Print

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

[G-Flex]

I think what I was trying to get at is that atheists can have perfectly valid moral objections similar to religious objections. The problem lies in how you legally codify that, because morality is a much more individualized concept, and if you extend equal protection to individual morality, it's prone to the sort of abuses I pointed out.

Then maybe there's a problem with religious exemptions in the law in the first place. Why should people get special treatment because a belief is "religious" rather than personal?

[freeformschooler]

I think what I was trying to get at is that atheists can have perfectly valid moral objections similar to religious objections. The problem lies in how you legally codify that, because morality is a much more individualized concept, and if you extend equal protection to individual morality, it's prone to the sort of abuses I pointed out.

Then maybe there's a problem with religious exemptions in the law in the first place. Why should people get special treatment because a belief is "religious" rather than personal?

^^^
This is a good question.

[Leafsnail]

This is exactly why I was using those 'weasel words'. You cant discuss Islam without getting branded an Islamofobe even if it's something trivial. And you wonder why people only debate attack Christianity? What am I supposed to do to be able to have a mature discussion, start every post with Allah Ackbar?

Yeah, but have you noticed how you played the "I'm so downtrodden" card as a substitute to actually supporting your viewpoint with any kind of evidence?  If you want to prove you're not an Islamophobe so badly, then you need to provide support for your belief that they are the cause of antisemitism.  Otherwise there's no way to tell that your view isn't based on simple fear or mistrust of Muslims.

As for "debate attack Christianity"... well, if you're talking about atheists in a Christian country, they're likely to attack the religion that is most likely to encroach on their lives and which most people will know about.  I personally would only "attack" the Bible if someone starts claiming that the Bible is a credible historical source (thankfully this situation is fairly rare...). 

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Muslims are untouchable though... I mean, those offering negative opinions include Geert Wilders in your country, and newspapers such as the Daily Mail here.  There are also laws against Muslim religious practises in France (veils - although the type of veils they banned only covered around 200 people or so in the entire country, so it was clearly a symbolic anti-Muslim gesture) and Switzerland (banning Minarets).

[Virex]

I'm looking for better sources, but in the mean time, have a wiki article.


Now what I am trying to say is that there are some groups that may be tangentially related to the Islam or potentially influenced by it's ideas that are probably causing Jews in European countries some problems. I am in no way trying to link Islam to antisemitism, just saying that there seems to be a kind of relation between some of it's followers and antisemitic acts in some locations.


Edit: In case anyone gets the idea, I would like to stress that I am not against the Islam in any form.
Also, you do know that Geert Wilders is under persecution for what he has said? Yeah, I'm not taking any chances.

[RedKing]

I think what I was trying to get at is that atheists can have perfectly valid moral objections similar to religious objections. The problem lies in how you legally codify that, because morality is a much more individualized concept, and if you extend equal protection to individual morality, it's prone to the sort of abuses I pointed out.

Then maybe there's a problem with religious exemptions in the law in the first place. Why should people get special treatment because a belief is "religious" rather than personal?

Because it's a human rights issue. Freedom of worship is recognized by the UN as a basic human right (Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights).

[Glowcat]

Whereas if you say that wearing clothes to court is against your religious beliefs, and point out that you are a Anti-Pantsian, nobody can go check on what Anti-Pantsians believe to make sure you're not just being a douche. If you legitimately were an Anti-Pantsian and that was legitimately your religious belief, there'd be something to an argument that that ought to be protected legally. But nobody can verify whether it is or not, hence the problem.

Hence why I brought up the ability to point to a secular code of some sort, like humanism, to establish a precedent. What bothered me is that somehow a religious group's beliefs (which aren't even universally followed) can be protected under that "pragmatic" approach, yet secular collections of morality never seem to get anywhere near the same amount of protection. How are those two different? Feasibility? So what, we just accept that certain people get special privileges in society because their beliefs are special compared to ours? To hell with that.

[freeformschooler]

I think what I was trying to get at is that atheists can have perfectly valid moral objections similar to religious objections. The problem lies in how you legally codify that, because morality is a much more individualized concept, and if you extend equal protection to individual morality, it's prone to the sort of abuses I pointed out.

Then maybe there's a problem with religious exemptions in the law in the first place. Why should people get special treatment because a belief is "religious" rather than personal?

Because it's a human rights issue. Freedom of worship is recognized by the UN as a basic human right (Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights).

But Andrea Yates, for example, drowned her children because of her personal religious reasons. Who defines how far this "human rights" issue extends, and why? And how far does it extend now?

Or at least I'm pretty sure it was Andrea Yates. Maybe it was some other woman who drowned her children to keep them from "the devil".

[Leafsnail]

I'm looking for better sources, but in the mean time, have a wiki article.


Now what I am trying to say is that there are some groups that may be tangentially related to the Islam or potentially influenced by it's ideas that are probably causing Jews in European countries some problems. I am in no way trying to link Islam to antisemitism, just saying that there seems to be a kind of relation between some of it's followers and antisemitic acts in some locations.


Edit: In case anyone gets the idea, I would like to stress that I am not against the Islam in any form.
Also, you do know that Geert Wilders is under persecution for what he has said? Yeah, I'm not taking any chances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism

What's your point?  Some Christians and indeed people of any religious persuasion can be antisemitic.  In the same way that people of any religious persuasion can be anti-Islam.  I guess many far right groups have now gone off antisemitism (...prefering instead Islamophobia) but I'm not sure why that's meant to mean anything.

