Ah, now we come an example. You are opposed to religious people intimidating others into silence.
So am I, and I think you know full well that everyone else on this board will be as well. This goes far, far beyond religious people seeking respect, and into religious people imposing their will on others. If that was what your concern was, you should have said so from the start.
No, they aren’t, and I thank you for trying to make your point clearer; however, these three articles are nearly the opposite of the first. Nobody in them is seeking to impose religious beliefs or behavior on others; they are merely seeking the right to not have non-religious values imposed on them.
The vicar is not seeking to prohibit gay weddings, nor the adoption agency to prohibit gay adoptions; both have been merely granted the right to act in accordance with their own conscience without fear of retribution. Do these seem like gross injustices to you? Is your vision of a more just and tolerant society one in which these people would be forced to act against their conscience?
I said it was my suspicion you were being a douche, not my conclusion: suspicions are what you have when you lack data. Now that I have data, I have a clearer idea of what you’re getting at.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that irrelgiosity is the norm, and that religious folk are in some sense obligated to justify themselves, their belief, and their behavior in a way irreligious folk are not. This is simply not the case; historically and globally, religiosity is the norm, with nonbelievers obligated to justify themselves. Like it or don’t, that’s the planet you live on. Religion is the natural condition of man.
Happily for you, you live in a secular state, which is neither religious nor irreligious, but insofar as possible neutral, and seeks to find a middle ground. Thus, while it rules that a vicar may not be forced to perform gay marriages, it also rules that the vicar may not operate a B&B that excludes gay couples. Such are the compromises we make to live in a secular society.
I’m glad my position is clearer, however (as I thought you might) you’ve not understood the ramifications of the cases I’ve pointed out. Whilst they might seem like religious people protecting their right to be religious (as they should be able to, I would never want to deny someone that) the actual outcome is discrimination against others using religion as justification.
For this to even be permitted it must be accepted that it is allowable and defensible to use religious belief as a reason for discrimination in the first place (as opposed to just not liking something but without a religious conviction, which isn’t protected). In all three cases religious beliefs ARE being forced on others by the withholding of services - the beliefs are gays shouldn’t be able to marry, shouldn’t be able to share a bed, and shouldn’t be able to adopt. As these have or were attempted to be permitted under the law it’s religious belief being enforced on those who don’t share those beliefs. Gay and want to adopt a baby? You can’t, the Roman Catholics believe you shouldn’t. Want a civil partnership? Tough, I don’t want to carry one out because I think it’s wrong.
Also the registrar case is particularly worrying - you’ve referred to her as a vicar, but she isn’t, she’s a civil registrar of marriages working for a public authority; her job is to carry out civil ceremonies in accordance with the law. Her being allowed to decide whether or not she should have to carry out a civil partnership (not a gay marriage) and that be allowable in her job has horrifying ramifications - it means that individuals, again using religious beliefs, can simply decide which bits of their jobs they do and what laws they follow (the Equality Act makes such a refusal against the law, for example) without challenge. Registrar opposed to mix raced civil marriages? Fine, using this reasoning. Muslim butcher? You don’t have to touch pig flesh if you don’t want to. Christian doctor with a patient who wants an abortion? You don’t have to provide her one or refer her to anyone else if it conflicts with your beliefs. Yes your honour, I killed that man, but he’s gay and I’m a muslim you see, and my religious beliefs require me to do this, it’s in the Qur’an (the most extreme example I could give, intentionally so to take this to it’s illogical conclusion)
You don’t see where this takes us? It means, as I set out originally, that the requirement to respect religious beliefs can be used to trump the law and override someone not wanting to respect their beliefs if they find them unpleasant or at odds with their own beliefs.
Furthermore your appeal to the majority, saying that most of the people in the world are religious and I need to suck it up, is weak. The majority of people in Uganda want homosexuals executed according to their latest surveys, does that make it right or just?
Unfortunately, as I see it, appeal to the majority is the only strong argument religious views have in terms of requiring respect. Technically speaking, if those people in Uganda care strongly enough to have their preferences made into law (and what is law after all if not the will of the majority?), then execution of homosexuals in Uganda would be ‘just’, or, at the very least, ‘right’. This is actually why I’m worried about religion.
True - but the religious are not in the majority in the UK (where I live, and those cited examples are from) and yet it seems religion still takes primacy in matters of conscience. This is why I’m EVEN MORE worried.
Yeah, I sometimes wonder if a different sort of protest might be effective - break some silly laws (maybe about streaking?) and claim your religion requires it (FSM, IPU, druidism, Scientology, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism - take your pick). True, your case would get struck down and leave you with a fine or summat, but you would also have established a handy little legal precedent
Religion is not a prerequisite for hating homosexuals, nor is it at all evident that people who profess to organized religion are any more or less bigoted than the average non-believing person or persons who believe in fuzzy spiritualism or new-age hokus pokus.
You miss my point entirely, I never claimed that religion is a prerequisite for hating homosexuals or for any other sort of bigotry.
Now that you’ve brought it up though. It could be argued that religion encourages certain kinds of bigotry. For instance, doesn’t a large part of the opposition to same-sex marriage (read-bigotry) in the United States take its sanction from religion? Aren’t the b&b lady, the registration officer and the adoption service in Illumin’s cite taking their sanction from religion?
This does not mean all religious people will be bigoted, or that all bigots will be religious. It merely means that religious bigots will lay claim to exactly the kind of respect that the OP does not want to give them. Why should it be due?
The error you make is in associating religious belief with merely “not liking something.” The more apt description is they are failing to provide a service because such provision violates their conscience; and if we look, we do find analogous instances in which people are allowed to withhold services based on moral or ethical considerations. Top of my head:
[ul][li]If I am a drunkard, a bartender who pities my wife may deny me service; similarly, a casino may deny entry to a gambling addict.[/li][li]A surgeon may decline to perform elective surgery if he feels it is unwarranted; similarly, a psychologist may decline to treat a patient.[/li][li]A veterinarian may refuse to euthanize a pet.[/li][li]Except for Public defenders, lawyers cannot be ordered to take clients. [/li][li]Many Tattoo parlors refuse to do certain kinds of work.[/li][li]Artists may decline commissions.[/li][li]A contractor who is asked to demolish a historical building or to pave over a stand of redwoods is free to decline the job.[/li][/ul]
And so on. Some of the specifics may be different in the UK, and you may object to one or two of those, but the general principle is clear: if it can be avoided, citizens ought not be compelled to do things they find immoral/unethical/wrong. Most questions of conscience are going to involve religion, as that is where most people derive their moral codes. But both the state and the society recognize and respect freedom of conscience within certain practical restrictions. Religion is only part of that (even if the largest part).
But this is not true. Homosexuals can and do adopt in the UK; here is a list of70 agenciesthat will provide that service, including six in Yorkshire. Given that, why is it necessary for Catholic Care of South Yorkshire to act against their conscience?
You’re right, I had misread that. But as I read it now, it’s not going to prevent anyone from getting married. As far as I can tell, it may be simply a matter of her passing the paperwork to someone else to sign.
If her objections made getting a legal civil marriage in Islington significantly more difficult, or if they significantly complicated the functioning of the office, then I’d agree that she shouldn’t be in that position.
If, on the other hand, there are a whole slew of registrars in Islington and accomodating Ms. Ladele requires no more than her passing the form off to someone else to sign … is that really a battle you think is worth fighting? Does forcing someone to violate their conscience, when there is a readily-available alternative, make for a better, more tolerant society? :dubious:
Ok by me, and the law; in point of fact, the nearest butcher to me is a Halal shop. I want bacon, I drive two blocks farther. the inconvenience is trivial.
Again, fine by me and the law; Abortion is legal and freely available. There’s no need to demand that one specific doctor perform it unless you’re on some kind of crusade.
Entirely different. Now his religion has massively imposed on someone else. Apples and Watermelons.
No, it generally can’t. Well, I mean they can try, but in most sane countries, “The Bible told me to kill him” is not going to work as a defense.
It’s true that in some European countries, one particular religion is succeeding in getting civil authorities to knuckle under in some ways, but I’m not persuaded in the least that this is a general trend among all religions; Christianity’s influence in the UK has been on the wane for a century or more, and I don’t think the Buddhists are oppressing anyone.
If your complaint is about the inroads Islam is making, you should say so. Islam in particular is a very different topic from religion in general.
