Freedom from religion

[Bow Before Zeus]

Ok, time for another thread. This time I am going to try to be a little more compassionate and considerate with the feelings of the xtians here in stating the truth in a more conciliatory fashion. Hope I get it right this time!

Some of you might be aware that Australia has just spent $120M on a non-binding voluntary (our parliamentary voting is mandatory) vote on same sex marriage (SSM). For the tech-heads out there, that's around 2 SpaceX rocket launches worth of voting!!!! Anyway, the votes are in and surprise, surprise, about 61% of those that voted were for SSM & 39% were against. About what phone polls (at a fraction of the cost) were already showing. So, great news for gay and lesbian couples, yes? Not so fast, speed racer! You see, we have a right wing conservative government in power at the moment so they're not going to make this so easy. They have now decided to debate a bill which ensures "freedom of religion". Which basically means religions will have the right to discriminate against a section of the community. If it is against the religion to marry gay couples, they will have the right to decline!!! So what the majority voted for is going to be rejected at the pulpit!!! We still are not getting what we voted for.

Why should religions be allowed to discriminate when the person in the street isn't allowed to? What if the section of the community they were allowed to discriminate against is blacks/hispanics/asians? Would that be fair? Or would we call that racism and not allow it? How is discrimination against gays any different to racism? Why do religions think they are above the law when it comes to common decency and ethics? I say we need freedom from religion, not freedom of religion!

[ignoramus]

BBZ ...good post.

Your logic is true but also false imho.
My take is that religion is only there as a vehicle to legitimise bigotry.
People don't hate gays because an old stupid book told them to. People hate gays because they're xenophobic bigoted assholes who align with the bible because it conveniently supports their position.

What we need is freedom from human nature! lol!
Not happnin' any time soon brah...

[purplepurpose]

Religion isn't the worst shit out there.

[John V]

Ok, time for another thread. This time I am going to try to be a little more compassionate and considerate with the feelings of the xtians here in stating the truth in a more conciliatory fashion. Hope I get it right this time!

Some of you might be aware that Australia has just spent $120M on a non-binding voluntary (our parliamentary voting is mandatory) vote on same sex marriage (SSM). For the tech-heads out there, that's around 2 SpaceX rocket launches worth of voting!!!! Anyway, the votes are in and surprise, surprise, about 61% of those that voted were for SSM & 39% were against. About what phone polls (at a fraction of the cost) were already showing. So, great news for gay and lesbian couples, yes? Not so fast, speed racer! You see, we have a right wing conservative government in power at the moment so they're not going to make this so easy. They have now decided to debate a bill which ensures "freedom of religion". Which basically means religions will have the right to discriminate against a section of the community. If it is against the religion to marry gay couples, they will have the right to decline!!! So what the majority voted for is going to be rejected at the pulpit!!! We still are not getting what we voted for.

Why should religions be allowed to discriminate when the person in the street isn't allowed to? What if the section of the community they were allowed to discriminate against is blacks/hispanics/asians? Would that be fair? Or would we call that racism and not allow it? How is discrimination against gays any different to racism? Why do religions think they are above the law when it comes to common decency and ethics? I say we need freedom from religion, not freedom of religion!

First paragraph - we should be able to invade any religion at will.

Second paragraph - we should be free from religion.

Am I missing something here?

[J a c k]

Ok, time for another thread. This time I am going to try to be a little more compassionate and considerate with the feelings of the xtians here in stating the truth in a more conciliatory fashion. Hope I get it right this time!

Some of you might be aware that Australia has just spent $120M on a non-binding voluntary (our parliamentary voting is mandatory) vote on same sex marriage (SSM). For the tech-heads out there, that's around 2 SpaceX rocket launches worth of voting!!!! Anyway, the votes are in and surprise, surprise, about 61% of those that voted were for SSM & 39% were against. About what phone polls (at a fraction of the cost) were already showing. So, great news for gay and lesbian couples, yes? Not so fast, speed racer! You see, we have a right wing conservative government in power at the moment so they're not going to make this so easy. They have now decided to debate a bill which ensures "freedom of religion". Which basically means religions will have the right to discriminate against a section of the community. If it is against the religion to marry gay couples, they will have the right to decline!!! So what the majority voted for is going to be rejected at the pulpit!!! We still are not getting what we voted for.

Why should religions be allowed to discriminate when the person in the street isn't allowed to? What if the section of the community they were allowed to discriminate against is blacks/hispanics/asians? Would that be fair? Or would we call that racism and not allow it? How is discrimination against gays any different to racism? Why do religions think they are above the law when it comes to common decency and ethics? I say we need freedom from religion, not freedom of religion!

First paragraph - we should be able to invade any religion at will.

Second paragraph - we should be free from religion.

Am I missing something here?

