|
Ddraig posted:Your argument is that, while you agree that there are religious people who are not closed minded bigots, there are those who are, who must be somehow more religious, or their religion must somehow be more conductive to that, even though within any given religion you can find many, many people who do not fit that mold at all. Are they bad at their religion? Did the Divine rear end in a top hat not properly enter into them? Are they fake religious people? You're suggesting, what, that some people are inherently bigoted and they gravitate towards particular ideologies solely as a way to express their bigotedness?
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:since people can come up with their own religious tenets, and often do so, it's strange that you would say religion is the prime factor here and not the person who thought up the bad idea or the person who heard the bad idea and said "yes i agree with this" "God hates fags" is a religious idea, in that it pertains to the nature of God. It's also a homophobic idea. If someone develops their opinions and values in an environment where this idea is repeated approvingly they're probably going to come to believe, through no weakness or moral failing except those common to all human beings, that God sanctions homophobia. Their religion, in other words, creates bigotry. There's nothing special about religion in this sense, you could substitute any cultural movement or ideology here, and any value, and it would still be true.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:we don't know if god actually hates fags though. god has been pretty vague on the subject. What does that have to do with anything?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
I would hazard a guess that if your religious beliefs contradict someone else's religious beliefs, you don't actually belong to the same religion as them. e: Or at least, to the same sect, since it's reasonable to talk about nesting taxonomies of religion. (In the sense that anyone who agrees to the Nicene Creed can probably be called a Christian, but that's not enough to be a Catholic and being a Catholic doesn't necessarily make you a Tridentine Catholic.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well then holy poo poo, there are about 20 different religions expressed in the little Presbyterian church I went to growing up. Isn't that the point of Protestantism in general? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
"Language subtly affects your values and how you think about the world" isn't really an implausible scenario either.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because freedom of religion is written into the Constitution, and as a result of that, there are already certain exceptions in both discrimination law and discrimination caselaw for explicitly religious institutions under certain specific circumstances. The precedents suggest that something as broad as the laws being passed now still wouldn't pass the laugh test in a courtroom, but at least it's a legal argument (even if it's a weak, thinly veiled one) nominally based on fundamental US law, whereas "I want the ability to discriminate against LGBT people because I hate them" doesn't have any legal basis at all to point to. The religious freedom argument is an attempt to pretend it's not just all about hate, while simultaneously giving it a constitutional justification that the right can point to so when it inevitably comes crashing down they can blame evil activist liberal justices destroying our good old AMERICAN values, and feed their persecution complexes from multiple angles at once. I think you'd be better served by confronting the possibility that it really is part of their religion to hate gay people. Your claims that it isn't aren't very convincing, and if you're wrong, we don't need an argument that a religion can't possibly be bigoted -- we need an argument that religious bigotry shouldn't be constitutionally protected even though it's religious in character. It would probably take the form of a balancing test vs. the other constitutional values that would be violated by discrimination against sexual orientation, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:that's what i've been saying this whole thread! it's pretty silly to claim anti-LGBT bigotry is religiously based given the wide disparity in attitudes across religion, the lack of specific religious doctrine against LGBT persons, and a tighter correlation between bigotry and social conservativism (as well as social conservativism and particular strains of christianity) "It's pretty silly to claim anti-LGBT bigotry is politically based given the wide disparity in attitudes across politics." Do you see why this particular prong is ridiculous? "The lack of specific religious doctrine against LGBT persons" would be a better argument, but some religions do in fact have such doctrine. Others do not. Others fall along an arguable borderline, such as having specific religious doctrine against homosexual behavior, but not against the orientation itself. There might be a causal relationship between doctrine saying "some people are driven to worse sins than others, or more powerfully driven to sin" and believers coming to the conclusion that people like that are somehow inferior. Some religions have no formally recorded doctrine, or have common practices which contradict formal doctrine but map extremely close with their religious identification. "A tighter correlation" with some other identifying factor is a good response to this issue specifically, but it doesn't settle the matter, and it doesn't even touch the issues I mentioned above.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:politics are based on specific issues of the present and not philosophical considerations of ethics or the afterlife, rooted in tradition. i can cook up a new political stance any time i please. it's much harder to find some kind of religious justification for net neutrality Nonsense. If God tells you something like "love your neighbor" you can apply that to virtually any aspect of your life, including ones that the tradition doesn't explicitly address. It might result in a diversity of interpretations, and it's true that other social influences might (and in fact, almost certainly will) influence how you interpret that command. But your religion remains among those influences, especially if your religion includes instruction or tradition on how to interpret doctrine properly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
We all believe in holding other people to our moral standards. That's pretty much the definition of law. It's all well and good to call people out when they are being hypocritical, but this stuff isn't just the result of inconsistent or dishonest thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 06:53
|
|