Religion's role

[WI-Tom]

Re: Religion's role

Oh, here we go, yet another lift from the debating manual of whatever workshop you attended. Get over it David, the opposition to euthanasia has been left by many groups and people but, at least in this country, as I stated, the opposition has been led and continues to be led, by religious groups who believe that euthanasia is against the will of their god. You have failed to understand the article I sent you, you have not produced any evidence to support your case, even for your own country, yet you pretend there are holes in mine. That's hypocrisy David, and would lose you points in an elementary school debate.

https://sydneyanglicans.net/news/general-synod-calls-on-mps-to-oppose-euthanasia/52312

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world/news/2022-02/australia-catholics-urged-to-sign-anti-euthanasia-petition-in-n.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh...20-p52isi.html

I'd say those articles are pretty good evidence that opposition to assisted suicide has come from religious groups.

It's interesting. I think these religion threads inevitably put some on the defensive, to the point where they can't acknowledge the reality of how some formal religions so consistently try to impose their religious beliefs on others through legislation (which can be done in very subtly coercive ways). Or, where they see any criticism of behaviors of specific religious groups as some kind of sweeping generalization that all religions are bad, or that the bad outweighs the good in every religion.

I get it. If groups I belonged to were being attacked--teachers, for example--I'd react the same way. Because when someone points out obvious problems with your group, the need to explain that those problems or negatives don't apply to ALL members is strong.

But you can really be critical of specific religious groups and specific religious behaviors without unfairly attacking all religions. And attempts to deny that negatives exist, or attempts to minimize those negatives, are not usually going to be very believable to those outside your group.

As I said, I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else. But it's interesting to see it in action on an issue that touches me in a less personal way than it would if teachers were being criticized.

Apologies if I've given offense in sharing my views about right-wing evangelical religious groups and their consistent attacks on the Establishment Clause.

Tom

[John Smith]

Re: Religion's role

You think mere words or images of persuasion or normalization of a viewpoint are innocuous? Risk no real consequences?

Remind me, why did you launch this thread?

To suggest that we all show some tolerance for the views/beliefs, or non beliefs of others. That one ought not force his beliefs on others, but that some tolerance of the beliefs others hold would be a good thing.

I'd like to think I've expressed this clearly. Christmas songs ought to be sung in Christmas concerts. Being a member of the choir is voluntary, as is attending the performance.

There is a difference between the school sponsoring a prayer and expecting all students to participate vs the school having a place for those who wish to pray. Silent prayer is always a personal matter and can be done anywhere by anyone. Coercing others to pray is overstepping.

I don't think religious beliefs ought to be written into laws that all must follow. That would be as bad as passing laws preventing people from following religious beliefs.

THIS WAS NOT a thread created to argue the existence or non existence of God. It was an effort to suggest how we can all get along in spite of varied religious beliefs.

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Religion's role

Apologies if I've given offense in sharing my views about right-wing evangelical religious groups and their consistent attacks on the Establishment Clause.

Not so much you, Tom. John started the thread, and it quickly became apparent that he associates 'religion' with its loudest and most reactionary proponents, and probably doesn't know the difference between the Southern Baptists and the United Methodists.

But I'm going to argue with you a little here. Neither Roe v Wade nor Obergefell v Hodges (both of which I agree with) were decided on First Amendment grounds; not even close. Banning abortion or same sex-marriage, agree with it or not, does not constitute 'an establishment of religion'. The fact that the followers of certain varieties of religion (not all, by any means) oppose abortion or same-sex marriage because they think that's what their God wants - well, I don't like it either, nor do I agree with them, but they have as much right as you or I do to lobby and vote on the basis of their ideas of right and wrong.

[John Smith]

Re: Religion's role

Not so much you, Tom. John started the thread, and it quickly became apparent that he associates 'religion' with its loudest and most reactionary proponents, and probably doesn't know the difference between the Southern Baptists and the United Methodists.

But I'm going to argue with you a little here. Neither Roe v Wade nor Obergefell v Hodges (both of which I agree with) were decided on First Amendment grounds; not even close. Banning abortion or same sex-marriage, agree with it or not, does not constitute 'an establishment of religion'. The fact that the followers of certain varieties of religion (not all, by any means) oppose abortion or same-sex marriage because they think that's what their God wants - well, I don't like it either, nor do I agree with them, but they have as much right as you or I do to lobby and vote on the basis of their ideas of right and wrong.

I don't think men have the right to make laws that ONLY impact women's rights. I'll go past that. I don't think one has the right to lobby for a law based upon religious beliefs, as that is forcing his beliefs on others.

Laws/regulations have a rather basic function: keep people safe; at least that's supposed to be their purpose. That why we have regulations/laws to make sure stuff we eat passes inspection, or people have drivers licenses, and vehicle must be insured. Basic premise of laws, IMO, is that of your rights stop at my nose.

Note the new abortion laws that care so much about the fetus, seem to care not at all about the woman, who also has rights, but these laws take her rights away.

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Religion's role

I don't think one has the right to lobby for a law based upon religious beliefs, as that is forcing his beliefs on others.

Again, an example: much of the opposition to slavery had a large religious component (we're all children of God, that kind of thing). A plantation owner in Mississippi in 1850 says "You don't have the right to lobby for abolition based on your religious beliefs. Don't force your religion on me and my slaves!" This is EXACTLY your logic.

[TomF]

Re: Religion's role

I get that, John. You really have been saying "sing Christmas carols in Christmas concerts" etc., I agree. You have been saying that coercing someone into praying is overstepping.

I utterly agree with you on such things. Couldn't agree more strongly.

I also am really uninterested in arguing about the existence/non of the Divine. I utterly agree that it's critical to find ways of getting along in a pluralistic society where there are a huge range of personal beliefs on such things. Part of that "getting along," I fully agree, is in NOT inserting religious expectations and wording and etc. into laws - because the laws of a nation are for all citizens, whatever their religious predilections.

If that were all that you said, the thread would have been really short, and amicable. And frankly, I am willing to believe that you thought that was all you were saying. Hence your bafflement when folks like me get our dander up.

But it's not all that you've been saying. Framing the discussion in terms like "religious beliefs shouldn't be reflected in public policy" shows an astonishing gap in understanding how people come to hold their values about any issue. Whether they claim a Faith, or don't claim one.

I mean, you've often described yourself as "an Irrelevantist." That's your way of describing your belief that whether the Divine exists or not is irrelevant. Empirically, you believe it makes no difference one way or the other, so ought to make no difference in our decisionmaking. Fair and good.

Can you see that this is, for you, a "core value"? That it is a shaping, structuring choice affecting every aspect of your day to day life, including any public policy choices you'd support? I'm not saying it's good or bad, only that it's formative. I'm not claiming that "having no religion IS your religion," only observing that your conclusion that religion is irrelevant implicitly colours your every decision. Not unlike how being a native English speaker, the very thoughts you think are structured by, coloured by, English grammar and vocabulary.

For a person with a Faith, it's little different. Just like yours, their thoughts, their ways of conceiving the world in which we function together, are strongly coloured by a structuring premise about whether the Divine exists, and whether that existence is relevant to how we experience the world and go about our daily lives. The only difference, John, is that they've reached a different conclusion than you - so the structuring effect of that premise cuts a different direction.

People from either starting place frequently agree on values, on public policy choices, and can be colleagues and partners. But these describe arrival points - the conclusions of journeys in our thought processes. The thought processes themselves may have followed very different paths, reflect very different understandings of the world and our relationships within it. What I've been arguing, John, is for the validity and authenticity of those different pathways of thought, which is different from mere toleration or accommodation.

That's different from our agreement that in a pluralistic society no one religion should impose their practices on others. That's a shared public policy position between you and me, but we're holding even that position for different reasons. You, because God's existence is irrelevant ... and me, because God's creation includes enormous diversity which itself should be respected and honoured. It's not enough that we agree on the outcome - it's important to respect (or at least acknowledge the legitimacy of) the different modes of thinking which lead coalition partners to a shared outcome.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Religion's role

I don't think men have the right to make laws that ONLY impact women's rights. I'll go past that. I don't think one has the right to lobby for a law based upon religious beliefs, as that is forcing his beliefs on others.

