[POLITICS] Religious Discrimination

[Trunkage]

So, a little while ago, a football player called Israel Folau was fired by Rugby (Union) Australia. He's well know for making career in Union and Rugby League and has represented Australia quite a few times. He was fired over a tweet saying "Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators - Hell awaits you." He had already been given a breach of contract for similar comments a couple of years ago, and in Australia, its two breaches and your out.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/47932231

He's been fighting the dismissal since. They've gone to arbitration but to no avail. He did a GoFundMe to pay for legal cost of taking this to court and got $2m in a couple of days. Despite him and his family being rich (That's really annoyed me but a side issue.) This is still in progress.

Our Prime Minister, Scott Morrison has stated that he wants to create a Religions Discrimination Act. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/scott-morrison-promises-religious-discrimination-act-this-year-coalition-to-consult-with-labor/ar-AADGX6e?ocid=spartandhp
This would ban businesses from religiously discriminating against employees. Details have not been hashed out, and it might just include private twitter accounts.

So, why should you care about what some backwater is doing about Religious Discrimination? At the G20 on the weekend, Scott Morrison was promoting his version of what to do with Tech giants and things like the Christchurch terrorist attack. He's forcing Tech companies to show how quickly they remove such attacks from their services with public reports. This may lead to fines if the government doesn't like the results. And it sounds like China and the US like this solution. So, don't think that these ideas aren't being listened to and I could imagine somewhere like the US being really interest in Religious Discrimination laws.

These next question are only your personal understanding not what you think governments will do:
What would count as religiously protected? Does it have to come directly from a religious text or just religious beliefs? White Supremacists are also against homosexuals. Are they protect or do they have to say, "God made me do it" too? Is this only for religious people or are Atheist protected as well? The Bible talks about how the Israelites need to convert or genocide those that lived in Canaan? Are we free to promote genocide but only based on religious grounds?

Australia also has Hate Speech laws. Only individuals are allowed to prosecute alleged offenders. They have to show proof of intervening during the intervene (i.e. asking the person to stop) and it needs to be in public. I actually don't know if companies can do this, but I wonder how these two laws are going to interact.

P.S. Sorry for the length but I probably missed plenty of details trying to be as concise as possible

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

This is actually relatively simple.

You're allowed to believe what you want, as long as what you believe and what you practice does not cause any mental or physical harm to others.

It's relatively the same view I have with Sexual relationships. You're two dudes who love the male form and you want to get down together? Hey, great. Have a party.

You're someone who only gets off when someone is unwilling and gets hurt? Here's a number of a shrink. Either get help or if you follow through those desires, you will end up in jail without any remorse.

I'm sure your belief system is great. I support whatever peace it gives you. But it will not come at the cost of others.

 

[Abomination]

You can't in good conscience, claim you should have religious freedom to state your opinions on matters while, with the same breath, say that people will suffer a fate worse than death (hell) for not sharing your supposed religious views.

This is a have your cake and eat it too scenario. Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

Saying that people will go to hell for a particular belief/practice should be tantamount to hate speech as "hell" is - in the very mind of the person who believes in it - the worst possible thing that can happen to a person. Contextually, going to hell is worse than being raped by a gang of silverback gorillas, being sawed in half from groin to gullet, being dipped in molten metal, or any other horrible fate one could think. "X go to hell" should be treated as the same as any other horrible slur directed at a group.

The hypocrisy of this asshole, who states he is being persecuted for his religious beliefs, when if anyone else had said the same things without a religious motive would have suffered the same disciplinary action from their employer as well. Religion should never grant someone privileges that are not extended to all other members of society.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I'm sure your belief system is great. I support whatever peace it gives you. But it will not come at the cost of others.

Is it though? Is a system great if its pretty fucked up by today's standards and only something like legality, ie consequences, are preventing someone from acting out?
This is something I think modern progressives struggle with - some cultures are simply better than others.

 

[Trunkage]

This is actually relatively simple.

