6 ms·

At least it's honest. You know exactly what it's all about. Unlike what we have now where you are publicly shamed for your religious beliefs and the people do

At least it's honest. You know exactly what it's all about. Unlike what we have now where you are publicly shamed for your religious beliefs and the people doing the shaming not only deny it, but somehow think it's morally correct.

lmm 11y ago
Some religions are genocidal (probably most of them, if they take their holy books literally). Aren't some political positions sufficiently horrible that it is morally correct to shame people for them? That such a political position is a religious belief should not change how we treat it.
- drivingmenuts 11y ago
  Shaming only works if you can convince the shamed that they are actually wrong instead of being persecuted. The martyr complex is alive and quite well.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  To someone who believes in God you cannot choose your god anymore than you can change your race or sexual orientation. There are clear lines to draw around justice issues like violations of human rights, suffrage, freedom of speech, etc. But you're painting with a very broad brush if you think it's morally correct to persecute people for believing in a different (or no or any) God. I would even call it closed minded.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Hm. Yet people change religion all the time. Claiming 'no true scotsman' isn't fair. That leaves, people choose God. And we can't call it coincidence that people of one culture mostly choose the same God. Gotta be learned, right? So I'm not buying that line at all.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      > Yet people change religion all the time. And people always believe they have God down this time. Someone wouldn't say, "Yeah, I really had God figured out ten years ago but then I converted to East Southern Pentecostal Community Catholicism. That was a bad choice." > That leaves, people choose God. The way Christians look at it, God is revealed, not chosen. If you choose your own God, then your God tends to look suspiciously like an idealized version of yourself (or what you wish you were). In other words, to the extent you choose God, you probably have it wrong. That being said, you can't judge people for seeking earnestly. > And we can't call it coincidence that people of one culture mostly choose the same God. One culture? Which culture? We're talking about a Brazilian social network. Is that the same culture as the mountains of Kentucky or the streets of Rome? To be clear, I'm arguing that people should be free to earnestly search for God (or confirm lack thereof) in their own way. Claiming people choose God presupposes He (or she or them) is already a mental construct.
      - waterlesscloud 11y ago
        Pentecostal Catholicism would make for some interesting services.
  - lmm 11y ago
    I wouldn't attack or persecute people just for believing in any god or none - only when, in the name of their beliefs, they want to harm others (usually, though by no means always, the weak and the minority). I think most antireligous folk would say the same.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    What if someone believes in a God who they think is telling them they need to go out and murder people, right now?
- DanBC 11y ago
  Imagine Bob is a horrible anti-gay bigot. What are our objectives? Changing Bob's mind? Protecting the victims of Bob's bigotry? Making sure Bob doesn't misuse (if it is misuse, it won't always be) our platform / software project / mail list to spread those bigoted views? Shaming Bob doesn't seem to be the most effective way of doing that. If anything, shaming and ostrasizing may just mKe his views stronger. I guess shaming does let people know that we strongly think that Bob is weong amd that the targets of Bob's bigotry are welcome on our platform / project / mailing list. But then a little rainbow banner would do that too.
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  I'm talking about someone religious that may not agree with gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, but treats everyone equally (gay, straight, or trans). They are bullied and tormented by other people in the community and on social media, and it's accepted If it wasn't accepted, the people doing the bullying would lose their jobs. But I have never seen it happen. I have seen people lose their jobs for disagreeing with the gay marriage ruling...and I'm not even talking about using pejoratives or using any sort of the same bullying tactics. I would like a world with true equality. Not just equality for the few. This sort of behavior is not progressive. It's regressive. It's a digital version of mob mentality and is the very reason we have a democratic process with a court system and a judge/jury. Emotion clouds judgement, intelligence, and facts. The politicians know this and use it to their full advantage to get you to vote for them and create an us vs. them mentality. Until we change this behavior, there will never be peace.
  - lmm 11y ago
    > I'm talking about someone religious that may not agree with gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, but treats everyone equally (gay, straight, or trans). Your "not agree with" is hiding a lot. If someone is trying to make it illegal for one group to marry (and legal for another group) then how is that treating everyone equally?
    - rmxt 11y ago
      It's not treating everyone equally, which is why it is cognitive dissonance on full display. All of the religious arguments against gay marriage are fine and dandy for marriage within, and as defined by, that religion, but once they are extended to civil matters their arguments fall to pieces. The GP is arguing for this split/dual nature of "equality." To paraphrase: "I want to be free to criticize and make illegal the lifestyle choices of others, but I myself want to be free from repercussion and public criticism." Good thing saner minds have prevailed on the particular topic of gay marriage in the US. Also, I would love to see any hard evidence there is, that someone making lucid and noninflammatory arguments against legalizing civil gay marriages was actually fired from any job.