You're simply wrong. One has a right to lobby, period. That principle covers the religious and the non-religious alike; and the religious and the non-religious components of an individual conscience.

What is this "forcing" that you speak of? Of what does it consist?

[David G]

Re: Religion's role

I'd say those articles are pretty good evidence that opposition to assisted suicide has come from religious groups.

It's interesting. I think these religion threads inevitably put some on the defensive, to the point where they can't acknowledge the reality of how some formal religions so consistently try to impose their religious beliefs on others through legislation (which can be done in very subtly coercive ways). Or, where they see any criticism of behaviors of specific religious groups as some kind of sweeping generalization that all religions are bad, or that the bad outweighs the good in every religion.

I get it. If groups I belonged to were being attacked--teachers, for example--I'd react the same way. Because when someone points out obvious problems with your group, the need to explain that those problems or negatives don't apply to ALL members is strong.

But you can really be critical of specific religious groups and specific religious behaviors without unfairly attacking all religions. And attempts to deny that negatives exist, or attempts to minimize those negatives, are not usually going to be very believable to those outside your group.

As I said, I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else. But it's interesting to see it in action on an issue that touches me in a less personal way than it would if teachers were being criticized.

Apologies if I've given offense in sharing my views about right-wing evangelical religious groups and their consistent attacks on the Establishment Clause.

Tom

Agreed. But we knew that already. I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. What I was objecting to was Rick's comment -- I said that the opposition to it has been mainly religious groups, which it has.

Maybe it was different in Australia, but opposition here was NOT 'mainly' from religious groups.

And I agree -- "... you can really be critical of specific religious groups and specific religious behaviors without unfairly attacking all religions." Not only 'can' we... but we should. And if that's what was going on, y'all would get far less (zero?) pushback from me. I've been complaining all along about the broad-brush approach. 'Religion' this and 'Religion' that. Instead of Roman Catholics tend to... or Evangelical Christians, in recent years, have really...

But I've had enough. I've reached my Brandolini Limit. Unless I see more reasoned comments like yours above, I'll simply cease attempting rational conversation, and correcting the bigotry on a factual basis, and limit myself to random driveby ridicule.

[RFNK]

Re: Religion's role

Given that kind of pretzel logic, David, I agree that you should cease attempting rational conversation. You might also try to cease disingenuously misinterpreting clear messages from those actually trying to engage in rational conversation.

[David G]

Re: Religion's role

Given that kind of pretzel logic, David, I agree that you should cease attempting rational conversation. You might also try to cease disingenuously misinterpreting clear messages from those actually trying to engage in rational conversation.

Pretzel logic, indeed!

[John Smith]

Re: Religion's role

Again, an example: much of the opposition to slavery had a large religious component (we're all children of God, that kind of thing). A plantation owner in Mississippi in 1850 says "You don't have the right to lobby for abolition based on your religious beliefs. Don't force your religion on me and my slaves!" This is EXACTLY your logic.

One needs religion to think slavery is wrong? That's a bit of a stretch, no?

[John Smith]

Re: Religion's role

I get that, John. You really have been saying "sing Christmas carols in Christmas concerts" etc., I agree. You have been saying that coercing someone into praying is overstepping.

I utterly agree with you on such things. Couldn't agree more strongly.

I also am really uninterested in arguing about the existence/non of the Divine. I utterly agree that it's critical to find ways of getting along in a pluralistic society where there are a huge range of personal beliefs on such things. Part of that "getting along," I fully agree, is in NOT inserting religious expectations and wording and etc. into laws - because the laws of a nation are for all citizens, whatever their religious predilections.

If that were all that you said, the thread would have been really short, and amicable. And frankly, I am willing to believe that you thought that was all you were saying. Hence your bafflement when folks like me get our dander up.

But it's not all that you've been saying. Framing the discussion in terms like "religious beliefs shouldn't be reflected in public policy" shows an astonishing gap in understanding how people come to hold their values about any issue. Whether they claim a Faith, or don't claim one.

I mean, you've often described yourself as "an Irrelevantist." That's your way of describing your belief that whether the Divine exists or not is irrelevant. Empirically, you believe it makes no difference one way or the other, so ought to make no difference in our decisionmaking. Fair and good.

Can you see that this is, for you, a "core value"? That it is a shaping, structuring choice affecting every aspect of your day to day life, including any public policy choices you'd support? I'm not saying it's good or bad, only that it's formative. I'm not claiming that "having no religion IS your religion," only observing that your conclusion that religion is irrelevant implicitly colours your every decision. Not unlike how being a native English speaker, the very thoughts you think are structured by, coloured by, English grammar and vocabulary.

For a person with a Faith, it's little different. Just like yours, their thoughts, their ways of conceiving the world in which we function together, are strongly coloured by a structuring premise about whether the Divine exists, and whether that existence is relevant to how we experience the world and go about our daily lives. The only difference, John, is that they've reached a different conclusion than you - so the structuring effect of that premise cuts a different direction.

People from either starting place frequently agree on values, on public policy choices, and can be colleagues and partners. But these describe arrival points - the conclusions of journeys in our thought processes. The thought processes themselves may have followed very different paths, reflect very different understandings of the world and our relationships within it. What I've been arguing, John, is for the validity and authenticity of those different pathways of thought, which is different from mere toleration or accommodation.

That's different from our agreement that in a pluralistic society no one religion should impose their practices on others. That's a shared public policy position between you and me, but we're holding even that position for different reasons. You, because God's existence is irrelevant ... and me, because God's creation includes enormous diversity which itself should be respected and honoured. It's not enough that we agree on the outcome - it's important to respect (or at least acknowledge the legitimacy of) the different modes of thinking which lead coalition partners to a shared outcome.

There's a difference. I don't try to force my core values into laws. I'm sure I'm a minority. Blue laws forced those of any, or no, faith to close their stores on Sundays. That's law based on religious beliefs. I think that's wrong. A store owner ought to open whenever he deems it appropriate, and let shoppers decide.

Is there any doubt that those people who live in Bergen County, NJ, where stores close Sundays go shopping on Sunday in the neighboring counties? For a while those laws were all over my state. Many stores could open, but could not sell all their wares on Sundays.

You are entitled to your faith, and you are entitled to live by the dictates of your faith. I'd not attempt to stop you. Once you start putting your faith into public policy or laws, you are infringing on others for religious reasons.

If a policy is set in place where a storm is coming and people are forced to close for their safety, that's a different thing.

[John Smith]

Re: Religion's role

You're simply wrong. One has a right to lobby, period. That principle covers the religious and the non-religious alike; and the religious and the non-religious components of an individual conscience.

What is this "forcing" that you speak of? Of what does it consist?

Depends what one is lobbying for, no?

[David G]

Re: Religion's role

One needs religion to think slavery is wrong? That's a bit of a stretch, no?

Pretzel logic, indeed.

[Breakaway]

Religion's role

Since we have drifted, alot, I will restate my position.

Religion is not forcing views/ actions upon us.

All laws are backed by force. No other group is forcing laws/ beliefs upon us.

These beliefs, enshrined in law, whether pro gun, anti abortion, or ant-offshore oil drilling, arrive directly, or indirectly, through a democratic process. A good portion of our fellow citizens voted for these laws.

There will almost always be a good number of people dissatisfied with laws that are enacted. The source belief system of the people who voted Pro has no bearing on the actions and remedies available to those on the CON side.

Dont like anti-abortion laws? Hit the streets, knock on doors.
Dont like wind farms? March, picket.
Want stricter gun laws? Organize, lobby.

The source or reason for the oppositions viewpoint just doesnt matter. ( And, many cases, the voiced reason for the belief is just a story help divide and conquer people) The approaches available to citizens for dealing with it are the same.

As for non laws, coercing etc., these are largely subjective.

Though I agree it may be uncomfortable for some to cross a picket line or stand silent while your co-workers pray, or use a restroom with a person of different anatomy, this does not constitute forcing. We can choose to visit a non picketed business. We can excuse ourselves during the prayer, or, in the extreme, find another job. ( I would ask why one would surround onself with such a diametrically opposed group in the first place?) We can find another toilet, hold it or go pee in the woods.

We have choices. In all but the most extreme cases of actual coercion, for which legal remedy exists.

And, we can fight these things if we choose to. Regardless of their source.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro