Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [3]

[Pettytyrant101]

My Paw installed it when I left home- he said it was to stop me spending all my money on buckie as soon as I was out the barrel door and to protect it from thieves. (What he didnt tell me was that he had set up deal with the Balrog so everytime I open my sporran it sends money back to my Paw! So obviously I rarely open it these days just in case- well thas my ecuse Im sticking to it!- your round I believe )

[Eldorion]

Nor do we Eldo, nor do we.

And you think I do !? Im as lost as a moth in Pettys wallet !

I decided the best way to try to understand CC is to try to think and talk like CC, but I'm still an amateur at this.

[CC12 35]

i'm all about that homemade lemonade kind of life

[Pettytyrant101]

Well looks like Cameron has made a fatatl mistake-I think his days as PM are nearly over.
Having caved to his back bnch ovr Europe they sense weakness, this time over the Marriage Bill aloowing homosexuals to marry.

In a letter delivered to Downing Street, 34 past and present local Conservative Party chairmen urged the PM to drop the same-sex marriage
bill.
"Your refusal to listen to reason and grassroots opinion is causing many previously loyal Conservatives to leave the party," they wrote.
Some are lost forever and many will not contemplate re-joining unless the [same-sex marriage] Bill is abandoned or the party leadership changed."

The Bill comes back to the House this week. I think it will still pass because the lib dems and the Labour benches will vote for it, but I also think we might see another Tory back bench revolt.

[CC12 35]

you know nothing petty snow

[Lancebloke]

Let them get married... just don't force the church in to having to conduct ceremonies if they dont want to.

[the truth]

If life gave you homemade lemonade, well your lemonade is really going to suck, unless life gave you sugar and water also .

[Pettytyrant101]

just don't force the church in to having to conduct ceremonies if they dont want to.- Lance


The new laws are heavily balance towards letting religous groups opt in- they are under no legal obligation to conduct same sex ceremonies- unless they want to.
I think thats a fair compromise even though I dont agree with it- I dont think religous beliefs should excuse you from the democratic laws of the land- same as I dont think they should be able to employ people yet sexually discriminate in the choice of who to employ.
If your a Satanist the law desnt give you an exemption on baby sarifces- its still illegal- drastic example, same principle however.

[halfwise]

Huh? doesn't apply. At least in America, even if you get married in church you still have to fill out the government forms, though some churches will do the paperwork on your behalf I suppose. But the government marriage is still something separate, and a church marriage is not recognized unless the forms are filled out with the government. You don't need the church at all.

So what it comes down to, is what the churches do is irrelevant to the government definition of marriage. Therefore churches should be under no requirement to marry anyone they don't want to. Whether I agree with them or not, I defend their right to define their own religious beliefs separate from the government.

Maybe in England it's different since the Anglican Church was historically a government affiliation. Don't know what the situation is now though. What exactly is the relationship these days?

[Pettytyrant101]

Whether I agree with them or not, I defend their right to define their own religious beliefs separate from the government.- Halfwise



Where do you draw the line- sacrifice? Genital mutilation? Circumcision? Gay marriage? Arranged marriage? Should a church be exempt from the laws the rest of the country abide by just because they claim a belief in an invisible super being that they say puts them beyond the law?

[halfwise]

The point is, a church marriage is not even recognized as an official marriage by the government. if you sacrifice a baby, that baby's dead both in the eyes of the church and the government, so government has a right to regulate. As far as marriage goes, the government doesn't recognize it if done by non-government institutions. The law can't apply to something that doesn't exist in its eyes.

Discrimination laws apply only to public places that must be registered as so by the government. Private clubs are not subject to discrimination laws. I guess once a church registers as a charitable organization with government tax benefits then you might argument the government can get involved, but that's a fairly circuitous application of law. Families are also registered, how deep can the government reach into private life?

[Lancebloke]

The point for me is more that marriage is a request from people outside of the church for the church to provide a service. They should be able to refuse that request. Baby sacrificing is different as the baby doesn't request to be sacrificed. Genital mutilation cannot be forced upon someone (they can do it themselves if they really believe in it).

[Mrs Figg]

the point is that the Church uses sacraments for baptism, marriage, death. they dont have a sacrament for genital mutilation or sacrifice, so they are not good examples. the priest or vicar has to decide whether he or she wants to perform the sacrament

[Pettytyrant101]

The Christian religion might not perform genital mutilations but other religions do. If you have freedom of religions and those religions are, for some reason, exempt from the laws everyone else has to follow, thne it follows genital mutilation is fine to perform same as a marriage is.
Its a part of their religion.
Imagine there had never been any Judiasm- do you think a new group starting now would, legally, be allowed to perform surgery on a new born male infants, removing a part of their penis for no medical reasons at all?
What abour arranged marriage- is that not an infringement on an individuals personal freedom of choice?
Any of these ideas, if they were starting now for the first time, would never be acceptable to most people.
Yet because they claim they get their rules from an unprovable deity who will never have to anwer for it in a Court of Law we just let them carry on doing it, even when in all other parts of society these things would be illegal.

