Should Anti-Discrimination Laws Apply to Religious Entities?

[Conserative Morality]

I don't think there's really a big clamoring of women who want to enter. Most women who aren't Orthodox probably don't even know the place exists, and most Orthodox women probably don't want to disturb the monks.

Well then if there's little to no problem, what's all the fuss about?

It's a discussion of the principle of the matter.

Well then if there's little to no problem, what's all the fuss about?

It's mostly just bureaucratic activism in the EU.

Well, that too.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Well then if there's little to no problem, what's all the fuss about?

It's a discussion of the principle of the matter.

This too, there's not some ongoing controversy on the Mount Athos issue, but the Hindu Temple ruling, which has generated huge controversy and riots in India, led me to make the thread.

[Fahran]

The government imposes its will on all of its charges at all times when the law is being obeyed. Am I to sit at the intersection and sob at the red light because the big mean goberment is imposing their will on me by force?

A red light is quite distinct from an imposition which undermines a minority community's religious institutions. It's enough to ensure that individuals aren't harmed without openly regulating religious ceremonies and place. The SCOTUS clearly doesn't take such an absolutist view given that they have allowed peyote to be used as a sacrament. So I'm struggling to see what legal or moral basis you have for insisting that we shouldn't begin by respecting other people's communities and places of worship.

My society is not predicated on those values, and my moral code is not based on them either.

The argument you made was essentially libertarian. "It's not their property, even if their community has historically been there for centuries. Ergo they have no right to maintain the institutions/places of the community if those conflict with my personal desire to be a tourist."

Here, I'll cross over the line: vae victis.

Don't fall on that sword, Mithridates. It's super edgy.

I don't think respect is a hand-me-out to make people feel better. If you're respected, there's a reason for that. And if you're not, there's a reason for that too. "I-I respect you automatically" is the worst kind of participation trophy bullshit.

I have respect for traditions and customs in so far as they don't actively harm people. Its an extension of the respect I give to my elders, on the grounds that they have lived longer and thus had more experiences than me, and to other cultures. I perceive this respect as advantageous to myself and to broader society. That respect can be withdrawn if I find something morally questionable, but "please don't break this rule that exists for a reason" isn't really that much of an imposition on me.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Well then if there's little to no problem, what's all the fuss about?

It's mostly just bureaucratic activism in the EU, but also some non-Orthodox women who have snuck in to deliberately disturb the monks.

So the real issue is people being mischievous? Well dang, now I'm really with the monks on this one.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's mostly just bureaucratic activism in the EU, but also some non-Orthodox women who have snuck in to deliberately disturb the monks.

So the real issue is people being mischievous? Well dang, now I'm really with the monks on this one.

Less mischief and more people being so dedicated to principles that they don't take into account what the monks want.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So the real issue is people being mischievous? Well dang, now I'm really with the monks on this one.

Less mischief and more people being so dedicated to principles that they don't take into account what the monks want.

Ok, so mischievous and petty. Either way I'm seeing this as people butting in places where they don't belong.

[Fahran]

Ok, so mischievous and petty. Either way I'm seeing this as people butting in places where they don't belong.

That's no less true of the Indian example given in the OP.

[Christian Confederation]

The only reason charchs temples and other religious instatutons get tax breaks is because most are non profit and who's only source of income is from donations and the offering. That money mostly goes into bills, the little bit left is saved for later.

[Conserative Morality]

A red light is quite distinct from an imposition which undermines a minority community's religious institutions.

Not really. It's just more argument by tradition nonsense.

It's enough to ensure that individuals aren't harmed without openly regulating religious ceremonies and place. The SCOTUS clearly doesn't take such an absolutist view given that they have allowed peyote to be used as a sacrament.

The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. Citing the Reynolds v. United States (1878) decision: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Legal use of peyote is from legislation, not extrapolation of basic rights.

So I'm struggling to see what legal or moral basis you have for insisting that we shouldn't begin by respecting other people's communities and places of worship.

