NationStates

Great Old South wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:So, you're okay with forcing other people to adopt your ideology against your will? That seems like it's stepping over a line. I could understand private businesses, but these are groups with defined membership and beliefs that go back millennia.

Yea. I am. Including forcing it upon reactionary sexist Brahmin welfare queens.

All sorts of spooky inane shit has been justified over the centuries in the name of "tradition", including everything from institutionalized (racial) slavery, to (female) genital mutilation, and worse.
No, the intellectual legacy of the enlightenment shouldn't bow before barbarism. Even if it includes trampling upon a 'private' (see earlier posts) space. As long as these practices cannot be justified rationally, they have no place in civilized society.
Now, I could argue that I shouldn't care because religion (though not all religious people) is reactionary to begin with. But I won't. Because this stuff needs to be fought everywhere.

Hence, no exception for "private business". You either oppose racism and sexism on a fundamental level, or you're okay with it.

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.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Unithonia wrote: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?

Stalin did that to religious organizations as well.

Oh yeah
Forgot about that lol
Well, my point still stands XD

Great Old South wrote:they have no place in civilized society.

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

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Great Old South wrote:Yea. I am. Including forcing it upon reactionary sexist Brahmin welfare queens.

All sorts of spooky inane shit has been justified over the centuries in the name of "tradition", including everything from institutionalized (racial) slavery, to (female) genital mutilation, and worse.
No, the intellectual legacy of the enlightenment shouldn't bow before barbarism. Even if it includes trampling upon a 'private' (see earlier posts) space. As long as these practices cannot be justified rationally, they have no place in civilized society.
Now, I could argue that I shouldn't care because religion (though not all religious people) is reactionary to begin with. But I won't. Because this stuff needs to be fought everywhere.

Hence, no exception for "private business". You either oppose racism and sexism on a fundamental level, or you're okay with it.

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

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!

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Great Old South wrote:they have no place in civilized society.

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

Most likely the USA, which is apparently the only civilized society in existence
Note: Sarcasm is intended here

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.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Great Old South wrote:Yea. I am. Including forcing it upon reactionary sexist Brahmin welfare queens.

All sorts of spooky inane shit has been justified over the centuries in the name of "tradition", including everything from institutionalized (racial) slavery, to (female) genital mutilation, and worse.
No, the intellectual legacy of the enlightenment shouldn't bow before barbarism. Even if it includes trampling upon a 'private' (see earlier posts) space. As long as these practices cannot be justified rationally, they have no place in civilized society.
Now, I could argue that I shouldn't care because religion (though not all religious people) is reactionary to begin with. But I won't. Because this stuff needs to be fought everywhere.

Hence, no exception for "private business". You either oppose racism and sexism on a fundamental level, or you're okay with it.

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.

Since they like to throw around the term reactionary, let's also remind them that forcing people to adopt your ideology is a common reactionary tactic

DACOROMANIA wrote: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.

DACOROMANIA wrote: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?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:Depends. If you receive government funding, or are managed by the government, then yes. Absolutely. Additionally, if you try to influence public policy, then yes. However. If you do none of those things, and keep to yourself, then no.

However, I’m also of the opinion that churches should be taxed out of existence, so...

Why do you think they should be taxed out of existence?

To decrease the spreading of their beliefs, and to deny the kind of organization that w church brings.

Kowani wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Why do you think they should be taxed out of existence?

To decrease the spreading of their beliefs, and to deny the kind of organization that w church brings.

And why do you want to do that?

Kowani wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Why do you think they should be taxed out of existence?

To decrease the spreading of their beliefs, and to deny the kind of organization that w church brings.

In essence, to suppress their beliefs? Any idea how authoritarian that is?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:To decrease the spreading of their beliefs, and to deny the kind of organization that w church brings.

And why do you want to do that?

To prevent the spread of falsehoods, and to make it harder for religion to influence politics.

Kowani wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:And why do you want to do that?

To prevent the spread of falsehoods, and to make it harder for religion to influence politics.

Why do you care about preventing the spread of falsehoods? Aren't you a nihilist?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:To prevent the spread of falsehoods, and to make it harder for religion to influence politics.

Why do you care about preventing the spread of falsehoods? Aren't you a nihilist?

Simple. If falsehoods are spread, it is often policy that follows them, and policy based upon falsehoods does not tend to work, and in the case of religion, often attempts to drag society back to the past, which is undesirable.

In your attempt at a Gotcha, y’forgot something: Narcissistic Nihilist.

Kowani wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Why do you care about preventing the spread of falsehoods? Aren't you a nihilist?

Simple. If falsehoods are spread, it is often policy that follows them, and policy based upon falsehoods does not tend to work, and in the case of religion, often attempts to drag society back to the past, which is undesirable.

In your attempt at a Gotcha, y’forgot something: Narcissistic Nihilist.

But you must certainly favor the spread of some falsehoods, which benefit you.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:Simple. If falsehoods are spread, it is often policy that follows them, and policy based upon falsehoods does not tend to work, and in the case of religion, often attempts to drag society back to the past, which is undesirable.

In your attempt at a Gotcha, y’forgot something: Narcissistic Nihilist.

But you must certainly favor the spread of some falsehoods, which benefit you.

Nope. Slippery Slope.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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..

Kowani wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:But you must certainly favor the spread of some falsehoods, which benefit you.

Nope. Slippery Slope.

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

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:Nope. Slippery Slope.

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

Inherently wrong? No.

If I were to form a religion, and declare the shed in my garden to be its holy site, and I were to ban heterosexual males from said holy site, should I be allowed to?

Because in a truly secular society, that is, one where all religions and a lack of religion receive equal treatment, if a Christian or Hindu site can refuse to let women in, surely I could do this?

Kowani wrote:

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

Inherently wrong? No.

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

w e w

Crylante wrote:If I were to form a religion, and declare the shed in my garden to be its holy site, and I were to ban heterosexual males from said holy site, should I be allowed to?

Because in a truly secular society, that is, one where all religions and a lack of religion receive equal treatment, if a Christian or Hindu site can refuse to let women in, surely I could do this?

Sure, that's your own decision.

Crylante wrote:If I were to form a religion, and declare the shed in my garden to be its holy site, and I were to ban heterosexual males from said holy site, should I be allowed to?

Because in a truly secular society, that is, one where all religions and a lack of religion receive equal treatment, if a Christian or Hindu site can refuse to let women in, surely I could do this?

First of all, you would be allowed to do this regardless, because your garden shed is your private property. Second of all, if you're sincere in your religion, yes.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Kowani wrote:Inherently wrong? No.

>> 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.