Religious Liberty does not excuse rudness, hatefulness, or bullying

[karaddin]

7 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I think it was a bit more basic than that.  When your numbers are few, your survival depends on increasing those numbers.  Sex, for any purpose than procreation, was frowned upon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

I think if you take the context of a nomadic tribe in an arid region in ancient times with no access to sophisticated food preservation techniques, nor reliable access to running water for hygiene proposes, a lot of the proscriptions in the Old testament make a lot of sense from a health and safety point of view. Shellfish? Express ticket to food poisoning. Anal sex or vaginal sex with a woman during menstruation? Going to result in body fluids getting on parts of the body where ideally you want to be washing them off relatively quickly. The idea that ancient rules for safe living in ancient times would get read through a layer of religious belief really shouldn't be a difficult one to see, yet here we are several millennia later in completely different circumstances with people taking this as literal word and good and justifying oppression on that basis.

[Darzin]

@Ormond Fair enough, I don't have enough knowledge of the original Greek.

@karaddin I think what you said is very true these customs often existed for a reason  but have now become absurd to maintain in modern society. Take the burka for example, traditionally most families in Afghanistan live in walled compounds with their extended family and burka's were only worn outside of that. It's maybe not the most progressive thing but Afghanistan is a dusty dirty place and it keeps the dirt off when you go and shields you from prying eyes. It's really only for moving from compound to compound and as Afghanistan has often been an unlawful place it's best to have a male relative go with you. These complexes have many houses and large yards so your free to relax with your friends and family uncovered and safe behind their walls, but once you move this to a modern urban environment it becomes horribly restrictive, by limiting you to a small one room apartment and isolating you socially as you're no longer living with a large family group.  

[Robin Of House Hill]

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

I think if you take the context of a nomadic tribe in an arid region in ancient times with no access to sophisticated food preservation techniques, nor reliable access to running water for hygiene proposes, a lot of the proscriptions in the Old testament make a lot of sense from a health and safety point of view. Shellfish? Express ticket to food poisoning. Anal sex or vaginal sex with a woman during menstruation? Going to result in body fluids getting on parts of the body where ideally you want to be washing them off relatively quickly. The idea that ancient rules for safe living in ancient times would get read through a layer of religious belief really shouldn't be a difficult one to see, yet here we are several millennia later in completely different circumstances with people taking this as literal word and good and justifying oppression on that basis.

I confess that I hadn't thought about it in those terms, and it is possible that the premise is correct.  In either case. whoever first wrote the text of the  Old Testament, never anticipated how it would be interpreted in the future, while those in the future, never understood the context in which it was written and presumed it to be a moral issue, rather than a health, or increasing their tribe issue.

[Robin Of House Hill]

I feel I have to ask this question.  Is reducing the imposition of one's own religious beliefs for the purpose of harming another, to a question of rudeness, not saying that it is acceptable, but you have to say it nicely?  

If, instead of what quoted in the OP, someone told me, "I just learned that you are one of those people that my religion says God doesn't like, so we can't be friends anymore,  Sorry, good bye," that would meet the condition of not being rude, but the same harm is imposed.  That type of thinking is no different than saying, "I cannot rent an apartment to you," or "I cannot hire you."  Depriving someone of anything, even friendship, because of one's belief, is causing harm.  That's the real issue, not how one says it.  I assure you that when someone in such a lofty position as the Pope likens me to a nuclear weapon, or claims I'm undoing God's plan,  I don't give a damn whether he's polite, or not.

[Theda Baratheon]

22 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I feel I have to ask this question.  Is reducing the imposition of one's own religious beliefs for the purpose of harming another, to a question of rudeness, not saying that it is acceptable, but you have to say it nicely?  

If, instead of what quoted in the OP, someone told me, "I just learned that you are one of those people that my religion says God doesn't like, so we can't be friends anymore,  Sorry, good bye," that would meet the condition of not being rude, but the same harm is imposed.  That type of thinking is no different than saying, "I cannot rent an apartment to you," or "I cannot hire you."  Depriving someone of anything, even friendship, because of one's belief, is causing harm.  That's the real issue, not how one says it.  I assure you that when someone in such a lofty position as the Pope likens me to a nuclear weapon, or claims I'm undoing God's plan,  I don't give a damn whether he's polite, or not.

I would sill think that "technically polite" person was a total jackass

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

18 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I feel I have to ask this question.  Is reducing the imposition of one's own religious beliefs for the purpose of harming another, to a question of rudeness, not saying that it is acceptable, but you have to say it nicely?  

If, instead of what quoted in the OP, someone told me, "I just learned that you are one of those people that my religion says God doesn't like, so we can't be friends anymore,  Sorry, good bye," that would meet the condition of not being rude, but the same harm is imposed.  That type of thinking is no different than saying, "I cannot rent an apartment to you," or "I cannot hire you."  Depriving someone of anything, even friendship, because of one's belief, is causing harm.  That's the real issue, not how one says it.  I assure you that when someone in such a lofty position as the Pope likens me to a nuclear weapon, or claims I'm undoing God's plan,  I don't give a damn whether he's polite, or not.

That's a really good question. I guess I'd start from the perspective of would you really want to be friends with this person if that's how they truly feel. If their belief system so impairs their ability to extend friendship to someone they would otherwise be friends with, do you really want to associate yourself with that person? It is hurtful, but I don't think you can equate it to "I can't rent to you, I can't hire you" as that has a direct financial impact on you and there are laws that are supposed to prevent that sort of thing from occurring. 

[Theda Baratheon]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That's a really good question. I guess I'd start from the perspective of would you really want to be friends with this person if that's how they truly feel. If their belief system so impairs their ability to extend friendship to someone they would otherwise be friends with, do you really want to associate yourself with that person? It is hurtful, but I don't think you can equate it to "I can't rent to you, I can't hire you" as that has a direct financial impact on you and there are laws that are supposed to prevent that sort of thing from occurring. 

I think you can equate it to that. 

It doesn't matter if you would even want to be fronds with a hateful person the notion that "I can no longer extend my friendship to you, I can no longer love and support you" absolutely does ring the same to me as "I can't serve you, I can't hire you" and we need to stop being dismissive of these things. It's dangerous and harmful. Someone withdrawing friendship because they don't like the gender identity of someone is a total asshole and they're harmful and dangerous. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I think you can equate it to that. 

It doesn't matter if you would even want to be fronds with a hateful person the notion that "I can no longer extend my friendship to you, I can no longer love and support you" absolutely does ring the same to me as "I can't serve you, I can't hire you" and we need to stop being dismissive of these things. It's dangerous and harmful. Someone withdrawing friendship because they don't like the gender identity of someone is a total asshole and they're harmful and dangerous. 

I'm not meaning to be dismissive of it at all. If you've invested a significant amount of time and emotion into the friendship, that sort of thing can be devastating, granted. That said, you can't legislate friendship in the same way that you can legislate rules regarding renting property or employing people. These are two very different things.

[Robin Of House Hill]

8 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I would sill think that "technically polite" person was a total jackass

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That's a really good question. I guess I'd start from the perspective of would you really want to be friends with this person if that's how they truly feel. If their belief system so impairs their ability to extend friendship to someone they would otherwise be friends with, do you really want to associate yourself with that person? It is hurtful, but I don't think you can equate it to "I can't rent to you, I can't hire you" as that has a direct financial impact on you and there are laws that are supposed to prevent that sort of thing from occurring. 

Honestly, in the real world, as far as I can tell, no one knows I'm one of those people God doesn't like.  Of course, they might know, but are being polite in not making it apparent.  I'm not qualified to answer that question because if I suspected anyone did know, I'd avoid them, but without being it obvious about it.  It's easy to do. To me, it would be irrelevant whether they were pro or con.

Of course there are degrees of harm.  Should we condone harm because it is only slightly harmful?

[Theda Baratheon]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm not meaning to be dismissive of it at all. If you've invested a significant amount of time and emotion into the friendship, that sort of thing can be devastating, granted. That said, you can't legislate friendship in the same way that you can legislate rules regarding renting property or employing people. These are two very different things.

No you can't legislate friendship but that doesn't mean it's not as significant and important.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Honestly, in the real world, as far as I can tell, no one knows I'm one of those people God doesn't like.  Of course, they might know, but are being polite in not making it apparent.  I'm not qualified to answer that question because if I suspected anyone did know, I'd avoid them, but without being it obvious about it.  It's easy to do. To me, it would be irrelevant whether they were pro or con.

Of course there are degrees of harm.  Should we condone harm because it is only slightly harmful?

 And you should also understand that there is a large percentage of folks who hold no religious beliefs at all, and could give a hairy rats' ass what God likes or doesn't like. 

Again, I'm not suggesting that we should condone harm. That said, we have to understand that folks are entitled to their belief systems. We can define the implementation of those beliefs as being assholish and harmful, but we can't force them to feel differently. We can legislate extremes of those behaviors, but that's about as far as it goes in a relatively free society.  

[Robin Of House Hill]

19 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 And you should also understand that there is a large percentage of folks who hold no religious beliefs at all, and could give a hairy rats' ass what God likes or doesn't like. 

Again, I'm not suggesting that we should condone harm. That said, we have to understand that folks are entitled to their belief systems. We can define the implementation of those beliefs as being assholish and harmful, but we can't force them to feel differently. We can legislate extremes of those behaviors, but that's about as far as it goes in a relatively free society.  

Of course.  The world is full of non-religious people whose views can harm people if they act on them. and of course, the last thing the current administration and Congress would want to do is regulate assholes. 

[Knight of the Red Tree]

There are no people God doesn't like. God loves everyone, even the Devil. When people sin they just hurt Him.

[Knight of the Red Tree]

0:34-1:09

Then 1:38-2:00.