|
Individual rights and freedoms are very much one of the core tenants of being a liberal, on the "Left". Religions tend to like to poo poo a lot on individual rights and freedoms, see particularly LGBTQ and how many religions treat have treated women. Seeing as Religions are directly opposed to many of the core tenants of the political left, the left should be hostile to religion.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:How is this any different from following civic law? True, we have Anarchists on the Left but by and large I think most people agree a State is necessary to some extent. Many freedoms should be restricted, ie, we don't have the freedom to murder people. This restriction applies to all people, independent of sexual orientation or gender. Religion likes to gently caress over particular subsets of society in particular. See again, LGBTQ people and how there are many restrictions and laws against these people specifically. If no one could marry that would be fine. If everyone could marry that would also be fine. But its because of religion that there is so much resistance to a particular subset of society from marrying. There are many very much more serious consequences for LGBTQ people in other places of the world and for women also. If religions treated people equally there wouldn't be an issue, but it doesn't, it likes to gently caress over specific subsets of society, just for funsies. This must not be tolerated. People deserve to be treated equally and religions need to respect this. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean the religious apologist would probably argue that everyone is equally obligated not to do gay stuff. Not being able to marry your partner and seek the legal protections and social recognition that comes with that is absolutely an equality issue. As in, some groups get to do this and other groups cannot. These groups are not equal. This has nothing to do with "unequal requirements", the requirements are the same.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:One could believe that people are either equally obligated to follow the rules or equally entitled to a particular outcome. Or we could have rules that don't deliberately exclude people. Allowing adults independent of gender to marry, is the same rule for all, with same outcome for all. Bam, equality. Basically when we have rules that apply differently dependent on gender, sexual orientation or race, just don't do that. I don't even know why you are going down this side track.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because the topic of the thread is conflict between religion and leftist politics, which merits an analysis of the different motivations and goals of each? I literally have no idea what you are on about. Conflict exists between the left and religion because religion often decides to poo poo on minorities, gay marriage is a case in point. You suggest an analysis of different motivations. Decent people: 1. It would be swell if everyone could marry their partners and society would be better Mean people: 2. We have rules to follow and we like making GBS threads on people and making their lives miserable And your argument against changing rules so everyone can be happy is, we have rules and we hate people. Maybe you might begin to understand where the hostility is coming from....
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Like it's possible for someone to be wrong without them also a Saturday morning cartoon villain. People can be wrong in good faith. And if the religious folk kept their religious views and rules how to live to themselves, we wouldn't have an issue. And until that happens, religious folk imposing their religious rules on society at large, must be opposed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That makes absolutely no sense if they believe that their position is correct and the way to ensure the most meaningful welfare for everyone. The primary issue with religion is the issue of belief and complete faith in a position. So even wrong positions cannot be changed. Just be like every other decent person in society and be willing to engage with social issues in a rational context. So when we say gay marriage is awesome for society, maintaining that your have an old book that says different, is actually hurting how our society moves towards treating people decently. I mean, if you have a valid reason to oppose gay marriage, go for it. But because you have and old book that says different is just literally insane. quote:By that logic they should legitimately be able to say that your godlessness is damning people to hell and you must be silenced... My godlessness is only damning me to hell. And seeing as I don't believe in it there isn't any issue. See how I keep those beliefs to myself... EDIT: And I am not advocating censure ship but vocal opposition. Freedom of expression is an important right in our society. Are you also okay with censoring positions you don't like? BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Except you... aren't keeping them to yourself, you're saying that society should not enforce the rules that your opponents believe are integral to the long term wellbeing of everybody in the world... I am keeping my religious views to myself. I have not once shared my religion or encourage people to change their religious views. I am not encouraging anyone to share in my godlessness. OwlFancier posted:You essentially appear to be arguing that consequentialism is an absolutely correct moral system and in the same breath complaining about your opponents' adherence to an absolute concept of morality... I am not. I am saying having "rules/laws" that don't dick on people because of sexual orientation/gender/race are good for society. You hold an alternate position because, no one knows why.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think possibly "do not allow your religious views to motivate your actions I don't care so much as to how it motivates your actions but as to how it defines or violates our LAWS. OwlFancier posted:and also society should be structured according to my belief that your religious views should not be represented" might be a bit of a nudge in a particular theological direction? Of course it is. But I am not trying to convert you or trying to force my religious views on you. I actually respect your right to religious freedom. But I also demand that you respect other people in society and not force your religious rules onto them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's kind of like saying "I respect your right to religious freedom except I don't think you should be allowed to have your secular views at all represented in our laws and society, just keep them to yourself." That is literally exactly the opposite of what I am saying. It is exactly your SECULAR views which should be represented in our laws and society. I would like to now hear your SECULAR views on why gay marriage shouldn't be a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Religion not allowed" is a religious position. Religion is allowed, its the very definition of religious freedom. What you don't get to do is force your religious views or rules on others, its this part that you are really struggling with. I would also like to hear your SECULAR view against gay marriage. It should be a doozy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Rejection of religion is a religious position... I am not rejecting religion. I value everyone's right to practise their religions that they see fit. OwlFancier posted:If you are looking to construct a secular society that is a religious position. You don't get to opt out of the whole subject and declare yourself above it. I am actually not looking to construct a secular society. I am however insisting that our laws be secular. Imagine the 2 dozen other religions in their country imposed their religious views on your lifestyle, and how pissed off that would make you. Think about that for a bit. You are only looking at this from the perspective of how you can force your religious views on others while completely ignoring the fact that its utter poo poo to have someone else's religions views forced on you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm looking at it from the perspective that you are proposing that what appears to be your theological perspective should be the legal basis for society, and that this will materially hinder people with different theological perspectives from getting their views represented on what constitutes a society that looks after its citizens. And you're arguing that this is different from when another theological perspective does that. SECULAR LAWS, do you understand what secular means?!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
zh1 posted:it's pretty clear that guy doesn't know what his own foot is dude I know, but I was kinda enjoying it. But its at an end now. Its the boring old nonsense of, "your demand for secular laws is a religious perspective so therefore its okay for me to insist on my religious perspective"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Secular laws use materialist concepts of empathy, compassion and reason. It would be nice if religious laws did this too. But they don't. So they can gtfo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Isn't that a rather sticky moral issue? Like, if you do nothing but help people all your life, how can you be a bad person? Because if it is driven by 100% selfish motives, ie, not going to hell, it colours it more than a little. Compared to someone who helps people out of a sense of empathy. Wouldn't necessarily call such a person a bad person but I would rather people help others out of empathy rather than fear.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 07:32
|
|