You're allowed to believe what you want, as long as what you believe and what you practice does not cause any mental or physical harm to others.

It's relatively the same view I have with Sexual relationships. You're two dudes who love the male form and you want to get down together? Hey, great. Have a party.

You're someone who only gets off when someone is unwilling and gets hurt? Here's a number of a shrink. Either get help or if you follow through those desires, you will end up in jail without any remorse.

I'm sure your belief system is great. I support whatever peace it gives you. But it will not come at the cost of others.

Not harm you mentally? This isn't a thing because you'd have to restrict speech. We do little to stop bullying, and many people think that any speech should be protected thus all verbal bullying is acceptable

 

[DarthCoercis]

Note that our current Prime Minister is a member of a fairly extreme christian sect, much like Israel Folau.

 

[IceForce]

Does it have to come directly from a religious text or just religious beliefs? White Supremacists are also against homosexuals. Are they protect or do they have to say, "God made me do it" too?

Yeah, seems like bigotry is a-okay as long as it's written in some dusty old book somewhere.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

This is actually relatively simple.

You're allowed to believe what you want, as long as what you believe and what you practice does not cause any mental or physical harm to others.

It's relatively the same view I have with Sexual relationships. You're two dudes who love the male form and you want to get down together? Hey, great. Have a party.

You're someone who only gets off when someone is unwilling and gets hurt? Here's a number of a shrink. Either get help or if you follow through those desires, you will end up in jail without any remorse.

I'm sure your belief system is great. I support whatever peace it gives you. But it will not come at the cost of others.

Not harm you mentally? This isn't a thing because you'd have to restrict speech. We do little to stop bullying, and many people think that any speech should be protected thus all verbal bullying is acceptable

Verbal Bullying is a form of violence. "Kill yourself ******" "Exterminate the Jews" "Death to the False Emperor", these are all calls to violence which is illegal. And depending on why someone is being bullied, ie their religion or race, it can also be hate-speech.
Bullying is only hard to prosecute because its virtually impossible to prove intention and kids can just go "Lol JK!' but when intent is provable, charges do follow. That's why that girl who convinced her mentally ill boyfriend to kill himself so she could get social media attention and sympathy is being charged with basically murder.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I'm sure your belief system is great. I support whatever peace it gives you. But it will not come at the cost of others.

Is it though? Is a system great if its pretty fucked up by today's standards and only something like legality, ie consequences, are preventing someone from acting out?
This is something I think modern progressives struggle with - some cultures are simply better than others.

No culture is better than others. If that were the case, there would be one singular culture free of crime, unfairness, and have the standard of flawlessness that others could copy. There is no such culture.

Every culture brings about despots and the unhinged. Those who do not want to conform. Why? Because it's simple Human Nature and the Bell Curve.

The Belief System will always be perverted by a Power Hungry individual who is Charismatic enough to sway people. There is not a subject known to humanity that didn't have a person try to climb at the top to gain power for themselves. Gaming, Sports, Music, Fashion, Religion, Politics, hell.. React Videos [https://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10906032/fine-brothers-youtube-trademark] had such a controversy.

Because people were swayed doesn't speak ill of the Belief or Dogma. That's probably ok. But easily-swayed people will always flock to Charismatic Despots and believe in them because those individuals want that person to be right. Because that Charismatic Despot told them that they are special, they are on the winning team, they are the chosen ones. That makes them feel powerful. Hell, you see that with Atheists on youtube channels all the time. It's a Mob Mentality over there. One that's not too dissimilar to Faithful channels.

With everything, it's the people that make things bad. Blaming anything else is a waste of time.

Not harm you mentally? This isn't a thing because you'd have to restrict speech. We do little to stop bullying, and many people think that any speech should be protected thus all verbal bullying is acceptable

I didn't say it was a thing. But, unless I misread the question, it's how should Religious Freedom be upheld. This is the trade off people must accept. I will not restrict your ability to believe in the Force. That is your mind. That is your call. But when you tell me the Force told you that you must punch all Short people in the dick because they are inferior, that's an automatic no-go because you're causing harm to others.

