One of the things that endlessly frustrates those of us without any interest in religion is the determination with which the religious try to inject religion into every single facet of life. Whether it's praying before hockey games (because, come on, seriously, do you really think God is going to influence the outcome?), blessing the doorway the president will walk through, asking religious leaders permission to get boob jobs,... i could go on and on... there seems to be no corner of life that someone doesn't want to impose their religious opinion on.
i don't think that anyone would disagree that this isn't done far too much. (And if you don't think that people are pushing religion into far more than it should, behold: faith-based acting classes. Yes, for reals.) So the question is... how much is too much?
What aspects of life is it appropriate bring religion into? What aspects is it inappropriate? Where do you draw the line? How do you say "religion should have something to say about this, but not this"? Do you think there is a universal limit, or can anyone apply religion to whatever they want? And if they can, are we obligated to respect that? Religion is already pretty darn dangerous. But I'm tired. I'll read the articles tomorrow and edit this.
I think my view is fairly predictable. There is NO sphere of public life (outside religion itself) that is appropriate to attach particular importance to a religious viewpoint.
Let us test that by considering a situation where religious representatives or theologians are inevitably asked for their input. Namely on any moral/ethical issue that arises in the 'public arena' - from stem-cell research to the current debate about the morality of the Scottish decision to free Al-Megrahi.
Inevitably the news will feature comment from a cleric - at least that is the case here in the UK. Why? What special knowledge do theologians or clerics have here? They represent one minority moral position based on some scriptural source. Is that even relevant to the debate, let alone critical? Should we seek to get the viewpoint of every theology - or just (as we do now) stick to the Abrahamic theologies? Why?
Clerics in this context are nothing more than representatives of people of 'like mind'. In a country like the UK that number will be a small minority*
I think there are two aspects to this - what influence we think religion should directly have in public life (ie official representation in governing bodies, parliaments etc), and what influence it should have in the media. In the US the answer to the first is none theoretically, but quite a bit in practice. Here it isn't really debated much so there is no clear evidence about the public wish/aspiration, but religion certainly has 'inbuilt' representation on many public bodies, including parliament. That comes with having established our 'own' church, of course. Bummer!
*This is one very important reason that I make such a fuss over baptismal records and other 'bogus' membership documentation for the various sects. They constantly over-estimate their actual constituencies.
| Indi wrote: |
| One of the things that endlessly frustrates those of us without any interest in religion? |
You have to be joking Indi! The depth of your knowledge and very active debate in this forum has to be proof of your interest in religion. (This is said with sincerity) In certain of the debates it is obvious that you know more about the religion than the person who is defending their points of view of their religion. | Bikerman wrote: |
I think my view is fairly predictable. There is NO sphere of public life (outside religion itself) that is appropriate to attach particular importance to a religious viewpoint.
|
Which is explainable, given your viewpoint as an atheist (or agnostic, or however you like to think of yourself).
Quite simply, if you're a devout believer of any of these religions, then the religious aspect of many things becomes important.
While praying before a hockey game still is a little ridiculous, even from that viewpoint, asking your priest (or whatever your particular religion calls a religious teacher) about the morality of stem-cell research is quite reasonable. If you base your morality off of religion, then it makes a lot of sense to ask your religion about a moral question.
And blessing the doorway the president walks through is a little extreme, but from a religious viewpoint, praying for the president would be very understandable... | Bikerman wrote: |
| I think there are two aspects to this - what influence we think religion should directly have in public life (ie official representation in governing bodies, parliaments etc), and what influence it should have in the media. |
Actually, there's a third aspect, and that's the one i'm particularly interested in. See, public representation is a closed issue: clearly religion doesn't belong there, and not only is that clear from rational arguments, it's historically (and currently) obvious that the more secular a government, the better off the nation. Media representation is just a question of demand: what the people want they get, so right or wrong, religious commentary is going to be injected into any topic that the network thinks the people want to hear it in.
i'm more interested in the small scale. For example, what if i were running a restaurant, and someone came to me to request peanut-free items on the menu because some people have violent peanut allergies. That's a reasonable request, so i look into it. Another person comes along and requests vegetarian meals because they have strong ethical objections to eating living animals. Again, reasonable, so i look into it.
Now what if someone comes to me and requests that i make sure that the meat on my menu all comes from animals that have no more than 3 brown spots on them, because their mommy told them that the meat of animals with more than 4 brown spots is unnecessarily fattening. Am i not justified in telling them to get lost, without being called ignorant or intolerant?
Now what if someone comes to me and requests that i make sure that the meat on my menu all comes from animals that have been slaughtered in the name of their god and no other gods, because a 1400 year old book written by a salesman and narrated by an angel that no-one but the writer saw says that's the only kind of food they should eat. Why would i be justified to roll my eyes and call the person crazy in the previous example, but not this one?
Here's another example: suppose i opened a theme store where all the employees wear uniforms in keeping with the theme. One day an employee comes to me and tells me they refuse to wear the uniform anymore because they just hate red. Totally hate red. They want to wear blue, because it's more in keeping with their personal fashion. So i fire them, and i'm totally justified, right? Now. Another employee comes to me and tells me they just found religion and they have to wear specific headgear that's not part of the uniform because it's more in keeping with their personal religious beliefs. So i fire them... and whammo, i get slapped with a lawsuit for religious discrimination.
Why? Why is it acceptable to infringe upon diet and fashion with religion? What aspect of life is just that one step too far for religion to be part of? At what point can i say "you have got to be kidding"? (Surely faith-based acting is far enough, right?)
| deanhills wrote: |
| You have to be joking Indi! The depth of your knowledge and very active debate in this forum has to be proof of your interest in religion. (This is said with sincerity) In certain of the debates it is obvious that you know more about the religion than the person who is defending their points of view of their religion. |
My "interest" in religion is the same as a 1930's German Jewish person's "interest" in Nazism. It's a matter of self-preservation. You don't seriously believe i study religion for amusement, do you? Consider: i have absolutely zero interest in Hinduism, Buddhism, ancient religions, mythology, or anything else along those lines... because none of them have any effect on my life.
i don't really find religion interesting. i find most of it pedestrian, unimaginative, morally misguided and quite sadistic. i think the average Archie digest is a better read than any religious text ever written.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Quite simply, if you're a devout believer of any of these religions, then the religious aspect of many things becomes important. |
Fine. But why should i or anyone else care about anyone else's opinion of the religious aspect of anything else? Ok, i get respecting someone's religious position on moral issues - morality is a key aspect of most, if not all, religions. Most people can't formulate a moral opinion without a religion. That's a reasonable place to invite religion - i don't like it, and i don't agree with it, but it's reasonable so i'll accept it. (Of course, someone might convince me otherwise - give it a shot!)
But come on. Most adults (and even most kids) can figure out what to wear without consulting oracles. Seriously. So why should i respect a religious person's request for special consideration on clothing.
And what should i say when someone asks me if they should consult their local cleric about getting a boob job? Am not i justified in rolling my eyes and saying "get real"?
i get that people think that religion should fit into every aspect of life. What i want to know is how far we should respect that in real life. Because just some people want to use a religious justification for everything doesn't mean that everyone should take them seriously. So how do we draw the line?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| While praying before a hockey game still is a little ridiculous, even from that viewpoint, asking your priest (or whatever your particular religion calls a religious teacher) about the morality of stem-cell research is quite reasonable. |
Yes, but why. That's the question. Why is morality OK, but sports not. Why do we need to respect a religious opinion on stem-cell research but not on the Stanley Cup?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| If you base your morality off of religion, then it makes a lot of sense to ask your religion about a moral question. |
But some people base everything off of their religion. Are they unreasonable? If your bank manager is basing their bank's financial decisions based on Bible code and they lose all your money, don't you have a legitimate case for suing for incompetence? Why is morality a legitimate domain for religion but not financial planning? How do we draw the line?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| And blessing the doorway the president walks through is a little extreme, but from a religious viewpoint, praying for the president would be very understandable... |
But that's a cop out, because prayer doesn't interfere with anyone or anything else, whereas getting permission to get in to the White House and right up to the door of the Oval Office causes a lot of people to be put out (you have to be security vetted, etc.).
What i'm asking is what religious practises is it reasonable to ask people to be put out for? i'd like to think i'm a reasonable person, and although i don't think much of religion or religious beliefs, i do make room for them in many ways. i have accepted students handing things in late because there was a religious function they had to attend, and i have often taken my boots and beret off entering certain places out of respect for the religious custom. But there are always limits - i would not accept refusing to use a certain C++ function because its name happened to be the name of a nasty demon in their religion (luckily, there is no std::satan() function, although there may be one in Win32Api), and i would never have surrendered my sidearm no matter what religious custom said. | Quote: |
| Why? Why is it acceptable to infringe upon diet and fashion with religion? What aspect of life is just that one step too far for religion to be part of? At what point can i say "you have got to be kidding"? (Surely faith-based acting is far enough, right?) |
I have no idea, good one INDI
| Quote: |
| i don't really find religion interesting. i find most of it pedestrian, unimaginative, morally misguided and quite sadistic. i think the average Archie digest is a better read than any religious text ever written. |
I hate religion but I still debate it, because I love debating and arguing, it feeds the devil inside me. so just because indi likes too float around the religion forum doesnt mean he studies it (i assume a he)
| Quote: |
| i get that people think that religion should fit into every aspect of life. What i want to know is how far we should respect that in real life. Because just some people want to use a religious justification for everything doesn't mean that everyone should take them seriously. So how do we draw the line? |
we dont, we have too let it be. the problem is that religion is like a cancer once it gets in there is a lot of effort and time too get it out, so back in the day when all these nutjobs were creating their version of religion they got inside the social system, into politics, into music, inot schools etc and now they are so firmly in place they wont leave unless we have another `final solution` (very tasteless joke but thats me)
Yes, but why. That's the question. Why is morality OK, but sports not. Why do we need to respect a religious opinion on stem-cell research but not on the Stanley Cup?
because stem cell research is something that goes against god so they will stop it, sports is ok because it has nothing to do with god etc (stem cell research = creating life/embryos etc something god would not like)
| Quote: |
| But some people base everything off of their religion. Are they unreasonable? If your bank manager is basing their bank's financial decisions based on Bible code and they lose all your money, don't you have a legitimate case for suing for incompetence? Why is morality a legitimate domain for religion but not financial planning? How do we draw the line? |
cause people are religious and will bring religion into their lifeswork so that they can better themselves and save you from eternal bliss, i mean hell.
| Quote: |
| What i'm asking is what religious practises is it reasonable to ask people to be put out for? i'd like to think i'm a reasonable person, and although i don't think much of religion or religious beliefs, i do make room for them in many ways. i have accepted students handing things in late because there was a religious function they had to attend, and i have often taken my boots and beret off entering certain places out of respect for the religious custom. But there are always limits - i would not accept refusing to use a certain C++ function because its name happened to be the name of a nasty demon in their religion (luckily, there is no std::satan() function, although there may be one in Win32Api), and i would never have surrendered my sidearm no matter what religious custom said. |
your wise words are welcome but like I said before its not something we can stop religion has already entered into every aspect of everyones life and now we cant get rid of it, its the same as people who are always active and exercising telling you "you should go work out" (especially if he is your boss and forcess all the staff too take a strool outside cck azz muthfragga) he is putting his own belief into the system, the problem here is that religion is crazy and if someone is religious they will use stupid excuses and insert religion into stupid functions like praying you will pass your exams. | Indi wrote: |
i get that people think that religion should fit into every aspect of life. What i want to know is how far we should respect that in real life. Because just some people want to use a religious justification for everything doesn't mean that everyone should take them seriously. So how do we draw the line?
|
I would draw a line not about respecting their religion, but about respecting them.
Really, it doesn't matter what they believe or why... how much are you willing to humor from them in the interest of tolerance and respect for fellow people?
| Indi wrote: |
That's the question. Why is morality OK, but sports not. Why do we need to respect a religious opinion on stem-cell research but not on the Stanley Cup?
|
We don't need to respect either. The only reason we might be forced to respect a religious opinion on stem-cell research is because of democracy. If a large portion of people hold that belief, they can use a representative government to impose that upon others.
Why not respect prayer for the Stanley Cup? Because even most of the people doing the praying don't really expect divine intervention in the game... And if there was, that would kind of ruin the game, wouldn't it... the equivalent of one team cheating.
| Indi wrote: |
But some people base everything off of their religion. Are they unreasonable? If your bank manager is basing their bank's financial decisions based on Bible code and they lose all your money, don't you have a legitimate case for suing for incompetence? Why is morality a legitimate domain for religion but not financial planning? How do we draw the line?
|
First, I don't see how you could base a bank's financial decisions upon a Bible code... After all, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be," pretty much precludes most bank activities.
As for suing for incompetence based on what 'code' they used for financial planning... I suppose you could, but it might be wrong to thus impose a standard 'best code' upon everyone, to be sued if they don't follow it. I would give equal credence to a banker who followed a Biblical code as to one who followed a code supposedly found in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. One who followed the popular advice of the day might be wiser, but they could also be sued if that advice caused the downfall of the bank.
| Indi wrote: |
and i would never have surrendered my sidearm no matter what religious custom said. |
O.o
I never thought of you as the type to carry a sidearm... I might have to completely rethink my idea of what you are like... | Indi wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | I think there are two aspects to this - what influence we think religion should directly have in public life (ie official representation in governing bodies, parliaments etc), and what influence it should have in the media. |
Actually, there's a third aspect, and that's the one i'm particularly interested in. See, public representation is a closed issue: clearly religion doesn't belong there, and not only is that clear from rational arguments, it's historically (and currently) obvious that the more secular a government, the better off the nation. Media representation is just a question of demand: what the people want they get, so right or wrong, religious commentary is going to be injected into any topic that the network thinks the people want to hear it in. |
OK, yes, I agree with this to some extent but not entirely. I think that the media acts as a driver, as well as a 'reflector'. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as Chomsky does in his arguments on this, but I think that to regard the media simply as responding to demand is far too simplistic.
| Quote: |
| Now what if someone comes to me and requests that i make sure that the meat on my menu all comes from animals that have been slaughtered in the name of their god and no other gods, because a 1400 year old book written by a salesman and narrated by an angel that no-one but the writer saw says that's the only kind of food they should eat. Why would i be justified to roll my eyes and call the person crazy in the previous example, but not this one? |
In a word - evidence! If the request is based on a reasonable thesis then one might consider it 'reasonable' (but that doesn't mean you would accede to it of course). If it is based on nothing more than superstition then you could, rightly, say 'I don't share your superstition, and I don't feel inclined to cater for it.'
| Quote: |
| Here's another example: suppose i opened a theme store where all the employees wear uniforms in keeping with the theme. One day an employee comes to me and tells me they refuse to wear the uniform anymore because they just hate red. Totally hate red. They want to wear blue, because it's more in keeping with their personal fashion. So i fire them, and i'm totally justified, right? Now. Another employee comes to me and tells me they just found religion and they have to wear specific headgear that's not part of the uniform because it's more in keeping with their personal religious beliefs. So i fire them... and whammo, i get slapped with a lawsuit for religious discrimination. |
Yep - a very slippery slope which is why I take an 'absolutist' position that any such superstition should not be catered for. Of course this is not actually quite so absolutist. What, for example, if the company insisted on a skimpy outfit for their female employees, and an employee objected on the grounds that they didn't want to be seen as a sex object? I suppose you would have to take the attitude that the job is advertised as such, and if you don't want to do it then don't apply. But what if the terms of the job changed after you 'signed'?
Now, my opinion is that such a change would be something which the Unions should pick up on, but failing that would be grounds for unfair dismissal proceedings. Thus I think the only sensible option here is to go for the original contract. If the contract says that a particular dress code is required, and that dress-code forbids or excludes the wearing of the head-gear, then you fire them. Here in the UK there is still no 'religious' discrimination legislation. There is the European Human Rights legislation which enshrines the right to religious freedom of belief/practice. I don't think, however, that it would over-ride contract law in this case. | Indi wrote: |
One of the things that endlessly frustrates those of us without any interest in religion is the determination with which the religious try to inject religion into every single facet of life. Whether it's praying before hockey games (because, come on, seriously, do you really think God is going to influence the outcome?), blessing the doorway the president will walk through, asking religious leaders permission to get boob jobs,... i could go on and on... there seems to be no corner of life that someone doesn't want to impose their religious opinion on.
i don't think that anyone would disagree that this isn't done far too much. (And if you don't think that people are pushing religion into far more than it should, behold: faith-based acting classes. Yes, for reals.) So the question is... how much is too much?
What aspects of life is it appropriate bring religion into? What aspects is it inappropriate? Where do you draw the line? How do you say "religion should have something to say about this, but not this"? Do you think there is a universal limit, or can anyone apply religion to whatever they want? And if they can, are we obligated to respect that? |
asking religious leaders permission to get boob jobs, LOL that was a good one
1. What aspects of life is it appropriate bring religion into?
That actually depends on the place you are and the time we are in assuming it is about the present time we are talking I can safely say What aspects of life is it appropriate NOT TO bring religion into?
But I guess that is fairly easy since it is not question you are asking
But let me say for a person who does not care about religion there is no aspect of life where it is appropriate bring religion into? but on the other hand the religious person would have some aspects to bring religion into - one aspect would be to pay homage to the departed! Rest in my next post | Indi wrote: |
I don't think that anyone would disagree that this isn't done far too much. (And if you don't think that people are pushing religion into far more than it should, behold: faith-based acting classes. Yes, for reals.) So the question is... how much is too much?
What aspects of life is it appropriate bring religion into? What aspects is it inappropriate? Where do you draw the line? How do you say "religion should have something to say about this, but not this"? Do you think there is a universal limit, or can anyone apply religion to whatever they want? And if they can, are we obligated to respect that? |
I doubt that any of us have the right to set limits to religion, as much as religion has no right to set limits for non-believers. What is important however is to get past these petty differences, and respect our differences of opinion. I don't see any problem when the court clerk who opens a court hearing refers to God when he/she announces the case. It's part of the fabric. But I do see something terribly wrong when someone of religion points a finger at someone who is atheist and tells them they will be going to hell. Apart from the fact that there is no scientific evidence for it, it does not really represent the spirit of religion to me anyway. Nor is it really atheist to me to want to set limits to religion. I thought atheism stood completely outside religion and could not care any less about what its limits should be? So maybe it could be delimiting for atheism to want to limit anything "theist". Literally?
Last edited by deanhills on Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:38 pm; edited 1 time in totalErr..it is a bit more than that.
a) Why is it acceptable for a broadly Christian 'blessing' (and let us be clear - that is what most of this debate it actually about) but not a Satanist/Zeus 'chant'? As an atheist I simply wish others to respect my wish to be free of mumbo-jumbo. I don't wish to impose a mumbo-jumbo of my own on others.
b) Once you introduce religion into this sort of scenario (the ones mentioned will serve to illustrate) then you are implying some sort of 'special status' for that religion (otherwise why would you single out that particular faith, or group of faiths). Since there is no reason to do that, then why do it?
c) Would it be fair or reasonable for me to hijack events for a quick 2 minute sermon on why religion is evil? Why not turn up to Judo classes and insist that the class respect my right to have a 2 minute rant?
It is a ridiculous concept.
If people want to say a private prayer before they attend my IT class, then fine - go nuts - I don't even mind if you want to pray silently during the lesson (though I suspect that might distract somewhat). If students want to gather together before the class and attend a 4 hour devotional service to the God Ra, then fine, go nuts. Hell, if it is an interesting session in a nice surrounding then I might even come along myself - BEFORE THE LESSON. Don't ask me to dedicate the class, however, and I don't expect to see other professionals and organisers doing such things in completely 'non religious' scenarios.
My view of this is coloured by a personal experience which is still quite vivid. My first 'boss' in FE, and someone I would call a good friend (I'll just use his first name - Phil), died tragically early of cancer. He had time to prepare his own funeral and was absolutely adamant about wanting no religion, or mention of religion. His coffin was 'wheeled in' to the college and various colleagues, students and friends gathered to honour his last wishes. It was a pretty funny and moving event with reminiscences, sketches, piss-taking and humour - exactly as he would have wished it. His father, however, being a 'lay preacher', just couldn't stop himself and, when his turn came, we got the inevitable 5 minute sermon. Now, of course I felt for the bloke - Phil was his only son and it obviously devastated him. The selfishness he displayed, however, has lived with me. Phil had ordered, begged, pleaded for there to be no such behaviour and yet his father couldn't, in the final analysis, put the last wishes of his own son above his personal need to believe and evangelise.
I had to walk out, as did many of Phil's closest friends - not in anger, but in absolute sadness and hurt.
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:04 am; edited 3 times in total
| Bikerman wrote: |
| b) Once you introduce religion into this sort of scenario (the ones mentioned will serve to illustrate) then you are implying some sort of 'special status' for that religion (otherwise why would you single out that particular faith, or group of faiths). Since there is no reason to do that, then why do it? |
I thought we were talking about existing practises, not setting limits on introducing new ones. In the example you used I would agree that should not be allowed, but I'm talking about removing that which is already part of the fabric of society, and part of religion.
I will use my example of before, where all court cases in the United States are opened with Hear ye Hear ye, followed by reference to God. If it has been OK for centuries, to the point that no one takes much notice of it, and possibly even get some comfort with hearing the same announcement over and over again, why all of a sudden would we want to limit and remove it? | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | b) Once you introduce religion into this sort of scenario (the ones mentioned will serve to illustrate) then you are implying some sort of 'special status' for that religion (otherwise why would you single out that particular faith, or group of faiths). Since there is no reason to do that, then why do it? |
I thought we were talking about existing practises, not setting limits on introducing new ones. In the example you used I would agree that should not be allowed, but I'm talking about removing that which is already part of the fabric of society, and part of religion.
I will use my example of before, where all court cases in the United States are opened with Hear ye Hear ye, followed by reference to God. If it has been OK for centuries, to the point that no one takes much notice of it, and possibly even get some comfort with hearing the same announcement over and over again, why all of a sudden would we want to limit and remove it? |
Err...because it is superstitious bunkum? Because it is profoundly discriminatory? Would they be good reasons?
Do you think it makes good sense for a Hindu or a Buddhist to have to listen to that before their case is heard? Why would *they* find it comforting? As an atheist I would find it quite worrying since it implies that the Judeo-Christian 'God' is going to influence the proceedings - I would prefer it to be based on evidence alone.
It seems to me that you are basically saying 'don't rock the boat', which is a very poor basis for any philosophical argument.
If you want to stick with the court based exemplar then let me expand on it. Here in the UK we used to have 'swearing to tell the truth' with your hand on the bible. The idiocy of this in a multi-faith culture became apparent and we got proposals to change it (from within the establishment).
Oh, how the Churches yelled.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/church-leaders-criticise-plans-to-drop-court-oath-632253.html
I draw your attention to one particular paragraph | Quote: |
| Yesterday, the Church of England said it was "very concerned" at what it described as an attempt to "divorce religion from justice". It added: "We will have to look at this proposal seriously to see whether it really would prevent people of faith reflecting that in the oath." |
In other words, the Church really believe they have, and should continue to have, a role in the judicial system. That is terrifying for anyone who has read any history. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | i get that people think that religion should fit into every aspect of life. What i want to know is how far we should respect that in real life. Because just some people want to use a religious justification for everything doesn't mean that everyone should take them seriously. So how do we draw the line? |
I would draw a line not about respecting their religion, but about respecting them.
Really, it doesn't matter what they believe or why... how much are you willing to humor from them in the interest of tolerance and respect for fellow people? |
i would hope that when you respect the religious rites of another person, you aren't doing it just to "humour them".
No, i would not endorse refusing to respect someone's religion in favour of respecting them personally. There are a lot of people i have no respect at all for - mostly because i don't know them - and many more that i have less than no respect for - mainly because they're douche bags - but if it were up to me to write schedules for a job and i knew they were orthodox Jewish (for example), i wouldn't schedule them on Saturday. Why? Because their religion requires them to reserve Saturday as a day of rest, and i will respect that even if i think they're douches - and it's a legitimate requirement after all, because everyone needs a day off so it really doesn't matter if the specific day is mandated by your religion or not.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| We don't need to respect either. The only reason we might be forced to respect a religious opinion on stem-cell research is because of democracy. If a large portion of people hold that belief, they can use a representative government to impose that upon others. |
Oh good grief no. >_< Popular vote does not and should not control every decision made by a society. Whether or not we allow stem cell research is a decision that should be based on whether or not it is medically sound, because there is no rational ethical objection to using stem cells (the "moral arguments" against stem cell research all arise out of ignorance, plain and simple). Yes, religious nutters can, in theory, strong arm people into being forced to follow their silly beliefs, but they can do that with guns as well as with a representative democracy... it's wrong in either case.
(By the way, in practice, if people did manage to pass a law that banned stem cell research, it could (and probably would) be struck down by the courts as illegal, because it's based on religion.)
No, i will not be forced to respect anyone's religious beliefs by any law. Even if i am forced to carry out (or not carry out) certain actions, i can and will do them while spitting on the religion and the religious beliefs that caused me to be forced to do them. That is not respecting other people's religious beliefs by any definition. The question i am asking is why i should respect their beliefs... not how can i be forced to go along with them.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| First, I don't see how you could base a bank's financial decisions upon a Bible code... After all, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be," pretty much precludes most bank activities. |
Oh, don't be naive. ^_^; You know as well as i do that believers cherry pick verses to suit their personal beliefs. Even the Vatican has a bank, for goodness's sake.
And people can and do base anything on Bible codes.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| As for suing for incompetence based on what 'code' they used for financial planning... I suppose you could, but it might be wrong to thus impose a standard 'best code' upon everyone, to be sued if they don't follow it. I would give equal credence to a banker who followed a Biblical code as to one who followed a code supposedly found in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. One who followed the popular advice of the day might be wiser, but they could also be sued if that advice caused the downfall of the bank. |
No, that doesn't stand. You would certainly not give equal credence to a banker who invested your money based on Biblical code rather than market research. Come on.
It is not "wrong" to "impost a standard 'best code'" on professionals: we already do, they are called professional codes. i have one that i have to subscribe to, as does any professional. If i used Bible science to do my engineering work, you can and should sue my ass when one of my machines explodes and kills someone. Please! Do it! And lock me up, too. i'd deserve it. (Actually, if i did use Bible code in my work, i could not only be sued, i would lose my licence and probably get jail time. Like, for reals. No joke.) If, however, i did everything competently and the machine still exploded and killed someone, i would not be open to lawsuit, or jail time. Accidents do happen.
Similarly, an investor that studied the stock market with due professional diligence would not be open to a lawsuit. An investor that used Bible codes would. (Assuming, of course, that they didn't advertise the fact that they were using Bible codes. That falls under the realm of professional expectations.)
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | and i would never have surrendered my sidearm no matter what religious custom said. |
O.o
I never thought of you as the type to carry a sidearm... I might have to completely rethink my idea of what you are like... |
? Why?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| OK, yes, I agree with this to some extent but not entirely. I think that the media acts as a driver, as well as a 'reflector'. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as Chomsky does in his arguments on this, but I think that to regard the media simply as responding to demand is far too simplistic. |
Well, yes, it is simplistic, but the media is a red herring - as is government - because both of them have to follow guidelines defined by larger concerns than "what is reasonably acceptable in society". The media, for example, has to consider whether it is appropriate to allow swearing because it offends a large number of people (religious or not), whereas i don't ****** care. The government, in a similar vein, is mandated to deal with religion in certain ways, whereas i am not; there's nothing to stop me from offering my apartment for a Christian service, perhaps even while refusing it for a Muslim service, if i so choose.
i am just interested in the question of what are reasonable limits to extend when i have to deal with religious people. Obviously, my rights allow me a great deal of latitude (much, much more latitude than a government or media outlet might have): if i wanted to i could greet every Muslim with "Mohammad was a paedophile". But clearly that's not appropriate behaviour if i want to coexist in a society with Muslims while showing a measure of shared respect.
That's really what this is all about. Ideally, i want to live in a society with people who hold to religions of all kinds, and not in a society that's adversarial or cellular (where we all fight, or where we all clump up with those who share our beliefs and avoid everyone else). Clearly, this requires a certain amount of concession on all sides: they have to respect me, and i have to respect them.
How and how much they have to respect me is a discussion for another day (although, as you know, atheists require so damn little in the way of respect that it's pathetic that we don't get it... still... another day's discussion). Right now, i want to know how far i can be reasonably expected to go in order to respect them. And, how much is too much.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Now what if someone comes to me and requests that i make sure that the meat on my menu all comes from animals that have been slaughtered in the name of their god and no other gods, because a 1400 year old book written by a salesman and narrated by an angel that no-one but the writer saw says that's the only kind of food they should eat. Why would i be justified to roll my eyes and call the person crazy in the previous example, but not this one? |
In a word - evidence! If the request is based on a reasonable thesis then one might consider it 'reasonable' (but that doesn't mean you would accede to it of course). If it is based on nothing more than superstition then you could, rightly, say 'I don't share your superstition, and I don't feel inclined to cater for it.' |
Requiring evidence is reasonable if they wanted me to believe their religious beliefs... but it shouldn't necessary if they just want me to give them "space" (in a metaphorical sense). They shouldn't have to provide evidence to me that their god mandated Saturday as a day of rest for them, for example. If it's part of their religious code, then that's all i need to know when deciding whether or not to acquiesce to it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Yep - a very slippery slope which is why I take an 'absolutist' position that any such superstition should not be catered for. Of course this is not actually quite so absolutist. What, for example, if the company insisted on a skimpy outfit for their female employees, and an employee objected on the grounds that they didn't want to be seen as a sex object? I suppose you would have to take the attitude that the job is advertised as such, and if you don't want to do it then don't apply. But what if the terms of the job changed after you 'signed'?
Now, my opinion is that such a change would be something which the Unions should pick up on, but failing that would be grounds for unfair dismissal proceedings. Thus I think the only sensible option here is to go for the original contract. If the contract says that a particular dress code is required, and that dress-code forbids or excludes the wearing of the head-gear, then you fire them. Here in the UK there is still no 'religious' discrimination legislation. There is the European Human Rights legislation which enshrines the right to religious freedom of belief/practice. I don't think, however, that it would over-ride contract law in this case. |
Yeah, i should have made this crystal clear: i am not talking about situations where there may be a secular objection to the uniform - that just muddies the waters. i was thinking specifically of discussions that have been had about allowing Sikhs to wear turbans as part of military and police uniforms.
And i am not particularly interested in legal considerations, really. i suppose if they were hired on the basis of wearing a specific uniform, as stipulated in the contract (verbal or otherwise), then they changed religions, they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on... but still. The laws against religious discrimination represent a societal distaste for religious discrimination, which i share. i mention them because i agree with them in spirit, even if they don't apply to the letter.
