Should religious objections excuse employees from customary/prescribed job f(x)'s?

Jul 2015
892
Netherlands
Bestiality does not harm humans either. I am not saying that homosexual activity is the same(!).
Which is why laws should be instated to protect animals, NOT to moralize humans

But homosexual activity is similar in that it contradicts the meaning or finality of sexual design.
Not that it is particularly relevant in the case of consenting adults, but sexual activity has more functions than procreation.
 
May 2015
326
California
The government needs to be secular. The public service needs to be secular. The education system needs to be secular. Even the perception of favouritism towards a particular religion is bad on many levels.
Multi-culturalism is said to only be possible in a secular society. Otherwise, so the explanation goes, all would be chaos and groups would always be at odds. It is only by casting off their own unique personality and becoming featureless and uniform that we may all live in harmony. So goes the secular rationale. This reminds me of how for a thousand years local dialects were suppressed in favor of Latin. None of the inhabitants spoke Latin as a primary language but it was said to be a necessary evil thrust upon them to keep them from babbling at each other in a thousand incomprehensible tongues. Almost no one in the United States is an atheist. Almost everyone has a unique cultural identity but we must all assume a mask of atheism when we address one another and go abroad in public.

Secularity claims to be the exclusive proprietor of fairness and by implication that all rival systems or religions are naturally and systematically unfair. This is not only uncharitable to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists who've spent thousands of years laying the philosophical grounds by which men may be more fair to one another, but Secularity appropriates their values and then proceeds to demand they be practiced in it's name only. However, if we take fair dealing as a universal value, then it should be safe in the hands of anybody. If there really is a biological imperative to reciprocate kindness as atheists claim, then theoretically it shouldn't matter what religion a person practices, they would naturally be fair to other people and seek the common good. What is lacking from the Secularist's claim is a proof that they are more fair minded and even handed in their dealings than religious people are in theirs.

If you actually asked a Christian if he would cheat a Jew, he would likely be offended by the notion that he couldn't be trusted to act in a civilized manner with anyone but his co-religionists. Your typical Muslim would be equally shocked. These values are universal, not Secular, and the Secular person is likely to engage in his own biases. That a secular person is entirely free of bias is a myth, just as surely as the belief that the religious person cannot be fair. Can we not be human beings? Must we only know equality when we are all nameless, and faceless, when we address each other looking the other way? Men can only shake hands when they stand face to face.

I flatly reject the received notion that the government and education needs to be secular just because that is the way we currently do things. Frankly, it's a ridiculous notion that there is only one correct way to do things, and the way we are already doing things just happens to be perfect.
 

constantine

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
8,545
The Church teaches that faith and reason are inseparable and that humans are philosophers. Rational inquiry is crucial and rational analysis purifies religion. Catholicism would not be a universal proposal without reason.

The Greek approach seems mystical to me. Do the Orthodox have a tendency towards fideism?
The Greeks would also say that all are called to be philosophers, but not all are. Of course, in the Greek Fathers A christian 'philosopher' has a very different meaning, a philosopher is basically an ascetic who learns of God through experience, not through reason. From an academic perspective, there are definitely elements of Stoicism as well as Platonism in this approach. St. Gregory of Nyssa describes what he regards as the life of a philosopher in his treatise on the life of St. Macrina:

When the cares of bringing up a family and the anxieties of their education and settling in life had come to an end, and the property-a frequent cause of worldliness- had been for the most part divided among the children, then, as I said above, the life of the virgin became her mother's guide and led her on to this philosophic and spiritual manner of life. And weaning her from all accustomed luxuries, Macrina drew her on to adopt her own standard of humility. she induced her to live on a footing of equality with the staff of maids, so as to share with them in the same food, the same kind of bed, and in all the necessaries of life, without any regard to differences of rank. Such was the manner of their life, so great the height of their philosophy, and so holy their conduct day and night, as to make verbal description inadequate. For just as souls freed from the body by death are saved from the cares of this life, so was their life far removed from all earthly follies and ordered with a view of imitating the angelic life. For no anger or jealousy, no hatred or pride, was observed in their midst, nor anything else of this nature, since they had cast away all vain desires for honour and glory, all vanity, arrogance and the like. Continence was their luxury, and obscurity their glory. Poverty, and the casting away of all material superfluities like dust from their bodies, was their wealth. In fact, of all the things after which men eagerly pursue in this life, there were none with which they could not easily dispense. Nothing was left but the care of divine things and the unceasing round of prayer and endless hymnody, co*extensive with time itself, practised by night and day. So that to them this meant work, and work so called was rest. What human words could make you realise such a life as this, a life on the borderline between human and spiritual nature ? For that nature should be free from human weaknesses is more than can be expected from mankind. But these women fell short of the angelic and immaterial nature only in so far as they appeared in bodily form, and were contained within a human frame, and were dependent upon the organs of sense. Perhaps some might even dare to say that the difference was not to their disadvantage. since living in the body and yet after the likeness of the immaterial beings, they were not bowed down by the weight of the body, but their life was exalted to the skies and they walked on high in company with the powers of heaven.
I believe it was Evagrius of Pontus who said 'If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian.' In the Orthodox understanding, the true theologians are the saints, those who directly experienced God, the academic field of 'theology' is merely the repetition of the teachings of the saints, true theology is derived from prayer and asceticism. As for fideism, yes, I'd say there's a tendency towards it, in a way. The Orthodox would not dismiss reason entirely, but would definitely agree that reason alone is inadequate to explain or understand the uncreated mysteries, thus the tendency towards apoptotic theology and paradox in Orthodoxy theology: to demonstrate the limits of human language and reason and show that God lies beyond those limits. Or to quote St. Gregory of Nyssa again (yes, I reference him a lot, but he's a personal favourite I'm quite familiar with):

'The Divine Word above all forbids that the Divine be likened to any of the things known by men, since every idea deriving from some conceptual image according to our understanding, which is the product of conjecture about the Divine Nature, makes an idol of God and does not proclaim God.'
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
I disagree that secularism is the only way to keep the peace. I think it is the most unfair alternative available and that religious pluralism is much more acceptable. It works in India and it worked in Rome for centuries. I also think that demanding people leave their beliefs at home is an injustice kind of like the famous "don't ask don't tell" policy in the military. People have a right to their beliefs wherever they go and they shouldn't have to hide or gag themselves to be accepted. This should be a basic human right.
As a religious person, one has the right to not believe in evolution. If, however, the person is a geneticist or an astrophysicist who starts quoting Genesis at scientific conferences, he'll have to resign. At home, he can believe whatever he wants. If a woman is a practicing Muslim who believes she should not be handling alcohol and passengers on the flight start complaining (this is what happened, I believe), she has to leave. Or to change.

If you think religious pluralism is good, let me remind you that the stela with Ten Commandments wIll be removed from Oklahoma State House. The Satanists did it. What irritates me is that it took years of legal battles and use of public funds.

If everyone starts openly demonstrating his religiosity in public or workplace, i foresee nothing but conflicts.
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
If you actually asked a Christian if he would cheat a Jew, he would likely be offended by the notion that he couldn't be trusted to act in a civilized manner with anyone but his co-religionists. Your typical Muslim would be equally shocked. These values are universal, not Secular, and the Secular person is likely to engage in his own biases. That a secular person is entirely free of bias is a myth, just as surely as the belief that the religious person cannot be fair.
No one is free of biases, and I think the degree of prejudice has more to do with one's nature than religion.
But the sole hypothetical question of a Christian cheating a Jew can emerge only in the mind of a religious person, and biased at this. Why do I never ask myself if the vendors I buy from are Christians, Jews, Muslims, or atheists? The question itself sounds strange.
 
May 2015
326
California
As a religious person, one has the right to not believe in evolution. If, however, the person is a geneticist or an astrophysicist who starts quoting Genesis at scientific conferences, he'll have to resign.
That's ridiculous. Famous scientists and astronauts quote Genesis all the time. Then they get sued by militant atheists like Madalyn O'Hair. It's atheists who are the intolerant ones.

At home, he can believe whatever he wants. If a woman is a practicing Muslim who believes she should not be handling alcohol and passengers on the flight start complaining (this is what happened, I believe), she has to leave. Or to change.
I believe that she has a number of options. She can resign. She can violate her principles. Her employer could accommodate her. Or she may consult with a religious expert who can allay her concerns about serving alcohol. My understanding of Islamic practice is that it is only forbidden to consume alcohol, but that she may still serve it.

If you think religious pluralism is good, let me remind you that the stela with Ten Commandments wIll be removed from Oklahoma State House. The Satanists did it. What irritates me is that it took years of legal battles and use of public funds.
Yes, this appears to be a mistake and a knuckling under to a bunch of noisy trouble makers who don't represent the views of a majority of the community. If they had any sense, the state house would erect a cross, a star and crescent, a yin yang symbol, and an Om, right beside the ten commandments.

