RE: Freedom from religion
November 21, 2017 at 6:47 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2017 at 6:51 pm by Bow Before Zeus.)
(November 21, 2017 at 5:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:
(November 21, 2017 at 4:39 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: This is very relevant so thanks for brining it here. The No campaign in Australia also argued that marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of having a family, however the majority of the country disagreed so that argument has been put to bed. But there are civil and religious ceremonies and I'm pretty sure in Australia they are essentially legally equivalent. I do find it difficult to understand why some same sex couples want to marry in a religious institution but they do. So the question remains, why should religious institutions be allowed to discriminate?
Let's use an equivalent example to show what I mean. If a black African man and a white Australian woman wanted to marry and they turn up to a church in Australia, is the priest allowed by law to say to them "Sorry but the church does not believe in mixed marriages - marriage is between a white man and a white woman only". Would they get away with it? No, because it is racial discrimination and there are laws that protect against that happening by any organisation or person in the country. Yet it is being argued that the church should be allowed to discriminate against a section of community based on their sexual orientation.
The more interesting question is why religious leaders want to be unethical. This is something that I don't understand. I say stop all discrimination and if we have to legislate to stop it, then so be it.
bold mine
Are those same sex couples members of the religious institution? My guess is no if the institution says no. It's their club (the church), they get to make their own rules.
I think the same holds with the black/white issue. I think they can get away with it if the black/white couple are not members.
However, the exception is if the church has a history of allowing nonmembers to marry outside of the churches beliefs. That opens the door.
Not sure if this applies to Oz: https://www.quora.com/Constutional-Laws-...rientation
The church should not be allowed to not let in people based on the colour of their skin, nationality or sexual preference. I believe the "No blacks allowed" or "Whites only" signs were taken down half a century ago - notwithstanding any still left in the southern US states. It is discrimination to not allow certain groups of people join a club, team or church. The ethics of the human civilisation has progressed beyond that stage and is at least partly if not wholly protected by the rule of law. Laws of certain states/nations may still need to catch up but they are generally heading the direction of more ethical rather than less ethical.
(November 21, 2017 at 5:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:
(November 21, 2017 at 4:41 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: They should be forced to perform actions against their religious beliefs when those primitive iron-age religious beliefs contradict the ethical structure of modern society. No animal sacrifices and no discrimination against people for any reason. Non religious people should be making requests or even demands of religious institutions on ethical grounds. And, yes, the "damn cake thing" did come up in parliamentary debate!
bold mine
Good luck with that pie in the sky ideal.
Who's ethics? Yours when your not even in the club?
The ethics of the society. As a current member of the club called humanity, all entities, companies, people, organisations need to conform to the laws of the land. Why should a particular class of clubs called religions be exempt from being ethical? The great irony being, of course, that they always claim the higher moral ground but act otherwise.
(November 21, 2017 at 6:33 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:(November 21, 2017 at 4:41 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: Fine, so let's go back to allowing xtians to not marry mixed couples and performing ritual blood sacrifices on the church alter. That will take the ethics we have developed in modern society a few millenia back.
When did we "allow" xtians (aka Christians) to not marry mixed couples? I don't know the laws down under, but the Southern STATES in the US had LAWS forbidding the marriage of mixed race couples. Those laws had to go. If a church wants to refrain from doing something, it's their right to refrain. Mandating compulsory actions borders on fascism. As vile and disgusting as it is, I feel like these institutions ought not be compelled to do things to which they are opposed. I sense a breeze of strong anti-theism coming from you. Have you ever tried cannabis? It works wonders. If people want to be bigots and perform blood sacrifices, let them. Just don't let them anywhere near the legislative body. That's my position.
So religious groups don't need to obey the laws of the land when it comes to discrimination? What about the laws relating to murder, theft, destruction of property? How about we let the churches do what they want? The laws are there for a reason. To ensure order in society and not allow the thugs in the community take advantage of the weak. If the churches are exempt from the laws of the land, they will become the thugs despite always claiming the higher moral ground.
