Posts by Viviane

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Viviane

I don't see this as a civil rights issue, more like a moral wrong issue. The only real hate in this situation is what was exhibited by the gay couple demanding this Baker cater a function that totally goes against his conscience.

Being gay isn't a choice, being black isn't a choice. How is it NOT a civil rights issue? How is it not rooted in hate when the basis for the discrimination is a book that says to kill gay people?

Unless, of course, you think being gay IS a choice, which means all you need is to meet the right guy.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Viviane

One involves simple race, and the other involves action. If the Baker had refused to serve gay people, then it would be a closed case, but this Baker did not refuse to serve the people, it has already been proven that they were served graciously all along, however they did not want to be a part of a ceremony that went totally against their moral conscience.

First, it's not gracious to accept money in exchange for a service.They weren't doing the gay couple a favor. They were happy to do it, the reason they were in business in the first place to to accept money for weddings.

Your argument falls flat, could they also decide to not serve a wedding of a mix-heritage couple? If not, why not? How is that different? What if the couple getting married were Hindu or Muslim or JW?

How is it moral to serve some occasions for a gay couple (who you know are doing acts you don't approve of) vs. getting marries, where those same acts will occur?

If being black isn't a choice and being gay isn't a choice, what is the difference?

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Viviane

One small, but very vocal sector of society is causing all this ruckus. It is one thing to to ensure equal treatment of people, but to elevate one segment of society to an untouchable class is totally agregious.

Or egregious, as the case may be. Regardless, rights for all means ALL. Hypocritical faux religiosity doesn't give people the right to accept public infrastructure and support and then arbitrarily decide to which part of the public they serve.

The only people who are sued are born again bible believing christians.
The issue at stake in the cake bakery is not the fact that they refused to serve gays, it is they refused to participate in a service that goes against their moral conscience. There are some businesses (fewer nowadays) that aren't willing to sacrifice their convictions for a quick buck, and this baker was one of them.

Sure they are, because they don't actually believe the Bible, they believe the parts that already agrees with them. Until they refuse to serve fornicators, people that follow another religion or start avoiding shellfish and pork, well, they don't REALLY follow the Bible and don't get to decide to make up rules it never touches on, for instance, it never says "thou shalt be free to take the icky gay money except for when it's a wedding".

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

it just dawned on me.

the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.

so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.

Viviane

Not present, couldn't be found ... He/she/it ...

Ah, so not present like a student absent from class, existing, possibly with naughty bits implying a gender, then?

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

it just dawned on me.

the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.

so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.

Viviane

So, what do you mean by "absent"? Or he?

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

it just dawned on me.

the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.

so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.

Viviane

I agree with you. I was playing the devil's advocate here. But fact is, millions of people assign spirit power to objects, animals, other people. To them, that deity is real.

So what? It's NOT real and I fail to see how that in any way helps your case of absentheism.

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

it just dawned on me.

the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.

so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.

Viviane

By the way, who is "we"?

Everyone, including you.

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

it just dawned on me.

the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.

so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.

Viviane

So, well done, good job, thread derailed.

As we left it last, so far we still don't have clue what absentheism is actually saying (or not) and I suspect we never will.

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

it just dawned on me.

the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.

so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.

Viviane

I don't know where you got that idea from. Aten was depicted as a solar disc with rays emanating from it. And the sun exists, I see it mostly every day here.

From reading on the subject.

Aten was originally a hypostasis of Ra as well. His origin story is that a dead king rose to the heavens and united with the sun.

Either way, assigning spirit power to a real thing no more makes that thing a god than does painting orange and black stripes on a poodle make it a tiger.

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

it just dawned on me.

the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.

so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.

Viviane

Again, please read carefully what I wrote. I didn't say you had the trait of an apatheist. I simply said that functional atheist and apatheist are domains of attitude towards life, whereas atheism, skepticism, agnosticism are theoretical stands.

And I disagree. My attitude comes from action, not attitude. You are 100% incorrect.