|
| Thread: Limited Rights or Limited Government? [religious opinions not banned from this thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted April 01, 2013 02:46 AM |
|
|
Yeah, let chaos install and piss the majority. Look, locals have the right to decide how looks and evolve the society their ancestor built. There is no: I install in your house, I bring my habits from far east, don't even bother to criticize me.
Multiculturalism is a double edged word: people bring bulsnow from undeveloped countries then call it culture. It is not. Moreover, in those countries they come from, if you walk in the street while clothed European style, you won't survive long. And they ask for "freedom", the good joke.
@Edit: same, answered to his first part.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 03:31 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 03:34, 01 Apr 2013.
|
artu: Point was that having a veil and being denied a job doesn't qualify as discrimination because a veil can be taken off (I know several muslims who have done that, ofc it's not always easy).
Salamandre: Locals have no right to infringe on the freedom of other people. Society can not be compared to a house. House is property, society is people choosing to live together.
I would rather live in a multicultural society than a monocultural one. That does not mean that I support multiculturalism, or any other ideas where culture mixes with politics. The one thing government should do with culture is to counter cultural values and acts that infringes on liberty.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 04:28 AM |
|
|
artu:
If an employer refuses to hire someone because they're wearing a veil, they should be free to do so. It's because both the employer and the Muslim have the right to do whatever they want with themselves and their property - fining the employer for refusing to hire the Muslim violates this right, as does not letting the Muslim wear a veil.
Salamandre:
It is not correct for the majority to deny individuals their rights. If the majority wanted to lynch black people, would that be okay? As for "how things look", no one person or group can make an executive decision and force others to comply with it. Everyone chooses whatever they want to do for themselves, and the end result is what emerges from these individual choices. What other Muslims do in the immigrants' countries of origin is irrelevant - even if they do something wrong, it doesn't mean we should do it too.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 08:51 AM |
|
|
Are you STILL not seeing the problem?
You cannot discriminate people because of their religion OR gender.
Now, the same is true the other way round:
You cannot discriminate people because of them NOT having a specific religion OR gender.
So it follows immediately:
If you allow muslim females to run around in full-body burqa in public, you must allow it for EVERYONE, for ANY REASON!
Specifically: If muslim girls are allowed in school to appear in that outfit, I would immediately come in the same outfit. I KNOW that - and I know that in my class the next day more would have followed. Why? To make a darn point.
Rules have to be the same for everyone.
Now, why is a full body burqa so bad?
Because it reduces a society to a collection of anonymous looking, featureless androids of no distinction who are hiding from each other.
However, there are numerous situations, locations and professions you don't want that as a society, which means, if you'd allow this, you'd have to have an unlimited amount of exceptions where burqas simply are not allowed. Which in turn would mean, that one exception would lead to the next (see above: if burqas are not allowed to enter a bank, I don't want them in my shop either!).
Which means, it's FULLY within the rights of every society to forbid something as controversial and problematic as that in public. It's basically the same thing as forbidding nakedness in public, just for what could be called the opposite reason.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 08:59 AM |
|
|
|
mvassilev, your answer to everything is "let them do as they please" which is 95 percent of the time fine by me but sometimes real-life issues are a little more complicated than that. First of all, in reality, you are not defending their right to wear it but their husbands right to force it upon them. Second of all, burqa is not just a cloth, as long as you wear it you are socially isolated so economically dependant on somebody else. And then there is the psychological effects of constantly living in a cage, you can defend the right to do that too but at a level similar to defending the right to use heroin, not at a level of defending the right to "wear anything." Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that burqa is not just a cloth after all that has been written in here or is it just hard to actually do some thinking according to a specific situation instead of repeating the same slogan like a parrot all the time.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 09:09 AM |
|
|
The whole thing however has little-to-nothing to do with who wears what. The differences between the cultures are sometimes just too hard to stomach by certain people on both sides. If either side is predisposed to prejudices an intolerance - which is always the case no matter which side it is - they will be further amplified just to emphasize how different the other people are. The more "hardcore" the initial position of the opposing sides is, the faster they reach the point where they become ridiculous in their claims.
