General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReligious beliefs that are prejudiced against women, LGBT, races should be judged as harshly as...
Those beliefs if they were held for non-religious reasons.
Inside and outside that religion, intolerant religious beliefs should be held to the same standard as intolerance anywhere.
It is no more acceptable if you believe in discrimination against gays, or those of other races, or women based on a religious tenet, than if you came up with that belief yourself, without any religious motivation.
As someone formerly in a conservative religion, one of the most useful moments growing up was when a relative said to me, "so what if your church told you to believe that way, what kind of excuse is that?"
She was right. It was an educational moment.
We do a disservice to those in intolerant religions when we accept that they believe something intolerant and don't ask them to question what they have accepted.
And as a former member of a conservative church, it was really important for me to deal with whether I believed or did not believe that God wanted me to believe the intolerant thing (or not).
I ultimately answered that question, "no, God doesn't want me to believe that way, no matter what the others say..."
Later though, I'd leave and decide even if I didn't believe those intolerant things, I didn't want to be a part of a place that was advertising those beliefs.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Actions are another story.
Someone can certainly "believe" that left-handed people are spawn of the devil. But if they take no action affecting left-handed people, then nobody is harmed by their mere belief.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)...there's an action or you wouldn't know it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)So, a left-handed guy walks into a restaurant. The manager seats him, takes his order, delivers the food, thanks him for the tip, and sends him on his way. Then, he says "Man, I really hate left-handed people."
So what?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and said it so that others knew he believed that?
yeah, that's harmful. damn straight it's harmful.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...if they do not, by their actions, harm anyone?
I'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but to take one example, Christianity, in the main, posits that persons who do not have faith in Jesus as their savior will suffer eternal damnation.
It is, by definition, a discriminatory belief, as are many other religions which propose that they have an exclusive lock on some cosmic system of rewards and punishments.
The best we can do is to put legal controls on discriminatory conduct - just as most of our other laws are based on conduct. While mental state may be an element which, in combination with certain conduct, constitutes an offense (such as burglary versus accidentally walking into the wrong house), I'm curious what it is you propose to do with people whose "actions" boil down to (a) believing something, and (b) expressing that belief, provided they take no action which impairs the liberty of those who are disfavored by their beliefs.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 26, 2014, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)
That belief and speech is an offense that must be punished. A very dangerous move for a democracy of individuals.
And this probably will be the next witch hunt on DU.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)about intolerant beliefs, and not just ignore them out of respect for religion, but instead talk.
the example in my OP is that my relative TALKED to me, REASONED with me and didn't just drop the subject because I said I believed something because of my church.
she challenged the basis of my reasoning.
and that got me thinking.
and it was a good thing.
your imagination is where you got the witch hunt idea because my OP encouraged people to talk and reason over these beliefs and yes, hold them up to scrutiny.
not legally, not physically...intellectually.
Response to zeemike (Reply #19)
PassingFair This message was self-deleted by its author.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)she didn't "do anything" to me and i haven't suggested anything of the sort here.
to talk and reason with people and not merely ignore an intolerant belief simply because it's a religious one.
you're an attorney and you're constantly avoiding what i actually said to insert something i didn't say. bad form.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)By attacking their character.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)not me.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)then jumped on you for using "handicapped" in your reply. If she has a physical handicap, wouldn't she be physically handicapped? What am I missing here?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I live in his head rent-free, apparently.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But it gets noisy in here with all the other DUers.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)but even if you know you're wrong, you'll never admit it.
YOU don't make mistakes.
that's why you come on DU and correct people, even on topics you don't know (disabilities, for example).
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And you come to DU to berate people for echoing words you yourself used.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)but when you call them handicapped, you're referring to the whole person. which is the larger problem.
but you know what, you're just trolling.
or else you'd criticize him for using the term "handicapped" when in fact you support him, then criticize me for using a more appropriate term, all the while using even more appropriate terms in every other mention.
but that's what you bring to DU.
interested in a liberal cause? no just defending Lozocalo.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)No wonder you dont understand ADA
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)when the story about the little girl kicked out of a restaurant because of a physical handicap, you went to exhaustive lengths to justify the behavior of the restaurant.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Oh look, another thread about how bad I am. Unfortunately the manager in the restaurant incident did not know she was handicapped.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you still use that term?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Take it up with the DMV
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and even though it does not tell you to call her something inappropriate like that, you dutifully follow what you think it's telling you to do.
because a piece of hard cardboard limits what you can call a person with a disability. because you have no power to use another term, you are forced by the gods and the laws to use the term on a piece of cardboard (which doesn't even use those terms in most states anyway).
besides, Pennsylvania doesn't even use that terminology on their website:
Defining a Person with Disability Parking Placard
A Person with Disability Parking Placard is a special parking placard issued by PennDOT to a person who meets the qualifications as listed in Who is Eligible? This parking placard is to be displayed on the rearview mirror when a vehicle is utilizing a parking space reserved for person with disabilities.
but again, why argue. you are unable to use another word because of the tyranny of the cardboard.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)obviously you are not an expert in disability and seem to be unwilling to change that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)A different-topic example of prejudice that is not overt (victim never directly attacked) but harmful nevertheless.
