Liberalism: A Challenge to Religion

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7313
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:14 am

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 7:59 pm » by 99socks


Nice, intelligent presentation.

This whole channel is good. I might just spam DTV with it today. :sunny:





A liberal state will put ideas about rights and individual autonomy at the centre of the relationship between the individual and the state. However, it is sometimes argued that the liberal state should be neutral, not seeking to impose an overall conception of the good on society. Should individuals choose their own values, with the state providing a framework within which individuals can pursue their own conception of the good without interference from others?




Upload to Disclose.tv

I can't speak about how much of the Constitution is in effect anymore... But thank God we still somewhat resemble a Republic and not a democracy!


http://thethinkingapostate.ghost.io/

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1891
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:08 pm
Location: The outlet by the light switch

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 10:02 pm » by Thebluecanary


That was really interesting, Sock. He made some pretty good points.

I think ultimately it comes back to the first big point that he made: that hurt sensibilities don't equal actual harm. I think if that point was emphasized and fully understood by everyone in society, lots of our other problems would cease. And it goes in all directions.

I think that the role of government in individual life has to be completely free from religious sentiment for the most part. Individuals, and even individual lawmakers, can have strong religious convictions, but in order to serve all citizens the state itself must be free from advancing any one religious agenda over the others. People are allowed to have moral objections to gay marriage, for example; no matter how angry it makes others, no amount of screaming or punishment (or canceling stupid reality TV shows) is going to MAKE a person agree with something that they don't agree with. You cannot legislate a person's emotions, and I think where we get into trouble is when we start trying to do that. However, religious objection to something should never be grounds for determining its legality. Marriage as the state defines it is a binding contract that mostly relates to property rights and personal responsibilities. Therefore, if a state were to be truly "liberal", marriage between two adults over the age of consent should be legal for all people regardless of their sexual orientation, because it is a legal contract and not a sacrament. It would be up to individual churches, then, to define whether they would or would not perform or recognize same sex ceremonies within their own organization. No forcing the Southern Baptists to perform gay marriages if they don't want to…however, no matter where they are two men or two women could have the freedom to walk into any courthouse and sign the legally binding contract and have it universally recognized as such by the state, with all the legal benefits that involves.

Same with abortion. I have a personal moral objection to it. I don't think I could ever do it myself, and I find the concept distasteful. However, I am staunchly pro-choice, because my subjective beliefs should never define the legal reality of someone else. I have great problems with attempting to define "personhood" as beginning in utero, because that is a slippery moral slope (and relates back to what we were talking about yesterday with the homeschool thing, sort of) where we could get to the point that a woman falls down the stairs and has a miscarriage and is charged with negligent homicide.

It's hard to balance the rules of the state with personal autonomy sometimes. In the case of dress codes, for example. Is someone who wears a cross to work hurting the muslim employee she works with? No, because even if they suffer from offended sensibilities, that does not equal harm. Same with the muslim woman who has to wear a head scarf as a daily tenet of her religion; she is not hurting anyone, no matter how much it may "offend" them to see her dressed that way. The little girl with the ring might be a different case…since the ring is not a requirement of her faith but is instead personal expression (which strict dress codes exist to prevent anyway, and i don't usually agree with that on principal) but I can't help but feel like if it were something different, a pentagram for example or some expression of Muslim identity, her court case might have had a different outcome. Or at least, her case would have been a nationwide issue about her "oppression" instead of a footnote to a lecture.

I think that there is a way to balance a polite society within a framework of laws that keeps things running smoothly without trampling on personal rights, IF EVERYONE COULD GET IT THROUGH THEIR THICK SKULLS THAT HURT FEE-FEES DO NOT EQUAL OPPRESSION. That's the sticky point.
Remember, in a real conspiracy, all players are pawns regardless of their rank.
-----Christopher Hyatt

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7313
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:14 am

PostSun Dec 29, 2013 3:43 am » by 99socks


I'm gonna break the rules and give this a bump.
I can't speak about how much of the Constitution is in effect anymore... But thank God we still somewhat resemble a Republic and not a democracy!


http://thethinkingapostate.ghost.io/

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 695
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:36 pm

PostWed Jan 01, 2014 10:20 am » by Domeika


Thebluecanary wrote:That was really interesting, Sock. He made some pretty good points.

I think ultimately it comes back to the first big point that he made: that hurt sensibilities don't equal actual harm. I think if that point was emphasized and fully understood by everyone in society, lots of our other problems would cease. And it goes in all directions.

I think that the role of government in individual life has to be completely free from religious sentiment for the most part. Individuals, and even individual lawmakers, can have strong religious convictions, but in order to serve all citizens the state itself must be free from advancing any one religious agenda over the others. People are allowed to have moral objections to gay marriage, for example; no matter how angry it makes others, no amount of screaming or punishment (or canceling stupid reality TV shows) is going to MAKE a person agree with something that they don't agree with. You cannot legislate a person's emotions, and I think where we get into trouble is when we start trying to do that. However, religious objection to something should never be grounds for determining its legality. Marriage as the state defines it is a binding contract that mostly relates to property rights and personal responsibilities. Therefore, if a state were to be truly "liberal", marriage between two adults over the age of consent should be legal for all people regardless of their sexual orientation, because it is a legal contract and not a sacrament. It would be up to individual churches, then, to define whether they would or would not perform or recognize same sex ceremonies within their own organization. No forcing the Southern Baptists to perform gay marriages if they don't want to…however, no matter where they are two men or two women could have the freedom to walk into any courthouse and sign the legally binding contract and have it universally recognized as such by the state, with all the legal benefits that involves.

Same with abortion. I have a personal moral objection to it. I don't think I could ever do it myself, and I find the concept distasteful. However, I am staunchly pro-choice, because my subjective beliefs should never define the legal reality of someone else. I have great problems with attempting to define "personhood" as beginning in utero, because that is a slippery moral slope (and relates back to what we were talking about yesterday with the homeschool thing, sort of) where we could get to the point that a woman falls down the stairs and has a miscarriage and is charged with negligent homicide.

It's hard to balance the rules of the state with personal autonomy sometimes. In the case of dress codes, for example. Is someone who wears a cross to work hurting the muslim employee she works with? No, because even if they suffer from offended sensibilities, that does not equal harm. Same with the muslim woman who has to wear a head scarf as a daily tenet of her religion; she is not hurting anyone, no matter how much it may "offend" them to see her dressed that way. The little girl with the ring might be a different case…since the ring is not a requirement of her faith but is instead personal expression (which strict dress codes exist to prevent anyway, and i don't usually agree with that on principal) but I can't help but feel like if it were something different, a pentagram for example or some expression of Muslim identity, her court case might have had a different outcome. Or at least, her case would have been a nationwide issue about her "oppression" instead of a footnote to a lecture.

I think that there is a way to balance a polite society within a framework of laws that keeps things running smoothly without trampling on personal rights, IF EVERYONE COULD GET IT THROUGH THEIR THICK SKULLS THAT HURT FEE-FEES DO NOT EQUAL OPPRESSION. That's the sticky point.


I have a problem with...well, none of it. BUMP

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1929
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:16 am

PostThu Jan 02, 2014 2:18 pm » by mediasorcery


Thebluecanary wrote:That was really interesting, Sock. He made some pretty good points.

I think ultimately it comes back to the first big point that he made: that hurt sensibilities don't equal actual harm. I think if that point was emphasized and fully understood by everyone in society, lots of our other problems would cease. And it goes in all directions.

I think that the role of government in individual life has to be completely free from religious sentiment for the most part. Individuals, and even individual lawmakers, can have strong religious convictions, but in order to serve all citizens the state itself must be free from advancing any one religious agenda over the others. People are allowed to have moral objections to gay marriage, for example; no matter how angry it makes others, no amount of screaming or punishment (or canceling stupid reality TV shows) is going to MAKE a person agree with something that they don't agree with. You cannot legislate a person's emotions, and I think where we get into trouble is when we start trying to do that. However, religious objection to something should never be grounds for determining its legality. Marriage as the state defines it is a binding contract that mostly relates to property rights and personal responsibilities. Therefore, if a state were to be truly "liberal", marriage between two adults over the age of consent should be legal for all people regardless of their sexual orientation, because it is a legal contract and not a sacrament. It would be up to individual churches, then, to define whether they would or would not perform or recognize same sex ceremonies within their own organization. No forcing the Southern Baptists to perform gay marriages if they don't want to…however, no matter where they are two men or two women could have the freedom to walk into any courthouse and sign the legally binding contract and have it universally recognized as such by the state, with all the legal benefits that involves.

Same with abortion. I have a personal moral objection to it. I don't think I could ever do it myself, and I find the concept distasteful. However, I am staunchly pro-choice, because my subjective beliefs should never define the legal reality of someone else. I have great problems with attempting to define "personhood" as beginning in utero, because that is a slippery moral slope (and relates back to what we were talking about yesterday with the homeschool thing, sort of) where we could get to the point that a woman falls down the stairs and has a miscarriage and is charged with negligent homicide.

It's hard to balance the rules of the state with personal autonomy sometimes. In the case of dress codes, for example. Is someone who wears a cross to work hurting the muslim employee she works with? No, because even if they suffer from offended sensibilities, that does not equal harm. Same with the muslim woman who has to wear a head scarf as a daily tenet of her religion; she is not hurting anyone, no matter how much it may "offend" them to see her dressed that way. The little girl with the ring might be a different case…since the ring is not a requirement of her faith but is instead personal expression (which strict dress codes exist to prevent anyway, and i don't usually agree with that on principal) but I can't help but feel like if it were something different, a pentagram for example or some expression of Muslim identity, her court case might have had a different outcome. Or at least, her case would have been a nationwide issue about her "oppression" instead of a footnote to a lecture.

I think that there is a way to balance a polite society within a framework of laws that keeps things running smoothly without trampling on personal rights, IF EVERYONE COULD GET IT THROUGH THEIR THICK SKULLS THAT HURT FEE-FEES DO NOT EQUAL OPPRESSION. That's the sticky point.



:flop: :flop: well said
the story of life is quicker than the blink of an eye, the story of love is hello and goodbye, until we meet again my friend.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7313
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:14 am

PostFri Jan 03, 2014 3:57 am » by 99socks


mediasorcery wrote:
:flop: :flop: well said




I agree.

But totally bummed this hasn't gotten many views. I'm willing to bet that most people saw that the video was "too long" and decided not to bother. That is, if the title didn't turn them off, either. :?
I can't speak about how much of the Constitution is in effect anymore... But thank God we still somewhat resemble a Republic and not a democracy!


http://thethinkingapostate.ghost.io/



  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook