Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Freedom From Religion
So... you are no longer advocating the prohibition of people from using religious arguments in a political context? Cause that was very clearly a statement you advocated in your 2nd post (the one where you clarified your opinion).
So... you are no longer advocating the prohibition of people from using religious arguments in a political context? Cause that was very clearly a statement you advocated in your 2nd post (the one where you clarified your opinion).
I guess that's fine, provided it's not hate speech. However, no legislation would be passed unless:
1. The law served a public interest and did not violate anyone's civil rights.
2. The arguments for (1) were supported by scientific evidence.
The Great Eye wrote:So... you are no longer advocating the prohibition of people from using religious arguments in a political context? Cause that was very clearly a statement you advocated in your 2nd post (the one where you clarified your opinion).
I guess that's fine, provided it's not hate speech. However, no legislation would be passed unless:
1. The law served a public interest and did not violate anyone's civil rights.
2. The arguments for (1) were supported by scientific evidence.
You do realize that is a WAY higher standard than any current legal requirement for legislation, secular or otherwise? Hell... what piece of legislation DOESN'T interfere with civil rights, considering that the US recognizes such rights as the right to property?
Ah, I agree as far as the "coerce or pressure others to participate" shouldn't happen. But you are painting with a broad brush here. An example would be in Utah where if you are not part of the Mormon church you are excommunicated from the community or worse...(google Warren Jeffs for more info). This is an obvious case of religion being used for wrong doing.
There is a difference between this and some one handing you a pamphlet about Jesus in public. Or a family praying before they at a public restaurant. I am unaware of there being a large problem of religious discrimination in the workplace, I am under the opinion that if some gets fired for their beliefs that a small army of lawyers then show up and sue the company into the dirt.
"allow such public establishments to host religious activities in public spaces."
I have to disagree with you here. Why can hate groups like the KKK hold activities in public places like court house steps yet the local church can't be allowed? Public places are... well public - anyone can use them.
"2. Government funding of religiously-inspired and unscientific policies such as abstinence only education."
I am not sure what is unscientific about not having sex leads to fewer unplanned pregnancies and the spread of STDs. I would think the other school of thought that if you just throw on a condom then there are will be no consequences to having sex would be a bit more risky.
You do realize that is a WAY higher standard than any current legal requirement for legislation, secular or otherwise? Hell... what piece of legislation DOESN'T interfere with civil rights, considering that the US recognizes such rights as the right to property?
True, but it's not as high as you think. What I meant by violating civil rights are laws that have resulted from, for example, a politician chanting the "tough on crime" line. As a result, laws are passed against victimless crimes, and sometimes public shaming is allowed for the accused of certain crimes before they are found guilty. Of course, I have nothing against criminals being deprived of their freedom when they should be incarcerated for the general protection of society.
Ah, I agree as far as the "coerce or pressure others to participate" shouldn't happen. But you are painting with a broad brush here. An example would be in Utah where if you are not part of the Mormon church you are excommunicated from the community or worse...(google Warren Jeffs for more info). This is an obvious case of religion being used for wrong doing.
There is a difference between this and some one handing you a pamphlet about Jesus in public. Or a family praying before they at a public restaurant. I am unaware of there being a large problem of religious discrimination in the workplace, I am under the opinion that if some gets fired for their beliefs that a small army of lawyers then show up and sue the company into the dirt.
Well, I have nothing against religious organizations handing out pamphlets or families praying for dinner. In these cases, there are no unjust consequences to my life. But when, say, a business manager calls his employees to come together and pray before lunch, then my refusal to participate will likely result in me facing unjust consequences.
"allow such public establishments to host religious activities in public spaces."
I have to disagree with you here. Why can hate groups like the KKK hold activities in public places like court house steps yet the local church can't be allowed? Public places are... well public - anyone can use them.
"2. Government funding of religiously-inspired and unscientific policies such as abstinence only education."
Well, I meant something more like the government decides to fund and pay for a huge Christmas festival at public square. Not that I don't mind if an independent organization rents the use of a public facility, provided other groups were allowed to fairly compete for that public space.
I am not sure what is unscientific about not having sex leads to fewer unplanned pregnancies and the spread of STDs. I would think the other school of thought that if you just throw on a condom then there are will be no consequences to having sex would be a bit more risky.
I agree that we don't want to teach young people that they won't risk STIs if they are slutty just because they use condoms. I think it's important to tell them that they should limit sexual activity to exclusive long-term relationships, and I also believe they should receive accurate information on STIs.
What's dumb is not giving them accurate information on STIs and thinking that telling them about the virtues of virginity and marriage is going to work. And moreover, it's government favoritism because it promotes religious concepts such as "marriage" and "purity." Btw, yes, I am in favor of abolishing marriage as an institution recognized by the state, but I am okay with replacing it with a concept like "civil partnership."
I'm just going to summarize everything and say "Come up with a better rule."
When you post a blanket statement, then every response is "Well, I don't want to exclude X, but I want to exclude Y," and given the wording if your statement, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to understand your statement as including X, the problem is with the way you're phrasing your rule. Hell, everyone in this thread may be 100% on the same page in terms of what they believe, but are being screwed up by bad definitions of advocacy. 
I'm just going to summarize everything and say "Come up with a better rule."
When you post a blanket statement, then every response is "Well, I don't want to exclude X, but I want to exclude Y," and given the wording if your statement, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to understand your statement as including X, the problem is with the way you're phrasing your rule. Hell, everyone in this thread may be 100% on the same page in terms of what they believe, but are being screwed up by bad definitions of advocacy.
I have no problem acknowledging that my rules require revision or clarification as you good folks poke holes in them.
[Inappropriate]
Imperial Forum → Politics → Freedom From Religion
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.