BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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....