Anyway, like I said, the burqas are not the problem. In fact, I highly doubt that even a single non-Muslim seriously gives a damn about how the Muslim women dress. What the typical Westerner with relatively low (for his country) income, unstable employment and general uncertainty for the future doesn't like is foreigners which can potentially make his income even lower, his employment even more questionable and his future even more uncertain. If these people tend to rely only on flaws in the welfare system of the given country to make a living, it just gets worse. Ultimately the frustration targets issues that nobody gives a damn about but which are convenient as surrogates - like what the Muslim women wear. The real reason for the whole thing is that the social system is broken somewhere.
On the other hand, every host society has the rights to demand respect for its way of living from the foreigners. The local laws - official and unofficial - that are not passed specifically to ward off (in discriminatory fashion) external influnces of any kind, should be obeyed. No ifs. You go to the country where the women are walking around heavily covered for the last few hundred years, you also cover yourself if you are woman. You go to another country where the women can dress however they want - you leave them wear whatever they like (including burqas, if they want it). The whole things is about control and enforcement, starting at the border of the given country.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 10:10 AM |
|
|
JJ:
The obvious answer to that is that both Muslims and non-Muslims should be allowed to wear the burqa. (Don't know why non-Muslims would want to, but they should be able to.) At the same time, if private property owners (bankers, employers, etc) want to ban burqas there, that's fine too. It's fully within the rights of property owners to ban any kind of clothing on their property - if a bank wanted everyone on its property to be nude, that's fine too. But, as I understand it, the question is about public property (parks, sidewalks, etc), in which case wearing burqas doesn't objectively hurt anyone, and should therefore be allowed.
artu:
If the reason that women wear burqas is because men are oppressing them (non-violently), there should be cultural (but not political) opposition to them. "Let them do what they want" only means "Don't use force or fraud against them", not "Tolerate whatever they do". If men are forcing burqas on women using force, then the women should come to the authorities, who should take the appropriate actions (arresting the husband, etc).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 11:12 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:13, 01 Apr 2013.
|
|
So you're talking about a woman who hasn't been forced to wear and familiarized with anything as a kid, then after she's 18, as an adult, although she is living in a Western democracy, of all the Islamic traditions she happily chooses to wear a burka, the traditional clothing of Afghan deserts. The whole situation and sub-discussion is about THIS woman's rights and free will. Ok, I'm going back to planet earth now, I'll tell them to beam you up some fresh vegetables.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 11:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, it is not untrue. Any citizen can get married in any of the states no matter what his sexual fetish may be. Some people just don't like what marriage is and want to change what marriage is. John, a gay man, can get married to Susan or Janet or any other woman who is eligible to be married.
Wow, that's just. You seem to (at least pretend) not to get that a gay person does not get to marry the consenting, unmarried person they love.
No, I completely understand the issues, whereas you seem not to.
1) Marriage in every culture for all of recorded history has always been between males and females.
2) There are already legal limitations on who a person can marry, as I referenced in my post that preceded this one.
3) Gays already have the same right as everyone else.
4) Gays are seeking the right to redefine what marriage is.
I am quite ok with civil unions for gays that grant identical legal rights. I am not ok with gays being allowed to redefine what marriage is.
Quote:
The bible does not even define marriage as a single man and single woman.
Wrong. Jesus stated God's intention for marriage from the beginning is that marriage consists of a man and his wife. But even looking beyond any religious text on has only to consider the fact that the male and female bodies are made for one on one interaction with the opposite gender, sexually.
Quote:
A gay person can be married to another gay person and that is their own personal bond. If you think that redefines the Christian definition of marriage, than your faith is really weaker than I thought.
The (certain members of certain denominations of) Christian (Or Muslim for that matter) definition of marriage is a deeply held personal belief. If a non-susbstantial governmental entity that is not forcing you to get gay married changes your beliefs by allowing gay marriage for others than perhaps you need to re-examine your relationship with God if you're listening to the government over him.
