First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Religious freedom=license for bigotry yes or no?
9309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 9/21/16 , edited 9/21/16
I love the speech that Elliot gave in the series "Mr.Robot" about religion.

EDIT: just so happens it's been uploaded to you tube (just that particular part);
http://nijinchu.com/img/fullsize/201501/20150106021235_3PGDBEcKtS.jpg
Humms 
10583 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 9/21/16
I believe that religion is only viable to the people who wish to live with it.


It has no say in the way we run our lives, it has no say in how we wish to live our lives. It is only for a time of privacy and being together.

Forcing someone to live by certain rules that have no relevance, or real meaning behind it, other than the fact that it is forcing people to never change their lives.

Religion does not have a say in judgement, or business, but yet religion makes soo much profit from their fucking Bullshit, it makes me wonder why the fuck people havent learned how to live their own life. Religion still has a huge part in our daily life and business, and the real question is...... Why? It should only be a part of our belief, not our way of life. We live as humans not forced under this almighty being. Instead we have a chance to become something greater.
Posted 9/21/16 , edited 9/21/16
If religious people are allowed to say things like people are going to burn in hell or that something something is a sin, then they should be prepared to get their own religions mocked by others. If they can dish it out, then they better be ready to take it back.

But how many times do religious people play the victim when non-religious people mock their faith? Yet they treat others very cruel, I always find that very laughable.

To answer the question, no they don't have that right to call others' way of life is "sinful" or wrong. But they will do it anyway because they think their fairytales are the absolute morals regardless if it's making teenagers commit suicide because of their stupidity and slogans.

Their teachings are corrupt and they refuse to acknowledge basic human rights and continuously mock those who are different from them. I hope that god does indeed exist, but he send the believers to hell instead.
65191 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / 483 miles from "T...
Offline
Posted 9/21/16 , edited 9/21/16
If your religion promotes bigotry then shame on you, however, if it promotes prejudice, that is not necessary a bad thing.
Afterall, it has to be prejudice against evil, to promote the word of God!
Emtro 
1563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/21/16

JustineKo2 wrote:

I think ideally, the principle of religious freedom allows people to engage in whatever worldview they have a preference for, and this freedom should be granted equally and fairly to all worldviews not a privileged few. A popular worldview is that of Christianity, in which faithful observers have been known to act on claims about Gods view of homosexuality and the fate of unborn fetuses. And many people disagree with these claims.

So this dispute raises the question of whether we can always provide provisions for both sides in everyday life and avoid finger pointing and accusations of discrimination. I think we can, but the fundamentals behind this goal is not called religious freedom. Religious freedom simply grants freedom in the choices you make, but it stops there and that's why it's actually worded as Congress prohibiting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. The Constitution says nothing about guaranteeing others won't disagree with you. That is it's flaw and misconception that people have. The process and ideas behind whatever compromise we come up with is independent of the Drafters intentions. They didn't mention it, they left it entirely open so next time you hear someone crying religious freedom and Constitution this or that, they are missing the big picture.

Both religious and secular sides have found solutions to the frequent disagreements between them, such as granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples at clerks offices in deeply conservative counties where certain clerks refuse per their religious convictions. They are allowed to opt-out provided another clerk is available to sign the license. Some instances are more challenging than this, but we just have to find ways to overcome these challenges and keep the conversation going.


Another flame-bait title regurgitated to confuse as many people as possible. Religion is based on faith, faith is belief without proof, and bigotry is negative connotation for someone that will not change their beliefs. It often implies someone is wrong because it was used to describe so called "racists" in the past. These are people who would not let go of older stereotypes because it was the information they grew up with so they needed to be demonized.

When an intelligent person disagrees with someone they can give a convincing argument and accept when someone will not change their mind. Otherwise, it is ill will and name-calling, such as 'bigot', that is the result.
bolt62 
7118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / New Jersy
Offline
Posted 9/21/16

Bankshot wrote:

If your religion promotes bigotry then shame on you, however, if it promotes prejudice, that is not necessary a bad thing.
Afterall, it has to be prejudice against evil, to promote the word of God!


The problem then is what would be considered evil in the perception of different religions that would justify being prejudice? Is it evil in the eyes of one religion for people to believe in a pantheon of gods? If it is then is it right to be prejudice of them? Even if the worshipers of that pantheon don't try to stop you from spreading the words of your god?

Its not easy to be prejudice of evil people because you don't know who's evil until you've actually interacted with them (or learned about them) and then at that point it isn't prejudice anymore its just how you judge someone you've met(or learned about ).

Also by not easy I mean impossible because its not like evil people walk around with some sort of marker that distinguishes them as evil.

This is all just a long winded way of saying advocating being prejudice is something I can never support no matter the reason because it violates the golden rule!
9608 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 9/21/16

Humms wrote:

I believe that religion is only viable to the people who wish to live with it.


It has no say in the way we run our lives, it has no say in how we wish to live our lives. It is only for a time of privacy and being together.

