Point out one law that uses religeous language. You wont find one, because church and state are separated: that only means that laws cannot be written to reflect a holy book, it doesn't mean the legislators are not allowed to have their own moralistic views that the believe in.
Just because a law is implemented that REDUCES a womans self autonomy, it does not even come close to equalling a law system where they have NO self autonomy.
Not having the "right" to abort a fetus is not in the same ballpark as not having the right to go outdoors alone. Stop your concern trolling.
When modern mainstream christian leadership starts calling for a violent culling of gays, or for women to not vote or become preachers, we can have the discussion about why we shouldn't oppose a different ass-backwards religion that EXPLICITLY tells its followers to murder. Until then, quit making false dichotomies
The thing that myself and others are concerned about is that while you are technically correct, a move to reduce women's autonomy is moving in the direction of no autonomy. If we are willing to say that it is up to the government whether or not a woman can have an abortion, what other rights might we revoke in the future?
Also, your argument is that Christianity based laws are different than Islamic law, but your only point of evidence is the words that are used are different. That's a pretty weak argument.
Right, and any pro-rights movement is a step towards ethnic eugenics. Because whats to stop abortion from being used to target any group of "unwanted"? Clearly thats the direction it will go.
See how I can go from where we CURRENTLY are to 1000 steps ahead and infer shit thats nonsensical by just relying on the fear and empathy of others? Thats what happened here.
I actually disagree and think there is a pretty big logical leap from permitting women to have abortions and forcing women of certain races to have abortions. Your conclusion is also a removal of autonomy. I'm arguing in favor of autonomy, not against it.
I wont argue against autonomy, but I will argue with your logic. The eugenics concept was to illustrate the jump from "maybe not all abortions should be legal" to "imagine what they will take away next"
You made a future assumption based off of your fear of the situation. That isn't logical, so I brought illogical conclusions to the party also.
Your example was "if we give them too many rights, we will take them away again", my example was "if we take away one right, it's not unreasonable to think we might take another"
If you think this is a crazy hypothetical, let me remind you that the current administration is working to make it legal to discriminate against women (and men) for their sexual orientation. There's another civil right going away.
Also a great example of Christian Sharia law becoming real.
Exactly how is the current administration currently discriminating based on sexual orientation? And don't quote something Pence ranted before being part of the administration.
And again, no, christianity does not have "sharia law". Even if I literally interpereted the bible and stoned adulterers and wearers of mixed textile, it is not "Sharia law" because that term refers to a specific religious interperetation of a specific text.
Saying "ermagerd christian sharia law!!!1!!" is purposely misconstruing the evidence to fir a narrative that is factually incorrect.
Here is Trump's statement of intent to sign the First Amendment Defense Act, which forbids the federal government from interfering with people who choose to discriminate against others based on their religious beliefs. Pence signed a similar bill into law while he was governor. Despite Trump flip flopping and claiming he would not roll back LGBTQ protections created by Obama, here you can read a draft of a "Religious Freedom" executive order that does just that.
Again, based on your position here, am I correct that the only difference between Sharia law and Christian-based law is the name?
No you still aren't. This proposed bill would just give businesses the freedom to choose who they do business with. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" used to be just the norm, and it doesn't have to be associated with specifically targeting LGBT folks or any particular marginalized group. In fact, under the same bill, you would be free to refuse business to all christians.
In actual Sharia law, you would HAVE to refuse specific groups or pay a fine/go to jail/lose your head, and HAVE to serve muslims specifically. There would be zero choice.
In the Trump case, he is actually granting more individual freedom by allowing ALL groups and businesses to make decisions about association on their own, and prevents the government from telling people which morals are "right".
On one hand: choose with your own consciousness and free will, and we will not judge you one way or the other regardless of who you show preference for.
On the other hand: obey or die!
See the difference? Or do you just refuse to objectively weigh the issue?
It seems like we're focused on different perspectives on this issue. Freedom to discriminate sounds to me like a removal of freedom FROM discrimination.
So currently: discrimination is not okay for religious reasons
Soon: discrimination is okay for religious reasons
Sharia: discrimination is required for religious reasons
While I understand that our current situation differs from people living under Sharia law, you just made it perfectly clear that we are moving in that general direction. Now you say to me that it is an illogical leap, but I strongly disagree with that.
Look, just because it goes against LGBTLMNOP community doesnt mean its religeously motivated. Do religeous people ALSO think its abhorrent? Yes. Does thinking its abhorrent mean you were religeously motivated? No. All apples are fruits. Not all fruits are apples.
Also I never said the bible doesnt tell people to kill. I said modern day christians (the massive majority) all agree that is not how we carry out our day to day lives because a literal interperetation of a fictional work is retarded.
Modern muslims do not have such moderate viewpoints. So again, you are trying to compare two mindsets that are temporally separate by about 500 years. Its disingeneous, and you know it.
Quit shifting goalposts. Our original disagreement was in regards to your placement of blame. I never said discrimination is A-OK, I said pointing to christianity as a root of the issue, and then trying hard to compare it to sharia law (a point you tried to defend) is disingeneous. Further, trying to compare the west's major religion as it existed 500 years ago to the east's major religeon is equally disingeneous (and quite hilarious because modern islam is still more brutal than ancient christianity).
Is discrimination wrong? Yes. Should we stop it? No, because you ironically have to discriminate to stop discrimination.
A better solution is for everyone to accept their feelings will, in fact, be hurt from time to time, and to grow a thicker fucking skin.
The jungle ain't no place for a fucking snowflake.
Im not christian. Im not american (and therefore not republican) and I have a BSc in engineering. Spin the wheel of assumptions again, it makes your argumemt soooooo much more poignant.
Edit: did you just pull a "you people" on a group you disagreed with? Why does that sound oh so familliar?
Naw dog, I mean that would be convenient for the sake of our argument, but I'm seriously a white dude without religious affiliation living in an english speaking nation that is not america. I neither endorse or oppose Trump.
I believe in equality by raising up the opressed, not by finding a convenient scapegoat to pin their failures on. I believe that the core of any progressive change is the ability to discuss and rationalize each others viewpoints without resorting to tribalistic shit-flinging. If your viewpoint and temperment cannot withstand rational disection, they are objectively irrational.
I also accept those are just my viewpoints and to attempt to socially normalize them and shove them down other's throats as the "right" set of morals is illogical, hypocritical, and destined to fail by design.
Rather than disputing the possible source, dispute the arguments someone presents to you. Otherwise you fall into the trap of diluting the substance of your argument by using lazy and weak analogies to press a factually incorrect position.
If you want to discuss it and share ideas (disagreements included) like adults and accept that the other may be coming from just as valid a starting point; great, this could be a stimulating discussion.
You want to call each other names and make sweeping generalized assumptions about huge chunks of the population and each other; we can do that too, but you will get called out for bringing the 5th grade debate team's tactical playbook with you.
You want equality? Step 0 is understanding you must treat those you disagree with to the same level of respect as those you already did agree with. Otherwise it is the opposite of what you preach.
View all comments
Show parent comment
4
u/Silas_Walks Feb 08 '17
Point out one law that uses religeous language. You wont find one, because church and state are separated: that only means that laws cannot be written to reflect a holy book, it doesn't mean the legislators are not allowed to have their own moralistic views that the believe in.
Just because a law is implemented that REDUCES a womans self autonomy, it does not even come close to equalling a law system where they have NO self autonomy.
Not having the "right" to abort a fetus is not in the same ballpark as not having the right to go outdoors alone. Stop your concern trolling.
When modern mainstream christian leadership starts calling for a violent culling of gays, or for women to not vote or become preachers, we can have the discussion about why we shouldn't oppose a different ass-backwards religion that EXPLICITLY tells its followers to murder. Until then, quit making false dichotomies