Debating Christianity and Religion

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:32 pm**

My first point would be this: There should be nothing which one is allowed to do because it's part of his religion, that he wouldn't be allowed to do othewise.

For example, if my jewish colleague Micah and I had a very imporant deadline to meet by saturday, and I didn't meet that deadline because I felt like playing videogames on saturday instead of working, and Micah didn't meet the deadline because he couldn't work on the Sabbath because of his religion, it would be wrong if I got fired for missing the deadline and he didn't.

"My invisible friend doesn't want me to" is no better an excuse for not doing something than "I didn't feel like it".

Can we all agree on this?

Similarly, if we have established through secular debate that homosexuals should be granted all the same rights and priviledges that hetereosexuals have, and if our laws reflect that, then saying "I refuse to provide a service to a gay person because of my religion", should have the exact same consequences as saying "I refuse to provide service to a gay person because I don't like gay people".

Also, if we have established through secular debate that poligamy isn't allowed, and our laws reflect that, then saying "I should be allowed to ignore that law and marry two women because of my religion" should be no more valid than "I should be allowed to marry two women because I really enjoy having sex with multiple partners".

Human beings should have the right to believe whatever they want, but their beliefs should not change one iota what they have the right to do.

There should be nothing that I am not allowed to do, that somebody else is allowed to do on the basis of their religion.

I personally completely agree with the laws about granting homosexuals equal rights, and I personally strongly disagree with laws against poligamy.

My recourse if I wanted to change the laws against poligamy should be to engage in secular debate and mobilize the public to petition our representatives to change the laws. At no time should I be able to say "My religion allows poligamy, therefore I should get a special exemption from the laws against poligamy".

You don't get to treat people differently because of your religion, you don't get to be treated differently because of your religion.

If as a society we decide that we cannot refuse services to gay people, then "being already booked that day", or "not agreeing on a price", or "feeling like taking that day off" should be permissible reasons for refusing service. "I don't like gay people" or "My religion doesn't allow me to provide services to gay people", would NOT.

If as a society we decide poligamy shouldn't be allowed (I disagree with this), then arguments against it could be along the lines of "It is no business of the government to prevent consenting adults to do whatever they want with each other", or "studies indicate that poligamous families are just as strong social units as monogamous ones", or "Children of poligamous parents do just as well as those of monogamous ones", or "It's wrong to grant or deny tax benefits to people based on the size of their family", or "If official and openly declared poligamy is illigal, then monogamous married couple where one spouse is caught with a 2nd lover, should immediately and permanently lose their married tax benefits". To the contrary, an argument such as "An invisible man in the sky told some guy that poligamy is ok, he wrote that down and I believe it to be true, plus I hear a voice in my head that confirms this" would NOT be a valid argument.

Thoughts?

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:15 pm**

atheist buddy wrote: My first point would be this: There should be nothing which one is allowed to do because it's part of his religion, that he wouldn't be allowed to do othewise.

For example, if my jewish colleague Micah and I had a very imporant deadline to meet by saturday, and I didn't meet that deadline because I felt like playing videogames on saturday instead of working, and Micah didn't meet the deadline because he couldn't work on the Sabbath because of his religion, it would be wrong if I got fired for missing the deadline and he didn't.

"My invisible friend doesn't want me to" is no better an excuse for not doing something than "I didn't feel like it".

Can we all agree on this?

Definitely. Otherwise you could start making that excuse yourself. Instead of saying "i wanted to play video games" you could just say "oh, I've become a 7th day adventist, so I'm not allowed to work on the Sabbath."

Similarly, if we have established through secular debate that homosexuals should be granted all the same rights and priviledges that hetereosexuals have, and if our laws reflect that, then saying "I refuse to provide a service to a gay person because of my religion", should have the exact same consequences as saying "I refuse to provide service to a gay person because I don't like gay people".

I'm not so sure about this one. This one is a slightly different scenario, because if a person refuses to conduct a wedding ceremony, you can always go to other marriage celebrant instead. It's not like the marriage celebrant was under contract to you to perform any wedding ceremony you wanted him to. This isn't a matter of an employee refusing to work when he's under contract with you.

Many marriage celebrants, especially ones within churches could also refuse to marry you for other reasons too. When I was part of a church, my fiance and I had to undergo councelling sessions before they would agree. They wanted to make sure that we were serious and committed to marriage. They could have refused to conduct the ceremony at the church if they thought we were doing it for the wrong reasons.

Any business can also refuse to reject clientelle for whatever reason. If say someone was abusive to them, or they didn't trust a particular client, they could refuse them service. So if you are going to say that all marriage celebrants must perform services for anyone who asks, then you have to start telling every type of business they have to peform services for anyone who asks.

Another analogy I can think of is fast foods. If you go into KFC and ask for McDonalds, then you're gonna be told to shove off. You cannot then complain that KFC refused to serve you McDonalds. Some businesses have certain clientelle they are targetting. Is it wrong for a Marriage Celebrant to deny certain clientelle if they wish to target only certain types of clients?

Also, if we have established through secular debate that poligamy isn't allowed, and our laws reflect that, then saying "I should be allowed to ignore that law and marry two women because of my religion" should be no more valid than "I should be allowed to marry two women because I really enjoy having sex with multiple partners".

Agreed. But unless marriage celebrants are required by law to agree to marry everyone that comes to them and asks, then you can't really compare the two scenarios.

