This comes down to a difference in culture really.
You want employers to be able to discriminate [make a distinction] against people based on their beliefs.
This is why you should have a single payer healthcare system; you avoid all of this by doing so.
But that’s out of the question, I know.
I just don’t get it.
Justice and equality for all [as long as you’re of the christian faith].
Oh dear, you must be nuts if you think that’ll happen!
[quote]ephrem wrote:
This comes down to a difference in culture really.
You want employers to be able to discriminate [make a distinction] against people based on their beliefs.
[/quote]
Don’t you? Surely you wouldn’t disallow a Christian Church from discriminating against a homosexual, hindu, applying for a clergy position?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The further back in time you go from birth the less people can relate to it in their own lives, like the moment after conception.[/quote]
Well sure, look at how we talk about pregnancy now. We’ve sanitized it. What if we always spoke of it as the human life that it is?
[/quote]
So we are in agreement that educating people should be the goal, not to convince them what is right and wrong.[/quote]
No, because me and you aren’t ignorant enough to not realize that an innocent, individual, human life is taken. So, we have a moral obligation.[/quote]
Also you do realize this same moral obligation applies to those who disagree with you on the issue.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
This comes down to a difference in culture really.
You want employers to be able to discriminate [make a distinction] against people based on their beliefs.
[/quote]
Don’t you? Surely you wouldn’t disallow a Christian Church from discriminating against a homosexual, hindu, applying for a clergy position?
[/quote]
What’s that have to do with anything?
This.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You want employers to be able to discriminate [make a distinction] against people based on their beliefs.
[/quote]
I don’t see the relevance.
I’m off. Until next time.
Well, here is what you said.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You want employers to be able to discriminate [make a distinction] against people based on their beliefs.[/quote]
I then asked, basically, don’t you? I couldn’t imagine that you’d force a Christian Church to hire a gay, atheist, clergyman.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I don’t see the relevance.
I’m off. Until next time.
[/quote]
Pathetic and intellectually dishonest.
[quote]
Justice and equality for all [as long as you’re of the christian faith].[/quote]
Who is advocating ‘equality for all?’
Friedrich Hayak: “Equality of the general rules of law and conduct…is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality which we can secure without destroying liberty. Not only has liberty nothing to do with any sort of equality, but it is even bound to produce inequality in many respects. This is the necessary result and part of the justification of individual liberty: if the result of individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish.”
Tocqueville: “The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”
Mark Levin: “Equality, as understood by the American Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to aquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equality, even in the most just society, imperfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics. Therefore, equality and inequality, properly comprehended, are both engines of liberty.”
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The knowledge is the part you are taking for granted.[/quote]
No, I’m not. The knowledge part is the most revealing part of the question. It assumes I’m now omniscient and omniprsent. That I can have absolute certainty about things science can’t even falsify. You make a god of me. Or that some being with with those qualities has imparted such knowledge to me. But that would be a paradox.
Please do provide one for me. It would carry as much weight as my own.[/quote]
I’m done for today. Here is the question again before I leave.
If you knew there was no God, would you be a murderer and/or rapist?
If you answer, I will have a look tomorrow. If not, I will have to assume (and everyone else reading this thread) you are one of those “liberal” Christians who like to pay lip service to his church, but has no real convictions of his own. Even Tirib would probably admit that without his God influencing him, he would be one of the worst sinners imaginable.
If you would give some form of answer, even a simple “I don’t know”, then I could give you some credit. But no, you keep up the dodging act. The more I think about it, the more I realize your dodging of a simple question speaks more than any answer you give ever could.[/quote]
If you knew there was no God, would you be a murderer and/or rapist?
Tsk tsk. Still no answer.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, here is what you said.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You want employers to be able to discriminate [make a distinction] against people based on their beliefs.[/quote]
I then asked, basically, don’t you? I couldn’t imagine that you’d force a Christian Church to hire a gay, atheist, clergyman. [/quote]
Well, no. You’d force the Church to hire the best person for the job. I doubt a gay atheist clergyman would have the effect on the clergy they are looking for. So your point is little more than a smokescreen.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The knowledge is the part you are taking for granted.[/quote]
No, I’m not. The knowledge part is the most revealing part of the question. It assumes I’m now omniscient and omniprsent. That I can have absolute certainty about things science can’t even falsify. You make a god of me. Or that some being with with those qualities has imparted such knowledge to me. But that would be a paradox.
Please do provide one for me. It would carry as much weight as my own.[/quote]
I’m done for today. Here is the question again before I leave.
If you knew there was no God, would you be a murderer and/or rapist?
If you answer, I will have a look tomorrow. If not, I will have to assume (and everyone else reading this thread) you are one of those “liberal” Christians who like to pay lip service to his church, but has no real convictions of his own. Even Tirib would probably admit that without his God influencing him, he would be one of the worst sinners imaginable.
If you would give some form of answer, even a simple “I don’t know”, then I could give you some credit. But no, you keep up the dodging act. The more I think about it, the more I realize your dodging of a simple question speaks more than any answer you give ever could.[/quote]
If you knew there was no God, would you be a murderer and/or rapist?
Tsk tsk. Still no answer.[/quote]
Mak, you make me laugh. Seriously, I can’t even get irritated with you over this. Done and answered. Don’t know/couldn’t know.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You want employers to be able to discriminate [make a distinction] against people based on their beliefs.[/quote]
Since you didn’t read his statement, Mak. He implies it’s bad for employers to discriminate against people based on their beliefs. You’re disagreeing with him. You say it’s ok to discriminate based on beliefs, providing your own justification. Now you need to convince him.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I don’t see the relevance.
I’m off. Until next time.
[/quote]
Pathetic and intellectually dishonest.
Nice.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You want employers to be able to discriminate [make a distinction] against people based on their beliefs.[/quote]
Since you didn’t read his statement, Mak. He implies it’s bad for employers to discriminate against people based on their beliefs. You’re disagreeing with him. You say it’s ok to discriminate based on beliefs, providing your own justification. Now you need to convince him.[/quote]
Your example isn’t discriminating on belief in a technical sense though, it’s not offering the job to someone who isn’t qualified for the job. What Eph is talking about is not the same at all.
Everybody should read Tocqueville for a picture of just how far we’ve fallen. This is not that country anymore.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Your example isn’t discriminating on belief in a technical sense though…[/quote]
Well, no. It is discrimination. On belief. Even. Technically.
So. it’s not discrimination in hiring. Only in providing benefits as negotiated between two private actors. How wonderfully arbitrary! So conscientious objection in hiring, ok. In negotiating benefits, no. Did someone spin a wheel and that’s where it landed?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, here is what you said.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You want employers to be able to discriminate [make a distinction] against people based on their beliefs.[/quote]
I then asked, basically, don’t you? I couldn’t imagine that you’d force a Christian Church to hire a gay, atheist, clergyman. [/quote]
My question fit HIS statement perfectly.