A moronic liberal judge redefining marriage by legislating from the bench would not impact my faith or knowledge of what true marriage is. And it is difficult for me to see how you could conclude that it would. The Bible is the source of my doctrine, not some pompous progressive who seeks to remold society in his image.
Quote:
Don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. .....Rather than to respecting everybody and giving them all the same rights you take away something from the minority.
Untrue. Marriage in every culture has always been between males and females. Nobody made up marriage with the idea of "OOOOOOO, let's stick it to the gays." Marriage is a man-woman thing. Always has been.
The word "male" is not discriminatory. The word "female" is not discriminatory. The word "marriage" that describes a particular male-female relationship is not discriminatory.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 11:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, they don't. Only in PUBLIC.
Gee, JJ, that is the only place they'd think they have to wear a burqa. It is sad France turned its back on freedom and embraced intolerance and bigotry against religious people.
But if freedom is restored and you want to wear a burqa I'm sure no one would object. They might giggle, but they wouldn't object. 
I'm for reasonable restrictions of wear a burqa can be worn when such restrictions are necessary. Like in areas of heightened security where people need to be identified or for things like driver licenses for instance. But saying people can't practice their religion in public parks or when walking down a sidewalk is just plain intolerant.
____________
Revelation
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 12:02 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 12:04, 01 Apr 2013.
|
I don't get how you can speak so much about liberty and at the same time deny people the freedom to marry. Who cares what marriage has historically been about. Historically, we killed homosexual people. Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
Personally I think it's stupid that marriage has any sorts of legal benefits whatsoever, it should be a personal, symbolic thing. It's archaic.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 03:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, I completely understand the issues, whereas you seem not to.
1) Marriage in every culture for all of recorded history has always been between males and females.
2) There are already legal limitations on who a person can marry, as I referenced in my post that preceded this one.
3) Gays already have the same right as everyone else.
4) Gays are seeking the right to redefine what marriage is.
1) Untrue actually. Except on very rare occasions, every tribal system allows marriages between what we would define as gay couples. There is just an expectation that both men or both women will also marry into a straight relationship and produce a child or twelve to keep up the numbers of the tribe. These tribes still exist and will continue existing when you look them up.  Oh, they allow polygamy as well, so that could be a cultural factor in the whole gay marriage thing, since the adults will be married to multiple partners and they are expected to mate with at least one of the opposite gender at some point in their life.
2) True, but those legal restrictions are there to ensure there is consent, the relationship isn't abusive or that you aren't taking advantage of someone too drunk to understand what's going on (You both have to be equally inebriated. ) At least in most cases. When it comes to Homosexual relationships, it is discrimination against people with a genetic trait (and yes Cor, there are studies to prove this with conclusive evidence. I'll link a few when I'm done with class), and it is discrimination that does not protect anyone from anything harmful. Honestly, who does it hurt? The sensibilities of about half of the conservative community?  Those are about the only people I can think of...
3) Not really. And I'm not just talking about marriage, in many states they are not protected anywhere near as much against discrimination, especially in schools. And by that I mean there are multiple examples of kids getting the crap beaten out of them, pissed on (literally), hospitalized or being brutalized in other ways, and local authorities and even state authorities do nothing to stop it. The only reason many of them give? "They chose to be gay, they should expect this to happen." (Again, that is a fallacy which science has disproved... because science is awesome) Individuals are only legally equal in the law if the law treats them the same, which it does not. So no, Homosexuals, and even to a degree bisexuals that lean towards homosexuality, do not have equal rights, and there are no real reasons given for it.
4) Christianity, Judaism and every religion has their own way of defining what marriage is. What you are objecting to is the redefinition of the Judaic/ Christian marriage, which is relatively minor in scale to the overall definition of the word. Tribes that are not christian do not practice your traditional marriage practices, people in China... well no one really knows what goes on in China. Jokes aside, know what you are actually objecting to before you make such blanket statements. It makes you seem more educated and less bigoted.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 04:38 PM |
|
|
That's why conservatives are so hard to talk to. It doesn't matter that the old is ... well, old, backwards, oppressive or stupid - the only value is that it has been done for generations.
No wonder conservatives defended slavery so vividly. After all, it worked fine for thousands of years, no?
Not to mention that it has been "defined" only by Christian part of the world, which isn't even the majority.
Oh well, we all live in America.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 08:34 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:42, 01 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
1) Untrue actually. Except on very rare occasions, every tribal system allows marriages between what we would define as gay couples. There is just an expectation that both men or both women will also marry into a straight relationship and produce a child or twelve to keep up the numbers of the tribe. These tribes still exist and will continue existing when you look them up. Oh, they allow polygamy as well, so that could be a cultural factor in the whole gay marriage thing, since the adults will be married to multiple partners and they are expected to mate with at least one of the opposite gender at some point in their life.
Actually, if you go back just a few thousand years polygamy is the norm and monogamy is the exception. I think the problem here is the same as the one in discussion of polytheism: Him taking the story of Adam and Eve literally true and basing his perspective of human history and progress according to that.
I wouldn't be so sure to suggest every tribal system allows gay marriage though. I'm almost sure customs vary from tribe to tribe.
Quote:
That's why conservatives are so hard to talk to. It doesn't matter that the old is ... well, old, backwards, oppressive or stupid - the only value is that it has been done for generations.
Exactly. So anything progressive is met with doubt and dislike but something horrid like the burka is ok because it's somebody's religious tradition. And to religious people religious traditions are not things with historical background and sociological context. You can take a tradition like burka from the rural deserts of Afghanistan where women have no right to work, date and education and implement it into the streets of Paris. It's like in StarWars where dozens of creatures from different solar systems can breathe in every planet just the same. They think that religion is like some kind of universal respiratory system when in fact all creatures evolve in their own atmosphere.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 08:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, if you go back just a few thousand years polygamy is the norm and monogamy is the exception.
I did say that the tribes had polygamous marriages and relationships. But not every tribe accepts Homosexuality. There are some that kill or exile homosexual members, so I added the tag of "Most." Fun fact, every tribe that is a nomadic tribe with horses allows any kind of marriage and tends to be monogamous, but their divorce/ marriage system is incredibly simple and flexible. (Shaking a hand and saying "We are married" or "We are divorced" three times in the native tongue for one of them).
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 08:54 PM |
|
|
|
When you said "Oh, they allow polygamy as well" it sounded to me like you thought of it as the exception. Guess, I misunderstood.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 01, 2013 09:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When you said "Oh, they allow polygamy as well" it sounded to me like you thought of it as the exception. Guess, I misunderstood.
I added that since the tribes that tend to allow homosexual marriages also tend to have polygamy. They seem to be related.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 02, 2013 01:13 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:13, 02 Apr 2013.
|
Friends, I would kindly like to request that further general (moral, biblical, historical) discussion about marriage between homosexuals be moved here, unless it pertains specifically to the topic the intrusiveness of government.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2013 03:03 AM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 02:22, 15 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
I am quite ok with civil unions for gays that grant identical legal rights. I am not ok with gays being allowed to redefine what marriage is.
If only more states and the federal government would even allow that. I've always said on this you are far more reasonable than "No equivalent government tax/visitation right solutions either" people. That would be at least an equitable accommodation against the government intruding on their rights.
Also that's a very dishonest argument. When people could only marry into their own race, they also had "equal rights" to marry only their own race.
Quote:
A moronic liberal judge redefining marriage by legislating from the bench would not impact my faith or knowledge of what true marriage is. And it is difficult for me to see how you could conclude that it would. The Bible is the source of my doctrine, not some pompous progressive who seeks to remold society in his image.
Then why care? What a government official does to change a law that does not effect you or any Christian personally also doesn't hurt god. I'll be honest with you, when I was a Christian I was incensed by arguments for some other group to be punished for nothing by instating laws that make no effect on the Christians who put them in place one way or the other. It's like saying "The government can somehow change my definition of marriage". It's like saying the government is bigger than god. That's one reason I find staunch opposition to Gay marriage so... blasphemous. It's like saying the laws of man bind God.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 23, 2013 09:38 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 21:45, 23 Apr 2013.
|
Father and Mother or Father State?
Quote:
“Now the virtue which had been infused into the Constitution…and was to give it…the stability and duration to which it was destined, was no other than…those abstract principles…proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—namely, the self-evident truths of the…unalienable rights of man…the…sovereignty of the people, always subordinate to a rule of right and wrong, and always responsible to the Supreme Ruler of the universe for the rightful exercise of that sovereign…power.” (John Quincy Adams, on the occasion of The Jubilee of the Constitution - 1839)
The US Founding fathers declared all rights of man come from God and are "inalienable." Rights are not granted by the government. The government can only recognize the rights that the people already have or the government can chose to deny those rights and oppress the people.
One of the "self evident" truths is that parenthood came before government. As such parental rights are inalienable rights-natural rights-and the government has no business trying to infringe on those rights.
Today we are beginning to reap the consequences of the Left censoring our founding father's ideas from textbooks and attempting to smother them from public discourse. The ideas the Left substitutes is entirely opposed to what the Constitution was built on. That is, progressivism teaches that rights come from the State and the people have only such rights as the State grants them.
But without understanding the proper foundation of rights liberty will not survive.
Karl Marx said, “The idea of God is the keystone of a perverted society. The true root of liberty, equality and culture is atheism.” Yet we see what discarding the idea that the root of all rights lies in God did for officially atheist societies. Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, ect, are landmarks that down that road lie destruction.
The Left denies a number of basic human rights. As mentioned above, parenthood came before the State and thus parental rights are inalienable natural rights that the government has no business meddling in. But the Left sees parental rights as an obstruction on the road to collectivism. All children must be brainwashed by the State to be good little worshipers of the State-god and not question the State's "right" to control every aspect of their lives.
Another right the Left has issues with is freedom of religion. Religion is not about just belief but about living your beliefs-actions. Most of the Left is willing to somewhat tolerate a "head" belief but it is frankly hostile towards true freedom of religion--that is, a person living his belief.
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
But we see that the Constitution says the freedom to exercise one's religion is to be preserved, not just his right to believe. Having only the right to believe that you should live a certain way without the right to live that way would be a hollow right indeed.
The world's major religions believe that "...children are a gift of the Lord," (Pslams 127:3) A gift from God to the parents, not to the state. Further, parenthood came before the State, so it is "self evident" that nature and nature's God entrusted the children to the parents, not to the State. That right of a parent to parent his child is a natural right.
Part of a parents "job" is to prepare a child for adult life to the best of his ability. To, "train up a child in the way that he should go." The parents are the primary educators of their children, with schools and other third parties being secondary.
Life is more than just the material. A parent has the right and obligation to train his child in the "spiritual" as well as the material aspects of life. In truth, life is "life." It is one life, not a material life with a spiritual life tacked on. Life is material and spiritual.
That is where the Left usually starts kicking. A recognition that there is a Supreme Being and that he requires us to live a certain way is simply unacceptable for most of the Left. That idea undermines the supreme authority of the State and collectivism. Yet the idea of a Supreme Being is fundamental to liberty.
Quote:
Supreme Court: WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
"...the history of the western civilization reflects a
strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition."
Quote:
Supreme Court: PAUL v. DAVIS, 424 U.S. 693,713 (1976), stated that the
Constitutional right to privacy includes, "matters relating to marriage, procreation, conception, family relationships, and child rearing and education."
So we see the Supreme Court has historically recognized that parents have the primary interest in the education and rearing of their children. While there are certainly people who teach their children things and lifestyles that I do not agree with I recognize that it is their right as parents to teach their children as they see fit. One parent may be great at teaching his child a trade, for example, carpentry. Another parent may not be able to do much in that area, and thus the child will be "disadvantaged" in that category when compared to some other kids. But that parent may have a deep relationship with God and be able to guide his child better spiritually than others. All parents are different and none are perfect.
But imperfection and all, children have a father and mother. The State is neither and should not try to be either. Reject the notion of "Father State" if you wish to see liberty survive.
|
| |
|
|
