Current Events > Should religion alone really be deemed valid for outlawing something,

(+) Yeah! (+)

When arguably no one really avoids picking and choosing rules for themselves?

Yeah only case I feel this happens is LGBTQ+ matters.

Just when people insist their religious standing alone is a valid reason they set themselves up as having a no nonsense approach to the rules despite no one really being perfect enough to shun any regular vices. And as a Christian, if we don't follow our own religion rules to a T, why should people around us be forced too.

Plus:
1. Arguably falls into false idol and making one out to be superior to God if granting ourselves religious immunity.

2. And yeah if one doesn't follow the religious rules to a T while claiming religion is the reason to oppose LGBTQ+ rights, well hypocrisy and lying means such claims are worthless.

I don't know. If you asked a person why they oppose say murder or rape for example, does anyone ever just opposes those cause the Bible does?

Only for the correct religion

Nope. If there is no logical reason to ban something, and it's all just from some 2 to 5 thousand year old rules, then you don't deserve to ban shit. Religion should have no practical power in our world.

No lmao

Separation of Chruch and State should be a default world wide.

The first amendment states we cant make laws for or against religion soo no

banning abortion for one religion is against the first amendment

Zikten posted...

Nope. If there is no logical reason to ban something, and it's all just from some 2 to 5 thousand year old rules, then you don't deserve to ban shit. Religion should have no practical power in our world.

Yep and going beyond debate and vote, I just look at cases like how some Christians refuse to cater a gay wedding.

I just don't see them doing so even if the customer is clearly guilty of any other things deemed taboo (Like having had a divorce).

But if say any of these Christians went to a baker for their own wedding and the baker being Hindu refused to cater events where meat is being served, would they show the same admiration they do for themselves? Not sure.

Even if they don't protest, they would make fun of the baker who has disdain for meat eaters.

Fuck religion having such power over people.

Think for yourselves guys.

Absolutely not. People's "personal religious beliefs" should NEVER matter when it comes to them being in a government position, where it affects someone's health...well, for ANY reason, at all.

Mostly because it's bullshit. Religious beliefs can be whatever people say they are, so it opens the door for them to be "against" any and everything. It's not even a slippery slope, but a lube-coated slide into the abyss.

I think that everyone should be free to believe in any religion, or none at all. I don't have the edgelord smug disdain for people of faith that you often see. But I do believe religion should be kept out of politics and policy.

No religious symbolism, oaths, or any other trappings of faith in government.

No religious justification for legislation.

ai123 posted...

I don't have the edgelord smug disdain for people of faith that you often see. But I do believe religion should be kept out of politics and policy.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Mostly because it's bullshit. Religious beliefs can be whatever people say they are, so it opens the door for them to be "against" any and everything. It's not even a slippery slope, but a lube-coated slide into the abyss.

While claiming such would happen if gay marriages for example were 100% legal. Plus the false equivalent with non-consentual situations.

And it also infers there to be no actual problem with gay marriage (which is true at least), so the attempt at rejection is false equivalency.

Baha05 posted...

Separation of Chruch and State should be a default world wide.

This

Of course not.

And while its true that nearly all of these bigoted GOP moral busybodies are hypocrites, calling out their hypocrisy is just an entertainment, not a real argument.

I.e., even if we found someone who actually abides by all of the prohibitions in Leviticus, that person would not thereby gain any moral standing to inflict that nonsense on the rest of us.

So their hypocrisy is pure entertainment. Keep those stories coming of the anti-gay megachurch pastors snorting coke off the abs (or asses) of rent boys.

Both because we are reasonable beings that can develop morality without an old book... and because our Constitution (in the United States) specifically prohibits religious laws...

No, religion should NEVER be used as a sole reason for any laws or prohibitions.

EPR-radar posted...

I.e., even if we found someone who actually abides by all of the prohibitions in Leviticus, that person would not thereby gain any moral standing to inflict that nonsense on the rest of us.

I don't know. If there was one or even some who had that discipline, I'd argue they would see the wisdom in not using religion for power.

