shopify analytics tool

NeoNote - control

So some religions should get protection and others should not? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that if we start making those distinctions we've just sacrificed religious freedom.


There are times I want to discriminate.

There are people I do not want to have anything to do with. Yes, sometimes those people are Christian fundamentalists. But sometimes those people call for imprisoning climate deniers. Sometimes those people call for the redistribution of wealth. Sometimes those people call for the suppression of ideas they are "triggered" by. Sometimes those people want others removed from history because of things the others have been accused of.

So tell me, why should any of those people get their way?

We draw the line for a reason. No, it's not perfect and not everyone will be happy. But it comes down to parity. If I don't think someone has legitimate power to tell me how to think, what to say, or how to act, then I have no legitimate power to tell them how to think, what to say, or how to act. Which means that public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws are so much bunk.

Otherwise we're just raising one victimhood over another. Last week it was women, this week it is transgenders we're "protecting." Can't have equal rights because Black Lives Matter. If your faith offends, you aren't allowed. At that point, at this point, the only "solution" is to control the law so that you can control what is "allowed." Never mind that just sets up a future where you will lose control. You must be free, but the Other is not allowed.


Everyone should have freedom to discriminate.

The moment that the law declares this group of people off limits is the moment when you invite the law to be abused.

Look at the bill that sparked the original article. It's a "fix" of another law, which was a fix of a previous law, and so on.

The solution to government is always more government. And the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

If Christians are wrong to enshrine their beliefs in the law, then anyone else is wrong trying to constrain them with the law.

The only practical solution is making sure the law gives no advantage. "Protecting" one group over others is just going to perpetuate the injustice.



As far as the rest, I don't blame labels. There's no vice or virtue in the label. "Christian" includes Roy Moore and MLK. It's not every Christian and we should stop declaring that Christianity is a threat to our chosen way of life. Like it or not, American religious pluralism made American paganism possible.

As far as scapegoats go, well, you (among others) are blaming Christians because they are Christians and not because of what the individual has done.

My point all along this thread is that the law should not benefit or harm any religion. There are some very vocal Christians who want the law to shield Christianity. There are some very vocal people who want the law to contain Christianity. Both groups are wrong.



Actually yes.

Starting with a big one. I'll repeat it for you.

If Christians are wrong to enshrine their beliefs in the law, then anyone else is wrong trying to constrain them with the law.

Freedom of religion is exactly that. Neither help nor hinder. You can't fix bad law by making more law. You can only repeal it. Politics is about control. Freedom is about choice.


Ah, but that isn't what people like Bill Nye, Lawrence Torcello, Mark Hertsgaard, and Brad Johnson said. They all said that the mere act of climate change denial should be a crime.

Behold the new heresy. You are not allowed to dissent.

And yes, that is every bit as authoritarian as anything any Christian fanatic demanded.
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Comments

Offensive

People get offended by different things, but just because something offends you, doesn't mean the whole world has to change to accommodate you, so I would say please be more tolerant.
     — Mark Wivell, Family asked to remove 'offensive' Jesus sign from their Christmas display because it offended a neighbour
Comments

NeoNotes — ban it

But you can't ban it because you dislike it. You can't outlaw it because if offends you. You can't lock it away and hope no one finds the key.

Read More...
Comments
2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       2005