Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Has the government ever stepped in an enforced any ant-discrimination law?
Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?
- Thread starter Goldtop
- Start date
Has the government ever stepped in an enforced any ant-discrimination law?
I suppose I should have been more specific in that post, It's generated a lot response.
Depends on whether they can afford it, is my experience. Some offer the bare minimum just to meet mandatory requirements, and I mean absolutely worthless coverage.
Shouldn't they be free from supporting an abortion?
It's not required to be over country. The tenets of the faith are supposed to have been learned before the confirmation ceremony, which generally takes place between 6 and 16 years of age. American-born citizens, as I have noted, are not required to take a citizenship oath, but immigrants are. They, too, are expected to learn the laws of their new country before taking that oath, and if there is a conflict, they, too, are expected to choose.
Generally, they do not. Occasionally, they do. You still have to choose.
I never said that. I said if their faith forbids them upholding the constitution, they are not forced to seek political office.
In fact, I do believe that a true Christian cannot in clear conscience serve on the US government, because it's wholly in the thrall of Mammon, which they know from living in the society. So, if they're going to be conscientious administrators of a capitalist system, they must already have chosen to be not-so-conscientious Christians. If you do not believe this, that's fine, but it is not I who invented the philosophical principles of Christianity.)
Yet Trump's executive order changes that, which is why we're arguing the point now.
Sorry, I can't equate abortion with mopping a floo
If it has religion tied to the conviction, is it any less valid? Is your morality any less valid because you're not religious?
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Personally, I would look for a company that offered great benefits to it's employees.
So would I.
Obviously that are drastically different. However that is the absurdity of religion (beliefs) can be literally anything and as I said slap RELIGION on it and suddenly it's untouchable
Currently, in Australia, a Royal Commission (big deal investigation) handed in its report on Child Abuse in Institutions
Well over 100 recommendations. Two picked up by the TV news - celebacy should be voluntry - if someone cofesses to abusing a child report it to the authorities
Guess what?
Fight back from a bishop - oh if I break the sanctuary of the confessional I will be excommunicated from the church - will have to get a ruling on this from the pope
So here we have a clown who is more concerned (scared) of missing out on his ticket to heaven than being concerned about a child abuser running around loose
Twisted thought processes don't even begin to cover such a situation
Oh he was bothered by the problem as he explained to the reporters
Once he and the confessed person were outside of the confessional box he would talk to the person to encourage him to turn himself in (but he would not report him no no)
Having not thought about confessions for sometime, how about this new take from me
The bad guy goes into the box
Cofesses
Is forgiven
Comes out clean from sin (I can't believe I am typing this stupidity but going on with my idea)
So now the priest and the clean child molester are out of the box
The priest is constrained by his belief if he tattletales he looses his chance to sit on clouds with a good chance he has to go and sit in the naughty fire
The child molester is clean
Can the priest box clever and report the clean child molester as a possible??? and wink to the authorities to keep a eye on him?
No confession broken (remember with the priest twisted thought process everything past has been wiped clean by god so that should be good enough)
It's a sort of public service by god to save money being spent on the prison system
So the authorities keep a eye on the clean molester until he becomes dirty
After he does the authorities can look into his past law breaking activity and punish him for those (not his sins remember the priest has cleared that white board)
Oh my god it's coffee time and Huey Dewey and Louie are still asleep
As I said, the AMA can strike them off, after they have committed an infraction; it can't predict that they will or bar them because they might.
I'm not a Catholic so I can't comment on the sanctity of the confessional. You and I would deal with the matter in our own way, of course.
Just on the scrolling news across the TV screen (local) churches reject key commission recommendations
Didn't say which one's but my educated guess would be those which would diminish and put church beliefs below those of secular law
Best way to deal with that is to obtain evidence that a church person has knowledge of a crime
Has not reported such
Convict them of the crime of not reporting
Put them in jail
Could you run a sting operation on a confessions box?
Sure hope you could. And it would not be entrapment if anyone is thinking along that path
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What do you mean? Of course they have.
They stepped in to the schools with the National Guard to ensure the rights of black students were upheld in 1957.
They enforce the Human Rights codes, guaranteeing the freedom from discrimination by race gender, creed, disability etc.
Do you think that came about naturally?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That's a truism. Nothing can be prevented prior to it occurring. How is that a compelling argument?
Absolutely! And if they want to avoid them in their personal life, great. If they want to put up a big banner saying ABORTION IS BAD that's fine.
But they are not allowed to discriminate against their employees - because the employee's rights trump the employer's (as they should.) And that includes not being able to direct that their employment benefits go towards such discrimination.
Agreed.
I took a quick look at the Catholic confirmation ceremony. You have to say that you believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. That's it. Given that the Constitution guarantees that the government will not respect any form of religion, nor pass laws particular to one, doesn't seem to be any conflict there.
That is quite literally true, just as they are not forced to maintain their beliefs if it conflicts with a job they want. 99.999% of the time, it does not. There are Christians who are tax collectors, porn actors, tailors and astronauts.
Well, in that case _any_ moral person can't serve in the US government, since the original Constitution protects slavery. But most people figure that that issue has been dealt with, even though the original text is still there.
Nor do you appear to understand the philosophical principles of Christianity. Which is fine; as an atheist, there's no reason for you to do so.
Nope. But it's like the problem of atheist serial killers. The problems caused by atheists like Jeffery Dahmer, Pol Pot and Josef Stalin are definitely real, and some people have argued that it's because atheists have no core morality. But it would be a mistake (IMO) to assume that therefore there is some sort of incompatibility between atheism and morality. It would be wiser to conclude that those _people_ are mass murderers.
Of course. And for Dahmer's victims, atheism is a murderous, amoral philosophy, and the odds of it affecting them are 100%. But again, it would be a mistake (IMO) to extend that argument too far.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That's a faulty analogy.
In your example above, you state the assumption being made (argued by others) to connect cause and effect.
But for the the cases in question - where someone refused service - it is accused that has explicitly said because it's against my religion.
Last edited:
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
1957? Anything in the last couple decades?
Minor
Fairly recent
Sent a public servant to jail for discrimination
Wouldn't issue a legal marriage certificate
I'm sure there are many many other cases but that one made it to the backwater news in Australia I'm guessing because it was ONLY IN AMERICA stupid