Tolerance of different religions vs. equal treatment

[aelf]

I seem to remember this whole debate here about whether people were equal. But setting that question aside, should all people be equal under the law, regardless of beliefs?

The answer, as you should be able to tell, is "It depends". Ideally, should there be equality of every citizen under law? Yes. Should this be instituted at the cost of group/minority rights and identities? Probably not. Should there be strict equality if it costs people little or nothing (in more than just material terms)? Yes.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'll just say that I think faith, political ideology, moral views, and sexual orientation(considered a choice by some) all deserve the same protection as sex, race, color, etc. because they are key parts of a person's identity and being.

This, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Religion (or lack thereof) is part of a person's psyche and character. Bashing or insulting religion is akin to attacking a person psychologically. Why is it, for example, during dating people advise to stay away from religious topics? Because it's a touchy subject to many.

The only exception is if they directly, physically harm someone.

Like Scientology?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Like Scientology?

There should be no legal protection from ridicule - you do not have the right to not be offended.

However, Scientology as an organisation, not as a belief, is fair game. If you can find the legal evidence for it, prosecute the Church to the maximum extent of the law.

People have the right to be as silly, as serious, as smart, or as dumb as they like, so long as it doesn't hurt others' well-being. So, individual believers, unless they're sacrificing infants to Xenu or some such, should be left alone. The church itself, however, seems to have a record of legally-questionable activity and should suffer prosecution for any illegal behavior. This solely for the illegal behavior, not their belief system.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Church of Appliatology

The German one's are the best


Link to video.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Whoops, that was the intro to this song...


Link to video.

 

[GenMarshall]

There should be no legal protection from ridicule - you do not have the right to not be offended.

Then I should have a right to punch someone's teeth in if someone told me I am stupid or childish for believing in a religion or insisting that my faith is based on "fairy tales". Jesus may have said "turn the other cheek", but basic instincts of being offended and lashing out against the person who insulted my faith (I consider my beliefs and faith as part of my individuality) kind of overrules that tenant.

There should be a legal protection from ridiculing people of other religions. Otherwise you have a big brawl bar fight and/or a huge amount of people sueing each other's pants off just because an Atheist told off a Christian by telling him or her that she just believes in fairy tales and is stupid and childish. People claim that words don't hurt, to tell the truth, that's baloney. Words DO HURT!!

However, Scientology as an organisation, not as a belief, is fair game. If you can find the legal evidence for it, prosecute the Church to the maximum extent of the law.

I was hoping to see Scientology bumped off so that they stop harming people by not allowing them access to psychologists. Let's not forget about their doctrine of distancing themselves from non-scientologists who are critical of them and/or deconverts of Scientology.

 

[illram]

I think it's useful to look at this question from the angle of: what are people requesting a religious accommodation from and why, rather than trying to find some general principle that can be applied in every instance.

If the Government is in the business of providing religious accommodations, then it should be able in some degree to inquire into the sincerity of the belief of the requester. (And in the US, the government does that.)

 

[GenMarshall]

I think it's useful to look at this question from the angle of: what are people requesting a religious accommodation from and why, rather than trying to find some general principle that can be applied in every instance.

If the Government is in the business of providing religious accommodations, then it should be able in some degree to inquire into the sincerity of the belief of the requester. (And in the US, the government does that.)

To answer that, the recommendation that I'd request as an individual is that negative comments about my faith should be kept to themselves. I know atheists don't like it when they are called godless immoral humans and Christians don't like it when their beliefs are considered childish and stupid. Same thing with a Catholic who is confronted by another person criticizing him or her for being in an organization with a certain issue (I'm being vague since I'm using examples and don't want to derail the topic), the person being confronted would be taken back and offended by that because he or she does no associate that incident with his or her core beliefs.

 

[warpus]

illram, I totally agree, which I guess means I've changed my position

CivGeneral, you don't have a right to not be offended.

 

[GenMarshall]

CivGeneral, you don't have a right to not be offended.

The same thing can be said to atheists. They don't have the right not to be offended eather, yet a select few bad apples do leave a sour taste in some peoples mouths because they offended Christians by telling them that they are stupid and childish just because they believe in God and Jesus.

Things like this makes me loose faith in humanity and reaffirms my belief that humans are indeed bastards.

 

[warpus]

Oh, I'm offended all the time, but mostly by the way people smell and dress.

 

[Millman]

The first rate argument is humans aren't the greatest psychologists. Imagine having some of thinking here back in 1000 A.D. Divorce, Equal Treatment, ECT.,. was unheard or shared by the power hungry.

Pro. Hawking has stated we need to move beyond our primitive violent presumptuous tendencies and move into outer space. It is intolerance, ignorance, and hatred that lead to our problems. Only a few of many concepts.

You might as well quote Carl Sagan on this. Our privileged position?

 

[phoenix_sprite]

Then your engaging in religious persecution without good reason. I mean I can see the argument to prevent an ID wearing a full head covering like a burkha for example, but is a yarmaluka even visible in a DL photo? Hardly, if at all.

I don't perceive it as persecution. So many people preach equality but ignore the special rights that religions have in society. It starts with the sense of entitlement but there always has to be an exception to the rule, right?

 

[Junius]

I don't perceive it as persecution. So many people preach equality but ignore the special rights that religions have in society. It starts with the sense of entitlement but there always has to be an exception to the rule, right?

By "special rights" do you mean the right to practice their religion? A compelling reason is needed to keep someone from practicing a tenet of their faith. If, to use the kippah scenario, a jewish man practices that habit, what is the harm in allowing him to wear it for a id photo? Why place equality before the law ahead of individual freedom?

I think illram is basically on the right track.

 

[Millman]

*runs in*

That's what new religions are for

*runs out*

 

[MobBoss]

I think it's useful to look at this question from the angle of: what are people requesting a religious accommodation from and why, rather than trying to find some general principle that can be applied in every instance.

If the Government is in the business of providing religious accommodations, then it should be able in some degree to inquire into the sincerity of the belief of the requester. (And in the US, the government does that.)

Which, again, is why I said the guy with the kitchen utensil on his head was saying more about Austria than anything about perceived equality. There is no way in hell he woulda been able to do that in the USA....(at least I certainly hope not).

 

[Lillefix]

I think it's useful to look at this question from the angle of: what are people requesting a religious accommodation from and why, rather than trying to find some general principle that can be applied in every instance.

If the Government is in the business of providing religious accommodations, then it should be able in some degree to inquire into the sincerity of the belief of the requester. (And in the US, the government does that.)

What about a guy who is a really really big fan of a football team and feels obliged to use the cap of his team all the time. And he's just as dedicated to his team as religious people are to their god. Should he be allowed to use the cap?

 

[Junius]

What about a guy who is a really really big fan of a football team and feels obliged to use the cap of his team all the time. And he's just as dedicated to his team as religious people are to their god. Should he be allowed to use the cap?

Sigh. We have had some pretty bad analogies in this thread. I could make some arguments about religion and how, regardless of what you personally believe, it is not the same as fandom, but i'm going to skip it and ask a question back. Is that sport fan's right to football fandom guaranteed in the very first amendment to the bill of rights?

 

[warpus]

Which, again, is why I said the guy with the kitchen utensil on his head was saying more about Austria than anything about perceived equality. There is no way in hell he woulda been able to do that in the USA....(at least I certainly hope not).

But what's the harm in it? The more silliness the better!

 

[Lillefix]

Sigh. We have had some pretty bad analogies in this thread. I could make some arguments about religion and how, regardless of what you personally believe, it is not the same as fandom, but i'm going to skip it and ask a question back. Is that sport fan's right to football fandom guaranteed in the very first amendment to the bill of rights?

I'm not american I don't care about the bill of rights. My point is that religious people think their opinions and feelings about religion, are intrinsically more worth than other people's feelings about other things. You have no idea how a dedicated football fan might feel about his team, or a dedicated communist might feel about communism. You can't just add a god in the equation and claim that your feelings about a certain subject is now more worth.