Religious beliefs that are prejudiced against women, LGBT, races should be judged as harshly as...

[CreekDog]

Those beliefs if they were held for non-religious reasons.

Inside and outside that religion, intolerant religious beliefs should be held to the same standard as intolerance anywhere.

It is no more acceptable if you believe in discrimination against gays, or those of other races, or women based on a religious tenet, than if you came up with that belief yourself, without any religious motivation.

As someone formerly in a conservative religion, one of the most useful moments growing up was when a relative said to me, "so what if your church told you to believe that way, what kind of excuse is that?"

She was right. It was an educational moment.

We do a disservice to those in intolerant religions when we accept that they believe something intolerant and don't ask them to question what they have accepted.

And as a former member of a conservative church, it was really important for me to deal with whether I believed or did not believe that God wanted me to believe the intolerant thing (or not).

I ultimately answered that question, "no, God doesn't want me to believe that way, no matter what the others say..."

Later though, I'd leave and decide even if I didn't believe those intolerant things, I didn't want to be a part of a place that was advertising those beliefs.

[jberryhill]

1. I don't care what someone "believes"

Actions are another story.

Someone can certainly "believe" that left-handed people are spawn of the devil. But if they take no action affecting left-handed people, then nobody is harmed by their mere belief.

[CreekDog]

3. i think beliefs actually are harmful. i also think that if you know what someone believes...

...there's an action or you wouldn't know it.

[jberryhill]

5. If the action is merely expressing a belief....

So, a left-handed guy walks into a restaurant. The manager seats him, takes his order, delivers the food, thanks him for the tip, and sends him on his way. Then, he says "Man, I really hate left-handed people."

So what?

[CreekDog]

9. and if he said that about black people?

and said it so that others knew he believed that?

yeah, that's harmful. damn straight it's harmful.

[jberryhill]

12. So, what do you want to do with people who believe bad things or say bad things?

...if they do not, by their actions, harm anyone?

I'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but to take one example, Christianity, in the main, posits that persons who do not have faith in Jesus as their savior will suffer eternal damnation.

It is, by definition, a discriminatory belief, as are many other religions which propose that they have an exclusive lock on some cosmic system of rewards and punishments.

The best we can do is to put legal controls on discriminatory conduct - just as most of our other laws are based on conduct. While mental state may be an element which, in combination with certain conduct, constitutes an offense (such as burglary versus accidentally walking into the wrong house), I'm curious what it is you propose to do with people whose "actions" boil down to (a) believing something, and (b) expressing that belief, provided they take no action which impairs the liberty of those who are disfavored by their beliefs.

[zeemike]

19. I think the objective is to establish a precedent.

Last edited Wed Feb 26, 2014, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

That belief and speech is an offense that must be punished. A very dangerous move for a democracy of individuals.
And this probably will be the next witch hunt on DU.

[CreekDog]

27. the objective is not to do anything of the sort, it's to talk and reason with people

about intolerant beliefs, and not just ignore them out of respect for religion, but instead talk.

the example in my OP is that my relative TALKED to me, REASONED with me and didn't just drop the subject because I said I believed something because of my church.

she challenged the basis of my reasoning.

and that got me thinking.

and it was a good thing.

your imagination is where you got the witch hunt idea because my OP encouraged people to talk and reason over these beliefs and yes, hold them up to scrutiny.

not legally, not physically...intellectually.

[zeemike]

68. Thanks....changed it.

[CreekDog]

26. what's the matter with you? i wrote above that my relative simply talked and reasoned with me

she didn't "do anything" to me and i haven't suggested anything of the sort here.

to talk and reason with people and not merely ignore an intolerant belief simply because it's a religious one.

you're an attorney and you're constantly avoiding what i actually said to insert something i didn't say. bad form.

[jberryhill]

35. Yes, I regularly see how you "reason" with people

By attacking their character.

[CreekDog]

37. if pointing out what you said is an attack on your character, then it's your words that betray you

not me.