Bold mine.
How’d you get that from the OP? Honest question.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I crimped the following text from another thread HERE because, this seems like the more relevant thread and I put quite a bit of effort into it.

There can be a civil institution equivalent to marriage without being considered equal to it. For example tea is functionally equivalent to coffee but they are essentially different substances. Civil marriages have an essential character that makes them different from other types of social institutions recognized by the state. They have an objective definition: an on-going legal bond between one man and one woman involving physical intimacy with the potential to produce off-spring. That is what differentiates a marriage from roommates (of any sex), live-in caregivers with power of attorney, business partnerships, casual lovers, kissing cousins, free-love communes, and yes, homosexual unions. It should be noted that many states in the USA have so-called common law marriages, automatically conferring marital status to long-time cohabiting heterosexuals who have been physically intimate. Apart from the traditional definition we get absurd results like Felix and Oscar becoming common law. This is not a "slippery slope" argument; but rather, an illustration of the unique character of civil marriage as an objectively definable and secular social institution.

As a practical matter, the state generally does not impose fertility tests or automatic dissolution of marriages when a couple is beyond child bearing years. If someone wanted to debate the merits of such policies I would be willing to listen but personally I would consider someone a spoiler for advocating those kinds of tests and measures. Also as a practical matter, the state allows religious leaders to officiate weddings, so that a civil marriage and sacramental marriage occur simultaneously as part of the ceremony. If someone wants to propose that religious leaders not be allowed to officiate civil ceremonies I am open to listening to that as well. Again however, that seems like the stance of someone willing to inconvenience millions just to be a spoiler.

So-called "marriage equality" erases the vital line between civil and sacramental marriages. For example, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or even Swedenborgian weddings are sacraments tacitly accepted, for practical reasons, by the state as civil ceremonies. It is not a civil ceremony in-and-of-itself. That is why there are now cases before the US courts attempting to force religious businesses to recognize a civil marriage as identical to sacramental ones. There are even activists, in both the US and Australia, who want to force religious leaders and institutions to perform heretical sacraments within their sacred spaces. Again, I am open to the idea that the state has a legitimate state interest in legally recognizing homosexual unions as functionally equivalent to marriages, however, the state has no business making people perform religious sacraments against their will or to recognize nontraditional unions as equal, meaning identical, to sacramental ones.

[John V]

First paragraph - we should be able to invade any religion at will.

Second paragraph - we should be free from religion.

Am I missing something here?

Bold mine.
How’d you get that from the OP? Honest question.

From "If it is against the religion to marry gay couples, they will have the right to decline!!!" Seems he thinks gay couples should be able to get married in whatever church they choose. To then say that he wants freedom from religion seems contradictory. Of course, this is coming from a guy who thinks Christian teaching is child abuse but sent his kids to Christian schools anyway, so it's not surprising.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And so to specifically reply to the OP:

They have now decided to debate a bill which ensures "freedom of religion". Which basically means religions will have the right to discriminate against a section of the community. If it is against the religion to marry gay couples, they will have the right to decline!!! So what the majority voted for is going to be rejected at the pulpit!!! We still are not getting what we voted for.

You position seems to be that people should not be allowed to practice their religion in accordance with its dictates. As pointed out above, a church wedding is a religious ceremony that establishes a sacramental union. The state incidentally chooses to recognize the performance of a sacramental marriage rite as sufficient to establish a civil marriage. The state could choose not to do so. In that case, there would be no conflict or state encroachment on religious practice. Advocates for "same-sex marriage" could have gone that route and there would be no conflict. They did not.

Why should religions be allowed to discriminate when the person in the street isn't allowed to? What if the section of the community they were allowed to discriminate against is blacks/hispanics/asians? Would that be fair?

These are totally different issues. Your question is really this. "Why should religions be allowed to decide what sacramental rites they will perform in accordance with their spiritual traditions?" Properly rephrased the question answers itself. Because a free society does not allow the state to dictate the religious beliefs and practices of its citizens. As Sartre correctly pointed out, the ultimate freedom is the ability to say no.

[Harry Nevis]

That is why there are now cases before the US courts attempting to force religious businesses to recognize a civil marriage as identical to sacramental ones. There are even activists, in both the US and Australia, who want to force religious leaders and institutions to perform heretical sacraments within their sacred spaces.

Citation, please.

[vulcanlogician]

These are totally different issues. Your question is really this. "Why should religions be allowed to decide what sacramental rites they will perform in accordance with their spiritual traditions?" Properly rephrased the question answers itself. Because a free society does not allow the state to dictate the religious beliefs and practices of its citizens. As Sartre correctly pointed out, the ultimate freedom is the ability to say no.

I have to agree with this. It is one thing to give gays the right to get married. It is quite another to force institutions to conduct ceremonies which they do not wish to. For better or worse, people have the right to be bigoted. The important thing is to make sure that the government doesn't have bigoted policies.