Jesus was still a "socialist" though
Advertisement
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:41 pm
by The Alma Mater » Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:43 pm
by Salus Maior » Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:45 pm
by Salus Maior » Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:47 pm
by Albrenia » Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:57 pm
Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:
So should a fundamentalist muslim be allowed to refuse to issue a drivers license to a woman without losing his job ?
Not allowing women to drive isn’t even a part of Islam itself. So I guess religious freedom does not cover this. Did Muhammad ever ban women from riding camels?
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:02 am
Albrenia wrote:Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
Not allowing women to drive isn’t even a part of Islam itself. So I guess religious freedom does not cover this. Did Muhammad ever ban women from riding camels?
Should a Scientologist bus driver be able to refuse to let Suppressive Persons use public transport? Should a person who believes black people are 'children of Canaan' or whatever refuse to provide medical care to them?
Nah. Religious freedom does not include special benefits that other religions or non-religious people don't get.
by The Alma Mater » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:05 am
Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Albrenia wrote:
Should a Scientologist bus driver be able to refuse to let Suppressive Persons use public transport? Should a person who believes black people are 'children of Canaan' or whatever refuse to provide medical care to them?
Nah. Religious freedom does not include special benefits that other religions or non-religious people don't get.
Well, religious freedom should not infringe on others’ freedom.
Otherwise you can have stuff such as Nazism repackaged into a religion.
by Deacarsia » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:09 am
Cordel One wrote:Deacarsia wrote:I do not believe in the principle of religious freedom. All men have a moral obligation to worship God through His Church, as does the State.
However, in heterogeneous societies, some degree of religious toleration might a practical policy for the sake of public order, provided that the Church is given the full favor of the laws to the extent possible.
Thus, the Kingdom of Deacarsia, which I have designed as a wholely Catholic nation, is a fully confessional state, while the arrangement in other nations may vary as the situation may require.
Good thing Deacarsia isn't a real place.
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:16 am
The Alma Mater wrote:Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
Well, religious freedom should not infringe on others’ freedom.
Otherwise you can have stuff such as Nazism repackaged into a religion.
So a doctor can not refuse to perform a procedure they disagree with on religious grounds, (e.g. abortion, blood transfusion, gender reassignment etc) or refuse to treat a member of the opposite sex, a bakery cannot refuse to sell gay wedding cakes*, a civil servant can not refuse to issue buildingpermits or drivers licences to jews/blacks/women, a muslim cashier cannot demand to not to handle pork and alcohol etc etc ?
__
* For the record: I disagree with this one myself
by The Alma Mater » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:19 am
Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:
So a doctor can not refuse to perform a procedure they disagree with on religious grounds, (e.g. abortion, blood transfusion, gender reassignment etc) or refuse to treat a member of the opposite sex, a bakery cannot refuse to sell gay wedding cakes*, a civil servant can not refuse to issue buildingpermits or drivers licences to jews/blacks/women, a muslim cashier cannot demand to not to handle pork and alcohol etc etc ?
__
* For the record: I disagree with this one myself
It’s really a case by case situation. Activities that mostly only impact oneself should be up to one’s freedom. Activities that affect others are different. For example gender reassignment surgery and most abortions do not have to be performed by all doctors. But not issuing drivers licenses to a group of people? Well, first of all is there even any legitimate religious grounds in major religions for that?
by Salus Maior » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:21 am
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:21 am
The Alma Mater wrote:Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
It’s really a case by case situation. Activities that mostly only impact oneself should be up to one’s freedom. Activities that affect others are different. For example gender reassignment surgery and most abortions do not have to be performed by all doctors. But not issuing drivers licenses to a group of people? Well, first of all is there even any legitimate religious grounds in major religions for that?
As I mentioned earlier - is that not up to the believer ? You and I can think that the Qu'ran does not say women should not drive and 99,9% of muslims can agree with us - but does that mean it is not a real religious concern for the remaining 0,1% ?
by The Alma Mater » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:23 am
Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:As I mentioned earlier - is that not up to the believer ? You and I can think that the Qu'ran does not say women should not drive and 99,9% of muslims can agree with us - but does that mean it is not a real religious concern for the remaining 0,1% ?
