Four Random and Unrelated Thoughts on Religion and Ethics

[BluePhantom]

Just in case anyone wishes to discuss any of this. I have considered starting individual threads but I don't wish to clutter the board so I will just toss out a few grenades and see if anyone wants to throw one back.

- In regards to the Indiana Freedom of Religion Law. This is a tough one for me. I hate the idea of the government forcing anyone to do something. I hate discrimination too. I suppose where I come down is that if a business wants to refuse service to homosexuals according to their religious beliefs they should be able to do so, BUT I think they should have to post a sign on their front door that says something like "This business is choosing to exercise our right to freedom of religion by refusing service to homosexuals". Let the market determine whether or not they remain in business or can find good staffing after that. I am a person of faith and I would not work for that business nor would I give them one red cent.

- I am wondering how much of an effect Obama's, and to a lesser extent the Democratic party's, hostility toward Israel will have on Democratic Jews. The Jewish demographic usually votes Democrat. I wonder how much more hostility the left has to show to Israel before Jews begin to defect. Ok, granted this is more of a political issue, but it's a religious one as well in some senses. Republicans, by contrast, especially religious Republicans, support Israel en masse. You would think that Jews would wish to affiliate themselves with a party that actually likes them and not just their votes.

- I was impressed by Pope Francis washing the feet of male and female prison inmates instead of hand-selected, Catholic men in the yearly ritual. To my understanding at least, that the inmates were chosen at random without thought to their religious affiliation as Francis wished to demonstrate that the Church existed to serve all humankind instead of just Catholic men. I have heard some call it propaganda to make him look better to the public. If it is....it's working. And give the man more pizza. He is the bloody Pope, for Christ's sake. He deserves a pizza pie when he wants one.

- Been thinking a lot about James Fowler's Stages of Faith and privately trying to determine what stage people are in by what they post. I have reached some illuminating insight by the exercise. For those unfamiliar with it, here's a link to a brief summary. I would welcome your thought on the theory's merits or deficiencies, but let's not state on the boards what stage we believe other posters to be in. That's uncool. Chart of James Fowler s Stages of Faith psychologycharts.com

 

[Missouri_Mike]

- In regards to the Indiana Freedom of Religion Law. This is a tough one for me. I hate the idea of the government forcing anyone to do something. I hate discrimination too. I suppose where I come down is that if a business wants to refuse service to homosexuals according to their religious beliefs they should be able to do so, BUT I think they should have to post a sign on their front door that says something like "This business is choosing to exercise our right to freedom of religion by refusing service to homosexuals". Let the market determine whether or not they remain in business or can find good staffing after that. I am a person of faith and I would not work for that business nor would I give them one red cent.

I will jump in on this one. Nobody, and I do mean nobody is saying they will not provide services to gays. The line being drawn and that I think is perfectly reasonable is they will not provide services for a gay wedding. Nobody should be forced to participate in your event which is nothing more than a party really not life or death. Go get your cake done somewhere else. You can't tell me there's not a baker in the gay community you would rather hire anyway. Or a florist or a wedding planner for that matter. It's a gay palooza in the wedding industry go find them and leave those that don't want to be involved alone.

 

[BluePhantom]

- In regards to the Indiana Freedom of Religion Law. This is a tough one for me. I hate the idea of the government forcing anyone to do something. I hate discrimination too. I suppose where I come down is that if a business wants to refuse service to homosexuals according to their religious beliefs they should be able to do so, BUT I think they should have to post a sign on their front door that says something like "This business is choosing to exercise our right to freedom of religion by refusing service to homosexuals". Let the market determine whether or not they remain in business or can find good staffing after that. I am a person of faith and I would not work for that business nor would I give them one red cent.

I will jump in on this one. Nobody, and I do mean nobody is saying they will not provide services to gays. The line being drawn and that I think is perfectly reasonable is they will not provide services for a gay wedding. Nobody should be forced to participate in your event which is nothing more than a party really not life or death. Go get your cake done somewhere else. You can't tell me there's not a baker in the gay community you would rather hire anyway. Or a florist or a wedding planner for that matter. It's a gay palooza in the wedding industry go find them and leave those that don't want to be involved alone.

