Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Full support. Human Rights are non-negotiable.
OOC: Well so do members of religious organizations have right to resist people they see unfit from joining their community.
Advertisement
by Widowed Land » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:07 pm
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Full support. Human Rights are non-negotiable.
by Maowi » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:11 pm
Widowed Land wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“That is what the proposal will do, yes. However, I think you are over-exemplifying the importance of discrimination against certain groups for religions. For example, in Kenmoria, there are several faiths that preach against homosexuality, but all of these have a primary focus on other areas of life. It is clear that the two lifestyles can co-exist as is evidenced by the many accepting churches in Kenmoria and its neighbours.”
"Yes, but if religious organization has a very harsh stance against (let's say again) homosexuality, then it seems rather unfair to enforce them to worship with the individuals they see unfit for participating in ritual. Even if visions of certain organizations are atrocious for some of us(including me). And in some indirect way it is against Freedom of Religion. Or I might be wrong. I am not fully opposed to the draft, as I somewhat agree, but I still have to defend interests of my people who might get offended by the resolution"
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Full support. Human Rights are non-negotiable.
by Widowed Land » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:18 pm
Maowi wrote:Widowed Land wrote:
"Yes, but if religious organization has a very harsh stance against (let's say again) homosexuality, then it seems rather unfair to enforce them to worship with the individuals they see unfit for participating in ritual. Even if visions of certain organizations are atrocious for some of us(including me). And in some indirect way it is against Freedom of Religion. Or I might be wrong. I am not fully opposed to the draft, as I somewhat agree, but I still have to defend interests of my people who might get offended by the resolution"
'You say it would be unfair to force a religious organisation to allow homosexuals to participate in religious activities. That's a pretty low standard for what constitutes 'unfair', ambassador - in fact, if you have your threshold set that low, I'm amazed you don't consider it unfair for this religious organisation to hold such a harsh stance against homosexuality.'
by New Udonia » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:20 pm
by Widowed Land » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:22 pm
New Udonia wrote:True freedom gives individuals the freedom to associate or disassociate themselves as they wish.
The whole point of a relationship is consent, something which can't be given if one group is forced to associate with another group.
There is nothing "free" or "human rights" about forcing religious groups to accept anyone.
You can't manipulate religions for "social justice" if you seek actual equality.
Finally, this is a double edged sword, which always cuts the wielder.
by Maowi » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:24 pm
Widowed Land wrote:Maowi wrote:'You say it would be unfair to force a religious organisation to allow homosexuals to participate in religious activities. That's a pretty low standard for what constitutes 'unfair', ambassador - in fact, if you have your threshold set that low, I'm amazed you don't consider it unfair for this religious organisation to hold such a harsh stance against homosexuality.'
"All I am saying that religious organizations should have right to hold their atrociou laws and we shouldn't meddle with their worship. Of course as long as that doesn't hurt an individual. As I said before I still haven't chosen either to approve or go against the draft, ambassador"
New Udonia wrote:True freedom gives individuals the freedom to associate or disassociate themselves as they wish.
The whole point of a relationship is consent, something which can't be given if one group is forced to associate with another group.
There is nothing "free" or "human rights" about forcing religious groups to accept anyone.
You can't manipulate religions for "social justice" if you seek actual equality.
Finally, this is a double edged sword, which always cuts the wielder.
by New Udonia » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:29 pm
Maowi wrote:OOC: It is absolutely a human right to follow a religion and its way of life, and carry out its associated rituals and practices, despite some people's highly debatable interpretation of their holy text that it excludes a certain arbitrary group of people.
by Maowi » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:42 pm
New Udonia wrote:Maowi wrote:OOC: It is absolutely a human right to follow a religion and its way of life, and carry out its associated rituals and practices, despite some people's highly debatable interpretation of their holy text that it excludes a certain arbitrary group of people.
I am going to attempt to explain this clearly. Religions aren't copyrighted. If an individual wants to follow a religion, they can do so.
They can start their own church if they want.
Religions can exclude people, because those people can then go and build their own religion. That is the reason why there are multiple religions.
by United Massachusetts » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:49 pm
Asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order,
by New Udonia » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:51 pm
Maowi wrote:So you think that someone who is being excluded from a religion because of the way they were born should dedicate their life, abandoning their career etc., to start a whole new religion which is identical to another except for this one detail? You don't just snap your fingers and bam! a new religion. This takes a lot of work and dedication.
by Maowi » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:06 pm
New Udonia wrote:Maowi wrote:So you think that someone who is being excluded from a religion because of the way they were born should dedicate their life, abandoning their career etc., to start a whole new religion which is identical to another except for this one detail? You don't just snap your fingers and bam! a new religion. This takes a lot of work and dedication.
If someone is so dedicated, so be it. If the issue is that important to them, they should be willing to carry out such an effort. If a church bans the color purple, only those who feel the need to wear purple to church would consider expending energy in building a separate church.
The whole reason there are multiple denominations of Christians, Muslims, and Jews... is that because individuals felt a vital need to separate themselves. Do you know what happens when you try to prevent denominational offshoots through regulation? Then you get radicals, such as the Inquisition, Jihad, and Zionism.
When did the needs of the minority outweigh the needs of the majority? I have always perceived "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" to be a horrific practice, however the reverse is just as despicable.
by United Massachusetts » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:11 pm
Maowi wrote:This proposal is not trying to prevent new denominations from forming. I have no problem with a minor yet legitimate ideological difference being the cause of a new denomination. But expecting someone to start a new denomination of Catholicism just because they're gay and a certain interpretation of the Bible says that they can't marry their partner is unreasonable. You can hold a fervent religious belief that you care about and still want to have a life.When did the needs of the minority outweigh the needs of the majority? I have always perceived "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" to be a horrific practice, however the reverse is just as despicable.
I'm advocating acceptance and accommodation of, not subjection to, the minority. And if you claim to find "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" a horrific practice, how can you be fine with, as an example, the barring of homosexual marriage in Catholicism?
by Essu Beti » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:12 pm
New Udonia wrote:Finally, if this resolution passes so be it. The Federation has legal safeguards to prevent abuses of the World Assembly.
National News Radio: A large-scale infrastructure project will soon be underway. During this time, for safety reasons, the island will be closed to tourists and foreign news agents. We do expect a minor loss in revenue due to this, but this will be greatly offset by both the long and short-term benefits of the infrastructure project. If your job is negatively impacted by the island closure, please send a letter or verbal message via courier to the Council so that we can add you to the list of beneficiaries of foreign aid.
by New Udonia » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:19 pm
Maowi wrote:This proposal is not trying to prevent new denominations from forming. I have no problem with a minor yet legitimate ideological difference being the cause of a new denomination. But expecting someone to start a new denomination of Catholicism just because they're gay and a certain interpretation of the Bible says that they can't marry their partner is unreasonable. You can hold a fervent religious belief that you care about and still want to have a life.
Maowi wrote:I'm advocating acceptance and accommodation of, not subjection to, the minority. And if you claim to find "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" a horrific practice, how can you be fine with, as an example, the barring of homosexual marriage in Catholicism?
by New Udonia » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:26 pm
Essu Beti wrote:((OOC: Oh goodie, another one of you. If you are ICly in the WA, you follow the resolutions ICly (with leeway allowed for loopholes). To do otherwise is considered godmodding in this forum.))
United Massachusetts wrote:Unrelated: It's very unsavoury to put Zionism, the support for a Jewish state, in the same category as the Inquisition or radical Jihad.
by Maowi » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:35 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:I'm in favour of the state recognizing same-sex marriage. A religious organisation need not do so. Nothing about forcing Catholics to engage in a ritual they believe to be illegitimate is "acceptance." One has the right to be married in a secular state. There is no right to have the Catholic Church, a private organisation, perform that marriage. Conversely, the Catholic Church absolutely has a right to define the terms of the marriages that it, a private organisation, offers.
New Udonia wrote:Maowi wrote:This proposal is not trying to prevent new denominations from forming. I have no problem with a minor yet legitimate ideological difference being the cause of a new denomination. But expecting someone to start a new denomination of Catholicism just because they're gay and a certain interpretation of the Bible says that they can't marry their partner is unreasonable. You can hold a fervent religious belief that you care about and still want to have a life.
