|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 9, 2007 3:52:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 9, 2007 4:24:48 GMT -5
Are this the element you have a problem with:
To me, that would not be a valid argument. If it was something that said who churches themselves can hire, that's another thing altogether.
The problem I have with this type of thing is that it doesn't loosen up what people can SAY in a workplace. I think people should be able to SAY whatever racist or homophobic thing they want--as long as their actions themselves don't reflect discrimination, I think everything should be good. I don't think people have any business telling others what they can think. I think it's much better for people to know who they're dealing with up front.
I guess to me, there are only two ways that can make things equal:
Either people can't discriminate against ANYTHING except someone's job performance
OR
People can discriminate against anything he or she wants
Anything else is unequal.
But this bill--I don't see what the big deal is about it. Enlighten me. I don't see anything in it that bans books or anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 9, 2007 10:38:48 GMT -5
I don't see why religious organizations that are open to the public are exempt from such anti-discrimination practices. Who gives a flying shit what their religion says? What if someone had a religion stating that black people are evil sinners because they aren't white people, and thus denied them access to the bookstore employment based on that? Oh wait...silly me, I forgot the Mormon Church already did that. I r Teh SuxorZ at hypotheticals!
It's silly to give religions exemptions as if they're something special. Remember kids, Christianity is a choice too, assuming their logic.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 9, 2007 11:38:28 GMT -5
I'm just not sure what the upset is over this bill. I need to be enlightened on this.... or something....
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 9, 2007 18:15:26 GMT -5
I don't see why religious organizations that are open to the public are exempt from such anti-discrimination practices. Who gives a flying shit what their religion says? The people who practice that religion. ANd if you didn't notice, there are a LOT of religious people out there. What if someone had a religion stating that black people are evil sinners Luckily, there is no prevailing or popular religion that states this, so it is kind of like saying "what if Zebra's could fly?" because they aren't white people, and thus denied them access to the bookstore employment based on that? Oh wait...silly me, I forgot the Mormon Church already did that. I r Teh SuxorZ at hypotheticals! There have been crazy people in every church and every faith, just as there are crazy people at every bus stop. But just because some people who board a bus are jerks doesn't mean that all bussers are jerks. Most people are just fine on the bus. Same goes for mainstream religious practicers. There have definitely been some offshoot weirdos of the faith, notably the mormon faith, and they have been condemned by the mormon church. The are radical anything. Even radical communists! It's silly to give religions exemptions as if they're something special. Remember kids, Christianity is a choice too, assuming their logic. I am happy glad people have the freedom to be religious if they want. I think that we are sensitive to CERTAIN (but certianly not anything too crazy) aspects of the church is not nearly as harmful as you want it to be. Look at Norway. I just found out that church and state are not even separate there. There is a state church that 80% of everyone joins in birth, (almost like becoming a citizen!) Yet, according to the global peace index, Norway is the most peaceful place in the world. Similarly, they are one of the most free nations.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 9, 2007 18:19:52 GMT -5
That was a really great post jq.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 10, 2007 0:41:20 GMT -5
I will let you know why this bothers me so much, but I'm off to work in a few.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 12, 2007 2:19:11 GMT -5
Of course a lot of people are religious. So? Why should they be exempt, simply because a lot of people believe their myths? That they choose to believe certain mythologies shouldn't give them special privilege to discriminate based on fantasy criteria. It's wrong to discriminate against people who require jobs or key services because of characteristics that are irrelevant to their job performance. People should not be denied access to facilities of employment that are open to the public. Everyone else can't do that when they hire. If we did allow that as a moral rule, it would lead to horrible consequences. It only works if you allow certain ones "special permission" to do so. In the 50's, white people barred black people from jobs. There's no difference in the moral reasoning, except Christians wish to use delusions to ban people from working their if they aren't 100% ideologically in step with them. Where's that good Christian tolerance of loving thy neighbor? I guess they threw that out the window.
That said, I wouldn't, even want to work there if they felt that way about me.
For a hypothetical, it obviously doesn't need to be the case for the point to make sense. The point is that one can invent literally any set of criteria, call it a religion, and thus justify anything, because ultimately, religious rules/concepts are arbitrary and not based on any reason whatsoever. The only difference is that religions that are popular are accepted...because they are popular. We all bow to their ridiculous demands out of deference for long old they are. This is the same reasoning employed by pharmacists who refuse to supply morning-after pills because of religious reasons. As long as the people do good work at the job and don't cause problems, there's no reason to ban them. In fact, they shouldn't even be asking them those personal questions. It's a place of work, not a social gathering. What difference does it make if someone's an atheist and needs a job at your bookstore? Don't ask, don't tell, don't cause trouble.