I'm struggling to see what moral basis you have for advocating the submission to another's moral code for no other reason than "They believe in it really strongly!"

The argument you made was essentially libertarian. "It's not their property, even if their community has historically been there for centuries. Ergo they have no right to maintain the institutions/places of the community if those conflict with my personal desire to be a tourist."

It doesn't matter how long they've been there. How the fuck is that relevant at all?

Don't fall on that sword, Mithridates. It's super edgy.

Get back to me when you're shedding tears for the poor, oppressed Samnites.

I have respect for traditions and customs in so far as they don't actively harm people. Its an extension of the respect I give to my elders

That's your first mistake. As my mother and my grandfather taught me, ironically, age does not mandate respect.

, on the grounds that they have lived longer and thus had more experiences than me, and to other cultures. I perceive this respect as advantageous to myself and to broader society. That respect can be withdrawn if I find something morally questionable, but "please don't break this rule that exists for a reason" isn't really that much of an imposition on me.

Oh, it certainly is once you get to looking at all the contradictory rules and reasons. But of course, you will choose the ones that seem most 'traditional' to follow and disdain the rest as 'essentially libertarian'.

[ShakaZuli]

Yes, I get it. They are an indentifiable groups on racial and religious line. This is a better model than having people to force to live to each other, which creates racial and religious tensions.

I have no problem living in my majority white town.

Yeah that is fine. Some people like to live around similar to themself though.

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah that is fine. Some people like to live around similar to themself though.

As one of my best friends always said of attitudes in his part of our area, "The closer the kin, the whiter the skin."

[ShakaZuli]

Yeah that is fine. Some people like to live around similar to themself though.

As one of my best friends always said of attitudes in his part of our area, "The closer the kin, the whiter the skin."

Oh so I guess your friend would be fine if there is a place in the US exclusively for whites? That would be a dream come true.

[Conserative Morality]

Oh so I guess your friend would be fine if there is a place in the US exclusively for whites?

No.

[ShakaZuli]

Oh so I guess your friend would be fine if there is a place in the US exclusively for whites?

No.

Why not?

[United Muscovite Nations]

No.

Why not?

Stop stealing my thread.

[Conserative Morality]

Why not?

Because that statement is not an actual endorsement of people fucking their cousins for racial purity, though I understand how individuals of certain dispositions could read it as such.

[ShakaZuli]

Why not?

Because that statement is not an actual endorsement of people fucking their cousins for racial purity, though I understand how individuals of certain dispositions could read it as such.

Well, some whites dont wish to be around other races. Just deal with it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because that statement is not an actual endorsement of people fucking their cousins for racial purity, though I understand how individuals of certain dispositions could read it as such.

Well, some whites dont wish to be around other races. Just deal with it.

Stop stealing my thread.

[Internationalist Bastard]

It's iffy.
So let me say this. I'm a woman who's also a Tibetan Buddhist. And let me tell you, our religious structure is sexist. Part of me want's to demand more equality for female Buddhists. But I also one hundred percent the idea of having separate monasteries for men and women, as well as the various spiritual aspects. I think there's a great deal of nuance when it comes to institutionalized sexism and religion

[Tobleste]

Absolutely not.

In many instances, allowing government to impose secular standards of morality on religious institutions wholly undermines the purpose and function of the aforementioned religious institutions. It also directly contradicts the principle of separation of church and state because it invariably leads to secular authorities regulating and shaping ritual, faith, and religious practice. Technically, the Catholic Church, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism would violate secular standards of gender equality almost by default.

The alternative is allowing major religions exceptions to the law while ignoring smaller ones which is a bigger violation of secularism.

[Fahran]

The alternative is allowing major religions exceptions to the law while ignoring smaller ones which is a bigger violation of secularism.

Atheistic Caesaro-Papism is the worst option here. Allowing exceptions within reason is sensible.

[Fahran]

Not really. It's just more argument by tradition nonsense.

