Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
No religious organisation should have to change the tenants of their faith. So no clergy or organisation should be forced into offering religious goods or services if it is against their faith.
That's reasonable. I think I have a solution: let's allow religions to entertain whatever discrimination is part of their core beliefes, fine. Let's also end today their tax exemptions, across the board. Shit, in my country alone with that money we could balance the budget and buid one hospital per inhabitant.
Deal?
-
No religious organisation should have to change the tenants of their faith.
Oh no, god forbid you should have to address the rights of others outside the faith.
Is it cos I's a heathen?
-
Let's also end today their tax exemptions, across the board.
Why? Provided any church or religious organisation can access the tax benefit it's fair. As long as it's the same rule for Christianity, or Wicca, or Scientology, or the Church of Satan, or whatever it's just.
-
As long as it's the same rule for Christianity, or Wicca, or Scientology, or the Church of Satan, or whatever it's just.
Why? Why should we give tax exemptions to people just because they are religious? And don't tell me that they do good deeds, I have a pretty good idea of what they do, and if we had to start balancing the good deeds with the bad deeds, I think they'd owe the rest of society pretty generous amounts. But again: why waste taxpayers money to support religion?
-
I think I have a solution: let's allow religions to entertain whatever discrimination is part of their core beliefes, fine. Let's also end today their tax exemptions, across the board.
I suspect Giovanni, it would be fairer if 1. they're allowed to continue to discriminate, but 2. They get charged a discrimination tax.
"No gay weddings in your church? Sweet, you can front half the costs [after all, it's not one man/woman in the marriage that's wrong, it's the second one] for them to get married elsewhere."
-
Provided any church or religious organisation can access the tax benefit it's fair. As long as it's the same rule for Christianity, or Wicca, or Scientology, or the Church of Satan, or whatever it's just.
I'm going to found the "Church that really believes that everyone should have access to tax exemptions". Belief in a higher being optional.
-
Nah... I still want those tax rebates back. I might insist that it should be done retroactively. Call it reparations for centuries of discrimination and oppression and murder.
-
Why? Why should we give tax exemptions to people just because they are religious? And don't tell me that they do good deeds, I have a pretty good idea of what they do, and if we had to start balancing the good deeds with the bad deeds, I think they'd owe the rest of society pretty generous amounts. But again: why waste taxpayers money to support religion?
Oh boy, am I super-duper keen to have this conversation!
-
I'm going to found the "Church that really believes that everyone should have access to tax exemptions".
I could have sworn that already existed
-
Oh no, god forbid you should have to address the rights of others outside the faith.
All religions address the rights of others, it's just a question of difference in what people see as positive.
So for example, the Krishna Conscienceness Movement publicises the dangers and cruelty of eating meat. They do this beacuse they are concerned at people building up karma which will prolong their soul's existence on earth. Hence they offer very cheap food that does not build up karma, to help your soul get off the wheel of life.
Now your local beef farmer is not going to see this as positive, or caring. Likewise those who work at abattoirs.
-
Oh boy, am I super-duper keen to have this conversation!
Okay, I might have to send you some literature about what I plan to do to turn things around in Italy. Hint: when it comes to dealing with the clergy, my plan makes the French Revolution seem like an afternoon spent at an exclusive finishing school. (Which is to say: still horrible, but with A LOT less blood.)
-
Religious adoption agencies should not be forced to place children with same sex couples - why? Because they truely believe it to be harmful for the child and because there are other adoption agencies, eg. State ones.
Oh no. No no no. Nobody forces the church to run an adoption agency, they choose to. If they choose to do that, they choose to comply with the law. If a sect truly honestly genuinely believed it was best for children to be raised by wolves, would you allow that?
Please also note the APA research I linked to which indicated that there is no difference in outcomes for children of gay parents when compared to children of straight parents.
If the individual prospective adoptive parents aren't suitable to be parents for some non-shit reason, by all means don't give them a chlld. But saying that all straight people are better parents than all gay people... why am I not allowed to call that bigotry again?
-
All religions address the rights of others, it's just a question of difference in what people see as positive.
Which is why we have/need universal human rights.
Just cos your godly crew don't like it - oops, I mean 'see it as positive' - doesn't change the fact that it is still discrimination.
Now your local beef farmer is not going to see this as positive, or caring.
I disagree. They may feel frustrated if it affects their sales, but they may still see it as a caring thing for the Krishnas to do.
-
...why waste taxpayers money to support religion?
Well for a start tax payers aren't directly funding religion. Rather religious organisations get special tax breaks. It's a relevant distinction.
But as to why? Practically it's a historical hold over from when religion was far more central to the community's life.
There is some practical advantage to it. Churches often maintain important historical buildings, such as cathedrals, which are open to the public. The bulk of charity work, such as food banks and city missions are run by the churches. Look at the Salvation Army for example.
Provided all religions can access it, along with say the Secular Humanist Afternoon Tea Church, it's a fair system.
-
Churches often maintain important historical buildings, such as cathedrals, which are open to the public.
Which they do partially to sustain their supposed relevance in modern society. Can't see why they should be subsidised to do so.
-
Please also note the APA research I linked to which indicated that there is no difference in outcomes for children of gay parents when compared to children of straight parents.