I said no such thing. Please read carefully: I said that you are not entitled to presume that irrelgiosity is the norm, and that religious folk are in some sense obligated to justify themselves. A secular state assumes that their religion is every bit as valid as your nonreligion, and seeks to prevent either from imposing on the other.
Well, in some sense, they’re not: both the Catholic Church, and any other organization which discriminates against women, must be able to show that the job in question requires a man – that is, that there is a bona fide occupational qualification that only a man can meet.
So a Catholic school cannot refuse to hire a female janitor or a male receptionist, because gender is not an occupational qualification for those jobs.
But for a priest, it is. The job of a priest is to teach, and exemplify, the beliefs of the Catholic Church. So the beliefs of the church are a priori a qualification for the job. The Church’s discipline is that only men may receive the sacrament of orders.
Ah, but see, there is the special dispensation that rings hollow. If, lets say, Acme inc. were to hold that ‘women do not exemplify our beliefs which are that only men can receive orders from customers’ and deny women jobs in a sales department, they would be culpable of discrimination. Now as far as anyone who is not religious can see, ‘The Church’s discipline is that only men may receive the sacrament of orders’ is absolutely no different from Acme’s belief that only men may receive orders from customers, yet you would strike down one, but respect the other. Why should religion have this respect?
Religions are very good at disguising themselves as being a “force for good” and at brainwashing their adherants. I believe Arthur C. Clarke said it best:
I spent over a decade of my life studying religion. I discovered that it is a lie, nothing more than a massive con game. And yet every time I point that out, and even show people how they can go dig up the facts for themselves, I get dissed because I’m not showing respect to religion. It’s a stacked deck, that’s for sure.
Does being a priest not count as being employed? Priests also do a job. Only to the religious would ‘receiving sacrament’ set it apart as something above and beyond employment, when in point of fact it is the same thing.
As atheists we don’t have to go pushing our lack of faith in others faces, though it appears we are accused of doing so when we just state what we don’t believe. I think proselytizers are inherently disrespectful. Here, at least, they can hardly claim that they have to inform us because we just can’t be aware of Christianity. I got this once when a bunch of Baptists came to my door and I politely told them I wasn’t interested because I was Jewish (which I figured was an easier way of getting rid of them than saying I was an atheist.) When I was at the wedding of my step-nephew the father of the bride (they had become evangelical Christians) saw fit to tell his Jewish relatives that we should covert. Now that was disrespectful both of us and of my former faith.
These people probably complain about the so-called war on Christmas. I suspect many of those who complain about the disrespect of atheists the most are the most disrespectful of other religions.
Because Acme isn’t in the business of promoting their beliefs. They’re in the business of selling items. Their beliefs, even if sincerely held, are not objectively related to selling.
The Church’s business is promoting its beliefs; the two are inextricably intertwined.
Sure it is. “The Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” Now the Hindu might say (and I’ve known some who do say) that your God is just one of his. Polytheistic religions are inherently more respectful of others than monotheistic ones, since others beliefs are not a rejection of yours. Evidence - the lack of religious warfare in the ancient world, and the ability of Alexander the Great to live with the religions of the regions he conquered. I was taught that the reason Alexander is a Jewish name is in thanks to his respect when he conquered Judea. Probably not true, but a nice thought.
When have missionaries been invited in? Is letting your friend burn in hell because he never got around to asking you is respectful? Being polite to other people is usually a good tactic in any case. But any sort of religion which considers non-believers to be destined for a bad end clearly doesn’t respect the faiths or non-faiths of the non-believers.
The belief that priests stand In Persona Christi Capitis; the belief that because Jesus was male and HIs disciples male, His vicar on Earth has no authority to have anyone other than men stand In Persona Christi Capitis.
Ok great, now Acme’s mission statement says that selling dyna-explodimatics is just what puts the bread on the table. What it really must do is promote the belief that its founder the late great Mr. W.C Smith was the best salesman and manager ever, and since he was a man, to promote its beliefs, they must hire only men as salespeople and managers as they stand In persona Smithi on earth. They can, of course, hire women as janitors and HR trainers since that doesn’t matter to their core mission. This is, objectively speaking, indistinguishable from the Catholic Church’s stand. Do you respect it?
:smack: Yep… I can certainly see me doing that… I hope my social skills have improved enough that I could detect that the other party was genuinely upset and modify my nosey curiousity, but yeah… I can visualize getting mouth-footy all too easily.