[pintobean]

40. OMG. Get a mirror dude.

you're constantly avoiding what i actually said to insert something i didn't say. bad form.

[jberryhill]

46. I know, right?

[pintobean]

52. I love that he used the term "physical handicap"

then jumped on you for using "handicapped" in your reply. If she has a physical handicap, wouldn't she be physically handicapped? What am I missing here?

[jberryhill]

54. It's his thing

I live in his head rent-free, apparently.

[pintobean]

56. How are the acoustics?

[jberryhill]

58. Pretty good

But it gets noisy in here with all the other DUers.

[CreekDog]

87. so you call your daughter by her name but other kids with disabilities you call "handicapped"

but even if you know you're wrong, you'll never admit it.

YOU don't make mistakes.

that's why you come on DU and correct people, even on topics you don't know (disabilities, for example).

[jberryhill]

88. Yes, Creek, I actually punch several of them every day

And you come to DU to berate people for echoing words you yourself used.

[CreekDog]

77. it refers to the condition not the whole person

but when you call them handicapped, you're referring to the whole person. which is the larger problem.

but you know what, you're just trolling.

or else you'd criticize him for using the term "handicapped" when in fact you support him, then criticize me for using a more appropriate term, all the while using even more appropriate terms in every other mention.

but that's what you bring to DU.

interested in a liberal cause? no just defending Lozocalo.

[CreekDog]

69. Stop calling people handicapped

No wonder you dont understand ADA

[CreekDog]

49. ah, welcome, as usual, posting opinions about DUers and never about the thread topic

[CreekDog]

28. fascinating that you're being obtuse on this and...

when the story about the little girl kicked out of a restaurant because of a physical handicap, you went to exhaustive lengths to justify the behavior of the restaurant.

[jberryhill]

32. Predictable

Oh look, another thread about how bad I am. Unfortunately the manager in the restaurant incident did not know she was handicapped.

[CreekDog]

42. "handicapped"? there are no "handicapped" people.

you still use that term?

[jberryhill]

44. It's printed on the permit we use for our daughter

Take it up with the DMV

[CreekDog]

48. does that placard tell you to call her handicapped?

and even though it does not tell you to call her something inappropriate like that, you dutifully follow what you think it's telling you to do.

because a piece of hard cardboard limits what you can call a person with a disability. because you have no power to use another term, you are forced by the gods and the laws to use the term on a piece of cardboard (which doesn't even use those terms in most states anyway).

besides, Pennsylvania doesn't even use that terminology on their website:

Defining a “Person with Disability Parking Placard”

A Person with Disability Parking Placard is a special parking placard issued by PennDOT to a person who meets the qualifications as listed in “Who is Eligible?” This parking placard is to be displayed on the rearview mirror when a vehicle is utilizing a parking space reserved for person with disabilities.

but again, why argue. you are unable to use another word because of the tyranny of the cardboard.

[jberryhill]

51. I call her "Kate" if you must know

[CreekDog]

55. well you called a person handicapped and then justified it

obviously you are not an expert in disability and seem to be unwilling to change that.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Did the manager fill his coffee as many times as a right-handed person?

A different-topic example of prejudice that is not overt (victim never directly attacked) but harmful nevertheless.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/03/28/tipping-points-study-says-restaurant-service-linked-to-race/

[jberryhill]

33. Well now that would be an action, wouldn't it?

[AtheistCrusader]

41. But one that is neither overt, nor conscious.

That's where bigoted ideas/mindsets lead. They don't have to be acting out on bad faith intentionally.

Edit: they need not even be aware they are doing it.

[jberryhill]

45. Once again...

Your statement is not responsive to what I said about absence of action on the belief.

I didn't say anything about awareness or intention. I said action. So whether the action is not intentional doesn't matter - it is still action.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. The people in the study didn't apparently realize they were acting.

If holding an idea produces action without intent or even awareness, then your distinction of 'belief without action' is meaningless.

