Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
But as to why? Practically it's a historical hold over from when religion was far more central to the community's life.
Actually, it's a historical holdover from feudalism. Which is another reason to get rid of it.
-
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.
Translation: "evidence? I don't need no steenking evidence! This is about _-faith__"
Which is fine, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
-
(And again, people donating blood is not providing a good or service, and you know it isn't. Stop with the canards already)
No, I meant actually performing blood transfusions, not donating blood.
-
forbidding employers to refuse work to women or pay them less
Although we don't have any formal commitment to pay equity for women in New Zealand, of course. That would be Political Correctness Gone Mad. (I am filled with a cold, hard rage about the scrapping of that unit.)
Also, if God thinks two loving parents of the same sex is 'spiritually harmful', then God is kind of a... total asshole.
-
The bulk of charity work, such as food banks and city missions are run by the churches. Look at the Salvation Army for example.
Properly constitued charities are already tax-exempt. There is no reason why the Salvation Army's food bank would not qualify.
Provided all religions can access it, along with say the Secular Humanist Afternoon Tea Church, it's a fair system.
Anything that really included the Secular Humanist Afternoon Tea Church (incidentally after the schism over the acceptabiliy of coffee we heretics have formed our own group) would simply be a tax break for social organisations, and we already have structures for nonprofits that would meet that. Otherwise, you're privileging groups that have some belief that they feel strongly enough to meet about and meet some vague criterion of seriousness. What about the First Celtic Rastafarian Kirk of Hamilton, for example?
In other words, it's not fair. It's a jackup whereby promoters of absurdity are subsidised to further promote it, and then justify it by pointing to how successful they are, and please don't let anyone else into our club, because they're absurd, not like us.
-
Which is fine, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
Well, the same goes for atheism you know :)
-
I'd descriminate against Tony Vietch if he wanted to run a woman's refuge. Or a pedophile from babysitting children.
And these two examples are like gay people having equal civil rights... how?
-
Also, if God thinks two loving parents of the same sex is 'spiritually harmful', then God is kind of a... total asshole.
You could say that. I prefer to simply go "you're talking about your imaginary friend again", and ignore the quack.
-
What about the First Celtic Rastafarian Kirk of Hamilton, for example?
Look if the First Celtic Rastafarian Kirk of Hamilton can get together people and make their church work, then who am I to argue. It worked for Scientology, so really anything is possible. The point is if you have a dedicated group who really want to be a faith community, you're going to get tax breaks. The bummer is that atheism doesn't really lend itself to that kind of organisation.
When it comes to this issue, we can agree to disagree, but I doubt the law will be changed in any near future because most people are fine with it.
-
I'd descriminate against Tony Vietch if he wanted to run a woman's refuge. Or a pedophile from babysitting children.
Not discrimination. And quite rightly so. The law recognises reasonable limits, which are again widely accepted. Generalised religious bigotry and homophobia is not one of them.
-
I can't prove something as spiritually harmful, neither can you prove it is not.
The people who ran the Magdalen laundries believed they were doing what was best for those girls and their children, didn't they? That what they did to those women in terms of physical and emotional suffering was for the good of their souls?
-
And these two examples are like gay people having equal civil rights... how?
Adopting isn't a civil right though. Neither is having a church marry you. I do think that couple protection is a civil right, and as I have said, I have no problem with that.
-
Also, if God thinks two loving parents of the same sex is 'spiritually harmful', then God is kind of a... total asshole.
Pretty much the conclusion Christianity has forced me to.
-
No, I meant actually performing blood transfusions, not donating blood.
Health professionals have a professional duty to act in the best interests of the patient. If they're not willing to do this, they shouldn't be health professionals. It's that simple. Religion does not give you a right to kill people by neglect.
-
The people who ran the Magdalen laundries believed they were doing what was best for those girls and their children, didn't they?
I don't think they did. I think some of the violence that those institutions purpetrated was because the people knew what they were doing was essentially evil. I think that heightened their violence.
I think those women were the scapegoat of a culture of shame and punishment. And I don't think it was a Catholic thing per se, since seriously there is nothing in Scripture or Church teaching to justify such actions. It's as though they rewrote the Bible to make Jesus say, "Yeah, go on stone the adulterous whore! That'll teach her."
-
if God thinks two loving parents of the same sex is 'spiritually harmful', then God is kind of a... total asshole.
For Catholicism, biological parenthood is very important. Biologically, you can not have two parents of the same sex. The Church is saying that the natural distinction is important. In fact it calls it the Theology of the Body.
All children have a biological mother and father. The Church thinks that what is best for children is that they be raised by their own parents in a loving, life long commitment. And if the children are abandoned, then their adoptive parents should mimic that as much as possible.
-
All children have a biological mother and father. The Church thinks that what is best for children is that they be raised by their own parents in a loving, life long commitment. And if the children are abandoned, then their adoptive parents should mimic that as much as possible.
A lot of groups have idiotic beliefs. They just don't have the right to normate society according to those beliefs without some supporting basis in reality. And research tells us that there is in fact no basis for thinking that homosexual couples are less good at raising children, whereas reason and decency and a sense of history know help us deal with the myth that the nuclear family is always best.
-
Tess, if the Church is seriously channelling God with all this milquetoast doublespeak bigotry, then I'm afraid my opinion is that God continues to be... kind of a total asshole.
-
Religion does not give you a right to kill people by neglect.
I'm not familiar with the JW thing about blood transfusions, so I dono't want to take the analogy any further with that, because I don't have the understanding about it.
However, I think all individuals should be able to act according to their own conscience. Things like performing abortion, euthanasia and proscribing contraception can't be forced onto people. It's wrong.
Provided people have a choice as to who they go to, and they are informed as to what will or will not be available, I see no reason to force medical professionals into such things.
-
kind of a total asshole
Yep. My mum's brand of Christian atheism is "wouldn't believe in that bastard even if he actually existed". Always thought it was a good philosophy.
-
Things like performing abortion, euthanasia and proscribing contraception can't be forced onto people. It's wrong.
Sorry. You're a doctor, you take advantage of our state of the art education and so on and so forth. You practice according to our laws. If you wanted to discriminate, you should have become a landscape gardner.
What's next? Judges who practice conscientious objection?
-
Danielle, fair enough. You are perfectly free to think so.
No one is asking you to agree with me or to force you to do something against your conscience.
-
And I don't think it was a Catholic thing per se
Oh, no, look at the Stolen Generation. That was a government doing what it genuinely believed was right - because Aborigines were unfit to be parents. That's why evidence is so important.
But taking babies from unwed (biological) mothers, and punishing those mothers for having sex out of wedlock, that's got religious overtones all over it.
-
The point is if you have a dedicated group who really want to be a faith community, you're going to get tax breaks. The bummer is that atheism doesn't really lend itself to that kind of organisation
i agree with both those statements, but the original claim was that this would be fair, as long as the atheists could form similar organisations.
You then say something which I also agree with:
The bummer is that atheism doesn't really lend itself to that kind of organisation.
which I think undercuts any claim to fairness.
When it comes to this issue, we can agree to disagree, but I doubt the law will be changed in any near future because most people are fine with it.
An accurate summary of the state of affairs, but not in any way evidence of fairness.
-
Question to the world at large: how do these discussions always come around to 'oh noes, you are oppressing [religious sect] by forcing them to treat people equally!'?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.