Fair enough, but don't you think the patrons of that bakery have the right to know about their policies in order to determine whether they wish to continue doing business with them? I support the right of a business to exercise the owners' freedom of religion but I think the public has the right to know where they stand. I think that is reasonable

 

[Missouri_Mike]

- In regards to the Indiana Freedom of Religion Law. This is a tough one for me. I hate the idea of the government forcing anyone to do something. I hate discrimination too. I suppose where I come down is that if a business wants to refuse service to homosexuals according to their religious beliefs they should be able to do so, BUT I think they should have to post a sign on their front door that says something like "This business is choosing to exercise our right to freedom of religion by refusing service to homosexuals". Let the market determine whether or not they remain in business or can find good staffing after that. I am a person of faith and I would not work for that business nor would I give them one red cent.

I will jump in on this one. Nobody, and I do mean nobody is saying they will not provide services to gays. The line being drawn and that I think is perfectly reasonable is they will not provide services for a gay wedding. Nobody should be forced to participate in your event which is nothing more than a party really not life or death. Go get your cake done somewhere else. You can't tell me there's not a baker in the gay community you would rather hire anyway. Or a florist or a wedding planner for that matter. It's a gay palooza in the wedding industry go find them and leave those that don't want to be involved alone.

Fair enough, but don't you think the patrons of that bakery have the right to know about their policies in order to determine whether they wish to continue doing business with them? I support the right of a business to exercise the owners' freedom of religion but I think the public has the right to know where they stand. I think that is reasonable

Why is that necessary? How about the customer simply call and ask if they do gay weddings?

 

[BluePhantom]

- In regards to the Indiana Freedom of Religion Law. This is a tough one for me. I hate the idea of the government forcing anyone to do something. I hate discrimination too. I suppose where I come down is that if a business wants to refuse service to homosexuals according to their religious beliefs they should be able to do so, BUT I think they should have to post a sign on their front door that says something like "This business is choosing to exercise our right to freedom of religion by refusing service to homosexuals". Let the market determine whether or not they remain in business or can find good staffing after that. I am a person of faith and I would not work for that business nor would I give them one red cent.

I will jump in on this one. Nobody, and I do mean nobody is saying they will not provide services to gays. The line being drawn and that I think is perfectly reasonable is they will not provide services for a gay wedding. Nobody should be forced to participate in your event which is nothing more than a party really not life or death. Go get your cake done somewhere else. You can't tell me there's not a baker in the gay community you would rather hire anyway. Or a florist or a wedding planner for that matter. It's a gay palooza in the wedding industry go find them and leave those that don't want to be involved alone.

Fair enough, but don't you think the patrons of that bakery have the right to know about their policies in order to determine whether they wish to continue doing business with them? I support the right of a business to exercise the owners' freedom of religion but I think the public has the right to know where they stand. I think that is reasonable

Why is that necessary? How about the customer simply call and ask if they do gay weddings?

Well if they are choosing to discriminate, and let's be honest - that's precisely what they are doing, the public should have the right to know that. This is different than other forms of discrimination, such as racial or gender discrimination, because there is no religious basis behind those forms of discrimination. Here we have a unique situation where there is a religious basis...although I actually disagree with that interpretation of scripture. So we have a unique situation here where discrimination and religious freedoms are colliding. If a business choose to discriminate on the basis of faith, they should be proud to announce that faith. If they find it is bad for business....well then they have a business decision to make and it is up to the owners to determine whether their religious interests outweigh their business interests.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

- In regards to the Indiana Freedom of Religion Law. This is a tough one for me. I hate the idea of the government forcing anyone to do something. I hate discrimination too. I suppose where I come down is that if a business wants to refuse service to homosexuals according to their religious beliefs they should be able to do so, BUT I think they should have to post a sign on their front door that says something like "This business is choosing to exercise our right to freedom of religion by refusing service to homosexuals". Let the market determine whether or not they remain in business or can find good staffing after that. I am a person of faith and I would not work for that business nor would I give them one red cent.

I will jump in on this one. Nobody, and I do mean nobody is saying they will not provide services to gays. The line being drawn and that I think is perfectly reasonable is they will not provide services for a gay wedding. Nobody should be forced to participate in your event which is nothing more than a party really not life or death. Go get your cake done somewhere else. You can't tell me there's not a baker in the gay community you would rather hire anyway. Or a florist or a wedding planner for that matter. It's a gay palooza in the wedding industry go find them and leave those that don't want to be involved alone.

Fair enough, but don't you think the patrons of that bakery have the right to know about their policies in order to determine whether they wish to continue doing business with them? I support the right of a business to exercise the owners' freedom of religion but I think the public has the right to know where they stand. I think that is reasonable

Why is that necessary? How about the customer simply call and ask if they do gay weddings?

Well if they are choosing to discriminate, and let's be honest - that's precisely what they are doing, the public should have the right to know that. This is different than other forms of discrimination, such as racial or gender discrimination, because there is no religious basis behind those forms of discrimination. Here we have a unique situation where there is a religious basis...although I actually disagree with that interpretation of scripture. So we have a unique situation here where discrimination and religious freedoms are colliding. If a business choose to discriminate on the basis of faith, they should be proud to announce that faith. If they find it is bad for business....well then they have a business decision to make and it is up to the owners to determine whether their religious interests outweigh their business interests.

It's not discrimination in any way. It's a party well outside of their ability to survive if they can't get that product. And the only purpose they would have to force someone to participate is revenge or to make them the butt of the joke during the party. Stop trying to justify these peoples requests.

 

[Montrovant]

Just in case anyone wishes to discuss any of this. I have considered starting individual threads but I don't wish to clutter the board so I will just toss out a few grenades and see if anyone wants to throw one back.

- In regards to the Indiana Freedom of Religion Law. This is a tough one for me. I hate the idea of the government forcing anyone to do something. I hate discrimination too. I suppose where I come down is that if a business wants to refuse service to homosexuals according to their religious beliefs they should be able to do so, BUT I think they should have to post a sign on their front door that says something like "This business is choosing to exercise our right to freedom of religion by refusing service to homosexuals". Let the market determine whether or not they remain in business or can find good staffing after that. I am a person of faith and I would not work for that business nor would I give them one red cent.

- I am wondering how much of an effect Obama's, and to a lesser extent the Democratic party's, hostility toward Israel will have on Democratic Jews. The Jewish demographic usually votes Democrat. I wonder how much more hostility the left has to show to Israel before Jews begin to defect. Ok, granted this is more of a political issue, but it's a religious one as well in some senses. Republicans, by contrast, especially religious Republicans, support Israel en masse. You would think that Jews would wish to affiliate themselves with a party that actually likes them and not just their votes.

- I was impressed by Pope Francis washing the feet of male and female prison inmates instead of hand-selected, Catholic men in the yearly ritual. To my understanding at least, that the inmates were chosen at random without thought to their religious affiliation as Francis wished to demonstrate that the Church existed to serve all humankind instead of just Catholic men. I have heard some call it propaganda to make him look better to the public. If it is....it's working. And give the man more pizza. He is the bloody Pope, for Christ's sake. He deserves a pizza pie when he wants one.

- Been thinking a lot about James Fowler's Stages of Faith and privately trying to determine what stage people are in by what they post. I have reached some illuminating insight by the exercise. For those unfamiliar with it, here's a link to a brief summary. I would welcome your thought on the theory's merits or deficiencies, but let's not state on the boards what stage we believe other posters to be in. That's uncool. Chart of James Fowler s Stages of Faith psychologycharts.com

1. I'm on the fence as far as businesses being able to discriminate. In theory, as private entities (even if open to the public, the business is privately owned one assumes) a business should be allowed to serve whoever it wants. In practice, however, I don't yet trust that certain groups would be unduly burdened by that. Now, I don't consider it an undue burden to have to go to a similar business a mile away. I do find it plausible that entire towns might close their doors to a group or groups that were not well liked. The right of business owners to determine who to do business with has always been a controversial topic in my mind.