[jberryhill]

50. Okay, so

Where does your study day that every person with a discriminatory belief will, of necessity, be consistently acted on by believers?

Answer: it doesn't.

Now if you read what I wrote, I have no problems with proscribing action which proceeds from a belief - intentional or not.

How about we save ourselves some trouble and simply hand a list to anyone applying for a business license and say, "Is there anyone on this list you don't like?" and if they say yes, then we don't give them a license since you claim that such persons will reliably and consistently act on their belief.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. How the hell are you going to proscribe an action that the believer doesn't consciously recognize?

[jberryhill]

57. Because actions can be proscribed

There are people arrested for drunk driving who are not even aware they were driving. My goodness, have you ever been pulled over for a traffic violation you didn't know you committed?

I missed a "no turn on red" sign once, and made a right turn. I told the cop "but I had no idea I was doing anything wrong!"

[snooper2]

59. being brainwashed into ridiculous beliefs at a young age

is harmful-

If Christians actually followed their holy book like most Muslims this country would be in a lot worse shape than it is now in that respect.

Thankfully we have the Bill of Rights and Constitution on our side-

[HappyMe]

4. I agree with that.

Prejudice and bigotry does not only come from religions. Those are things that are learned in the home, from friends, etc.

Just because a person may attend a religious service, does not mean that they are automatically a bigot. There are, I would imagine, plenty of asshats that have no religion.

[loli phabay]

6. asshats come in all shapes and sizes and across the board.

[HappyMe]

8. Exactly.

Nobody can claim that it is only these or those people.

[Fred Gilmore]

20. Interesting concept

But how about this.........when organized religion, any organized religion, non-tax paying entities, get involved in trying to sway government policies, should they not a)be taxed just the same as any other organization involved in trying to sway governmental policy, and b)be held to the same standards as any other groups when they try to discriminate against anyone?

Here's the real catch 22 when it comes to religions and governments in this country. The government does not get involved in trying to sway the policies of organized religions, yet organized religions are always trying to sway governmental policies.

The other major difference between organized religion and government is this......by their very existence, organized religions are discriminatory and exclusive, while governments are non-discriminatory and inclusive.

The real issue is that organized religions are stepping outside of their domain to try and enforce their systems of belief upon all others, without regard to the system of belief of those others.

[gopiscrap]

72. Welcome to DU

[Rex]

63. Are you saying that mere beliefs cannot influence the masses

just because you yourself are not directly affected?

[jberryhill]

64. Well, as long as we have adequate controls on beliefs getting out of hand

[Rex]

65. Would that be the Tea Party?

The out of hand part?

[jberryhill]

66. Anyone with whose beliefs I disagree

People who believe things I don't believe, and vice versa, are inherently suspect.

[840high]

76. ...^

agree

[raven mad]

79. Tell that one to the "witches" hung in Salem Town.

[jberryhill]

80. Gee, I believe executions would count as "actions"

But that's just me.

[raven mad]

84. The "actions" were by a small minority -

but the "majority" believed they were ok. How many witches were hanged/pressed to death at Salem Town? None. None.

[get the red out]

2. THANK YOU!

I agree completely!

I love this line:

We do a disservice to those in intolerant religions when we accept that they believe something intolerant and don't ask them to question what they have accepted.

[frazzled]

7. "Free exercise of religion" claims often come into conflict with ...

the enforcement of laws and Constitutional issues, and with the interests of the state. I should hope that the Court would find the Arizona-type law wholly unconstitutional. The real test will come before, with the Hobby Lobby case, arguing that businesses shouldn't have to insure women for birth control, etc. if it is against their "beliefs."

I guess my point is: it's none of our business what people want to believe. It is COMPLETELY our business whether they are allowed to enact into law those beliefs, and in so doing deprive others of their civil rights.