If everyone starts openly demonstrating his religiosity in public or workplace, i foresee nothing but conflicts.
And I foresee a new era of peace, harmony, open dialogue, understanding, free expression, and mutual respect.

Let me remind you that when we integrated blacks, women, and gays into the military people like yourself foresaw nothing but conflicts too. The idea that we must all be identical in order to get along is incredibly insulting. E Pluribus Unum.
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
That's ridiculous. Famous scientists and astronauts quote Genesis all the time. Then they get sued by militant atheists like Madalyn O'Hair. It's atheists who are the intolerant ones.
No it is not. Francis Collins, a geneticist, the head of Human Genome project, and an Evangelical Christian, wrote the book "the Language of God", but as a public person, and his faith is not discussed at scientific professional conferences. I believe that his religion might be somewhat of a hindrance (his support of stem cell research is limited, for example, with interspecies somatic nuclear transfer), but on the positive side, he is able to somehow reconcile believers with atheists. But still, in his belief he is private.


I believe that she has a number of options. She can resign. She can violate her principles. Her employer could accommodate her. Or she may consult with a religious expert who can allay her concerns about serving alcohol. My understanding of Islamic practice is that it is only forbidden to consume alcohol, but that she may still serve it.
That is the issue. She can not violate her principles, as we can see. She is a neophyte, and likely, not a critical person to start with. Her employer was accommodating her for a year, until a passenger complained. (And now her employer is in hot water because this unwanted attention ruins the business. And you know that business is what keeps this country running. One person's personal beliefs which not every Muslim shares are ruining a big air travel company. They will probably have to pay her, something, and then take the money out of our pockets, by canceling sales, or something. As a traveller, I mind).

As to a fatwah, who knows what kind of a mullah she ran into, or what nonsense she was told by the person who converted hey, to start with?


Yes, this appears to be a mistake and a knuckling under to a bunch of noisy trouble makers who don't represent the views of a majority of the community. If they had any sense, the state house would erect a cross, a star and crescent, a yin yang symbol, and an Om, right beside the ten commandments.
And then the state will be accused of misappropriating public funds. Because the money spent on these "monuments" could be better spent on a single house for homeless in Oklahoma.


And I foresee a new era of peace, harmony, open dialogue, understanding, free expression, and mutual respect.

Let me remind you that when we integrated blacks, women, and gays into the military people like yourself foresaw nothing but conflicts too. The idea that we must all be identical in order to get along is incredibly insulting. E Pluribus Unum.
"We integrated blacks, women and gays into the military"? "People like yourself"?

You must be joking... OK, I missed the blacks and women rights. But I was in the country when "gays in the military" was a hot topic. And let me tell you, it was owing to people like me, neither pro-gay activists, nor pot smokers, nor militant atheists, just ordinary moderate voters, that my state was one of the first two to fully approve gay marriage and legalized marijuana. And this is why our country is moving forward, because regardless of all senseless propaganda, most people here are reasonable.
 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,342
Coastal Florida
You guys are debating with someone who thinks dueling should be brought back. I don't think you're going to get anywhere.
Perhaps not but you never know!

That's quite the dramatic post.
Well, I could have taken an entirely different route to arrive at the same conclusion but I found the similarity between your rhetoric and that of Mein Kampf so striking that I couldn't help but demonstrate it.

Wanting to keep obscenity and decadence out of the public eye is hardly in the same category as the holocaust.
I can't believe the utter stupidity of what I'm reading here. You appear to be completely unaware of the fact we have written records authored by Hitler himself which describe the rationale employed to draw his ideological conclusions about Jews. The Holocaust was, in fact, directly predicated on a perceived need "to keep obscenity and decadence out of the public eye." Indeed, Hitler's ideology about Jews was literally founded upon his perception that Jews represented a "moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected." This is an explicit description of decadence. During his period of influence, Hitler used his rhetoric to instigate and maintain a long-term moral panic among the populace. The language he used was often rather broad. However, he also cited specific instances to illustrate exactly what he meant. For example, in Mein Kampf, Hitler rants about how Jews were to blame for societal problems stemming from prostitution and venereal disease. The supposed moral depravity of the Jews actually served as primary "proof" they had toxic blood and genetic admixture with them would cause the cultural and moral decline of civilization until "international Jewry" achieved total domination and Germany's native race was "exterminated." Hitler's ability to inspire this sustained moral panic, along with other ideological panics he engendered, was actually crucial to the effectuation of his policies. Without his ability to indoctrinate others with this ideology, I'm extremely skeptical Hitler could have even gained political power in the first place. Here's a passage from Mein Kampf in which Hitler describes the initial genesis of his anti-semitic ideology (pg. 56):

This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon disgusted me; for it was false through and through and in direct contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculate character on which that race had always prided itself.

Cleanliness, whether moral or of another kind, had its own peculiar meaning for these people. That they were water-shy was obvious on looking at them and, unfortunately, very often also when not looking at them at all. The odour of those people in caftans often used to make me feel ill. Beyond that there were the unkempt clothes and the ignoble exterior.

All these details were certainly not attractive; but the revolting feature was that beneath their unclean exterior one suddenly perceived the moral mildew of the chosen race.

What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of the Jews in certain branches of life, into the mystery of which I penetrated little by little. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.

In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in literature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One needed only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were highly lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish questions. Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long ago. And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so far that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his filth directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this connection we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One ought to realize that for one, Goethe, Nature may bring into existence ten thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers in poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by Nature to play this shameful part.

And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen people?

I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The result of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I had hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
Sorry, but there it is. This passage is all about how Jews infected "public cultural life" with decadence. Hence, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

But I'm not particularly familiar with Mein Kampf, so I'll have to leave further research to those better read on the matter.
The only way to relieve your mind of ignorance is to educate yourself. I would suggest Mein Kampf is an excellent place to start.

Of course, there is a glaring difference here, the Jews were persecuted based on their ancestry, based on something they had absolutely no control over.
This is more bigotry. You can't substantiate that gay people have "control over" their sexual identity. In fact, we have reams of evidence indicating we don't.

I've said quite clearly that I don't really care someone has homosexual inclinations, be it on account of genetics or psychological influences; you can't criminalize feelings. What needs to be addressed is people acting on those inclinations, especially people acting on those inclinations in public, and, even more so, people trying to normalize those inclinations.
This is the same as that "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric religious people use.

Furthermore, sexual deviance is hardly in the same category as race and ethnicity or even religion. You're comparing completely unrelated things.
This is a further demonstration that you are uneducated in regard to the subject of bigotry. There are no categories to compare. Bigotry can be expressed against any person, thing or idea. If you obstinately insisted the sky was green rather than blue, that could be bigotry as well. The composition of bigotry hinges on the rationale you have used to justify the adoption of a conclusion and/or whether you employ the same rationale against yourself. The category of the object against which one employs bigotry makes no difference.

Perhaps your metaphor would have been more relevant if you had compared it to another form of sexual deviance, say pedophilia. Or would that not have fit the narrative quite as well?
That doesn't deserve a response.

Hardly, one need merely to look at any Israel vs. Palestine thread on this site to see that anti-semitism is rampant on this site (and no one is getting banned so long as they remain civil). Go ahead and chime in, I'm curious what side you'd take. After this post you had best be a radical Zionist.
I've seen people get suspended for anti-semitic rhetoric, a number of times.
 
Last edited:

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,641
San Antonio, Tx
That's ridiculous. Famous scientists and astronauts quote Genesis all the time. Then they get sued by militant atheists like Madalyn O'Hair. It's atheists who are the intolerant ones.


I believe that she has a number of options. She can resign. She can violate her principles. Her employer could accommodate her. Or she may consult with a religious expert who can allay her concerns about serving alcohol. My understanding of Islamic practice is that it is only forbidden to consume alcohol, but that she may still serve it.


Yes, this appears to be a mistake and a knuckling under to a bunch of noisy trouble makers who don't represent the views of a majority of the community. If they had any sense, the state house would erect a cross, a star and crescent, a yin yang symbol, and an Om, right beside the ten commandments.


And I foresee a new era of peace, harmony, open dialogue, understanding, free expression, and mutual respect.

Let me remind you that when we integrated blacks, women, and gays into the military people like yourself foresaw nothing but conflicts too. The idea that we must all be identical in order to get along is incredibly insulting. E Pluribus Unum.
Wonders how this squares with the Saudi princes who control the highly lucrative alcohol distribution business in the Kingdom. Or who tolerate the "still rooms" in most houses built in the same kingdom. Must be a little known Muslim sect.
 

Port

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
2,090
portland maine
Overall when it's not a personal act. I don't know you, but I had occasion to fly with Qatar Airways sometimes and the hostesses wear something to cover just a side of the head. A kind of 1/4 of veil. Anyway alcohol is served on board without problems ...
Are there any odstacles that you may be unable ro fulfill the requirements for the position? ask this for all applicants.