In this case I think such people simply need to be fired or reassigned to other positions since issuing drivers’ license to people regardless of gender and race is an integral part of the job which such a person is unable to perform. The religious freedom of the individual not to do the job and the fact that such a job needs to be done both need to be respected, by firing or reassigning them.
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:26 am
The Alma Mater wrote:Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
In this case I think such people simply need to be fired or reassigned to other positions since issuing drivers’ license to people regardless of gender and race is an integral part of the job which such a person is unable to perform. The religious freedom of the individual not to do the job and the fact that such a job needs to be done both need to be respected, by firing or reassigning them.
Fair. What about performing/registering a gay marriage ?
by Bombadil » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:29 am
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:29 am
by The Alma Mater » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:30 am
Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:
Fair. What about performing/registering a gay marriage ?
The same if it is a government since gay marriage is a fairly significant amount of marriages that are legally recognized so people on the public job need to actually register them. If they are unwilling to do so they are not fit for the position.
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:33 am
The Alma Mater wrote:Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
The same if it is a government since gay marriage is a fairly significant amount of marriages that are legally recognized so people on the public job need to actually register them. If they are unwilling to do so they are not fit for the position.
So you disagree with e.g. the Dutch solution ? Gay marriage was legalised in the Netherlands 20 years ago. Civil servants hired since then are obligated to register the marriage; but if they were already employed before they can refuse and refer to a colleague.
There is an ever increasing call to get rid of these "weigerambtenaren", pointing out that having had 20 years to find another job is plenty; but the christian parties resist all those efforts.
by Odreria » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:42 am
Sanghyeok wrote:Religious freedom has become a phrase filled with controversy, as more and more people question what religious freedom means. One reason are policies created by either pro-secular or pro-religion governments worldwide, ranging from abortion access to serving customers and religious apparel. Something which needs to be determined sooner or later is what limits or lack thereof should be placed on freedom of religion. Should someone be able to deny service to customers on basis of religious ideals, for instance? Should people be banned from wearing religious icons in public if seen as offensive? Should doctors be able to refuse abortions due to their own faith? And what should be done about potentially dangerous cults?
NSG, what's your opinion on this issue? I look forward to hearing from all of you.
Personal opinion: religious freedom should be given to the maximum amount where it doesn't affect the ability of others to enjoy life. People should be free to worship and spread any religion they wish in whichever way they desire so far as it doesn't restrict anyone.
Various definitions of religious freedom
Canadian Government: "The right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practise or by teaching and dissemination”.
Wikipedia: "Freedom of religion or religious liberty is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."
ACLU: "Prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way" and "the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all."
Valrifell wrote:
Disregard whatever this poster says
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:42 am
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:44 am
Odreria wrote:Sanghyeok wrote:Religious freedom has become a phrase filled with controversy, as more and more people question what religious freedom means. One reason are policies created by either pro-secular or pro-religion governments worldwide, ranging from abortion access to serving customers and religious apparel. Something which needs to be determined sooner or later is what limits or lack thereof should be placed on freedom of religion. Should someone be able to deny service to customers on basis of religious ideals, for instance? Should people be banned from wearing religious icons in public if seen as offensive? Should doctors be able to refuse abortions due to their own faith? And what should be done about potentially dangerous cults?
NSG, what's your opinion on this issue? I look forward to hearing from all of you.
Personal opinion: religious freedom should be given to the maximum amount where it doesn't affect the ability of others to enjoy life. People should be free to worship and spread any religion they wish in whichever way they desire so far as it doesn't restrict anyone.
Various definitions of religious freedom
Canadian Government: "The right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practise or by teaching and dissemination”.
Wikipedia: "Freedom of religion or religious liberty is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."
ACLU: "Prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way" and "the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all."
People who run public stores should have to serve anyone, within reason (ie not if they are creating a disturbance, detonating explosives, etc). Nobody should have to create artwork that contradicts their beliefs.
Abortion isn’t a religious freedom issue. Nobody should be forced to perform an abortion, that’s insane.
Religious icons should be allowed.
Cults should be prosecuted if they do stuff that’s illegal.
by Karlopetrus » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:45 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: East Leaf Republic, Elejamie, Emotional Support Crocodile, Infected Mushroom, Likhinia, Plan Neonie, The Lone Alliance, The Mazzars
Advertisement