quote:You seem to be forgetting that the people who are countenancing what happened with Eich regard the battle over Prop 8 in a very similar way to how they view the civil rights movement in the 1960s - that there's one very clear right side and one very clear wrong side. That Eich (apparently) considered it important is hardly an excuse when you view it that way.
How is that any different than religious people who think all issues are black/white and you either support what God wants or what the devil wants (which is anything altered from what God wants).
Eich didn't donate to a cause because it furthered his career, or made business easier for Mozilla. He had to be aware that in his industry his position was very unpopular, yet he still donated.
Maybe it was because he's a bigot and wants gays to be miserable, or he felt for whatever reason that Proposition 8 was good for California. But this is getting back into a previous discussion where we endlessly debate about whether a persons motivations matter when they are being shamed.
quote:Internally agitating for a change in leadership is quite possibly worse than individually airing opinions on social media. You can't do it without using company resources. It's directly insubordinate. I get that you disapprove of what they DID do, but this is not a realistic or better alternative.
I'm not married to the alternative I posited. But I do believe bringing a grievance to a party privately if possible is *always* better than airing it in public.
quote:On the subject of McCarthyism: the truly scary and bad thing about the red scare was that the government was trying to root out and punish people for having the wrong opinions. What happened with Eich happened in the private sector. You can think it's wrong, and draw some limited comparisons to McCarthy, but until the government is involved in persecuting people for their opposition to SSM, it's not the same.
McCarthyism was not just scary only because the government got involved. Witch hunts don't have to involve the government to be awful and sordid. People find plenty of other ways to punish ideas they don't like.
quote:I think you first need to demonstrate that I am singling one out.
My original contention wasn't that *you* were singling one out. I was saying that the employees at Mozilla were. Are you on board with what they did?
quote:Go on? I'm not sure where you're headed with this.
I don't really need to go beyond this. If people knew that President Bush's policies were leading to war in Iraq, torture, and the surveillance state, and they voted to reelect him, and if we also accept that voting and donating politically towards causes that cause harm are worthy of exile from society. Then people should be constantly trying to get everybody who disagrees with them on just about every major political issue fired, dismissed, etc.
quote:Again, that's just describing an economic boycott. Economic boycotts affect livelihoods. That's what they do, that's pretty much the point.
Affecting livelihoods is not a unique aspect to McCarthyism.
Trying to force a resignation is not a boycott. Trying to punish a belief is not a boycott. What OK Cupid did was a boycott, and I'm not talking about that.
Dogbreath:
quote:I think this is the crux of the issue, and it's one I've brought up to BlackBlade (and others) about this and other issues with the church. When you're surrounded by a group of people who believe in something really horrendous,
I don't agree it is "really horrendous". We don't know why Eich supported Proposition 8. Maybe he felt that marriages should be the exclusive purview of heterosexual relationships, while gays are given civil unions with equivalent rights. There are many people who feel that way. But they are all painted with the same brush and told they hate or are irrationally afraid of gay people.
quote:The difference is, those people despite being sometimes very passionate about said beliefs, never try and legislate any of the other offenses. I don't see people picketing outside of Starbucks with "God hates lattes!" signs, or trying to pass laws to get butcher shops closed on Fridays, or any number of other ways of legislating morality.
People legislate morality all the time dude. What are efforts to ban genetically modified food, blue laws, prohibition, affirmative action, anti-polygamy laws, handgun bans if not efforts to legislate morality?
quote:So why should their views on sexuality be forced on nonbelievers?
Look, when farmers are given a subsidy by the government, that nobody else gets, do you feel like those farmer's views are being shoved down your throat?
I do sorta, but I'm not going to call what farmers are doing theft, and aggressively root out everybody who votes or donates to that cause. Nor am I going to call that subsidy farmers shoving their beliefs down my throat. By that standard we are all constantly scarfing down other people's beliefs involuntarily.
Look my point is being lost because I can't stay focused on it. Same-sex marriage is not the most important issue facing our country right now, nor will it likely ever be. I don't mean that condescendingly. The issues I am often loud about probably aren't either. And yes I agree that because we can influence same-sex marriages more tangibly there's a greater desire to do so. But if we let a person be bullied out of a job because of their political beliefs, we are straying towards the realm of ideological purity. And that sounds exactly like what the Puritans and yes Joe McCarthy were interested in.
quote:something the Mormons apparently also oppose)
In the past the leadership of the church has discouraged interracial marriages. I does not do so today. At all. It does suggest that a marriage between races when there are major cultural differences is often inadvisable. But that's pretty common sense. They do not suggest however that races are somehow superior or inferior or that they must not mix just cuz.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What are efforts to ban genetically modified food, blue laws, prohibition, affirmative action, anti-polygamy laws, handgun bans if not efforts to legislate morality?
Public health and safety? Social justice? Prohibition is probably the closest on that list, and unlike SSM, there are legitimate secular reasons to want to ban alcohol as well. (It's an addictive drug that can cause unpredictable and sometimes violent behavior, drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of people yearly, it causes numerous health problems, etc.)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:What are efforts to ban genetically modified food, blue laws, prohibition, affirmative action, anti-polygamy laws, handgun bans if not efforts to legislate morality?
Public health and safety? Social justice? Prohibition is probably the closest on that list, and unlike SSM, there are legitimate secular reasons to want to ban alcohol as well. (It's an addictive drug that can cause unpredictable and sometimes violent behavior, drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of people yearly, it causes numerous health problems, etc.)
We must not be using morality in the same way then.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:People legislate morality all the time dude. What are efforts to ban genetically modified food, blue laws, prohibition, affirmative action, anti-polygamy laws, handgun bans if not efforts to legislate morality?
Not to mention that in most of those cases, when morality legislation is attempted, it must stand its own ground and win or lose on its own. Opposition to genetically modified food is not undertaken with holy support. That particular bunch of apes is telling the rest of us apes that something is dangerous and needs to be banned. Ok, so we can examine that. They're not saying god says so, and we know it because god has told us, and if you think god told you something different you're just wrong, or if you think god doesn't exist or made no pronouncement on the issue, you're wrong because we're better in tune with god.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What are efforts to ban genetically modified food, blue laws, prohibition, affirmative action, anti-polygamy laws, handgun bans if not efforts to legislate morality?
Public health and safety? Social justice? Prohibition is probably the closest on that list, and unlike SSM, there are legitimate secular reasons to want to ban alcohol as well. (It's an addictive drug that can cause unpredictable and sometimes violent behavior, drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of people yearly, it causes numerous health problems, etc.)
