Laws influenced by religious opinion

Drakares · 19-10-2012 10:51am

Religion should never be used to govern a Country or influence laws. Thankfully the Western countries are becoming more and more separated from these silly laws. Though Good Friday still going well and strong with a ban on buying alcohol.

walrusgumble · 19-10-2012 10:52am

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Indeed. I live in small town Ireland and ended up as a witness one day. When presented with the bible to swear on I informed the judge that as i dont believe in such I would prefer to take what ever alternative they could offer (genuinely). There were audible tuts from the jury (the usual elderly great and good of small town Ireland) and the judge noticably bristled and rolled his eyes.

REgardless, you did not have to swear on the bible, so move on.

Shenshen · 19-10-2012 10:53am

walrusgumble wrote: »

explain how religion / morals are not influential and explain how laws are more influenced by biology and the human condition. Where is the source for this opinion.

Morals are not conditional on religion, people have and do hold high morals without holding any religion.

Humans are by biology a tribal animal. To allow the existence and continuation of a tribe, certain social rules need to be in place. These rules are adhered to in laws and social conventions the world over, irrespective of what religion (if any) the society on the whole clings to.

As I pointed out already, laws regarding steaing, killing, perjury, endangering others, etc. have been written in stone by the Babylonians a long time before the first priest came up with the idea to claim that without religion, you cannot have a basis for laws, and you cannot live a moral life.

Shenshen · 19-10-2012 10:58am

walrusgumble wrote: »

You really haven't a clue really, do you, as to the source of most of the laws and traditions of Western Countries that are still practiced.

Such as the law against making any images of god or the world?
Or would you be referring to the law requiring everyone to belief in the Abrahamic god?
Surely you cannot be talking about the law against cursing and swearing?
Oh, I know, it's the law against having sex with anyone but your spouse, right?

I don't mind repeating myself : If you read the decalogue, you will find that only 3 of the 10 commandments are actually reflected in current Western law. Since these 3 - murder, theft and perjury - also tend to be outlawed in societies with no history of Christian, Muslim or Jewish influence (take for example China or Japan), it's fair to assume that it was not Christian religion that made sure these laws exist.

So, no, while some of our laws certainly are based in religious backgrounds, such as the law against selling alcohol on Good Friday and Christmas, most of our laws are not.

Leftist · 19-10-2012 11:01am

walrusgumble wrote: »

What religious rule bans drink on good friday?. Italians, I think, don;t ban drink on Good Friday. It is a National Policy, based on the wish to respect religious holidays. If the Irish were capable of controlling themselves while on beer, then there might not have been a need for the ban (not complete by the war, hotels, railway stations)

Alot of idiots automatically assume that if you don't agree with a modern "consenus", such as gay marriage or abortion, it automatically means that you are influenced by religion. That is horse manure. I know a few people who oppose both, and they have no spirtual or religious faith

I'm not really interested in what 'alot of idiots automatically assume'. Nobody (i can see) has associated anti-gay marriage or anti-abortion exlusively with religious groups. It's a straw man argument.

And because italy do not close their bars on good friday does not have any relevance on how the irish percieve this religious decision. The vatican hasn't made the rule, the irish state made the rule based on it's perspective of catholic law. Wether this is entirely accurate can be debated.

but blaming the rule on irish people not behaving well with drink is just completely ridiculous.

Shenshen · 19-10-2012 11:05am

Drakares wrote: »

Religion should never be used to govern a Country or influence laws. Thankfully the Western countries are becoming more and more separated from these silly laws. Though Good Friday still going well and strong with a ban on buying alcohol.

In all honesty, I find this particular law and its effects highly amusing.
The thursday before Good Friday, I regularly see people carting drink out of Off Licenses in wheelbarrows. I suspect that on Good Friday, Irish people consume more alcohol than they normally would in a week, or maybe even a month.
So while it's illegal to sell on the day, I'm pretty sure the entire country is off its face despite the law.