At least I'd hope so.

Obviously not. That forces everyone else to have to adhere to those specific religious beliefs.

Which doesn't only negatively impact atheists, Judaism believes in a right to abortion and Christo-fascist red states are infringing upon that belief.

And even in the name of doing good things religion is superfluous as anything good you can justify with religion you can justify without out it.

Antiyonder posted...

I don't know. If there was one or even some who had that discipline, I'd argue they would see the wisdom in not using religion for power.

At least I'd hope so.

That's not the way I'd bet. Anyone that would put themselves through all that misery would almost certainly want everyone else to be just as miserable.

After all, most of the abominations in Leviticus are things that no sane person would see as such.

"Should religion alone really be deemed valid"

Nope.

It should also be mentioned that those who think their religious beliefs should be respected and adhered to are the ones least likely to respect the beliefs of others. It's just thinly-veiled elitism.

Antiyonder posted...

I don't know. If you asked a person why they oppose say murder or rape for example, does anyone ever just opposes those cause the Bible does?

Lol

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

It should also be mentioned that those who think their religious beliefs should be respected and adhered to are the ones least likely to respect the beliefs of others. It's just thinly-veiled elitism.

That and insinuating/claiming that one's own religious status gives them special rights (which against they complain about the LGBTQ+ community supposedly doing so), is dangerously up there with celebrating false idol or professing to be God's equal.

So basically another violation from the people claiming moral high ground.

EPR-radar posted...

Of course not.

And while its true that nearly all of these bigoted GOP moral busybodies are hypocrites, calling out their hypocrisy is just an entertainment, not a real argument.

So their hypocrisy is pure entertainment. Keep those stories coming of the anti-gay megachurch pastors snorting coke off the abs (or asses) of rent boys.

Yeah just I don't know. I was told this is inhumane/uncivil on grounds of demanding a purity test, but I wonder why votes determining LGBTQ+ rights can't morally demand Anti-Voters to prove they abide by their moral code religious or no.

They'd still get to voice objection even if the result is proven that they are immoral/dishonest.

And I feel if one professes to be attempting a ban for the good of God and kids everywhere, one would be willing to deal with an inconvenience to do so. Basically the political/adult equivalent of a kid doing extra chores for money beyond their usual allowance VS just getting what he/she/they want by demanding/begging/asking.

Whereas if a person isn't willing to go for a purity test, it would mean that their views aren't all that important. Thus invalid and by association proving their concern is insincere.

Antiyonder posted...

And I feel if one professes to be attempting a ban for the good of God and kids everywhere, one would be willing to deal with an inconvenience to do so. Basically the political/adult equivalent of a kid doing extra chores for money beyond their usual allowance VS just getting what he/she/they want by demanding/begging/asking.
association proving their concern is insincere.

There's a basic fallacy here. An anti-gay bigot is not entitled to inflict their views on other people no matter how they do on their own purity test. It's entertaining as hell in the 99.999+% of the time that they fail their purity test, but some bigot who actually passes the purity test is still just a bigot, and still doesn't get to tell me how to live.

Religion and its cultists should have zero say in how our rules and laws are made and enforced. Yes, the two may not be mutually exclusive, but banning this and that just because your brand of koolaid drinkers doesn't like thing isn't a valid reason to deny it to the rest of us who want nothing to do with aforementioned cult.

DarkDoc posted...

Fuck religion having such power over people.

Think for yourselves guys.

i'm tired, most people are tired, in body and mind

EPR-radar posted...

There's a basic fallacy here. An anti-gay bigot is not entitled to inflict their views on other people no matter how they do on their own purity test.

I mean I think that would be the way to go because I doubt it's likely that any would pass at all. Especially agreeing to it happening unannounced so as to prevent a chance for deceit.

For one thing yeah if they claim all rules should be followed, no exception, then even the most miniscule offense can and should be used against them.

