When is a religion not a religion?

January 8th, 2014 at 7:49:58 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 189
Posts: 18762
How do you disqualify anything? Can you even be the sole believer? Why or why not?

Can your religion help provide you with a convenient excuse not to do certain things you don't want to do and the government will enforce that right?

I know there is a limit to the last one, i.e., things deemed illegal immediately become problematic, But there is still an open door to a lot of things. Muslim taxi drivers who don't want to transport people who are leaving or going to bars. Doctors who don't want to write prescriptions for birth control.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
January 9th, 2014 at 3:53:45 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18210
If we had real freedom we would not need to use religion as a tool to enforce those freedoms.

If we allowed more cabs with less restrictive licensing the muslim would be able to say, "sorry, I do not drive to the bar district" but someone else would gladly take the business.

A photographer, caterer, etc. should be allowed to say to a gay couple, "sorry, I am not going to submit a bid for your contract."

A drug store should be allowed to say, "sorry, we do not stock that item."

In other words, the other person has more of a natural right not to associate with you than you have a natural right to associate with them. But we are in a system where the opposite is being more and more defined by law. Thus the religious objection comes into play.
The President is a fink.
January 9th, 2014 at 4:54:47 AM permalink
s2dbaker
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 13
Posts: 241
Let me fix that for you:
Quote:
If we had real freedom we would not need to use religion as a tool to enforce those freedoms.

If we allowed more cabs with less restrictive licensing the muslim would be able to say, "sorry, I do not drive to the black district" but someone else would gladly take the business someday.

A photographer, caterer, etc. should be allowed to say to an interracial couple, "sorry, I am not going to submit a bid for your contract."

A drug store should be allowed to say, "sorry, we do not stock drugs that treat sickle cell anemia because that's a black person's disease."

In other words, the other person has more of a natural right not to associate with races other than his and you have a natural right to associate with theirs. But we are in a system where the opposite is being more and more defined by law. Thus the religious objection comes into play.
You're welcome.
January 9th, 2014 at 5:22:24 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18210
Quote: s2dbaker
Let me fix that for you:You're welcome.


First of all, please do not change something and make it look likes, a quote, it is in bad taste. I would ask the aministration if this is a violation of TOS of the site.

But yes, a cab driver should be allowed to refuse service to a neighborhood, often this is in the cause of safety.

A photographer, etc should be allowed to say to ANYBODY "I choose not to bid on your business" for ANY reason or NO reason. I have to wonder if your attitude would be the same if a black owned hotel was forced to cater a KKK convention?

A drug store should be allowed to stock or not stock what they wish for ANY reason or NO reason.

Why are you so fascinated about making it about race?
The President is a fink.
January 9th, 2014 at 7:55:28 AM permalink
Face
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3941
Quote: AZDuffman
Why are you so fascinated about making it about race?


To be honest, as I read your original reply, I was simultaneously agreeing with your point while also asking the question "what about race?" It causes internal conflict within myself to think of such things, simultaneously believing that people should be able to choose as well as people shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. It's like poking myself in the eye, getting mad that I did that, so I poke myself in the eye as punishment, which makes me mad that I did that... I forget the term for it, but that's what I feel.

Quote: rxwine
How do you disqualify anything? Can you even be the sole believer? Why or why not?


Well, what is religion? Some definitions are that of a supernatural power which influences or controls life. I suppose anyone or just one person could believe in just their unique version. Others define it as more of a social and cultural orginization, which can't, by definition, exist within just one person. I would guess it depend on how you (or the gov, or whoever) defines it.

Quote: rxwine
Can your religion help provide you with a convenient excuse not to do certain things you don't want to do and the government will enforce that right?

I know there is a limit to the last one, i.e., things deemed illegal immediately become problematic, But there is still an open door to a lot of things. Muslim taxi drivers who don't want to transport people who are leaving or going to bars. Doctors who don't want to write prescriptions for birth control.


