|
Madison bans discrimination against atheists
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-05-03 22:04:02
So basically people just need to shut up? I can't say I disagree with that. If only banning discrimination on a social issue would do just that. All it ever does is make the voices louder and more obnoxious.
[+]
By Kaerin 2015-05-03 22:22:24
I like how passing laws to protect Christians and white people is viewed as wrong because they're the majority and stupid people think they cant be discriminated against. But ***like this is OK. Where the hell is my naawp!?
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3995
By Odin.Godofgods 2015-05-03 23:14:31
I like how passing laws to protect Christians and white people is viewed as wrong because they're the majority and stupid people think they cant be discriminated against. But ***like this is OK. Where the hell is my naawp!?
Thats because as of late, those groups have been trying to force there religious views onto others through law. The only thing this says is that a group cant be discriminated against. Thats two drastically different things.
By Kaerin 2015-05-04 00:24:08
I like how passing laws to protect Christians and white people is viewed as wrong because they're the majority and stupid people think they cant be discriminated against. But ***like this is OK. Where the hell is my naawp!?
Thats because as of late, those groups have been trying to force there religious views onto others through law. The only thing this says is that a group cant be discriminated against. Thats two drastically different things.
You keep talking like that and I'm going have the naawp come after you for hate speech.
[+]
Bismarck.Magnuss
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2015-05-04 00:53:38
So basically people just need to shut up? I can't say I disagree with that. If only banning discrimination on a social issue would do just that. All it ever does is make the voices louder and more obnoxious. In theory, it could work. However, after being in the trenches for so long (18 years), I've realized that "spreading the message of god" is essentially indoctrination, which causes people to seem obnoxious about their views. In reality, many of them are doing exactly as they're told. The problem lies with misinterpretation, I fear. The bible mentions homosexuality like twice, and both times it's more frowned upon than a full-blown sin. Yet there's so much in there about stoning women who don't obey their men and apparently eating shrimp in some context is some sort of sin as well. Yet I don't see stones being thrown every time someone has a cocktail. So why all the hullaballoo over homosexuality? Some people find it icky and don't want to think about it. Others... repression is the word that comes to mind. These views are then absorbed into a specific society that one identifies with and blammo! It becomes a full-on sin. I'm using homosexuality as an example, of course.
Meanwhile, we have people who are adamantly being forced to hear their beliefs through their loud opinions, so only naturally does the other side come up with a few crazies of their own to combat this. I'm not saying that religious zealots begat atheist extremists, but it didn't exactly help. Anger only gives birth to more anger. Does anyone really think that someone's mind can be changed because they get yelled at more?
"What you're doing is a sin."
"Pssssh. Yeah right."
"WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS A SIN!!!"
"Well, when you put it that way, I do believe you're right!"
Then again, there's a part of mankind where some people like to go against the grain. For funzies. Take Friedrich Nietzsche, for example. The man wrote "God is Dead" just to see what kind of reaction he could get out of people. In the news earlier today, we had three people shot because a bunch of bold idiots decided to hold a Prophet Muhammed drawing contest knowing full well it would incur the wrath of Muslim terrorists. Why? Because they like to stir the pot. We got those people in the Atheist clan; people whose sole plan in life is to make the religious (Christians especially) get their panties in a bunch. And boy golly, does it work!
Can we silence those extremists on either side? Probably never. Do they make the rest of us look bad? You betcher *** it does. Case in point, the rancor from some of you aimed at the "liberal douchebags" who don't believe in an omnipotent being in this very thread. Not all Christians hate Atheists. Not all Atheists like to make a mockery out of those who believe in a god. Yet, the loudspoken will always paint us out to be worse than we are, and the division continues. The more we fight back, the more we fan the flames.
Valefor.Endoq
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6906
By Valefor.Endoq 2015-05-04 01:06:14
I have never heard of discrimination against atheist... what exactly is discrimination against atheist?
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-05-04 01:07:55
In theory, it could work. However, after being in the trenches for so long (18 years), I've realized that "spreading the message of god" is essentially indoctrination, which causes people to seem obnoxious about their views. In reality, many of them are doing exactly as they're told. The problem lies with misinterpretation, I fear. The bible mentions homosexuality like twice, and both times it's more frowned upon than a full-blown sin. Yet there's so much in there about stoning women who don't obey their men and apparently eating shrimp in some context is some sort of sin as well. Yet I don't see stones being thrown every time someone has a cocktail. So why all the hullaballoo over homosexuality? Some people find it icky and don't want to think about it. Others... repression is the word that comes to mind. These views are then absorbed into a specific society that one identifies with and blammo! It becomes a full-on sin. I'm using homosexuality as an example, of course.
Far be it from me to defend Christian extremists, but just for clarification, shrimp being "unclean" and stoning as a punishment are both examples from Mosaic Law. According to Christian doctrine, that was fulfilled and replaced by a higher law, and thus is no longer observed. Any mention of homosexual sin, be it misinterpreted or not, is not applicable in the same manner.
Bismarck.Magnuss
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2015-05-04 01:11:50
In theory, it could work. However, after being in the trenches for so long (18 years), I've realized that "spreading the message of god" is essentially indoctrination, which causes people to seem obnoxious about their views. In reality, many of them are doing exactly as they're told. The problem lies with misinterpretation, I fear. The bible mentions homosexuality like twice, and both times it's more frowned upon than a full-blown sin. Yet there's so much in there about stoning women who don't obey their men and apparently eating shrimp in some context is some sort of sin as well. Yet I don't see stones being thrown every time someone has a cocktail. So why all the hullaballoo over homosexuality? Some people find it icky and don't want to think about it. Others... repression is the word that comes to mind. These views are then absorbed into a specific society that one identifies with and blammo! It becomes a full-on sin. I'm using homosexuality as an example, of course.
Far be it from me to defend Christian extremists, but just for clarification, shrimp being "unclean" and stoning as a punishment are both examples from Mosaic Law. According to Christian doctrine, that was fulfilled and replaced by a higher law, and thus is no longer observed. Any mention of homosexual sin, be it misinterpreted or not, is not applicable in the same manner.
Admittedly, I vaguely remember this stuff, but felt too lazy to research it. There are some messed up laws in there, but... meh. It's bedtime.
Valefor.Endoq
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6906
By Valefor.Endoq 2015-05-04 01:22:48
In theory, it could work. However, after being in the trenches for so long (18 years), I've realized that "spreading the message of god" is essentially indoctrination, which causes people to seem obnoxious about their views. In reality, many of them are doing exactly as they're told. The problem lies with misinterpretation, I fear. The bible mentions homosexuality like twice, and both times it's more frowned upon than a full-blown sin. Yet there's so much in there about stoning women who don't obey their men and apparently eating shrimp in some context is some sort of sin as well. Yet I don't see stones being thrown every time someone has a cocktail. So why all the hullaballoo over homosexuality? Some people find it icky and don't want to think about it. Others... repression is the word that comes to mind. These views are then absorbed into a specific society that one identifies with and blammo! It becomes a full-on sin. I'm using homosexuality as an example, of course.
Far be it from me to defend Christian extremists, but just for clarification, shrimp being "unclean" and stoning as a punishment are both examples from Mosaic Law. According to Christian doctrine, that was fulfilled and replaced by a higher law, and thus is no longer observed. Any mention of homosexual sin, be it misinterpreted or not, is not applicable in the same manner. The law is fulfilled by faith, not replaced. The book of Romans explains this much clearer than I ever could. I would suggest reading all 16 chapters.... It happens to be the book I have been reading the last few days...
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-05-04 01:28:42
The law is fulfilled by faith, not replaced. The book of Romans explains this much clearer than I ever could. I would suggest reading all 16 chapters.... It happens to be the book I have been reading the last few days...
Uh, I've read it all numerous times. I don't want to get into a battle of semantics. It has essentially been replaced because it is no longer expected to be followed. Seems pretty clear to me.
[+]
Valefor.Endoq
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6906
By Valefor.Endoq 2015-05-04 01:31:29
The law is fulfilled by faith, not replaced. The book of Romans explains this much clearer than I ever could. I would suggest reading all 16 chapters.... It happens to be the book I have been reading the last few days...
Uh, I've read it all numerous times. I don't want to get into a battle of semantics. It has essentially been replaced because it is no longer expected to be followed. Seems pretty clear to me. that was basically my understanding as well...
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-05-04 03:12:35
I have never heard of discrimination against atheist... what exactly is discrimination against atheist? One example: In 7 states atheists cannot hold public office. Quote: The constitutions of these seven US states ban atheists from holding public office:
Arkansas:
Article 19, Section 1
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[90]
Maryland:
Article 37
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."[91]
Mississippi:
Article 14, Section 265
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[92]
North Carolina:
Article 6, Section 8
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."[93]
South Carolina:
Article 17, Section 4
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[94]
Tennessee:
Article 9, Section 2
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[95]
Texas:
Article 1, Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[96]
article on why they are unconstitutional but still in state constitutions
Cerberus.Tikal
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4945
By Cerberus.Tikal 2015-05-04 03:38:02
I have never heard of discrimination against atheist... what exactly is discrimination against atheist? Historically or modern? America or world-wide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
Cliff notes, for you.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2015-05-04 08:34:55
I like how passing laws to protect Christians and white people is viewed as wrong because they're the majority and stupid people think they cant be discriminated against. But ***like this is OK. Where the hell is my naawp!? People didn't have a problem with the Religious freedom act because it protected a certain group... They had a problem with it because it basically gave one group carte blanche to descriminate freely against another group. Once you get rid of that part no one has a problem with it.
There were already laws in place protecting "christian and white people" anyways.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-05-04 09:03:33
There were already laws in place protecting "christian and white people" anyways.
But if you are serious, name the law that protects white people only.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-05-04 09:10:49
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »When your idea of oppression is two gay guys kissing or being unable to shove God up everyones orafice, you've ***the bed. Entirely a false characterization of said complaint btw.
Seraph.Ramyrez
サーバ: Seraph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1918
By Seraph.Ramyrez 2015-05-04 09:29:22
I sometimes wonder what would happen if we all just agreed that we're all different, and that's okay. That we don't have to have the same theological or lifestyle beliefs (or lack thereof) to get along and live side-by-side; we just have to have a little bit of tolerance for things we may personally find distasteful but don't practice ourselves. It's as easy as "someone else practicing their own lifestyle doesn't invalidate yours".
Yet...I doubt it's going to happen in the lifetimes of anyone presently reading this forum.
Makes me sad.
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-05-04 09:36:18
Then again, there's a part of mankind where some people like to go against the grain. For funzies. Take Friedrich Nietzsche, for example. The man wrote "God is Dead" just to see what kind of reaction he could get out of people.
Granted it's been over a decade since I read Nietzsche but from what I remember of The Gay Science, it is really taken out of context when discussed. It is more discussing the morality of Christians and non-christians, discussing where morals would come from if God was/is dead.
Quote: God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
It's a philosophical question/debate rather than an absolute statement.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-05-04 09:40:40
Meanwhile, vocal Christians continue to endear themselves to everyone. I really wonder what personal experience you had that set you against the faith my friend.
I'm ready to be disappointed.
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2015-05-04 09:50:48
When I was but a wee lad, Christianity touched me in a bad place.
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-05-04 10:00:24
name the law that protects white people only I'm curious about this as well.
Currently there are no laws protecting whites from be targeting as being nothing more than white.
Maybe in about 30-40 years when white becomes the minority then there might be some, but right now I couldn't find any.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-05-04 10:04:28
Maybe in about 30-40 years when white becomes the minority then there might be some, but right now I couldn't find any. Even then, unless there are hate crimes associated with X race on white people, and lots of it, where they have no choice but to classify it as a hate crime (it currently is not considered a hate crime if a black person kills a white person based on the color of their skin), then there will be laws doing just that.
Expect it in the next century.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-05-04 10:06:40
People didn't have a problem with the Religious freedom act because it protected a certain group... They had a problem with it because it basically gave one group carte blanche to descriminate freely against another group. Once you get rid of that part no one has a problem with it.
There were already laws in place protecting "christian and white people" anyways.
Plenty do. We already have the only religious freedom law that ever needed to exist, and they further strengthened it with the civil rights act. It's a complete waste of legislative time.
Meanwhile, vocal Christians continue to endear themselves to everyone. I really wonder what personal experience you had that set you against the faith my friend.
I'm ready to be disappointed.
The same could be said for anything. What personal experience set you so against equality?
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-05-04 10:14:50
What personal experience set you so against equality? What makes you think he is against equality? Because it fits well in your counterargument?
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-05-04 10:17:58
What personal experience set you so against equality? What makes you think he is against equality? Because it fits well in your counterargument?
It's a rhetorical question designed to demonstrate the point that someone can be in support of something without being against something else. He doesn't need a white knight, bubba.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-05-04 10:23:34
What personal experience set you so against equality? What makes you think he is against equality? Because it fits well in your counterargument?
It's a rhetorical question designed to demonstrate the point that someone can be in support of something without being against something else. He doesn't need a white knight, bubba. Doesn't matter if it's a rhetorical question or not, because you seem so gung-ho on demeaning him anyway, that you are willing to project most anything on him. Which is your style of argumentative response.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-05-04 10:24:55
What personal experience set you so against equality? What makes you think he is against equality? Because it fits well in your counterargument?
It's a rhetorical question designed to demonstrate the point that someone can be in support of something without being against something else. He doesn't need a white knight, bubba. Doesn't matter if it's a rhetorical question or not, because you seem so gung-ho on demeaning him anyway, that you are willing to project most anything on him. Which is your style of argumentative response.
Man, you have a twisted world view...
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-05-04 10:27:48
What personal experience set you so against equality? What makes you think he is against equality? Because it fits well in your counterargument?
It's a rhetorical question designed to demonstrate the point that someone can be in support of something without being against something else. He doesn't need a white knight, bubba. Doesn't matter if it's a rhetorical question or not, because you seem so gung-ho on demeaning him anyway, that you are willing to project most anything on him. Which is your style of argumentative response.