While some might arrogantly agree to such and failing, some would no doubt refuse (cause the only importance to them is not admitting they wasted their time with opposition), thus they can submit a vote to speak their mind, but be rejected.

Overall, even if anyone passed. It would be so very little that there aren't enough legit votes to count.

And as an aside I only centered this around religion cause it's the most frequently used argument and cause many take religious claims as automatically sincere (Well if he says it's for God, it must be true).

But such hypothetical voting would demand coming up with a non-hypcritical argument as well. Besides the argument to be made that such isn't unnatural, that stance still fails if one embraces many modern luxuries.

Or the slippery slope argument. If you believe that LGBTQ+ couples shouldn't display public affection, but you don't advocate other such courtesies like banning public distribution and consumption of meat, then the vote is disqualified.

And yeah last thread I made on the matter had detractors thinking it inhumane, but then I think major opposition for basic human rights without a single, sincere reason is the height of inhumanity.

EPR-radar posted...

There's a basic fallacy here. An anti-gay bigot is not entitled to inflict their views on other people no matter how they do on their own purity test. It's entertaining as hell in the 99.999+% of the time that they fail their purity test, but some bigot who actually passes the purity test is still just a bigot, and still doesn't get to tell me how to live.

Exactly.

A lot of people let this binary "both sides" thinking infect their reasoning ability, or they find it a useful tool to derail and evade sincere discussion.

Even if we remove all religious based laws, it's not like there aren't layers of laws and regulations that have nothing to do with religion that I don't like, or might find inconvenient, or even harmful to society. By the same token, despite not getting the morality directly from an ancient book, there's a ton of non-religious based laws that a religious person might like and want to keep in place. There's even some we'll be in total agreement over, and some we'll agree over for different reasons.

Also, one argument I see against use of proper pronoun for a non binary for example is that it makes things complicated.

But as this recent thread demonstrates:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80694217

Complications is par the course for us.

ai123 posted...

I think that everyone should be free to believe in any religion, or none at all. I don't have the edgelord smug disdain for people of faith that you often see.

Acknowledging that science and critical thinking have debunked religion isnt smug or edgy, nor does it mean you think others shouldnt be free to believe what they want.

ai123 posted...

I think that everyone should be free to believe in any religion, or none at all. I don't have the edgelord smug disdain for people of faith that you often see.

There is certainly some atheists that can be smug and edgy - sure.

Let's not confuse them with people who are atheists because they evaluated the faith claims, looked into the evidence, and found they don't hold up.

Torgo posted...

Even if we remove all religious based laws, it's not like there aren't layers of laws and regulations that have nothing to do with religion that I don't like, or might find inconvenient, or even harmful to society.

Yeah. Plenty of laws are based on good old fashioned racism rather than religion.

There is no precedent in history where banning religion ever turned out well. But yeah, go for it lol. See how that turns out.

CreekCo posted...

There is no precedent in history where banning religion ever turned out well. But yeah, go for it lol. See how that turns out.

Separation of church and state isnt banning religion. But you knew that.

Dark_Arbron posted...

Separation of church and state isnt banning religion. But you knew that.

Thats also neither the point nor the thread.

CreekCo posted...

Thats also neither the point nor the thread.

I mean if a person claims THE reason for opposition to LGBTQ+ rights and such is justified by religion, but pick and choose which rules they follow for themselves, do you really believe they come from an honest place.

Reminder that against my religious beliefs is just against my opinion wearing a bulletproof vest.

CreekCo posted...

There is no precedent in history where banning religion ever turned out well. But yeah, go for it lol. See how that turns out.

Spare us the persecution complex. People not wanting you to rule over them in a religious dictatorship is not "banning your religion".

Dark_Arbron posted...

Reminder that against my religious beliefs is just against my opinion wearing a bulletproof vest.

Like I said, even if religion isn't used, I find myself doubting that there is even the usual misguided genuine belief.

Heck I only bring up the "purity test" bit to get input on the matter and vent, but aren't there many cases where a person outspoken against the LGBTQ+ community bring up their moral beliefs and still are proven to be guilty of various crimes and such?