Here's a pretty good summary of the history of modern Supreme Court cases in which the "free exercise" clause and the enforcement of laws have come into conflict.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/freeexercise.htm

[freshwest]

13. They can believe what they want, but they can't force others to believe the same.

If they can believe they have the right to force others, that's what the law is for, unless one lives in a theocracy. And then they'll kill you with the force of law to do as they say. I feel that these laws pushed by ALEC and others are coming very close to that mark, with the support of propagandazing media. This crazy stuff is on the air ways all day and night long, getting some people all fired up and they vote for RWNJs.

And I appreciate your way of wording it, so much better than what I was saying.

[stopbush]

10. I agree.

What if a religion held that god said murder was OK? No one would accept that. So why give a special carve-out to religion-born intolerance that is not acceptable outside of religion?

[jeff47]

11. I think they should be required to be consistent.

If they're going to point to Leviticus for why "gays are evil", then they can't ignore the other parts of the book.

So, they'd have to start keeping kosher. They'd also have to start welcoming undocumented workers to the country, as if they were US citizens. Though, I'm really not sure how they're going to deal with the need to stone their children.

If they can pick-and-choose to ignore those rules, they can pick-and-choose to ignore the ones against gay men.

[former9thward]

18. "required to be consistent."

Who would require them? A government monitor?

[jeff47]

21. The court excepting them from the laws of the country.

Their argument is their sacred text conflicts with the laws, and they can't possibly violate their sacred text. So they need to be excused from the laws.

Problem is they are violating their sacred text. They're eating shellfish, wearing polyester blends, and throwing "illegal aliens" out of the country.

So either they need to stop violating their text, or they need to come up with a different argument.

[former9thward]

24. Well you are not answering the question.

And of course you will have to monitor the Islamic religion which is the most anti-gay religion on the planet.

[jeff47]

70. Read the subject of the reply.

Read the subject of the reply. It answered the question.

And of course you will have to monitor the Islamic religion

When Muslims use the same can't-disobey-except-we-do argument, it should fail too.

[CreekDog]

29. See what former9thward is doing? He's saying that if we criticize a belief...

we're all advocating to sic the government on people. to have them prosecuted. to put them away in camps, etc.

of course, we aren't.

but he wants you to believe that.

beware.

all i ask for is reasoning.

[former9thward]

34. I simply asked the question.

As usual you did not answer it. When someone says "required to be consistent" I think there is a valid question. Of course this needs to be applied to all.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. The consistency should be required by which ever agency is expect to help them

keep gay people away from their precious, fake, affected and insincere belief in a religion they do not know, would not agree with and will never follow.

[former9thward]

90. So a government monitor for religion.

You may be ok with dumping the 1st amendment, not me.

[MADem]

30. Most people who practice 'faith' of any kind are 'cafeteria' worshippers.

I don't know a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew who plays the Faith Game to the letter. Not a one!

[jeff47]

71. And that's why we shouldn't let "but this book says so" work as an argument (nt)

[MADem]

74. For many, it's a cultural exercise, too...and a familial one.

If their families, friends and neighbors all decided they wanted to join the Temple of Barking At The Moon, they'd go along with it, as well...particularly if the rituals were fun and included parties and gift-giving.

[cui bono]

14. Agreed. Especially because religious beliefs are *chosen*. People *choose* to believe those things.

So why should anyone be denied any rights, whether it be to have a cake baked or to get birth control pills, just because someone chose to believe that being gay is bad or one should not have sexual relations for pleasure.

So when you make a choice to believe certain things you don't then get to claim you are free from the responsibility of that choice and blame it on your religion. You chose that religion. So you are choosing to discriminate.

Plus, there are plenty of people who would call themselves christians who are open to gay relations, women's rights, etc... which proves the point that your belief system is your choice even within a religion. Same with what Jeff47 said above me, even those hardcore religious nuts are choosing what they want to believe and what they want to ignore.

So no, you do not get to simply choose to discriminate imo.