lmm 11y ago

Some religions are genocidal (probably most of them, if they take their holy books literally). Aren't some political positions sufficiently horrible that it is morally correct to shame people for them? That such a political position is a religious belief should not change how we treat it.

drivingmenuts 11y ago
Shaming only works if you can convince the shamed that they are actually wrong instead of being persecuted. The martyr complex is alive and quite well.
humanrebar 11y ago
To someone who believes in God you cannot choose your god anymore than you can change your race or sexual orientation. There are clear lines to draw around justice issues like violations of human rights, suffrage, freedom of speech, etc. But you're painting with a very broad brush if you think it's morally correct to persecute people for believing in a different (or no or any) God. I would even call it closed minded.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Hm. Yet people change religion all the time. Claiming 'no true scotsman' isn't fair. That leaves, people choose God. And we can't call it coincidence that people of one culture mostly choose the same God. Gotta be learned, right? So I'm not buying that line at all.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    > Yet people change religion all the time. And people always believe they have God down this time. Someone wouldn't say, "Yeah, I really had God figured out ten years ago but then I converted to East Southern Pentecostal Community Catholicism. That was a bad choice." > That leaves, people choose God. The way Christians look at it, God is revealed, not chosen. If you choose your own God, then your God tends to look suspiciously like an idealized version of yourself (or what you wish you were). In other words, to the extent you choose God, you probably have it wrong. That being said, you can't judge people for seeking earnestly. > And we can't call it coincidence that people of one culture mostly choose the same God. One culture? Which culture? We're talking about a Brazilian social network. Is that the same culture as the mountains of Kentucky or the streets of Rome? To be clear, I'm arguing that people should be free to earnestly search for God (or confirm lack thereof) in their own way. Claiming people choose God presupposes He (or she or them) is already a mental construct.
    - waterlesscloud 11y ago
      Pentecostal Catholicism would make for some interesting services.
- lmm 11y ago
  I wouldn't attack or persecute people just for believing in any god or none - only when, in the name of their beliefs, they want to harm others (usually, though by no means always, the weak and the minority). I think most antireligous folk would say the same.
- mikeash 11y ago
  What if someone believes in a God who they think is telling them they need to go out and murder people, right now?
DanBC 11y ago
Imagine Bob is a horrible anti-gay bigot. What are our objectives? Changing Bob's mind? Protecting the victims of Bob's bigotry? Making sure Bob doesn't misuse (if it is misuse, it won't always be) our platform / software project / mail list to spread those bigoted views? Shaming Bob doesn't seem to be the most effective way of doing that. If anything, shaming and ostrasizing may just mKe his views stronger. I guess shaming does let people know that we strongly think that Bob is weong amd that the targets of Bob's bigotry are welcome on our platform / project / mailing list. But then a little rainbow banner would do that too.
paulhauggis 11y ago
I'm talking about someone religious that may not agree with gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, but treats everyone equally (gay, straight, or trans). They are bullied and tormented by other people in the community and on social media, and it's accepted If it wasn't accepted, the people doing the bullying would lose their jobs. But I have never seen it happen. I have seen people lose their jobs for disagreeing with the gay marriage ruling...and I'm not even talking about using pejoratives or using any sort of the same bullying tactics. I would like a world with true equality. Not just equality for the few. This sort of behavior is not progressive. It's regressive. It's a digital version of mob mentality and is the very reason we have a democratic process with a court system and a judge/jury. Emotion clouds judgement, intelligence, and facts. The politicians know this and use it to their full advantage to get you to vote for them and create an us vs. them mentality. Until we change this behavior, there will never be peace.
- lmm 11y ago
  > I'm talking about someone religious that may not agree with gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, but treats everyone equally (gay, straight, or trans). Your "not agree with" is hiding a lot. If someone is trying to make it illegal for one group to marry (and legal for another group) then how is that treating everyone equally?
  - rmxt 11y ago
    It's not treating everyone equally, which is why it is cognitive dissonance on full display. All of the religious arguments against gay marriage are fine and dandy for marriage within, and as defined by, that religion, but once they are extended to civil matters their arguments fall to pieces. The GP is arguing for this split/dual nature of "equality." To paraphrase: "I want to be free to criticize and make illegal the lifestyle choices of others, but I myself want to be free from repercussion and public criticism." Good thing saner minds have prevailed on the particular topic of gay marriage in the US. Also, I would love to see any hard evidence there is, that someone making lucid and noninflammatory arguments against legalizing civil gay marriages was actually fired from any job.