Open religious (or not) discussion thread

LarryC wrote:

I appreciate your taking the time to express it in the appropriate wording. I hope it'll help me express what I've been saying for people to read your take on it.

I am always happy when my ability to argue semantics results in bro hugs.

LarryC wrote:

TheArtOfScience:If you are acting against what you think are morals you believe in (and you don't want to seriously kill yourself), then it's probable that you don't really believe in them at all.

wtf?

I am completely confounded. I always get into these conversations both on forums and with friends in the hopes of achieving some greater understanding of society and it always ends up with me just kind of tossing my hands up in the air more confused than before I started.

So in order for something to be a moral you have to be willing to die over it? What happens when life forces us into situations where we must go against a moral belief?

I don't believe in killing but if someone tries to harm my family I will kill them. What if I am a vegetarian caught outdoors in the middle of winter. Should I die before I try to hunt an elk?

The rigidity of thought present in this sort of argument does not fit the world we live in and, imo, is the cause of a great deal of strife in our world.

I have been put in situations where I had to perform acts that I felt morally wrong in order to survive. Unless you have been put in that situation (which you haven't, apparently, since you're still alive) I find your arguments not terribly practical for living in the world we live in.

TheArtOfScience:

If you have exceptions to broad moral rules that you are not aware of, all that says is that you haven't explored your own beliefs quite that extensively. I have been faced with death before. This would be a patient with meningiococcemia, a highly contagious and highly fatal disease. It's generally considered voluntary for health pros to treat patients with this disease in the absence of protection. When I was a bachelor, I said yes. Now that I'm not, I won't, and I know why and I don't feel guilty over it, though others who have not thought it through might, and often are.

There are many situations in life that will cause you to question your morals. You will have an answer, and you either learn to live with it, change your mind, or kill yourself. You will probably learn to live with it, with or without the guilt. I recommend without.

I don't believe in killing, either, but I have thought about what I would do if someone tries to harm my family. I will aim to kill. This is my personal morality, though it is against my religion; so I pray that I won't ever be in that situation. I have thought about it seriously, and I have come to terms with it. I know of others who won't kill. They've come to terms with that, too. This is a very personal thing, and those of us who have discussed it amongst ourselves withhold judgment. It is not for me to dictate your morality on this score.

That said, assuming that you have thought about this, whatever you decide is part of your morality, including personal exceptions to broad moral rules (and the absence or presence of guilt thereof). If you have to perform morally questionable acts to survive, then your will to survive is greater than your adherence to your perceived personal morality. I don't know what that means to you. You have to decide that for yourself.

I hope this meaningfully elaborates on what I meant when I said that faith is a very personal thing.

How you act is always consistent with what you truly believe, regardless of what others truly believe.

This is not at all true. In urgent situations, you act as your subconscious decrees, and your conscious only catches up and explains things afterward. This has been demonstrated many many times now; a good chunk of consciousness is illusion.

You can and will act in ways that your conscious mind finds abhorrent. If your subconscious is scared enough, many (most) people can and will kill, no matter what their beliefs might say on the subject.

Beliefs only come into play for the long, slow, deliberative decisions .. down in the tenths-of-seconds range, they can have some impact, to whatever degree your subconscious has internalized those beliefs, but they are not controlling.

Even if you do always act as you believe, you may very well not believe what you think you do.

IMAGE(http://www.bannedinhollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/oh-my-god.jpg)

Unrelated to anything else, that pursesnatcher image looks like it was taken a few blocks away from where I used to live in the Bronx

Moving a derail to this thread from here:

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/4...

OG_slinger wrote:
farley3k wrote:

Now I guess my short answer is "yes." In a free society, especially one founded on a belief in freedom of religion, yes the state will sometimes have to put up with religions whose beliefs they don't like. Otherwise what are we really "founded" on?

...

I'm not saying that the state should physically force religions to change their beliefs, but religion and religious organizations should be firewalled from the rest of society so that their incompatible social beliefs don't bleed over into the real world too much.

Well then as far as the 'short' answer you two aren't in disagreement. Now, as far as the long answer...I guess we'll see

Jonman wrote:
farley3k wrote:

Now I guess my short answer is "yes." In a free society, especially one founded on a belief in freedom of religion, yes the state will sometimes have to put up with religions whose beliefs they don't like. Otherwise what are we really "founded" on?

Beliefs vs actions is an important thing to take note of.

Freedom of religion allows you believe whatever you want, but the actions you take, whether religiously motivated or not, have to follow the law of the land.

Jonmanism might stipulate that killing people over 6 foot tall is the fast-track to Heaven (because Heaven has low ceilings) and I'm within my rights to think that, but I doubt that it would hold much weight when I'm in the dock for murder.

On the other hand, freedom of religion include the free exercise of that religion, and that's where the issue is. For example, religious ceremony is not a belief, it's an action, but it's still considered an exercise of religion that is protected. Of course to follow on from your example, that doesn't mean I get to have a bonfire in the middle of a forest.

Also, there's a comment back in the original thread:

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/4...

Demosthenes wrote:
Are you really saying that a religion is a 'vague collective' and not a 'group of people'?

When its adherents are actually in support of equality, then there is some vague collective inside of the religion that perpetuates the antiquated beliefs. Sorry, should have made that more clear.

Well one, it's not just 'adherents vs. collective'. The adherents aren't as united as you're making them out to be.

Second, how is it vague? It seems the collective you're talking about is pretty well defined according to the internal beliefs of that religion.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
farley3k wrote:

Should the state really get to decide what a religion believes?

Should the state have to put up with a religion whose beliefs are incompatible with the society it's trying to foster?

edit for clarity: in other words, what we're talking about here is a major change in 1st Amendment protections of the free exercise of religion.

If it takes a major change in the 1st Amendment to make the statement that human equality trumps religious teachings, then I'm all for it. Bring on the convention! Seriously, though, I have a real problem with seeing religious rights trumping human rights in any capacity.

I'll also admit that, being non-religious, I have a very hard time respecting or tolerating religious beliefs that encode mysogyny and homophobia. To me, these are very tangible evils, while trampling on evil beliefs is less so, especially since I think those beliefs are based on fantasy.

Essentially, you're saying "my beliefs are better than yours so I should be allowed to actively suppress your practices of your beliefs in your spaces."

You sure you're okay being on the other side of that?

LarryC wrote:

Essentially, you're saying "my beliefs are better than yours so I should be allowed to actively suppress your practices of your beliefs in your spaces."

You sure you're okay being on the other side of that?

The tricky part has always been the "your spaces" part. I tend to think that there's an overwhelming majority here that feel this way, more or less. It seems really clear cut when the issue is choosing human rights over religious rights. When Mormech said that it was a bit of a punch to the gut for me. I value civil liberties, but the #1 civil liberty, IMO, is the right to the dignity to be treated equally under the law.

I think one of the best examples of this dilemma is religious folks who don't believe in taking their kids to the doctor. It's definitely an infringement on the right of those parents to raise their child as they choose and to raise him/her with the beliefs they hold. But if those beliefs endanger the life, health or well-being of the child wouldn't the rights of the child trump the rights of the parents? I usually say yes to this whereas I find someone's employment with a religious group a little more grey. But maybe I shouldn't. If someone doesn't have the ability to pay their bills and feed their kids because they won't embrace a specific religion? That's crazy.

DSGamer wrote:

I think one of the best examples of this dilemma is religious folks who don't believe in taking their kids to the doctor. It's definitely an infringement on the right of those parents to raise their child as they choose and to raise him/her with the beliefs they hold. But if those beliefs endanger the life, health or well-being of the child wouldn't the rights of the child trump the rights of the parents? I usually say yes to this whereas I find someone's employment with a religious group a little more grey. But maybe I shouldn't. If someone doesn't have the ability to pay their bills and feed their kids because they won't embrace a specific religion? That's crazy.

I don't think it's going to be a helpful example because someone who doesn't hire you isn't someone in a special relationship with you where they are supposed to put your needs first when deciding how to treat you. Parents are supposed to do that; in fact, that's the reason we give parents rights in the first place. We don't give employers rights because they agree to hire people--that's a right that comes from their anteceedent right to control their property.

DSGamer wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Essentially, you're saying "my beliefs are better than yours so I should be allowed to actively suppress your practices of your beliefs in your spaces."

You sure you're okay being on the other side of that?

The tricky part has always been the "your spaces" part. I tend to think that there's an overwhelming majority here that feel this way, more or less. It seems really clear cut when the issue is choosing human rights over religious rights. When Mormech said that it was a bit of a punch to the gut for me. I value civil liberties, but the #1 civil liberty, IMO, is the right to the dignity to be treated equally under the law.