2. There is a difference between hostility toward Israel and hostility towards Judaism. Israel is a country, not a religion. While hostility toward Israel on the part of the Democrat party could certainly influence Jewish voters, whether those voters consider the party to be hostile toward Israel or not is an open question.

3. Pope Francis certainly has a better media image than previous popes. He comes off as far more self-sacrificing and humble IMO. Whether I should trust it to be a true representation of his personality or just PR, I'm unsure.

4. Sorry, I don't know anything about stages of faith and am not interested in reading about it ATM.

 

[BluePhantom]

It's not discrimination in any way. It's a party well outside of their ability to survive if they can't get that product. And the only purpose they would have to force someone to participate is revenge or to make them the butt of the joke during the party. Stop trying to justify these peoples requests.

How is it not discrimination? Let's look it up. "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit" Discrimination Define Discrimination at Dictionary.com

How is refusing service to a person based on sexual orientation not discrimination? According to the definition above, the business is treating homosexuals differently based upon a category instead of individual merit. That's discrimination. Let me be clear. I certainly respect your opinion. You have every right to believe as you feel is correct. But how you can make the argument that this is not an example of discrimination, quite frankly, baffles me.

I am willing to endorse it, based SOLELY on the first amendment, but this is such a unique scenario that if we are to allow discrimination and respect those religious interpretations, which again I personally disagree with, it should be made public. I, as a man of faith and believer in God, want nothing to do with a business that discriminates against anyone, homosexuals included. If a business is being granted an exemption from laws that ban discrimination, I have a right to know that so I can make a decision as a consumer if I wish to give them my business or not.

 

[BluePhantom]

1. I'm on the fence as far as businesses being able to discriminate. In theory, as private entities (even if open to the public, the business is privately owned one assumes) a business should be allowed to serve whoever it wants. In practice, however, I don't yet trust that certain groups would be unduly burdened by that. Now, I don't consider it an undue burden to have to go to a similar business a mile away. I do find it plausible that entire towns might close their doors to a group or groups that were not well liked. The right of business owners to determine who to do business with has always been a controversial topic in my mind.

It's a tricky question. As I said it creates great controversy in my mind as I think the Constitution should be upheld but I can't find it within myself as an American or a believer in God to endorse discrimination. The solution I offered is the best compromise I can think of. I am certainly open to suggestions.

2. There is a difference between hostility toward Israel and hostility towards Judaism. Israel is a country, not a religion. While hostility toward Israel on the part of the Democrat party could certainly influence Jewish voters, whether those voters consider the party to be hostile toward Israel or not is an open question.

Yeah that's a solid point of view. I can only speak according to my personal experiences of course, but from that perspective, I have rarely met an anti-semite that supports the state of Israel. Similarly, I have rarely met a person who is against the state of Israel that loves and respects the Jews. I am sure there are some, but I have never met them. Does Obama respect Jews? Everyone is free to make up their own minds, but I don't think so. I don't think he has any respect or tolerance for Judaism in any way. In fact, I see him going far more out of his way to defend Islam that Judaism. And no I am not saying Obama is a Muslim. I am simply making the observation that he seems to side with Islam over Judaism. That's just my perception.

3. Pope Francis certainly has a better media image than previous popes. He comes off as far more self-sacrificing and humble IMO. Whether I should trust it to be a true representation of his personality or just PR, I'm unsure.

Well if it is just PR, he is doing one heck of a job with it. I thought John Paul II was solid, although I didn't agree with a lot of his positions. But for the times he was in I thought he did a good job. But I love the humility Francis shows. His refusal to live in the...well essentially "manor" that is where the Pope usually lives, and instead insists on living in a simple apartment in the Vatican because to do otherwise would violate his oath of poverty. Is it real or just PR? I don't know either but people eat that kind of stuff up like candy. If it's real my respect for the man is overwhelming. His suggestion that the church needs to adjust their stance on contraception. His suggestion that perhaps priests should be allowed to marry. He didn't go through with them and allow them as a matter of policy, but they were ballsy things to even suggest for a Pope. I don't know if he will go through with implementing them, but he would be a world hero if he did.