What is religious freedom, and why does it need protection in Australia? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#14986138
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, the impact of bigotry on the target is not lessened simply because the bigot has a religious tradition that excuses said bigotry.It is not as if women murdered in honour killings are less dead than other women killed by their families.


Are honour killings even Quranic at all as far as official sanction? Aren't they more tied to extra-religious cultural norms?

In any event, no one here is advocating for that; we are just saying that religious freedom is for religious people to be able to practice their beliefs regarding voluntary association.

Like @Rancid said; if you don't believe in that, just admit it and be done with it. Then we'll at least know with certainty where you stand.
#14986142
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Are honour killings even Quranic at all as far as official sanction? Aren't they more tied to extra-religious cultural norms?

In any event, no one here is advocating for that; we are just saying that religious freedom is for religious people to be able to practice their beliefs regarding voluntary association.


And when religious people say that, it is code for wanting to exclude, fire, expel, or otherwise discriminate against minorities.

And this discrimination is just as bad as secular discrimination.

Belief in a supernatural being does not lessen its impact.

The only reason this is still allowed is because of society’s fallacious belief that certain religious traditions should be allowed to exclude themselves from respecting the rights of others.
#14986143
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Agreed, which makes me wonder why the left ever used these terms back in the 60s.....in retrospect its looking a lot more like it was done for the pragmatic purpose of duping the other side and not out of genuine conviction.


I agree that it's not genuine conviction basically. It's just another group of people trying to make a power grab. Which is the core of many of my arguments on pofo. That basically, the vast majority of humans on the planet do not behave according to principles/values. They are largely self-interested and will convince themselves and project that they are principled people to try and legitimize their self-interest.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:@Rancid, observe the above quote from Pants, this is exactly the shit we've been talking about.

Here we fucking go again. :roll:


Indeed.

I would not have a problem with POD saying that if he acknowledges that he is not for freedom of religion, and applies the same criticisms of one religion to all religions.

I would love to put together a more precese description of what I'm going to say, but I just don't have the time. Hopefully the following gets interpreted how I want it to be:

The question of fairness is difficult to answer. Anyone that thinks it's simple, easy, or obvious is automatically full of shit in my eyes. We can define fair in a million ways, and each would be valid in its own way. This is common in engineering and math problems. What parameters do you optimize for? Or in this case, what metric would you use to define fairness? Usually when you pick one metric, you do it at the expense of another. I want to think about this some more and expand on it, but I can't right now....
Last edited by Rancid on 05 Feb 2019 17:26, edited 1 time in total.
#14986146
Rancid wrote:Indeed.

I would not have a problem with POD saying that if he acknowledges that he is not for freedom of religion, and applies the same criticisms of one religion to all religions.


My personal opinions on the matter are not relevant.

I would love to put together a more precese description of what I'm going to say, but I just don't have the time. Hopefully the following gets interpreted how I want it to be:

The question of fairness is difficult to answer. Anyone that thinks it's simple, easy, or obvious is automatically full of shit in my eyes. We can define fair in a million ways, and each would be valid in its own way. This is common in engineering and math problems. What parameters do you optimize for? Or in this case, what metric would you use to define fairness? Usually when you pick one metric, you do it at the expense of another. I want to think about this some more and expand on it, but I can't right now....


This would be a great thread. You should start it.

I agree that fairness is a highly subjective term and people choose a definition based on their own agenda.
#14986171
Pants-of-dog wrote:And when religious people say that, it is code for wanting to exclude, fire, expel, or otherwise discriminate against minorities.And this discrimination is just as bad as secular discrimination.


Its a bit presumptuous to say its just minorities, it wouldn't matter if the group were in minority or majority; Christians don't believe its acceptable for certain groups of people to hold certain positions in their ecclesiastical structures, etc, based on Divine Command. Thus, the parameters of association are set by Scriptures for Christians and has nothing to do with "power dynamics etc,."

Fact is, Christians were willing to compromise on this matter in the past, they were willing to cede space to those whom they disagreed with, but it doesn't seem like this has been reciprocated by these same groups.


It seems to me you are saying that Christians must be forced to associate in ways contrary to their convictions.

So let me ask you a question; do you think the conservative churches should BE FORCED by the state to ordain women contrary to their religious beliefs? Yes or No?