I think one of the best examples of this dilemma is religious folks who don't believe in taking their kids to the doctor. It's definitely an infringement on the right of those parents to raise their child as they choose and to raise him/her with the beliefs they hold. But if those beliefs endanger the life, health or well-being of the child wouldn't the rights of the child trump the rights of the parents? I usually say yes to this whereas I find someone's employment with a religious group a little more grey. But maybe I shouldn't. If someone doesn't have the ability to pay their bills and feed their kids because they won't embrace a specific religion? That's crazy.

I know that many here think this way, and it disturbs me greatly because I perceive it as being extremely aggressive and very intolerant, little different from the kind of militant evangelism in the most fanatic of Islamic or Christian fundamentalist sects. The only difference is essentially in the beliefs that are being advanced, but the lack of respect for others and the insistence of having your own way without even considering the others' point of view is the same.

Essentially, any time you have to fall back on "My beliefs are right/better," as a reason for interfering in other people's practices, that's a red flag to me. This is a lot more complex in the USA because of your history of terrible racism and sexism, of course, and the counter-culture revolutions against them.

The thing you're not saying, DSGamer, is that your worldview is founded on a set of axioms different from the parents you're disagreeing with. They're not knowingly abusing their kid. In fact, they're protecting them from you - who they quite honestly think is trying to harm their children. You're the monster. So it's not a child rights vs parent rights discussion at this level. It's a tolerance for livestyles and practices thing. You are not on the tolerant side.

LarryC wrote:

You are not on the tolerant side.

This should be fun. I can't wait to be called intolerant by both sides for putting forward an example. I think that's like hitting for the cycle or something.

FWIW, I'm not really big into labels. I said your position right now as regards mandating parental limitations on religious practices was intolerant. Your stance on removing religious evangelism in science classes in public schools is reasonable, and we share a position there.

LarryC wrote:

They're not knowingly abusing their kid. In fact, they're protecting them from you - who they quite honestly think is trying to harm their children. You're the monster. So it's not a child rights vs parent rights discussion at this level.

As a doctor are you really going to stick with the argument that religious people aren't knowingly harming their children by denying them required medical treatment? That their version of reality trumps all your real world knowledge and experience as a doctor and that the best thing society can do is watch a child die rather than upset their parents?

Yes. We are actually trained to be tolerant about this, and we practice it on a daily basis. In my opinion, a blood transfusion can help a person survive an otherwise fatal trauma incident, but I cannot force others to accept blood they don't want to, nor do I think that I have more rights to a child's treatment decisions than that child's own parents. If they fight me for it, my inclination is to let them practice their own.

Please note that we do this almost on a daily basis. The old medical ethics says that MDs hold all the cards and make nearly all the crucial decisions. It's all invisible. We don't do that anymore, as it is held to be obsolete and profoundly unethical. Most patients will prefer one treatment or another that we would personally deem inferior, but it's not our call to make.

Inasmuch as children are the wards of their parents and represent the future of a belief system, the right to decide whose worldview to perceive in that instance is the parents'. The more we move away from this, the more we declare that children are the ward of the state, and the less tolerance you will have from all sides. I view the religious right advancing evangelism in public schools as merely another facet of this phenomenon.

You know, I live in a situation where I can't have sex without half the neighbors knowing. The metropolis is packed tighter than a sardine can and we get into each other's lives and businesses all the gosh darned time. However, one of things we know to leave well enough alone is religious beliefs. Another is raising children. I happen to think that my sister is spoiling her kids rotten, but I can't even say that direct to her face because it'll mean war. She doesn't ask, and I don't comment directly.

LarryC wrote:

Inasmuch as children are the wards of their parents and represent the future of a belief system, the right to decide whose worldview to perceive in that instance is the parents'. The more we move away from this, the more we declare that children are the ward of the state, and the less tolerance you will have from all sides. I view the religious right advancing evangelism in public schools as merely another facet of this phenomenon.

Why do you view it that way?

In both cases, both proponents see their worldview as "right" and "The Truth," which each believes gives them the right and the authority to impose that same view on other people, to the point of offensive intrusion and even cultural warfare. Key phrases in these declarations is often commentary or "proofs" as to who is right and who is wrong. The direction switches, but the content is remarkably similar to me.