Except Mormonism wasn't affected by just a few people. It was literally the official position of the Mormon Church. It only changed because of the laws of the country and the fact that it's overt racism got so much public flak it caved in. It's all rather ridiculous, since Mormonism has literally been refuted and shown false. It was invented in the 19th century by a guy who claimed Jesus came to the New World. It was founded by a nutcase liar, and today, people treat it with respect for some bizarre reason. The point is that anyone can do the same thing with any set of absurd religious rules that demand specal treatment. It's happened before.
Ironically, the "separation of church and state" has had the opposite effect as linking church and state. Overwhelmingly, the European nations are far less religious, including the Scandanavian nations. Nations with stronger union of church and state overtime had the effect of turning the population against religious legislation and destroyed the power of religion. When you separate church and state, combine it with religious freedom, it causes religion to grow and fester in isolated bubbles. Why do you think it's so powerful today, yet so weak in Europe where there was a history of greater religious authority from inception?
Europeans are far, far more secular than Americans, despite Church/State union. The United States is perhaps the most religious nation in the western world, yet it is supposedly secular. Studies show that, the more secular a nation genuinely is, the better the quality of life often is, the fewer problems there are. The most religious nations correlate with worse national/social results.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 12, 2007 2:33:51 GMT -5
Wow. That was quite a post. As usual, you give a lot of information--this is a good thing, as I was having a hard time explaining some of where I was coming from, and I was hoping someone else would come along and explain some things, and you seem to have done that. Not the most gracefully, but all the information was there. Great post. Man, this thread, that seems to be mainly what I'm saying to people "great post"--but there really is some great insight in these posts.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 12, 2007 23:31:13 GMT -5
LOL! It's called The First Amendment, and it is far more than enough reason people why people should be exempt. No amount of bashing by you is going to invalidate that, at least not yet. Give it a few more years though, and the secular progressives will have you thrown in jail for preaching from the Bible in church. Other people do just what you claim they can't when they hire. I've been turned down for jobs before because the company didn't have enough black people working for them. Fortunately for me, the first amendment still works, and I'm protected from people with the "infinite wisdom" to categorize entire belief systems into "delusional" and "fantasy". This law is an absolute breach of the first amendment. Your partial use of Scripture is laughable and is reminiscent of when Satan did the same thing in the Bible. Try reading it some time, and if you have already, then know that at least with me, using half scriptures won't go over. I'll call you out on it every time.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 13, 2007 0:04:10 GMT -5
So, as long as your religion says so, it's the first amendment and you can be exempt from following laws? Interesting. According to that profound logic, "niggas" can be banned from restaurants if the owner claims his religion says black people are satan spawn. Oh wait...oops...no they can't. But if a "respected" religion said it was ok, well darn it, fuck Civil Rights Laws! Amirite? Lolzors1101011! The "first amendment" has limitations. In reality, we have laws against polygamy too, despite what some religions claim is their right. Obviously, secular law has little to do with religious rules. We can override them at our pleasure.
Slip slip slipperly slope ahoy matey! Man the jib! Fallacy ho! Oh, and throw in the "evil secular progressive liberal conspiracy" buzz word in for good measure. That always is effective.
Bullshit. Quotas are illegal. Furthermore, even if a company DID do that, it doesn't make it ethical behaviour, nor does it make it legal. Secondly, it's not the same as banning you from joining simply because you are.
This law is no more a breach of the "amendment" than is preventing you from discriminating against minorities based on a religion, from smoking you licit substances as your religion dictates, or having 40 wives. Fuck the freedom of religion excuse for bigotry.