You have a tendency to dismiss traditions and cultures that aren't yours out-of-hand. The argument isn't exclusively one from tradition. It's just as much about our ability to maintain a multicultural society and live together harmoniously. You'd only be happy with that arrangement if it led to progress, equality, liberty, etc. in accordance with your own standards. But what happens when you're the minority who has to deal with other values being imposed on you by the government?

Legal use of peyote is from legislation, not extrapolation of basic rights.

That depends on what precisely you mean by an extrapolation of basic rights. Do you think a society where indigenous people are unable to take peyote as a sacrament in accordance with sincerely held religious beliefs that predate the current government would be more just or moral?

I'm struggling to see what moral basis you have for advocating the submission to another's moral code for no other reason than "They believe in it really strongly!"

On the basis that I would appreciate similar respect for visitors to a synagogue or to the Western Wall. On the basis that some places are held to be significant by a community that has history and offers something unique and special to the world as a whole. I don't think your desire to be a tourist supersedes or should supersede the desire of a long-established community, in much the same way as a straight/white person's desire to be in an LGBT/black space should supersede the desire of those communities to have their own place.

It doesn't matter how long they've been there. How the fuck is that relevant at all?

Because not everybody wants to live in a property-based social anarchy where culture and tradition don't matter at all.

Get back to me when you're shedding tears for the poor, oppressed Samnites.

They were pretty badly oppressed. I'd prefer not to repeat atrocities or imperialism on a significant scale.

That's your first mistake. As my mother and my grandfather taught me, ironically, age does not mandate respect.

This seems really personal, so I'm not going to touch it.

Oh, it certainly is once you get to looking at all the contradictory rules and reasons. But of course, you will choose the ones that seem most 'traditional' to follow and disdain the rest as 'essentially libertarian'.

Let their community sort through that then. It isn't really your business as someone who doesn't belong to said community.

[Ifreann]

I did take the eucharist, yes.

No.

I know that those are ostensibly the rules. But there appears to be no effort put into enforcing the rules, so I submit that they are inconsequential.


If a members-only organisation does not restrict its activities to members, then it quite plainly is not actually members-only, regardless of what its rules say. If an organisation said that it was a charity but acted like a for-profit business, then it isn't really a charity, is it?

It does restrict its activities to members, it just assumes membership for the most public of things, but if you, for example, wanted to join the priesthood, you would certainly be asked to give proof of your membership. And if someone partook without being a member, there would be admonitions for doing so when it was discovered.

Assuming anyone who walks in to be a member is, self-evidently I would think, incompatible with an event being members only.

---

I did take the eucharist, yes.

No.

I know that those are ostensibly the rules. But there appears to be no effort put into enforcing the rules, so I submit that they are inconsequential.


If a members-only organisation does not restrict its activities to members, then it quite plainly is not actually members-only, regardless of what its rules say. If an organisation said that it was a charity but acted like a for-profit business, then it isn't really a charity, is it?

A members only organization doesn't cease to be a members only organization because you disprove of their method of membership verification.

I am not disproving their method of membership verification, I am saying that there is no such verification.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It does restrict its activities to members, it just assumes membership for the most public of things, but if you, for example, wanted to join the priesthood, you would certainly be asked to give proof of your membership. And if someone partook without being a member, there would be admonitions for doing so when it was discovered.

Assuming anyone who walks in to be a member is, self-evidently I would think, incompatible with an event being members only.

It isn't because it's reasonable to assume that anyone attending a church that has official membership is either a member or wanting to become a member, and the latter will announce themselves. Catholic Churches have to rely on self-identification of non-members because they don't have the resources, time, or necessity to ask everyone for their baptismal certificate at the communion rails.

[Ifreann]

Assuming anyone who walks in to be a member is, self-evidently I would think, incompatible with an event being members only.

It isn't because it's reasonable to assume that anyone attending a church that has official membership is either a member or wanting to become a member, and the latter will announce themselves. Catholic Churches have to rely on self-identification of non-members because they don't have the resources, time, or necessity to ask everyone for their baptismal certificate at the communion rails.

Why their services are open to the public is not particularly relevant.