It's essentially an expansion on all common laws. You can acquire, as long as you can legally do so. The second you go into someone's house and try to acquire what they have... well, that's bringing harm to another. That's Robbery. We have laws against it.

You have a human right to keep warm. If you need to chop down trees to do so, make sure you're not doing it in public land and you have proper licenses. Once you got that, do it in moderation and we'll be fine. You don't get to set fire to a field and say that your need for life supersedes all and it's ok.

You want to take pictures of you and your loved one doing the sex, and that loved one gets off as well as you do in putting onto the internet and having people get aroused off of it. I admire your guts. Go for it. But the second you didn't get that person's permission and you did it anyway, you violated their privacy. Punishment must come.

You have a right to do, until it crosses the line and harms others. That's the basics of almost all law.

 

[Abomination]

No culture is better than others. If that were the case, there would be one singular culture free of crime, unfairness, and have the standard of flawlessness that others could copy. There is no such culture.

One does not have to be perfect in order to be better.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

No culture is better than others. If that were the case, there would be one singular culture free of crime, unfairness, and have the standard of flawlessness that others could copy. There is no such culture.

I disagree entirely. A culture doesn't have to be perfect to be better than another one. Culture A wants to kill black and Jews. Culture B wants to kill only Jews.
Both cultures are bad, one is objectively better.

Likewise in certain fundamentalists Islamic cultures rape isn't a crime, it's a punishment. Here in the Western world, while rape is under-reported and prosecuted, its still a crime. A state or Federal judge cannot sentence a woman to be raped for not agreeing with her father. Some Imams do have that power and use it.
Does that make Western culture perfect? No, but it does make it better.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

No culture is better than others. If that were the case, there would be one singular culture free of crime, unfairness, and have the standard of flawlessness that others could copy. There is no such culture.

I disagree entirely. A culture doesn't have to be perfect to be better than another one. Culture A wants to kill black and Jews. Culture B wants to kill only Jews.
Both cultures are bad, one is objectively better.

Likewise in certain fundamentalists Islamic cultures rape isn't a crime, it's a punishment. Here in the Western world, while rape is under-reported and prosecuted, its still a crime. A state or Federal judge cannot sentence a woman to be raped for not agreeing with her father. Some Imams do have that power and use it.
Does that make Western culture perfect? No, but it does make it better.

Well, we're now defining specialized things. Are we talking Culture or are we talking Institutions?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

No culture is better than others. If that were the case, there would be one singular culture free of crime, unfairness, and have the standard of flawlessness that others could copy. There is no such culture.

I disagree entirely. A culture doesn't have to be perfect to be better than another one. Culture A wants to kill black and Jews. Culture B wants to kill only Jews.
Both cultures are bad, one is objectively better.

Likewise in certain fundamentalists Islamic cultures rape isn't a crime, it's a punishment. Here in the Western world, while rape is under-reported and prosecuted, its still a crime. A state or Federal judge cannot sentence a woman to be raped for not agreeing with her father. Some Imams do have that power and use it.
Does that make Western culture perfect? No, but it does make it better.

Well, we're now defining specialized things. Are we talking Culture or are we talking Institutions?

Institutions:
a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose

Culture:
the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.

Culture includes institutions

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Culture:
the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.

Culture includes institutions

Exactly my point.

Muslim Culture is a culture based on Islam, shared Traditions, Local Cuisine and Dress due to their religious and geographical location.

Within Muslim Culture, you have Institutions like the "Ahmadiyya" who believe Mohammed wasn't the final Prophet, believes all religions have traces of the Divine, and bringing Islam to the entire world through only Peace.

And in the Muslim Culture, you have institutions like ISIS.