So while the law may be on my side, am i being unreasonable to demand a uniform that effectively precludes certain religious people from taking the job. So what is a reasonable expectation for me, as a member of a multicultural society? Should i be expected to change the uniform to allow anyone of any religion to do the job? (Functionally impossible, of course.) Or should i be expected to pick a uniform that works for the majority of the religions in my area and then make exceptions as needed? Or should i be expected to pick a uniform that works for the majority of religions in my area and then tell the exceptions to sod off? Or should i just make the uniform as i see fit, and to hell with any religious requirements?
| deanhills wrote: |
| I doubt that any of us have the right to set limits to religion, as much as religion has no right to set limits for non-believers. |
i am not talking about setting limits on anyone. i am asking what limits should i be expected to take seriously. If a Muslim person asks me to say "peace be upon him" every time i say Mohammad's name, i'm going to tell them to get bent. If a Muslim person asks me to grill up a halal hot dog they brought to my barbecue and set it aside for them (so they don't eat the non-halal ones by mistake), i'll do it without complaint. In both cases i am not really being put out too much. So why is the first request an unreasonable one for a Muslim to ask of me (an unbeliever), while the second isn't? Or... do you think both requests are reasonable or unreasonable? And if so, why?
Or to put it another way, if a Muslim asks me to say "peace be upon him" every time i say Mohammad's name, and i say no: am i being a jerk for refusing it, are they being a jerk for requesting it (not demanding!!! just requesting), or what? And why?
Versus, if a Muslim brings a halal hot dog to my barbecue and asks me to grill it separately for him, and i say no: am i being a jerk for refusing it, are they being a jerk for requesting (again, not demanding!) it, or what? And why?
My take on it is that i am not being a jerk for declining to say "peace be unto him" all the time, and they're not "jerks" for asking me to... although it is an unreasonable request. i am being a jerk for declining to cook up a special hot dog, they're not jerks at all for asking me to... and i think it is a reasonable request. But i can't say why in either case. That's what this thread is about: not just what is reasonable... but why.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I don't see any problem when the court clerk who opens a court hearing refers to God when he/she announces the case. It's part of the fabric. |
Whoa whoa whoa: that's an entirely different situation. A judge is not "just some guy or girl", a judge is a representative of the state and the legal system. It is absolutely wrong for a judge to bring gods into cases that they are presiding over. The judge can go home and talk gods all they want, but the legal system - and the government - should not be infected by any religion.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I thought atheism stood completely outside religion and could not care any less about what its limits should be? So maybe it could be delimiting for atheism to want to limit anything "theist". Literally? |
There is no atheist creed, but i think you'll find that the only limits a reasonable person - atheist or no - would want to put on any religion is "do not force yourself on those who want no part of you". Sadly, of course, that rarely applies when a person is talking about their own religion... it only applies when they're talking about other religions.
But this thread is not about that limit or any other. i am implicitly assuming that limit applies... because like i said, any reasonable person would agree to it. Or, in other words, i am not talking about religions or people forcing religious beliefs on anyone else.
No, i am assuming that we all live in a society where hundreds or thousands of religions peacefully coexist - just like the society i live in now - by not forcing themselves on others. But still, we do interact with multiple religions every day. Hell, as a real life example: | My real life example wrote: |
| i am atheist. When i walk to the store to get groceries pretty much every day, i pass - in order - my Hindu security guard (not particularly devout), the very devout Sikh guy who runs the video store (i often wave, sometimes stop to chat), these three Jehovah's Witness old ladies who sit on the same bench and chat (i know they're JW because they pass out Watchtower/Awake! magazines certain days of the week, and i've seen at least two of them doing it), a bunch of people in the actual grocery store (for certain: at least two of the tellers are Catholic and one is Christian but not Catholic, but i don't know what stripe of Christianity exactly... this is just stuff i've picked up through conversations over the years), the Muslim family (not orthodox) that run the convenience store that i usually stop into on the way back, then back to my place. |
So on my almost daily walk, i usually encounter Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Muslims and more, and i am atheist. (My experience isn't typical, of course. i live in one of the most multicultural metropolitan areas in the world.)
i have to coexist with these people, and - because i am not an unreasonable person - i don't believe that i should force my beliefs on them (for example, i don't believe i should force Hindus to eat beef because i don't see anything wrong with it). i also believe in acknowledging their religious beliefs - i don't believe in the American "melting pot" ideal where every bit of individuality that someone from a different culture brings to the table has to be stripped away in favour of what the majority approves of - and i will greet them with Eid Mubarak or Merry Christmas or whatever.
If we're all going to coexist, then we all have to give a little respect, and we all have to expect a little respect. i am just asking what the reasonable limits are in each case, specifically the former. How much respect should reasonably be expected to give... before it just gets ridiculous. | Indi wrote: |
If we're all going to coexist, then we all have to give a little respect, and we all have to expect a little respect. i am just asking what the reasonable limits are in each case, specifically the former. How much respect should reasonably be expected to give... before it just gets ridiculous. |
Nicely said Indi, but then how does this gel with Dawkins's Red Bus ad at the beginning of the year? That was almost like the proverbial red flag (almost literally 
) in front of the Bull. It was done consciously. That in my mind went past limits of "little respect". | Indi wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | We don't need to respect either. The only reason we might be forced to respect a religious opinion on stem-cell research is because of democracy. If a large portion of people hold that belief, they can use a representative government to impose that upon others. |
Oh good grief no. >_< Popular vote does not and should not control every decision made by a society. Whether or not we allow stem cell research is a decision that should be based on whether or not it is medically sound, because there is no rational ethical objection to using stem cells (the "moral arguments" against stem cell research all arise out of ignorance, plain and simple). Yes, religious nutters can, in theory, strong arm people into being forced to follow their silly beliefs, but they can do that with guns as well as with a representative democracy... it's wrong in either case.
|
So we're advocating a dictatorship now? Or at least a government that is unresponsive to the desires of its people?
| Quote: |
(By the way, in practice, if people did manage to pass a law that banned stem cell research, it could (and probably would) be struck down by the courts as illegal, because it's based on religion.)
|
Now who's being naive?
All they have to do is not mention religion in the law, and claim some other reason for it.
(Actually, I've never understood the religious basis for anti-abortion/anti-stem-cell... Where does the Bible say that life starts at conception?) | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
If we're all going to coexist, then we all have to give a little respect, and we all have to expect a little respect. i am just asking what the reasonable limits are in each case, specifically the former. How much respect should reasonably be expected to give... before it just gets ridiculous. |
Nicely said Indi, but then how does this gel with Dawkins's Red Bus ad at the beginning of the year? That was almost like the proverbial red flag (almost literally ) in front of the Bull. It was done consciously. That in my mind went past limits of "little respect". |
O.o? Are you serious? You sincerely believe that Dawkins was in the wrong in that incident?
Consider this: are Christians "waving the red flag in front of the bull" when they put up Christmas decorations? Well, think about this: if the minority Christians living in predominantly Muslim (and very anti-Christian) northern Pakistan put up a nativity scene there... there would be trouble, yes? Let's face it, putting on a big Christmas spectacle there would be "waving the red flag in front of the bull", and almost certain to lead to violence.
But wait a minute... that wouldn't happen in London, now would it? If you put on a big Christmas spectacle right smack dab at Charing Cross, no one would bat an eyelash.
What does this tell us? It tells us that the act of putting on a Christmas special itself isn't the cause of the problem... it's the people who react badly who are. Waving a red flag doesn't do any harm in any situation, except when there's a bull present, yes? It's not the flag that's the problem, it's the bull.
Imagine a city without intolerant bigots. Would Dawkins's bus cause any problems there? No, of course not. It's just a silly ad. The most reaction you would get would be either a chuckle (if you agree or don't care), or a roll of the eyes (if you disagree). You see? The bus ad itself is harmless. So what caused the problem, if it wasn't the bus ad? Well the answer to that is clear: the problem was caused by intolerant ******. Dawkins did nothing wrong. The bigots were in the wrong.
If we are all going to coexist in a peaceful society, we don't do that by silencing or suppressing the freedom of people to speak out about their beliefs. When Christians go carolling down the streets at Christmas, we don't tell them to shut up and go indoors because the sight of them offends us (which is, you see, exactly what the bigots said to Dawkins's ads). We either ignore them and go about our business, or we join in. So long as they don't interfere with our freedoms, there is no reason to interfere with theirs. Dawkins's bus ads interfered with no one's freedoms, so no one had a right to interfere with his right to proclaim his beliefs.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | We don't need to respect either. The only reason we might be forced to respect a religious opinion on stem-cell research is because of democracy. If a large portion of people hold that belief, they can use a representative government to impose that upon others. |
Oh good grief no. >_< Popular vote does not and should not control every decision made by a society. Whether or not we allow stem cell research is a decision that should be based on whether or not it is medically sound, because there is no rational ethical objection to using stem cells (the "moral arguments" against stem cell research all arise out of ignorance, plain and simple). Yes, religious nutters can, in theory, strong arm people into being forced to follow their silly beliefs, but they can do that with guns as well as with a representative democracy... it's wrong in either case.
|
So we're advocating a dictatorship now? Or at least a government that is unresponsive to the desires of its people? |
Saying "not every decision should be decided by popular vote" is not the same as saying "no decision should be decided by popular vote". Or can you not see the difference? Come on. -_-
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Quote: |
(By the way, in practice, if people did manage to pass a law that banned stem cell research, it could (and probably would) be struck down by the courts as illegal, because it's based on religion.)
|
Now who's being naive?
All they have to do is not mention religion in the law, and claim some other reason for it. |
That is not correct. If it were true, then you could pass any law you wanted to benefit religious ends... so long as you don't say it's for religious ends. For example, they could pass a law that every house should have a cross on the roof, with the claim that it makes a good lightning conductor (which is partly true). Obviously, on close inspection, there is no reason for that law other than for religious motivations, but if religious motivations are never mentioned then - according to you - they can get away with it.
This is not hypothetical either. There have been several cases where religiously motivated laws have been passed disguised with other motives. A blatant example is Kitzmiller v. Dover - where a school board tried to include Intelligent Design (ID) in its curriculum under the guise of giving equal time to "alternative scientific theories". Not only did they not claim religion was the motivator, they vehemently denied it, and brought in scientific expert witnesses ("expert", i should say, with the quotes), not religious ones, to prove that it was legitimate science. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, tried to prove that it wasn't science, and that the only motivation for it was religious. They succeeded... but even to this day, the ID people still swear blind that ID is not religiously motivated.
So no, they don't need to mention religion. All that has to happen is the challenger has to prove that religion is the sole reasonable motivator for the law (or, to put it more precisely, they have to show there is no secular motivation for the law). That actually wouldn't be hard to do. i have never heard of a rational, secular reason for denying stem cell research, and i seriously doubt one exists (and if one does, it would have to be powerfully strong to counteract all the many arguments supporting stem cell research).
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| (Actually, I've never understood the religious basis for anti-abortion/anti-stem-cell... Where does the Bible say that life starts at conception?) |
(Technically it doesn't. It actually says life begins at first breath. But, of course, the Bible is vague and contradictory, and there are several versus that, with the right interpretation, imply that life exists long before first breath.) | indi wrote: |
| So while the law may be on my side, am i being unreasonable to demand a uniform that effectively precludes certain religious people from taking the job. So what is a reasonable expectation for me, as a member of a multicultural society? Should i be expected to change the uniform to allow anyone of any religion to do the job? (Functionally impossible, of course.) Or should i be expected to pick a uniform that works for the majority of the religions in my area and then make exceptions as needed? Or should i be expected to pick a uniform that works for the majority of religions in my area and then tell the exceptions to sod off? Or should i just make the uniform as i see fit, and to hell with any religious requirements? |
Well, in this case I would be looking to design a 'functional' uniform that also reflected the corporation (either in terms of colour, style, logos or whatever). Should I take into account religious sensibilities? No, on the whole I think not. There are so many, and some of the major ones are in competition, that it would be practically impossible, as you say. Thus I couldn't and wouldn't design a uniform which would satisfy the requirements of strict female Muslim dress code. Neither would I design on which conformed to the requirements of Hasidic Judaism, strict Sikhism etc.
So, would I then be prepared to make 'exceptions' based on religion. Would I, for example, allow the Sikh to wear a turban or a ceremonial dagger? No. Would I allow a Muslim woman to add a veil? No.
Now to the real-life tricky choices. Would I allow a Christian to wear a crucifix/cross? Not unless it was concealed - since that would clearly be discriminatory.
This is, of course, a real-life case.
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2007/11/15/43273/cross-wearing-ba-check-in-woman-accuses-airline-of-culture-of-hostility-to.html
Interestingly - despite winning the industrial tribunal, and winning the appeal, BA did change its uniform policy to allow the wearing of a 'small item representing charity or faith' which allowed the woman to wear her cross in full view. I suspect that this was for commercial reasons, because a lot of Christians were threatening to boycott the airline. I think they shouldn't have made the change - but from a purely commercial perspective then they were probably correct.
I'm deeply unsympathetic to the woman's argument, however. She could easily have worn the cross, concealed, no problem. The fact that she did not want this compromise tells me that her intent was not to wear the cross, but to have it noticed, as some outward sign of her beliefs. Should a fascist be allowed to wear a swastika on their uniform as an outward sign of their beliefs? What exactly is the principled difference? One is a religion, and one is a political 'faith'. Will that really do as a discriminator?
Basically I'd stick with the 'slippery slope' argument. Once you start designing-in concessions for some, then I can't see why you would not have to do the same for all (or at least 'most').
My uniforms would be primarily designed to allow the staff to do their job in reasonable comfort whilst portraying something of my corporate 'ethos'. I'm afraid that I would make absolutely no compromises for religion. That would almost inevitably cause problems with some Christians - they tend to be very vocal about their 'right to express' their religion here (far more so than other religions).I believe that religion has one place in this world - personal aspects. You can have religion in any aspect of your life. You can ask your pastor/priest/monk/whatever if you're allowed to get a boob job. The president can shake hands with the Pope. He can even wear a "Jesus Rules" t-shirt for all I care (he'd probably get more votes). But there's no place for religion in the public sphere of life.
| Bikerman wrote: |
His father, however, being a 'lay preacher', just couldn't stop himself and, when his turn came, we got the inevitable 5 minute sermon. Now, of course I felt for the bloke - Phil was his only son and it obviously devastated him. The selfishness he displayed, however, has lived with me. Phil had ordered, begged, pleaded for there to be no such behaviour and yet his father couldn't, in the final analysis, put the last wishes of his own son above his personal need to believe and evangelise.
I had to walk out, as did many of Phil's closest friends - not in anger, but in absolute sadness and hurt. |
I quite feel for your old friend and that unfortunate situation. I fear that, with my extremely-over-the-top religious family, that may happen at my funeral. However, I have been extremely persistent to people that I know and trust that if I die before them, I do not want any of that garbage at my funeral (if I even have one - I'd prefer to not have one over having a religious one). The only mention of religion that I want at my funeral are two songs that I want played: Hell Awaits by Slayer and Jump in the Fire by Metallica.
In response to the airline situation: The airline made the correct decision by allowing their employees to wear crosses. While I hate the situation (many Christians are such whiny babies), I must admit that they made the correct business situation. While they were certainly not required to allow their employees to wear crosses, they probably would have lost a lot of business if they didn't cave. That's why they made the correct decision (business wise)... | Bikerman wrote: |
| I'm deeply unsympathetic to the woman's argument, however. She could easily have worn the cross, concealed, no problem. The fact that she did not want this compromise tells me that her intent was not to wear the cross, but to have it noticed, as some outward sign of her beliefs. Should a fascist be allowed to wear a swastika on their uniform as an outward sign of their beliefs? What exactly is the principled difference? One is a religion, and one is a political 'faith'. Will that really do as a discriminator? |
i'm far beyond unsympathetic. She was a loon. | Nadia Eweida wrote: |
| No other minority group would be treated like I was. The atmosphere in British Airways is one of hostility/suppression of Christianity and Judeo-Christian morality. No other religious group (except the Jews) would suffer as I have done for the wearing of a small cross. |
Incidentally, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but in your country, the Religious Discrimination Regulations of 2003, extended 6 April 2007, include any "genuine philosophical belief, including political belief".
So... yes. A swastika would be covered (even though, technically, you could wear a swastika as a Hindu, FYI, and they can't make you take it off (i'm such a shit disturber)).
Does everyone understand now why British Airways was wrong to cave in, commercial interests be damned (and i'll cover them in a moment)? Because of their change in policy, if i were a BA employee, i could now show up to work on a London-Tel Aviv flight... wearing a swastika. You can't stop me. i could wear a badge for the KKK - fascism is a genuine political philosophy. You can't stop me.
Morons like Nadia Eweida don't think beyond their own little world - they say "what's the harm in allowing me to wear my little cross, it doesn't offend anyone!" Well, actually, a) yes, it really does offend some people, but more importantly, b) if we give you that privilege, we have to give it to everyone... and then there's trouble.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I believe that religion has one place in this world - personal aspects. You can have religion in any aspect of your life. You can ask your pastor/priest/monk/whatever if you're allowed to get a boob job. |
i wasn't asking about that, i was asking if i should consider it legitimate for someone to consult a cleric about a boob job. And not just me. If a consulting doctor is discussing cosmetic surgery with someone, and they ask if they should consult their cleric, what should the doctor do? What if the doctor knows the person will greatly benefit from the surgery, either professionally or because they have low self-esteem about the particular feature, and that the cleric will surely say no to the process... what should the doctor do then, wave off responsibility for their patient's well-being and let them consult the cleric, or say "don't bother, i'm a medical professional and i have counselled you on the matter, and i say do it... to hell with what your cleric thinks, i'm the trained and licenced professional."
And what should i do if someone is thinking of getting cosmetic surgery, and someone else starts pressuring them to consult a cleric about it? Should i stand aside and say that's their religion and not my business, or should i say "don't be an ass. talk to a doctor, not a cleric. come on."
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| The president can shake hands with the Pope. He can even wear a "Jesus Rules" t-shirt for all I care (he'd probably get more votes). |
Oh good grief no. -_- Absolutely not. The President of the representative leader of the government. He should absolutely not shake hands with anyone that is not a friend of the people. The Pope gets away with it because he is not just the head of a religion, he is a head of state - the President can meet him on terms as a fellow head of state without endorsing Catholicism. That wouldn't hold true for Sun Myung Moon, which is why no president should meet him on equal terms (Nixon did, but he is hardly an example of a good president, and he was already in disgrace at the time).
And the T-shirt would be entirely inappropriate. As long as he is representing the people and the government, he should do just that. Wearing a T-shirt like that is an endorsement of Christianity. That's just plain wrong.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| In response to the airline situation: The airline made the correct decision by allowing their employees to wear crosses. While I hate the situation (many Christians are such whiny babies), I must admit that they made the correct business situation. While they were certainly not required to allow their employees to wear crosses, they probably would have lost a lot of business if they didn't cave. That's why they made the correct decision (business wise)... |
Now, see, i've already explained why the change in policy makes no rational sense, and opens BA up to far more harm than good. But i haven't yet dealt with this idea that it's the correct decision business-wise.
Now... let's be realistic. How many Christians are really going to boycott anything for such a stupid reason - especially if BA explained the problem properly? Don't give more power to the mouthy minority than they really have... they're not that big. It's a small group of loudmouths. They can be ignored.
But even if they weren't - even if they really were a powerful consumer group... for the love of Her Holy Hooves, this is British ****** Airways!!! i mean, come on, think about it:
Irritated consumer: I am boycotting British Airways!
British Airways: Ok... have a nice swim.
Seriously, what are you going to do if you boycott an airline, walk? ^_^;
Now i know you're thinking "well, i'd just take another airline", but here's the reality of the modern airline industry (and i have insider info on this): they can't afford to compete, so they cooperate. They arrange to avoid providing the same service on the same routes. Even when their appears to be competition, they're usually just "competing" with themselves directly (OpenSkies), or indirectly (via oneworld). You don't pick your airline based on whether you like their damn in-flight food, you pick it based on whether or not they are going where you want, when you want, and at the lowest price. If you seriously wanted to boycott British Airways, then you'll probably find yourself taking long, expensive roundabout trips.
Seriously, they don't need to kiss up to Christians to fill their flights. This is not McDonalds - who have serious competition - this is British ****** Airways! If anyone could have gotten away with standing up to this stupidity, it should have been them. | Indi wrote: |
Oh good grief no. -_- Absolutely not. The President of the representative leader of the government. He should absolutely not shake hands with anyone that is not a friend of the people. The Pope gets away with it because he is not just the head of a religion, he is a head of state - the President can meet him on terms as a fellow head of state without endorsing Catholicism. That wouldn't hold true for Sun Myung Moon, which is why no president should meet him on equal terms (Nixon did, but he is hardly an example of a good president, and he was already in disgrace at the time).
And the T-shirt would be entirely inappropriate. As long as he is representing the people and the government, he should do just that. Wearing a T-shirt like that is an endorsement of Christianity. That's just plain wrong. |
So when you're president you're allowed absolutely no personal life? I understand dress codes on the job, but even the president of the United States gets some time off and I really think it's no ones business who he shakes hands with during that time or what kind of t-shirt he wears. It's easy to argue that there needs to be some sort of dress code when making an appearance on television or at a convention, but I do not think it's very easy to argue that the president shouldn't be able to wear whatever the hell he wants when off the job and/or on vacation unless you can argue that the president has to agree to relinquish their entire personal life even when on vacation or at home during their term.
| Indi wrote: |
Now, see, i've already explained why the change in policy makes no rational sense, and opens BA up to far more harm than good. But i haven't yet dealt with this idea that it's the correct decision business-wise.
Now... let's be realistic. How many Christians are really going to boycott anything for such a stupid reason - especially if BA explained the problem properly? Don't give more power to the mouthy minority than they really have... they're not that big. It's a small group of loudmouths. They can be ignored. |
Maybe I just have a crazy/unique family? My family is full of people who have certain grudges with a handful of companies that uphold non-Christian values. Maybe it's just my damn family and relatives, but I was under the impression that there were probably many more people like them...
| Quote: |
But even if they weren't - even if they really were a powerful consumer group... for the love of Her Holy Hooves, this is British ****** Airways!!! i mean, come on, think about it:
Irritated consumer: I am boycotting British Airways!
British Airways: Ok... have a nice swim.
Seriously, what are you going to do if you boycott an airline, walk? ^_^;
Now i know you're thinking "well, i'd just take another airline", but here's the reality of the modern airline industry (and i have insider info on this): they can't afford to compete, so they cooperate. They arrange to avoid providing the same service on the same routes. Even when their appears to be competition, they're usually just "competing" with themselves directly (OpenSkies), or indirectly (via oneworld). You don't pick your airline based on whether you like their damn in-flight food, you pick it based on whether or not they are going where you want, when you want, and at the lowest price. If you seriously wanted to boycott British Airways, then you'll probably find yourself taking long, expensive roundabout trips.
Seriously, they don't need to kiss up to Christians to fill their flights. This is not McDonalds - who have serious competition - this is British ****** Airways! If anyone could have gotten away with standing up to this stupidity, it should have been them. |
Depending on where you are going, you can often find at least one alternative. It's partially my fault that I didn't look at the airline. You're correct in that BA does not have many competitors. But let's say you were traveling in the U.S... You would have Delta, Southwest, American Airlines, United Airlines, etc.
I didn't really focus too much on the actual airline. It's the business principle that I focused more on. I don't blame businesses that cave into crap like this because it's often in their best business interest. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| So when you're president you're allowed absolutely no personal life? I understand dress codes on the job, but even the president of the United States gets some time off and I really think it's no ones business who he shakes hands with during that time or what kind of t-shirt he wears. It's easy to argue that there needs to be some sort of dress code when making an appearance on television or at a convention, but I do not think it's very easy to argue that the president shouldn't be able to wear whatever the hell he wants when off the job and/or on vacation unless you can argue that the president has to agree to relinquish their entire personal life even when on vacation or at home during their term. |
Hypothetically, if a sitting president were to have an extra-marital affair... that wouldn't be a matter of public interest, right? i mean, it's not something you'd try to impeach them for, right? Or, hypothetically, if a president's spiritual adviser turned out to be a raging racist... that's not a matter of public concern, right? i mean, their preacher is a matter of private preference, not relating to their position, right?
No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. For the period that he is in power, the president is a figurehead for the government. Everything he or she does in the public eye matters. When the president is "off the job" or "on vacation"... he's not. He's being photographed all the time. You've seen the pictures of Bush on his ranch playing Brokeback and Obama swimming shirtless.
Seriously, think about it. If Obama took "a week off" and then arranged a drunken orgy - in his own private home, while on vacation - don't you think that would be big news, and a major embarrassment to America?
If the president wants to wear a "Jesus Rules" T-shirt (or a "Black Power" T-shirt, or a fursuit, just to point out to the persecution complex hypochondriac Christians that this is not just a Christian thing, or even a religious thing), then he damn well better do it when he's sure he can't be seen. And that's certainly not the same as "on vacation", hm?
If being a proper figurehead is too restricting - if he can't go four years without wearing a "Jesus Rules" T-shirt (8 if he gets re-elected) he can always quit... because really, that's rather pathetic if he can't live up to that standard.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Now, see, i've already explained why the change in policy makes no rational sense, and opens BA up to far more harm than good. But i haven't yet dealt with this idea that it's the correct decision business-wise.
Now... let's be realistic. How many Christians are really going to boycott anything for such a stupid reason - especially if BA explained the problem properly? Don't give more power to the mouthy minority than they really have... they're not that big. It's a small group of loudmouths. They can be ignored. |
Maybe I just have a crazy/unique family? My family is full of people who have certain grudges with a handful of companies that uphold non-Christian values. Maybe it's just my damn family and relatives, but I was under the impression that there were probably many more people like them... |
Mm, maybe. i would bet that the number of people who would actually follow through on a "Christian boycott" is less than 5%.
But really, to be frank, the most hard-core of the hard-core Christians aren't really the cosmopolitan type. They don't really travel all that much, hm? If Christians were up in arms about boycotting a Christian bookstore i might be concerned for the economic consequences... but an airline? Feh.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Depending on where you are going, you can often find at least one alternative. It's partially my fault that I didn't look at the airline. You're correct in that BA does not have many competitors. But let's say you were traveling in the U.S... You would have Delta, Southwest, American Airlines, United Airlines, etc.
I didn't really focus too much on the actual airline. It's the business principle that I focused more on. I don't blame businesses that cave into crap like this because it's often in their best business interest. |
You can almost always find at least one alternative... but the thing about the airline industry is that that alternative is rarely a competitor. Virtually all the airlines in the world are linked into two or three massive conglomerates. American Airlines is partnered with British Airways; United Airlines, US Airways and Continental Airlines... not just partnered, merged. Delta and Northwest, partnered. Etc. etc. Basically, you have Star Alliance, SkyTeam and oneworld and... that's it. In fact, i'm pretty sure that that is literally the entirety of the international airline industry.
The reason why you can almost always find at least one alternative is because the airlines are paranoid about making it seem like there's no competition, so they create "fake" competition by getting partners to run the "competing" route. For example, the Toronto-Berlin route serviced by Air Canada will also be serviced by Lufthansa... both partners. And even when they're not actually partnered on paper, they're "partnered" unofficially. For example, one of my relatives, a former (or current?) Air Canada purser, regularly worked the Toronto-Tel Aviv route, from Toronto to Tel Aviv but couldn't work the flight back (their working hours are limited by law), and would hitch a ride on an El Al flight back... and, officially, Air Canada and El Al are competitors.
The bottom line is that boycotts won't hurt any of these companies. The only kind of boycott that hurts them is boycotting air travel altogether, not just a single airline.
What BA did is not only a shining example of corporate cowardice overriding sense, it was also a horrible mistake. As Bikerman pointed out, their updated regulations now allow you to wear swastikas, or whatever else you like so long as it is representative of any religion or political philosophy. It's unfortunate that people lose their marbles over religion so easily, because it creates so many unnecessary problems that could have been avoided by a calm assessment. They should have just told Nadia Eweida "Ok... have a nice swim". | Indi wrote: |
Hypothetically, if a sitting president were to have an extra-marital affair... that wouldn't be a matter of public interest, right? i mean, it's not something you'd try to impeach them for, right? Or, hypothetically, if a president's spiritual adviser turned out to be a raging racist... that's not a matter of public concern, right? i mean, their preacher is a matter of private preference, not relating to their position, right?
No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. For the period that he is in power, the president is a figurehead for the government. Everything he or she does in the public eye matters. When the president is "off the job" or "on vacation"... he's not. He's being photographed all the time. You've seen the pictures of Bush on his ranch playing Brokeback and Obama swimming shirtless.
Seriously, think about it. If Obama took "a week off" and then arranged a drunken orgy - in his own private home, while on vacation - don't you think that would be big news, and a major embarrassment to America?
If the president wants to wear a "Jesus Rules" T-shirt (or a "Black Power" T-shirt, or a fursuit, just to point out to the persecution complex hypochondriac Christians that this is not just a Christian thing, or even a religious thing), then he damn well better do it when he's sure he can't be seen. And that's certainly not the same as "on vacation", hm?
If being a proper figurehead is too restricting - if he can't go four years without wearing a "Jesus Rules" T-shirt (8 if he gets re-elected) he can always quit... because really, that's rather pathetic if he can't live up to that standard. |
And I have always argued that the media shouldn't be allowed to put that kind of crap up when the president is on vacation. It just shouldn't happen that way... But of course that will never change because in my opinion, the media is the piss stain of this world.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Mm, maybe. i would bet that the number of people who would actually follow through on a "Christian boycott" is less than 5%.
But really, to be frank, the most hard-core of the hard-core Christians aren't really the cosmopolitan type. They don't really travel all that much, hm? If Christians were up in arms about boycotting a Christian bookstore i might be concerned for the economic consequences... but an airline? Feh. |
LoL, I guess my family gets weirder. As far as the "most hard-core of the hard-core Christians not traveling much..." My father travels internationally on business (or sometimes on vacation) about 150 days a year. But that's beside the point...
So you think the population of people who would follow through on a Christian boycott is less than 5%? Maybe. I thought it would be much higher in the "Bible Belt" where most of my family lives. I thought the only reason I hadn't been exposed to it much is because I tend to stay the hell away from there and it's much more secular where I'm located in Southern California...
But let's say that it is much greater than 5%, like 25%. Then what I said would remain true, it's good for the company as far as a general business rule. If you're offending too many customers, then you should change and adapt to please your customers. I have a whole family that won't eat at Carls Jr. because of their "immoral television commercials." They've written letters to the company saying that they'll never eat their again. Now that doesn't make too much of a difference to them because other people like the commercials so they're probably picking up business elsewhere. But let's say that 25% of people write letters saying that they'll never eat their again and follow through with it! What are they going to do if they don't pick up additional customers elsewhere? They'll lose 25% of their business. So even if they see nothing wrong with it (like there's nothing wrong with creating a dress code for your employees and enforcing it), the only right thing would be to cave in, take the commercials off television, apologize, and hope you get some of those customers back.
| Indi wrote: |
You can almost always find at least one alternative... but the thing about the airline industry is that that alternative is rarely a competitor. Virtually all the airlines in the world are linked into two or three massive conglomerates. American Airlines is partnered with British Airways; United Airlines, US Airways and Continental Airlines... not just partnered, merged. Delta and Northwest, partnered. Etc. etc. Basically, you have Star Alliance, SkyTeam and oneworld and... that's it. In fact, i'm pretty sure that that is literally the entirety of the international airline industry.