Human beings should have the right to believe whatever they want, but their beliefs should not change one iota what they have the right to do.

Correct, but then again businesses also have the right to decline certain clients for various reasons. So whose to tell them they HAVE to serve certain clients?

There should be nothing that I am not allowed to do, that somebody else is allowed to do on the basis of their religion.

I agree, but I don't see how say a marriage celebrant should have to be forced to marry a couple they don't want to marry.

Am I focussing too much on the gay marriage side of this topic?

By the way, I agree that people should not be allowed multiple marriage partners just because their religion says they can, just as I don't agree that people should be able to marry minors just because their religion allows it.

You don't get to treat people differently because of your religion, you don't get to be treated differently because of your religion.

I would agree with this in general, but we are allowed to treat people differently for other reasons, so this isn't really a rule that you can make a general rule. eg, a restaurants and bars can refuse to admit people not dressed to a certain standard.

I think businesses should be allowed to dictate who they serve and who they shouldn't serve. So if a marriage celebrant feels that marrying a gay couple is immoral, why should they be forced to marry them, especially when there are other marriage celebrants around who will do it?

If as a society we decide that we cannot refuse services to gay people, then "being already booked that day", or "not agreeing on a price", or "feeling like taking that day off" should be permissible reasons for refusing service. "I don't like gay people" or "My religion doesn't allow me to provide services to gay people", would NOT.

I would agree that we should not discriminate against someone because of religion or sexual orientation. However it's not all just black and white I don't think. We shouldn't be infringing on the rights of others just to get rights for someone else.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:55 am**

atheist buddy wrote: My first point would be this: There should be nothing which one is allowed to do because it's part of his religion, that he wouldn't be allowed to do othewise.

For example, if my jewish colleague Micah and I had a very imporant deadline to meet by saturday, and I didn't meet that deadline because I felt like playing videogames on saturday instead of working, and Micah didn't meet the deadline because he couldn't work on the Sabbath because of his religion, it would be wrong if I got fired for missing the deadline and he didn't.

"My invisible friend doesn't want me to" is no better an excuse for not doing something than "I didn't feel like it".

Can we all agree on this?

Similarly, if we have established through secular debate that homosexuals should be granted all the same rights and priviledges that hetereosexuals have, and if our laws reflect that, then saying "I refuse to provide a service to a gay person because of my religion", should have the exact same consequences as saying "I refuse to provide service to a gay person because I don't like gay people".

Also, if we have established through secular debate that poligamy isn't allowed, and our laws reflect that, then saying "I should be allowed to ignore that law and marry two women because of my religion" should be no more valid than "I should be allowed to marry two women because I really enjoy having sex with multiple partners".

Human beings should have the right to believe whatever they want, but their beliefs should not change one iota what they have the right to do.

There should be nothing that I am not allowed to do, that somebody else is allowed to do on the basis of their religion.

I personally completely agree with the laws about granting homosexuals equal rights, and I personally strongly disagree with laws against poligamy.

My recourse if I wanted to change the laws against poligamy should be to engage in secular debate and mobilize the public to petition our representatives to change the laws. At no time should I be able to say "My religion allows poligamy, therefore I should get a special exemption from the laws against poligamy".

You don't get to treat people differently because of your religion, you don't get to be treated differently because of your religion.

If as a society we decide that we cannot refuse services to gay people, then "being already booked that day", or "not agreeing on a price", or "feeling like taking that day off" should be permissible reasons for refusing service. "I don't like gay people" or "My religion doesn't allow me to provide services to gay people", would NOT.

If as a society we decide poligamy shouldn't be allowed (I disagree with this), then arguments against it could be along the lines of "It is no business of the government to prevent consenting adults to do whatever they want with each other", or "studies indicate that poligamous families are just as strong social units as monogamous ones", or "Children of poligamous parents do just as well as those of monogamous ones", or "It's wrong to grant or deny tax benefits to people based on the size of their family", or "If official and openly declared poligamy is illigal, then monogamous married couple where one spouse is caught with a 2nd lover, should immediately and permanently lose their married tax benefits". To the contrary, an argument such as "An invisible man in the sky told some guy that poligamy is ok, he wrote that down and I believe it to be true, plus I hear a voice in my head that confirms this" would NOT be a valid argument.

Thoughts?

Your first point is very sound and I agree 100%. This does hold true in some instances (human sacrifice isn't legal for religious practices for example).
Unfortunately, religion has a unique place in (at least the USA's) society. As a society, we aren't yet strong enough to stand up to the religious right and say "No, that's not right & if you don't like it, get over it." We haven't been able to, until recently, stand up aginst the bully that is God's People (or claimed people). They have gotten their way for FAR too long and it's time we take a stand. There NO good reason why gay people shouldn't be able to get married legally. None. Yet we still see worshippers of the bearded MAN screaming about it. And when their arguments start to fall apart, the shift blame elsewhere with things like "We I dont' want to be forced to participate in your gay marriage" or some other ignorant sentiment (ignorant because no one is forcing you to get married). I call it Sin Blame Shifting. And it belittles their own savior when they do it more than any atheist could.
The rest of your posts is very well thought out and presented. A like for you

Debating Christianity and Religion

homophobia, poligamy and freedom of religion

homophobia, poligamy and freedom of religion

Re: homophobia, poligamy and freedom of religion

Re: homophobia, poligamy and freedom of religion