That is the entire reason the Anglican church exists. The Catholic Church banned divorce.
Maowi wrote:I'm advocating acceptance and accommodation of, not subjection to, the minority. And if you claim to find "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" a horrific practice, how can you be fine with, as an example, the barring of homosexual marriage in Catholicism?
Because any homosexual Catholic can simply switch to Anglican or some other offshoot. This was a horrible example to give, as the Anglican church is almost identical to the Catholic church. Only leadership and marriage regulations are different.
I am fine with any voluntary organization restricting anyone from participating within their operations. If this was a debate over a non-voluntary organization, such as a government, you would have a point. Voluntary organizations have the right to kick anyone out. They have the right to be sexist and the right to be racist. Does this condone them? No, it does not.
Freedom is freedom, if you are equal to your fellow human, you can't dictate who they have to accept.
I doubt the church of social justice would accept a "sexist racist homophobic white male Nazi" into their flock.
New Udonia wrote:This is my final comment on the manner, as the metaphorical saying goes... don't cast pearls before swine.
by United Massachusetts » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:48 pm
Maowi wrote:United Massachusetts wrote:I'm in favour of the state recognizing same-sex marriage. A religious organisation need not do so. Nothing about forcing Catholics to engage in a ritual they believe to be illegitimate is "acceptance." One has the right to be married in a secular state. There is no right to have the Catholic Church, a private organisation, perform that marriage. Conversely, the Catholic Church absolutely has a right to define the terms of the marriages that it, a private organisation, offers.
The Catholic Church may be a private organisation but Catholicism is an ideology, to which anyone may adhere, in accordance with Freedom of Religion. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. Why should homosexual people be barred from fulfilling that sacrament? And if Catholicism teaches that the only way to do so is through the Catholic Church, so be it. The proposal would stop religious organisations as a whole from denying them this right, so it's not even saying that every Catholic priest must agree to perform such a marriage, just that at least one must do so.
by Tinfect » Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by United Massachusetts » Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:09 pm
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Look, UM, here's a compromise for you. Either you can have Maowi's moderate proposal, or I can make one, and do a hell of a better job of putting 'religious' bigotry in the hole it belongs in.
by Tinfect » Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:13 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:I didn't ask for compromise here.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Phydios » Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:20 pm
If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you. | Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’James 1:26-27, Matthew 7:21-23
by Tinfect » Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:05 pm
Phydios wrote:OOC: You have no right to have other people agree with you. You have no right to have your beliefs accepted by other people. And other people most certainly have the right to say that you are wrong and oppose your beliefs. If this is not true, then all militant antitheists should immediately stop all criticism of all religions and their followers- including this proposal, which claims that "religious organizations" (read: Christian churches that haven't bowed to social pressure) are wrong to declare some things wrong.
The NS left truly scares me. At least, it would if it was relevant in real life. Under the rhetoric of love and tolerance, it seeks out and attempts to destroy anyone that does not share its beliefs that there is no right and wrong- there is only power and those too bigoted to accept it.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Kenmoria » Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:01 am
United Massachusetts wrote: EDIT: And either way, Maowi's proposal is illegal as of now. If it is amended to my satisfaction, I'm not opposed to the principle of an anti-discrimination bill specifically targeting religious intolerance.
by Maowi » Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:13 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 2 may need some clarification, as the arguement could be made that the categories described in a religion’s holy book as causes for discrimination are not arbitrary. This is because they were believed to be described by a deity so would be, at least in the view of a religious follower, perfectly rational.”
by Kenmoria » Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:29 am
Maowi wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 2 may need some clarification, as the arguement could be made that the categories described in a religion’s holy book as causes for discrimination are not arbitrary. This is because they were believed to be described by a deity so would be, at least in the view of a religious follower, perfectly rational.”
'Ambassador, do you have any thoughts on the following phrasing:
"...based on their inherent belonging to a reductive category"?
'Maybe inherent is not precisely the right word, but do you think phrasing it like that would solve the problem?
'Anyway, we're working on a revised draft which we'll present shortly. Thanks for your feedback, ambassadors.'
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: The Galactic Supremacy
Advertisement