BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 21 May 10 - 10:12 AM

The official USA stance is admirable and reflects how most rational people here in The UK view reality. We too have our weird would be dictators using old books as a tool for their attempted tyranny.

However, we also have a small issue that led to the court judgement this thread started with; going back to Henry VIII, monarchy is head of our protestant church. Therefore, their head preachers (bishops) have the right to sit in our upper house (House of Lords) not because they are clever, not because their great great granddad was a slave owner, but because of their beliefs.

That is in my opinion wrong and due for overhaul. The new government speak of having an elected upper house in their reforms. No mention of the blokes in silly hats being kicked out though I notice....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 May 10 - 10:01 AM

The Separation is one of the hallmarks of American democracy.

It is being undermined by certain Christians who want their version of Sharia Law.
Palin, Rand Paul, Robertson and others are culpable. These beliefs have no legal standing
based on what we know historically about the American Constitution created by Deists
who were wary of religious zealots who would attempt to take over our country.

We are not yet a theocracy but there are those who are attempting to change this.

The right to "believe" is legal. The supplanting of religious ideas for the purpose of
subverting the law is not.

Churches are legal but not in government decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 21 May 10 - 06:52 AM

Hey Joe,

Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful post. I know I come over as very anti religion and some extrapolate that to mean I have bigoted views about a lifestyle, (following a religious belief) whilst trying to promote lifestyles, (being gay or anything else that offends some religious teachings.)

The conundrum can be explained, (in my head anyway..) by having an overall concern about a religion having influence on the laws and customs I am expected to adhere to. i didn't vote for the party (s) that won our government election earlier this month, but accept that as a democratic voter, I am expected to live with the decision and abide by their laws.

With religion, I am not a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or in fact anything. I am Steamin' Willie, or whatever. What's more, I am not even atheist. Because that would mean I have a stance having thought it through. I haven't bothered thinking it through any more than I have thought it through about joining the local pigeon fanciers' society. (Ok, sorry, for those not familiar, breeding and racing pigeons, popular where I come from..) So not even the term atheist applies to me, as I see it as a negative description by those with belief.

You know, I actually envy people with belief. My Gran, on her deathbed, was content because she was going to meet again soon with my Granddad, my Dad, her sisters etc. She really believed that, making the final curtain that much less traumatic. When my time comes, all I have to look forward to is

I have officially joined The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that was because I do some work for the government and they survey the population make up of those who work for them, some forms include asking your religion. No surprises then that I reckon being a Pastafarian is better than being an atheist....

Sadly, if something is said in terms of religious interpretation, it is held by some as being true, despite evidence to the contrary. That is the, if you like, tangible issue I have. As a scientist, (my PhD is in physics) I am used to holding a stance or belief but dismiss it out of hand when evidence is shown to demonstrate it no longer holds.   For many people, proof denies faith and that just about wraps up the reason and logic in threads such as this one.

Akenaton has just tried saying that incest has less health risks than homosexuality. The only thing missing in that is proof, as there is none. But stupid statements such as that fit in with his / her / its awful views on life, so say it often enough and there are enough shallow idiots to believe it, or at least print it in their newspaper.....

Come to think about it... defending incest... Ok, it all comes clear now. the lack of logic, the irrational stances, the grudge, the fast replies, (that extra finger comes in handy when typing eh?)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 20 May 10 - 07:47 PM

Alas, Joe, I often fail my own litmus test as, I can be very judgemental and opinionated. I would like to think it was on the side of being fair and open but I am sure some who have suffered a tongue lashing from me would think otherwise ;-)

One can only try. I have many failings...

But thank you for the respect and compliment. When comparing myself to others I fall far short of the true goodness that abides in many out there. One can never have too much of such things :-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 10 - 07:11 PM

the basic Christian premise has to be one of love and forgiveness, being non-judgmental and caring for one's fellows.

Like I said above, mauvepink, I have a lot of respect for you.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 10 - 06:55 PM

There are many types of human sexual behaviour which are not "tolerated"
Incest is banned on health issues, but the health problems associated with homosexuality are far greater than those associated with incest.

Sexual relations between close relatives are common in nature....much more common than same gender sex, and if the means of procreation were removed or blocked, I suppose the behaviour would be completely safefrom the standpoint of physical health.

Personally, I am no more in favour of the promotion of incest, than I am in favour of the promotion of homosexuality.
This is simply another example of the law being an ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 20 May 10 - 11:39 AM

I still very much see this particular case as involving employment law far more than religion and beliefs. Religion is brought into it because of the counsellor's own religious beliefs conflicting with what he was being asked to do.

As I have said, I would defend the counsellor's right to have a religion and be able to practice it in peace. What I cannot defend is his discrimination to the gay couple on such grounds when his employment asked it of him. He knew what he would be getting into.

I cannot comment about other religions, but what sits really bad about this is that the man was/is a Christian. Being Christian is a way of life. Which actual Christian faith you belong to would then maybe colour what you find acceptable and able to tolerate, but the basic Christian premise has to be one of love and forgiveness, being non-judgmental and caring for one's fellows.

It is my belief that Jesus, who CHRISTianity is ALL about, would not judge this gay couple. Christ never once spoke out against gay people. He preached about love and acceptance of sinners, which we all are (not that I personally see homosexuality as a sin). What I trying to say is that God, if he/she exists, is said to have given us free will. He/she wants a relationship with us by the free will. Only he/she can judge. Our duty to our fellows, therefore, if we are to follow JESUS teachings - not the church or any particular flavour of Christianity that is practised - is to do as Jesus asked us. That can often conflict with what the church asks us to do. Do as Jesus did and you will not go far wrong I guess.

Jesus cherished people having relationships. He died so we could all get on, we are told, and he wanted us all to love one another. Helping people nurture those relationships and flourish must surely be more in keeping with true Christianity than sticking to a man-made edict about homosexulity being repugnant, unnatural, wrong or against Christianity. What happened to let he who is without sin... ?

Live and let live...

Judge yea not as you may be judged...

It's not rocket science. Have your belief system. Abide by it. Have principles. But don't say you have all that and then discriminate against something that actually has nothing to do with you....

"In the realms of sexuality who makes the rules on what should be tolerated?". What the heck has it got to do with anyone what two, or more, consenting adults get up to as long as it is not against children or animals? It may not be my or your thing but that does not make it wrong for those who are doing it. If it does not affect me it is none of my business. Some people go out of their way to make some things affect them so they can moan about it, try and spoil it for others. Some are just plainly jealous because others have something they do not not. Some moan because some are doing things they would love to do but are not brave enough to give it a try. They should get a life of their own that is full and wholesome. It's a great cure toward open mindedness and acceptance of others also having a life.

Sorry for being so passionate but it never ceases to amaze me why being gay is such a problem to those who are (supposedly) not gay. Why does it trouble them so? We still have far more in common with each other than that which we do not. Why can we not concentrate on those things that are important about a person?

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

-Alexander Pope,
An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733


mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 20 May 10 - 10:41 AM

"In the realms of sexuality who makes the rules on what should be tolerated?"

Well, Ake.... since there are so many ideas about that, why not just make the rule simple and say that 'NO tolerance of sexual behavior between adults and children (who are unable to give 'reasoned consent'....but NO rules about the behavior of adults who ARE able to mutually consent (except about where)?

There are many, many aspects of life where people disagree about 'proper' behavior, and I can't think of any way to resolve them except to suggest.."if YOU don't like 'X', don't do it."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:50 AM

Unfortunately Joe, stating the available facts on the effects of certain minorities behaviour, is regarded here as intolerance.

I am tolerant of most alternative lifestyles and do not wish to see the people who practice the behaviour criminalised.
That does not necessarily mean that I think the behaviour benificial to society or those who practice it.

Are we expected to tolerate anything to be righteous?

In the realms of sexuality who makes the rules on what should be tolerated?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:17 AM

I hadn't been following this thread, and I see that Steamin' Willie addressed me above and mauvepink made a related comment on tolerance. Willie thinks he wouldn't agree with me on much if we met in person, but I think he'd be surprised. He and mauvepink have some really good things to say about tolerance. I respect both of them very much.