While a Culture can include many institutions, not every institution will share the same tenets. Even if they came from the same background. Therefore, not any culture can be exceptional or inferior to another because it's simply a common background. The institutions that arise from it will be varied.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

So basically the argument here is "How dare you discriminate against me using my religion to discriminate against others"

Do you sometimes wish we could fit people with glasses or something that would let them see their own hypocrisy?

 

[Trunkage]

So basically the argument here is "How dare you discriminate against me using my religion to discriminate against others"

Do you sometimes wish we could fit people with glasses or something that would let them see their own hypocrisy?

Hey, I keep pointing out business owners nonsense of saying "we can't pay more money to workers." When most of the taxes they pay go to people who can't afford to live because they aren't being paid enough. Like, if you just paid people more, they wouldn't go to the government for hand outs and the government wouldn't put pressure on then through things like tax hikes or targetting rich people.

It sort of works in reverse as evidence by Reaganomics but that also showed the flaw of most tax breaks remaining in the hands of a few, defeating is 'stated purpose.'

 

[Silvanus]

A religious belief is little more than an opinion on a metaphysical topic, which someone has taken deeply to heart.

I see no reason it should afford someone protections or rights that are not afforded to people who don't share it.

A religious belief is what someone reckons about something. That's all.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

A religious belief is little more than an opinion on a metaphysical topic, which someone has taken deeply to heart.

I see no reason it should afford someone protections or rights that are not afforded to people who don't share it.

A religious belief is what someone reckons about something. That's all.

Your personality is just a random assortment of chemicals that are funneled through life experiences and stimuli. Your 'self' as it were is there for modifiable with the correct prescription of medications, education, and 'correct' social upbringing to make you into the perfect cog for the 'betterment of the whole'.

A sense of self is just an unguided, faulty instrument to cultivation of the perfect expression of our DNA. Love is misfiring of some neurotransmitters that promotes an unhealthy attachment to a singular individual.

Look, you might not value religion. I might not see the need for it. But it's a facet of certain people's expression and/or identity in this world. We correctly allow the freedom of expression of all aspects of the individual's identity, as long as it doesn't bring Harm to an individual. We protect it. Religion has to fall into that, or we can start picking and choosing what else we can limit because we don't put that much faith (if you'll excuse the pun) into it.

 

[generals3]

Well I have always had mixed feelings about dismissing someone about something they say on social media. In my opinion a company is well within its rights to dismiss someone for potentially damaging its image. In the case of a top sports player we can assume his social media is followed by a lot of people and posting a message/tweet has the same reach as an ad on the radio or tv. As such, these messages could be used as a reason to fire the offender. However if the player made that tweet on a seperate and very private account but had his message leaked by someone he thought was his friend than its another story.

It's very messy really, but all in all I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and to at least share it privately. But with social media what is "private" and "public" becomes quite blurry.

And to be entirely clear, this is regardless of wheter or not the content is religous. I don't see why religously motivated speech or actions should be treated differently. It would be discriminatory towards non-religious people.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

You can't in good conscience, claim you should have religious freedom to state your opinions on matters while, with the same breath, say that people will suffer a fate worse than death (hell) for not sharing your supposed religious views.

This is a have your cake and eat it too scenario. Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

Saying that people will go to hell for a particular belief/practice should be tantamount to hate speech as "hell" is - in the very mind of the person who believes in it - the worst possible thing that can happen to a person. Contextually, going to hell is worse than being raped by a gang of silverback gorillas, being sawed in half from groin to gullet, being dipped in molten metal, or any other horrible fate one could think. "X go to hell" should be treated as the same as any other horrible slur directed at a group.

The hypocrisy of this asshole, who states he is being persecuted for his religious beliefs, when if anyone else had said the same things without a religious motive would have suffered the same disciplinary action from their employer as well. Religion should never grant someone privileges that are not extended to all other members of society.

You hit the nail on the head.

This guy is a fucking hypocrite. And guess what? There is a circle of hell that houses the hypocrites.