Longest Thread Ever

[One Brow]

I'm saying it's a two way street, you don't want my religious reasons making decisions in your life, I don't want your non-religious reasons making decisions in my life. I also value freedom of religion.

I don't want anyone else to make decisions in your life, either.

Not true, but interesting how you believe your belief/non-belief structure is important to everyone, but mine is not because it has a base in religion.
You are trying to throw all religion out the window and say it's not valid to all of society.
It is just as valid to all of society as a lack of religion if you believe this freedom of religion stuff you just said.

The point of being secular is to find principles for society important to most people of various religions, as well as the non-religious. This works because regardless of religion, we all have a basic set of needs for which we rely on a governmental authority.

Making any decision or passing any law that has reasoning tied to religious belief in any way.

Any law on the books can be tied to religious reasoning in some fashion. What matters is if there is some sound, secular purpose in addition. Most religions prohibit indiscriminate killing of humans, but there are also good, non-religious reasons to make it illegal.

You say "in their own lives", and maybe you live in a bubble on a deserted island on your own planet and in your own solar system... but I happen to live with other people around me so my "in my own life" tends to overlap with other people's "in their own lives". Strange how society works.

Are you willing to grant privacy for the affairs of others that you ask for your own, and allow government intrusion/oppression into your own life in the same areas that you would ask for others?

For example, while I don't recall your position on same-sex marriage, let's say hypothetically that you are opposed to it, and you want legislation opposing it. The choices would be to find a sound secular argument in favor of that banning, or failing in that, to adopt a position that (should someone successfully convince the legislature) it would be acceptable for the government to forbid you from marrying anyone whose birthday was more than two years different than yours.

And yet your athiest reasons to do things are tied to your core. Why can you believe all people are racists at times or have racist tendencies, and yet have trouble understanding that a persons belief/non-belief views are woven through all they do and decisions they make?

I'm not asking you to abandon your religious core, nor would I abandon my ethical core. However, I don't expect the government to enforce my morals on other people simply because they are my morals. I have no issue with your ethical core informing your decisions and the positions you support, but if you want to make it law, present an argument that makes sense without your religion.

 

[One Brow]

And who gets to decide when something has a religious basis? The religious or the non-religious?

Generally, when the two sides disagree without common ground, it has been the judiciary.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I don't want anyone else to make decisions in your life, either.

It appears to me as if you consistently do not address that we are all a part of society and we have a government and we have other organizations around us.
We have other people making decisions that affect our lives all the time. If you don't want that, move to the moon.
The other option is to do as you have been doing and push your agenda and try to get as many people on your side of an issue so that whatever decision is made is the decision you wanted so it's as if you got your choice. If you don't want anyone else making decisions for you, or making decisions that affect you you will have to go where there are no other people.

The point of being secular is to find principles for society important to most people of various religions, as well as the non-religious. This works because regardless of religion, we all have a basic set of needs for which we rely on a governmental authority.

My issue with this is you are pushing for taking religion out of the equation when looking for a solution, instead put it all into the equation and put any non-religious views. You can't meet a set of needs as a whole if you dissect it so much it now has no meaning.

Any law on the books can be tied to religious reasoning in some fashion. What matters is if there is some sound, secular purpose in addition. Most religions prohibit indiscriminate killing of humans, but there are also good, non-religious reasons to make it illegal.

Yes, and it's nice when both religious views and non-religious views agree. It's when they don't agree and a decision must be made that it all should be taken into consideration, and not have anything tied to a religious view thrown out.

Are you willing to grant privacy for the affairs of others that you ask for your own, and allow government intrusion/oppression into your own life in the same areas that you would ask for others?

For example, while I don't recall your position on same-sex marriage, let's say hypothetically that you are opposed to it, and you want legislation opposing it. The choices would be to find a sound secular argument in favor of that banning, or failing in that, to adopt a position that (should someone successfully convince the legislature) it would be acceptable for the government to forbid you from marrying anyone whose birthday was more than two years different than yours.