Man, you have a twisted world view... Wait, are you denying anything I said? If so, what part?
That you are gung-ho on demeaning people?
That you project most anything on people?
That this is a common tactic you use?
Hell, all 3 of these arguments are in your so-called rhetorical question that we are quoting back and forth.
Seraph.Ramyrez
サーバ: Seraph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1918
By Seraph.Ramyrez 2015-05-04 10:33:06
That you are gung-ho on demeaning people?
That you project most anything on people?
That this is a common tactic you use?
In fairness, every single one of us does all of these things at times depending upon who we're talking to/about or depending on the topic.~
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-05-04 10:33:12
What personal experience set you so against equality? What makes you think he is against equality? Because it fits well in your counterargument?
It's a rhetorical question designed to demonstrate the point that someone can be in support of something without being against something else. He doesn't need a white knight, bubba. Doesn't matter if it's a rhetorical question or not, because you seem so gung-ho on demeaning him anyway, that you are willing to project most anything on him. Which is your style of argumentative response.
Man, you have a twisted world view... Wait, are you denying anything I said? If so, what part?
That you are gung-ho on demeaning people?
That you project most anything on people?
That this is a common tactic you use?
Hell, all 3 of these arguments are in your so-called rhetorical question that we are quoting back and forth.
He who clearly does not understand "The devil's advocate" as it applies to civil discourse. Enjoy your psychoses, sir knight!
Quote: Madison bans discrimination against atheists, non-religious
MADISON, Wis. — While conservatives in Indiana and Arkansas were explaining last month why their new religious objections laws weren't invitations to discriminate against gays, the leaders of Wisconsin's capital city were busy protecting the rights of another group: atheists.
In what is believed to be the first statute of its kind in the United States, Madison banned discrimination against the non-religious on April 1, giving them the same protections afforded to people based on their race, sexual orientation and religion, among other reasons.
It's hardly surprising that such a statute would originate in Madison, an island of liberalism in a conservative-leaning state and the home of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. But the ordinance's author, Anita Weier, said it didn't arise from an actual complaint about alleged discrimination based on a lack of religious faith.
"It just seems to me that religion has spread into government more than I feel comfortable with," said Weier, who left the council after the statute passed. "It just occurred to me that religion was protected, so non-religion should be, too."
She said it also had nothing to do with what was happening in Indiana and Arkansas, which rolled back their religious objections laws amid heavy criticism that they were meant to give legal cover to people who cite religious reasons for discriminating against gays.
Although there was no dissent when the City Council passed its new statute, some question the need to protect non-believers in liberal Madison from discrimination in the areas of housing, employment and services. Among them is Julaine Appling, the president of Wisconsin Family Action.
"I don't understand why they would add this to that litany of protections in Madison, of all places," she said. "I thought this was an April Fools' joke."
If any minority group deserves further protections in Madison, which embraces its unofficial motto of "77 square miles surrounded by reality," it's conservative groups like hers, said Appling. For example, she pointed to the City Council's attempts last year to create buffer zones to keep protesters away from abortion clinics, which the U.S. Supreme Court later deemed unconstitutional in a Massachusetts case.
Zach Brandon, president of the Madison Chamber of Commerce, said he hasn't heard city business owners express concern about the ordinance, but that's likely because it "doesn't really do anything."
Brandon said expanding the equal opportunities ordinance to include more protected categories could make it obsolete.
Atheists and other non-believers, though, say the statute marks an important step forward for those who aren't religious.
"I think Madison is way ahead of the curve," said Todd Stiefel, the president of Openly Secular, which helps non-religious people become open about their absence of faith.
Stiefel said people who tell their employers or family members that they are not religious face rejection and harassment. He said he's heard from atheists who were fired the day after sharing their non-religious views with their employers or disinherited by their parents after opening up about their lack of faith.
"It boils down to the misinformation and prejudice that gets passed down generation to generation. People have been raised being told that atheists are evil and they eat babies and they can't be trusted." Said Stiefel, adding that he thinks it will be quite a while before another city follows Madison's lead.
Patrick Elliott, a Freedom From Religion Foundation attorney, said the city that's also home to the University of Wisconsin has recently seen an increase in religiously-owned rental housing. While it had not yet created a conflict, the foundation wants to be sure there could be no discrimination, he said.
"Whether someone could have brought a case, we don't know," Elliott said. "It seemed that way, but we didn't have any precedent to support that."
Even though her ordinance passed without objection, Weier said her fellow council members seemed reluctant to embrace her idea or connect their name to it. She also said timing played a large role in her decision to propose the ordinance.
"If I'd been running again, I don't think I would have brought it forward," Weier said. "I think there's discrimination against atheists."
source
|
|