"Religion," or, "The Benefits of Hiding Behind a Church"

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by lemontree, May 23, 2006.

  1. lemontree

    lemontree Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not exactly sure if this topic has been discussed or not, but it's something that's near to my heart and that I feel I have some valid opinions on.

    My main concern is the prominent desire to be politically correct when it comes to religious affiliation. It seems almost every hiring packet has some clause regarding creed (yet, unfortunately, only occasionally one about sexuality).... I think these clauses, although apparently 'nice', are really outdated in American society. We struggle so hard to maintain our capitalistic roots, yet employer's can't even set limitations for their own employees without being told off by the government. If WhiteMansClothingBrand only wants to hire white people, why the hell shouldn't they be able to? THEY know their market best, and if they're trying to attract the <insert target market> crowd, then they'd do best to show <insert target market>. It's the same argument with all the no-smoking bans: these are private businesses, not federal agencies (in which, I think, there should be absolutely no discrimination on the basis of something that is not a choice, e.g. race, sexuality, eye color, arm length, whatever). Noone forces someone to go to a bar where people are smoking; you've made an active choice in choosing that bar. If there's such a huge market for smoke-free areas, why the hell aren't there more smoke-free bars opening up? This is how capitalism works.

    Sorry, that was a very long tangent.
    I am not a religious man; I do not attend church, though I was raised Roman Catholic. I have taken interests in learning about other religions, but only from an academic standpoint. My main qualm is how readily people bow down to large religious groups when someone might say something offensive to them. If someone CHOOSES to paint their car green, and you then proceed to make fun of them for doing so, do they have a right to say, "No, you can't say that. That's hateful.'? Should not the same logic apply to religion, which is a choice? If you CHOOSE to be Christian/Muslim/Jewish, how on earth can you then proceed to say, "You should not be allowed to make fun of my choice, because that is insensitive and prejudiced!"?


    Of course, I'm also the guy who sits around wondering why more religious people don't put themselves into potentially-deadly situations so as to expedite their arrival in the heavens.


    Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
     
  2. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    There are currently three religious threads in this section. Some of what you are looking for may have been mentioned/dicussed already. Check them out as well.
     
  3. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    lemontree,
    I tend to agree with you on most of those points. We in the USA should be very careful about making laws that restrict behavior. I think there has to be a compelling case for a particular behavior causing either great physical harm, or economic hardship before it should be proscribed.

    For example, second hand smoke is surely a health risk, but so is leaning out a second story window. I can see an argument for banning smoking in places where people need to frequent for reasons other than leisure. But why should we ban smoking in bars? Why not educate people on the dangers of leaning out of a second story window, and the health dangers of second hand smoke, and let them decide whether they want to lean out the window or attend the bar.

    On the other hand, I can see an argument for seat belt laws. But only because not wearing a set belt is not a victimless crime. If someone doesn't wear a seat belt and gets in an accident, the increased harm to themselves and the danger of them flying out of their driver's seat while trying to control the careening car, puts other drivers in jeapardy and raises insurance rates.

    Comments about religious groups should be fair game, except when it is clearly racist. We have to acknowledge both America's history of racism and the world's history as well. Burning crosses on a black person's front lawn, or spay painting Nazi symbols on a synagogue is way beyond political incorrectness. However, I support completely support calling Christian fundamentalists nasty names. That's not racism, thats just good sense.
     
  4. lemontree

    lemontree Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    How can comments about religious groups be racist? :confused:

    I think there are problems with the things you stated, but not because of their hateful nature... it's because they would be vandalising, or trespassing.

    The Nazi situation is a bit of a toss-up, because the Nazis viewed Jewish people as a race (which isn't true), but I don't think anyone would be putting up Nazi signs to try and annoy someone who has similar characteristics to what Jewish people supposedly look like...

    Freedom of speech all the way!
     
  5. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    If they are directed at a religious group that mostly generally tends to be persons of a particular ethnic background. There are many.
    I agree, as long as EVERYONE understands that freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom of action.
     
  6. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    I tend to believe that free market forces can be powerful agents for effecting change, but not always. Sometimes market forces need a jump start through legislation or subsidies. Railroads, aviation, gambling, automobiles, tobacco, petroleum and many other industries benefit from friendly legislation. And from what I hear, restaurant patronage has not declined in areas where smoking bans have taken effect.

    Still, I voted against outlawing smoking in private bars and restaurants. Believe me, I sure was tempted to outlaw demon tobacco because cigarette smoke digusts me. In the end, though, I wouldn't force my distaste for tobacco onto others who choose to patronize private smoking establishments. Instead, I simply make a point of telling the managers of smoking bars and restaurants that I spend my dining dollars elsewhere.
     
  7. baseball99

    baseball99 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    882
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    yes i love when smokers claim first ammendment for being able to blow smoke in everyones faces.....
     
  8. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east &#039;neath the willow tree? Sex
    ahhh, anti-smoking goons: one of the easiest and most deserving targets for contempt and provocation. all those people out there whose bladders spontaneously void at the merest suggestion of a few airborne tar particles need to join the rest of us in the real world and find something important or appropriate to twist their panties into knots over.

    in the meantime, i will smoke AS MUCH AS I LIKE, of WHATEVER I LIKE, WHEREVER I LIKE - and if you don't like it, run away before I give you cancer. second-hand smoke may well be damaging to your health, but i can assure you it's not nearly as damaging as having your stupid face smashed in by an irate smoker's fist. so mind your own business and we can all get along, thanks.
     
  9. B_Hickboy

    B_Hickboy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,730
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    That twinge in your intestines
    Let's make a deal: You don't smoke and I won't fart. Capisce?
     
  10. baseball99

    baseball99 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    882
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    yeh like circumcision
     
  11. gg42

    gg42 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    244
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    My favorite ten years after lyric- "never really understood religion, 'cept it seems a good excuse to kill"

    Religion had to be invented to give society a chance to organize in larger groups than clans or villages, but now that nationalism (and dare I say globalism) exists, the need has gone by the wayside. Yet it is the dominant structure extant - any clue why? Worship of a god or gods also seems silly, yet even societies that never grew beyond clans/tribes do that - why does the human brain need to believe in a god????? I think that is what makes us human, not tool use or speech....but I'm baffled as to why...

    As for government protection of minorities and religions - a good thing - democracy should not mean tyranny of the majority...
     
  12. dolf250

    dolf250 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Great White North
    I am again confused. According to the above it would appear that freedom of speech is allowed only against Christians or those choosing a religion of some sort. Do not say anything against smokers, races or people with different genders or orientations. Just people who choose a religion? It always seems to me that no matter where I go I see that people find hatred to be completely unacceptable unless it is directed at a group that they personally do not like. Having said that if you want to hate me or make fun of me for being a Christian feel free, but do not get insulted if somebody chooses to laugh at who or what you are.
    Finally, about the smoking; you may want to visit http://www.doorcountycompass.com/smokefree/020822_waitress.htm I seem to recall hearing a day or two back that she finally died. I have known many people who work in the industry. Some smoke, some do not, but they all breath in a huge amount of crap that the patrons they serve decide to expel. I do not advocate a smoking ban, but rather putting responsibility for the air quality back in the owners court.
    If the owner of the establishment wishes to allow smoking he/she should be forced to keep the air quality good. This will mean a much higher heating and cooling bill as they would have to exhaust the air and heat the new air to replace it, but when there is a constant haze it cannot be good for anybody. In any other industry they would have to exhaust the fumes- be it a garage or a mine- but because it is a bar they are above providing clean air?
     
  13. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Obviously sarcastic, but are you agreeing or disagreeing that freedom of speech is not freedom of action?
     
  14. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    Don't forget that the First Amendment is really there to keep the government from suppressing speech. It doesn't apply to the private sector. For example, an editor of a newspaper can choose whatever he wants to print in the paper and can reject anything he doesn't agree with.

    So my invoking the First Amendment to someone who is complaining about my second hand smoke is ridiculous. Also, we are not free do define for ourselves what constitutes expression, where that definition might infringe on other laws. For example, if I define my mode of expression as driving at high speeds at nighttime while drunk, that doesn't make it protected under the First Amendment. The government is free to suppress that mode of "expression" anytime it wants.

    I believe the notion of "expression" under the law is not just an arbitrary thing. Sure there are shades of gray, such as pornography, but I don't think smoking would qualify.

    On the other hand, I believe that laws restricting behavior should be used sparingly and only when great need is demonstrated and other alternatives are not available. Although I don't like smokers next to me in a restaurant, I do feel that non-smoking areas and ventilation that actually protects those areas are perfectly good solutions.
     
  15. Shelby

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    in the internet
    Rock on!:biggrin1:
     
  16. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Quite right.
    You change the subject here. Again I say, speech and action are NOT the same thing. The First Amendment guarantees that I have the unalienable right to free SPEECH, not free EXPRESSION. If I speak freely, and say that I want to cut off fred phelps' cock and shove it down his throat, that is protected under 1st amendment. Actually cutting off his cock and shoving it down his throat and claiming it is my right of free expression, well, no... that is not protected.
     
  17. Shelby

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    in the internet
    Since this thread is already swerving...

    I've often thought that human intelligence peaked centuries ago. That it has been on a downhill slide since man created the major religions (I'm an atheist yet still consider their tenets the best 'how to' guides for living - go figure), tossed up pyramids, thought up calculus, etc. I don't see much world changing original thought at present.

    I think modern technology fools us into thinking we're smarter than our ancestors.

    I'm too shitty a typist to completely flesh out this concept.
     
  18. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    There are people who are so allergic to cigarette smok that ehy have an an alllergic reaction that cn ahd has caused the reaction to be severe enough to cause death.

    The answer to me is for the government to establish standarized codes that are prominently displayed in all public places.
    There should be easily reconigzed logos for:
    No smoking at all anywhere
    Smoking is designated area with separate heating and air systems for smoking areas and non smoking areas
    Designated smoking and non smoking areas with the same heating and air systems
    No restriction on smokiing in establishment

    With easly recognized logos, everyone can know and understand what to expect in that business and they can make their choices accordingly.

    All government agencies that are public should be smoke free.
     
  19. Shelby

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    in the internet
    Grilling and frying produce carcinogenic smoke too. Restaurant employees have a right not to be exposed to this crap either.

    Perfume's fucked up too.

    And farting has to go.
     
  20. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east &#039;neath the willow tree? Sex
    there's over a 100 million cars on the roads in the US alone - nearly 30 million in the UK, which if you figure in the comparative amount of space is far worse. somehow, i don't think a few million cigarettes is gonna make much difference to your chances of developing lung cancer if you live in an industrialized nation. cancer is one of the prices we pay for our "modern" lifestyles - our air, food and living environments are all loaded with a dizzying array of carcinogens, many of which we're probably still unaware of.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted