|
Series DD Funding posted:We make a moral decision that the child's physical health is more important than the parent's impression of their spiritual health. So personal beliefs that aren't demonstrated to be true shouldn't be respected, thank you.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You can claim its not as much of a problem, but it IS a problem, and one that directly affects me and people around me. Perhaps your issue is not that religion is more overbearing and integrated into american politics than it ever has been, but that it is less so. If religion were more fully integrated into politics and society in America, you would be less likely to be in a position which takes issue with that. I would suggest that it may be a symptom of the increasing secularity of American society that you exist, and are so put off by the remaining presence of religious overtones in politics and society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:In the majority of cases, yeah. But if you put up a barrier and say "you can't question someone's unfalsifiable beliefs, it's true to them!" then you're helping to protect people with harmful unfalsifiable beliefs, be they religious or otherwise. To use a more real-world example, how about those who think their children should not receive blood transfusions because they think it goes against god's will? The sooner we stop assuming that because someone is religious or an atheist we know they are a moral or immoral person the better. What is truly disturbing in contemporary atheism is the rise of thoughts like this: Who What Now posted:So personal beliefs that aren't demonstrated to be true shouldn't be respected, thank you. Barlow fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Oops, meant to edit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
No, I would say that people who refuse medical treatment for their children because they believe prayer is the only effective cure for their child's curable condition are deserving of contempt - but whether or not that's the best way to reach such people is an entirely other matter.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Any viewpoint that suggests that individuals should be demeaned and belittled for their beliefs is troubling. One of the things I think the founders of the United States handled very well was to allow for religious freedom and to foster an atmosphere of mutual toleration and respect. Tolerance, yes, respect, no. I'll never put a gun to people's faces and demand they deconvert, nor will I harass people exiting a church, but I won't respect their beliefs either. Respect is earned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Barlow posted:
Or is this a religious thinking thing? Do you think criticizing a person's idea is the same as criticizing the person?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Any viewpoint that suggests that individuals should be demeaned and belittled for their beliefs is troubling. Then you reject the Bible after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Any viewpoint that suggests that individuals should be demeaned and belittled for their beliefs is troubling. One of the things I think the founders of the United States handled very well was to allow for religious freedom and to foster an atmosphere of mutual toleration and respect. Uh I'm pretty sure insulting and belittling others for their beliefs was in the playbook of every single one of the founders, and rightly so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Alexander posted:Then you reject the Bible after all. Chin posted:He didn't say the individuals shouldn't be respected. You're being disingenuous. If Who What Now was supporting the right to go to an internet forum and criticize religion I may disagree but have only limited concerns. My thought was they were going down the same line of argument that suggests that a Muslim women should be jailed for not removing her hijab or sees Quakers denied jobs for not signing loyalty oaths. Qubec's ban on public employees wearing religious symbols for instance proves that there are people that do want to limit religion in this way, but if this wasn't the kind of thinking Who What Now was endorsing I did not mean to mischaracterize them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Barlow posted:If Who What Now was supporting the right to go to an internet forum and criticize religion I may disagree but have only limited concerns. My thought was they were going down the same line of argument that suggests that a Muslim women should be jailed for not removing her hijab or sees Quakers denied jobs for not signing loyalty oaths. Qubec's ban on public employees wearing religious symbols for instance proves that there are people that do want to limit religion in this way, but if this wasn't the kind of thinking Who What Now was endorsing I did not mean to mischaracterize them. What the gently caress?! Jesus, no. I would never do anything like what you're talking about. Seriously, what the gently caress did I say to make you think I would do such a thing?! Christ almighty... To be clear, while I may not respect individual beliefs, that does not mean I don't respect individuals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 06:21
|
|
Who What Now posted:What the gently caress?! Jesus, no. I would never do anything like what you're talking about. Seriously, what the gently caress did I say to make you think I would do such a thing?! Christ almighty... Hate the sin, love the sinner! I've never been entirely convinced by that line of reasoning.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What the gently caress?! Jesus, no. I would never do anything like what you're talking about. Seriously, what the gently caress did I say to make you think I would do such a thing?! Christ almighty... My thought was that legal protections for religious freedom often protect the right to exercise beliefs and require the state to "respect" a persons beliefs as beliefs. The laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and it's state equivalents requires that laws not be made the least burdensome possible to religious practice. This is when that Quaker got fired for not signing a loyalty oath in California the school that fired her hired her back rather than face trial, it is why native Americans are not imprisoned for having eagle feather headdresses or using peyote in religious ceremonies. If you're fine with religion being specially protected by law than that's positive. Disinterested posted:Hate the sin, love the sinner!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Hate the sin, love the sinner! Hate the sin, legislate against the sinner!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Hate the sin, love the sinner! It's difficult and, personally, not something I think religion is very good at fostering, but it's quite possible to take that attitude. Though a good proxy for whether someone does take that stance is generally how they go about hating the sin. If you find actions to be abhorrent, the best way to oppose them is seldom to throw a fit and scream about how horrible they are, you can do more damage to a behavior through positively reinforcing actions other than it, or which are in contradiction to it, than you can by getting angry and yelling at/jailing/murdering people who perform the action you hate. If you focus very much on that, it's possible that you are relatively uninterested in the sin other than as a justification for hating the sinner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Well that statement is very often made in relation to homosexuality by people who quite clearly hate gay people but don't want to say it. But I also think it's splitting hairs, since homosexuality is a fairly intrinsic quality, as is acting on the urges to which it gives rise. To me saying 'I hate the sin but love the sinner' there is drawing an artificial distinction - there you're talking about someone's nature. But I also don't think some beliefs should give rise to contempt for the person who holds them more generally, however or whosoever they are held - for example, the belief that women are inferior to men.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Again, recall the context of your remark not "respecting" other traditions was made about state intervention overriding religious beliefs to protect life. While in that case life is certainly a high enough value to justify that intervention in other cases the idea was questionable. I'll go with you on this argument that a Christian baker has the right to say no to bake a cake for a gay couple. I'll go with you on the argument that a secular person has the right to say no to bake a cake with racist slogans on it. This is how the First Amendment must operate. The argument that you present almost indefinitely boils down to a religious practice violating human rights. Anyone can wear a hijab or swear loyalty to something else, but if a religious practice encourages gay kids to be thrown out of their homes by their Christian parents, then a problem arises. Encouraging a schizophrenic to stop taking medications (in the case of Scientology, and yes, there is a documented case where this happened) puts a person and his close friends and family at risk. Religion can be the cause of a safety hazard. To bring it to the Muslim argument, a hijab is fine, and it makes me cringe to think that even a burqa might be okay for anyone who wishes it, but as long as they're adults and willfully want it, then nobody should be able to get in the way of it. THAT is what it means to practice religion. CONSENT. But threats forcing a gay kid to love as a straight person or throw him/her out of a safe home is a human rights violation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Well that statement is very often made in relation to homosexuality by people who quite clearly hate gay people but don't want to say it. But I also think it's splitting hairs, since homosexuality is a fairly intrinsic quality, as is acting on the urges to which it gives rise. To me saying 'I hate the sin but love the sinner' there is drawing an artificial distinction - there you're talking about someone's nature. Strictly speaking people who hate gay people shouldn't, even by their own logic, it's buggery that God apparently dislikes, not homosexuality. Again I think they're just bad at applying their own supposed beliefs in that case. Disliking what someone thinks or even is inclined towards thinking is exceptionally er, anal, even for religions. Also did you mean to type don't in that second bit? Reads a bit oddly if so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also did you mean to type don't in that second bit? Reads a bit oddly if so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Well that statement is very often made in relation to homosexuality by people who quite clearly hate gay people but don't want to say it. But I also think it's splitting hairs, since homosexuality is a fairly intrinsic quality, as is acting on the urges to which it gives rise. To me saying 'I hate the sin but love the sinner' there is drawing an artificial distinction - there you're talking about someone's nature. I hate pedophilia but wish pedophiles to be treated, because I don't hate them (as long as they aren't acting on it).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Personally I would take the stance that hating people is seldom productive, it isn't generally conducive to taking an effective approach to dealing with them, whatever your objective. Ethics aside, it's not really practical to hate people if you can avoid it. Even if you're trying to kill someone, being cold and calculating about it will probably make you more successful. There is no person who is well served by hatred of others. Except possibly the person who can profit from other people's hatred and the poor decision making that leads to. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Can we safely agree that some degree of respectful conduct should be given towards religion? That this applies on a personal level and it would be wrong to yell at Jews who wear yarmulkes in the street or scream "Mohammad was a pedophile" at Muslims, like what's depicted here. That honoring others traditions by joining them for Passover or Christmas dinner might be polite and even enjoyable.