We must not be using morality in the same way then.
If my use of the term is confusing, I'll rephrase it as "legislation with religious justification." If you're going for gun control and your main argument is "God doesn't like people who use guns" or even "there are no guns mentioned in the Bible, clearly they're not a part of God's plan" then you're getting into anti-SSM territory.
quote:In the past the leadership of the church has discouraged interracial marriages. I does not do so today. At all. It does suggest that a marriage between races when there are major cultural differences is often inadvisable. But that's pretty common sense. They do not suggest however that races are somehow superior or inferior or that they must not mix just cuz.
they do not at this point, no. but when talking about the past ..
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to be forgetting that the people who are countenancing what happened with Eich regard the battle over Prop 8 in a very similar way to how they view the civil rights movement in the 1960s - that there's one very clear right side and one very clear wrong side. That Eich (apparently) considered it important is hardly an excuse when you view it that way.
How is that any different than religious people who think all issues are black/white and you either support what God wants or what the devil wants (which is anything altered from what God wants).
Short answer: Because not all beliefs are equal no matter the reason someone holds that belief.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The whole part where people boycotting mozilla over brendan eich got called/conflated/hyperboled into "mccarthyism" is fairly ridiculous but there is a point in that the eich boycott represents another step into decidedly illiberal territory working on ultimately counterproductive initiatives and incentives
i would feel worse about it if eich hadn't been given an opportunity to illustrate in any meaningful way that he was no longer in support of homophobic law, but he opted to stand his ground
that's fine, it's his right to stick to his guns. and mozilla had to fire him pretty much, wouldn't have survived with that image of "that one with the homophobe at the helm"
What do you mean by Eich standing his ground? Are you referring to his refusing to apologize to a developer because the developer's partner could not get a visa because their relationship was not recognized?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. That's the point. The context of "in the past" makes the 'however' part of your post a .. bit off, syntax wise.
i also think that if you go back to smith and young, 'discourage' is putting it quite mildly. i guess excommunication/exile/death is in all practical senses an encouragement not to mix blood with the inferior races.
quote:What do you mean by Eich standing his ground? Are you referring to his refusing to apologize to a developer because the developer's partner could not get a visa because their relationship was not recognized?
quote:. The initial revelation of that donation, back in 2012, led to a welter of criticism that eventually died down. But, by elevating Eich to C.E.O., the Mozilla board brought his past to the forefront once again. While Eich attempted to defuse the problem with conciliatory blog posts and interviews about diversity and inclusiveness, he didn’t actually say that his views on gay marriage had changed. That, inevitably, provoked a uprising within the Mozilla community
he would not have had made this omission inadvertently, which is how the Mozilla project (and pretty much anyone watching this) knew he was sticking to his guns about gay marriage.
which, sure, he can do. but it meant that it was impossible to expect he could stay at the helm.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you first need to demonstrate that I am singling one out.
My original contention wasn't that *you* were singling one out. I was saying that the employees at Mozilla were. Are you on board with what they did?
I'm not sure how you can assume that the employees at Mozilla are singling any one thing out either if you can't demonstrate that I'm singling one thing out.
Am I "on board" with what they did? Let's be clear: * Do I think what they did was strategically the best thing to do to promote same-sex marriage in the US? Maybe not. * Do I think what they did was strategically the best thing globally? I'm ambivalent * Do I think what they did was within the bounds of what is acceptable for a boycott in our society? You bet. * Do I support their free-speech rights to go outside the company to get support against the CEO? Yup.
quote:... Then people should be constantly trying to get everybody who disagrees with them on just about every major political issue fired, dismissed, etc.
Don't they? For a given definition of "major" we have boycotts happening all the time. Consumers boycotting Chick-Fil-A were inherently trying to get the whole company including the CEO shut down. America boycotts Cuba and Iran, which harms the livelihoods of people both inside and outside the relevant countries with the implicit goal of "regime change."
quote:
quote:Again, that's just describing an economic boycott. Economic boycotts affect livelihoods. That's what they do, that's pretty much the point.
Affecting livelihoods is not a unique aspect to McCarthyism.
Trying to force a resignation is not a boycott. Trying to punish a belief is not a boycott.
I disagree. What is the purpose of a boycott if not to get the people that are on the other side of an issue to either step down and punish those that refuse? When countries around the world boycotted South Africa, they were definitely trying to get the supporters of apartheid out of power and punish those that believed in the racial superiority of whites.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yes. That's the point. The context of "in the past" makes the 'however' part of your post a .. bit off, syntax wise.
i also think that if you go back to smith and young, 'discourage' is putting it quite mildly. i guess excommunication/exile/death is in all practical senses an encouragement not to mix blood with the inferior races.
quote:What do you mean by Eich standing his ground? Are you referring to his refusing to apologize to a developer because the developer's partner could not get a visa because their relationship was not recognized?
quote:. The initial revelation of that donation, back in 2012, led to a welter of criticism that eventually died down. But, by elevating Eich to C.E.O., the Mozilla board brought his past to the forefront once again. While Eich attempted to defuse the problem with conciliatory blog posts and interviews about diversity and inclusiveness, he didn’t actually say that his views on gay marriage had changed. That, inevitably, provoked a uprising within the Mozilla community
he would not have had made this omission inadvertently, which is how the Mozilla project (and pretty much anyone watching this) knew he was sticking to his guns about gay marriage.
which, sure, he can do. but it meant that it was impossible to expect he could stay at the helm.
In terms of being potentially less reprehensible, I see no difference between punishing somebody for previously having a position and punishing them for not changing it because you demand it.
Rakeesh:
quote:Not to mention that in most of those cases, when morality legislation is attempted, it must stand its own ground and win or lose on its own. Opposition to genetically modified food is not undertaken with holy support. That particular bunch of apes is telling the rest of us apes that something is dangerous and needs to be banned. Ok, so we can examine that. They're not saying god says so, and we know it because god has told us, and if you think god told you something different you're just wrong, or if you think god doesn't exist or made no pronouncement on the issue, you're wrong because we're better in tune with god.
There is a perfectly secular justification for ensuring that heterosexual unions are protected by the state. There are several Western nations that are now subsidizing heterosexual marriages and pregnancy aggressively because they are dealing with negative population growth. That of course doesn't address the interests of same-sex couples.
