LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Modern constructions like what, and whose?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I say we go with "laicite" as well. People abhor religion so much? Ok, the Church(es) will stay out of it.

But then I want the reverse as well; I want the government staying out of Church affairs.

The problem I'm seeing is that people don't want the Church to set morality, but then there are instances where when a private citizen expresses a viewpoint outside of the accepted secular party line, it seems the 'secular state' goes on a crusade.

Play fair or not at all.

It was an honor

Churches can set morality all they want. For their own members. If they want to use the coercive power of the State to enforce their morality on religious grounds, then there's a problem.

No church has a legal right, in this country, to force others to abide by their religious dogmas. Likewise the government has no power to pass laws regulating religious practice and dogma. (Unless such practice has an actual impact on public health, safety and welfare.)

If churches want to see homosexuality as a sin worthy of eternal damnation, they can go right ahead. If they want to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, they can do that too. My tax dollars don't go to them, so what do I care? They can call people names, and so can I.

edited 6th Sep '12 1:32:10 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I don't support the "French way", which is more extreme than what Americans refer to as secularism. I'd never want there to be laws that would ban people from wearing kippot, headscarves, crosses, turbans, etc.

"[T[here are instances where when a private citizen expresses a viewpoint outside of the accepted secular party line, it seems the 'secular state' goes on a crusade."

Cite please? I mean yeah, when someone expresses hatred toward homosexuals, people tend to condemn that rather than giving them a medal.

edited 6th Sep '12 1:34:28 PM by Jordan

Hodor

The thing here though, is that under the laïcité system, there wouldn't be the bans on religious garments. It's just that under Sarkozy, France is moving away from that by allowing politics and religion to interact.

edited 6th Sep '12 1:46:43 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

The article suggests that Sarkozky's alteration to the system was in introducing a more positive attitude toward the Catholic Church specifically. My impression is that the ban on garments is part of the idea that there is a strict separation between religious life and public life (which implies that there should be no hint of your religious life in your public life, so religious garments are out (although in practice, it tends to mean "religious garments are out, crosses are in").

edited 6th Sep '12 1:54:00 PM by Jordan

Hodor

Yes, but promoting one religion over another doesn't fit the definition of laïcité, and neither does a mandatory lack of religious clothing worn by citizens. Which is why I'm saying that Sarkozy's presidency is causing France to move away from laïcité.

edited 6th Sep '12 2:00:09 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Oh, I realize I misread your post as attributing the ban on headscarves etc. to Sarkozy. What is Francois Hollande's position on the issue?

Hodor

Jimmy I'm really confused at what you're trying to say, and what it has to do with homosexuality. How does the government ending its discrimination against the gay community based on religious beliefs harm society in any way?

Like that of John Rawls, to name one major philosopher whose arguments on this topic have worked their way into the intellectual groundwater.

Umpteenth time plus two...

"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones

We're not going to beat that very dead horse of the difference between hating someone and not endorsing how they live their lives.

The point is, I can see how Dan Cathy saying homosexuality is wrong would rub people the wrong way. I can see why nobody would "give him a medal", while I'm sure Dan Cathy wouldn't really care if he got said medal or not.

But I also don't think this is grounds for the government to use it's scope to penalize the guy for having an unpopular opinion. I find the fact that the same people who would've had no problem with Chick-Fil-A not getting business permits are the same ones who decry the Church trying to use the government to further its ends.

@DG - I don't find Sarkozy's posturing to be true laicite at all.

edited 6th Sep '12 2:22:58 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Well, for a good few pages before I finally said something, people were busily agreeing with one another that religious mores shouldn't have any influence on government policy. They seemed to think it was their killer argument against public religious voices on the subject. I was simply saying that their assumptions didn't seem that obvious to me.

And you're begging two questions here: that most of the religious arguments amount to what a reasonable person would call "discrimination"; and whether everything whose "harm to society" is unproven or debated must always be legal. For your question to hit home, we'd first all have to agree on the answers to those underlying questions—and we don't necessarily.

edited 6th Sep '12 2:22:52 PM by Jhimmibhob

"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones

Ok then, do you believe that homosexuality should be illegal? (or I guess I should say which things if any whose harms are unproven (not sure of a better way to phrase this category) should be illegal?)

Edit- Also, thought I should add that I definitely had a problem with the mayors who said they would personally make sure Chick-fil-a couldn't get a permit. That's really not cool. I don't have a problem with private citizens encouraging people not to patronize there because of the owner's politics/donations (although that too has problems because individual franchises might not share those politics), but it is wrong for government officials to do this in the way that they did.

edited 6th Sep '12 2:28:38 PM by Jordan

Hodor

I categorically and unequivocally oppose homosexuality being outlawed in any way. It's not the place of the Church, the government, or any other mere mortal to force someone to be morally correct, or to define what "moral correctness" even is.

It was an honor

Sorry, was addressing that toward Jhimmibhob, should have used arrows to clarify.

I know you have expressed your positions, which I don't quite agree with, but respect.

Hodor

For the umpteenth time plus two, what? I mean, you used this basic phrase two or three times, now, and it still isn't an argument.

edited 6th Sep '12 2:48:17 PM by deathpigeon

@Starship

Defining and enforcing a moral code is one of the Government's duties, hence why we have laws and prisons and so on. However it is the also the Job of the government for the code they enforce to be agreed upon by as many of it's population as possible.

edited 6th Sep '12 2:48:30 PM by LMage

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

And also to represent the minorities in some way, lest a tyranny-of-the-majority situation occur.

What's precedent ever done for us?

A. No, I do not.

B. I'm reluctant to say the state can never curb something that's arguably unharmful on moral grounds; that doesn't mean that I'm interested in limiting anything in particular ... in fact, I'd probably oppose most such measures. But that doesn't mean that the state should categorically forswear its standing to do so.

"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones

Exactly, that's why religious dogma is best kept out of Government. It tends to inspire and fester the fanaticism that leads to rash panic and black and white views, the same fanaticism that lead to Inquisition and Holocausts.

edited 6th Sep '12 2:58:23 PM by LMage

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

Thanks for replying. I see where you are coming from. I would probably have to agree that everything shouldn't categorically be legal (for example, I oppose legalizing "hard drugs"), but I'd say that the burden should generally be to prove that something should be illegal rather than having to prove that it should be legal.

Hodor

It's not just religious dogma that causes that. Any sort of ideology can do the same.

cum

By, since by it's very nature Religion operates on Faith, which allows a by-pass of logic and reason it can far more easily insight zealotry and fanaticism, most other ideological stances are grounded in facts and observable testable ideas. I'm not saying that the potential for secular Zealotry doesn't exist, just that it's less likely to come to pass.

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

Not really. People can believe in things for good reasons and bad reasons. I'm sure that, whatever your economic/political stances are, you have seen people who agree with you for shallow or fallacious reasons. That's not even getting into stuff like racist ideologies, which are completely based on falsehoods.

Fanaticism and bigotry can arise from any conflict. Although, now it seems to be much less prevalent than it was a hundred years ago, which I'd mainly attribute to a broad change in societal values.

cum

Pretty much every huge-scale violent cleansing movement over the last 70 years has been nationalist rather than religious. Several of them each dwarfed entire centuries' worth of religiously motivated catastrophes.

Come to think of it, one of the biggest ones the world's ever seen (Genghis Khan wipes out some 11% of the world's population) was just about every reason but religion — he was a huge culture geek that was actually pretty progressive on that point.

edited 6th Sep '12 8:11:29 PM by Pykrete