[wryter2000]

15. Amen to that! n/t

n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

17. You mean a gold, pointy hat doesn't excuse boorish bigotry?

Lots of people haven't gotten that memo, sadly.

[Fred Gilmore]

23. Nor Sexual Abuse

Of children. The list of atrocities done by man to his fellow man in the name of religion would make a book that would take an expert reader many lifetimes to read through and through.

[SidDithers]

22. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Glitterati]

25. We're making this a lot harder than it needs to be

You don't want to sell one of your cakes to gay people? OK, simple. Stop. selling. cakes!

You don't want to sell the morning after pill to someone? OK, simple. Stop. selling. pills!

You don't want to sell flowers to gay people? Ok, simple.......stop. selling. flowers!

These people have CHOSEN these fields. If they can't agree to the norms of the business, get out of business.

Choice.

Make. A. Different. One.

[quinnox]

31. I'm a big believer in religious freedom

I would not try and tell a religious person what to believe, I just don't think like that. Of course, that means mainstream religious thought. I am not saying those who pervert religions like fanatics who are recruiting suicide bombers for terrorism, or forming abusive personality based cults are A-OK, no, not at all.

[FiveGoodMen]

36. But that requires you to judge which beliefs get a pass and which are unacceptable

"I am not saying those who pervert religions"

That's kind of in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

[quinnox]

38. That is why used the suicide bomber example

I think most would agree that is wrong.

I would say Mill's no harm principle applies, people are free to believe anything they want, as long as they don't harm others.

[FiveGoodMen]

39. Sounds reasonable

But the OP was talking about religious prejudice that DOES in fact harm people (just doesn't blow them up).

[quinnox]

43. I understand what you mean

then it comes down to the definition of what "harm" means. I'm not prepared to debate this further, but my definition of harm would mean things like suicide bombing, physical abuse like in cults and so on. It would mean solid things like that.

[NealK]

60. K&R n/t

[Vashta Nerada]

61. A bigot should be called out on their bigotry, whether he/she is hiding behind religion or not.

K&R

[Bluenorthwest]

62. That should apply to Francis whose gay baiting leads 42% of Uganda

people here excuse his bigotry they like to pretend it has no part in the hate circling the globe, but it does. Uganda's hate law would not exist had Francis condemned it. But he did not do so. Instead his Bishops promoted this horror.
I am no longer going to play nice with those who sick their preachers on innocent people claiming they have a right to attack others. They don't. They are bullies and they are nothing more, not a thing more.

[JoeyT]

73. These threads always fill with people that can't tell the difference between

"We should criticize these religions and not give them a pass just because they use Godditit! as an answer for everything." and "We should totally use the power of the government to oppress religious people if we disagree with them.".

Just you wait, they're gonna fuck that strawman right up and split ALL of the hairs.

[MellowDem]

75. But they aren't yet... Religion is still quite privileged...

Even on DU. The Pope threads are a great example of it. The guy is a homophobic bigot and misogynist, but religious privilege gets him far here. Sure, it has to be the right sort of religion, but still it's there.

I rarely see other threads lavishing praise on a leader of an organization that continues to spread death and misery and take away the rights of other DUers. The privilege is so thick, some are entirely unaware of it.

[Arugula Latte]

82. I can think of posters who are very strong on women's rights

(one in particular who is a big Hillary supporter and accused me of being anti-women in 2008 because I was for Obama -- and I'm female) and yet stick up for the Pope at every turn. The disconnect makes no sense to me.

[theHandpuppet]

83. Yes, I've seen this often on DU

Makes no sense to me.

[raven mad]

78. "so what if your church told you to believe that way, what kind of excuse is that?"

Exactly. It's why I quit the Catholic Church at the age of 14. And it was a Jesuit priest who asked me that.

[CreekDog]

81. that's the kind of thing I like about the Jesuits

[raven mad]

85. This one left the priesthood shortly afterward -

He was one of my college professors, and a great humanitarian. And yes - he also left his "church".

[Zorra]

86. Recommend. nt