Forcing someone to live by certain rules that have no relevance, or real meaning behind it, other than the fact that it is forcing people to never change their lives.

Religion does not have a say in judgement, or business, but yet religion makes soo much profit from their fucking Bullshit, it makes me wonder why the fuck people havent learned how to live their own life. Religion still has a huge part in our daily life and business, and the real question is...... Why? It should only be a part of our belief, not our way of life. We live as humans not forced under this almighty being. Instead we have a chance to become something greater.


I think I understand why. If I believe I would be sent to hell for murdering someone, I sure as hell wouldn't murder someone, provided it was eternal and painful. One thing I can't understand about the anime HellGirl is why so many people damn their enemies to the unpleasant afterlife while promising themselves eternal damnation in return.
65191 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / 483 miles from "T...
Offline
Posted 9/21/16

bolt62 wrote:


Bankshot wrote:

If your religion promotes bigotry then shame on you, however, if it promotes prejudice, that is not necessary a bad thing.
Afterall, it has to be prejudice against evil, to promote the word of God!


The problem then is what would be considered evil in the perception of different religions that would justify being prejudice? Is it evil in the eyes of one religion for people to believe in a pantheon of gods? If it is then is it right to be prejudice of them? Even if the worshipers of that pantheon don't try to stop you from spreading the words of your god?

Its not easy to be prejudice of evil people because you don't know who's evil until you've actually interacted with them (or learned about them) and then at that point it isn't prejudice anymore its just how you judge someone you've met(or learned about ).

Also by not easy I mean impossible because its not like evil people walk around with some sort of marker that distinguishes them as evil.

This is all just a long winded way of saying advocating being prejudice is something I can never support no matter the reason because it violates the golden rule!


Ah...but you are prejudice on eating rotten food, you are prejudice from trying to pet dangerous animals, you are prejudice from not approaching someone with a gun.
Being prejudice is a survival trait. No matter how or what you say, your body will instinctively react to save itself.
Prejudice is not Bigotry, that is a conscious act of labeling which is not out of fear, but is out of rejection that is unfounded.
But again, rejection on purpose because of a knowledge that it is dangerous and cannot be trusted, is valid prejudice.
It really is a subjective thing, and as human beings with an inherent survival instinct, to tell people to squash those instincts without proof and to be accepting and tolerant is a real stretch.
Also, militancy as a known group attribute does not engender acceptance and tolerance in people, no matter what you say. And that is why one group that always wants to fight, will be shunned, while other groups that don't, will be accepted and coveted and cherished.
Kitty cats are Kawaii, while Tigers are given a wide berth out of safety and concern...
iymus 
1299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Camelot
Offline
Posted 9/21/16
Google Searched these terms

Bigotry Define: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Intolerance Define: unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.

Conclusion: Religious freedom=license for bigotry = Yes

Not that I believe in such a term as Religious Freedom however that concept does promote Bigotry

Also would like to add that even in the opposite of Religious Freedom; Their will most likely be some form of bigotry.





19345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/21/16

JustineKo2 wrote:

I think ideally, the principle of religious freedom allows people to engage in whatever worldview they have a preference for, and this freedom should be granted equally and fairly to all worldviews not a privileged few. A popular worldview is that of Christianity, in which faithful observers have been known to act on claims about Gods view of homosexuality and the fate of unborn fetuses. And many people disagree with these claims.

So this dispute raises the question of whether we can always provide provisions for both sides in everyday life and avoid finger pointing and accusations of discrimination. I think we can, but the fundamentals behind this goal is not called religious freedom. Religious freedom simply grants freedom in the choices you make, but it stops there and that's why it's actually worded as Congress prohibiting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. The Constitution says nothing about guaranteeing others won't disagree with you. That is it's flaw and misconception that people have. The process and ideas behind whatever compromise we come up with is independent of the Drafters intentions. They didn't mention it, they left it entirely open so next time you hear someone crying religious freedom and Constitution this or that, they are missing the big picture.

Both religious and secular sides have found solutions to the frequent disagreements between them, such as granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples at clerks offices in deeply conservative counties where certain clerks refuse per their religious convictions. They are allowed to opt-out provided another clerk is available to sign the license. Some instances are more challenging than this, but we just have to find ways to overcome these challenges and keep the conversation going.


This is what the world is coming to... ... news speak and double think. It's like 1984 coming true.

Freedom of religion is a good idea, it should be a basic right guranteed by law. But when your religion insists on taking away the rights of other people (such as homosexuals), then this is a case of your do not have the right to infringe on another person's right, which is a very well established principle of this entire bill of rights thing.

The reason why this is part of normal politics is because some right wing politicians are delibrately ignoring the principle I mentioned above, because by confusing the meaning of "freedom of religion" they can score extra brownie points with the fundamentalist christians.
27279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 9/21/16 , edited 9/21/16

mdmrn wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

I don't think a government that prides itself of the separation of church and state should get involved in matters of religion unless in presents a clear danger to it's congregation with human sacrifices and things like that. But when it comes to discrimination? I don't think a Jewish synagogue should be forced to hire a Christian and don't see any problem in asking about their faith before they are hired.