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/03/28/tipping-points-study-says-restaurant-service-linked-to-race/
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That's where bigoted ideas/mindsets lead. They don't have to be acting out on bad faith intentionally.
Edit: they need not even be aware they are doing it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Your statement is not responsive to what I said about absence of action on the belief.
I didn't say anything about awareness or intention. I said action. So whether the action is not intentional doesn't matter - it is still action.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If holding an idea produces action without intent or even awareness, then your distinction of 'belief without action' is meaningless.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Where does your study day that every person with a discriminatory belief will, of necessity, be consistently acted on by believers?
Answer: it doesn't.
Now if you read what I wrote, I have no problems with proscribing action which proceeds from a belief - intentional or not.
How about we save ourselves some trouble and simply hand a list to anyone applying for a business license and say, "Is there anyone on this list you don't like?" and if they say yes, then we don't give them a license since you claim that such persons will reliably and consistently act on their belief.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)There are people arrested for drunk driving who are not even aware they were driving. My goodness, have you ever been pulled over for a traffic violation you didn't know you committed?
I missed a "no turn on red" sign once, and made a right turn. I told the cop "but I had no idea I was doing anything wrong!"
snooper2
(30,151 posts)is harmful-
If Christians actually followed their holy book like most Muslims this country would be in a lot worse shape than it is now in that respect.
Thankfully we have the Bill of Rights and Constitution on our side-
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Prejudice and bigotry does not only come from religions. Those are things that are learned in the home, from friends, etc.
Just because a person may attend a religious service, does not mean that they are automatically a bigot. There are, I would imagine, plenty of asshats that have no religion.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Nobody can claim that it is only these or those people.
Fred Gilmore
(80 posts)But how about this.........when organized religion, any organized religion, non-tax paying entities, get involved in trying to sway government policies, should they not a)be taxed just the same as any other organization involved in trying to sway governmental policy, and b)be held to the same standards as any other groups when they try to discriminate against anyone?
Here's the real catch 22 when it comes to religions and governments in this country. The government does not get involved in trying to sway the policies of organized religions, yet organized religions are always trying to sway governmental policies.
The other major difference between organized religion and government is this......by their very existence, organized religions are discriminatory and exclusive, while governments are non-discriminatory and inclusive.
The real issue is that organized religions are stepping outside of their domain to try and enforce their systems of belief upon all others, without regard to the system of belief of those others.
gopiscrap
(23,766 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)just because you yourself are not directly affected?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)The out of hand part?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)People who believe things I don't believe, and vice versa, are inherently suspect.
agree
raven mad
(4,940 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But that's just me.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)but the "majority" believed they were ok. How many witches were hanged/pressed to death at Salem Town? None. None.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)I agree completely!
I love this line:
We do a disservice to those in intolerant religions when we accept that they believe something intolerant and don't ask them to question what they have accepted.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)the enforcement of laws and Constitutional issues, and with the interests of the state. I should hope that the Court would find the Arizona-type law wholly unconstitutional. The real test will come before, with the Hobby Lobby case, arguing that businesses shouldn't have to insure women for birth control, etc. if it is against their "beliefs."
I guess my point is: it's none of our business what people want to believe. It is COMPLETELY our business whether they are allowed to enact into law those beliefs, and in so doing deprive others of their civil rights.
Here's a pretty good summary of the history of modern Supreme Court cases in which the "free exercise" clause and the enforcement of laws have come into conflict.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/freeexercise.htm
freshwest
(53,661 posts)If they can believe they have the right to force others, that's what the law is for, unless one lives in a theocracy. And then they'll kill you with the force of law to do as they say. I feel that these laws pushed by ALEC and others are coming very close to that mark, with the support of propagandazing media. This crazy stuff is on the air ways all day and night long, getting some people all fired up and they vote for RWNJs.
And I appreciate your way of wording it, so much better than what I was saying.
stopbush
(24,397 posts)What if a religion held that god said murder was OK? No one would accept that. So why give a special carve-out to religion-born intolerance that is not acceptable outside of religion?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If they're going to point to Leviticus for why "gays are evil", then they can't ignore the other parts of the book.
So, they'd have to start keeping kosher. They'd also have to start welcoming undocumented workers to the country, as if they were US citizens. Though, I'm really not sure how they're going to deal with the need to stone their children.