Barlow fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 06:42
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I hate pedophilia but wish pedophiles to be treated, because I don't hate them (as long as they aren't acting on it). Yes, but presumabyl that stems in some way from the belief that pedophilia is in some sense innate or thoroughly ingrained in the nature of the people who do it. (It's actually not for large numbers of the people who do it, but that's a different subject for a different day). OwlFancier posted:Also did you mean to type don't in that second bit? Reads a bit oddly if so. I think the don't is an error, and I don't think I intended to write out a double negative either. Go figure. OwlFancier posted:Strictly speaking people who hate gay people shouldn't, even by their own logic, it's buggery that God apparently dislikes, not homosexuality. Again I think they're just bad at applying their own supposed beliefs in that case. Disliking what someone thinks or even is inclined towards thinking is exceptionally er, anal, even for religions. That logic is exactly what I am talking about, I'm not sure why this is being presented as news. My argument is that it's bullshit. Having gay sex is an intrinsic quality of gay people, (no more or less so than it is for heterosexuals) so it seems to me that 'hate the sin, love the sinner' is pretty universally bullshit. To hate men having sex with men is to hate homosexuals and I think the argument that a separation between sin and sinner can be made in such an instance is absurd. Displacing that question by saying 'men can't be married to men, so all gay sex is unwedded sex' seems to me no better. Barlow posted:Can we safely agree that some degree of respectful conduct should be given towards religion? That honoring others traditions by joining them for Passover or Christmas dinner might be polite and even enjoyable. Yes, obviously. In fact I was making arguments about the intellectual qualities of theology merely a few pages ago. I don't think anyone apart from maybe Vessbot ITT is enough of a fedora tipper to try to ban Christmas.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That logic is exactly what I am talking about, I'm not sure why this is being presented as news. My argument is that it's bullshit. Having gay sex is an intrinsic quality of gay people, (no more or less so than it is for heterosexuals) so it seems to me that 'hate the sin, love the sinner' is pretty universally bullshit. To hate men having sex with men is to hate homosexuals and I think the argument that a separation between sin and sinner can be made in such an instance is absurd. Displacing that question by saying 'men can't be married to men, so all gay sex is unwedded sex' seems to me no better. I would sort of disagree with that, having sexual impulses doesn't mean you have to act on them, monogamous relationships are dependent on that idea and I don't think they are bullshit. You can certainly argue that there is no productive reason to object to gay sex, but arguing that gay sex (or sex in general) is completely essential to a person's being is not, I think, a very solid position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 14:07
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would sort of disagree with that, having sexual impulses doesn't mean you have to act on them, monogamous relationships are dependent on that idea Monogamous relationships are predicated on individuals only having sex with one person, not never having sex at all. To make a more minimal case: the desire to have sex with people of the same sex is intrinsic to the nature of gay people. To try to portray condemning those desires, and the acts that often follow, as a mere condemnation of the act of doing something, and not a condemnation of a person, is intellectually dishonest. It is to condemn a person for who and what they are, plain and simple. In before someone makes a direct comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
In practice I don't disagree with you, but I do disagree with that line of argumentation, there is a very important and well understood difference between actions and desires, our entire society is founded on the basis of people separating the two, and not doing things simply because we desire it. That the kind of people who object to homosexual behavior are probably not able to distinguish between homosexuality and homosexual behavior, is not an argument that there can be no distinction between thoughts and inclinations, and the actions which stem from them. Nor is it necessary to make that argument in order to disagree with people who regularly abuse and degrade people based on harmless sexual tendencies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Monogamous relationships are predicated on individuals only having sex with one person, not