No, I mean specifically the religious right advancing evangelism in public schools being tied to declaring children the ward of the state.

Ah. Clearly, if there are no boundaries and all beliefs are waging all-out war, then children and their nature as wards of the state can only be secured by appropriating the state tself - that is, taking control of the content of public schools for the purpose of evangelization.

LarryC wrote:

Ah. Clearly, if there are no boundaries and all beliefs are waging all-out war, then children and their nature as wards of the state can only be secured by appropriating the state tself - that is, taking control of the content of public schools for the purpose of evangelization.

Right, that's a valid argument, but where are the facts from what has actually happened in America that show that theory is sound?

Er, I consider the observations of the activities as factual and consistent with that take on what's happening. I'm not sure what you're looking for.

If the guardians are unable to make an informed decision as to what is best for their child because their religion obfuscates the truth, we're supposed to let the child die?

LarryC wrote:

Er, I consider the observations of the activities as factual and consistent with that take on what's happening. I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Right, but what activities are you observing? Where's the move away from children being wards of their parents? And where's the connection that looks like causation and not just correlation? Because I see the religious right complain about a lot of things, but I don't see them complaining about this.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Er, I consider the observations of the activities as factual and consistent with that take on what's happening. I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Right, but what activities are you observing? Where's the move away from children being wards of their parents? And where's the connection that looks like causation and not just correlation? Because I see the religious right complain about a lot of things, but I don't see them complaining about this.

I'm not insisting on a causative relationship between those events. They may very well be different facets of a common phenomenon, as you might expect from only correlated, but not causative, events.

NSMike wrote:

If the guardians are unable to make an informed decision as to what is best for their child because their religion obfuscates the truth, we're supposed to let the child die?

Their religion is their truth. Your beliefs are yours. The child in question, materially, is not yours, nor the state's directly. It is only your opinion that their decision is ill-informed. They will say the same about your own, of course. So whose truth should be followed within their intimate family interaction? Would you be comfortable with other people telling your parents how to deal with you, against their own and your beliefs?

LarryC wrote:

I'm not insisting on a causative relationship between those events. They may very well be different facets of a common phenomenon, as you might expect from only correlated, but not causative, events.

Well, that kinda contradicts what you said here, but if that's what you're saying, then why worry about it? If there's no causative relationship, we can press on with childrens' rights and know we're not causing that particular backlash of the religious right, so problem solved.

LarryC wrote:

Their religion is their truth. Your beliefs are yours. The child in question, materially, is not yours, nor the state's directly.

What do you mean 'materially'?

It is only your opinion that their decision is ill-informed. They will say the same about your own, of course. So whose truth should be followed within their intimate family interaction?

Depends on the interaction.

Would you be comfortable with other people telling your parents how to deal with you, against their own and your beliefs?

I'm comfortable with other people telling me all kinds of things about how I should be dealt with--anyone who isn't a Libertarian is comfortable with that to some extent.

Cheeze_Pavilion wrote:

Right, but what activities are you observing? Where's the move away from children being wards of their parents? And where's the connection that looks like causation and not just correlation? Because I see the religious right complain about a lot of things, but I don't see them complaining about this.

This has been a consistent part of the religious right's complaints for decades. The debates over authority-led prayers in school; the anger at Federal education standards; the attempts to defund the Education Department; the whole "opt-out" movement that lead to the increase in home-schooling, Charter Schools and other dubious educational fads that emphasized removing one's children from the influence of the government; and even the recent outcry over the Common Core standards all speak to it. That's the kind of thing that Larry is seeing and reacting to, I suspect.

The very rhetoric of the right has been "...but think of the children!", raising fears that the government is brainwashing them. It's another of the common threads on the right since the 70's.

Yeah. Same thing being used, but by people who lean the "the other way." Same thing. I mean, both are accusing the other of intrusion, aggression, and hypocrisy, but as far as I can tell, both are right on that score. Without respect for your counterparts, the only way it'll end is with one belief system dominating, which is not what I would call a freedom of beliefs.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I'm comfortable with other people telling me all kinds of things about how I should be dealt with--anyone who isn't a Libertarian is comfortable with that to some extent.

Specifically, in a manner consistent with their beliefs, but fundamentally and violently opposed to your own.