Should Anti-Discrimination Laws Apply to Religious Entities?

[United Muscovite Nations]

You don't even support the spread of the idea that murder, rape, slavery, etc. are wrong?

Inherently wrong? No.

So we have a moral obligation to promote the truth?

[DACOROMANIA]

If religious entities promote a harmful breaking of the laws such as slavery over night or a suppression of the human rights because of a religious view (even aka "jihad") then the Anti-Discrimination Laws must apply compulsory.

Private religious entities should be allowed to ban anyone they wish from their place of worship. Atheist organizations should be allowed to ban religious people from their premises.

1. In their place of worship? They can do whatever they do.
2. Killing or raping people from outside of their place of worship? killing a minister just because he's different? That's completely different.

[United Muscovite Nations]

>> when the nihilist supports the spread of absolute truth despite the fact that absolute truth would not be useful

w e w

I support their prevention on rational grounds, not on any supposed wrongness.

There isn't a rational grounds to be against a taboo on murder unless you're a murderer. If anything such a taboo is beneficial to you, so you have a rational grounds to promote such a taboo.

[Conserative Morality]

I support their prevention on rational grounds, not on any supposed wrongness.

You're supporting a sense of rationality over rational concerns, which would result in the conclusion that rationality is of no inherent benefit.

[Kowani]

Inherently wrong? No.

So we have a moral obligation to promote the truth?

No. There is no moral obligation to do anything. It isn’t self-interest.

[Unithonia]

Private religious entities should be allowed to ban anyone they wish from their place of worship. Atheist organizations should be allowed to ban religious people from their premises.

1. In their place of worship? They can do whatever they do.
2. Killing or raping people from outside of their place of worship? killing a minister just because he's different? That's completely different.

That's not what the discussion is about tho. It's about banning people from their place of worship. Read the OP my lad

[Unithonia]

I support their prevention on rational grounds, not on any supposed wrongness.

You're supporting a sense of rationality over rational concerns, which would result in the conclusion that rationality is of no inherent benefit.

I'm stealing this for my sig

[Kowani]

I support their prevention on rational grounds, not on any supposed wrongness.

You're supporting a sense of rationality over rational concerns, which would result in the conclusion that rationality is of no inherent benefit.

Okay, I have to go, but, when I get back, I have a rebuttal for this.

[Unithonia]

You're supporting a sense of rationality over rational concerns, which would result in the conclusion that rationality is of no inherent benefit.

Okay, I have to go, but, when I get back, I have a rebuttal for this.

LOL

[Bear Stearns]

Most Catholic clergy aren't involved in sex abuse, and even if bishops and archbishops covered stuff up, that's no reason to punish lowly priests and deacons who didn't know anything.

Understand who you are talking to here
This is someone who's literally advocating for the complete banishment of the Catholic faith, and the arrest of all members of the church. While I'm not a catholic, that's utterly ridiculous.
Was it Stalin that liked to do things like that? Shut down political parties that he opposed and arrest it's members?

The Catholic Church is an anti-American organization and all bishops should be arrested for espionage on behalf of the Vatican.

[Great Old South]

Know who else wanted to make everyone follow his ideology? Hitler
If you truly are advocating for forcing everyone to adhere to your ideology and/or its rules, you have reached a level of authoritarianism that can be only found in ideologies such as Stalinism, Fascism, Maoism, etc. Please, keep your 20th century dictatorial ideas away from me.

Yes, really, Hitler. The famous radical who wanted to eliminate sexism and racism...

No.
You know what the Nazis stood for? Treating women as second-class citizens, good for nothing but homemaking and birthing new settlers.
Not only were you barred from most jobs, but you would be fired even if you were capable. Hell, some of the shit reads like it came out of The Handmaid's Tale.

That said, I won't deny this is authoritiarian. Because you're right. It is. But progressives wouldn't have gotten very far if every time they were confronted, they would've waited for the other party to finally drop their reactionary views. (Slavery, Universal Suffrage, Marriage Equality, etc.)
And really, this is all very typical. A group expects to be treated as human beings judged only on their ability and content of their character, and reactionaries will cry it's a totalitarian dictatorship and their god-given rights are being infringed...

It also speaks volumes that no one that opposes this has so far tried to justify the temple's stance rationally. Only falling back on it being a "private" space (it isn't).

[DACOROMANIA]

If religious entities promote a harmful breaking of the laws such as slavery over night or a suppression of the human rights because of a religious view (even aka "jihad") then the Anti-Discrimination Laws must apply compulsory.

Which kind of jihad? Greater or Lesser?

What if a cult alike a "Covenant of 12 apes" consider the human race as a threat or that the rest of humans than their cult are not worth to be equal nor free, but "serfs" to the Cult's followers just because of their dogma and that cult decides to start a "jihad" even on a large or lesser scale?
"Jihad" is a concept not only related to Muslims but to many other Cults/religions which see the rest of people as a threat for the world.
Jihad is also promoted by the Adepts of Kali and they had serious war with the British armies in Asia, however they're not extinct and their priests still dream for a world domination based on their "vampire" doctrine.
The "Cult of Hades" (mainly an American name for the cult) had similar doctrine and strong adepts in East Asia and some of them supported the Japanese invasion. This cult was eradicated by the US Army and by the Chinese Army in the same time with the Japans defeat.

[Unithonia]

Understand who you are talking to here
This is someone who's literally advocating for the complete banishment of the Catholic faith, and the arrest of all members of the church. While I'm not a catholic, that's utterly ridiculous.
Was it Stalin that liked to do things like that? Shut down political parties that he opposed and arrest it's members?

The Catholic Church is an anti-American organization and all bishops should be arrested for espionage on behalf of the Vatican.

*citation needed*

[Unithonia]

Know who else wanted to make everyone follow his ideology? Hitler
If you truly are advocating for forcing everyone to adhere to your ideology and/or its rules, you have reached a level of authoritarianism that can be only found in ideologies such as Stalinism, Fascism, Maoism, etc. Please, keep your 20th century dictatorial ideas away from me.

Yes, really, Hitler. The famous radical who wanted to eliminate sexism and racism...

No.
You know what the Nazis stood for? Treating women as second-class citizens, good for nothing but homemaking and birthing new settlers.
Not only were you barred from most jobs, but you would be fired even if you were capable. Hell, some of the shit reads like it came out of The Handmaid's Tale.

That said, I won't deny this is authoritiarian. Because you're right. It is. But progressives wouldn't have gotten very far if every time they were confronted, they would've waited for the other party to finally drop their reactionary views. (Slavery, Universal Suffrage, Marriage Equality, etc.)
And really, this is all very typical. A group expects to be treated as human beings judged only on their ability and content of their character, and reactionaries will cry it's a totalitarian dictatorship and their god-given rights are being infringed...

It also speaks volumes that no one that opposes this has so far tried to justify the temple's stance rationally. Only falling back on it being a "private" space (it isn't).

Nice buzzwords
You're still advocating for the suppression of an ideology. That is against everything I stand for, and, once again, a Nazi tactic.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Know who else wanted to make everyone follow his ideology? Hitler
If you truly are advocating for forcing everyone to adhere to your ideology and/or its rules, you have reached a level of authoritarianism that can be only found in ideologies such as Stalinism, Fascism, Maoism, etc. Please, keep your 20th century dictatorial ideas away from me.

Yes, really, Hitler. The famous radical who wanted to eliminate sexism and racism...

No.
You know what the Nazis stood for? Treating women as second-class citizens, good for nothing but homemaking and birthing new settlers.
Not only were you barred from most jobs, but you would be fired even if you were capable. Hell, some of the shit reads like it came out of The Handmaid's Tale.

That said, I won't deny this is authoritiarian. Because you're right. It is. But progressives wouldn't have gotten very far if every time they were confronted, they would've waited for the other party to finally drop their reactionary views. (Slavery, Universal Suffrage, Marriage Equality, etc.)
And really, this is all very typical. A group expects to be treated as human beings judged only on their ability and content of their character, and reactionaries will cry it's a totalitarian dictatorship and their god-given rights are being infringed...

It also speaks volumes that no one that opposes this has so far tried to justify the temple's stance rationally. Only falling back on it being a "private" space (it isn't).

There's a world of difference between plantation owners owning other human beings and the government not letting people vote, and a religious group having organizational rules that don't allow women to lead their rituals.

[DACOROMANIA]

1. In their place of worship? They can do whatever they do.
2. Killing or raping people from outside of their place of worship? killing a minister just because he's different? That's completely different.

That's not what the discussion is about tho. It's about banning people from their place of worship. Read the OP my lad

Then such law should not apply to them. Their place of worship should be only for themselves freely. The State should stand separate from religion.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Which kind of jihad? Greater or Lesser?

What if a cult alike a "Covenant of 12 apes" consider the human race as a threat or that the rest of humans than their cult are not worth to be equal nor free, but "serfs" to the Cult's followers just because of their dogma and that cult decides to start a "jihad" even on a large or lesser scale?
"Jihad" is a concept not only related to Muslims but to many other Cults/religions which see the rest of people as a threat for the world.
Jihad is also promoted by the Adepts of Kali and they had serious war with the British armies in Asia, however they're not extinct and their priests still dream for a world domination based on their "vampire" doctrine.
The "Cult of Hades" (mainly an American name for the cult) had similar doctrine and strong adepts in East Asia and some of them supported the Japanese invasion. This cult was eradicated by the US Army and by the Chinese Army in the same time with the Japans defeat.

I was mistaken in asking you that question. You don't even know what jihad is.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

There's a key reason religious institutions don't pay taxes, in that they're charities and often fulfil other work within the community.

As for the actual question, no I don't think so. I don't even think that private organizations should have anti-discrimination law applied to them, if they have a religious objection.

Wrong reasoning. That's a PART of it, but not the whole reason. The real reason religious institutions are tax exempt (at least in the US) is because of the Freedom of Religion clause in the 1st Amendment in the US Constitution (Which, like it or not, many modern 1st world nations have based their constitutions off of to one degree or another). A government that can tax religions can use that power to favor one religion over another, use said power to effectively silence and persecute said religion, and otherwise help establish a state religion. This can (has happened in the past) in effect severely limit the right of individuals to believe and practice their religion freely.

Thus, Religions need to be free from taxation so as to ensure that individuals may not be persecuted by the IRS (or other similar organizations) limiting and regulating religious freedom through control and manipulation of their purse strings..

I was speaking from a purely British perspective.

[Great Old South]

Which civilized society? Civilixed societies exist all over the world, so wgich one ate you talking about?

Civilized society in general. That is, those society's founded upon human rights, rationality and other products of the enlightenment.
And mind, I think Kerala is an example of a civilized society - at least in it's aspirations - as one of the best governed and most progressive states in India. (The ruling here doesn't surprise me)

Enlightenment philosophy isn't any better than pre-enlightenment philosophy.

Also, if you're making everyone conform to enlightenment philosophy, you're actually violating enlightenment principles.

I'd argue that philosophy that emphasizes human dignity as it's focus is - at least on some level - better than those that promote senseless suffering at the behest of some imagined deity, or because it's simply the established "order of things."

And mind; even Rousseau spoke in favor of revolution against the tyranny of absolutism.

But we must eradicate all those who follow a different ideology, because they are lesser people! Wanting to allow private organizations to make their own choices is reactionary! I threw up just writing this!

I never said that.

[Avalon Ascendancy]

This is something of a conflict of freedoms. What is more important, the freedom of religion of a particular sect, or the freedom from discrimination of the women the sect were discriminating against?
Which, when they are in direct conflict, is of greater priority? Freedom of religion or freedom from discrimination?

That is, and should be, a difficult question. I hope you find it so.
Personally, I think "freedom from discrimination" should take priority and "freedom of religion" should have the caveat that it "does not mean freedom to discriminate".

Also, what of the religious freedom of the women who wanted to worship at the temple but were being prevented from doing so? Wasn't their freedom of religion being trampled on to begin with?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Which civilized society? Civilixed societies exist all over the world, so wgich one ate you talking about?

Civilized society in general. That is, those society's founded upon human rights, rationality and other products of the enlightenment.
And mind, I think Kerala is an example of a civilized society - at least in it's aspirations - as one of the best governed and most progressive states in India. (The ruling here doesn't surprise me)

Enlightenment philosophy isn't any better than pre-enlightenment philosophy.

Also, if you're making everyone conform to enlightenment philosophy, you're actually violating enlightenment principles.

I'd argue that philosophy that emphasizes human dignity as it's focus is - at least on some level - better than those that promote senseless suffering at the behest of some imagined deity, or because it's simply the established "order of things."

And mind; even Rousseau spoke in favor of revolution against the tyranny of absolutism.

Pre-enlightenment philosophy also often emphasized human dignity. Hell, it was Roman Catholicism that started humanist philosophy.

Moreover, I don't see how not letting women visit certain monasteries or not allowing women to lead rituals (for reasons that are myriad) is "promoting senseless suffering."

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

No, because that violates Separation of Church and State.

/thread

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Understand who you are talking to here
This is someone who's literally advocating for the complete banishment of the Catholic faith, and the arrest of all members of the church. While I'm not a catholic, that's utterly ridiculous.
Was it Stalin that liked to do things like that? Shut down political parties that he opposed and arrest it's members?

The Catholic Church is an anti-American organization and all bishops should be arrested for espionage on behalf of the Vatican.

Claims this bold and absurd require extensive amounts of evidence in order to be taken seriously. If you have some, please provide it.

[San Lumen]

No anti discrimination laws should not apply to religious entities. We have separation of church and state for a reason.

If a church doesn't want to allow female leaders fine that's their choice just like a priest, rabbi or imam cannot be forced to marry a same sex couple. They have a legal right to refuse and it should remain that way.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Which civilized society? Civilixed societies exist all over the world, so wgich one ate you talking about?

Civilized society in general. That is, those society's founded upon human rights, rationality and other products of the enlightenment.
And mind, I think Kerala is an example of a civilized society - at least in it's aspirations - as one of the best governed and most progressive states in India. (The ruling here doesn't surprise me)

Well then you're not talking about civilisation in general, you're talking about civilisations which promote human rights, which brings up another question: Which "human rights" do you think defines "civilization"?

No, because that violates Separation of Church and State.

/thread

Not everyone agrees with "separation of church and state".