the fact is it was a law at one point, and that the immortal creator of the universe decided that it was appropriate to sentence a man to one of the most brutal forms of execution possible for picking up sticks. People who are often quick to talk about Islam's death penalty for apostasy would probably be equally as critical of that passage if it had not existed in the Torah and had instead existed in the Quran; this in itself is questionable.

And doesn't it still apply for Jews?

Indeed it was law at one point, and at least for Roman Catholics, it's more about not treating the day frivolously. Indeed, it is a valid criticism of Christianity that the only really used parts of the Old Testament are the tale of Abraham and his people, plus the Psalms and a few select passages. Was one of the reasons I ended up renouncing the religion (Although it was primarily the nonviolence doctrine that is highly prevalent in the New Testament).

I'm not sure on whether it still applies to Jews, but that's not the side I'm taking in this talk.

Edited August 28, 2016 by tuvarkz

[eclipse]

I'll believe the discrimination posts if and only if you've never, EVER said "no" to anyone that's asked you on a date. Or a panhandler who's asked you for money. Or some religious person that's asked you to take a pamphlet/listen to whatever they have to say. Or someone asking for donations for their cause. Notice the theme of refusing a request? Truth is, "no" is not discrimination, and I expect my "no" to be respected, no matter what the reason.

Indeed it was law at one point, and at least for Roman Catholics, it's more about not treating the day frivolously. Indeed, it is a valid criticism of Christianity that the only really used parts of the Old Testament are the tale of Abraham and his people, plus the Psalms and a few select passages. Was one of the reasons I ended up renouncing the religion (Although it was primarily the nonviolence doctrine that is highly prevalent in the New Testament).

I'm not sure on whether it still applies to Jews, but that's not the side I'm taking in this talk.

Do you mind expanding on the nonviolence doctrine in the New Testament? If not, pretend I didn't ask.

[tuvarkz]

Aye, my issue is with the fact that Christian teachings in the New Testament are strongly against defending oneself, to the point of repaying evil with good. Luke 6:27, Mathew 26:52, 1 Peter 3:9 are significant examples of this (Further examples here). Even the sell your cloak and buy a sword part has a different meaning that is not about defending oneself. And as someone who advocates for personal defense and retributive justice, this is largely incompatible with my own worldview.

To note, the New Testament doesn't make any major remarks on how the state should wage wars, although further christian theologists do often bring up the concept of a fair war, but that is another thing.

[Tryhard]

I'll believe the discrimination posts if and only if you've never, EVER said "no" to anyone that's asked you on a date. Or a panhandler who's asked you for money. Or some religious person that's asked you to take a pamphlet/listen to whatever they have to say. Or someone asking for donations for their cause. Notice the theme of refusing a request? Truth is, "no" is not discrimination, and I expect my "no" to be respected, no matter what the reason.

But rejecting someone because they are homosexual, or black, or otherwise is definitely discrimination. There's no way to argue that it isn't. And you're arguing for people's rights to discriminate against people for superfluous reasons. So you're definitely advocating the right to discriminate. At least acknowledge that. Am I wrong with this? Edited August 28, 2016 by Tryhard

[Irysa]

I'll believe the discrimination posts if and only if you've never, EVER said "no" to anyone that's asked you on a date. Or a panhandler who's asked you for money. Or some religious person that's asked you to take a pamphlet/listen to whatever they have to say. Or someone asking for donations for their cause. Notice the theme of refusing a request? Truth is, "no" is not discrimination, and I expect my "no" to be respected, no matter what the reason.

Are you seriously arguing that if a business says it won't serve blacks or allow blacks on their premise they are not discriminating, just saying no? I have a further response I can write up but I feel it's going to be pointless if there's a disagreement like this sitting at the start.

What's your descriptor of choice for Christians who have found that particular commandment still relevant with a tiny bit less straightforward interpretation?

Pick&Mixers.

[Life]

But rejecting someone because they are homosexual, or black, or otherwise is definitely discrimination. There's no way to argue that it isn't. And you're arguing for people's rights to discriminate against people for superfluous reasons. So you're definitely advocating the right to discriminate. At least acknowledge that. Am I wrong with this?

But the case was "I don't want to participate in your gay wedding, please don't ask me to".

You're effectively saying the request of someone religious is not as important as someone who is gay.

[-Cynthia-]

I will note that historically religion has been used to discriminate (or just say no as some may call it) against people of different races as well. https://thinkprogress.org/when-religious-liberty-was-used-to-justify-racism-instead-of-homophobia-67bc973c4042#.ikrffglfx

This isn't an attack calling Christianity racist or whatnot, but it's not particularly difficult to twist any religious affiliation into bias against various races/genders/religions etc.

[Tryhard]

But the case was "I don't want to participate in your gay wedding, please don't ask me to".

You're effectively saying the request of someone religious is not as important as someone who is gay.

And the reasoning for that is that they don't like homosexuals, i.e discrimination, undoubtedly.

I mean, if there was anyone refusing to do the same for religious people, then I would have the same quandary.

[The DanMan]

I will note that historically religion has been used to discriminate (or just say no as some may call it) against people of different races as well. https://thinkprogress.org/when-religious-liberty-was-used-to-justify-racism-instead-of-homophobia-67bc973c4042#.ikrffglfx

This isn't an attack calling Christianity racist or whatnot, but it's not particularly difficult to twist any religious affiliation into bias against various races/genders/religions etc.

Really, it's not particularly difficult to twist any zealously-followed belief into that.