never having sex at all. There's also an argument to be made that even having homosexual predilections is just as bad as actually acting on them. Matthew 5:26 posted:But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. No one here is making this argument, but it a distressingly prevalent one in evangelical circles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yes, but presumabyl that stems in some way from the belief that pedophilia is in some sense innate or thoroughly ingrained in the nature of the people who do it. (It's actually not for large numbers of the people who do it, but that's a different subject for a different day). I wasn't aware of this. What causes pedophilia then? Genuinely curious. Is it considered more of a fetish? Can fetishes be innate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I wasn't aware of this. What causes pedophilia then? Genuinely curious. We don't really know, but it doesn't seem to be anything that happens later in life, with the exception of certain traumatic brain injuries. Also keep in mind that tons of people who molest children are not pedophiles, they're people who choose them as easy targets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There's also an argument to be made that even having homosexual predilections is just as bad as actually acting on them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Can we safely agree that some degree of respectful conduct should be given towards religion? That this applies on a personal level and it would be wrong to yell at Jews who wear yarmulkes in the street or scream "Mohammad was a pedophile" at Muslims, like what's depicted here. That honoring others traditions by joining them for Passover or Christmas dinner might be polite and even enjoyable. Not sure why you bring up traditional meals. How is respecting tradition (which sometimes has obvious social value) an argument for respecting associated religious ideas?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Monogamous relationships are predicated on individuals only having sex with one person, not never having sex at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 01:10
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Is your argument that religious belief is also intrinsic to the nature of a religious person? No, I don't even suggest this, and I wonder what the purpose of the question is? It seems to me to be a stupid question. Religious people are defined as people with religious beliefs. So I think your question must be mistakenly phrased. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 01:14
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Also keep in mind that tons of people who molest children are not pedophiles, they're people who choose them as easy targets. Large numbers of abused children are family members either selected as family members, as fishmech says, or who are being used as part of a broader pattern of abusive behaviour that is not principally motivated by sexual preference. When their family are removed such individuals often do not re-offend (in fact, the recidivism rate for child sexual abuse in general is low, despite the public perception). For example, people who have no specific sexual preference for children do rape their own children in an attempt to avenge themselves upon their wives. I wish I was joking.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:No, I don't even suggest this, and I wonder what the purpose of the question is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:I misunderstood what you were saying after you brought up "love the sin, hate the sinner" in response to someone saying they respected individuals rather than their beliefs. Although I don't see why you'd bring up that comparison at all if you don't think it's valid. Doing things because of tradition or culture are exactly the same as doing things so your continued existence (or lack thereof) after death will be guaranteed by an infallible Divine Master. A Terrible Person fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Chin posted:Not sure why you bring up traditional meals. How is respecting tradition (which sometimes has obvious social value) an argument for respecting associated religious ideas? Religion is philosophic/metaphysical tradition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Chin posted:Not sure why you bring up traditional meals. How is respecting tradition (which sometimes has obvious social value) an argument for respecting associated religious ideas? What makes an idea a "religious" idea? Is theism the only idea you object to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
Enjoying and valuing traditional rain dances doesn't mean the idea of dancing having a meteorological impact is deserving of respectful conduct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 20:13
|
|