[Lancebloke]

You are talking mainly about things being forced on people rather than the people requesting the service from the church/whatever.

The church should be able to deny a request for that service based on its beliefs the same as a bank can deny lending based on its own risk appetite.

[Pettytyrant101]

So a religion should be able to practise thngs, against a persons will, and be exempt from the law in doing so.
And when it deals with adults requesting a servcice, it should be allowed to pick which laws it exempts itself from?
That seems to be what that amounts to Lance.
If they dont like a law, they can exempt themselves from it.
How is that part of a democracy?

In your example of the bank there is a clear discernible reason for the decision which, if contested legally, they can answer to and priovide evidence for their decision- and in refusing the person they are not breaking a law.
The Church is breaking a law when it discriminates against women, or homosexuals or when it mutilates an infant, if it were treated like every other single thing in society it would be at least.
And all they have in their defence is an unprovable belief its what their diety wants them to do.

[Lancebloke]

No... I specifically said where things are forced, they should not he allowed. And a bank could give reasons as to why its risk appetite is such, but doesn't mean everyone will agree. Could be seen a been discriminatory against high risk people.

arguably they need the service more than people need to get married.

[Pettytyrant101]

Could be seen a been discriminatory against high risk people.- Lance

Yes but if it was felt to be discimintaory that can be tested in a Court of Law and a legal decision made if necessary.
Relgion just gets a free bypass of court and law. Their claims cannot be tested and apparently not countermanded either. (And was a very different case when the boot was on the other foot and the Catholic Church ruled supreme and dictated laws to entire countries)

[Lancebloke]

They can be tested against their own beliefs. There is no law as to what a bank's risk appetite should be, it could only be tested against it's own business model.... which is essentially what 'no gay marriage' is for a church that doesn't allow it.

As much as I don't agree with organised religion in general, I don't think they should be told that they have to marry homosexuals the same as a bank shouldn't be told that it has to lend against it's own morals and values.

The same as a sports bar shouldn't be told it needs to change it's decor to cater for people tat hate sport. Or an airshow should be told to include trains to cater for train enthusiasts.

I don't think religion should be outside of common law (murder, violence etc) but it shouldn't have the morals on values of somebody else forced upon it. People should go to their local registry office or arrange to be married somewhere else. It's not like there are not options!!

[Pettytyrant101]

Weird I could have sworn I had replied to this ages ago!

Ah well I shall try again-

I don't think religion should be outside of common law - Lance

But it already is. It is outside equality laws, it is outside laws preventing discrimination against homosexuals. The Church isnt voluntary- they are an employer, paying wages.
What they are asking for is to be exempt from the laws which bind ever other subject, every other instituition and every business.
And they have no grounds for doing so other than we believe we should.
We wouldnt tell the KKK they can have black slaves again just because they believe they should.
It seems mad to me the way we treat religion as if its outside of all of ordinary life.

[Lancebloke]

No.. because slaves would indicate people being forced. You need to stop comparing those things.

Are there any other employers where core beliefs are anti-homosexual? Or has it just been more going along with the mood of the public.

There is still plenty of discrimination within other areas... tattoos, dress code etc. Nobody is making my employer have to keep employing me if I turn up in shorts every day against dress code. Why?

And swimming pools and gyms are still allowed gender based sessions. Why? Nobody questions that and makes them let me in.

[Pettytyrant101]

Because marriage is a also a legaly binding social item- mixed gender swimming is not.

And it is fair to comapre things against people will- its against the will of homosexuals who believe in god for the church not to marry them. Its against the will of women who want to become Priests or Pope that their gender renders them ineligible for the top jobs in the company.
Its most certainly not with the concent of the infants when they are circumsissed or when females have their genitals mutilated.
It is mostly against people will when marriages are arranged for them.
And they are already doing all these things against peoples will.

Religion cannot have it both ways. It cannot both claim to be an important social institution- given seats in the House of Lords- their debates televised, their speeches published and yet get to stay out of all the rules the rest of society has agreed to live by.

[Mrs Figg]

I thought religion started the rules we all live by?

[Pettytyrant101]

No people- some of it they said came from a lot of Gods and Godesses because it motivated people a lot better than just trying telling them to do it.

[Lancebloke]

Well... I dont agree with forced marriage and slavery so I am not going to argue with you there.

I dont see them as comparable. Forcing is different to denying. By making churches have to marry people then you are in fact forcing them.

Homosexuals can go elsewhere to get married. A female priest can start her own church and become pope of that.