The reason why you can almost always find at least one alternative is because the airlines are paranoid about making it seem like there's no competition, so they create "fake" competition by getting partners to run the "competing" route. For example, the Toronto-Berlin route serviced by Air Canada will also be serviced by Lufthansa... both partners. And even when they're not actually partnered on paper, they're "partnered" unofficially. For example, one of my relatives, a former (or current?) Air Canada purser, regularly worked the Toronto-Tel Aviv route, from Toronto to Tel Aviv but couldn't work the flight back (their working hours are limited by law), and would hitch a ride on an El Al flight back... and, officially, Air Canada and El Al are competitors.
The bottom line is that boycotts won't hurt any of these companies. The only kind of boycott that hurts them is boycotting air travel altogether, not just a single airline.
What BA did is not only a shining example of corporate cowardice overriding sense, it was also a horrible mistake. As Bikerman pointed out, their updated regulations now allow you to wear swastikas, or whatever else you like so long as it is representative of any religion or political philosophy. It's unfortunate that people lose their marbles over religion so easily, because it creates so many unnecessary problems that could have been avoided by a calm assessment. They should have just told Nadia Eweida "Ok... have a nice swim". |
Well I've already agreed that I was wrong in this since with the airlines because I didn't think it through that they do not have very much competition, but my original post said that they made the correct business decision. And I still think that for many businesses, that would be the correct business choice.Are there any limits? . . . by Bluedoll
Indi you write very well and I do understand well your viewpoints. I do agree, there is irritation about having people push something on others without any regard for listening to any other viewpoints or seeking to understand. I also agree with having respect. It is the key ingredient for having any kind of happiness solution.
Although your points are well laid out, I think one has to be careful in taking action. Praying or talking does not necessarily imply a pushy attitude to others or a way to change an outcome. It can simply be, for example, a thankful prayer.
A penalty box does have a purpose. For anyone to say, this is allowed or not allowed is a very tricking thing since if the application is such that you restrict praying at for instance hockey games you will have elected at that point in time to engender another type of religion. Dictatorship does have its own set of beliefs.
Personally, I do not belong to a religious organization on this planet but do have my spiritual convictions.
My point is our personal religion is not or perhaps with some individuals, should not be solely about demonstrating or governing. It is about what we believe in because everyone believes in something right?
We could say we are here to watch and participate in the hockey game not religion so out with it. But what else will be put an end to? Forget the national anthem too? No more cheering about being happy at the game? What will replace it? Sneering, swearing and throwing garbage at the crowd? In that case, think I will stay out of the hockey arena.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| And I have always argued that the media shouldn't be allowed to put that kind of crap up when the president is on vacation. It just shouldn't happen that way... But of course that will never change because in my opinion, the media is the piss stain of this world. |
The president invites them. He could certainly hide away from the media if he really wanted.
He knows he is "on camera" when he is on vacation, and he wants to be. Therefore, even though he is "on vacation", he's still on the job - as a figurehead if nothing else. And as figurehead of the government and the people, he is not free to do or wear whatever strikes his fancy.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| But let's say that it is much greater than 5%, like 25%. Then what I said would remain true, it's good for the company as far as a general business rule. If you're offending too many customers, then you should change and adapt to please your customers. I have a whole family that won't eat at Carls Jr. because of their "immoral television commercials." They've written letters to the company saying that they'll never eat their again. Now that doesn't make too much of a difference to them because other people like the commercials so they're probably picking up business elsewhere. But let's say that 25% of people write letters saying that they'll never eat their again and follow through with it! What are they going to do if they don't pick up additional customers elsewhere? They'll lose 25% of their business. So even if they see nothing wrong with it (like there's nothing wrong with creating a dress code for your employees and enforcing it), the only right thing would be to cave in, take the commercials off television, apologize, and hope you get some of those customers back. |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Well I've already agreed that I was wrong in this since with the airlines because I didn't think it through that they do not have very much competition, but my original post said that they made the correct business decision. And I still think that for many businesses, that would be the correct business choice. |
Orly? ^_^
What if i were running a "competing" airline - let's say BMI - and i had the same uniform policy (no trinkets), and the will to stick to it. Now, let's go back to before BA changed the policy - Nadia has filed her complaint, and you are deciding what to do. You have two options - you can stick to your guns, or you can cave.
Suppose you decided to stick to your guns (which BA did not). If an uproar was raised, then logically the first thing you should do is point out that your competitors all have same policy. "If you're going to boycott us, you'll have boycott our competitors, too. Have a nice swim." Net result: no appreciable loss.
Now, suppose you decided to cave (which BA did). You play it up for brownie points in the press... and i see an opportunity. i contact dozens and dozens of your employees - maybe hundreds - and offer them cash sums and guaranteed equivalent employment if they lose their jobs (plus some other perks! which you'll see in a minute!) to wear pins for all kinds of ridiculous religions and political ideologies. Swastikas, white power badges, "meat eaters are murderers" as they serve the chicken dinners, you name it. Under British law, since BA allowed crosses, they cannot deny any of these. If BA takes action against any of them, the employees involved can sue for a hefty sum (perk!) (and they'll have another job lined up just in case). So you made 25% happy by kissing ass? Well now you're going to make 90% annoyed, if you consider all the ignorant and hateful ideologies possible to depict. ^_^ Net result: big loss for you.
And let's consider the last possibility - you stick to your guns, but i sell out and trumpet my goodness. Well, then you can do to me what i just outlined above. Net result: big loss for me, which means gain for you.
So you see?
BA caves, BMI caves: draw
BA caves, BMI stands up: BMI wins
BA stands up, BMI stands up: draw
BA stands up, BMI caves: BA wins
In other words, the only way you really win from a business perspective, is if you don't cave in. If everyone caves, then no one wins or loses.
The problem is that business assessments are always made by such narrow-visioned people. The BA people couldn't see past the next quarter. If they'd looked at the larger picture, the truly safe move was to stick to their guns. Now, if they're lucky, the people at BMI won't take advantage of their stupid decision... or in other words, BA's decision was "safe" if and only if it's competitors are nice, or if everyone caves the same way. Does it sound wise to take a risky business decision based on the hope that your competitors are nice, or that they copy you instead of making a decision that will give them an edge over you?
Nope, i say again, BA made a stupid decision. They'll get away with it only because their competitors will all cave too, probably. Or, so they hope.
But the first company that has the balls to stand up to people like Nadia, and the will to use the advantage they get from standing up... they'll be the company that wins out. | Indi wrote: |
| Swastikas, white power badges, "meat eaters are murderers" as they serve the chicken dinners, you name it. |
I'm just wondering something... Do you ever take a stance on anything? Based on your posts, you seem to categorize everything into some category and then you have an algorithm in that head that pulls everything out once you pull one thing from that category out.
Who's to say that if I, as a business owner (I don't actually own a business; I'm being hypothetical), let my employees wear a small religious symbol (like a cross or Star of David) that I would have to let them wear a swastika? I could always ban swastikas because they promote hate but then allow certain religious symbols (like small crosses or Star of Davids) to be worn.
You tend to do this a lot. I suggested one time that students should be allowed to form a Bible Study Club if they want and then you responded by telling me that then we'd have to let them for a swingers club where the students would have orgies after school...
So that point isn't a very good one. You can let employees wear certain religious symbols but then not allow them to wear other political symbols that promotes hate.
My point, however, remains the same. Businesses do not want to do things that will piss customers off. Maybe this isn't a very good example because I thought that there would probably be more cases like my family that would actually boycott companies over them doing something non-Christian... But the business principle remains the same... If you can do something simple, then you might as well do it if it will keep more customers...Well... I haven't really contributed my own ideas to this topic so I will do that now.
Religion seems to have almost no limits. Christians tend to think that anything that doesn't follow their beliefs is worthy of a lawsuit and being shut down. Unfortunately, stupid governments tend to cave in. I'm familiar with this happening in the United States, but it is not limited to the U.S. Here is an example from Poland.
| Quote: |
| Behemoth may at some point become banned from playing in their native country, Poland. In July 2007 the All-Polish Committee for Defense Against Sects distributed a list of bands that allegedly promote Satanism and murder to many Polish officials. Critics of this policy primarily see this as a violation of free speech, with the most scathing criticism generally eminating from within the metal community. As of present, the list has not gone into effect, and Behemoth is still allowed to play in Poland freely, but the band provoked further controversy in February 2008 when an official complaint had been registered by the committee, which cited a bible-tearing incident on behalf of band frontman Nergal at a concert in September 2007. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth_%28band%29#Controversy
So anything that promotes Satanism should be banned? That is a clear violation of free speech. There was controversy because Nergal tore a bible up on stage? What is wrong with that? So what if it pisses a few Christians off; they're not the only religion on this planet. Besides, tearing up Bibles isn't too bad. When I saw Marilyn Manson, he did it... Ahh... but he has his own controversy.
| Quote: |
In addition, the band's performances have come under fire the Dead to the World Tour, in particular, was followed by protesters at nearly every North American venue it visited. The band's March 10, 1997 performance in Columbia, South Carolina was canceled "in response to growing public pressure by religious, civic and political leaders who criticized the group's image".[37] The owner of Calgary's Max Bell Centre had Marilyn Manson's July 25 show canceled, citing "immorality" and the band's "use of animals on stage." Another concert in Portland was canceled a few days later due to Manson's reputation, and the venue's inability to get insurance for the show.[38]
The New Jersey date of Ozzfest '97, to be held at Giants Stadium, was canceled by the New Jersey Sports and Exhibition Authority, who cited Marilyn Manson's performance as its reason; the event was only held after Ozzy Osbourne himself successfully sued the state, which compelled the authorities to allow the concert. Legislation was introduced and passed in South Carolina and Utah allowing state-operated venues to ban groups like Marilyn Manson from performing and, in at least one instance, in Florida, local schools have gone so far as to threaten expulsion for students in attendance of Marilyn Manson concerts. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Manson_%28band%29#Controversy
Woah...Woah...Woah! Growing pressure from religious, civic, and political leaders? Why in the Hell do they have the right to censor? Do you honestly think it's right to ban bands from playing in state-operated venues? Sure if it's a private venue I can understand. If I owned a venue, I wouldn't allow certain bands to play there simply because I think they're crap. But a state-operated venue? The last sentence really bothered me... Those Florida schools were being completely unconstitutional. I would have gone to the show, gotten a picture of me there (probably drunk and flipping off the camera - just to make matters worse), and then brought it to the principal at school. Now what does this have to do with religion? Well I am sure that many of the people who were working endlessly to get Marilyn Manson banned from playing were doing it on religious principles.
Now I cannot leave out the great country of India...
| Quote: |
| In India, the album was recalled by EMI India after protests with Christian religious groups due to the nature of the graphic artwork. The album cover was designed by Slayer's longtime collaborator Larry Carroll and features Christ in a "sea of despair", while having amputated arms, missing an eye, while standing in a sea of blood with severed heads.[102] Joseph Dias of the Mumbai Christian group Catholic Secular Forum in India took "strong exception" to the original album artwork, and issued a memorandum to Mumbai's police commissioner in protest.[103] On October 11, 2006, EMI announced that all stocks had been destroyed, noting it had no plans to re-release the record in India in the future. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slayer#Controversy
So some Christians actually successfully got a Slayer album banned from their country? That's complete and utter bullshit. It's clearly stepping over their boundaries, forcing their bloody religion on other people, and stopping free-speech (I'll consider an album cover free-speech).
In my opinion, any time that any religious group tries to censor anyone, they're overstepping their boundaries and pushing their endless limits. There's millions of example that I can site, but I'll just leave it with one more example to where religious groups tried to censor...
| Quote: |
| Ozzy Osbourne found himself under fire in his controversial concert and stage acts that some parent-teacher associations, media content watchdog activist groups, including many Christian groups accused Osbourne of being a negative influence for teenagers. They claimed messages on his songs, actions (the infamous "horned hand") and stage decorations are portrayals of devil worship and glorified Satanism, but Osbourne denies these accusations and he claims it was done in good fun, symbolised teenage rebellion and for shock value...........At least one scholar has compared the controversy surrounding Osbourne and accusations of Satanism to those leveled against the renowned occultist, Aleister Crowley, and how both were demonized by the media and the Christian Right for their antics. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozzy_Osbourne
I honestly get sick of religious people stepping in and trying to censor movies, video games, music, books (I think this is the worst because it stunts the gain of knowledge), etc. Song lyrics are an expression of beliefs and/or emotion and so to censor it is absolutely horrible. Religious groups need to mind their own business and stay out of other people's business. Banning an album because of it's cover or banning an entire band from playing in a country is just despicable... I believe Iron Maiden was banned from playing shows in Chile until recently because the church there basically had all control, and Maiden has the whole Number Of The Beast stuff going on (which is an extremely silly reason to ban a band; it was just a story-song, hardly even worth controversy).
In the world we live in, religion has zero limits. Politicians have to 'one-up' each others faith, religious leaders carry influence on scientific matters, and they even found a way to face Mecca from space. I'd say that religion has infested just about every aspect of our existence. So my answer is no, they have no limits.
What limits, if any, should they have?
Tough question. I like the idea of freedom, but my 5th grade teacher used to say "your rights end where mine begin". Meaning that one person is free to do as they want, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another. Even if the rights they are exercising are absurd and silly. So some aging wretch in Italy wants to dress like Liberace and talk to an invisible man-god while symbolically eating his flesh and drinking his blood? Fine by me. You want to follow that guy? Fine by me as well. Just don't shove it down my throat or try to legislate that sill sh*t.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| So some Christians actually successfully got a Slayer album banned from their country? |
Ironically, Tom Araya(bass, vocals) of Slayer was born Catholic and has a strong belief in god.
This is where I feel religion goes too far. The religious powers-that-be tend to think that any imagery which is disturbing also runs contrary to morality(I won't even go into the hypocrisy of their most sacred symbol being that of a tortured man nailed to a cross). This is the problem that most metal bands contend with. They are rarely actual satan worshipers or Nazi supporters, but they use such images in their music to show people the darker side of life and death. None of this matters to the major religions though, they just don't like the images and want to lay their law down. They do it with abortion and gay rights, stem cell research, and art. They are only able to do it because of their ability to influence(own) politicians. Like I said, if someone wants to practice religion, I have no problem with it, but I do have a problem with religion getting too big for it's britches and dictating what is legal/moral according to a set of beliefs which have been used to justify many of the worlds darkest periods of ignorance, intolerance, death, and destruction. | Ophois wrote: |
| Ironically, Tom Araya(bass, vocals) of Slayer was born Catholic and has a strong belief in god. |
Yeah lol. I always found that ironic. That's why I like Tom. Kerry King and Jeff Hanneman write the satanism stuff because they're both atheists (well King is open about it and I'm just guessing that Hanneman is). I was just looking at my albums, the lyrics in The Antichrist, South of Heaven, Hell Awaits, etc. were all written by either Jeff or Kerry. And even though Tom disagrees with it, he will still sing it because he recognizes that the band isn't all about him and the other members like it... | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Yeah lol. I always found that ironic. That's why I like Tom. Kerry King and Jeff Hanneman write the satanism stuff because they're both atheists (well King is open about it and I'm just guessing that Hanneman is). I was just looking at my albums, the lyrics in The Antichrist, South of Heaven, Hell Awaits, etc. were all written by either Jeff or Kerry. And even though Tom disagrees with it, he will still sing it because he recognizes that the band isn't all about him and the other members like it... |
I especially like when Tom was asked about how he reconciles his religious beliefs with the album title of "God hates us all", he said something along the lines of "God doesn't hate... but it's a great fu*king title!". A couple atheists and a believer in the same band, mixing religion, secularism, business, and social gatherings with not a single problem(at least nothing of consequence)... and Christianity has the audacity to call them offensive? Yeah, I'd say religion has gone way too far. | Ophois wrote: |
| and Christianity has the audacity to call them offensive? Yeah, I'd say religion has gone way too far. |
Well... I sort of disagree. Christianity can say whatever they want is offensive. That doesn't affect me at all. If I went to church (which is something I hate doing, but let's just say I did) and the priest/pastor said, "The heavy metal band Slayer has a new album coming out this November called World Painted Blood and you should not listen to it because it's offensive" then that really wouldn't bother me... They can call whatever they want offensive because it doesn't affect me... However, when Christian groups go and get an entire album banned from the country so that the rest of us non-Christians can't listen to it, then that's definitely over the boundary (and extremely selfish - just because they don't like it doesn't mean no one else can), or when they go and get an entire band banned from a country so that if I lived in Poland I couldn't see one of my favorite bands, Behemoth or if I lived in Chile I couldn't see Iron Maiden, then that's over the line (and extremely selfish). Or when you make it to where people that you don't like cannot play in a public venue and so that I cannot see Marilyn Manson, then that's over stepping the line for religion. But to just say, "This is offensive, do not listen to it" doesn't really bother me at all because I'll just shrug, say "to each his own" and move on... | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I'm just wondering something... Do you ever take a stance on anything? Based on your posts, you seem to categorize everything into some category and then you have an algorithm in that head that pulls everything out once you pull one thing from that category out. |
My schtick is intellectual honesty, and my pet peeve is double standards that people apply - applying different rules to things that they hate vs. things that they like.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Who's to say that if I, as a business owner (I don't actually own a business; I'm being hypothetical), let my employees wear a small religious symbol (like a cross or Star of David) that I would have to let them wear a swastika? I could always ban swastikas because they promote hate but then allow certain religious symbols (like small crosses or Star of Davids) to be worn.