If I was opposed to same-sex marriage I don't have to have a sound "secular argument. A sound argument no matter the inspiration should be fine. If a law somehow was passed that would forbid me from marrying anyone whose birthday was more than 2 years different, I suppose I would have to put off my plans of joining a polygamist group and just stay married to my wife. It might be rough on my kids if they found someone to marry that was 2 years and one day older or younger. I may at that point start investing in the stocks of the company FakeID.

I'm not asking you to abandon your religious core, nor would I abandon my ethical core. However, I don't expect the government to enforce my morals on other people simply because they are my morals. I have no issue with your ethical core informing your decisions and the positions you support, but if you want to make it law, present an argument that makes sense without your religion.

I shouldn't have to make an argument "without your religion". How about you remove the qualifiers.
How about I make an argument that makes sense. Who cares if it is a religious argument.
If the majority of people vote for it and make it law, then that's what the people want at this time.
If the majority of people want something I think is wrong or bad for our country, oh well, I did my best and we deal with the consequences as a country.
If the majority of people want something I think is right or good for our country, yay for me. We'll see what happens in a few years.

 

[♪alt13]

And who gets to decide when something has a religious basis? The religious or the non-religious?

Again you are confused. No one cares if something has a religious basis or influence. We care if it is exclusively religious ie subjective.

PS Secular government protects religious people from the tyranny of other religious people as much as or more than it does "nonreligious" people.

 

[PearlWatson]

while I love this joke. . . . chemists will write it different. . . un-ionized.

or, maybe, say "neutral" or "ground-state". . . . .

I see.

 

[PearlWatson]

The limitations and roles conditioned by society. Themes on women belonging in the home, being subservient, etc.

So when a woman chooses the natural role of a mother nesting, breast feeding, and raising her children it is a cage?

 

[♪alt13]

Some women like their cages. I have no problem with that.

You've gone off the deep end again. This is not only a mischaracterization of reality but insulting to many women. You are projecting your ideas about what is valuable onto others. Women are different. You are not opposed to womens restrooms are you? I imagine you would flip the **** out(and rightfully so) if we had black bathrooms.

I think the term that is missing from a conversation about the sexes, and indeed all conversations about equality, is equitable. Some might say that this is semantics but I would say that they are inherently different terms. Most often we can treat men ans women equally but often equality is not reasonable which is why we treat them equitably. This gets back to the bathroom thing.

 

[One Brow]

So when a woman chooses the natural role of a mother nesting, breast feeding, and raising her children it is a cage?

The cage is being limited to performing in those roles, not performing them per se. yes, when a woman agree that all she will ever do in her life is play the role of a nesting mother and spouse, she is agreeing to limit herself to that cage. If you are comfortable in it, good for you.

 

[One Brow]

You've gone off the deep end again. This is not only a mischaracterization of reality but insulting to many women. You are projecting your ideas about what is valuable onto others. Women are different. You are not opposed to womens restrooms are you? I imagine you would flip the **** out(and rightfully so) if we had black bathrooms.

I think the term that is missing from a conversation about the sexes, and indeed all conversations about equality, is equitable. Some might say that this is semantics but I would say that they are inherently different terms. Most often we can treat men ans women equally but often equality is not reasonable which is why we treat them equitably. This gets back to the bathroom thing.

I'm not opposed to womens restrooms, nor to unisex restrooms.

Again, I acknowledge that, on average, there are difference between men and women. The problem comes from treating averages as goals and aspirations. Men who want to be homemakers should not be chided because most men feel they need to bring in more income than their wives and most wives agree. Similarly, women whose natural bent is to have a career should not be made to feel guilty.

I agree we can treat men and women equally, but the reality is that we don't treat men and women equally. In order to treat them equally, they need to be given equal opportunities, not supposedly-equivalent, acutally-unequal opportunities.

 

[One Brow]

It appears to me as if you consistently do not address that we are all a part of society and we have a government and we have other organizations around us.
We have other people making decisions that affect our lives all the time. If you don't want that, move to the moon.
The other option is to do as you have been doing and push your agenda and try to get as many people on your side of an issue so that whatever decision is made is the decision you wanted so it's as if you got your choice. If you don't want anyone else making decisions for you, or making decisions that affect you you will have to go where there are no other people.

There needs to be a balance between the what we consider the fundamental rights of the individual and effect it has on others. If my neighbor puts up a privacy fence, it affects me, but I have no sound cause to legislate against him doing so. Saying 'it affects me' or 'in my (God's/gods') opinion, it affects society' isn't enough reason.

My issue with this is you are pushing for taking religion out of the equation when looking for a solution, instead put it all into the equation and put any non-religious views. You can't meet a set of needs as a whole if you dissect it so much it now has no meaning.

What I'm saying is that religion can't be the only thing in the equation. I have no issue with your beliefs bringing you passion and incentive; mine do as well. However, I don't expect anyone to make/enforce a rule because 'One Brow believes this is best'. I expect to have my positions weighed, tested, and only approved if they would work for everyone. That requires I produce sound reasoning which is not based solely on my belief.

Yes, and it's nice when both religious views and non-religious views agree. It's when they don't agree and a decision must be made that it all should be taken into consideration, and not have anything tied to a religious view thrown out.

Most of the time when religious views are being thrown out during the legislative process, it's because different religions have different views. People with no religion are the vast minority, Christian the substantial majority here in the USA. Most of the time when religious views are being thrown out during the judicial process, it's because those laws violated basic human rights.

If I was opposed to same-sex marriage I don't have to have a sound "secular argument. A sound argument no matter the inspiration should be fine. If a law somehow was passed that would forbid me from marrying anyone whose birthday was more than 2 years different, I suppose I would have to put off my plans of joining a polygamist group and just stay married to my wife. It might be rough on my kids if they found someone to marry that was 2 years and one day older or younger. I may at that point start investing in the stocks of the company FakeID.

So, rather than claim the right to marry another adult of their choosing was fundamental and fight for that right, you'd just advocate breaking the law? I suspect you were being facetious.

I shouldn't have to make an argument "without your religion". How about you remove the qualifiers.

If the argument makes no sense without your religion, it should not be law.

How about I make an argument that makes sense. Who cares if it is a religious argument.
If the majority of people vote for it and make it law, then that's what the people want at this time.
If the majority of people want something I think is wrong or bad for our country, oh well, I did my best and we deal with the consequences as a country.
If the majority of people want something I think is right or good for our country, yay for me. We'll see what happens in a few years.

So, you'd support the enslavement of, say, the children of Mormons, as long as people could get a majority to vote that way? Again, I find that difficult to believe.

 

[♪alt13]

The cage is being limited to performing in those roles, not performing them per se. yes, when a woman agree that all she will ever do in her life is play the role of a nesting mother and spouse, she is agreeing to limit herself to that cage. If you are comfortable in it, good for you.

I'm not opposed to womens restrooms, nor to unisex restrooms.

Again, I acknowledge that, on average, there are difference between men and women. The problem comes from treating averages as goals and aspirations. Men who want to be homemakers should not be chided because most men feel they need to bring in more income than their wives and most wives agree. Similarly, women whose natural bent is to have a career should not be made to feel guilty.

I agree we can treat men and women equally, but the reality is that we don't treat men and women equally. In order to treat them equally, they need to be given equal opportunities, not supposedly-equivalent, acutally-unequal opportunities.

You really don't see the hypocrisy in these two statements?

You're sexist my friend hiding beneath a shallow mask of pc liberalism. Who the **** are you to tell women what type of life is valuable!

 

[One Brow]

You really don't see the hypocrisy in these two statements?

You're sexist my friend hiding beneath a shallow mask of pc liberalism. Who the **** are you to tell women what type of life is valuable!

In which of those statements do you see me telling women, men, or anyone which choice is most valuable? Perhaps I stated something poorly. You bolded one statement where I said that I had no objection to women choosing a conforming path, and another where I said men shouldn't be criticized for choosing a non-conforming path. Where is the hypocrisy?