Pants-of-dog wrote:The only reason this is still allowed is because of society’s fallacious belief that certain religious traditions should be allowed to exclude themselves from respecting the rights of others.


I didn't realize you even believed in rights pants? What rights are those, please tell?

Pants-of-dog wrote:The only reason this is still allowed is because of society’s fallacious belief that certain religious traditions should be allowed to exclude themselves from respecting the rights of others.


Which fallacy is that? It seems to me that the west is struggling with this only because its trying reconcile two different ideas in liberal thought: the freedom of religion and non-discrimination laws (the former being much newer and more ambiguous idea than the former).
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 05 Feb 2019 21:56, edited 1 time in total.
#14986177
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Its a bit presumptuous to say its just minorities, it wouldn't matter if the group were in minority or majority; Christians don't believe its acceptable for certain groups of people to hold certain positions in their ecclesiastical structures, etc, based on Divine Command. Thus, the parameters of association are set by Scriptures for Christians and has nothing to do with "power dynamics etc,."


Not quite.

First of all, while it is theoretically possible that this discrimination would be focused on a manority, in terms of the specific context (LGBT rights in Australia) and historically, it has been minorities who are targeted by said discrimination.

Secondly, it does hqve to do with power dynamics. This is why powerful institutions, like the Church, can get away with discrimination, but when religious minorities do it, discrimination is seen as bad. While it is true that the rationale for discrimination has nothing to do with power dynamics, the way discrimination actually unfolds in the real world does have a lot to do with power dynamics.

Fact is, Christians were willing to compromise on this matter in the past, they were willing to cede space to those whom they disagreed with, but it doesn't seem like this has been reciprocated by these same groups.


There are some things that can be compromised, and there are some that cannot. The idea that people targeted by bigotry should accommodate bigotry is a fallacy of the middle ground.

It seems to me you are saying that Christians must be forced to associate in ways contrary to their convictions.

So let me ask you a question; do you think the conservative churches should BE FORCED by the state to ordain women contrary to their religious beliefs? Yes or No?



Again, religious discrimination is not any less harmful than secular discrimination.

The reason why we allow the former and not the latter is solely based on tradition and institutional power. It is not supported by logic or the tenets of liberal democracy, which Australia is.

I didn't realize you even believed in rights pants? What rights are those, please tell?


Are you asking me which rights are being targeted by religious discrimination n this case?

Which fallacy is that? It seems to me that the west is struggling with this only because its trying reconcile two different ideas in liberal thought: the freedom of religion and non-discrimination laws (the former being much newer and more ambiguous idea than the former).


Fallacy of tradition, obviously.

For example, you just alluded to it here by implying that religious discrimination should be given more weight simply because it is older.
#14986179
You didn't answer my question:

Do you think the conservative churches should BE FORCED by the state to ordain women contrary to their religious beliefs? Yes or No?


Pants-of-dog wrote:Fallacy of tradition, obviously.For example, you just alluded to it here by implying that religious discrimination should be given more weight simply because it is older.


False, I never said it should be weighted different, I only mentioned that it was older and less ambiguous.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you asking me which rights are being targeted by religious discrimination n this case?


Not only that, but if you actually believe that these rights exist independent of this state's context and if such are legitimate and why.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, religious discrimination is not any less harmful than secular discrimination. The reason why we allow the former and not the latter is solely based on tradition and institutional power. It is not supported by logic or the tenets of liberal democracy, which Australia is.


What institutional power would a small evangelical church be expressing in a country like, lets say, Turkey? Would it be okay for them to discriminate against muslims who were in the majority in that instance? OR would it still be unacceptable?

Likewise, Christians are a minority compared to the non-religious in Australia, so how are they not a minority? At what point would they be a minority in your opinion?

Pants-of-dog wrote: It is not supported by logic


Well, I can defend from logic the absolute right of private property and voluntary association; thus implying the right to discriminate.

So unless you are willing to challenge my position on this, i wouldn't make claims you can't support.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, religious discrimination is not any less harmful than secular discrimination.


What harm is a Catholic school causing by saying that it wants only to have consistent practicing catholics to be the instructors for their students? Please explain.
#14986184
Victoribus Spolia wrote:False, I never said it should be weighted different, I only mentioned that it was older and less ambiguous.


I said you implied it.

And if you mentioned it, there is a reason why. Considering your support for a religious right to discriminate, it makes sense to assume you mentioned it as a support for your position.

Not only that, but if you actually believe that these rights exist independent of this state's context and if such are legitimate and why.


The context is whether or not churches should get a religious exemption from the law that forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Therefore, the relevant right is protection from discrimination.

What institutional power would a small evangelical church be expressing in a country like, lets say, Turkey? Would it be okay for them to discriminate against muslims who were in the majority in that instance? OR would it still be unacceptable?


This is the trouble with these hypothetical arguments based solely on logic and morality is that they ignore the historical reality that created our current world.

I am making a factual (not moral) argument about how powerful institutions can discriminate while less powerful groups and people cannot. I am claiming they can do so because certain historical events made them powerful in today’s society.

Now, a small evangelical church in Turkey has very little institutional power in Turkey, and this is because of the history of Turkey. And because of they lack institutional power, it would be very difficult for them to discriminate against Muslims. It may even be dangerous. In that context, it would be in their self interest to ally with progressives who oppose religious discrimination or religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws.

If they were able to discriminate against Muslims, they would need institutional power. To get that power, there would need to have been a different history in Turkey. And if Turkey had had a different history, evangelicals would not be a minority.

Now, if you wish to look at the moral question if whether or not it would be acceptable for a small powerless evangelical church to discriminate against Muslims in some weird ahistorical Turkey where religious minorities have weird amounts of power, feel free. I find it as relevant as discussing hunting unicorns.

Likewise, Christians are a minority compared to the non-religious in Australia, so how are they not a minority? At what point would they be a minority in your opinion?


    Religion in Australia is diverse. Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia of 1901 prohibits the Commonwealth government from establishing a church or interfering with the freedom of religion.[note 1] In an optional question on the 2016 Census, 52.2% of the Australian population declared some variety of Christianity. Historically the percentage was far higher; now, the religious landscape of Australia is changing and diversifying.[1] In 2016, 30.1% of Australians stated "no religion" and a further 9.6% chose not to answer the question.[1] Other faiths include Muslims (2.6%), Buddhists (2.4%), Hindus (1.9%), Sikhs (0.5%), and Jews (0.4%).[1]As per the 2016 Census, Sikhism is the fastest growing religion in Australia which showed a 74% increase from the 2011 census followed by Hinduism(60% increase) and Irreligion(48% increase).[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia

Well, I can defend from logic the absolute right of private property and voluntary association; thus implying the right to discriminate.

So unless you are willing to challenge my position on this, i wouldn't make claims you can't support.


Feel free.

As far as i can tell, this double standard (religious bodies can discriminate while other institutions cannot) is based solely on an appeal to tradition, and the institutional power of Christian churches in Australia.

What harm is a Catholic school causing by saying that it wants only to have consistent practicing catholics to be the instructors for their students? Please explain.


LGBTQ people would get fired simply because of ther sexual orientation.

Students would get expellled, for the same reason.
#14986188
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is the trouble with these hypothetical arguments based solely on logic and morality is that they ignore the historical reality that created our current world.


Yes, you don't like logic because it doesn't support your system, which is rooted in making inferences from historical observation; which is fallacious.

Pants-of-dog wrote:LGBTQ people would get fired simply because of ther sexual orientation.Students would get expellled, for the same reason.


No, they wouldn't get hired to begin with, because the criteria is a consistent practicing catholic. If someone decides they don't want to be a consistent practicing catholic anymore, then they would no longer qualify for that position.

If they refused to move along, their employment would be terminated because the contract was null the moment they stopped being qualified. How is that harming them? I see nothing violent about this at all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free.


Feel free to do what? This is a challenge. You up for it?

Pants-of-dog wrote:The context is whether or not churches should get a religious exemption from the law that forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.Therefore, the relevant right is protection from discrimination.


Oh good, so answer my question (this is the third time I asked it):

Do you think the conservative churches should BE FORCED by the state to ordain women contrary to their religious beliefs? Yes or No?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Religion in Australia is diverse. Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia of 1901 prohibits the Commonwealth government from establishing a church or interfering with the freedom of religion.[note 1] In an optional question on the 2016 Census, 52.2% of the Australian population declared some variety of Christianity. Historically the percentage was far higher; now, the religious landscape of Australia is changing and diversifying.[1] In 2016, 30.1% of Australians stated "no religion" and a further 9.6% chose not to answer the question.[1] Other faiths include Muslims (2.6%), Buddhists (2.4%), Hindus (1.9%), Sikhs (0.5%), and Jews (0.4%).[1]As per the 2016 Census, Sikhism is the fastest growing religion in Australia which showed a 74% increase from the 2011 census followed by Hinduism(60% increase) and Irreligion(48% increase).[3]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia



No, you cannot jumble all Christian denominations together and say they are the same. "Non-Religious people" are the majority and any one Christian group is in the minority.
#14986194
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Yes, you don't like logic because it doesn't support your system, which is rooted in making inferences from historical observation; which is fallacious.