I've often wondered this very question. I'm not sure what the government enforces or doesn't enforce. In your Muslim cab driver example, I'm not sure the gov matters. I mean, if he doesn't do his job, doesn't he just get fired? Not fired because he's Muslim, but fired for not transporting his fare, as he's supposed to do? And in your doctor example, I don't think birth control is a right in any sense of the word. If you're a follower of Jehovah and don't believe in blood transfusions, then you just die. The gov doesn't force them upon you. If you have a difficult birth where it's a choice between child and mother in a Catholic hospital, then mom dies. I don't think the gov intervenes, cuz in a normal hospital, someone's dying anyways. I guess I'd need a good example.

Some people don't work, don't drive a car, don't fucking ride in a car, don't handle money, don't turn on the oven, and they sure as shit DON'T FUCKING ROLL on the Shabbos, but I don't think the gov would protect them from getting fired or kicked off their bowling team.
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
January 9th, 2014 at 10:05:01 AM permalink
s2dbaker
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 13
Posts: 241
Quote: AZDuffman
Why are you so fascinated about making it about race?
Because I find it fascinating that you love racism (just as long as you can't be directly accused of it). Essentially, your statements boil down to, Racism is okay because Freedom, but I'd totally never do it myself for reals.
January 9th, 2014 at 10:14:39 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18210
Quote: s2dbaker
Because I find it fascinating that you love racism (just as long as you can't be directly accused of it). Essentially, your statements boil down to, Racism is okay because Freedom, but I'd totally never do it myself for reals.


Not sure what would give you the idea that I "love racism." I do not think it is the worst thing a person can be and I do think that you have the freedom to be one if you desire. I really do not care if I am accused of it or not because I have found that people who make such accusations are generally losers with nothing else/more/better to say.

Generally speaking when a person says something is racist they have no valid argument.
The President is a fink.
January 9th, 2014 at 2:27:41 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 189
Posts: 18762
Quote: AZDuffman
If we had real freedom we would not need to use religion as a tool to enforce those freedoms.

If we allowed more cabs with less restrictive licensing the muslim would be able to say, "sorry, I do not drive to the bar district" but someone else would gladly take the business.

A photographer, caterer, etc. should be allowed to say to a gay couple, "sorry, I am not going to submit a bid for your contract."

A drug store should be allowed to say, "sorry, we do not stock that item."

In other words, the other person has more of a natural right not to associate with you than you have a natural right to associate with them. But we are in a system where the opposite is being more and more defined by law. Thus the religious objection comes into play.


How would you feel as a multi-generational property owner living in a small community, and cultish religion starting heavily buying into the area and begin enforcing their own vision. They buy out many of the local shops and they restrict their business to the believers so you literally can't do business in the area. And they don't need you or care about what you think.

Your family has lived there for many generations. But now it is next to impossible.

This kind of "swarming in" thing has happened to different communities from different outside groups, not all religious.

Would you feel like you had freedom then? Is that the way you envision freedom? To be barred when you are overrun by different groups that might come in large groups?
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
January 9th, 2014 at 3:21:21 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18210
Quote: rxwine
How would you feel as a multi-generational property owner living in a small community, and cultish religion starting heavily buying into the area and begin enforcing their own vision. They buy out many of the local shops and they restrict their business to the believers so you literally can't do business in the area. And they don't need you or care about what you think.

Your family has lived there for many generations. But now it is next to impossible.

This kind of "swarming in" thing has happened to different communities from different outside groups, not all religious.


It is sometimes called "Blockbusting."

Quote:
Would you feel like you had freedom then? Is that the way you envision freedom? To be barred when you are overrun by different groups that might come in large groups?


It is sad but it happens, sometimes from our own government. I will repeat, the freedom not to associate is perhaps the most important "freedom of association." I do not have a problem with "public accommodations" being required to take all comers. But I do have a problem with telling them what to stock (eg: a baker should be able to say, "sorry, I do not have two-bride/two-groom toppers for gay weddings.") And I do not think private contractors should have to bid to all comers. They should have the freedom to say, "sorry, I am not interested in your business." To repeat, for any reason or no reason.
The President is a fink.