Poll: Religious groups allowed to discriminate

[SonicSoulstrike96]

Yes, they can discriminate. They can have their all exclusive clubs of douchery. They will rise and fall of their own accord.

Good thing we have a secular government.

 

[Seanchaidh]

And you're wrong with your last point. If we had other ideas, they would be based off of rational. Rational will always point the same direction. The right direction.

This is quite wrong. Reason only makes sets of statements consistent, it does not ensure that they are true. Reason allows you to proceed from true statements to other true statements, or false statements to either true or false statements. It does not in the slightest guarantee the truth of anything.

 

[Kubanator]

And you're wrong with your last point. If we had other ideas, they would be based off of rational. Rational will always point the same direction. The right direction.

This is quite wrong. Reason only makes sets of statements consistent, it does not ensure that they are true. Reason allows you to proceed from true statements to other true statements, or false statements to either true or false statements. It does not in the slightest guarantee the truth of anything.

Ok, so the path goes like this:

True->True->True->True

True
False-> True
False->
False

And so on. In the end game, if there's the slightest chance of truth coming out, reason will always point to the right direction.

 

[Kubanator]

A lot more people have died because of swords than because of nuclear weapons. Does that mean nuclear weapons are less dangerous than swords? No--it means nuclear weapons just didn't come along until recently.

Much like secular government.

Actually it's because swords have no ecological fallout and don't piss off every other nation on the planet. And note how it's not exactly the government doing the killings..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Scarves_Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_of_the_Celestial_Masters

Generally, it's one group of irrational people who disagree with another group of irrational people.

 

[Haiman]

I dislike organised religion. However I do think that as long as your organisation or business is private with no connection to the government, you should be able to hire or don't hire whoever you like for whatever reasons.

 

[SonicKoala]

A lot more people have died because of swords than because of nuclear weapons. Does that mean nuclear weapons are less dangerous than swords? No--it means nuclear weapons just didn't come along until recently.

Much like secular government.

Actually it's because swords have no ecological fallout and don't piss off every other nation on the planet. And note how it's not exactly the government doing the killings..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Scarves_Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_of_the_Celestial_Masters

Generally, it's one group of irrational people who disagree with another group of irrational people.

Yeah, but you realise that massive amounts of people have died for reasons other than religious ones. You can post as many wikipedia links as you like to try to justify this argument that religion is the root of all evil, but the fact is more people have died as a result of non-religious conflicts, or as a result of decisions that weren't influenced by religion whatsoever. Since you love links to wikipedia so much, here are some more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#Ukraine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Consequences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields

All involve massive losses of human life, and none of them related to religion. Please note that three of them revolve around Communist ideology; a central tenant of Communism? Secularism. Hm, didn't really seem to make the leaders any more rational, did it?

 

[Seanchaidh]

And you're wrong with your last point. If we had other ideas, they would be based off of rational. Rational will always point the same direction. The right direction.

This is quite wrong. Reason only makes sets of statements consistent, it does not ensure that they are true. Reason allows you to proceed from true statements to other true statements, or false statements to either true or false statements. It does not in the slightest guarantee the truth of anything.

Ok, so the path goes like this:

True->True->True->True

True
False-> True
False->
False

And so on. In the end game, if there's the slightest chance of truth coming out, reason will always point to the right direction.

No, not at all. Reason just makes statements consistent. It does not point in any direction but the consistent one. It does not do whatever you think it's doing.

 

[SimuLord]

The only time a religious order should be allowed to discriminate is if they decide they only want to hire people of their faith to do faith-based activities. It wouldn't make much sense if, say, someone wanted to sue a Catholic church because they didn't want Buddhists performing liturgical activities...

 

[Mr. Squee]

I think what I love about this whole discrimination thing is that why they are bashing Homosexuals they are breaking the very commandments they belive in. If they dont agree with it thats their problem but when they are running around with "God Hates Fags" signs and showing up at a homosexual kid's funeral and having signs that say "God killed your son because he was Gay" that is when there is a huge problem. I find it amazing that religous people can do this and there is seemingly no consequence

I think religion is the most dangerous weapon out there at times, it turns people against one another and for what a 6000 year old book that talks of a man walking on water?!?

If your religious I dont mean to offend you but keep your religion to yourselves practice it in your own way(not saying that every one that is religous is a Bible-thumper)

 

[SonicKoala]

Wow, first of all, yes European imperialism did exist in the Middle East, the British, French, and Russians all had influence in numerous nations in that area, so don't talk about something you're clearly ignorant about.

Please post evidence to your claim.

A good example was how Britain had control of pretty much all the oil in what is now Iran for several decades starting in the early 1900s. No, the Crusades nor the Spanish Inquisition are peaceful, but once again, it never said in the Bible go kill everybody who doesn't believe what you do.

Bible never said it was literal either.

IN FACT, Jesus Christ, the man who's teachings are at the centre of Christianity, preached a message of tolerance and acceptance of ALL people - how people misinterpreted this, I really can't say.

Irrationality? Not actually reading the bible?

Second of all, God didn't write the bible,

He made humans exactly the way they are and knows exactly what everyone has, is and will do, as he is omniscient. He wrote it.

and third, you can't fucking control the way people think. People are always going to get different interpretations of something, that's just human nature, it has nothing to do with the religion itself.

God created human nature.

And no, even if you had other more "rational" ideas, there are always going to be irrational people who twist and pervert these ideas.

Killing is wrong. No human should die due to intentional, unintentional, or apathetic actions. Pervert it please.

I did post evidence to my claim, you fucking sited it in another one of the things you quoted. You then say that the way people misinterpret the bible is through irrationality, and not reading the Bible - which is no way the Bible's fault at all, so that's a pretty retarded argument.

You then go on to blame everything on God through this assumption that all religious people believe God is completely omnipotent and created every single little thing on this earth, right down to the way people think - I do not believe that this is the nature of God at all, so you're preaching to the wrong choir here.

 

[Custard_Angel]

It's a complex issue.

Certain scenarios I'd agree with wholeheartedly. For instance, a teacher who is openly hindu teaching in a christian school (an actual christian school, not one with "saint" in the name), may teach in a manner that conflicts with the school ethos and as such would not be well suited to the job.

What about a buddhist attempting to join an islamic organisation. First question is why? Second question is how would this affect things?

Some organisations have the right to function without interference from outside influences (within the law of course). If a christian charity had to overhaul the entirety of its program to accomodate someone who does not share the same values would prove to be a big annoyance i.e. no actual charity work would get done while admin sorts everything out.

By all means re evaluate the system, but also consider the fact that it may mean major inconveniences for little benefit.

 

[manaman]

By that I mean on a level equal to what Black Americans and the NAtive Americans have gone through. If America is not for gay marriage then it shouldn't be forced down out throats yet. Why no one respects this is simply beyond me.

I do not hate gays, nor do I treat them any differently. But certain beliefs are certain beliefs and to dub it discrimination because of the technicality of the term is just immature.

Edit - Wait, is this set in America?

I am a gun toting freedom loving, gun toting, fairly conservative, American and even I can see how ridiculously hypocritical a comment like that is. Come on, gay rights shouldn't be shoved down our thoughts? They sure as hell should be! These are basic human rights, no more then the ones all other Americans enjoy. If marriage was strictly a religious practice then I would say to hell with them if they want the religious ceremony then they need to follow the tenets of that religion. But when they do marriages in a courthouse, then the goverment has no damn right to discriminate against anyone for anything, except being a felon.

Which brings me back to the original topic:

"It is good to see the Victorian government respecting those concerns and the basic right to religious freedom in this state."

This is why religious people need a reality check. That's fucking sick of them to say. It's not a 'right to religious freedom' to discriminate against someone who is different. Fucking pigs.

It sure as hell is. How about this. I think Johnny Serial killer deserves to live in your home, and you need to take care of him. How fucking happy are you about that? Wait, you find what he did morally wrong? Well screw you and your beliefs this is morally superior big brother talking here. We say what you can and cannot find socially acceptable around here!

Sarcasm aside think about things from their point of view: The life style choice violates a basic part of the fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs for you to march and tell them they are wrong, and sick for believing that is not your place. They have a right to as many bat-shit insane beliefs as they want as long as they do not violate any laws. Being of course private, and non-profit they are not covered under a lot of the discrimination laws that businesses are, and I don't think they should be.

 

[badgersprite]

I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.

Dude, what else is it? They are legally allowed to reject people from working for them based soley on if they are a single-mother or gay. That's the textbook diffinition of discrimination.

The single mother thing can be a huge impact on how reliable the worker is as far as attendance. Children get sick and take up large amounts of time from a family with two parents, when only one is involved it gets far more complicated. Is it fair? Probably not. However, it's not like they were forced to have children either.

Barring someone from getting a job based on being gay or not is just plain dumb. Employers should be hiring whoever will make them the most money. Any good business person will do exactly that.

It also looks like the only place that this really affects is in the religious schools themselves. It doesn't say anything about workplace or beyond. Unless the private school receives some form of public funding, the state really shouldn't regulate it.

In Australia, Private Schools do receive government funding.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

I believe that people should have the right to hire or fire anyone they want for any reason they want. I also believe that people have the right to buy or sell to anyone they want for any reason they want. Not only that, but I believe that people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe for whatever reason they want. I even believe that people should be able to decide who comes on their property for whatever reason they want.

Freedom is a good thing.

 

[theultimateend]

I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.

Until gays are being beaten on a daily basis, killed on many occassions, and barred from eating at a pub... THEN we can use the term.

THIS is just people disagreeing over homosexuality.

I would give you the links to the many people beaten, harrassed, murder, etc. for being gay, but what is the point? You seem to be dead set against acknowledging what is right in front of you, so I will just post this:
You are wrong.

By that I mean on a level equal to what Black Americans and the NAtive Americans have gone through. If America is not for gay marriage then it shouldn't be forced down out throats yet. Why no one respects this is simply beyond me.

I do not hate gays, nor do I treat them any differently. But certain beliefs are certain beliefs and to dub it discrimination because of the technicality of the term is just immature.

Edit - Wait, is this set in America?

I've often found it odd that folks judge someone's misfortune by those of others. "Sure he lost his leg but he didn't get AIDS so he should just shut the fuck up."

Really? This person is not allowed to feel wronged, to feel terrible, because they probably do.

Just because the police aren't out in force beating gays (anymore) and just because people aren't constantly dragging them behind pickup trucks (as much) or forcing them to fight their own biology (ok that's still going) doesn't mean that the shit they are dealing with isn't completely and utterfly fucked up.

Nobody should be thrown to the way side just because their entire people's weren't enslaved or slaughtered en masse. If we only do something when it gets that extreme then we might as well just give up trying to do anything all together.

Generally speaking my major problem with faiths is that they get so much freedom to do this sort of shit and in general not a large following of folks look down upon it. I don't think every person in any particular religion is psychotic, but I do think that they do more harm than good. Mostly because the good they do could be equally achieved with plain old optimism, however all the bad that gets justified because of them (easily so even) could likely never be as acceptable in any other form.

But to each their own, unfortunately this sort of bullshit will continue for as long as folks in general don't get a proper education (ignorance is a dangerous bliss).