Religious based sexism

[Stevil]

So you are ok with the govt making your rules for your religion?

Religion needs to fit within the confines of the law. If they are to exist and participate within a society then they must abide by the laws of that society. For example pedophilia is a criminal offense and so is knowing about a crime and not reporting it to the police.

[Sweetdeath]

I think this has become a serious matter; churches feel they are above the law.
Funny you should mention pedophilia, as victims of sexual assault by catholic preists have finally been stepping up.
The vatican has been covering up these crimes for decades.
In Ireland, finally there is a little justice. They made new laws so no criminal is protected by confessions at the catholic church.
There is even a convention for victims of sexual assault by their preist.
Churches and religion need to be changed. They are not immune to law.

[Medusa]

So you are ok with the govt making your rules for your religion?

Religion needs to fit within the confines of the law. If they are to exist and participate within a society then they must abide by the laws of that society. For example pedophilia is a criminal offense and so is knowing about a crime and not reporting it to the police.

I agree. Is it against the law to think I am better than a man?

[Sweetdeath]

^
No one gender is better than the other.   e_e

[Medusa]

^
No one gender is better than the other.   e_e

I know. It's an example. I can think it all I want...at least for now.


I don't. It's an example. Cats are better then dogs. There. Send me to jail.

The point in there somewhere?
When you start pointing and picking...someone's gonna start pointing and picking at you. And one day you too will be on the other side of the fence.

[Stevil]

I agree. Is it against the law to think I am better than a man?

Hmmm, going to jail for impure thoughts, what a great idea.

Actually, if you had been paying attention to my posts rather than simply arguing you would understand that I am against the actions and policies with regards to bigotry and sexual discrimination.

[Sweetdeath]

^
No one gender is better than the other.   e_e

I know. It's an example. I can think it all I want...at least for now.


I don't. It's an example. Cats are better then dogs. There. Send me to jail.

The point in there somewhere?
When you start pointing and picking...someone's gonna start pointing and picking at you. And one day you too will be on the other side of the fence.

What the crap are you even talking about? o_o

[Tank]

^
No one gender is better than the other.   e_e

I know. It's an example. I can think it all I want...at least for now.


I don't. It's an example. Cats are better then dogs. There. Send me to jail.

The point in there somewhere?
When you start pointing and picking...someone's gonna start pointing and picking at you. And one day you too will be on the other side of the fence.

What the crap are you even talking about? o_o

Medusa is talking about 'The tyranny of the majority', the situation that occurs when one majority group of people control society at the expense of the rest. Take Saudi Arabia for example, the vast majority of the population think homosexuality is wrong and it is illegal there. This is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the majority of the Saudi population, but I doubt you would agree with their opinion would you? So what happens when the majority of people follow an atheist code, as it was in communist China and Christians and Buddhist are intimidated, imprisoned and killed? The job of good government is to promote an environment where all world views are accommodated, up to the point where those world views impinge on the secular law of the society. So in the UK however much a Muslim man would like to follow Islamic law (the Saudi version) that has no age of consent (but the two people must be married) they can not.

I think the point Medusa is making is, 'live and let live, lest you be told how to live by others.' Society's should be tolerant of variation and protect the freedom of the individual. Sweetdeath, go to Holland for a holiday and you'll never want to leave. It the most laid-back place I have ever been to and my wife and I may retire there as we both like it so much.

[Stevil]

Medusa is talking about 'The tyranny of the majority'

Yeah, but what has that got to do with this conversation?

[Tank]

Medusa is talking about 'The tyranny of the majority'

Yeah, but what has that got to do with this conversation?

When does society have the right to overrule the desires of the individual? That's the question I think is being discussed here. In the UK secular law has been shown to override Catholic homophobia in the case of the Bed-and-breakfast provider who would not allow two gay men to stay in the same room. They sued and won. However, if a group of individuals wish to organise themselves in a way that some outside that group would call sexist, what right does each group have? Should the group prevail or the outsiders prevail? Suppose the minority group wished to profess their lack of belief in god, while the majority of people in society felt this was wrong and in-fact seriously jepadised the wellfare of society. Who would be right then? The minority of atheists or the majority of theists? In Sweden the vast majority of the population are atheists, but you don't see them oppressing theists do you?

So if a group of adults get together and wish to govern themselves where does society have the right to intervene if the majority in society disagree with the minority. That's really the question here and I'm not sure there is an answer yet.

[Sweetdeath]

All I care about is sexism. It shouldn't exist and sucks that it does.

What rights do women or men have when sexism still exists and opresses?

[Tank]

All I care about is sexism. It shouldn't exist and sucks that it does.

I agree 100%.

What rights do women or men have when sexism still exists and opresses?

Not as many as they should. But the problem is that some people have been brought up and indoctrinated in particular ways of thinking that you consider wrong but they consider right. The issue is how to determine what is right, what is wrong and how to change the minds of those one considers to be doing wrong. Legislation is a brutal and very un-subtle tool and it's use can alienate people. They can feel disenfranchised from society and that can make things a lot worse. So I agree with the principle that religious sexism is wrong, but personally I'd rather persuade the religious person that their world view is wrong than legislate against it, in their own environment. You can almost always force somebody to do what you want but that is wrong in itself.

[Stevil]

So if a group of adults get together and wish to govern themselves where does society have the right to intervene if the majority in society disagree with the minority. That's really the question here and I'm not sure there is an answer yet.

Its about understanding the place of government within society and also the place of organisations within society governed by a government.

Apart from providing infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals etc, a governing body is required to set our rules of co-existence.
With a much more global aspect to the world our governements now need to represent a multi cultural, multi religious, multi racial society. There job is to represent the people and to provide a means where by a society can function effectively.

It is not a governments place to define a moral society, but merely a functioning society.

A society where people can refuse to hire or provide services to people based on discrimination e.g. gender, race, skin colour, religion, culture, class etc simply promotes conflict and oppression. To reduce oppression there are certain rights which must be afforded as a birth right to a human. these can be classified as human rights. The right to be treated fairly and as an equal regardless of gender, race, skin clour, religion, culture, class etc is one of those human rights. Government must punish people who look to violate this human right.

[Sweetdeath]

I understand what you mean, Tank. Break the chain and stuff.
It's true, ganging up on the religious circle itself won't help, but damn it, they frustrate me.

[Tank]

So if a group of adults get together and wish to govern themselves where does society have the right to intervene if the majority in society disagree with the minority. That's really the question here and I'm not sure there is an answer yet.

Its about understanding the place of government within society and also the place of organisations within society governed by a government.

Apart from providing infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals etc, a governing body is required to set our rules of co-existence.
With a much more global aspect to the world our governements now need to represent a multi cultural, multi religious, multi racial society. There job is to represent the people and to provide a means where by a society can function effectively.

It is not a governments place to define a moral society, but merely a functioning society.

A society where people can refuse to hire or provide services to people based on discrimination e.g. gender, race, skin colour, religion, culture, class etc simply promotes conflict and oppression. To reduce oppression there are certain rights which must be afforded as a birth right to a human. these can be classified as human rights. The right to be treated fairly and as an equal regardless of gender, race, skin clour, religion, culture, class etc is one of those human rights. Government must punish people who look to violate this human right.

Spot on. So you see no differentiation to culpability under the secular law should be made because of religious affiliation?