No amount of bashing by you is going to invalidate that, at least not yet. Give it a few more years though, and the secular progressives will have you thrown in jail for preaching from the Bible in church. Other people do just what you claim they can't when they hire. I've been turned down for jobs before because the company didn't have enough black people working for them. Fortunately for me, the first amendment still works, and I'm protected from people with the "infinite wisdom" to categorize entire belief systems into "delusional" and "fantasy". This law is an absolute breach of the first amendment. Your partial use of Scripture is laughable and is reminiscent of when Satan did the same thing in the Bible. Try reading it some time, and if you have already, then know that at least with me, using half scriptures won't go over. I'll call you out on it every time. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 13, 2007 0:08:29 GMT -5
Using your "religion gets a free ride" belief, I can craft a religion that claims Christians are evil, thus denies service, jobs to them. That's a ridiculous violation of civil rights, but based on the same logic. Mexicans? Pfffh, they are nothing but half-spanish slobs, according to my religion. I don't want no dirty mexicans in my department store! After all, my religion says they aren't allowed near the "pure white" people. Gotta respect religion!
In reality, the whole "love thy neighbour" and spread "love" and tolerance is all a bullshit act. It only applies to a select few people who agree lock-step with them or aren't daemonized by their holy texts. The tolerance and love suddenly disappears when it comes to gay people, atheists, or when they try to use their religious doctrines to discriminate against people.
Their idea of freedom is doing whatever their imaginary sky daddy tells them to do and forcing society to respect it, despite how delusional it is. They hide behind "rights" in the constitution to spread their bigotry, and when you call them on it and try to stop it, they whine like babies about out oppressed they are, despite the fact that they make up the majority of the power bloc in the country.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 13, 2007 1:04:19 GMT -5
Using your "religion gets a free ride" belief, I can craft a religion that claims Christians are evil, thus denies service, jobs to them. That's a ridiculous violation of civil rights, but based on the same logic. Mexicans? Pfffh, they are nothing but half-spanish slobs, according to my religion. I don't want no dirty mexicans in my department store! After all, my religion says they aren't allowed near the "pure white" people. Gotta respect religion! You said it yourself that there are limits to what a religion is exempt from, so why do you keep making these pretend scenarios in which some pretend religious group discriminates based on race and gets away with it? I repeat, there is no prevailing religion in our country who states any of this and certainly none that get away with it, so, moot point. You say this right after making up a fantasy scenario which leads me to believe you are more interested in slandering religion than truly understanding it or discussing it. In reality, the whole "love thy neighbour" and spread "love" and tolerance is all a bullshit act. It only applies to a select few people who agree lock-step with them or aren't daemonized by their holy texts. The tolerance and love suddenly disappears when it comes to gay people, atheists, or when they try to use their religious doctrines to discriminate against people. Something I hear all the time from Christians is "hate the sin, not the sinner." That they regularly make that statement leads me to believe that most aren't nearly as hateful of others as you are making them out to be. If anything, you seem to be the one pointing the finger at religious people, demonizing them. I don't think they hate you nearly as much as you hate them. Even if the hatred were equal, that certainly wouldn't make you seem like you are in the right. Their idea of freedom is doing whatever their imaginary sky daddy tells them to do Sky daddy? I guess this is in the deep cleansing section, so the hell with respect, but come on, do you really think you are going to change anyone's mind by this kind of blatant disrespect of someone else's beliefs? Hate rhetoric? You sound as bad as any religious person you are speaking of. I am not even actively religious and yet I feel pushed toward religion by your vicious hyperbole. I have this funny feeling you would be more convincing if you could speak in terms that didn't sound like personal attacks and slander. Just sayin', you sound like you are speaking from emotion and not reason, and I know from your posts in other sections that you can do better than that.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 13, 2007 1:59:05 GMT -5
I agree with JQ: Technocrat, I know you're capable of much better than that. I've seen how well you debate other areas, and you usually do really well, but this one was a lot of bashing, which is fine--it's in the Deep Cleansing area, but wow.
I don't think the government should be able to dictate the hiring/firing policies of a church. Other places, fine, but don't mess with the churches.
Now, from what I"ve read of this, I didn't see anything in it that would force churches to do anything. It did, however, affect places like Bible bookstores. A Bible bookstore is a business just like anyone else's business. They should have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 13, 2007 2:20:35 GMT -5
Now, from what I"ve read of this, I didn't see anything in it that would force churches to do anything. It did, however, affect places like Bible bookstores. A Bible bookstore is a business just like anyone else's business. They should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. I would probably have to agree with you if the issue was taken to a vote. Still, let me just say this: When I go to REI, I expect the employees to be able to tell me about the best camping products. When I go to Home Depot, I appreciate when the employees can help me answer questions about plumbing, etc. I don't think it is really that unreasonable for a Bible book store to want employees who are best equipped to provide customer service to their customers based on what they sell.
|
|