We need look no farther than Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

Edited August 28, 2016 by The DanMan

[Time the Crestfallen]

I'll believe the discrimination posts if and only if you've never, EVER said "no" to anyone that's asked you on a date. Or a panhandler who's asked you for money. Or some religious person that's asked you to take a pamphlet/listen to whatever they have to say. Or someone asking for donations for their cause. Notice the theme of refusing a request? Truth is, "no" is not discrimination, and I expect my "no" to be respected, no matter what the reason.

Alright, I'm still suffering from a cold and not sleeping well because of it, so I remain grumpy and not in the best state of mind. Nevertheless, you said I'm not making an effort to understand your point of view, so could you please answer these questions:

1: Why do you not think the law should forbid the discrimination in situations like the Sweet Cakes scenario

2: Why is their right to religious freedom more important than the homosexual couples right to not be discriminated against

3: I'm not particularly religious and I don't really know a whole lot about the subject, but to my understanding religious freedom simply means that you can freely believe in whatever religion you want and the freedom to change your religion at will. As such, how is their religious freedom being infringed upon?

4: If this is allowed, then what's to prevent it from snowballing into other forms of discrimination?

But the case was "I don't want to participate in your gay wedding, please don't ask me to".

You're effectively saying the request of someone religious is not as important as someone who is gay.

I get it, but at the same time is making a cake really participating? It seems to me like saying that someone who makes a gun is guilty of murder should someone be murdered with that gun for instance.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Phillius

[Rapier]

eclipse's argument is so unsound

say that there's a religious text against people with neuro-deficiencies

why would anyone defend turning away someone with autism or down syndrome for "religious reasons?" Those are all ways people are born so it's not like anyone ever has a choice in this matter.

or what about if someone felt that people who are paraplegic are "unworthy?" why would anyone justify that treatment

Faith doesn't need to make sense, and that's what makes it potentially dangerous. I mean, it's not bad for someone to be faithful and I find it silly to discuss about others' beliefs, but when that faith can be used to justify actions that intervene on others' lives and possibly harm other people, it becomes something to be warry about.

Also, I used to be pro burkha banning before I've understood that some women use it willingly as part of their customs and tradition. I think that the laws should instead let it clear that its use is optional, since we do not tolerate religious/ideological impositions anymore (on theory, at least), and protect the rights of those who do not want to use but are forced to wear it.

(...) And I've already stated that Islam is an ideology with a God and a Prophet as opposed to a faith-based religion. Since it is not based on faith (since the general idea is either conversion or death in the fundamental sense), freedom of religion doesn't apply and Islam doesn't get a free pass.

That makes no sense. Those elements that you bring that supposedly nulify the qualification of religion actually don't. Islam has all the qualifications to be a religion.

(I think I might be beating a dead horse, but whatever).

I'll believe the discrimination posts if and only if you've never, EVER said "no" to anyone that's asked you on a date. Or a panhandler who's asked you for money. Or some religious person that's asked you to take a pamphlet/listen to whatever they have to say. Or someone asking for donations for their cause. Notice the theme of refusing a request? Truth is, "no" is not discrimination, and I expect my "no" to be respected, no matter what the reason.

Your "no" is a discrimination, albeit a minor one. I think it's natural and normal (I'd even say necessary) for us to discriminate some undesirable/uncomfortable things in life. The problem is that the discrimination we often refer to when using the word is about violating someone's rights because you have something against them.

As for if business should be able to discriminate other people or not, I don't know. On theory, another kind of service would pick up those discriminated people because they'd be seen, if anything, as a source of profit that a market rival stupidly refused. But if services are limited and people listen more to their prejudice than reason (something classic liberalism fails to recognize), then those people are going to be harmed. I suppose the State should intervene if and only if said person is discriminated in a way that no one accepts their request, if said service is of relevance to their civic lives.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'll believe the discrimination posts if and only if you've never, EVER said "no" to anyone that's asked you on a date. Or a panhandler who's asked you for money. Or some religious person that's asked you to take a pamphlet/listen to whatever they have to say. Or someone asking for donations for their cause. Notice the theme of refusing a request? Truth is, "no" is not discrimination, and I expect my "no" to be respected, no matter what the reason.Do you mind expanding on the nonviolence doctrine in the New Testament? If not, pretend I didn't ask.

what do you mean you'll "believe" it? like, you'll change your opinion or you'll believe that i'm actually sharing my beliefs on discrimination with you?

the point is simple: you don't get to refuse service to someone because you disagree with the way they were born. you can say no cause their teeth are yellow, cause they're yelling at you, or even because the person happens to have a trump or clinton supporter pen.

as a recall to my earlier point: do agnostics get to say no to gays? if no, then you being religious is just a scapegoat for discrimination. if yes, then I'm willing to agree to disagree on the fact that you're more libertarian than i am

Edited August 29, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Life]

I get it, but at the same time is making a cake really participating? It seems to me like saying that someone who makes a gun is guilty of murder should someone be murdered with that gun for instance.

Yes, it is. It's sanctioning a gay marriage.

This person doesn't want to do that. They haven't said "you can't have a gay marriage". All they've said is "please don't include me, bakary x will probably take your request".

When the government forces the bakary to comply, it is at the end of a gun. That directly goes against religious freedom because they are not able to adhere to their religious beliefs.

Having a wedding is not a right. That's something important to realize here.

I don't see the equivalency of that to gun manufactorers. Can you explain?

Edited August 29, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job