Geert Wilders is... well, frankly about as bigoted as they come so I have pretty limited sympathy for him.  I'd be interested to hear examples of him being "persecuted" though.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

[What's your point?  Some Christians and indeed people of any religious persuasion can be antisemitic.  In the same way that people of any religious persuasion can be anti-Islam.  I guess many far right groups have now gone off antisemitism (...prefering instead Islamophobia) but I'm not sure why that's meant to mean anything.

But Islam and Judaism have a much more rocky history overall. Israel is also on...less than friendly terms with the rest of the Middle East, which doesn't help matters at all, being that it is the only Jewish-majority nation on Earth.

[Virex]

Here you go.


Also I never claimed that potentially Islamic-related people where the only or even the main problem, but it is certainly much more visible. At least I never heard of  antisemitic Christians firebombing a Jewish burial site in the last 10 years (not that I am saying that firebombing burial sites is something inherently related to any religion)

[RF]

So, anyone want to make a religious group and just do whatever the hell we like?

[Zrk2]

As stated though, the problem with granting blanket acceptance to things like that is that it could be abused. "Wearing pants is against my morality." "Allowing gays to live is against my morality." "Working is against my morality."

The thing with a religion (for the most part) is that the claims are verifiable and reproducible. If you're Jewish and you claim that eating pork is against your religion, there's plenty of written evidence to support that, as well as a whole lot of other Jews who will back you up on that claim. (There are also plenty of Reformed Jews who will nod while wolfing down that last pork chop, but that's a different story.)

I like how you rationalized religious privilege while denying the right of Atheists to have any of their moral values acknowledged as worthy of similar protection. Although it is rather strange that you both recognize how morality can divorce itself from religion (Jews eating pork) and yet seem to argue in its favor as something to be protected on basis of shared beliefs. Did I read you wrong? Your argument also seems to ignore that, if one simply needs to point out a common belief system, secular organizations could equally form and say "yeah, this falls under a shared idea of morality."

Maybe the better answer is to throw out the whole thing? Heck, two of the examples you gave for abuse are actually covered by Abrahamic religious tradition already, and we clearly don't protect the second because, thankfully, not even religion's sanctity in our society is enough to allow such monstrosity a serious hold in our culture. Instead it exports itself to African countries... but at least we don't allow it here. The "against my morality to work" thing is however protected, and I believe even was once enforced in some locations, although only on the Sabbath. It isn't much of an abuse though, since not working means not getting paid.

Another thing, why must others agree with you for your morality to be acceptable? (From a purely theoretical view, it is obviously extremely possible to abuse this, but that's not the point here.)

[freeformschooler]

As stated though, the problem with granting blanket acceptance to things like that is that it could be abused. "Wearing pants is against my morality." "Allowing gays to live is against my morality." "Working is against my morality."

The thing with a religion (for the most part) is that the claims are verifiable and reproducible. If you're Jewish and you claim that eating pork is against your religion, there's plenty of written evidence to support that, as well as a whole lot of other Jews who will back you up on that claim. (There are also plenty of Reformed Jews who will nod while wolfing down that last pork chop, but that's a different story.)

I like how you rationalized religious privilege while denying the right of Atheists to have any of their moral values acknowledged as worthy of similar protection. Although it is rather strange that you both recognize how morality can divorce itself from religion (Jews eating pork) and yet seem to argue in its favor as something to be protected on basis of shared beliefs. Did I read you wrong? Your argument also seems to ignore that, if one simply needs to point out a common belief system, secular organizations could equally form and say "yeah, this falls under a shared idea of morality."

Maybe the better answer is to throw out the whole thing? Heck, two of the examples you gave for abuse are actually covered by Abrahamic religious tradition already, and we clearly don't protect the second because, thankfully, not even religion's sanctity in our society is enough to allow such monstrosity a serious hold in our culture. Instead it exports itself to African countries... but at least we don't allow it here. The "against my morality to work" thing is however protected, and I believe even was once enforced in some locations, although only on the Sabbath. It isn't much of an abuse though, since not working means not getting paid.

Another thing, why must others agree with you for your morality to be acceptable? (From a purely theoretical view, it is obviously extremely possible to abuse this, but that's not the point here.)

Here's the
definition of acceptable.
Take of that what you will, because you could argue that not being accepted by anyone but still theoretically being able to be accepted makes something acceptable. However, that makes absolutely everything "acceptable", including murder.

[G-Flex]

I think what I was trying to get at is that atheists can have perfectly valid moral objections similar to religious objections. The problem lies in how you legally codify that, because morality is a much more individualized concept, and if you extend equal protection to individual morality, it's prone to the sort of abuses I pointed out.

Then maybe there's a problem with religious exemptions in the law in the first place. Why should people get special treatment because a belief is "religious" rather than personal?

Because it's a human rights issue. Freedom of worship is recognized by the UN as a basic human right (Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights).

It is not a fundamental human right to disregard the law because your own personal religion says so. Various cult groups, and the responses to them, have proven that.

[MorleyDev]

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be that you have the freedom to worship, you don't have the freedom to interfere with the rights on another in your worship...but then again the universal truth of all rules is those bound by them will always seek ways to subvert them. Life's more fun that way, but also crueller.