The word 'tolerate' has almost a negative implication - it seems to mean "to put up with something." But I think the word "tolerance" has taken on a much more positive meaning, at least in the United States. To me, "tolerance" is an ideal. I don't know if I can ever achieve it perfectly, but I keep trying. Rather than just putting up with people, I think the ideal of tolerance demands that we accept and respect people for exactly who they are. If they're gay, we not only have to accept their being gay - we need to hold them in value and respect as a gay person, even if we might happen to disagree with the idea of gay sex (or at least be a bit squeamish about it, as I am).

My own code of ethics requires me to value and respect every person. I sin against that code on occasion, but that is the code I hold myself to. And what I actually strive for is to value and respect and enjoy every person. That doesn't always work, but I find it usually does - and that means I usually have a hell of a good time with people. I have to say that I believe my violations of my code are the only things I consider sinful, and the only things that God will hold me accountable for. (cf. Matthew 25 - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.)

In some ways, the idea of religous beliefs having no standing in law is troublesome to me, but maybe there's good in it. Perhaps the better thing would be if personal beliefs were respected by the law.

I'm a Catholic, and being Catholic is an important part of my life - but my personal moral code is far stricter than Catholic morals. My personal belief is that any intolerance is sinful - and for me, that especially includes intolerance against the poor, the mentally ill, the immigrant, the homosexual, and the Muslim. I am also a pacifist, although my Catholic religion does allow warfare in some situations. I think abortion is wrong, although I cannot agree with "pro-life" factions who demand that abortion be prohibited by law. And I also think that capital punishment is savage and immoral, although US Federal law and the laws of many states demand it.

I accept the fact that in some aspects, my personal moral code is in conflict with the laws of the state and country where I live. I hope that in most cases, society can accept me with my moral code, and allow me to live in accordance with that code without legal penalty. I'm up for jury duty in a federal court, and I'm a bit apprehensive about it. In conscience, I cannot vote to condemn anyone to death. But on the other hand, I think I'm a person who would be very close to absolutely fair and objective as a juror. So, should I be disqualified from a jury because I oppose the death penalty, or should I be chosen because of my objectivity and my sense of fairness? should I be punished or penalized because of my opposition to the death penalty or my favoring of rights for immigrants?

So, maybe it's right that religious beliefs not be respected by law, as long as the law does respect individual beliefs.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:12 AM

Used to not be able to buy booze in this state before noon on Sunday. I remember as a wee lad going to the grocery store and seeing the beer displays covered with black plastic, and the grocer going about removing it at noon. Haven't seen it in decades; I'm sure it can't have outlasted the 60's.

"Sabbath" (Sunday) blue laws are ridiculous in a pluralistic society. Indeed in anything short of a theocracy. Although for 8 years there it looked like we were heading .... no, probably best not to go there.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 May 10 - 01:02 AM

So we still have no answer to the query as to whether conscience has any standing in British law.   Raised a while ago by GooseGander, it is quite germane to the topic.

It seems we can all agree the employee in question deserved to be fired since he refused to do his job.

The issue is whether the judge's ruling is too broad--and will have unfortunate ramifications.

The conscience question is crucial.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 May 10 - 05:40 AM

Willie,

It's a throwback to the days of control by the actions of the "Lord's Day Observance Society", which had the ear of government to the extent of setting rules preventing any but "essential" services from operating on a Sunday.

They came up with some damn good ones too (NOT).

Because the public must have their news (and the newspaper Barons their profits) you could buy a soft porn magazine on a Sunday. Because bookstores weren't "essential", you had to wait till Monday to buy a bible.

Your Sunday shopping difficulties are simply a hangover from this era. Although rules have been relaxed, there are still restrictions on opening times etc. And of course some shopkeepers choose to have Sunday off.

It's not a case of religion overriding law now, more a question of failure to change sufficiently from the days when it did.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 19 May 10 - 04:26 AM

And Willie may come over as being a bit paranoid, but that's because we are debating this one particular subject, so the fact that religion affects me 1) when I am on this and similar threads, 2) when trying to buy a washer for a leaking tap on a Sunday after 4.00pm and 3) when my mother in law is staying and I drive to the local church and back again afterwards, (popping home for a coffee in the interim.)

It is that middle one, 2) that gets me though.

Can anybody explain to me why we have to put up with restrictions on a Sunday? As the debate is religious standing in law, this is rather pertinent.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 19 May 10 - 04:18 AM

In the UK, I think we would identify as a primarily non-religious nation and people. Or at best very quietly religious. The CofE is a very modest business and doesn't tend to shove itself at people. Though we do get evangelical imports from the US banging on our doors on a Sunday morning when normal people are either having sex or sleeping or watching Countryfile in bed with a cuppa. They cynically drag mentally disabled kids and people in wheelchairs around with them to elicit guilt from those being cold-called on rejecting their efforts to save them. And what's more they won't go away until they've got to you.
It's not just Willie, everybody hates them!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 May 10 - 01:06 AM

And Willie seems to "steam" about the most amazing things. It's hard to believe he is under siege by religious fundamentalists to the extent he seems to imagine.

But of course some Mudcatters seem to always have their dials set on "outrage". And in that regard he fits right in.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 May 10 - 01:03 AM

I would disagree with the idea that individuals have an inherent sense of ethics.   In fact I have had occasion to note this problem just recently.   Two children from the same family--a family that has unfortunately little time for their children. One has had wonderful care by another person, starting about 6 months.   The other only started with that person at about 4 years old. By then she was set in her incredibly selfish ways--no sign of a sense of ethics whatsoever.   Her brother is a delightful, caring person, always willing to cheer others on, willing to win or lose, etc. none of which his sister would ever do. She even was unwilling to let the friends she had invited to her 9th birthday party have any cake, or sing her "Happy Birthday"--though she was willing to take the presents. The caregiver is trying to bring some sense of ethics and fair play to the sister--but it's an uphill struggle--the parents seem to be afraid to criticize her in the least--so she runs wild.   Storing up big trouble for teenage years, it appears.

It seems clear to me that ethics must be taught.

This inculcation of a moral code is one of the main goals--and advantages of many religions.   True, it is not necessary to be religious to set a good example--obviously.    But some setting of moral guidelines is necessary.

The family in question is not at all religious.   But that is not crucial. What is crucial is that they do not try to guide their children.   The boy has gotten good guidance elsewhere.   The girl is already seemingly past receiving guidance.   We hope this changes soon.
It is not at all clear that a sense of ethics comes naturally.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 10 - 12:26 AM

MAjor civilizations do not have conscience or an inherent sense of ethics.

Individuals do.

But it can be suppressed, altered, denied, invalidated, or made inoperable by any number of dramatizations.

So it takes a certain personal fiber to retain any clarity in one's sense of ethics.

Just as it takes a certain fiber to defend one's intelligence against cultural swamps.

A man can go into a group organized toward moral goals and agreements with his conscience intact (because he wants to do things only a group can accomplish) or with it already subordinated to icons, myths, superstitions, or just cultural pressure.

In the final analysis though, any individual who lets his own conscience be eroded owns that responsibility.

You don't need a fabric of belief or a set of specialized vocabulary (such as "sin" or "God", for example) to speak truth.


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 10 - 11:25 PM

Still have not addressed the problem of God and conscience--which many see as interchangeable--as I have noted.   

Sounds like in your world all a person has to do is cite his or her conscience, rather than God, and they're off scot free.

Still need an answer:   if God has no standing in UK law, how about conscience?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 18 May 10 - 11:33 AM

As most religions are based on being the "true" religion, any major civilisation that was not based on your religion was a major civilisation without religion.

I too believe in fair play for religions, but also fair play for stamp collectors. the difference is that stamp collectors don't try to interfere with my life by attaching their hobby to laws.

If somebody wants to be a member of a religious sect, then get on with it. Same as if somebody wants to be a morris dancer or athlete. But to say that your hobby affects me and I must be affected by it, then don't be surprised if I come over all angry and carry out my "desperate smearing." Nothing desperate, nothing smearing actually, just debating this particular thread;

Religious belief has no standing in law I believe the thread to be. Some people are trying to say it is a good thing, others that we are a religious society. really? I am part of society too and so are the vast majority of people in The UK.   it doesn't follow that we are sucked in by religious nonsense. There is no such thing as God, and if there was, he / she / it must have more important things to worry about than asking us to stone women, kill our offspring, shag our daughters and all the other disturbing commands of the bible that god botherers hypocritically ignore when trying to smugly say they lead a Christian life.

There may not be a god, but there is UK law. And UK law seems to have a much higher moral code than the bible. So, what's the next debate?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 10 - 09:05 AM

"...Martin Luther King and other abolitionists..."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 10 - 09:04 AM

And by the way, I am not in the slightest religious--I just believe in fair play--including for religion and the religious.    Not the desperate smearing of all religion which goes on around here sometimes.

WMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 10 - 09:01 AM

Look, it is totally pointless to speculate whether Martin Luther King and other evangelists would have been good people without religion. That is an absurd blind alley.

The fact is:   they cited it constantly--and doing so was very useful in convincing others to do the same. So it has been a great force for good.   Sure it's been abused--as has patriotism, capitalism, and even, dare I say it, the idea of "socialism".   That does not negate the good of any of these.

And somehow it seems we've been over this ground before.   Wonder why it seems so.




Also, in an attempt to discredit religion, it was theorized that conscience is not the same as religion since we are "hard-wired" for it.

As I said, every major civilization has had religion. Therefore it's as least as likely that we are "hard-wired" for religion.

If not, I'm still waiting for--anybody--to cite a major civilization. without religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 May 10 - 04:26 AM

I remember a passage from one of the "Doctor" books of the fifties, where the director of surgery, a pillar of the local church, was checking out a young houseman, for potential to be a surgeon.

From memory, the coversation went:-

DOS   "Supposing you were operating and you suddenly found you had produced a serious bleed, what would you do?"

HOUSEMAN "I would have suction applied to clear the field, then repair the bleed"

DOS   "Vey well, but what if the bleed were unstoppable?"

HOUSEMAN (mindful of the DOS's religious leanings) "I would pray to the almighty for guidance Sir."

DOS "Do you not think, Doctor, that it might be in the patient's best interests to call in a consultant surgeon, before seeking the advice of an unqualified practitioner?"

Apposite, I think, in ths case where the discussion hinges on whether religion should be allowed to influence legal process. Law has its place, and so does religion, but "God told me to do it" quite rightly cannot stand in a court of law. If it were a court of morals, the situation might be different, as there both sides would be dealing in the abstract.

Don T.

Do T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 18 May 10 - 04:15 AM

Right! Back onto familiar territory.

Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King and many other good and great people who believe in God. All invoked their belief to bolster their humanitarian message.

Well, if I believed in God, it would not be much of a mental effort to believe that God gave me my moral compass. I don't believe in fairy stories yet I try to be one of the good guys, lame dogs helped over stiles, that sort of thing. If I were superstitious, I might believe my volunteering / community work etc was somehow interweaved with my belief. Perhaps pack animals can't help looking out for the pack after all.

I can't help wondering if some people here are trying to say that if these great people weren't religious they would not have felt as strongly about social justice. I would concede they (especially Tutu) wouldn't have found themselves in a position to influence. After all, many political leaders are either superstitious or like to give the impression they are, so a religious leader questioning them can be useful in putting pressure to bear. Hoist by their own petard as it were.

I just get a bit hot under the collar when people seem to think that if it wasn't for religious superstition, we would all act like anarchic savages with no moral code whatsoever. They seem to think religion should interfere in the lives of normal people, and then call us trolls when we politely ask them to bugger off.

And that it what this thread is about, or I'm being thick again.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 May 10 - 04:05 AM

"That being said, there is no 'conservative side', nor 'liberal side' to God...maybe religion..but not to God...and those two things are light years apart from each other!"

Which one? Some Gods (like the old testament one for example) are not exactly 'liberal' in their dealings with mankind. Others (like Buddha for example) are highly compassionate and 'liberal' by nature. As far as making a unilateral objective and generalised statement about the nature of 'God', I'm afraid you're not the first to be so presumptuous - lots of prophets and religions got there a long time before you. You need to get in line I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 10 - 03:41 AM

In another thread, I have my disagreements with Ron Davies, but in this matter, he is correct in his post to Amos. The very concept of our Bill of Rights, and Constitution, is predicated on "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" and to not have your wills intrude on other's rights...whether you like it or not!..and NO amount of spin, will re-write that FACT...as much as you might have to grind your teeth, to wrap your little political minds around that! That being said, there is no 'conservative side', nor 'liberal side' to God...maybe religion..but not to God...and those two things are light years apart from each other! Defining God into political sides is like trying to stuff the whole of existence, into a 30 second commercial. Politics are just too small...but then, little things amuse little minds!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 18 May 10 - 03:29 AM

"Leveller's argument is under-girded by an apparent belief that religion is by nature destructive and regressive."

Wrong again! Your arguments really are built on sand, aren't they?

"Leveller reminded us in his opening post that "the bastion of South African apartheid for many years was the Dutch Reformed Church," but failed to recall that Bishop Desmond Tutu led the opposition to apartheid in South Africa."

Eh? Tutu was not a member of the Dutch Reformed Church. You're getting a bit tied up in knots here, Goose. I suggest you find out a bit more about S African politics before you try to use that as an argument against mine - I was there and I was involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 May 10 - 02:01 AM

Take my two atheist vegan friends for example. There is nothing in the Christian gospel that demands we do not kill other creatures to consume. But my atheist friends came to their own ethical conclusions from (very broadly) Utilitarian reasoning: I do not need meat to survive and be healthy, so eating meat is merely a pleasure to me. Animals suffer in meat production and slaughter, so I choose to relinquish the pleasure of meat in order to prevent contributing to the unnecessary suffering of creatures weaker than I in this world.

Subjective yes, but perfectly logical and acknowledging direct responsibility for personal choices and their consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 May 10 - 01:49 AM

"But only somebody with a bad case of tunnel vision will see only the conservative side of religion."

Ron I can't recall seeing arguments against the conservative side of religion on this thread (they may be there, but I've not kept up with this thread). I think the point is, that as hopefully an evolved society, we aught not need to call upon the supposed 'word' of any supernatural agency, in order to defend an ethical standpoint which plays out in this material world right here, among our fellow human beings.

I'd agree with you that there is an historical precedent for very good compassionate and humanitarian work being done by the Christian faithful in particular in the West, but that precedent IMO is equally balanced by the evil done in the name of religion.

When we stop invoking the word of any supposed God to support our actions and start relying on our own reasoning and moral compass, we cease abdicating personal responsibility for our choices and accept personal responsibility for both our reasoning behind those actions, and their consequences - be they helpful or harmful to our fellow man.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 May 10 - 08:59 PM

Oh. c'mon, Amos et al.   Your convictions are clouding your judgment. "in spite of..."?

Religion has been the bulwark of many progressives for a long time--if you don't like Tutu, try Martin Luther King--and virtually all the abolitionists in the 19th century.   Sure it was also used by slavery defenders.   But only somebody with a bad case of tunnel vision will see only the conservative side of religion.

And if we are to believe that we are hard-wired for compassion--like other animals, it's been said-- then there is at least as much evidence that we are hard-wired for religion.

Name one major civilization that had no religion.

In fact, even when we try to get away from religion, we often wind up with a God-substitute.   Hasn't worked out very well:   Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 17 May 10 - 07:58 PM

he had long since subordinated his personal moral clarity to the dance of the icons.

Oh, brother.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 10 - 07:52 PM

You're shifting the context here, GG--implying that the Bishops' moral fiber was due to their involvement with the Christian churches they belonged to, rather than in spite of it.

No-one is implying in any degree that these stands were less than moral. To the degree that they were projected on spiritual artifacts of problematic existence, yes.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 07:03 PM

Sell out, cop out, whatever.

Bye, kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 06:54 PM

Then a final postscript to my last question - let's consider the case of Archbishop Romero of El Salvador, murdered because he spoke out against the oppression of the poor of his country. Was he a sell-out? Because it seems to me he could have saved his life by keeping his mouth shut, but that would have been, well, a sell-out.

See you all at the next get together.

Regards.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:58 PM

His copout, in the sense I used the word, was long prior to the invocation of religion as the grounds for a moral stand against apartheid. Bill has summarized the matter most cogently. He was already a bishop in a Christian Church organization, so he had long since subordinated his personal moral clarity to the dance of the icons.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:42 PM

"Was Bishop Desmond Tutu 'coping out' when he invoked the Gospel in opposition to apartheid?"

As a man of religion, Tutu was simply doing his job.

But I'd say anyone who believes an argument against apartheid actually *requires* invoking the Christian gospel, is indeed as Amos say's 'copping out' of making an otherwise well reasoned argument.

An argument against an inhumanitarian practice, shouldn't require any superhuman basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:35 PM

Tutu was, after all, a bishop...he used what HE had, and knew who he was speaking to. *I* would argue that the moral principles he invoked were a logical subset of more general principles...such as Kant's Categorical Imperative. But since he knew that the idea "God says it's wrong" has more force with some than invoking a complex idea from Kant, he played the cards that he held.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:18 PM

One last question, then I'll take my marbles and go home: Was Bishop Desmond Tutu 'coping out' when he invoked the Gospel in opposition to apartheid?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:13 PM

I did not say good was not subjective. I said it has no necessary coupling with what usually passes for religious ideation.

There is an infinite space for subjectivity to play out without invoking any religious idols of any sort.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:09 PM

"The definable distinction you say does not exist is simple and readily available to anyone who wants his moral perception uncompromised by artificial constructs; for example, it could be structured by examining the relative "good" in consequences of any action in terms of bringing about future existence along various channels of creative work (such as families, other organizations, various forms of life, etc.).

Good itself is a subjective term. Different people will have differing ideas about what is "good" regarding "families, other organizations, various forms of life". Moral perception itself is an artificial construct in the literal sense that it is constructed by humans, in social environments and as individuals. Let's face it, religion and moral perception are both human inventions. And both are subjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 10 - 12:03 PM

There is no definable distinction between between religious beliefs and moral conscience, and in practice they often blur together. Look into to the beliefs of Quakers and Buddhists if you need examples.


I think this is sloppy thought, with all due respect. Moral conscience can be articulated perfectly well without any religious referent whatsoever, and using religious rationalization to frame it is actually (I believe) a copout and a failure to won one's personal ethical sense. The definable distinction you say does not exist is simple and readily available to anyone who wants his moral perception uncompromised by artificial constructs; for example, it could be structured by examining the relative "good" in consequences of any action in terms of bringing about future existence along various channels of creative work (such as families, other organizations, various forms of life, etc.)

It is also (IMHO) perfectly possible to construct a highly complete set of spiritual values without troubling oneself about theology (and Buddhism is a good example, in its original form).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 17 May 10 - 11:31 AM

"What's the alternative, Bill? If we don't, then there is no freedom or dignity. "

Yes...but then perhaps freedom & dignity are just artificial constructs also. It's a fine point, but what is ultimately the basis of experience 'could' be just complex causality. We just can't act that way.

"There was a faith-healer of Deal,
Who said, "Although pain isn't real,
When I sit on a pin.
And it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel."
---------------------------------------------------------------
But to also comment on the 'point of Law'..
...It is not necessary to assign ratings to religious beliefs in order to argue that they should not have independent standing in law. Because they are subjective and variable, they are subject to many interpretations and formats, and a single set of laws needs to be applicable to everyone. The law should take account of a person's motivations, but not be bound by them....else the oft-heard "God told me to do it" would become VERY popular.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 10 - 11:25 AM

""The couple in question had no right to counseling from McFarlane over any other (more qualified) counselor,""

While this would be true, had the couple insisted on being counselled by this particular man, as I understand it, such was not the case.

Apparently their sexual orientation became clear during counselling, after which McFarlane refused to continue.

That is prima facie discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

Secondly, the decision of the judge was based on the fact that he tried to offer his religious beliefs as a defence.

This is highly unlikely to make any serious change in future decisions, being a single decision in a particular set of circumstances, rather than a general legal precedent.

To me the whole damn thing is a storm in a teacup, which will be forgotten in the real world long before folks on here will stop arguing about it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:58 AM

I would like to return to the language of Laws' decision, and that of Leveller's opening post. If the passages cited by Leveller and reported in several articles I've read on this case accurately reflect Laws' decision, then this was not so much a decision involving discrimination but rather a decision on the place of religious beliefs in law. Laws ruled that religious beliefs have no standing in law because religious beliefs are subjective. While neither Leveller nor I can know how this precedent will applied in future cases, Leveller clearly believes that it will be applied because he wrote in his opening post, "this is an excellent judgment, as to permit any antisocial actions, be they homophobic, racist, anti-feminist or whatever, on the grounds of religious belief would be the thin end of the wedge that would allow any bigot to defend the most loathsome of opinions by claiming that they were his/her religious views." I have tried to point out that Laws' decision, if it does apply to future cases, will not only apply to cases of the types listed by Leveller, but potentially to any case involving religious beliefs and, by extension, matters of conscience.

Leveller's argument is under-girded by an apparent belief that religion is by nature destructive and regressive. This is certainly true in many cases, and in other cases the exact opposite prevails. Agents of his own government murdered Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador as he celebrated mass because he spoke out against the oppression of the poor in his country by the government. Leveller reminded us in his opening post that "the bastion of South African apartheid for many years was the Dutch Reformed Church," but failed to recall that Bishop Desmond Tutu led the opposition to apartheid in South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 17 May 10 - 06:33 AM

I'm getting confused now.

I find myself agreeing with those who I disagreed with earlier..

1. have I misread either now or earlier?

2. Have some people changed their opinion based on debate?

3. Have I found religion and started blinkering myself from reality?

Ok, get a coffee and think this one over.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 03:53 AM

"But it's your argument that I'm taking to its logical conclusion."

No it isn't, because my argument was not for absolute freedom of religion. That should be clear enough if you've read my posts.

"You can't apply the judge's decision in one case to a law that doesn't exist - unless you're claiming to be able to see into the future."

The principle involved in Laws' decision is dangerous. Whether it will be applied to future cases remains to be seen. I don't know if it will, and neither do you, but it is a dangerous precedent and a wholly unnecessary one. McFarlane had no standing to sue, and the specifics of his case really had nothing to do with religion. He refused to do his job, and for this he was fired. That should have been the end of the story.

The couple in question had no right to counseling from McFarlane over any other (more qualified) counselor, any more than I have the 'right' to purchase a bacon cheeseburger from any specific individual at at restaurant. If an employee of a restaurant that has bacon cheesburgers on the menu refuses to sell me one based upon his religious beliefs, his employer has the right to fire that employee. McFarlane's employer had the right to fire him. End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 17 May 10 - 03:24 AM

"Regarding human sacrifice, don't be silly."

I agree it's silly. But it's your argument that I'm taking to its logical conclusion.


It is the principle in Laws' decision that is dangerous, not the specific case. You apparently believe this is a progressive decision that will protect the rights of the weak. Well, if so, your faith is touching. Do you realize it would be very easy to apply the logic of this decision AGAINST religious minorities? Against ANY who object to a law based upon matters of conscience?

""Well, as no such law exists, that's pure conjecture." No, it isn't. It follows logically from Laws' decision. "

No it doesn't. In the UK the laws are made by Parliament and the legislature applies them. You can't apply the judge's decision in one case to a law that doesn't exist - unless you're claiming to be able to see into the future. Is that so? In which case, can you give me the exact wording a this future conscription legislation - oh and how about the winning numbers for next week's lottery?

"And, finally, let's be clear: Gary McFarlane certainly inconvenienced the couple and likely offended them, but he did not "infringe upon their rights.""

Wrong again. He infringed the right of his employer to expect an employee to meet his/her contractual commitments, and he infringed the right of the couple not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Pretty fundamental stuff - at least it is in UK law.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 17 May 10 - 03:19 AM

What's the alternative, Bill? If we don't, then there is no freedom or dignity. The now-fashionable sociobiology reads (to me, anyway) like a bad sci-fi retread of miserable Calvinism.

Either way, it's still a man-made projection upon the universe. Freud used to be considered science. So was Marx, for fuck's sake.

But you're welcome to take that Soma holiday anytime you want. Don't bother to send me any postcards, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 10 - 11:24 PM

"We have free will, despite all the baggage of our upbringing, education, etc"

But that is one of the most disputed of the Philosophic conundrums. It is 'almost' unresolvable. (My partially done master's thesis was to have been on how it 'might' have been resolved.)

What is clear is that it 'feels' like we have free will, whether or not all these new DNA & chemical studies show that we are programmed in many ways. The criminal statutes are based on the idea the we have it....