Posts by DogGone

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

DogGone

I apologize if I have misrepresented your view. I asked if that was how you felt since your statement was unqualified. I admit, I don't understand.

We have a difference of opinion on the triviality of a side dish at an all-day breakfast, fair enough.

My statement was that "Society works because we tolerate differences in each other and allow reasonable accommodation for differences. Asking another to perform the task is reasonable." When you replied that "I could not disagree more. If you get paid to do a job do it. Keep religion at home where it belongs." I read that you disagreed with the concept of reasonable accommodation, I did not read it as meaning that you find this specific accommodation unreasonable. I'm sorry for misreading you.

Frankly, though, the statement "keep religion at home where it belongs" is bigoted. You don't want society to tolerate the bigotry of others, I get that. But, why fight bigotry with bigotry? People were once told to keep their "gayness" or their "transgender" at home. In Canada we recently had a federal election that turned, in part, on whether Quebec should ban religious head coverings from government employees... leave it at home, the critics said. Among those critics were many "fundies" who are discriminating against others based on religion, just one that is not theirs.

Your argument surprises me, do you feel the case in question is an example of discrimination? How so?

You are falsely portraying me as unreasonable or uncompromising even in trivial details. This is a straw man.

I was not meaning to portray, I was trying to ask and, even though immodest, to attempt to enlighten and broaden your perspective on the subject. I'm sorry it came across as a straw man. At this point, I don't know where you draw the line on what is reasonable or trivial and where you would be willing to have society compromise. I retract any insinuation I have made about where you fall on these matters, other than that fullfulling a work requirement to personally prepare a given breakfast side is a non-trivial matter.

11

Walking Fish - evolution or adaptation?

by Earnest in

a recent article in nature reports on a fish that has a pelvic girdle with features associated with terrestrial vertebrates.. discuss..

DogGone

Was there no competition to be the "first" common ancestor?

Perhaps, but something won and it proliferated so much that the record shows a single tree. You are talking here about the actual origin of life, right? Because early on there are plenty of phyla that got lopped off. That is, plenty of early life patterns that did not win the competition.

11

Walking Fish - evolution or adaptation?

by Earnest in

a recent article in nature reports on a fish that has a pelvic girdle with features associated with terrestrial vertebrates.. discuss..

DogGone

I'm confused. Evolution is the long accumulation of adaptations that provide selective advantage. Where is the OR? It is like asking, Bingo - Charity fund raiser or game of chance?

The answer is "yes".

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

DogGone

Because a person's irrational superstitions should not affect the rest of society.

The test I used was "reasonable accommodation", in my opinion an excellent development in Common Law. Since the issue at question is trivial, I'm gathering you don't want irrational superstitions to affect society in even the tiniest of ways. Is that a fair statement?

Leaving aside the determination of what is "irrational", it is a very regressive stand to take. It is the same argument fundamentalists have made about homosexuals, Catholics, the transgender, the mentally handicapped, Jews, etc.

I don't want to live in a society where people have to leave parts of themselves at home no matter how trivial the affect to Society. There are plenty of irrational superstitions out there. There are plenty of things that were once viewed as sicknesses or superstitions that society has come to embrace. A society that sets upon itself to make a determination and suppress even reasonable accommodation presents a greater danger than a society which simply allows people to be wrong, so long as they are not unreasonably affecting society or others.

The question is too vague. What other questions do you have in mind?

I know we share a distaste for religious superstition. But, reasonable accommodation applies to other spheres of thought and action. I was wondering, if your uncompromising stance applies only to religiously derived actions or to other ethical systems and actions.

One of my staff has an irrational fear of Halloween figurines. I have seen her in tears when a scary doll was near her desk. I think it is a reasonable accommodation to ask others to help with Halloween decorations and to ensure they don't have anything near her desk or that will surprise her where she works in our office. If she worked for a retailer, I would hope they would be sensitive to her. Would you agree?

My mother has, what I consider, an irrational view of the sanctity of animals. I do not eat foie gras in front of her for this reason. If she worked in a restaurant she would ask someone else to prepare it. It bothers her that much. Just one item on the menu, she isn't a vegan. Should she leave her concern for the treatment of animals at home and not affect the rest of society?

A really good friend of mine reads too many questionable internet blogs. He has determined that radio waves are unhealthy for his family. No wireless devices in his home. I've tried to point out the EMR coming from our sun, but he is convinced we are all being killed. He might ask to work at a spot as far away from a wireless access point as practical. Is this the sort of irrational superstition that should not affect the rest of society?

Not to go ten rounds on a bunch of scenarios, I was merely wondering if you wish all irrational requests suppressed so they don't affect society or only those arising from religion.

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

DogGone

Why does it belong only at home?

Do you feel the same way about other questions of integrity and conscience or only those that arise from religion?

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

DogGone

Excellent, in my opinion. You should not be forced to do something against your conscience. Forcing an atheist who works at a funeral home to say "God bless you, I will pray for you" or forcing a JW to handle blood, a Catholic to hand out birth control, or a Quaker to manufacture munitions is just wrong, in my opinion. Society works because we tolerate differences in each other and allow reasonable accommodation for differences. Asking another to perform the task is reasonable. Refusing to find a solution (like not referring a patient to a doctor who CAN provide birth control) is unacceptable for the same reason.

52

Does the WT attract needy dysfunctional type of people?

by William Penwell in

in your personal experience, do you think that the wt attracts needy types of people?

over the years, my experience is that they do attract very needy, insecure, dysfunctional, types.

i had an acquaintance that i just basically cut off.

DogGone

On the anecdotal side of things, well, I was a needy dysfunctional person and I was attracted to the JW's. Then again, I was a teenager which is when many are attracted to high control groups, and teenagers are usually needy dysfunctional narcissists.

33

Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?

by Half banana in

i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.

can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.

DogGone

David Jay, I'm sorry to admit, you confused me. I read you as saying that taking on contextual criticism of normative Christianity would be more effective than attacking an understanding of faith which does not adhere to basic exegetical theory. But, you then acknowledge that many (most?) believers entertain exactly such an understanding. Why would it be more effective to take on the understanding of the few than the many?

33

Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?

by Half banana in

i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.

can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.

DogGone

Hi Perry, would you describe yourself as a fedeist?

Your post indicates you can or even should come to faith by studying and learning. Just wondering if that is the case and you are more along the lines of Calvinist thought that reason, rightly used, leads to faith or more along the Kierkegaard or Liberation Theology line?

If you reject such labels, I do understand.

33

Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?

by Half banana in

i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.

can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.

DogGone

Cofty, thanks, I was afraid I wasn't clear. That may still be the case, but at least you sorted through my ramblings.

To put it simply, those of faith can retreat into Fideism. (Not all do, so this line of attack works well against those who think their faith is underpinned by logic, but that is not the Evangelical way, in my experience.)