Dogbreath:
quote:If my use of the term is confusing, I'll rephrase it as "legislation with religious justification." If you're going for gun control and your main argument is "God doesn't like people who use guns" or even "there are no guns mentioned in the Bible, clearly they're not a part of God's plan" then you're getting into anti-SSM territory.
What if my argument is "God doesn't want us to kill each other and guns enable that."? To me making the state religion secularism doesn't really solve the problem of the past where people were expected to argue why their belief fit in with what the Bible proscribed. You've simply substituted your belief system and made it ascendent.
I don't think we do ourselves any favors by saying spirituality should be discounted and criticized as not good enough to justify a belief or a vote. Spirituality was what guided me to the very important belief that efforts to define marriage as being between a man and a woman were toxic and needed to be opposed.
kmbboots:
quote:Short answer: Because not all beliefs are equal no matter the reason someone holds that belief.
I believe that. I do. I just don't want a litmus test for where acceptable ideas may come from.
Samprimary:
quote:Yes. That's the point. The context of "in the past" makes the 'however' part of your post a .. bit off, syntax wise.
i also think that if you go back to smith and young, 'discourage' is putting it quite mildly. i guess excommunication/exile/death is in all practical senses an encouragement not to mix blood with the inferior races.
There wasn't a single mixed racial relationship that I am aware of that was responded to with excommunication/exile/death.
Yes Brigham Young said the penalty of such a coupling was death, but as far as I am aware that belief died with him, and was never actually followed by anybody. Can we continue believing that mixed racial marriages are not a problem in Mormonism now?
Mucus:
quote:I'm not sure how you can assume that the employees at Mozilla are singling any one thing out either if you can't demonstrate that I'm singling one thing out.
Presumably there has never been another case in Mozilla's history where an employees political donations were cause to require they resign. Would you say that's a safe assumption?
quote:Don't they? For a given definition of "major" we have boycotts happening all the time. Consumers boycotting Chick-Fil-A were inherently trying to get the whole company including the CEO shut down. America boycotts Cuba and Iran, which harms the livelihoods of people both inside and outside the relevant countries with the implicit goal of "regime change."
I'm not contending that people use boycotts to punish people's ideology. What I meant is that while all boycotts punish people for acting in a certain way, not all punishing actions are boycotts. And increasingly we are seeing people being punished just for thinking something, or not participating in actions that prove they believe the right things. For example, I know somebody who does not believe that homosexuals should be given the exact same marriage status as heterosexuals. While he believes strongly in treating gay employees no different than straight ones, he is required by the company to participate in equality activities and donate to funds that support those causes.
He's being required to pay obeisance to the beliefs of the organization. I don't think that's right anymore than I would think it's right to require employees to donate to Prop 8 if you were a Utah firm.
quote:I disagree. What is the purpose of a boycott if not to get the people that are on the other side of an issue to either step down and punish those that refuse? When countries around the world boycotted South Africa, they were definitely trying to get the supporters of apartheid out of power and punish those that believed in the racial superiority of whites.
The purpose of a boycott is to get people to stop *doing* something. Should we then boycott all people who do things that enable behavior we think is harmful. Which is more to your next point.
quote:Don't they? For a given definition of "major" we have boycotts happening all the time. Consumers boycotting Chick-Fil-A were inherently trying to get the whole company including the CEO shut down. America boycotts Cuba and Iran, which harms the livelihoods of people both inside and outside the relevant countries with the implicit goal of "regime change."
I'm pretty sure the US doesn't boycott countries for any bad behavior. I suspect we are disagreeing on how horrible it is that people support measures like Prop 8. Many on this board see it akin to supporting segregation and worthy of harsh reprisals. I see it as a very bad position, but that well meaning people disagree with me on it. They should be reasoned with, not forced to bow down or get out of polite society.
I think that behavior is easily applied to numerous other political positions and leads to a (ironically) intolerant society that doesn't brook beliefs outside what is popular.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What if my argument is "God doesn't want us to kill each other and guns enable that."? To me making the state religion secularism doesn't really solve the problem of the past where people were expected to argue why their belief fit in with what the Bible proscribed. You've simply substituted your belief system and made it ascendent.
It's still just as bad, because it requires "God wants" to justify your argument.
As far as replacing it with a "secular belief system", if a system of government based on logic, reason, basic human rights and equality is a "belief system" then yes, absolutely it's superior to your "let's make whatever God wants the law" belief system. We don't live in a theocracy, religion has no place in our government. That doesn't mean you can't be inspired by your religion to do good things, but if you're trying to force other people to do them too, you better have a better reason than "because God said so."
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a perfectly secular justification for ensuring that heterosexual unions are protected by the state. There are several Western nations that are now subsidizing heterosexual marriages and pregnancy aggressively because they are dealing with negative population growth. That of course doesn't address the interests of same-sex couples.
Having seen you address this before, I'm sure you realize that what this is at best is simply a single secular argument in favor of opposing SSM, and a weak one at that. Which does nonjng to engender respect for the American* virtues of those opposing SSM.
For starters, population decline is basically nowhere advanced in the US as a reason to bar SSM. None of the 'serious' opponents, thankfully on the decline as a political force to be reckoned with, used this as a key argument. Heck, Card has gotten mighty insistent let's just say on the subject and if this was an argument of his, I don't remember it featuring much.
No, in the United States opposition has centered around labeling advocates of SSM as arrogant liberals who don't care about tradition (this when opponents of SSM have been defanged into civility) or the deviant agenda of perverts who loathe decency and wish to subvert children away from goodness (this being a common argument when opponents have *not* been faced with a helpless, impotent rival).
But OK, let's pretend for a moment that population decline is an argument used by opponents of SSM. Pretty bad case to make: there is no such decline in the US, unless you want to start courting racism. Furthermore, encouraging pregnancy does not at all mean barring SSM. Barring gays from marrying does not make heterosexual couples hornier and more fertile.
*This is what we're left with when 'God says so' is taken off the table. An argument as weak as 'population growth, or perhaps one involving mediocre at best science about the inferiority of homosexuals as parents or pseudo history involving the decline of societies for decadence. In the name of doing what we have a solid ethic of not doing: compelling the behavior of our fellow citizens because of what our god supposedly told us to do.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I'm not sure why you're conflating criticism of religious justification for votes with religious justification for private beliefs, or beliefs for the congregation. I have no issue with the latter except when it bleeds into the former as for example 'God says we should not do this, therefore we will try to use the force of law ensure no one anywhere does this'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] If a system of government based on logic, reason, basic human rights and equality is a "belief system" then yes, absolutely it's superior to your "let's make whatever God wants the law" belief system.
That's frankly an extremely ungenerous and inaccurate summation of what I'm advocating.
quote:We don't live in a theocracy, religion has no place in our government.
Yeah, that's not at all what the founding fathers established, nor is it a charitable invitation for religious people to be involved in civil affairs. The Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion or to give preferential or detrimental treatment to any one religion. It doesn't mean that the founding fathers sought after a country where religion is kept in the closet so to speak. My religion is part of who I am, it informs me of what the world around me means.
quote: That doesn't mean you can't be inspired by your religion to do good things, but if you're trying to force other people to do them too, you better have a better reason than "because God said so."
As opposed to forcing me to do something because "the majority society says so"? Or "enlightenment says so"? We all vote for what we believe will serve our self interests and those we care about.
A secular justification for a belief is not the end all be all you seem to think it is. But for whatever reason it seems like you believe it's the only basis that is valid. Don't get me wrong, I think a secular justification is correct for laws that govern a diverse society. I'm just dismayed that you think religion has no place in the market place of ideas that become law.
Sounds no different to me than the Puritan ideal of the perfect society.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, I'm not sure why you're conflating criticism of religious justification for votes with religious justification for private beliefs, or beliefs for the congregation. I have no issue with the latter except when it bleeds into the former as for example 'God says we should not do this, therefore we will try to use the force of law ensure no one anywhere does this'.
Religious justifications for voting and political donations are exactly at the heart of what's going on. It's not enough that laws may or may not have a secular justification, what the secular justification for making labor day a federal holiday? It's religious opinions that inform voting and donations should be vigorously decried and shamed.
I can't fully control my religion. It's part of who I am. My conscience is a critical part of how I vote, just as yours is. That you cannot articulate a spiritual direction to your conscience doesn't make yours superior to mine. Why can't we both converse as equals and in the end vote honorably what we feel is best for the country?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I need to pull back for the night. I can tell my thoughts are not forming fully before I write them, and I may be saying things that if taken to their natural conclusion would be disagreeable to me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure how you can assume that the employees at Mozilla are singling any one thing out either if you can't demonstrate that I'm singling one thing out.
Presumably there has never been another case in Mozilla's history where an employees political donations were cause to require they resign. Would you say that's a safe assumption?
Sure, let's for the sake of argument assume that. I don't, however, see that it demonstrates that the employees are necessarily singling anything out.
An example: Bob is an employee of corporation Mozilla. He has a CEO Joe who advocates torturing brown people. Bob tweets about it and wants him to be kicked out, it gets no traction. Joe is replaced with CEO Dan who advocates against same-sex marriage. Bob tweets about it, the tweet gets traction and Dan is kicked out.
Did Bob "single out" same-sex marriage? Not really, it just happened to be the one that gained traction in the press. That's just one example.
quote:. What I meant is that while all boycotts punish people for acting in a certain way, not all punishing actions are boycotts.
Sure, not all punishing actions are boycotts. But a refusal to conduct business transactions or social relations with an employer would seem to me to be within the bounds of a boycott.
Being all dictionary about it for example
quote:boycott: verb 1. withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest. noun 1. a punitive ban that forbids relations with certain groups, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods. synonyms: ban, veto, embargo, prohibition, sanction, restriction;
quote: ... he is required by the company to participate in equality activities and donate to funds that support those causes.
Again, two wrongs don't make a right. If your characterization via your friend is correct ("activities" could have a number of meanings), then I would agree that's wrong. However, I don't see why your friends injustice at some completely different company should have any bearing on how the Mozilla employees should act in this case.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dogbreath: That's frankly an extremely ungenerous and inaccurate summation of what I'm advocating.
How so?
quote:Yeah, that's not at all what the founding fathers established, nor is it a charitable invitation for religious people to be involved in civil affairs. The Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion or to give preferential or detrimental treatment to any one religion. It doesn't mean that the founding fathers sought after a country where religion is kept in the closet so to speak. My religion is part of who I am, it informs me of what the world around me means.
As opposed to forcing me to do something because "the majority society says so"? Or "enlightenment says so"? We all vote for what we believe will serve our self interests and those we care about.
A secular justification for a belief is not the end all be all you seem to think it is. But for whatever reason it seems like you believe it's the only basis that is valid. Don't get me wrong, I think a secular justification is correct for laws that govern a diverse society. I'm just dismayed that you think religion has no place in the market place of ideas that become law.
Sounds no different to me than the Puritan ideal of the perfect society. [/QB]
You seem to be conflating terms here which are really discrete concepts. I guess I need a somewhat lengthy reply to explain what I mean, but I think my main disagreement with NOM and such groups is philosophical.
I believe religion can inspire one to create laws, good or bad. Much like you, much of my worldview is informed by my religious upbringing. In many ways, even at times when I strongly disagree with it, I tend to frame everything I experience (religion, books, tv, politics, arguing with people on the internet) in terms of Biblical morality and philosophy. This can be rather exasperating, as I read a new book and my stupid brain starts automatically trying to find parallels and references to Christianity and the Biblical narrative that, for better or worse, still comprises the bulk of my moral intelligence and conscience. I'm sure you can relate.
So it's absolutely true that religion can inspire the creation of laws. Your belief that man was created in the very image of God can inspire a deep belief in the sanctity and sacredness of human life, which turns into a moral system that advocates human rights and dignity. Your belief in the total depravity of mankind, that we are sinners in the hands of an angry God, worms who cannot even lift our heads but by the grace of our spiteful creator, might lead you to belief that men are wicked and worthless and desperately evil, and need a strong tyrant to exercise some check on the depths of their depravity. But either way, your moral upbringing, religious or otherwise, is the lens through which you view the world and profoundly affects your decisions. That cannot be avoided, nor should it not be taken into account. That is what I mean by inspiration.
When it comes to laws, though, we speak of justification. And the justification for most laws (though it may be supported by facts and other theories) is that "we must pass this law for it is right."
Yes, but what is right? This is where we come to an epistemological quandary, and must as a nation, as a people, choose how we determine what is right and wrong, and what definitions of right and wrong we use. I would argue these methods of defining morality fall into several discrete theories:
0) (Chaos) There is no right or wrong. Let every man do what is right in his own eyes. 1) (Argument from authority) There is absolute right and wrong, and we know which is which because God/the King/the Party/the prophet says it is wrong. Arguments from authority are usually backed by threats, as well. (Do as I say or else you'll burn in hell/you'll get your head cut off/etc.) 2) There is absolute right and wrong, and we can use reason to discern what is right and what isn't, and to discover fundamental principles to help us know what is right and what isn't. (the Hammurbic Code, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth justice reflects this somewhat) 3) Right and wrong are relative, we must use reason to find absolute principles that define morality, but we need to take situation into account in order to justly apply those principles. (i.e, so while killing is wrong, killing in self defense might be more morally acceptable than killing in a fit of rage, which is more morally acceptable than premeditated murder, etc.)
I don't want to digress too much into this (mostly because I am no philosopher, and am not confident in my ability to adequately argue this), but in my humble opinion, the spirit of the 1st amendment, and of the way our secular democracy works, is that we do not justify laws based on arguments from authority, but rather we use reason, philosophy, science, and logic to help us decide what "right" actually is. We assume certain tautologies in order to allow us to have this free discourse in the first place (the "self-evident" truths from the Declaration of Independence), but we don't go about establishing laws based on religious edicts or commandments. At most, we might be inspired by our religion to seek out a secular justification for a law.
And this is why I'm so strongly opposed to the current anti-SSM movement. It's not that I even care so much about gay rights (though I do think it's important), it's that a large group of people are trying to impose religiously justified laws on us. I don't have a problem with people who argue "I believe God disapproves of same sex marriage." Nor do I have a problem with people who argue "Same sex marriage should be illegal because it's harmful to our society, for x, y, and z reasons" (though I think those reasons are weak and easily discredited at the judicial level). I have a *huge* problem with people who say "we think gays should be forced to live according to our moral standards, because God wants it that way." I really, truly believe that it’s an incredibly dangerous argument, and if it's allowed to take hold and grow in our nation, it will lead to the weakening or outright destruction of our democracy.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religious justifications for voting and political donations are exactly at the heart of what's going on. It's not enough that laws may or may not have a secular justification, what the secular justification for making labor day a federal holiday? It's religious opinions that inform voting and donations should be vigorously decried and shamed.
Again, I have no issue with a religious justification for voting. It's the 'voting to govern the behavior of others on a religious basis' that is problematic. In fact it's problematic to *everyone*-to you, me, and the late unlamented Fred Phelps. It's just that many people lose sight of that problem when the religion calling the shots is theirs, and they are unlikely to face being on the short end of that stick.
As for Labor Day, setting aside past reasons, surely a national day off need not have a religious motive?
quote:I can't fully control my religion. It's part of who I am. My conscience is a critical part of how I vote, just as yours is. That you cannot articulate a spiritual direction to your conscience doesn't make yours superior to mine. Why can't we both converse as equals and in the end vote honorably what we feel is best for the country?
I'm not sure which 'you' is being used here. Do you mean that to say 'a viewpoint which has religion as a central tenet'? If so, then I'm afraid I have to disagree. In fact even if you are too polite, too decent (you yourself, here) to presume to claim your conscience is superior...well, you're in tune with the author I the universe, right? At least to a better degree than I am. Assuming that author exists, surely to be more closely aligned with it is to be superior in some way.
Likewise for conversing as equals. I've got the strength of my own convictions, whatever those might be-in this case, a belief in the dignity of human beings and loving relationships. The religious person claims the moral authority of *God*, and although he might be too courteous to say so, cannot rationally help but think his stance is better than mine. Not just because he believes he is right and I am wrong-as I do him-but because God is on his side.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pretty much every religion in the entire world except for a small bundle of creedless unitarian style ones are actually pretty assuredly saying that the conscience of its followers is better than the conscience of nonbelievers, or the believers of wrong (i.e. every other religion on earth) faiths, because that conscience is informed by the correct religion
whether the religious authorities in charge of that religion in that time are stating more or less in favor of judging other people actively for their mistaken faith is a different matter entirely from if they say a conscience informed by having the correct (their) religion is better than and superior to conscience informed by incorrect faiths or not having faith
best you can hope for generally is some paternalistic sheen over it saying "we must be respectful of these people who have a greater way to go and greater challenges in their spiritual journey to find god's love and hear his message and guidance for them!"
this 'respectful' ≠ treating as equals.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't they? For a given definition of "major" we have boycotts happening all the time. Consumers boycotting Chick-Fil-A were inherently trying to get the whole company including the CEO shut down. America boycotts Cuba and Iran, which harms the livelihoods of people both inside and outside the relevant countries with the implicit goal of "regime change."
I'm pretty sure the US doesn't boycott countries for any bad behavior. I suspect we are disagreeing on how horrible it is that people support measures like Prop 8. Many on this board see it akin to supporting segregation and worthy of harsh reprisals. I see it as a very bad position, but that well meaning people disagree with me on it. They should be reasoned with, not forced to bow down or get out of polite society.
I think that behavior is easily applied to numerous other political positions and leads to a (ironically) intolerant society that doesn't brook beliefs outside what is popular.
The US absolutely boycotts countries for bad behavior. My boss, who works for the government in a sense, is no longer allowed to go to Russia or spend any money in a way that directly benefits Russia on NASA business. He is waiting a few more weeks to see if this blows over, but needs to cancel his trip to Russia, otherwise.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm not advocating for letting religion run roughshod over everybody. I specifically voted against same-sex marriage bans because I feel it was an instance of religion imposing its beliefs on others. So lets stop revisiting the theocracy stance.
quote:I don't want to digress too much into this (mostly because I am no philosopher, and am not confident in my ability to adequately argue this), but in my humble opinion, the spirit of the 1st amendment, and of the way our secular democracy works, is that we do not justify laws based on arguments from authority, but rather we use reason, philosophy, science, and logic to help us decide what "right" actually is. We assume certain tautologies in order to allow us to have this free discourse in the first place (the "self-evident" truths from the Declaration of Independence), but we don't go about establishing laws based on religious edicts or commandments. At most, we might be inspired by our religion to seek out a secular justification for a law.
I just don't believe this is what our country was founded on. Specifically I agree that the government should not be attempting to evangelize for a religion, but it should *also* protect the religious practices of its citizens. Even when those practices are demonstrated ala secular justifications to be harmful to the adherents. Again the devil is in the details, but I'm just not comfortable with the code of conduct increasingly being pushed onto the religious by secular society. Where essentially religious belief is not permitted in the same conversation as a person's areligious justifications. Or lamely, "You can have religious justifications, but don't expect me to take you seriously you deluded ignoramus."
Look at Chic Fil A. The CEO speaks out against same-sex marriage and a Chicago city councilman denies the franchise a zoning permit purely on those grounds. That's just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as the councilman saying, "I'm only going to give this zoning permit to a good Christian man."
But in all my attempts to explain this, everybody here tut tuts me, or says Christians had it their way for so long it's jarring to hear them claim to be victims, nobody bends even a little bit. It makes it really difficult for me to carry on conversations here about this topic because I feel alone, and nobody is going to change their mind anyway, so why try to write mountains of text trying to address 4-5 other people who all disagree with me, when I've got nobody who agrees or is going to agree with me?
I can't keep up the time commitment. And I'm sorry if that seems disingenuous or feels like I'm "ducking" your well thought out posts.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FYI, I didn't mean to imply anything negative by saying you ducked out, for us it's a perfectly neutral expression. (I didn't even think of the negative connontation) I completely understand and respect time constraints, it's why I can't participate in the vast majority of conversations here even though I would like to.
All I can say is I think you and I agree completely that the government should protect the religious practices of it's citizens, I'm not sure why that's a point of contention?
I think the main thing is, I (and from what I can gather, most people here) differentiate between political stances and religious beliefs. I honestly don't see anyone being condemned for belonging to a religion that says homosexuality is wrong or for believing that religion, or enacting those beliefs in their personal lives and community. Arguably, the majority of the United States falls into that group.
What I do see people being protested against is active attempts to change the law in order to force that religious belief on other people. I don't see that as free exercise of religion, I see it as attempting to keep others from freely exercising their religion.
I'm not sure if what the Chicago City Councilman did is legal, btw. I don't think you can take political or religious beliefs into consideration. Like, I remember where there was an adopt-a-highway program and there was one highway adopted by the american Nazi Party. I think they're a touch more nefarious than Chic-Fil-A...
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look at Chic Fil A. The CEO speaks out against same-sex marriage and a Chicago city councilman denies the franchise a zoning permit purely on those grounds. That's just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as the councilman saying, "I'm only going to give this zoning permit to a good Christian man."
And was promptly labeled such by more than a few secularists, because it was a clear and public violation of the First Amendment. I think I said as much here, but it's been awhile. Except when religious people complain about backlash against CFA-even boycotts!-it's couched in terms of a 'war on Christianity', not 'violation of the sacred secular rights in the First Amendment' which are, let's face it, generally regarded as inferior to higher law anyway.
The problem is that Christians *aren't* victims in the United States, not really, not yet. Occasionally there will be isolated instances of 'attacks' which are more often than not defenses against what would once have been unchallenged religious presumption. Opposition to 'under God' in the Pledge? That's an attack, supposedly, when the truth is it was only until recently even conceivable to challenge such a thing. Intelligent Design in science class? It's in living memory that an explicitly monotheistic religious stance in science classes was even called into question! Questions about prayer in school? Likewise. Ten Commandments up on a courtroom wall? Mandatory swearing in on a bible? I mean, the list goes on.
Then we get to SSM. After centuries of keeping gays so far in the closet, the very notion of gay rights as a political issue was far removed from even a neighbor of a never-remotely-considered question...well now, in the past three generations these questions are *finally* being discussed openly. And what do we hear? War on Family. War on Christianity. Secularists being too aggressive and too confrontational. The first chance the oppressed minority actually has an authentic chance at not equality but a place in the public forum, and it's 'whoa, whoa, slippery slope! You're trying to restrict religious thought!'
I respect the hell out of you, BB, and have never been anything less than convinced of your good intentions, but damnit, why is it so important to chastise the newly emerging underdog-now that it's actually a contest!-rather than the enormous titan who has had it his own way for time out of mind? Right now, in most of the country a legally consenting adult cannot marry the partner of their choice, because god says so, whatever tissue-thin sociological pretexts there might be. But a pipsqueak municipal politician overreaches into some unAmerican behavior, and whoa! Let's pump the brakes, let's talk about how secularists shouldn't be trying to sideline religious discourse in politics!
I'll tell you what, in two years there will be a disproportionately powerful group of voters demanding a host of politicians catering to their whims. In spite of being an obvious fringe, in spite of their beliefs on questions of religion being well outside the public norm, they will be listened to, in fact there's a good chance they will force the debate to cater to them even though they stand no chance in a broader contest. There's a solid chance they will bludgeon through their candidate for the Presidency.
That group ain't gonna be leftist secularists, and we all know it. Left leaning liberal secularists have *never* been that group. So I can sympathize with your position as a single voice, but I think it's an important point to make: if political pressure to eschew religion in public affairs is a dangerous spark, well the house is already on fire and has been burning for a long, long time!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm not advocating for letting religion run roughshod over everybody. I specifically voted against same-sex marriage bans because I feel it was an instance of religion imposing its beliefs on others. So lets stop revisiting the theocracy stance.
quote:I don't want to digress too much into this (mostly because I am no philosopher, and am not confident in my ability to adequately argue this), but in my humble opinion, the spirit of the 1st amendment, and of the way our secular democracy works, is that we do not justify laws based on arguments from authority, but rather we use reason, philosophy, science, and logic to help us decide what "right" actually is. We assume certain tautologies in order to allow us to have this free discourse in the first place (the "self-evident" truths from the Declaration of Independence), but we don't go about establishing laws based on religious edicts or commandments. At most, we might be inspired by our religion to seek out a secular justification for a law.
I just don't believe this is what our country was founded on. Specifically I agree that the government should not be attempting to evangelize for a religion, but it should *also* protect the religious practices of its citizens. Even when those practices are demonstrated ala secular justifications to be harmful to the adherents. Again the devil is in the details, but I'm just not comfortable with the code of conduct increasingly being pushed onto the religious by secular society. Where essentially religious belief is not permitted in the same conversation as a person's areligious justifications. Or lamely, "You can have religious justifications, but don't expect me to take you seriously you deluded ignoramus."
Look at Chic Fil A. The CEO speaks out against same-sex marriage and a Chicago city councilman denies the franchise a zoning permit purely on those grounds. That's just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as the councilman saying, "I'm only going to give this zoning permit to a good Christian man."
But in all my attempts to explain this, everybody here tut tuts me, or says Christians had it their way for so long it's jarring to hear them claim to be victims, nobody bends even a little bit. It makes it really difficult for me to carry on conversations here about this topic because I feel alone, and nobody is going to change their mind anyway, so why try to write mountains of text trying to address 4-5 other people who all disagree with me, when I've got nobody who agrees or is going to agree with me?
I can't keep up the time commitment. And I'm sorry if that seems disingenuous or feels like I'm "ducking" your well thought out posts.
You have this story about Chick-Fil-A so very very wrong.
The city in question was Boston, specifically Mayor Menino who very recently left office after decades as Boston's mayor due to health problems. And the CEO gives multiple millions of dollars of Chick-Fil-A profits specifically to anti-gay marriage organizations. With Massachusetts being the first state in the country to permit gay marriage, you can imagine a large fraction of those services were in fact performed at city hall. You can also imagine that for many years, Massachusetts had a unique little tourist niche with all these gay weddings, and people from around the country who wanted to get the deed done there, where it was legal.
Aside from the CEO's remarks, Menino cited his LBGQT constituency, the "Freedom trail", and Boston's role in facilitating gay marriage. Keep in mind that Chick-Fil-A barely has a presence in Massachusetts-- I hadn't heard of them until the whole flap. It wasn't like he was kicking out Legal Sea Foods, or (god forbid) Dunkin' Donuts (people would probably riot). Instead banning a chain that almost nobody in Mass knows about is a pretty shrewd business move to remain popular with voters.
/Until last sumer, I lived a 15-minute walk from Boston city limits and my sister and her husband used to live in the gay part of Boston (south end)
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, you're right. There were three cities who made a big stink about Chick-Fil-A (the third, unsurprisingly, was San Francisco). Living in Boston, it just sounded like the only one.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... a Chicago city councilman denies the franchise a zoning permit purely on those grounds. ... But in all my attempts to explain this, everybody here tut tuts me, or says Christians had it their way for so long it's jarring to hear them claim to be victims ...
I would note that it isn't that Christians "had" their way. They're still having their way. Let's not overestimate the level of religious diversity in the US, taking a quick look, roughly 70% of even the self-identified Democrats are Christian.
Case in point, this is how that Chicago city councilman explains it:
quote:"It's unfortunate that the cardinal, as often happens, picks parts of the Bible and not other parts," said Moreno, who added that he was raised Catholic in western Illinois, attended a Catholic grade school and was an altar boy. Moreno said he now occasionally attends church.
"The Bible says many things," Moreno said. "For the cardinal to say that Jesus believes in this, and therefore we all must believe in this, I think is just disingenuous and irresponsible. The God I believe in is one about equal rights, and to not give equal rights to those that want to marry, is in my opinion un-Christian."
This isn't a story about non-Christians putting an end to Christians having their way. This is a story about Christians fighting amongst themselves over which group of Christians gets to have their way.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: Coincidentally the council man's flip-side argument corresponds with what I said earlier,
quote:"I'm only going to give this zoning permit to a good Christian man."
People for thousands of years have demanded people conform to an ideology in order to be full members of that society. You are right in this instance we have a Christian persecuting another Christian, but do you really think that Alderman was not inundated with emails and phone calls from nonreligious people demanding he teach Chic Fil A a lesson that intolerance will not be tolerated? As we debated before, Ender's Game was up to the gills with people saying Lion's Gate should be ashamed of releasing a film based on a novel by somebody that opposes same-sex marriage, and thinks ill of the movement seeking to establish it.
quote:I would note that it isn't that Christians "had" their way. They're still having their way.
YES! I've said this a million times. Do you think I suddenly get all accommodating when Christians try to force people to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance?
The fact that even Christians are getting in on the action of being intolerant towards heteronormative folks should be a huge red flag that maybe an idea is being take further than it should.
-------------
Rakeesh:
quote:And was promptly labeled such by more than a few secularists,
I never read anything by secularists suggesting this was an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment. I'd be happy to do so.
quote:The problem is that Christians *aren't* victims in the United States, not really, not yet.
As much as other groups, probably not, at an institutional level maybe not distinctly so. Look I get that there are a lot of crazy pundits who have been screaming this message for years now, using every instance of a minority succeeding, to scream what now it's time to stop discriminating against white males by dumping affirmative action, or that white people can't hold "white pride" festivals.
But I can only speak to my own observations, but I'm seeing an increase of the belief that Christians can't vote their consciences absent a compelling areligious argument for those beliefs. Maybe nobody here is advocating it, but it's obnoxious that I'm the only one who seems to notice it.
Maybe part of it is that I do live in two worlds. But maybe that gives me the perspective to see that both sides are actually seeking the same awful thing. Ideological purity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... I'm seeing an increase of the belief that Christians can't vote their consciences absent a compelling areligious argument for those beliefs.
And you're backing up this observation with an example of a Christian Chicago alderman that is clearly voting based on what he thinks is Christian or un-Christian?
You're clearly working from a different definition of "can't" from me. Maybe you meant "shouldn't" instead of "can't" here?
Edit to add: If that is, then I would agree. A good leader should be able to set aside their own personal religious beliefs when dealing with other people. None of this silly, a Muslim leader should be able to ban pork for non-Muslims nonsense that you've got going in the other thread.
I would also add that one could join the religious arbitration system if they wanted to make laws for their own people.
posted
My reaction to this sort of question is that "voting one's conscience" is not something I universally endorse even when there's no religious aspect to it. If the deliverance of your conscience is something you arbitrarily settled on for no reason and can't justify, that's no good either.
So for example, if a secular person votes against SSM because homosexuality seems gross to them, that's a bad reason to vote. Shouldn't be illegal, but should be looked askance at. I feel the same way when conservative Christians vote their consciences on this issue.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: I didn't say we should let Muslims ban pork. I said I was not sure how I felt about the hypothetical. And my examples are not nonsense. If you think I am posting a lot of nonsense and obfuscation then by all means leave my remarks alone because they can't do you any good and I don't want to waste both our times.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
There are hosts of remarks by various constitutional scholars casting doubts onto whether such a ban would be legal. Enough that they're easy to find. For someone make specific, you can look to what Bloomberg had to say on the matter, and he keeps his religious convictions about as out of his political life as anyone religious has in this country.
As for victimization, again I am baffled. Christians are 'probably' not as much victims as other groups in this country? How on Earth is this even in doubt? Are Christians being denied marriage rights? Do Christians have to recite oaths of allegiance disavowing God in public schools? Are Christians subjected to a hugely powerful small minority of 'values' voters who demand they pass religious muster before even having a chance at being elected? Are Christians put to death at a greater rate than other religions for the same crimes? Are Christians denied housing at a higher...I mean, sheesh, I could go on, but I think my point is clear.