You're thinking from a utilitarian perspective, with utilitarian axioms. Which is fine, but it's not going to lead to any kind of understanding, assuming you're interested in that.
The goal of Christianity is eternal life. Hence the term "Gospel", good news. A Catholic adoption agancy wouldn't place children with people who had sold their soul to Satan either, even if they were jolly nice people. Every act has a moral weighting. So even something that may be non-harmful from a materialistic point of view, can still be seen as harmful if it separates one from God.
-
Which is why we have/need universal human rights.
And idea which was strongly influence by the Christian thought of there being God given rights.
The idea of individual rights comes from the Christianised West.
-
You're thinking from a utilitarian perspective, with utilitarian axioms. Which is fine, but it's not going to lead to any kind of understanding, assuming you're interested in that.
What? Seriously, what?
Because they truely believe it to be harmful for the child
This is a 'belief' which simply isn't true. To discriminate against people on the basis of beliefs which have no basis in fact (ie Black people are stupid, women are too dumb to vote) is bigotry. If that's not bigotry, then nothing is.
And no, actually, I've no interest in 'reaching an understanding' with people who doctrinally believe that gay people are unfit to be parents. And they've no interest in reaching an understanding with me. Or, it appears, reality, either.
-
<quote>Which they do partially to sustain their supposed relevance in modern society.<quote>
Nah... Don't really think so. Those old busildings are there as historic places, rather than trying to reach out to modern society. They're a bugger to maintain. Wickedly expensive to light, heat, and keep clean and safe. And there's no way historic places are going to let them be bulldozed down so that something more practical could be put up.
Seriously, have you ever been to morning Mass in winter at the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament in Christchurch? You can't heat the thing because it's umpteen stories high and completely uninsulated. It's like sitting in a fridge. I mean honestly, it's a big, stone box.
Small, modern heated churches would be far more amenable.
-
You're thinking from a utilitarian perspective
Oh, and not solely, no. I think discrimination is immoral .
-
And idea which was strongly influence by the Christian thought of there being God given rights.
The idea of individual rights comes from the Christianised West.
Sigh. You're absolutely right. But that was then. Wouldn't you say we've, ahem, evolved past needing god to tell us what is right and wrong?
-
The idea of individual rights comes from the Christianised West.
Oh dear. The concept of democracy comes from the Greeks, the concept of rights from the Roman ius. What the Church did for fifteen hundred years plus thereafter was to abolish those rights one by one. And when the enlightenment came, which side was the Church on? That's right, the other one. And when public schooling was promoted, which side was the Catholic Church on? That's right, the other one. And now that gay rights and women rights are being fought for, which side is the Catholic Church on? That's right - the other one. And I don't just mean within the confines of their little obscurantist courtyard, no - people like Rocco Buttiglione (who came pretty close to becoming the EU commissioner) have been fighting for a while for the right of individuals to discriminate against gays. The Vatican holds that position very explicitly. So really one has no idea what you're on about.
But as to why? Practically it's a historical hold over from when religion was far more central to the community's life.
That's right: they are no longer. So let's stop funding them. Perfectly happy to give exemptions to their charitable arms, the same way they are granted to non religious organisations who do the same kind of work, but the rest of the exemptions goes. Oh, and by the way, a tax exemption is a state grant, there really is no difference. Remember the debate about the LOTR - it was pretty well established that NZ was subsidising the film.
As for the historical building, we'll help with the ones of actual historical significance. I'm not against that either. Although if they want us to take over, say, the Sistine chapel altogether, with all the costs involved, I'd be into that.
-
This is a 'belief' which simply isn't true.
There is no way to empirically prove whether God exists or not. I can't prove something as spiritually harmful, neither can you prove it is not. These are not empirical claims.
By all means, atheists can run adoption agencies that refuse to adopt to couples of faith. Certainly there is a belief that faith can harm children.
-
Tess: no-one is talking about "forcing religions to change the tenants of their faith". We are talking about forcing everyone who participates in the market - irrespective of their race, colour, gender, sexual orientation or relgion - to deal fairly and equally with everyone else who participates in the market - irrespective of their race, colour, gender, sexual orientation or relgion. We have laws to make this happen - by, for example, forbidding employers to refuse work to women or pay them less, banning shopkeepers from refusing to serve Jews, and banning landlords from refusing to rent a house to de facto couples. Those laws are widely accepted, precisely because they protect every single one of us from the abuses of the powerful and petty victimisation as we go about our daily lives.
It doesn't matter if you think it is "actively harmful" to serve someone equally and in a non-discriminatory fashion. People thought it was "harmful" to serve blacks and Jews. Those hiding behind religion are no less bigoted or monstrous.
(And again, people donating blood is not providing a good or service, and you know it isn't. Stop with the canards already)
-
I think discrimination is immoral.
Really? All forms of discrimination?
I'd descriminate against Tony Vietch if he wanted to run a woman's refuge. Or a pedophile from babysitting children.
As an intransitive verb there are two different connotations here. To be discriminationg was once positive.
But otherwise, what ever happened to live and let live. You don't have to agree with me, and I likewise. But I think both of us should be free to live our lives as we see fit. It would be very different if I was not prepared to accept a democratic process, if I wanted my morality imposed on everyone else. And I don't want to do that. I just don't want to be imposed upon in return.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.