Not quite.

For me, things have to be logically sound and historically accurate.

No, they wouldn't get hired to begin with, because the criteria is a consistent practicing catholic. If someone decides they don't want to be a consistent practicing catholic anymore, then they would no longer qualify for that position.

If they refused to move along, their employment would be terminated because the contract was null the moment they stopped being qualified. How is that harming them? I see nothing violent about this at all.


Many Catholics believe their religion is consistent with their homosexuality.

Others hide it in order to avoid discrimination by their co-religionists.

Both of these groups are vulnerable because of the existing exemption.

Feel free to do what? This is a challenge. You up for it?


If you have an argument to make, please do so.

Until then, there seems to be no logical reason to accept the existing double standard. And as I said, the actual reasons seem to be a fallacious obedience to tradition, and institutional power derived from history.

No, you cannot jumble all Christian denominations together and say they are the same. "Non-Religious people" are the majority and any one Christian group is in the minority.


So we agree that the majority of Australians self identify as Christians.

If we must make distinctions between the different denominations, then we should also do so for other groups. This would include “non-religious people”.

If you wish to continue with this line of argument, you may want to get those numbers.
#14986197
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not quite.For me, things have to be logically sound and historically accurate.


No, because if you held to logic, you would not hold to your current system.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Many Catholics believe their religion is consistent with their homosexuality.Others hide it in order to avoid discrimination by their co-religionists.Both of these groups are vulnerable because of the existing exemption.


Irrelevant, The teachings of the Catholic Church condemn homosexuality as a mortal sin as official dogma, the personal views of individual Catholics are quite irrelevant.

Thus a "consistent practicing catholic," is one practicing in submission to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

So lets try this again.

they wouldn't get hired to begin with, because the criteria is a consistent practicing catholic. If someone decides they don't want to be a consistent practicing catholic anymore, then they would no longer qualify for that position.

If they refused to move along, their employment would be terminated because the contract was null the moment they stopped being qualified. How is that harming them? I see nothing violent about this at all.


Please address this, Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you have an argument to make, please do so


I have; its the last post of this page and I have mentioned you in it and addressed the challenge formally to you to debate it:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=174126&p=14986195#p14986195

This is the same argument I asked you debate me on five times prior to this, this is the sixth time I have challenged you to debate this.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If we must make distinctions between the different denominations, then we should also do so for other groups. This would include “non-religious people”.


Please do so, from the Wikipedia article. Thanks.


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ALSO PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION, THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME I ASKED YOU TO ANSWER IT:

Do you think the conservative churches should BE FORCED by the state to ordain women contrary to their religious beliefs? Yes or No?


@Rancid, why do you think @Pants-of-dog won't answer this question? :lol:
#14986198
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@Rancid, why do you think @Pants-of-dog won't answer this question? :lol:


I'm going to cop out by giving the benefit of the doubt. Partly because I don't feel like getting dragged into a larger discussion about freedom of assembly/religion as I need to focus on my work. Partly because I can't get into his head. :)

Perhaps he just needs time to think through a response. Or, maybe he just doesn't care about the question. :)

I'll leave it at that.
Last edited by Rancid on 05 Feb 2019 22:02, edited 2 times in total.
#14986202
Victoribus Spolia wrote:No, because if you held to logic, you would not hold to your current system.


This is almost certainly wrong, and definitely irrelevant.

Do you see a fault in logic or history in my explanation as to why history, institutional power, and discrimination are related?

Irrelevant, The teachings of the Catholic Church condemn homosexuality as a mortal sin as official dogma, the personal views of individual Catholics are quite irrelevant.

Thus a "consistent practicing catholic," is one practicing in submission to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

So lets try this again.


It is relevant simply because these people actually exist and actually want to, or do, attend or work at Catholic schools.