Besides say some coming out as sexual predators, I brought up Butch Hartman who to be specific tried during the 2010s to get funds for a family oriented streaming service called Oaxis.

Withholding until receiving fund the fact that it would be Christian oriented and not refunding anyone who donated under false pretenses.

Depends. Outlawing implies an existence of a court of law in the first place. If that court's law system was founded upon religious issue then it is what it is.

If that court's law system doesn't revolve around religion and yet someone still wants to use religious argument then that someone should be required to summon their respective god as key witness/expert.

Btw below is an actual Terms of Service from somewhere over the net. I laughed yet it's actually happening.

'Do not use any of my services if you are part of the LGBTQ+ community or support LGBTQ+ community. However, if you still use my services, your privacy & security will be treated the same as other users.'

fuck no

Well, heres a spin on this topic you may not be expecting.

Its because of religion that public schools can not legally require students to recite the pledge of allegiance in public schools. A court case called Barnette vs West Virginia in 1943 ruled that the 1st Amendment protects students in this right. Some Jehovas witnesses, which interpret the ten commandments quite literally, argued that being forced to salute the flag or recite any pledge of allegiance violated their religious beliefs, specifically the one about praying to idols. Coincidentally, their refusal to salute the Nazi flag made them targets by the Nazis as well.

So I feel like compulsory reciting of the pledge is something worth banning, really.

You've made fundamentally this same topic multiple times now. Yes, religious people are often more strict about some parts of their religions than others. What are you hoping to get out of it that you haven't yet?

@Tenlaar

You've made fundamentally this same topic multiple times now. Yes, religious people are often more strict about some parts of their religions than others. What are you hoping to get out of it that you haven't yet?

Just a simple answer as to why LGBTQ+ relationships should be banned/restricted cause of religion when those who make such demands are fine with picking and choosing themselves..

I mean if you can justify bending rules for your own benefit, bending them for other people should be a lot easier..

Especially given the lack of proof that say gay marriage will ruin civilization.

Antiyonder posted...

@Tenlaar

Just a simple answer as to why LGBTQ+ relationships should be banned/restricted cause of religion when those who make such demands are fine with picking and choosing themselves..

I mean if you can justify bending rules for your own benefit, bending them for other people should be a lot easier..

Especially given the lack of proof that say gay marriage will ruin civilization.

Here's the thing. All of the arguments made by anti-gay bigots are axiomatically dishonest and made in bad faith. It's best to dismiss them as such immediately, rather than engaging with them.

EPR-radar posted...

Here's the thing. All of the arguments made by anti-gay bigots are axiomatically dishonest and made in bad faith. It's best to dismiss them as such immediately, rather than engaging with them.

I don't know. It's like how Trump would be more of a minor annoyance if he had maybe just 5% of the country backing him up.

Besides venting it's more I ask why people who give religious detractors the benefit of the doubt without at least a bit of skepticism.

And yeah to give those not firmly in the Anti-Gay camp or at all yet a reason to think over religious claims.

CreekCo posted...

There is no precedent in history where banning religion ever turned out well. But yeah, go for it lol. See how that turns out.

We ban a lot of other things that don't turn out well so I'm willing to give it a try!

Of course not. In the US its unconstitutional and against the advice of nearly every founding father. And need I remind any fundamentalists that the original American settlers came here to flee the oppression of the Church of England

Biofighter55 posted...

The first amendment states we cant make laws for or against religion soo no

banning abortion for one religion is against the first amendment

Yeah, but unlike gay marriage, someone could theoretically argue to ban it from a secular perspective.

ProfOaksAide posted...

Of course not. In the US its unconstitutional and against the advice of nearly every founding father. And need I remind any fundamentalists that the original American settlers came here to flee the oppression of the Church of England

In some (but not all) cases, that oppression amounted to the English authorities not allowing Puritans to burn witches at the stake. Unreasonable religious zealots have always been a problem, both for the colonies and later on for the US.