If they can pick-and-choose to ignore those rules, they can pick-and-choose to ignore the ones against gay men.
former9thward
(32,111 posts)Who would require them? A government monitor?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Their argument is their sacred text conflicts with the laws, and they can't possibly violate their sacred text. So they need to be excused from the laws.
Problem is they are violating their sacred text. They're eating shellfish, wearing polyester blends, and throwing "illegal aliens" out of the country.
So either they need to stop violating their text, or they need to come up with a different argument.
former9thward
(32,111 posts)And of course you will have to monitor the Islamic religion which is the most anti-gay religion on the planet.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Read the subject of the reply. It answered the question.
When Muslims use the same can't-disobey-except-we-do argument, it should fail too.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)we're all advocating to sic the government on people. to have them prosecuted. to put them away in camps, etc.
of course, we aren't.
but he wants you to believe that.
beware.
all i ask for is reasoning.
former9thward
(32,111 posts)As usual you did not answer it. When someone says "required to be consistent" I think there is a valid question. Of course this needs to be applied to all.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)keep gay people away from their precious, fake, affected and insincere belief in a religion they do not know, would not agree with and will never follow.
former9thward
(32,111 posts)You may be ok with dumping the 1st amendment, not me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't know a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew who plays the Faith Game to the letter. Not a one!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)If their families, friends and neighbors all decided they wanted to join the Temple of Barking At The Moon, they'd go along with it, as well...particularly if the rituals were fun and included parties and gift-giving.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)So why should anyone be denied any rights, whether it be to have a cake baked or to get birth control pills, just because someone chose to believe that being gay is bad or one should not have sexual relations for pleasure.
So when you make a choice to believe certain things you don't then get to claim you are free from the responsibility of that choice and blame it on your religion. You chose that religion. So you are choosing to discriminate.
Plus, there are plenty of people who would call themselves christians who are open to gay relations, women's rights, etc... which proves the point that your belief system is your choice even within a religion. Same with what Jeff47 said above me, even those hardcore religious nuts are choosing what they want to believe and what they want to ignore.
So no, you do not get to simply choose to discriminate imo.
wryter2000
(46,116 posts)n/t
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Lots of people haven't gotten that memo, sadly.
Fred Gilmore
(80 posts)Of children. The list of atrocities done by man to his fellow man in the name of religion would make a book that would take an expert reader many lifetimes to read through and through.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)You don't want to sell one of your cakes to gay people? OK, simple. Stop. selling. cakes!
You don't want to sell the morning after pill to someone? OK, simple. Stop. selling. pills!
You don't want to sell flowers to gay people? Ok, simple.......stop. selling. flowers!
These people have CHOSEN these fields. If they can't agree to the norms of the business, get out of business.
Choice.
Make. A. Different. One.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I would not try and tell a religious person what to believe, I just don't think like that. Of course, that means mainstream religious thought. I am not saying those who pervert religions like fanatics who are recruiting suicide bombers for terrorism, or forming abusive personality based cults are A-OK, no, not at all.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)"I am not saying those who pervert religions"
That's kind of in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I think most would agree that is wrong.
I would say Mill's no harm principle applies, people are free to believe anything they want, as long as they don't harm others.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)But the OP was talking about religious prejudice that DOES in fact harm people (just doesn't blow them up).
quinnox
(20,600 posts)then it comes down to the definition of what "harm" means. I'm not prepared to debate this further, but my definition of harm would mean things like suicide bombing, physical abuse like in cults and so on. It would mean solid things like that.
NealK
(1,890 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)K&R
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)people here excuse his bigotry they like to pretend it has no part in the hate circling the globe, but it does. Uganda's hate law would not exist had Francis condemned it. But he did not do so. Instead his Bishops promoted this horror.
I am no longer going to play nice with those who sick their preachers on innocent people claiming they have a right to attack others. They don't. They are bullies and they are nothing more, not a thing more.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)"We should criticize these religions and not give them a pass just because they use Godditit! as an answer for everything." and "We should totally use the power of the government to oppress religious people if we disagree with them.".
Just you wait, they're gonna fuck that strawman right up and split ALL of the hairs.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Even on DU. The Pope threads are a great example of it. The guy is a homophobic bigot and misogynist, but religious privilege gets him far here. Sure, it has to be the right sort of religion, but still it's there.
I rarely see other threads lavishing praise on a leader of an organization that continues to spread death and misery and take away the rights of other DUers. The privilege is so thick, some are entirely unaware of it.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)(one in particular who is a big Hillary supporter and accused me of being anti-women in 2008 because I was for Obama -- and I'm female) and yet stick up for the Pope at every turn. The disconnect makes no sense to me.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Makes no sense to me.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)Exactly. It's why I quit the Catholic Church at the age of 14. And it was a Jesuit priest who asked me that.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)raven mad
(4,940 posts)He was one of my college professors, and a great humanitarian. And yes - he also left his "church".