Now if you pay taxes to the country you have to follow their laws, which means no discrimination. You should be able to opt out of certain things like with Hobby Lobby or say you open up a school for atheist and you want to do away with the Pledge of Allegiance.

No country should tell a religion how it should do things.

I agree.

I do not believe a Mosque should be forced to marry a Hindu couple. Neither should a Catholic Church be forced to perform a same-sex wedding. Why? In both instances the couples do not adhere to the strict faith of the church/mosque/place of worship in question. I don't think that should be a controversial train of thought, but it is for some.

Regarding religious charitable organizations, I have no problem with a religious "litmus" test for how they hire and do business. Again, this is similar to the way MysticGon refers to it above with the synagogue not be forced to hire a Christian employee.

For private companies, they're privately held companies and the right to operate as they see fit within the confines of the law. That said, what laws make the most sense is still going to be in question. A business should still have the right to do business and deny business as they see fit. Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake with Nazi iconography on it? Of course not. Should a deli run by an Islamic family be forced to serve pork and bacon when it's against Halal dietary law? Of course not. Can a restaurant deny someone business for coming in naked? Yes. So, the next question becomes (as is the public debate usually) can a bakery run by Christians choose to deny business for a same-sex wedding cake? I say yes by the same logic. That's just me. Just as a homosexual baker would be within their right to deny business to the Westboro Cult if they wanted a "GOD HATES F*GS" cake made. While the latter is more inflammatory, both go against their core beliefs. If you own the business, you have a right to deny business. If it's not yours though, then that's not your call to make.

Now, it comes down to what I would do if it were me, would I deny their business? No, even as a Christian I still would have no problem baking a cake for whoever. Then again, I'm not a baker - so the cake I would make would probably be terrible.


Nothin for me to say except thank goodness people who can actually explain these things well are in this thread


goodman528 wrote:

Freedom of religion is a good idea, it should be a basic right guranteed by law. But when your religion insists on taking away the rights of other people (such as homosexuals), then this is a case of your do not have the right to infringe on another person's right, which is a very well established principle of this entire bill of rights thing.

The reason why this is part of normal politics is because some right wing politicians are delibrately ignoring the principle I mentioned above, because by confusing the meaning of "freedom of religion" they can score extra brownie points with the fundamentalist christians.


What's the difference between "your religion is discriminatory" and "your policy is discriminatory"?

The law should be changed so that a shop is only compelled to serve (i.e. not allowed to refuse service) when there is evidence of hardship on the part of the customer to find another provider- To take it to another business. There's a difference between having a discriminatory policy and being compelled to go against one's own religion... Unless it is the same thing which is even worse... Your pick.

The "it's convenient to have my cake done here" is of a different gravity than "I'm being forced to go against my religion to serve"- Currently the law does not distinguish between the two.
5 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M
Offline
Posted 9/21/16
So this dispute raises the question of whether we can always provide provisions for both sides in everyday life and avoid finger pointing and accusations of discrimination. I think we can, but the fundamentals behind this goal is not called religious freedom. Religious freedom simply grants freedom in the choices you make, but it stops there and that's why it's actually worded as Congress prohibiting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. The Constitution says nothing about guaranteeing others won't disagree with you. That is it's flaw and misconception that people have. The process and ideas behind whatever compromise we come up with is independent of the Drafters intentions. They didn't mention it, they left it entirely open so next time you hear someone crying religious freedom and Constitution this or that, they are missing the big picture.
30 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 24 days ago
Sorry for the late reply but there seems to be a group of liberals trying to ban the bible from amazon and it's not that big of a deal because it probably won't go into effect. I just get the feeling we'll be seeing more of it. The Bible even states it. But of course if you don't believe the bible my information's useless lol
Jikkle 
39196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / SoCal
Offline
Posted 24 days ago
Freedom of religion and separation of church and state is more about keeping the government out of religion than religion out of government.

It was put in there to protect against a state run religion (ala Church of England) or for the government to dictate how you practice or what denomination you belonged too. Meaning if you're a Catholic the state couldn't tell you that Protestants are only allowed or if you're a Quaker that Baptists are only accepted.

People will never come to a full understanding with each other over it so no use in trying too because neither the religious and non-religious can understand each other. If you're a religious person that believes in God are you going to listen to a bunch of people on twitter, facebook, etc that tell you what's right or wrong or are you going to listen to an all powerful God? And if you're a non-religious since you don't believe in God you can't really understand the minds of people that do.
munruo 
67 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 24 days ago
after much many began to pretend they could hide truth and made many groups that kept to these ways, missing that nothing is ever hidden as is obvious to those that don't believe hiding is possible because all we are shares forever in all that we do.
religious freedom is derivative of considering religion significant. only individuals are everything. religion is the meaning reiterance individuals were utilizing to confuse masses into believing that we had to work/suffer/anything except nothing to achieve. we are fine,carry on and you'll find yourself to be beyond the words in description in books.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.