As for voting one's religious conscience, I'm not sure how it can be made any clearer except to state it again: no one is saying people should be restricted legally from voting their religious conscience. I challenge you to find one person anywhere who has done so. Aside from the problem of how on Earth that would even be done, what is actually being said is that they *shouldn't*. That it is a bad thing to do. That people should stop. The same simply cannot be said in reverse. *Regularly* the American-ness of agnostics and atheists, and for that matter Muslims and still to some extent Jews, is called into question. I would love to hear about the atheist attorney general who said the United States 'has no king but Marx' or something. As for me, I can reach back into recent history to find a fundamentalist AG who said the the religious version of that statement. The frigging *attorney general* openly states that the US has no king but Jesus, and that is the source of our power and goodness.
Where is there even *remotely* an equivalent example in the other direction? It's not enough to be a Christian, you have to be the *right kind* of Christian to get to the White House. 'Probably not' victimized as much?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure playing Christian v. secular Oppression Olympics is the right way to approach this issue. If the rights of Christians are being violated, that's a problem all people should recognize as such. I do think you're right on the question of fact, non-Christians have it worse, but I don't see why it matters much.
For example, I do think Eich's dismissal was seriously wrong.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for victimization, again I am baffled. Christians are 'probably' not as much victims as other groups in this country?
Probably is my diplomatic way of agreeing with on something of which I have absolutely no way of quantifying or proving. I'm try to be uncomfortable with saying something is unequivocally so.
quote:As for voting one's religious conscience, I'm not sure how it can be made any clearer except to state it again: no one is saying people should be restricted legally from voting their religious conscience. I challenge you to find one person anywhere who has done so.
Legally? I never argued legally. Nobody has advocated for a law that bars voting based on religious conscience.
What people *are* doing is dismissing people from being full participants of the discussion and society at large because of where their beliefs are derived from. Don't buy their books, see the movie based on that book they wrote, don't contract them to write something for you, don't hire them at all, require them to resign, sue them for refusing to provide a service they say violates their beliefs, require them to teach that same-sex marriage is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage regardless of their own convictions.
Look, any one of those things can be dissected and possibly justified. You might think every single one of those things is right. But I don't think it should be said that,
1: Christians do this stuff too, so they have no room to complain.
2: Christians are only whining now because they can't get away with it all the time.
3: Christians are still far more entrenched institutionally so these things are like bugs splattering on the windshield of the Jesus Train.
Maybe you don't mean to give these impressions, and I honestly respect so much of what you have to say. But all these things I've listed, when taken as a whole bother me. If I flip them and hypothesize them being done to proponents of gay marriage, it makes my blood boil. If the only reasons my offense is decreased because a more powerful bloc is the aggrieved party, I refuse to let that on its own justify that change in feeling.
I'm not trying to pat myself on the back, but when I decided to support same-sex marriage and stand up for those being mistreated, I agreed to do so for anybody, be they the most privileged in society down to the most down-trodden.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
to bb's credit there is a mass undercurrent of social justice culture which is, to some degree, awash in the idea that you can't be a real ally to marginalized groups if you want to bring attention to or work against something bad that is happening to groups which are otherwise an empowered social majority, or find personal distaste with being stereotypically slandered as a member of those groups (usually whites or men) and it's pretty polarizing and lolterribad
at the same time though this is all in a level of nuance way above that crap (hooray?) and so I think that yes some of the persecution complex here about Poor Christians needs to be reanalyzed for what it actually is. there is no real equivalence in the hypothesized flip between <bad thing> happening to <marginalized nonvoluntarily associated group> and <bad thing> happening to <powerful dominant majority elective religion representing literally about 80 percent of all americans>
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, the analogy I keep coming up with is this. It is like Christianity has been sitting on the side of a pool and everyone else - atheists, Muslims, Jews and so forth - have been struggling to get out of the pool. Once in a while Christianity gives them a hand but usually we push them back under. Now we are, for the most part, no longer holding them under but we are shrieking our heads off when we get splashed as they emerge.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be pretty frustrated if because somebody else at the pool was acting like a dick, a person getting out splashed me and told me to shut up because he wasn't going to take my abuse anymore.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: You mentioned earlier in this thread that you feel alone in your beliefs. You are not. I feel very similar to you on many of these issues. I just don't have the time or determination to get on here regularly and espouse my views.
I appreciate you putting words to some of my own feelings.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I would be pretty frustrated if because somebody else at the pool was acting like a dick, a person getting out splashed me and told me to shut up because he wasn't going to take my abuse anymore.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a calm reminder not to splash people.
The problem is when the splashing is portrayed as worse than the original status quo. OSC is a bit guilty of this, unfortunately. You aren't.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: to bb's credit there is a mass undercurrent of social justice culture which is, to some degree, awash in the idea that you can't be a real ally to marginalized groups if you want to bring attention to or work against something bad that is happening to groups which are otherwise an empowered social majority, or find personal distaste with being stereotypically slandered as a member of those groups (usually whites or men) and it's pretty polarizing and lolterribad
at the same time though this is all in a level of nuance way above that crap (hooray?) and so I think that yes some of the persecution complex here about Poor Christians needs to be reanalyzed for what it actually is. there is no real equivalence in the hypothesized flip between <bad thing> happening to <marginalized nonvoluntarily associated group> and <bad thing> happening to <powerful dominant majority elective religion representing literally about 80 percent of all americans>
I would agree you can't totally flip the situation each time. Sometimes it's a useless comparison I guess. But I said, "If the only reasons my offense is decreased is because a more powerful bloc is the aggrieved party, I refuse to let that on its own justify that change in feeling."
I was involved with Occupy Wall Street, and I remember seeing a picture of two protestors holding signs over two bankers trying to get to work's heads that said something along the lines of, "I am a bankster, and I stole from the 99%"
The bankers had their heads ducked down and they were running, just trying to get away. I was pretty ticked off. Those protestors 99% (not trying to make a joke) didn't know squat about those people other than they were on Wall Street and they were wearing suits. It pisses me off when people think the righteousness of their causes covers up a multitude of sins.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
scifibum: I agree saying the new offense is worse than the status quo is not accurate.
kmbboots: Looking at a group as identical in attitudes, behaviors, actions is part of the problem though.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on what you are doing and why you are looking. BB, I am not saying that splashing is right but it is both understandable and sooo not a big deal when put in perspective or weighed in the balance.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: So at what point does splashing become so prevalent and accepted that we then say, "Hmmm, that's a bit too far?"
Why not say, "Let's put a stop to the people pushing you back in, but splashing is not the way to exit the pool."?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
