Protection of religious views and behaviours

[crazy canuck]

I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.

You didn't answer my last question so lets try it a different way.

Lets take as an example a law which required that everyone can only marry someone of the opposite sex?  According to your analysis the reason people become married is irrelevant.  Therefore there is no reason to consider whether the rule makes any sense for gay or lesbian couples. The important thing, according to you, is that the same rule applies to everyone.

[Razgovory]

Wow, I thought I was an atheist because I didn't believe in god...curious.

That's because you didn't have Raz to tell you why you do what you do.

Of course, he is atheistic regarding the 99.9999+% of the gods that people have believed in, so he is 99.9999+% (but only 99.9999+%) motivated by his desire to convince himself and others that he is smart.

Heh.  We actually did this before when you were still talking to me.  And you made the same mistake then as you did now.  I never said "all".  I do put you in that category though.  People who regurgitate canned talking points like "Bronze age book", "Sky fairies" and "You are already atheist regarding all the other gods", are typical of that category of Atheism.

[Razgovory]

Actually I was very religious in my teens. I planned go become a Catholic priest. I was about 22 when I turned atheist.

Late bloomer.

[Eddie Teach]

He was too stupid to realize he was gay. 

[The Brain]

I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.

You didn't answer my last question so lets try it a different way.

Lets take as an example a law which required that everyone can only marry someone of the opposite sex?  According to your analysis the reason people become married is irrelevant.  Therefore there is no reason to consider whether the rule makes any sense for gay or lesbian couples. The important thing, according to you, is that the same rule applies to everyone.

[grumbler]

He was too stupid to realize he was gay. 

Obviously, he knew he was gay (he wanted to be a priest, didn't he?).  He just was too stupid to realize that gays had career options other than being pedophiles.

[garbon]

Hey now!

[The Minsky Moment]

I just don't get why religious people should get this special treatment? Unless this is because we assume they are mentally retarded so we give them wider berth - but then we should also treat them like mentally handicapped in other things.

We should just start saying more loudly that religious people are simply stupid.

This is such a bullshit and offensive thing to say, Sheilbh,

Hmm

[LaCroix]

we give legal protection to protect minorities, marty. we want people to live however they like. laws protecting religion are no different than laws protecting homosexuality. provided legal protection is within reason (no blood libels or sacrifices), do we really want to allow society to potentially persecute those groups?

[LaCroix]

Don't worry, a lot of atheists become atheists because they want to convince themselves and others they are smart.  In fact, I would say that is a primary motive for atheism.

why would it be the primary motive?

[Martinus]

I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.

You didn't answer my last question so lets try it a different way.

Lets take as an example a law which required that everyone can only marry someone of the opposite sex?  According to your analysis the reason people become married is irrelevant.  Therefore there is no reason to consider whether the rule makes any sense for gay or lesbian couples. The important thing, according to you, is that the same rule applies to everyone.

Well I answered it indirectly in my response to BB. I also believe that there should be the broadest freedom possible. So you should be able to marry people of either sex, you should be able to wear what you want, you should be able to sleep under bridges and you should have the broadest choice of food available to you, if you so desire.

But that is not my argument at all.

My argument is that we should not allow a situation where something is forbidden, except when it is allowed on religious grounds (and religious grounds only). Like - you cannot not remove headgear when going through airport security - unless you are a sikh; you cannot slaughter animals in a way that is painful and unnecessary cruel - unless you are jewish or muslim; you cannot have your ID photo taken with a veil on your face - unless you are a muslim; you cannot refuse compulsory military service - unless you do so on religious grounds, etc.

The rule should be the same for everyone and the society should decide whether in each particular case it allows for greater freedom (which should be the default choice) or whether it thinks that, for example, animal cruelty concerns should prevail - in which case everybody should be required to comply with such law, irrespective of the reason they want to cruelly slaughter animals.

Your example about marriage would be comparable to what I am talking about if you had to prove you are gay before you are allowed to marry a person of the same sex as you - that would also be something I would be against.

[Martinus]

I find it interesting that it is a lawyer who argues that motive should be ignored under the law.  I think that all right-minded people disagree with that position, and some lawyers do as well.

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law. So if someone commits a honour killing, they should be punished equally, for example, whether they were motivated by religion or non-religious cultural bigotry.

[Barrister]

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law.

Why?

It's clear that religion is of immense importance to a number of people around the world.  Why should that be ignored, even though you personally don't believe?

You don't talk about "reasonable accommodation", or anything of the sort.  You say it should be "ignored".  Why is that?

[Martinus]

we give legal protection to protect minorities, marty. we want people to live however they like. laws protecting religion are no different than laws protecting homosexuality. provided legal protection is within reason (no blood libels or sacrifices), do we really want to allow society to potentially persecute those groups?

Well, I am talking more about a situation when something is only available to some person because of that person's quality (like religion, or sexuality) but is not available to the public at large. There are many examples of something like this happening on religious grounds but not many of this happening on sexuality grounds (the only example I can think of right now is how same sex couples in Britain are the only ones who, currently, have civil partnerships available to them - and there are straight couples sueing Britain for discrimination over this - and I hope they will win as they are right).

[Martinus]

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law.

Why?

It's clear that religion is of immense importance to a number of people around the world.  Why should that be ignored, even though you personally don't believe?

You don't talk about "reasonable accommodation", or anything of the sort.  You say it should be "ignored".  Why is that?

Nice one that you only respond to half of my post.

But to answer you (again), I think it should be treated as any other "strongly held belief", whether it is moral, cultural or ideological.