What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] Militant Atheists

Krause, poor guy, thinks that all religious people are dangerous extremists or nitwits like Kim Davis. He's as much a bigot as the people he things personify religion.
 
Of course not all Christians behave like this.
Should Christians refuse to perform certain tasks within their job because it challenges their beliefs?
 
If I had a job that required me to do something I thought God didn't want me to do, I'd find another job. There are certainly reasonable accomedations that could be made for this woman, such as having an assistant do the licenses. The fact that she has the job does not give her the power to violate the law.
 
Barbarian said:
If I had a job that required me to do something I thought God didn't want me to do, I'd find another job. There are certainly reasonable accomedations that could be made for this woman, such as having an assistant do the licenses. The fact that she has the job does not give her the power to violate the law.
Click to expand...
Her name,is on the license.I was the clerk of the court in my state. My stamp must be on the license after its legal signatures are on it.ie who officiated it ,plus witnesses.once stamped it's then legal.
 
If she finds that her job requires her to breach her religious beliefs, she ought to consider changing jobs.
There is no excuse in law; I'm afraid the legal system prevails.
 
jasonc said:
Where do we stop with this?
Click to expand...

It may get to the point that no government official will be allowed to use his religious beliefs to suppress the rights of others. Some people think that's a good thing. Remember, it is not oppression, if the law doesn't allow one to impose his religious beliefs on others.
 
Barbarian said:
It may get to the point that no government official will be allowed to use his religious beliefs to suppress the rights of others. Some people think that's a good thing. Remember, it is not oppression, if the law doesn't allow one to impose his religious beliefs on others.
Click to expand...
So splain to me where a soldier was court marshalled for displaying a bible verse.
 
The sad thing is that Krause thinks he's being reasonable. And it is reasonable if you only hear one angle of each topic he brings up. But it's by ignoring the other sides of each topic that this is reasonable.

"Religious rights and perspectives are the chains of the past, so we must discard them and have science lead the way." Though that's not in his article, but it sums up the last paragraph fairly well. The issue with that is that science is replacing the term for general understanding and knowledge. Which is a broad topic bigger then scientific inquiry. If you replace the term science with knowledge then you can understand how it is reasonable. But science is not knowledge, it is a field of knowledge. History, language, math, geography are also fields of knowledge. If a person acknowledges that God is real then following Him and the religion that person thinks is from God is also a field of knowledge.

In each topic that he brings up it is reasonable largely with the subtext that God doesn't exist, or regardless has no effect on the world. The woman who broke the law because she wouldn't marry homosexuals has the justification that God exists and she was trying to live up to His standards and have a clean conscience by her actions. At that point the two rationelles of obeying the law or obeying God come into play. Only by ignoring one of those does the other become unquestionably reasonable. Same with hobby lobby taking action to fight against things the cooperate leaders think are wrong; there are multiple issues at play and each side only seems reasonable if it ignores the other angles instead of trying to addressing them.

On the topic of Planned Parenthood though, that's just thrown in there. There are several angles that are ignored, not just religion verses science. But also crouption and shady deals to harvest aborted babies.

If the other sides are at least looked at head on instead of being ignored then a person might actually be reasonable instead of fooling themselves that they are reasonable by ignoring the other sides of each issue.
 
jasonc said:
So splain to me where a soldier was court marshalled for displaying a bible verse.
Click to expand...

The one who insisted on wearing a verse at work, even after being told to stop? I can't wear a verse at work, either. I work for the government, and we can't promote religion, even if the kids I teach can wear religious articles and t-shirts.

That's the way it should be.
 
Barbarian said:
The one who insisted on wearing a verse at work, even after being told to stop? I can't wear a verse at work, either. I work for the government, and we can't promote religion, even if the kids I teach can wear religious articles and t-shirts.

That's the way it should be.
Click to expand...

There is more room for suppression of religion then there is for acting on religion. It's not just government workplaces, it's almost anywhere. In a professional setting it's getting to the point that a person is not allowed to show any hint of their religion in their workspace. Acting on their consciences, wearing a shirt with religous connections, or even in some places a lack of decorations to suggest religous perspectives in one's office or cubical. Even in areas where a person is not facing the public, religion is discouraged or policy is given to keep it out of the work area. Yet in each of those workplaces (government offices as well), distaste for religion is accepted and in some cases encouraged. Considering that we spend roughly a third of each day at work, it's fairly unfair to tell a person to keep their religion private, while allowing or encouraging the elements that suppress religous expression and activity.

The prominent idea is to seperate church and state, and the reason is a concern for oppression and religous intolerance. That idea is spread not just to government offices but most workplaces as well. But what it's doing is not adding tolerance. It's creating intolerance to any religion. Or at least intolerance to the prominent ones in each local area.
 
The woman should have changed jobs IMHO, if the job was going to require her to violate her conscience.
 
Last edited:
Grumman Tomcat said:
The woman should have changed jobs IMHO, if the job was going to requite her to violate her conscience.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Quit, or be fired. Jail is over doing it. Makes it bigger then it needs to be. Escalates it because it's not just.. Those who are against her action are riled up because of what she did. They are ok with punishment even if it is jail because it's gotten so big, they see it as justified. Those who agree with what she did see her put in jail, and they are riled up for being oppressed, regardless if they are or are not. The jail has only escalated the sitution. She should have just been fired, or at least moved to a position that allows her to work but not be in a place to conflict with the law and her conscience.
 
Yeah, private organizations can regulate what you wear in their workplaces, because it's private. Pretty much the same way that a minister can refuse to marry people that shouldn't be married, according to his religion.

That's also freedom. The reason it's become more common, I think, is that the nation is more diverse in religious outlook, and therefore, companies do not want to offend various religions by advocating any particular faith.
 
Barbarian said:
Yeah, private organizations can regulate what you wear in their workplaces, because it's private. Pretty much the same way that a minister can refuse to marry people that shouldn't be married, according to his religion.

That's also freedom. The reason it's become more common, I think, is that the nation is more diverse in religious outlook, and therefore, companies do not want to offend various religions by advocating any particular faith.
Click to expand...

Barbarian, doesn't it seem ironic to you that in the attempt to be fair and tolerant to any religion, the policies show an intolerance to all religions? It doesn't sit right with me personally. It's true we live in a diverse world, and at least in the U.S. The cultures are diverse and from all over the world. With that in mind I think we should be more open to diverse practices, customs, beliefs, even diverse foods. Instead we have pocket days to celebrate or acknowledge a certain population of people, if even that. There's not much tolerance for the diversity. Instead it's mostly shunned. Keep it at home, no one want to see you in all the diversity of our cultures.

How is it that this sits well with anyone? I'll give you my best guess. Quiet intolerance is figured to be the better option then just giving anyone free reign and practice a more tolerant outlook at others. The fear of people not getting along, and the reality of wars by extremists of many views, and division due to politicking and party bickering. Discourage diversity, and seed the ground for a type of intolerance is made because we don't want to walk through the process to help our society become more tolerant, aware, and understanding of other beliefs. It just no longer sits well with me though.
 
Barbarian said:
The one who insisted on wearing a verse at work, even after being told to stop? I can't wear a verse at work, either. I work for the government, and we can't promote religion, even if the kids I teach can wear religious articles and t-shirts.

That's the way it should be.
Click to expand...
Can you wear a cross around your neck or maybe as a button on your lapel. Or, must you be free from any/all religious items of any kind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top