[...]
So that point isn't a very good one. You can let employees wear certain religious symbols but then not allow them to wear other political symbols that promotes hate. |
No, you can't. And the "who's to say" is the government of the UK. As i explained to Bikerman: "Incidentally, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but in your country, the Religious Discrimination Regulations of 2003, extended 6 April 2007, include any "genuine philosophical belief, including political belief". So... yes. A swastika would be covered (even though, technically, you could wear a swastika as a Hindu, FYI, and they can't make you take it off (i'm such a shit disturber))."
So, no, sorry, BA can't discriminate against certain symbols. It's all or none. By law.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| You tend to do this a lot. I suggested one time that students should be allowed to form a Bible Study Club if they want and then you responded by telling me that then we'd have to let them for a swingers club where the students would have orgies after school... |
That is a blatant lie. What actually happened is that you were trying to claim that teachers bore no responsibility for clubs they sanctioned, provided the clubs did all the right paperwork. i used the swingers club to example that even if a club was created properly according to all procedures, and even if it were entirely student-organized, teachers would still be liable if they signed off on it.
At no point did i say that if you allowed Bible Study Clubs, you would have to allow swingers clubs. i said that if teachers could be held responsible for allowing students to run a swingers club, they could also be held responsible for allowing students to run a religious club.Really? Blatant lie? I consider myself to be a pretty honest person...
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| My school also had a Bible Study that was ran by students and a pastor at a local church during lunch. This pastor did it every year at the local schools. He would pick one day of the week for each school and go to that school at lunch time and hold a Bible Study in a classroom that was voluntarily given up by a supporting teacher. That was ran like any other student organization. They still had to file all of the paperwork. Many people felt that the school was endorsing a religion by allowing a Bible Study to happen in one of their classrooms at lunch, giving it a page in the yearbook, and announcing it over the morning announcements, but I disagree. They were just doing the same thing that they did for all other clubs (by advertising it on the morning announcements periodically, giving it a page in the yearbook, and allowing it to happen). I saw nothing wrong with this "official prayer" on school property because it was voluntary and on lunch time. |
| Indi wrote: |
| The "it was just like other clubs" argument is absolutely ridiculous. Think about it: "Oh, yeah, there was this swingers club where all the students would have orgies in a classroom after school. But it did all the paperwork other clubs did (and it was run only by students), so it was just like any other club." Come on. -_- If the group's precepts are wrong right from the start, who cares if their paperwork is in order? i mean, really. |
That was exactly what I said and exactly what you said in response to that paragraph (well not exactly - I ommitted your previous paragraph because that wasn't what we are looking at). Like I said, I was talking about a Bible Study class and you took it completely out of proportion by turning it into a Swinger's Club. On that thread I also told you to take a stance on an issue and also told you that a Swinger's Club would, of course, be illegal because PDA is illegal.... Anyways....
I'm not an expert on U.K. law, but there is probably some loophole to where they can ban swastikas, not on religious/political belief, but on the label of it being considered hatred. Or they can have swastikas be against the dress code and then not cave in when they're sued again.
Furthermore, it is very unlikely that this issue would come up. And if it did come up, I am sure that they'd have plenty of support and would most likely win their case against not allowing swastikas. Furthermore, even if it did come up, they can then just ban all religious/political symbols against dress code like they had before and then this time say that they have nothing against Christianity, but that they were forced to ban them because of a lawsuit... Now they at least look good and are essentially in the same place.
Last edited by Afaceinthematrix on Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:29 am; edited 1 time in total | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Well... I sort of disagree. |
Yeah that's where I was going with that. Basically I don't care what people say, hell... I offend people every day, and they offend me. No big deal. But this banning of art based on religious beliefs has got to stop. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Really? Blatant lie? I consider myself to be a pretty honest person...
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | My school also had a Bible Study that was ran by students and a pastor at a local church during lunch. This pastor did it every year at the local schools. He would pick one day of the week for each school and go to that school at lunch time and hold a Bible Study in a classroom that was voluntarily given up by a supporting teacher. That was ran like any other student organization. They still had to file all of the paperwork. Many people felt that the school was endorsing a religion by allowing a Bible Study to happen in one of their classrooms at lunch, giving it a page in the yearbook, and announcing it over the morning announcements, but I disagree. They were just doing the same thing that they did for all other clubs (by advertising it on the morning announcements periodically, giving it a page in the yearbook, and allowing it to happen). I saw nothing wrong with this "official prayer" on school property because it was voluntary and on lunch time. |
| Indi wrote: | | The "it was just like other clubs" argument is absolutely ridiculous. Think about it: "Oh, yeah, there was this swingers club where all the students would have orgies in a classroom after school. But it did all the paperwork other clubs did (and it was run only by students), so it was just like any other club." Come on. -_- If the group's precepts are wrong right from the start, who cares if their paperwork is in order? i mean, really. |
That was exactly what I said and exactly what you said in response to that paragraph (well not exactly - I ommitted your previous paragraph because that wasn't what we are looking at). Like I said, I was talking about a Bible Study class and you took it completely out of proportion by turning it into a Swinger's Club. On that thread I also told you to take a stance on an issue and also told you that a Swinger's Club would, of course, be illegal because PDA is illegal.... Anyways.... |
i am aware of what i said, and what you said that i replied to. i did not say that if you allowed Bible study clubs, you would have to allow swingers clubs. That is a lie. i used swingers clubs as an example of why your justifications for a Bible study club were flawed. It's right there in the text you quoted: i said your claim (that if the club broke no rules it was ok, regardless of the fact that it is a religious club) was ridiculous, then i used an example (IN QUOTES EVEN) to show how it was flawed (that if a swingers club broke no rules, would it be ok regardless of the fact that it was a sex club?), and then explicitly repeated the point of the example ("If the group's precepts are wrong right from the start, who cares if their paperwork is in order?").
i did not say that you would have to allow swingers clubs under any circumstances, let alone that you would have to allow them if you allowed Bible clubs. That was a lie.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I'm not an expert on U.K. law, but there is probably some loophole to where they can ban swastikas, not on religious/political belief, but on the label of it being considered hatred. Or they can have swastikas be against the dress code and then not cave in when they're sued again. |
No, they can't. That would be a violation of the anti-discrimination law. So long as they allow any religious/political symbols, they have to allow all religious/political symbols. It's right in the law. You can't just break it if you don't like it.
Besides, they can't ban swastikas as hate symbols, because (as i already explained) they are Hindu religious symbols. i can walk around covered with swastikas, and you can't stop me so long as i claim i am wearing them to represent Hindu.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Furthermore, it is very unlikely that this issue would come up. And if it did come up, I am sure that they'd have plenty of support and would most likely win their case against not allowing swastikas. |
"Support" is irrelevant. Legality is not decided by popularity contests, it is decided by a reading of the laws of the land. The law is quite plain on this: allow none, or allow all. Discrimination is illegal.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Furthermore, even if it did come up, they can then just ban all religious/political symbols against dress code like they had before and then this time say that they have nothing against Christianity, but that they were forced to ban them because of a lawsuit... Now they at least look good and are essentially in the same place. |
So, after all is said and done, BA will now have bad publicity for its crew wearing swastikas (pissing off people that hate Nazis)... plus bad publicity for the attempted discrimination in telling one person to remove their symbol but not others simply because they don't agree with it (pissing off people that believe in equality and non-discrimination)... plus bad publicity when they finally have to re-ban all symbols (pissing Nadia Eweida and her cronies again, plus everyone else who got a chance to wear their insignia and are now being denied)....
Versus - if they had just stuck to their guns - just pissing off Nadia Eweida and her cronies....
Yeah. i say again. BA made a stupid decision to cave. The smart move here was not to bow to public pressure. | Indi wrote: |
i am aware of what i said, and what you said that i replied to. i did not say that if you allowed Bible study clubs, you would have to allow swingers clubs. That is a lie. i used swingers clubs as an example of why your justifications for a Bible study club were flawed. It's right there in the text you quoted: i said your claim (that if the club broke no rules it was ok, regardless of the fact that it is a religious club) was ridiculous, then i used an example (IN QUOTES EVEN) to show how it was flawed (that if a swingers club broke no rules, would it be ok regardless of the fact that it was a sex club?), and then explicitly repeated the point of the example ("If the group's precepts are wrong right from the start, who cares if their paperwork is in order?"). |
But then I told you that swingers clubs aren't allowed because they DO break rules and that if there is an inappropriate club, rules can be added... It's not that hard to add rules. In my high school, there was a rather large book of rules and new ones were added all the time...
| Quote: |
So, after all is said and done, BA will now have bad publicity for its crew wearing swastikas (pissing off people that hate Nazis)... plus bad publicity for the attempted discrimination in telling one person to remove their symbol but not others simply because they don't agree with it (pissing off people that believe in equality and non-discrimination)... plus bad publicity when they finally have to re-ban all symbols (pissing Nadia Eweida and her cronies again, plus everyone else who got a chance to wear their insignia and are now being denied)....
Versus - if they had just stuck to their guns - just pissing off Nadia Eweida and her cronies....
Yeah. i say again. BA made a stupid decision to cave. The smart move here was not to bow to public pressure. |
No. In the eyes of many customers, they'll have come out looking better. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
i am aware of what i said, and what you said that i replied to. i did not say that if you allowed Bible study clubs, you would have to allow swingers clubs. That is a lie. i used swingers clubs as an example of why your justifications for a Bible study club were flawed. It's right there in the text you quoted: i said your claim (that if the club broke no rules it was ok, regardless of the fact that it is a religious club) was ridiculous, then i used an example (IN QUOTES EVEN) to show how it was flawed (that if a swingers club broke no rules, would it be ok regardless of the fact that it was a sex club?), and then explicitly repeated the point of the example ("If the group's precepts are wrong right from the start, who cares if their paperwork is in order?"). |
But then I told you that swingers clubs aren't allowed because they DO break rules and that if there is an inappropriate club, rules can be added... It's not that hard to add rules. In my high school, there was a rather large book of rules and new ones were added all the time... |
That was beside the point, and replied to that... but the bottom line is that i did not say that if you allowed Bible study clubs you would have to allow swingers clubs, hm?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Quote: |
So, after all is said and done, BA will now have bad publicity for its crew wearing swastikas (pissing off people that hate Nazis)... plus bad publicity for the attempted discrimination in telling one person to remove their symbol but not others simply because they don't agree with it (pissing off people that believe in equality and non-discrimination)... plus bad publicity when they finally have to re-ban all symbols (pissing Nadia Eweida and her cronies again, plus everyone else who got a chance to wear their insignia and are now being denied)....
Versus - if they had just stuck to their guns - just pissing off Nadia Eweida and her cronies....
Yeah. i say again. BA made a stupid decision to cave. The smart move here was not to bow to public pressure. |
No. In the eyes of many customers, they'll have come out looking better. |
For the short term, maybe. And in the long term they will probably get away without having to face the consequences of their stupidity. But, as i explained in detail, that will not be because they were smart, it would be because they were lucky.Why do people presume that religion is the source of the problem. There are fanatics in every source including science. As for the argument of whether we use religion to much, the answer is it depends on how we use it. Using religion against abortion is a good cause so it is right but using religion to suppress someone or a people is wrong. Praying that we may not get harmed in a hockey game is right but praying that we win is wrong, because the outcome does not threaten or humanity. Its like using the lords name in vane. Praying that we will win a game is wrong because it does not take into account whether any of the other team is praying too. Also its like praying to one god to keep allowing you to follow a false one. That again is wrong because the god they are prying to says that hockey is not a god. Most sports these days have been wrongfully elevated to the status of religion in the eyes of the followers. A thousand years ago we had crusades and jihads but now we have football hooliganism. At football games we see people waving the flags of countries and of the teams they are supporting as if they are going to war. They sing songs and cheer to frighten the opposite team and to strengthen there own, much like how the Celts would have done before they charged the ranks of Rome. And as for abortion, how would you like it if someone where to chop of your head. You would probably scream for help. You would most defiantly feel pain. Or if you were to witness someone having their head chopped of how you react. What if you had to watch them struggle for their lives with fail and then witness their finale breath before the fall of the axe. You would probably imagine the emotion they and you would feel in this situation. But now imagine that you cannot scream for help or you cannot look to another for support. You are blind and all you can feel is the cold blunt texture of the blade on the back of your neck slicing and hacking through your skin and bone. its the pain we cannot express that we fear the most. So imagine how a child in its mothers womb would feel when its about to be scrapped from the only comfort and warmth its knows. Is it reasonable to presume that just because it is incapable of screaming for help that it does not posses life or a soul. Is it reasonable to presume that it cant feel emotion or any degree of pain. How would you feel towards a pet of yours being slaughtered before your eyes, but then you would forget that we slaughter animals every day for food, clothing and ornament. And now here we are committing an atrocity against a child that is not yet born. Just because it not running around intuitively with a smile on its face. Refusing it the privilege of life that we have. Abortion should not exist because it is not the question of whether life starts at conception. Its that we allowed conception to happen and that from then on they will become human and have the ability to feel, want, love, hate and fear. Its not religion that judges our actions as human beings but morality. And we created morality, or at least what we understand of it. If we are not willing to let a human being live when we have created it then we undermine our own right to live and morally I belief we have then forfeited our lifes to whom ever will enforce morality.
| R_Infest wrote: |
| Why do people presume that religion is the source of the problem. There are fanatics in every source including science. |
People try to fix the other fields where fanaticism arises (I'm not sure science is one of them; perhaps you could give some examples?). People make excuses for religion when fanaticism arises. Nothing changes.
| Quote: |
| As for the argument of whether we use religion to much, the answer is it depends on how we use it. Using religion against abortion is a good cause so it is right but using religion to suppress someone or a people is wrong. |
Why? What is this based upon?
Is there no contradiction? How is using religion to remove abortion rights or standing outside an abortion clinic heckling those who enter not suppressing people?
| Quote: |
| Praying that we may not get harmed in a hockey game is right but praying that we win is wrong, because the outcome does not threaten or humanity. Its like using the lords name in vane. Praying that we will win a game is wrong because it does not take into account whether any of the other team is praying too. |
Again, why? What is this based upon? Why does it matter if the other team is praying?
| Quote: |
| Also its like praying to one god to keep allowing you to follow a false one. That again is wrong because the god they are prying to says that hockey is not a god. Most sports these days have been wrongfully elevated to the status of religion in the eyes of the followers. |
Disagree completely. Being an avid fan of something is absolutely nothing like religion.
| Quote: |
| A thousand years ago we had crusades and jihads but now we have football hooliganism. At football games we see people waving the flags of countries and of the teams they are supporting as if they are going to war. |
We still have jihads. We still have people dying in the name of and because of Christianity.
| Quote: |
| They sing songs and cheer to frighten the opposite team and to strengthen there own, much like how the Celts would have done before they charged the ranks of Rome. |
Sure. Except they don't charge the other team with spears and axes and slice their necks off. Slight difference, isn't it? It's just part of the experience and part of the fun. Harm has surely come of it on occasion in the past when people have a bit too much alcohol or make stupid decisions, but they don't exactly use football or any other sport for justification of their actions.
| Quote: |
| And as for abortion, how would you like it if someone where to chop of your head. You would probably scream for help. You would most defiantly feel pain. Or if you were to witness someone having their head chopped of how you react. What if you had to watch them struggle for their lives with fail and then witness their finale breath before the fall of the axe. You would probably imagine the emotion they and you would feel in this situation. But now imagine that you cannot scream for help or you cannot look to another for support. You are blind and all you can feel is the cold blunt texture of the blade on the back of your neck slicing and hacking through your skin and bone. its the pain we cannot express that we fear the most. |
You're describing a beheading. A beheading =/= abortion
| Quote: |
| So imagine how a child in its mothers womb would feel when its about to be scrapped from the only comfort and warmth its knows. |
I imagine it feels nothing like a beheading at all.
| Quote: |
| Is it reasonable to presume that just because it is incapable of screaming for help that it does not posses life or a soul. |
Of course it possesses life; it's made up of living cells and tissues.
Define soul.
| Quote: |
| Is it reasonable to presume that it cant feel emotion or any degree of pain. |
That would depend entirely on what stage of the pregnancy the abortion occurs in.
| Quote: |
| How would you feel towards a pet of yours being slaughtered before your eyes, but then you would forget that we slaughter animals every day for food, clothing and ornament. |
I wouldn't equate a fetus with a pet in the first place. I wouldn't equate an abortion with the killing of a pet either.
| Quote: |
| Abortion should not exist because it is not the question of whether life starts at conception. Its that we allowed conception to happen and that from then on they will become human and have the ability to feel, want, love, hate and fear. |
It entirely depends on when the fetus can reasonably be considered a human being/person, and thus deserving of the same rights as a human being/person. I don't know what else it could possibly depend on. | R_Infest wrote: |
| Using religion against abortion is a good cause so it is right but using religion to suppress someone or a people is wrong. |
I did not think that religion was supposed to support "causes". Almost like something handy that you pull out to use when it suits you? This has to be religion being used "in vain". | deanhills wrote: |
| R_Infest wrote: | | Using religion against abortion is a good cause so it is right but using religion to suppress someone or a people is wrong. |
I did not think that religion was supposed to support "causes". Almost like something handy that you pull out to use when it suits you? This has to be religion being used "in vain". |
I would consider religion to be a 'cause', rather than support causes.
Even when a religion does charity work, it is usually under the pretense that they are showing the community how 'good' they are, in order to make their reputation better, which should help them gain converts.
I do get annoyed with people who just get religious when it suits their agenda though. (Like politicians often do.) | ocalhoun wrote: |
| I would consider religion to be a 'cause', rather than support causes. |
For me it would be a way of life, rather than a cause. Something that comes spontaneous without even thinking about it. | Indi wrote: |
| No. In the eyes of many customers, they'll have come out looking better. |
For the short term, maybe. And in the long term they will probably get away without having to face the consequences of their stupidity. But, as i explained in detail, that will not be because they were smart, it would be because they were lucky.[/quote]
Well I think they probably would actually be able to get away with it. It might technically be against the law, but laws aren't cut in stone and concrete. If they were not, we wouldn't have such complex court systems. Just consider the U.S... It's illegal to discriminate for a job on a basis of gender, race, and religion... It sounds nice and I definitely agree with the law... But it just so happens that people are discriminated against on those basis all of the time when it comes to jobs and many times I see it as quite justified. For instance, if I'm an elder on a Protestant Church board and we're selecting a new senior pastor, we'll, of course, be discriminating our candidates on the basis of religion (and in some denominations, gender). Wouldn't that be justified? You have to hire someone with the same religious views as you there... The same can be said about gender and race. If I'm directing a movie and I need an actor to play George Washington, then I'll of course hire an old white man over a man of any other race... That's what the part calls for... If I'm opening a topless bar then I'll, of course, hire only young women... See where I'm getting at? All of these are justified actions yet clearly illegal. If the airline company wanted to ban Swatsikas on the basis of it being a hate symbol (even though it is a valid religious symbol), I do think they'd be able to get away with it | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I did not think that religion was supposed to support "causes". Almost like something handy that you pull out to use when it suits you? This has to be religion being used "in vain". |
Wouldn't that imply that if someone stepped forward and campaigned against abortion (for example) on religious grounds, we could just dismiss them out of hand and exclude them from the discussion?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Well I think they probably would actually be able to get away with it. |
i agree they will almost certainly get away with it. i never said they wouldn't. i said that if they get away with it, it will not be because it was the smart thing to do, it will be because they are lucky.
My point was that they exist in a (supposedly) highly competitive environment - the free marketplace - yet they are presuming on the fact that their competitors won't capitalize on a weakness they have shown. Do you think that's smart? i don't. It may work, and probably will, but not because it was a smart move. It is, in effect, exposing yourself as a sheep in the middle of a wolf pack, and hoping that the all the other wolves around you are really sheep in disguise, too. Now, corporations are notoriously cowardly, so it will probably work. But it would only take one wolf....
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| It might technically be against the law, but laws aren't cut in stone and concrete. If they were not, we wouldn't have such complex court systems. Just consider the U.S... It's illegal to discriminate for a job on a basis of gender, race, and religion... It sounds nice and I definitely agree with the law... But it just so happens that people are discriminated against on those basis all of the time when it comes to jobs and many times I see it as quite justified. For instance, if I'm an elder on a Protestant Church board and we're selecting a new senior pastor, we'll, of course, be discriminating our candidates on the basis of religion (and in some denominations, gender). Wouldn't that be justified? You have to hire someone with the same religious views as you there... The same can be said about gender and race. If I'm directing a movie and I need an actor to play George Washington, then I'll of course hire an old white man over a man of any other race... That's what the part calls for... If I'm opening a topless bar then I'll, of course, hire only young women... See where I'm getting at? All of these are justified actions yet clearly illegal. |
i think you'll find that you have misread the law. i can't speak for the US, but the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination that does not reflect "occupational requirements" (that's an approximation of the wording, which i don't have with me). It is not always illegal to discriminate for a job on a basis of gender, race, and religion, and you listed cases where it is not. Obviously you would have to discriminate against people in wheelchairs when hiring firefighters; that's a legitimate occupational requirement. It is not, however, a legitimate occupational requirement to discriminate against brown people when hiring firefighters, and it is not a legitimate occupational requirement to discriminate against people in wheelchairs when hiring salespeople for a grocery store.
Or take Anna for example: one of the places she worked at was careful to declare her a "model" (or some kind of entertainer, i can't remember the details) and not a "waitress", because they could mandate her appearance as a model but not a waitress (read: they could fire her for getting fat or scarred). That was certainly abusing the spirit of the law, but it was undoubtedly in line with the letter of the law.
So no, those actions are not illegal.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| If the airline company wanted to ban Swatsikas on the basis of it being a hate symbol (even though it is a valid religious symbol), I do think they'd be able to get away with it |
No, they really won't. The law is can't just be ignored because it's incovenient. That's just not the way the law works. If the airline can make a solid argument - within the law, even if it's as shifty as the one used by that place where Anna worked - for why swastikas might be banned, then they would have a case. Otherwise they don't.
Laws aren't "cut in stone and concrete" in that we have a process for either changing them or getting a reprieve from them if you can make convincing enough arguments to judges. That doesn't mean they just don't apply when you can't be bothered to follow them. | Indi wrote: |
One of the things that endlessly frustrates those of us without any interest in religion is the determination with which the religious try to inject religion into every single facet of life. Whether it's praying before hockey games (because, come on, seriously, do you really think God is going to influence the outcome?), blessing the doorway the president will walk through, asking religious leaders permission to get boob jobs,... i could go on and on... there seems to be no corner of life that someone doesn't want to impose their religious opinion on.
i don't think that anyone would disagree that this isn't done far too much. (And if you don't think that people are pushing religion into far more than it should, behold: faith-based acting classes. Yes, for reals.) So the question is... how much is too much?
What aspects of life is it appropriate bring religion into? What aspects is it inappropriate? Where do you draw the line? How do you say "religion should have something to say about this, but not this"? Do you think there is a universal limit, or can anyone apply religion to whatever they want? And if they can, are we obligated to respect that? |
I dont think we are obligated to match other pplz religion, but we should respect it. They can believe in whatever they want to, but its too far when they try to change ur religion into what they believe. | Indi wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | I did not think that religion was supposed to support "causes". Almost like something handy that you pull out to use when it suits you? This has to be religion being used "in vain". |
Wouldn't that imply that if someone stepped forward and campaigned against abortion (for example) on religious grounds, we could just dismiss them out of hand and exclude them from the discussion? |
Hmmmm... I'll leave that for Deanhills to answer because I wasn't the one who said it - you misquoted by mistake.
| Quote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Well I think they probably would actually be able to get away with it. |
i agree they will almost certainly get away with it. i never said they wouldn't. i said that if they get away with it, it will not be because it was the smart thing to do, it will be because they are lucky.
My point was that they exist in a (supposedly) highly competitive environment - the free marketplace - yet they are presuming on the fact that their competitors won't capitalize on a weakness they have shown. Do you think that's smart? i don't. It may work, and probably will, but not because it was a smart move. It is, in effect, exposing yourself as a sheep in the middle of a wolf pack, and hoping that the all the other wolves around you are really sheep in disguise, too. Now, corporations are notoriously cowardly, so it will probably work. But it would only take one wolf.... |
So, in other words, the only way in which they would not be able to get away with it would be in the unlucky attempt that another corporation does try to take them on. I do not see that happening because another company would just have to use their corporate assets to engage in a lawsuit that would just end up making them look bad. Maybe an associate would file a class action lawsuit (is there an equivalent to a class action lawsuit in the U.K. where this happened?) but I do not see someone jeopardizing their job for that...
| Indi wrote: |
i think you'll find that you have misread the law. i can't speak for the US, but the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination that does not reflect "occupational requirements" (that's an approximation of the wording, which i don't have with me). It is not always illegal to discriminate for a job on a basis of gender, race, and religion, and you listed cases where it is not. Obviously you would have to discriminate against people in wheelchairs when hiring firefighters; that's a legitimate occupational requirement. It is not, however, a legitimate occupational requirement to discriminate against brown people when hiring firefighters, and it is not a legitimate occupational requirement to discriminate against people in wheelchairs when hiring salespeople for a grocery store.
Or take Anna for example: one of the places she worked at was careful to declare her a "model" (or some kind of entertainer, i can't remember the details) and not a "waitress", because they could mandate her appearance as a model but not a waitress (read: they could fire her for getting fat or scarred). That was certainly abusing the spirit of the law, but it was undoubtedly in line with the letter of the law.
So no, those actions are not illegal. |
Then wouldn't the company be able to argue that they are losing customers because of the offensive swatskia (and it wouldn't be hard to find a few examples)? How can you do your job best if your religious statement is causing your company to lose customers?
| Quote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | If the airline company wanted to ban Swatsikas on the basis of it being a hate symbol (even though it is a valid religious symbol), I do think they'd be able to get away with it |
No, they really won't. The law is can't just be ignored because it's incovenient. That's just not the way the law works. If the airline can make a solid argument - within the law, even if it's as shifty as the one used by that place where Anna worked - for why swastikas might be banned, then they would have a case. Otherwise they don't.
Laws aren't "cut in stone and concrete" in that we have a process for either changing them or getting a reprieve from them if you can make convincing enough arguments to judges. That doesn't mean they just don't apply when you can't be bothered to follow them. |
[/quote]
My point was that laws are not cut in stone because they are subjective and have to be carefully interpreted many times...
| Quote: |
| I dont think we are obligated to match other pplz religion, but we should respect it. They can believe in whatever they want to, but its too far when they try to change ur religion into what they believe. |
Why is there this nasty little rumor floating around that we should be required to respect everyone's religion? I say "Hell no." I don't respect any religion. What we have to do, however, is respect someone's right to have a religion.Well why would you not respect someones religion?
| Soccerman wrote: |
| Well why would you not respect someones religion? |
Well, let's start by considering what that actually means:
Respect:
1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.
So, if I respect someones religion that means I have to defer to it, avoid interfering with it, or relate to it. I don't think I should do any of those things, and I'm certain that religious people don't. How could a Catholic possibly be said to 'respect' protestantism? Would they 'defer' to the Lutheran position? | Soccerman wrote: |
| Well why would you not respect someones religion? |
Cause it's bologna.
I fully respect a person's right to such beliefs and would happily (I hope) defend it if the situation arose. I don't respect the beliefs themselves. This doesn't just apply to religion, it applies to the subject of belief.
My turn: Why should I respect someone's belief (let's be clear, I'm not asking why should I respect someone's right to believe)? | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Hmmmm... I'll leave that for Deanhills to answer because I wasn't the one who said it - you misquoted by mistake. |
Yes indeed, a copy-paste mistake on my part.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| So, in other words, the only way in which they would not be able to get away with it would be in the unlucky attempt that another corporation does try to take them on. I do not see that happening because another company would just have to use their corporate assets to engage in a lawsuit that would just end up making them look bad. Maybe an associate would file a class action lawsuit (is there an equivalent to a class action lawsuit in the U.K. where this happened?) but I do not see someone jeopardizing their job for that... |
All of that may be reasonable, but the bottom line is that they did something they didn't have to do (they won the original lawsuit, after all) and are now depending on the behaviour of their competitors to not exploit it. Not smart.
But as for the specifics, consider this: what if i owned two airlines that competed with BA, and one of those airlines was going under. This is not rare, and is quite common in fact. BA, for example, owns Flybe and Comair, among others i'm sure. So let's say one of my airlines was going to go under... and i came up with a scheme to nail BA - my main competitor for my other airline - by doing what i described. Nothing in this scenario is unusual, except, perhaps, having the cojones to take religious authoritarianism on. But if the airline is going to go under anyway... why not? It might severely harm BA's operations, which might end up ruining the reputation of the airline i own, but that was going under anyway.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Then wouldn't the company be able to argue that they are losing customers because of the offensive swatskia (and it wouldn't be hard to find a few examples)? How can you do your job best if your religious statement is causing your company to lose customers? |
They could also ban Stars of David on flights to Arab countries, using the same logic (or ban turbans because some British customers are offended by them, etc. etc.). It won't fly. You can't ban some religious symbols and not others, not in the UK.
| Soccerman wrote: |
| I dont think we are obligated to match other pplz religion, but we should respect it. They can believe in whatever they want to, but its too far when they try to change ur religion into what they believe. |
i am not interested in when people try to force you to change your beliefs... that is obviously wrong, always.
What i am interested in is whether or not it is right to call me a bad person if i refuse to make room for someone's religious beliefs. And, if it is, then precisely at what point does it start being right, because clearly it's not always right. If i am a doctor, and i have a dying child in front of me, and that child's parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and tell me not to give them a transfusion but i do it anyway, i don't think you have a right to tell me i did the wrong thing. But if i were a doctor, and the parents wanted to pray for their child before the operation and there was no rational reason to deny them a few minutes to do that, yet i did, i think you would have a right to tell me i did the wrong thing.
We do have to make room for other people's beliefs in a mixed society. So when are we obligated to make room for religious beliefs and when are we not? How much should i respect, and when is it OK for me to roll my eyes and say "oh, come on"? | Indi wrote: |
| At what point can i say "you have got to be kidding"? |
That point, for me, was when a lot of people started believing poorly written pre-medieval novels to be true and started basing their behaviour and decisions on said novels.
It's a lot worse because many of these people are in positions of power, and most of them are otherwise quite reasonable folk.
In other words, the very existence of religion is the "you have got to be kidding" moment.Just an appendix:
In the red corner: A Hitler! and the crowd shouts "Buuuuuu!"
In the blue corner: Jesus! and the crowd shouts "Amen!"
Jesus thanks the Lord before the fight for his win, and Hitler thinks his opponent would be a good corpse to show his people and does not think about God since he is thinking he is God himself...
So who did God support???
Well, Hitler had a good left hook and wins the match with his first punch... The crowd goes "Buu" and Hitler got his corpse to show to his people, and declared at the same time he was GOD and won several battles afterwards for that!
Both sides of the matchup used the Religion for strength - and it was OK because it served it's needs!
OBS! NO OFFENCE to noone with this posting! I am not into politics or religion in common!
| Indi wrote: |
All of that may be reasonable, but the bottom line is that they did something they didn't have to do (they won the original lawsuit, after all) and are now depending on the behaviour of their competitors to not exploit it. Not smart. |
So let's say that another company did try to exploit this (which I really do not see happening because it would just be using corporate assets to make yourself look bad), what would the consequences end up being? If worse comes to worse, BA says, "Well we tried to let our associates share their religious diversity by wearing small jewelery. One associate wore something that we found to be offensive and we tried to put a stop to it. Now we have to ban all jewelery and stick to a strict dress code." They really didn't loose much and they've sort of improved their public perception. Now they seem like a nice company that will respect diversity but stand up against offensive hate symbols.
| Indi wrote: |
| But as for the specifics, consider this: what if i owned two airlines that competed with BA, and one of those airlines was going under. This is not rare, and is quite common in fact. BA, for example, owns Flybe and Comair, among others i'm sure. So let's say one of my airlines was going to go under... and i came up with a scheme to nail BA - my main competitor for my other airline - by doing what i described. Nothing in this scenario is unusual, except, perhaps, having the cojones to take religious authoritarianism on. But if the airline is going to go under anyway... why not? It might severely harm BA's operations, which might end up ruining the reputation of the airline i own, but that was going under anyway. |
I don't see that having much of an effect on the airline. As described above, I really don't see a lot of bad happening to BA by some silly lawsuit like this...
| Indi wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Then wouldn't the company be able to argue that they are losing customers because of the offensive swatskia (and it wouldn't be hard to find a few examples)? How can you do your job best if your religious statement is causing your company to lose customers? |
They could also ban Stars of David on flights to Arab countries, using the same logic (or ban turbans because some British customers are offended by them, etc. etc.). It won't fly. You can't ban some religious symbols and not others, not in the UK. |
Sure. But my whole point was to your point about Swatsikas. You could allow them when used as religious symbols but ban them when used as a political symbol. It's pretty easy to tell when it's being used in each case by simply looking at the context.
My whole point was that you can argue that someone can not perform their job best if they're making a statement that is loosing customers. If someone did wear a Swatsika (which you can ban on political grounds but allow them to worn on religious grounds - and it's usually pretty easy to tell the difference) then you my lose considerable amounts of customers. The amount of customers that you'd lose by wearing a Star of David would be zero to negligible.
| spinout wrote: |
Just an appendix:
In the red corner: A Hitler! and the crowd shouts "Buuuuuu!"
In the blue corner: Jesus! and the crowd shouts "Amen!"
Jesus thanks the Lord before the fight for his win, and Hitler thinks his opponent would be a good corpse to show his people and does not think about God since he is thinking he is God himself...
So who did God support???
Well, Hitler had a good left hook and wins the match with his first punch... The crowd goes "Buu" and Hitler got his corpse to show to his people, and declared at the same time he was GOD and won several battles afterwards for that!
Both sides of the matchup used the Religion for strength - and it was OK because it served it's needs!
OBS! NO OFFENCE to noone with this posting! I am not into politics or religion in common! |
So... What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that religion has pushed the limit when people fight over it or when people try to declare them as God to get public support to commit acts of evil? I really do not understand your point.
Also, are you trying to say that Hitler was fighting against God? He was actually a Christian and he did play that card for a while...My point was that it is used everywhere - and that it works and therefore is functional ie there is no limit to religion and can not be limitized! (but I didn't wrote that is was the best thing to do in my oppinion... 
)
Hitler was fighting with God on his side since he, in my example, said he was god! Simple as that... | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
All of that may be reasonable, but the bottom line is that they did something they didn't have to do (they won the original lawsuit, after all) and are now depending on the behaviour of their competitors to not exploit it. Not smart. |
So let's say that another company did try to exploit this (which I really do not see happening because it would just be using corporate assets to make yourself look bad), what would the consequences end up being? If worse comes to worse, BA says, "Well we tried to let our associates share their religious diversity by wearing small jewelery. One associate wore something that we found to be offensive and we tried to put a stop to it. Now we have to ban all jewelery and stick to a strict dress code." They really didn't loose much and they've sort of improved their public perception. Now they seem like a nice company that will respect diversity but stand up against offensive hate symbols.
| Indi wrote: | | But as for the specifics, consider this: what if i owned two airlines that competed with BA, and one of those airlines was going under. This is not rare, and is quite common in fact. BA, for example, owns Flybe and Comair, among others i'm sure. So let's say one of my airlines was going to go under... and i came up with a scheme to nail BA - my main competitor for my other airline - by doing what i described. Nothing in this scenario is unusual, except, perhaps, having the cojones to take religious authoritarianism on. But if the airline is going to go under anyway... why not? It might severely harm BA's operations, which might end up ruining the reputation of the airline i own, but that was going under anyway. |
I don't see that having much of an effect on the airline. As described above, I really don't see a lot of bad happening to BA by some silly lawsuit like this...
| Indi wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Then wouldn't the company be able to argue that they are losing customers because of the offensive swatskia (and it wouldn't be hard to find a few examples)? How can you do your job best if your religious statement is causing your company to lose customers? |
They could also ban Stars of David on flights to Arab countries, using the same logic (or ban turbans because some British customers are offended by them, etc. etc.). It won't fly. You can't ban some religious symbols and not others, not in the UK. |
Sure. But my whole point was to your point about Swatsikas. You could allow them when used as religious symbols but ban them when used as a political symbol. It's pretty easy to tell when it's being used in each case by simply looking at the context.
My whole point was that you can argue that someone can not perform their job best if they're making a statement that is loosing customers. If someone did wear a Swatsika (which you can ban on political grounds but allow them to worn on religious grounds - and it's usually pretty easy to tell the difference) then you my lose considerable amounts of customers. The amount of customers that you'd lose by wearing a Star of David would be zero to negligible.
| spinout wrote: | Just an appendix:
In the red corner: A Hitler! and the crowd shouts "Buuuuuu!"
In the blue corner: Jesus! and the crowd shouts "Amen!"
Jesus thanks the Lord before the fight for his win, and Hitler thinks his opponent would be a good corpse to show his people and does not think about God since he is thinking he is God himself...
So who did God support???
Well, Hitler had a good left hook and wins the match with his first punch... The crowd goes "Buu" and Hitler got his corpse to show to his people, and declared at the same time he was GOD and won several battles afterwards for that!
Both sides of the matchup used the Religion for strength - and it was OK because it served it's needs!
OBS! NO OFFENCE to noone with this posting! I am not into politics or religion in common! |
So... What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that religion has pushed the limit when people fight over it or when people try to declare them as God to get public support to commit acts of evil? I really do not understand your point.
Also, are you trying to say that Hitler was fighting against God? He was actually a Christian and he did play that card for a while... |
aaaah, Hitler and religion... nice topic
Actually he had a very interesting relationship especially to the christian churches.
At least Himmler tried hard to revive some sort of neo-pagan worship. I don΄t think Hitler supported christian churches, but at the start of his reign, he tried to work his way around them. see here | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| So let's say that another company did try to exploit this (which I really do not see happening because it would just be using corporate assets to make yourself look bad), what would the consequences end up being? If worse comes to worse, BA says, "Well we tried to let our associates share their religious diversity by wearing small jewelery. One associate wore something that we found to be offensive and we tried to put a stop to it. Now we have to ban all jewelery and stick to a strict dress code." They really didn't loose much and they've sort of improved their public perception. Now they seem like a nice company that will respect diversity but stand up against offensive hate symbols. |
So let's recap. If they had had the balls to stand up to Nadia Eweida in the beginning - when the court ruled in their favour - and say "look, if we give you this privilege, we have to give it to all, and this would lead to offensive symbols", that would have been (according to you) unwise because it would have left Christians pissed off.
Now they have to do THE SAME DAMN THING... only this time, they are not only telling Christians to take off their crosses, they're also telling every other religion that they have to take their symbols off, too... but this is not (according to you) unwise, even though it not only explicitly pisses Christians off, but all religions? And political groups?
Hm.
i don't see it. If they'd had the backbone to stand up in the first place, they would have left Eweida and her Christian cronies pissed off, but no-one else was part of the issue. Now, after allowing religious symbols, they are taking them away from every religion. Do you seriously believe that everyone is going to grasp the argument that they have to ban everything for just a few offensive artifacts? Seriously? You don't think they're going to do what you have been trying to do ever since i pointed out this was the law: trying to argue around it, and find excuses and loopholes? Do you seriously believe they'll just accept BA's new justification, and not try to press for preferential treatment of their religious/political symbols?
Besides, even if they try to weasel that excuse to save face, it will only allow a competitor the opening to say: "BA is biased for certain religious/political groups! Because they want to allow special privileges to some, but not others, and only the law is preventing them from doing it! They said so themselves!"
No matter which way you slice it, the fact remains: they'd won the case, the battle was over, there was no reason to cave into the pressure and every reason not to. They would have come out looking better if they just said: "A uniform is a uniform, we don't allow any other symbols on our uniform but our company logo. Period." That's all it would have taken to erase all of the nonsense above. And no reasonable Christian can argue it. It's a perfectly reasonable position, and any Christian groups that try to stir up a boycott despite that reasoning would just be labelled wacko groups.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | But as for the specifics, consider this: what if i owned two airlines that competed with BA, and one of those airlines was going under. This is not rare, and is quite common in fact. BA, for example, owns Flybe and Comair, among others i'm sure. So let's say one of my airlines was going to go under... and i came up with a scheme to nail BA - my main competitor for my other airline - by doing what i described. Nothing in this scenario is unusual, except, perhaps, having the cojones to take religious authoritarianism on. But if the airline is going to go under anyway... why not? It might severely harm BA's operations, which might end up ruining the reputation of the airline i own, but that was going under anyway. |
I don't see that having much of an effect on the airline. As described above, I really don't see a lot of bad happening to BA by some silly lawsuit like this... |
What lawsuit are you talking about?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Sure. But my whole point was to your point about Swatsikas. You could allow them when used as religious symbols but ban them when used as a political symbol. It's pretty easy to tell when it's being used in each case by simply looking at the context. |
1.) No, you can't. British law protects both religious and political symbols.
2.) Is it? So if someone wore a swastika, along with a Chaplin moustache and a flyover hairstyle, and goose-stepped around... you think it's pretty easy to tell that they're not just an odd Hindu? You must have gifts of observation i don't.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| My whole point was that you can argue that someone can not perform their job best if they're making a statement that is loosing customers. If someone did wear a Swatsika (which you can ban on political grounds but allow them to worn on religious grounds - and it's usually pretty easy to tell the difference) then you my lose considerable amounts of customers. The amount of customers that you'd lose by wearing a Star of David would be zero to negligible. |
Well, first, regarding the Star of David comment... i'm going to guess you haven't spent much time in Arab countries. ^_^; i guarantee that if BA started prominently displaying any Stars of David on flights to those countries, there'd be an outcry.
Second, no you can't ban swastikas on political grounds - that violates the law. It's all or none. It's an anti-discrimination law, not a religious protection law. You can't discriminate, on religious or political grounds. (If it were just a religious protection law, i wouldn't grant it any legitimacy. But it is a legitimate law that all countries should have. Discrimination by belief - religious or otherwise - is wrong, and almost always unnecessary and unjustifiable. And if you apply a law to prevent unnecessary discrimination... well, this is the result. It's all or nothing.)
Third, if you did make the claim in court that swastikas harm business, you would also have to make the claim that banning crosses would hurt business, or the judge will just dismiss your claim with with "then just ban religious/political symbols... you have that right, and have always had the right, you just lack the right to discriminate." Clearly that's not going to fly, because BA operated cross-free for decades before Nadia Eweida's little hissy fit.
| spinout wrote: |
| My point was that it is used everywhere - and that it works and therefore is functional ie there is no limit to religion and can not be limitized! (but I didn't wrote that is was the best thing to do in my oppinion... ) |
You're missing the point of the thread. i am fully aware that religion is inserted into every aspect of life - in the first post i even give an example of "faith-base acting classes". Everyone knows that religion is everywhere. Not everyone agrees that it works everywhere, or even anywhere, but that's another discussion.
The question being asked here is what limits should there be on where religion should be taken seriously... not what limits there are, but what limits there should be. For example, it's been pretty clearly demonstrated both in theory and in practice that religion does not belong in government... so if someone demands i should respect their religious input in governmental matters, i can dismiss them without a second thought. Religion also clearly doesn't belong in science, or in engineering... so if someone demands i adhere to their religious notions of how a building should be built rather than on the engineering calculations i can just roll my eyes and walk away.
So religion clearly doesn't belong everywhere. So where does it belong, and why? What parts of my life and my society should i make room in for other people's religions?I didn't misunderstand - but my english is bad... There should not be any restrictions!
(And it can't be)
Do you think that the enemy is religion, or belief in an objective truth?
Or maybe it is just the teaching of dangerous beliefs?
Maybe our government should set limits on what should be taught. Maybe the teaching that "everybody else outside a certain belief group is immoral" should be banned.
What do you think?
| Arty wrote: |
Do you think that the enemy is religion, or belief in an objective truth?
Or maybe it is just the teaching of dangerous beliefs?
Maybe our government should set limits on what should be taught. Maybe the teaching that "everybody else outside a certain belief group is immoral" should be banned.
What do you think? |
The enemy is in our own minds. I don't see much of a difference in "religion" or "belief in an objective truth". Both speak of a mind that is regimental and fixed. Nothing is fixed. Everything changes all the time. Our thinking changes all the time too. Today's "truth" can be easily tomorrow's "falsehood" or "delusion".
I don't believe Government should set any limits on any one religion or belief system, unless it may be harmful from a safety and security point of view of the public in general. There has to be a golden medium of a kind as one cannot ignore religion or beliefs as they are part of society, but at the same time they should not be dominant to the point of brain washing. The teaching should be of a kind that opens, not closes minds.The only limits to religions are in our imaginations.
As most of the world's faiths show.