Please address this, Thanks.


I have. You are welcome.

I have; its the last post of this page and I have mentioned you in it and addressed the challenge formally to you to debate it:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=174126&p=14986195#p14986195

This is the same argument I asked you debate me on five times prior to this, this is the sixth time I have challenged you to debate this.


A quick glance shows that you are confusing ownership with the ability to access resources.

Animals can access the resources they need to survive. Does this mean they own said resources?

Please do so, from the Wikipedia article. Thanks.


No, as I have no argument to make concerning denominational differences inside these groups.

why do you think @Pants-of-dog won't answer this question?


Because it is not relevant.
#14986204
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because it is not relevant.


Actually it is completely relevant. We are discussing discrimination, please answer it, this is the FIFTH time I asked you to answer it.

Do you think the conservative churches should BE FORCED by the state to ordain women contrary to their religious beliefs? Yes or No?

Pants-of-dog wrote:A quick glance shows that you are confusing ownership with the ability to access resources. Animals can access the resources they need to survive. Does this mean they own said resources?


I will adress arguments/questions posted on that thread, so as not to derail this one further.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, as I have no argument to make concerning denominational differences inside these groups.


Your objection is therefore dismissed as unsubstantiated.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is relevant simply because these people actually exist and actually want to, or do, attend or work at Catholic schools.


So they are insisting on doing something for which they are not qualified then, given the Catholic church's views on these matters.

Whats your argument? You couldn't get a job as a union carpenter if you are not actually a carpenter, you would be unqualified. Likewise, you cannot be a woman and be ordained in the Southern Baptist Convention because the qualifications come from church doctrine, nor could you be a practicing open homosexual and teach at a strictly confessional catholic school, because you would not be qualified for similar reasons.

You have yet to address how harm is caused by religious groups defining what qualifies certain people within their own institutions for certain positions and admittance to certain rites based on the religious liberty they are constitutionally afforded.

Please do so. Thanks.
#14986206
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Actually it is completely relevant. We are discussing discrimination, please answer it, this is the FIFTH time I asked you to answer it.

Do you think the conservative churches should BE FORCED by the state to ordain women contrary to their religious beliefs? Yes or No?


I should clarify. My personal beliefs about what should be done are not relevant to any argument I am making.

From a factual point of view, I think the differences between being a member of the clergy and being a teacher or student are significant enough to amke such comparisons problematic.

I will adress arguments/questions posted on that thread, so as not to derail this one further.


Perhaps you could explain how that argument relates to this discussion.

Your objection is therefore dismissed as unsubstantiated.


Since you were the one who objected to the facts, and since you did not support your objection with numbers or any evidence, I think it is you who failed to show that Christians are a minority n Australia.

So they are insisting on doing something for which they are not qualified then, given the Catholic church's views on these matters.

Whats your argument? You couldn't get a job as a union carpenter if you are not actually a carpenter, you would be unqualified. Likewise, you cannot be a woman and be ordained in the Southern Baptist Convention because the qualifications come from church doctrine, nor could you be a practicing open homosexual and teach at a strictly confessional catholic school, because you would not be qualified for similar reasons.


The criteria of their sexual orientation is irrelevant. I will explain why.

Regardless of their sexual orientation, these Catholics feel they are qualified to teach or study at a Catholic school. They feel, and there is some logic to this, that their desire to rub genitals with someone of the same sex is not relevant to their teaching or scholastic career.

So, when they decided to join the school, they simply ignored that criteria.

Now, this currently makes them vulnerable to discrimination along religious grounds.

And they could be fired or expelled. Being fired or expelled is the negative impact.

Your argument about being qualified or unqualified is relevant to a discussion in whether or not these Catholics fit certain traditional interpretations. It does not seem relevant to a discussion on whether or not getting fired or expelled from school.

You have yet to address how harm is caused by religious groups defining what qualifies certain people within their own institutions for certain positions and admittance to certain rites based on the religious liberty they are constitutionally afforded.

Please do so. Thanks.


Teachers can get fired.

Students can be expelled.
Election 2020

Thus far in office, Mr. Trump has acted against t[…]

Ukrainegate

@Hindsite , @blackjack21 , Just curious. How i[…]

Does make sense actually. Sexual attraction is,[…]

Undocumented Aliens and Crime

Lungs have no volition of their own, not being s[…]