It depends upon one's personal philosophy.
Should all be compelled to do what the majority says?
Or should we each be able to refuse some demanded task?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is one worse than the other
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Should all be compelled to do what the majority says?
Or should we each be able to refuse some demanded task?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Say my religious book says that killing people is wrong and more so that aiding and abetting killers is also wrong. Lets say my country frequently engages in killing people. Paying taxes would be aiding and abetting. So, by law and my religious freedom I don't have to pay taxes.
We Never Know
No Slack
Right. In the reverse should a gay person be forced to create a website for a christian that wants to blog about how homosexuality is wrong and a abomination?
I’m curious how this scenario stacks up against American laws regarding “free speech.”
I mean, I could see someone claim that by being compelled to do this, they are providing a platform against their will, and thus this perhaps can be argued to be “compelled speech.”
Which, as I understand it, is a violation of the First Amendment?
I’m not American, so I don’t know
We Never Know
No Slack
I don't know how it would play out.
I can guess that the designer would say they shouldn't be forced to do it but who knows.
Fair enough
We Never Know
No Slack
But like you I am curious too because when the shoe is on the other foot it becomes a different story.
Well I can’t exactly disagree with you there lol
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
Bigotry is a kind of prejudice against an individual based on characteristics that said individual has no control over. This includes, but is not limited to, ethnicity, skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and disability.
It's not bigoted to be anti-capitalist because capitalists can choose not to be capitalists. In fact, capitalism has a long history of perpetuating bigotry for profit, so if you're against bigotry there's a solid reason to be against capitalism.
Not that you would understand the nuance of that when you have to paint all socialists with such an unfavorable caricature.
We Never Know
No Slack
Here's one way to look at it....
If religious people won't cater to gays and gays won't cater to religious people... John Doe will make bank because he doesn't care and will make websites for them both lol
Heyo
Veteran Member
Yep. Religion is inherently anti capitalistic but most religious capitalists are able to compartmentalize.Hey, mate
That’s capitalism right there lol
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That is too simple.
Most religious capitalists capitalise on religion in order to line their pockets.
Case in point the various multi million dollar mega churches (or temples or what have you.)
Audie
Veteran Member
There's a bit of inadvertent humor there, your offering
me an English lesson when you made three mistakes in
your attempted definition.
And in your then expressing bigotry against (all) capitalists.
Nuance indeed!
But did you deliberately overlook that far from
speaking of all socialists, I limited my comments to ( all )
extremist socialits?
And you did exactly as I described them, with
the things you made up to criticize about me.
And just to add chocolate sprinkles on the dish,
your post, demonstrating with example, the bigotry I spoke of,
And rather than address the subject of my post you went for personal attack.
Withal, I couldn't have asked for a more suitable response.
Good one!
Feel free to complicate it.
As long as you practice all your religious beliefs and do not exclude any of your practices beliefs then you do not have to comply to any nation's standards or laws; however, if you make even one exception to your religious beliefs then you need to follow all standards and laws for the world you live in in my opinion. Fyi, the nation you live in my take offense at what you do and incarcerate or kill you to protect their laws, but you are living for a higher calling and will be rewarded in the afterlife.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, step one.
There are no objective or indviudal rights. They are social norms and constructs. That is so, becasue for have, you don't have rights as you have a body. We can nitpick that further if you like.
So any interaction between 2 or more humans depend as such as how you view rights, fair, good, useful, needs, wants, power, luck and so on. The same with me.
So if you in effect claim that you have special rights, because they are in effect objective, then you have claimed something, which is not true of the world.
The problem is that there is no objective standard for correct or incorrect compelling. In other words I have another subjective standard for compleing, so it ends here.
Whether you or I are compelled to do something, is always as a case of what you or I consider subjectively correct.
But if you in effect claim a philosophy system for which you have claimed something as objective for rights and the rest of the field, you claimed something which is not true.
The end game with your view is how other humans are responsible for their behavour. The problem is that responsible is not objective, but in one other post of yours, you in effect claimed it was objective, because you stated an objective fact about another human, which was not objective.
That is too simple.
Going by that (il) logic, humanity has a long history of perpetuating bigotry for profit. So if you're against bigotry, there's a solid reason to be against humanity.