Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/trump-religion-executive-order-gay-rights.html

So that's a thing.  Separation of church and state is a pretty fundamental part of our country, so I don't like how it's being eroded.  Hopefully the court will strike this one down, like many of his other executive orders...

Amusing quote from that article:

“Freedom of religion does not give people the right to impose their beliefs on others, harm others, or to discriminate,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director at the Human Rights Campaign.

"Freedom...does not give people the right to impose their beliefs on others"...

Declaring what is and isn't a protected class for discrimination is actually a form of imposing beliefs (in law!) on others.

It's such a specious argument... I'm all for non-discrimination but please pick a different argument than "don't impose your beliefs on others"!  Society imposes laws specifically to deal with people who have different beliefs and therefore de facto imposes certain beliefs on others.  Just be honest about it and say "We don't want to support that belief system. We aren't actually going to pretend that we accept all beliefs.  Sorry, the "majority" has spoken and your viewpoint has been rendered powerless in the public sphere."

EDIT: what I mean by "better argument" is something like "This belief system seems to have more merit because of X-Y-Z, so we're going to go with it.  Studies have shown... etc. etc."

[Loud Whispers]

It's such a specious argument... I'm all for non-discrimination but please pick a different argument than "don't impose your beliefs on others"!  Society imposes laws specifically to deal with people who have different beliefs and therefore de facto imposes certain beliefs on others.  Just be honest about it and say "We don't want to support that belief system. We aren't actually going to pretend that we accept all beliefs.  Sorry, the "majority" has spoken and your viewpoint has been rendered powerless in the public sphere."

EDIT: what I mean by "better argument" is something like "This belief system seems to have more merit because of X-Y-Z, so we're going to go with it.  Studies have shown... etc. etc."

I believe when they are referring to the imposing of beliefs, they are not referring to the imposing of something as abstract as beliefs themselves, but are instead referring to the act of imposing a specific creed or religion upon someone. If the law for example, allowed forcible conversion, or incentivised or discriminated against certain creeds or faiths, that would be a violation of freedom of belief

[McTraveller]

I believe when they are referring to the imposing of beliefs, they are not referring to the imposing of something as abstract as beliefs themselves, but are instead referring to the act of imposing a specific creed or religion upon someone. If the law for example, allowed forcible conversion, or incentivised or discriminated against certain creeds or faiths, that would be a violation of freedom of belief

Well yes, you and I seem to understand that is what is really meant by "separation of church and state".  Most of the general public doesn't, and the media loves to make religion be a bogeyman.  I would say it doesn't help that most of the religious stuff in the media is the "vocal" folks that don't really represent probably 95% of the religious people in the country.  I know I cringe when someone claiming to be under the same broad religious category as me is quoted - because they definitely don't represent me.

[smjjames]

*grumble* It just passed the House by a 217-213 vote.

We'll see what happens to it in the Senate.....

[misko27]

Which means time to update thread title, and time to see the House applaud themselves while the Senate cries.

[McTraveller]

Declaring what is and isn't a protected class for discrimination is actually a form of imposing beliefs (in law!) on others.

...How so? As far as I am aware, a protected class is literally just "this group gets discriminated against a lot so we're going to have to protect them from it".
It has literally nothing to do with beliefs. It doesn't say "this group can/can't be discriminated against because God says so" or similar. It's based on a history of actual, real, tangible, measurable, discrimination.

It's not that a group was discriminated against - it's imposing the "belief" that the group(s) shouldn't be discriminated against.  It is rather philosophical and academic, I'll admit.  But it's still an imposition of a belief.

(In this particular case, it just so happens that "protected classes" are generally historically controversial for "some reason or another."  So of course there's always ire. Especially because it's also a textbook example of the needs of the few outweighing the desires of the many - because the protected classes historically are minorities.)

[smjjames]

Which means time to update thread title, and time to see the House applaud themselves while the Senate cries.

I don't really have any witty title ideas atm, but I suppose.

[alway]

Declaring what is and isn't a protected class for discrimination is actually a form of imposing beliefs (in law!) on others.

...How so? As far as I am aware, a protected class is literally just "this group gets discriminated against a lot so we're going to have to protect them from it".
It has literally nothing to do with beliefs. It doesn't say "this group can/can't be discriminated against because God says so" or similar. It's based on a history of actual, real, tangible, measurable, discrimination.

It's not that a group was discriminated against - it's imposing the "belief" that the group(s) shouldn't be discriminated against.  It is rather philosophical and academic, I'll admit.  But it's still an imposition of a belief.

(In this particular case, it just so happens that "protected classes" are generally historically controversial for "some reason or another."  So of course there's always ire. Especially because it's also a textbook example of the needs of the few outweighing the desires of the many - because the protected classes historically are minorities.)

What exactly are you arguing here? That minorities shouldn't have rights because there are less of them? That you don't get to be classified as human if the majority doesn't agree with you?

Because let's be perfectly clear here: Rights are rights. Not privileges, not earned desserts. All humans get them. If you claim a right for yourself and deny it to others, you are inherently denying they are human.

[McTraveller]

What exactly are you arguing here? That minorities shouldn't have rights because there are less of them? That you don't get to be classified as human if the majority doesn't agree with you?

Because let's be perfectly clear here: Rights are rights. Not privileges, not earned desserts. All humans get them. If you claim a right for yourself and deny it to others, you are inherently denying they are human.

I was just talking about how laws are a form of imposing beliefs on others, so using phrases like "freedom doesn't give you the right to impose your beliefs on someone" is not really a fair argument.  I wasn't arguing for or against a particular law at this time.

(Although for the record, I'm generally for anti-discrimination laws, except where they force action.  But that's my stance for any law: I'm ok with laws that punish certain actions, but I dislike laws that punish inaction.  That is, I'm against legal compulsion to action.)

EDIT: paragraph breaks are your friend!

[Strife26]

The right of churches has moved from "preach about anything but don't endorse specific candidates" to "preach about anything you want".

Sky is falling everyone, best start digging your bunkers.

[McTraveller]

You are gravely misinterpreting the phrase.
It's not "freedom doesn't give you the right to impose your beliefs on others". It's "Freedom of Religion doesn't give you the right to impose your beliefs on others".
Two completely different concepts.

My intent was to assert that there is no X for which "X gives you the right to impose your belief on others" is a meaningful argument, because X generally boils down to "the will of the group in power".  I guess I needed to be more explicit?

Or put another way - what if the phrase was "Freedom of sexual expression doesn't allow you to impose your beliefs on others"?

So yeah - I guess I see what you're saying maybe? That it's not the 'freedom' part that is meaningful. You have to get the "right" to make laws (impose belief) from somewhere else. Not from something like freedom of expression (of religion, sexuality, sports preference, etc.)?

So I guess that's ultimately my argument - talking about "freedom of X" in relation to belief imposition is a red herring, and distracts from where authority to impose beliefs should originate.

[Greiger]

Welp the new healthcare thing passed.  I guess rape and domestic abuse are now officially preexisting conditions now in the eyes of the government.   If you wanted healthcare I guess you should not have those preexisting conditions then.  You should get them medically treated so you don't have them anymore.

Oh that's right, even if they were treatable you don't deserve the healthcare to treat it anymore.  Go die please, the country does not want scum like you.

We could use a good armed revolution in DC right about now.  It would be justice.

[Antioch]

Yeah, it's your own fault that you were born with a genetic disease.

[smjjames]

Passed the House. Still has to go to the Senate. Then back to the House.


Considering that the Senate will try to push it left, it might not pass the House the second time.

I read something saying that one of the Reps. (forget the name, I think it was one of the Freedom Caucaus people) saying that if the Senate even changes it an iota, it won't pass the House.

It's also possible that the Senate would just ignore it and let it die without getting to it.

Even if it DOES get through the Senate and the House again there's the wildcard chance that Trump might go and veto it on a whim.

[Greiger]

That still tells us that a significant portion of the government believes that rape and genetic diseases are the victim's fault.  That kind of thinking I only heard of from stories my gradparents told.  I never thought I'd see enough people in positions of power for that kind of thing to pass any bit of our government.  We've gone back 40 or 50 years in the span of a couple months.

The federal government is literally turning into your old racist grandpa that you can't bring to family gatherings anymore.