Should Anti-Discrimination Laws Apply to Religious Entities?

[Fahran]

If harm must be inflicted upon an animal then it should at least serve a tangible purpose such as acquiring food or clothing. Ritual sacrifices kill animals needlessly.

They serve a ritualistic, religious, and social purpose and, in older societies, were an essential aspect of public life. Often the meat was eaten as well. In some cultures, they remain integral to public and religious life. Kosher and halal slaughter for example. These methods of slaughter are ritualistic in so far as they adhere to religious prescripts in a formalized way.

Because it is nothing more than pointless slaughter of animals.

While approaching this from an atheistic and progressive perspective is not unusual, I do want to emphasize that this is not the sole perspective in existence. Religion and ritual do fulfill social and ethical functions. You're irreverence, indifference, or disdain for them does not negate this fact.

[Kowani]

If harm must be inflicted upon an animal then it should at least serve a tangible purpose such as acquiring food or clothing. Ritual sacrifices kill animals needlessly.

They serve a ritualistic, religious, and social purpose and, in older societies, were an essential aspect of public life. Often the meat was eaten as well. In some cultures, they remain integral to public and religious life. Kosher and halal slaughter for example. These methods of slaughter are ritualistic in so far as they adhere to religious prescripts in a formalized way.

Because it is nothing more than pointless slaughter of animals.

While approaching this from an atheistic and progressive perspective is not unusual, I do want to emphasize that this is not the sole perspective in existence. Religion and ritual do fulfill social and ethical functions. You're irreverence, indifference, or disdain for them does not negate this fact.

If your society cannot survive without causing animals pain to appease jerkass skygods, your society deserves to die. Also, I feel like pointing out that the animal sacrifice discussed up to this point has been Aztec, which has not only had its social fabric fucking destroyed, the entire religion has been proven false.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I think that since we are in a secular society, if a non-religious organization or individual is not allowed to do something, a relgious org/individual shouldn't be allowed to either.

But secular organizations are allowed to select members based on gender...

I believe that choosing someone based on gender or having gendered posts and positions when not necessary is repugnant, both in the secular sphere and the religious sphere. However, provided the organization is sufficiently transparent about it, I see no recourse but to allow it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I think that since we are in a secular society, if a non-religious organization or individual is not allowed to do something, a relgious org/individual shouldn't be allowed to either.

The point of a secular society is that the government and religion shouldn't interfere with one another unless there is a matter of public safety.

True, but that itself is to serve the ultimate goal of allowing adherents of all religious positions equal rights.

[Page]

It's less dangerous than alcohol which is currently legal.

I absolutely agree. Especially it is possible to legalize partially. For example, there is no need to allow marijuana sales. Let people grow for themselves, if they want and consume in the desired volume. Nowadays there are many online stores such as https://en.konoplisemena.com where you can calm buy seeds of any kind of hemp which you just want.

I'm all for people growing their own weed rather than buying it from giant companies that have a monopoly over the cannabis market, but I don't see any compelling reason to not allow sales.

I'd also note that not everyone can afford the resources to grow their own.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The point of a secular society is that the government and religion shouldn't interfere with one another unless there is a matter of public safety.

True, but that itself is to serve the ultimate goal of allowing adherents of all religious positions equal rights.

There is no right to a religious post or religious sacrament.

[Auristania]

Sure, as soon as they receive absolutely no financial support from the government whatsoever and start paying taxes.

[United Muscovite Nations]

:hug:

Sure, as soon as they receive absolutely no financial support from the government whatsoever and start paying taxes.

I agree with the no government support, but the reason for no taxes makes sense, it's not to be lenient, it's to prevent the government from being able to influence religious institutions.

[Hanafuridake]

Okay, then it can still get fu*ked.

What's wrong with animal sacrifice?

It's a senseless act of animal cruelty and all civilized nations have realized that it should not be allowed.

While approaching this from an atheistic and progressive perspective is not unusual,

I am neither an atheist nor a progressive, and my religion considers the sacrifice of animals to be an abomination that ought to be stopped.

[Battlion]

I have a simple answer for this, yes.

And to enforce it, if the state subsidises religious entities in any way through forms of tax deductions or other mechanisms that support should be withdrawn until they’re compliant.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I have a simple answer for this, yes.

And to enforce it, if the state subsidises religious entities in any way through forms of tax deductions or other mechanisms that support should be withdrawn until they’re compliant.

This is why the founders of the US didn't want religious institutions taxed, like, for this exact reason.

Moreover, what would you do if they just decided they were fine without that?

[Battlion]

I have a simple answer for this, yes.

And to enforce it, if the state subsidises religious entities in any way through forms of tax deductions or other mechanisms that support should be withdrawn until they’re compliant.

This is why the founders of the US didn't want religious institutions taxed, like, for this exact reason.

Moreover, what would you do if they just decided they were fine without that?

Force it on them anyway, remove any potential exemption from legislation and if they fail to comply then prosecute.

If they operate in a nation with anti-discrimination laws, they abide by those laws.

[Saxony-Brandenburg]

I have a simple answer for this, yes.

And to enforce it, if the state subsidises religious entities in any way through forms of tax deductions or other mechanisms that support should be withdrawn until they’re compliant.

This is why the founders of the US didn't want religious institutions taxed, like, for this exact reason.

Moreover, what would you do if they just decided they were fine without that?

Well, then I suppose the government would not be supporting activities they condemn, and at least part the issue would be resolved.

[United Muscovite Nations]

This is why the founders of the US didn't want religious institutions taxed, like, for this exact reason.

Moreover, what would you do if they just decided they were fine without that?

Force it on them anyway, remove any potential exemption from legislation and if they fail to comply then prosecute.

If they operate in a nation with anti-discrimination laws, they abide by those laws.

What would even be the point of that? They aren't businesses, they aren't providing a service to the public, they're private religious groups, this just seems like an excuse to destroy religion. Prosecuting the Catholic Church for maintaining its traditions would absolutely be a human rights violation.

[Fahran]

If your society cannot survive without causing animals pain to appease jerkass skygods,

You're average treif poultry or dairy farm probably causes as much if not more suffering to livestock than an ethical kosher operation. This is a bad argument at its root and it is never applied consistently by anyone who isn't a radical, moralizing vegan with the subtlety of a wine-drunk sorority girl and the fanaticism of Robespierre.

your society deserves to die.

On what grounds do you make such a moral claim?

Also, I feel like pointing out that the animal sacrifice discussed up to this point has been Aztec, which has not only had its social fabric fucking destroyed, the entire religion has been proven false.

The destruction of the Mexica social fabric is not generally celebrated as an accomplishment for humanism and moral standards. It has more in common with the burning of the Great Library of Alexandria than with the establishment of the Copernican model. Likewise, the destruction of Abrahamic-based social institutions in so fanatical a way risks the repetition of all that was to be dreaded and despised in their rise.

I am neither an atheist nor a progressive, and my religion considers the sacrifice of animals to be an abomination that ought to be stopped.

Are you a different person from the person to whom I replied initially?

In any case, your argument would be an altogether different one, one predicated on a religious/philosophical belief that you're seeking to impose on other religions.

[Bear Stearns]

I absolutely agree. Especially it is possible to legalize partially. For example, there is no need to allow marijuana sales. Let people grow for themselves, if they want and consume in the desired volume. Nowadays there are many online stores such as https://en.konoplisemena.com where you can calm buy seeds of any kind of hemp which you just want.

I'm all for people growing their own weed rather than buying it from giant companies that have a monopoly over the cannabis market, but I don't see any compelling reason to not allow sales.

I'd also note that not everyone can afford the resources to grow their own.

It makes me so horny that the future of cannabis will be decided by R.J. Reynolds, British-American Tobacco, and Coca-Cola.

[Kowani]

If your society cannot survive without causing animals pain to appease jerkass skygods,

You're average treif poultry or dairy farm probably causes as much if not more suffering to livestock than an ethical kosher operation.

An ethical kosher operation and the ways in which the Aztecs sacrificed animals have about as much in common as lava has with penicillin.

This is a bad argument at its root and it is never applied consistently by anyone who isn't a radical, moralizing vegan with the subtlety of a wine-drunk sorority girl and the fanaticism of Robespierre.

Ah, yes, opposing needless pain makes you a mass-murdering fanatic now. How much training did you have to go through in order to win your Olympic Gold Medal in Logical Leaps?

your society deserves to die.

On what grounds do you make such a moral claim?

Ineffeciency and instability, mostly. Also, a fundamental opposition to religion.

Also, I feel like pointing out that the animal sacrifice discussed up to this point has been Aztec, which has not only had its social fabric fucking destroyed, the entire religion has been proven false.

The destruction of the Mexica social fabric is not generally celebrated as an accomplishment for humanism and moral standards.

Didn’t say it was. The point remains however, that trying to conserve the traditions is both pointless and based on unfactal information.

It has more in common with the burning of the Great Library of Alexandria than with the establishment of the Copernican model.

You’re overstating it. The Aztecs could only hold on through constant warfare and human sacrifice. The civilization was not some innocent lamb burnt upon a pyre, but rather a blot upon human history.

Likewise, the destruction of Abrahamic-based social institutions in so fanatical a way risks the repetition of all that was to be dreaded and despised in their rise.

Citation needed.

[Fahran]

An ethical kosher operation and the ways in which the Aztecs sacrificed animals have about as much in common as lava has with penicillin.

Yes, but the former is still a ritualized killing of an animal.

Ah, yes, opposing needless pain makes you a mass-murdering fanatic now. How much training did you have to go through in order to win your Olympic Gold Medal in Logical Leaps?

I didn't call you a mass-murdering fanatic. I was being a bit acerbic, but the point was that citing the pain of animals as the reason for abolishing a particular practice doesn't make a lot of sense. The meat and dairy products you consume are made wholly possible by an industrial apparatus that causes far more pain than a single chicken or cat ritualistically sacrificed on special occasions.

Ineffeciency and instability, mostly.

Destroying institutions and traditions creates a lot more instability than retaining them in most cases. Revolutionaries rationalize this destruction with the promise of a better future, but they seldom deny that the revolution itself is violent, destabilizing, and hellish.

Also, a fundamental opposition to religion.

Sounds like a philosophical complaint more than anything.

Didn’t say it was. The point remains however, that trying to conserve the traditions is both pointless and based on unfactal information.

If we destroyed every religious institution and tradition tomorrow, what do you believe would happen in places where nothing remains to fill the vacuum? How much culture and thought would be extinguished from the world? I'd argue we'd lose as much as was lost when the pagans fell out of their ascendant position.

You’re overstating it. The Aztecs could only hold on through constant warfare and human sacrifice. The civilization was not some innocent lamb burnt upon a pyre, but rather a blot upon human history.

The order that preceded the Spaniards was still an order, as peculiar and violent as it may seem to us. War was ritualized under Aztec hegemony and served to bolster the prevailing order. Every civilization is a blot in one way or another.

Citation needed.

You can look at examples of the disintegration of institutions and traditions throughout history if you like. The results are generally the same. Something is always lost and somebody always loses out.

[Auristania]

What's wrong with animal sacrifice?

It's a senseless act of animal cruelty and all civilized nations have realized that it should not be allowed.

While approaching this from an atheistic and progressive perspective is not unusual,

I am neither an atheist nor a progressive, and my religion considers the sacrifice of animals to be an abomination that ought to be stopped.

We need to kill animals to eat. The more fear the animals feel, the more adrenaline spoils the meat. Painlessly killing the animals is the ONLY virtue here. Killing animals with or without Prayer is irrelevant. Killing animals with or without Incense is irrelevant. Killing animals with or without Songs is irrelevant.

[Andsed]

If harm must be inflicted upon an animal then it should at least serve a tangible purpose such as acquiring food or clothing. Ritual sacrifices kill animals needlessly.

They serve a ritualistic, religious, and social purpose and, in older societies, were an essential aspect of public life. Often the meat was eaten as well. In some cultures, they remain integral to public and religious life. Kosher and halal slaughter for example. These methods of slaughter are ritualistic in so far as they adhere to religious prescripts in a formalized way.

Because it is nothing more than pointless slaughter of animals.

While approaching this from an atheistic and progressive perspective is not unusual, I do want to emphasize that this is not the sole perspective in existence. Religion and ritual do fulfill social and ethical functions. You're irreverence, indifference, or disdain for them does not negate this fact.

I don't care what a bunch of religious fanatics think. If you are killing animals because some outdated religion says so you are an asshole plain and simple.

[Hatterleigh]

Why should religions be forced to abide by anti-descrimination laws? If you don't like how a religion treats some identity of yours, then either try to find a way around it, ignore it, or change your religion. It isn't like there is some vital material that you get from being part of a religious entity.

[Hatterleigh]

They serve a ritualistic, religious, and social purpose and, in older societies, were an essential aspect of public life. Often the meat was eaten as well. In some cultures, they remain integral to public and religious life. Kosher and halal slaughter for example. These methods of slaughter are ritualistic in so far as they adhere to religious prescripts in a formalized way.


While approaching this from an atheistic and progressive perspective is not unusual, I do want to emphasize that this is not the sole perspective in existence. Religion and ritual do fulfill social and ethical functions. You're irreverence, indifference, or disdain for them does not negate this fact.

I don't care what a bunch of religious fanatics think. If you are killing animals because some outdated religion says so you are an asshole plain and simple.

Why? It's an animal. It lacks a train of thought. It is unable to recognize it's own identity. We live in a society that kills millions of animals for daily consumption. This is not only technically not necessary for our survival at all but is also bad for the environment, and the food made from these animals is processed vigorously and these animals have poor living conditions and all these reasons vegans have stocked up in their closet somewhere, yet the second someone sacrifices one of your precious little fur creatures for religious purposes it has suddenly crossed a line.

[Andsed]

I don't care what a bunch of religious fanatics think. If you are killing animals because some outdated religion says so you are an asshole plain and simple.

Why? It's an animal. It lacks a train of thought. It is unable to recognize it's own identity. We live in a society that kills millions of animals for daily consumption. This is not only technically not necessary for our survival at all but is also bad for the environment, and the food made from these animals is processed vigorously and these animals have poor living conditions and all these reasons vegans have stocked up in their closet somewhere, yet the second someone sacrifices one of your precious little fur creatures for religious purposes it has suddenly crossed a line.

Difference is when we kill animals to eat we actually use them for something. Killing an animal for your sky friend who may or may not exist is simply wasting the animal.

[Hatterleigh]

Why? It's an animal. It lacks a train of thought. It is unable to recognize it's own identity. We live in a society that kills millions of animals for daily consumption. This is not only technically not necessary for our survival at all but is also bad for the environment, and the food made from these animals is processed vigorously and these animals have poor living conditions and all these reasons vegans have stocked up in their closet somewhere, yet the second someone sacrifices one of your precious little fur creatures for religious purposes it has suddenly crossed a line.

Difference is when we kill animals to eat we actually use them for something. Killing an animal for your sky friend who may or may not exist is simply wasting the animal.

Why do you care? Do you know how much stuff we already waste? And for no reason? At least killing this animal will make people feel ritually pure, unlike a big mac or a whopper.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I don't care what a bunch of religious fanatics think. If you are killing animals because some outdated religion says so you are an asshole plain and simple.

Why? It's an animal. It lacks a train of thought. It is unable to recognize it's own identity. We live in a society that kills millions of animals for daily consumption. This is not only technically not necessary for our survival at all but is also bad for the environment, and the food made from these animals is processed vigorously and these animals have poor living conditions and all these reasons vegans have stocked up in their closet somewhere, yet the second someone sacrifices one of your precious little fur creatures for religious purposes it has suddenly crossed a line.

Eating meat is pretty necessary. No absolutely necessary, but close to it, especially on a societal level.