Latchy · 19-10-2012 11:13am

News item yesterday about a B&B owner in England who took a booking for a couple assuming they were man and wife but on discovering they were gay ,informed them that her due to her strong christian values she couldn't couldn't allow them the room and canceled the booking .They took her to court on grounds of discrimination and won ,with judge saying her own religious beliefs shouldn't allow for discrimination .

A gay couple who were turned away from a bed and breakfast were discriminated against, it has been ruled.

Michael Black and John Morgan were refused a double room at Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Berkshire by its owner.

The pair from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, were awarded £1,800 each at Reading County Court for "injury to feelings".

.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266

saiint · 19-10-2012 11:15am

but why would a gay couple
believe in a faith that is purely against gay marriage seeing a gay person as sinful? ive nothing against gays
but theirs no point in them fighting for gay marrige if their catholic? because they cant change something that god only knows how long it is now. basicly the catholic church hates gays
they see it as a sin, and they wont let you be married in a catholic church
but if the catholic church hates gays so much why do gays still want to be a catholic? since tecnically the church is saying god hates you haha
if i was gay id change my faith

Sofaspud · 19-10-2012 11:45am

saiint wrote: »

but why would a gay couple
believe in a faith that is purely against gay marriage seeing a gay person as sinful? ive nothing against gays
but theirs no point in them fighting for gay marrige if their catholic? because they cant change something that god only knows how long it is now. basicly the catholic church hates gays
they see it as a sin, and they wont let you be married in a catholic church
but if the catholic church hates gays so much why do gays still want to be a catholic? since tecnically the church is saying god hates you haha
if i was gay id change my faith

Why do a lot of "christians" eat pork or shellfish? Or wear garments made of more than one fabric? Or plant more than one type of crop in a single patch of land? Or read horoscopes / listen to 'psychics'? Or get tattoos or piercings, get haircuts / shave, do any form of labour on sunday, use contraceptives, divorce, have any kind of wealth, or any number of other banned things?

And why do christian women braid their hair, wear gold or pearls or even trousers?

You'd almost think christians don't pay attention to their own rules!

JohnMarston · 19-10-2012 11:53am

If only there was a religion forum to discuss this sort of thing..

krudler · 19-10-2012 12:04pm

JohnMarston wrote: »

If only there was a religion forum to discuss this sort of thing..

Plenty of topics that have specific forums get discussed on AH, its a broader aspect of views from people who may not frequent speciality forums. I have this crazy method of not reading or posting in threads I have no interest in, works wonders.

Latchy · 19-10-2012 12:14pm

krudler wrote: »

Plenty of topics that have specific forums get discussed on AH, its a broader aspect of views from people who may not frequent speciality forums. I have this crazy method of not reading or posting in threads I have no interest in, works wonders.

AH ' Expresso' has a ring to it ok .

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-10-2012 12:55pm

Aiel wrote: »

Ah,so this is this weeks anti-religious topic on the After Hours thread.

And long may it continue. I can only lament the claim, if it is true, that we only have one a week. It is a subject that deserves many more topics and threads in opposition to it.

On the subject of the OP instead of you again trying to derail a good thread though... I think Obama put it best in his keynote of 2006. I, like he, do not really care if people express ideas for laws of public policy based on their religious beliefs but...

Obama wrote:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to 'X' for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why 'X' violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

If your opinion of a law, for example, is based on religious opinion then that's your issue not ours. If you have proposals however that are subject to argument and amenable to reason then I am all ears. That, for me, is the essence of secularism.

My name is URL · 19-10-2012 1:01pm

Shenshen wrote: »

The blasphemy law springs to mind...

I'd be more worried about the law against sedition that was hidden alongside the much publicised blasphemy one.

Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power, or is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state

Ush1 · 19-10-2012 1:36pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

explain how religion / morals are not influential and explain how laws are more influenced by biology and the human condition. Where is the source for this opinion.

They are not one and the same.

You can look at societies such as non-human animals which have no religion yet often have laws and hierarchies. That would be my primary source.

cowzerp · 19-10-2012 1:41pm

smash wrote: »

Well in court, why should someone have to swear on a book they might not believe in?

I like it, Its like given me permission to tell whatever lies i want to and blame god on it.

Ghost Buster · 19-10-2012 1:45pm

Aiel wrote: »

Ah,so this is this weeks anti-religious topic on the After Hours thread.

There are lots of topic on After Hours which are anti something (Most of them!) so why not religion?

Ghost Buster · 19-10-2012 1:47pm

Anyone wrote: »

I'd call it an anti religous thread, its cleverly worded, but its definatley anti religon. I'm not religous at all, but these threads are all too common these days.

No they are not all that common. Its just that some folk take umbridge at any topic not singing the praises of religion from the roof tops.

Ghost Buster · 19-10-2012 1:50pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

REgardless, you did not have to swear on the bible, so move on.

Move on from where? Im not stuck anywhere to move on from. Just a little commentary on our legal system being so church influenced that a judge and jury seem perturbed when someone turns up amongst them who isnt catholic.

Ghost Buster · 19-10-2012 1:56pm

JohnMarston wrote: »

If only there was a religion forum to discuss this sort of thing..

Isnt this thread as much about our legal system as about religion?
besides at present on boards we have:
Your TV watching habits: Will you suggest this gets moved to Television?
How do you know how attractive you are?: Should this get moved to The gentlemans Lounge or Sexuality?

Skinny Jeans: Fashion?
"N" for Novice..driver laws: Motoring..
Etc etc:rolleyes:

Oh but no as usual its special pleading for religion eh?

Pace2008 · 19-10-2012 2:22pm

Just on the topic of people lobbying for legislation based on their religious beliefs, I don't really see the problem with it provided that the arguments themselves are not based on religious instruction that applies only to those who follow it.

For example, I recently read about a politician up North (was it Peter Robinson?) who said he would vote against Gay Marriage because it was "wrong" according to his religious beliefs. That is not an acceptable stance for a politician in a secular society, it is something that applies only to him personally - he can choose to find homosexual relations objectionable, and no one is forcing him into a marriage with another man, but what other people choose to do is not his business provided it is not injurious to society. If, however, religious groups could provide solid evidence that children raised by same-sex couples on the whole experienced more developmental issued than those raised in a conventional family, then perhaps it would be the lesser evil to deny homosexual partners adoption rights.

The fact that someone's motivation may be religious is not grounds to dismiss their arguments offhand. I'm sure many socialists, humanists and whatever other ists you can list out are influenced in a similar vein. Some people are more objective than others but true freethought is not something that exists in humans; we are all biased to some extent and will approach different concepts based on our ideologies. If Christians or other religious folk suggest a policy that is demonstrably beneficial to society then it should be it should be implemented whether or not it is ultimately ideologically based. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

planetX · 19-10-2012 2:28pm

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Indeed. I live in small town Ireland and ended up as a witness one day. When presented with the bible to swear on I informed the judge that as i dont believe in such I would prefer to take what ever alternative they could offer (genuinely). There were audible tuts from the jury (the usual elderly great and good of small town Ireland) and the judge noticably bristled and rolled his eyes.

this was my experience as well - only I was the respondant in a case. The judge looked pissed off, and I felt that I was made to stand out in a bad light and that it was extremely out of place to bring religious beliefs, or lack of, into a courtroom.

philologos · 19-10-2012 2:52pm

Pace2008 wrote: »

Just on the topic of people lobbying for legislation based on their religious beliefs, I don't really see the problem with it provided that the arguments themselves are not based on religious instruction that applies only to those who follow it.

For example, I recently read about a politician up North (was it Peter Robinson?) who said he would vote against Gay Marriage because it was "wrong" according to his religious beliefs. That is not an acceptable stance for a politician in a secular society, it is something that applies only to him personally - he can choose to find homosexual relations objectionable, and no one is forcing him into a marriage with another man, but what other people choose to do is not his business provided it is not injurious to society. If, however, religious groups could provide solid evidence that children raised by same-sex couples on the whole experienced more developmental issued than those raised in a conventional family, then perhaps it would be the lesser evil to deny homosexual partners adoption rights.

The fact that someone's motivation may be religious is not grounds to dismiss their arguments offhand. I'm sure many socialists, humanists and whatever other ists you can list out are influenced in a similar vein. Some people are more objective than others but true freethought is not something that exists in humans; we are all biased to some extent and will approach different concepts based on our ideologies. If Christians or other religious folk suggest a policy that is demonstrably beneficial to society then it should be it should be implemented whether or not it is ultimately ideologically based. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

It is interesting to know that Australia's atheist PM voted against gay marriage quite recently though. Clearly opposition to gay marriage isn't confined to whether or not you are a believer in God.

What was even more interesting to read about this is that Sydney was divided into pockets of support both for and against same sex marriage and these are just Labor constituencies. This map in The Australian shows how suburban Sydney was divided up. Some Labor MP's felt that they couldn't vote for same-sex marriage because of their constituents. That article does attribute much to Christianity and Islam in outer suburban regions of the city.

It's a more complicated issue than just religion. There's clearly reasons why atheists like Julia Gillard can still oppose same-sex marriage.

Helix · 19-10-2012 8:11pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Would it not be that almost all laws in Ireland, and indeed the West are guided and influenced by a Christian sense of morality?

no. they're based on the general rule of "don't be a dickhead to other people", which christianity also happens to use. "don't be a dickhead" was a thing long before jesus. in fact "don't be a dickhead" is pretty much the default stance for civilization, because if everyone plays by "be a dickhead if you want" then it leads to complete and utter disaster. nobody can do anything productive, nobody can work, nobody can even leave their house for fear of having it robbed when they're away, or being shot in the face

most stuff in law boils down to "don't be a dickhead", even if you've to drill down a few layers to find some kind of relevance to it

it's not a christian thing

if everyone did everything possible to not be a dickhead, life would be grand. unfortunately, in terms of religion, being a dickhead does seem to play a big part in many of the rules of the various organisations, more out of self preservation than anything

Helix · 19-10-2012 8:14pm

philologos wrote: »

There's clearly reasons why atheists like Julia Gillard can still oppose same-sex marriage.

none of them are good though

there's no genuinely good reason why a man can't marry another man and get the legal benefits that marriage offers straight couples, like next of kin for wills etc. not a single well rounded, well reasoned, sensible answer for it. if two consenting adults want to go get married then they should be allowed to go for it. similarly if 5 consenting adults want to get stuck into polygamy, then im all for their right to do that too. it doesnt affect me in the slightest

in reference to my above post, it all comes down to dont be a dickhead again. me trying to tell someone that they can't marry their long term consenting partner because they both have the same genitalia would constitute me being a dickhead

Feathers · 19-10-2012 9:17pm

Sofaspud wrote: »

Why do a lot of "christians" eat pork or shellfish? Or wear garments made of more than one fabric? Or plant more than one type of crop in a single patch of land? Or read horoscopes / listen to 'psychics'? Or get tattoos or piercings, get haircuts / shave, do any form of labour on sunday, use contraceptives, divorce, have any kind of wealth, or any number of other banned things?

And why do christian women braid their hair, wear gold or pearls or even trousers?

You'd almost think christians don't pay attention to their own rules!

You'd almost think they read more of the Bible than a few Leviticus quotes they read on the internet!

Pace2008 wrote: »

For example, I recently read about a politician up North (was it Peter Robinson?) who said he would vote against Gay Marriage because it was "wrong" according to his religious beliefs. That is not an acceptable stance for a politician in a secular society, it is something that applies only to him personally

Yes, it is very much acceptable. I personally think it's a stupid motivation and wouldn't vote for him, but plenty of people did. He didn't run on a platform of being a secular liberal & then get into office to go "Aha! I'm voting for everything as a Christian!". He made no secret of his motivations & arguably, it is why he was returned by the voters who voted for him.

If I ran for parliament on the basis that every vote I cast would be on the outcome of a coin toss & people elect me, tough - that's democracy!

dttq · 19-10-2012 9:21pm

Leftist wrote: »

Are there any current laws in irish society that are influenced specifically by a religious group?

for instance we all know about the former ban on contraception and divorce, the former was obviously a religious law.

And should religious groups be banned from lobbying the government on law making decisions?

for instance gay marraige?

Imo, I can't really see how person A can expect person B to live by their religious rules? surely you can see that it's a belief? it's your right to have that belief but how can anyone expect others to live by that doctrine?

Discuss.

Abortion, gay marriage, blasphemy laws as well as countless more examples which religious bigots and neanderthals use to force others to do what they think is right, as well as keeping this country in the Middle Ages legally. This country needs to follow a system based on Enlightenment principles and beliefs, and get religion/ religious people out of the decision making process of governance, because what it comes down to is a bunch of people who believe they have the right to force their views down other people's throats and use the state and the prison system to accomplish it.

philologos · 19-10-2012 9:24pm

Feathers wrote: »

You'd almost think they read more of the Bible than a few Leviticus quotes they read on the internet!

Indeed. If you quote stuff like that, you don't understand either what covenant theology is, and that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses (for example dietary laws are fulfilled in Mark 7). Or indeed, that Christians since the very beginning of Christianity have read the Old Testament in light of what Jesus did. Moreover the Old Testament even tells us that there will be a new covenant agreement between man and God (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Victor · 19-10-2012 9:35pm

Leftist wrote: »

But what non religious reason is there for the ban of sale of alcohol on good friday?

Normal weekends are bad enough, do we really need people drinking on a 4-day weekend?

smash wrote: »

Well in court, why should someone have to swear on a book they might not believe in?

You are perfectly entitled to make a non-religious affirmation or make an oath on some other religious basis.

saiint wrote: »

but why would a gay couple
believe in a faith that is purely against gay marriage seeing a gay person as sinful? ive nothing against gays
but theirs no point in them fighting for gay marrige if their catholic? because they cant change something that god only knows how long it is now. basicly the catholic church hates gays
they see it as a sin, and they wont let you be married in a catholic church
but if the catholic church hates gays so much why do gays still want to be a catholic? since tecnically the church is saying god hates you haha
if i was gay id change my faith

A distinction is made between a sin and a sinner.

Zebra3 · 19-10-2012 9:41pm

iDave wrote: »

Getting a drink on Good Friday

And 25 December.

Victor wrote: »

Normal weekends are bad enough, do we really need people drinking on a 4-day weekend

It's not a four day weekend for everyone, and there is no law stopping those aged 18+ drinking on any day of the year.

kowloon · 19-10-2012 10:09pm

philologos wrote: »

I look at history. I see that evangelical Christians abolished slavery in Britain by lobbying in Parliament, I see that through lobbying in parliament the Factories Act of 1847 was passed again by Christian lobbying of Lord Shaftesbury and others.

Who's the white Victorian social reformer who's quite popular with the ladies.
Lord Shaftesbury!
Yo damn right.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-10-2012 7:48am

philologos wrote: »

I look at history. I see that evangelical Christians abolished slavery in Britain by lobbying in Parliament....

And if you look at history you will find that it was the religious who put them in slavery in the first place.

If you "look at history" you will find most people gutting chickens for a living were probably religious too. It would be a mistake to assume that just because a religious person is doing X that it has anything to do with them being religious.

The first issue with "looking at history" is that the further back in history you go the less likely it is to find people saying they are NOT religious. At certain times in certain places such a thing would get you ignored, ostracized, attacked or even killed.

The second issue is that if you want to change the minds of a society that is predominantly of a certain religion... say christian... then that is the language you need to frame your points in and the person you need to represent yourself as.

So really your point here is based on little more than cherry picked events laid on a bed of cherry picked assumptions, all selected to put the best spin on Christianity that you can find.

Shenshen · 22-10-2012 9:05am

Feathers wrote: »

Yes, it is very much acceptable. I personally think it's a stupid motivation and wouldn't vote for him, but plenty of people did. He didn't run on a platform of being a secular liberal & then get into office to go "Aha! I'm voting for everything as a Christian!". He made no secret of his motivations & arguably, it is why he was returned by the voters who voted for him.

If I ran for parliament on the basis that every vote I cast would be on the outcome of a coin toss & people elect me, tough - that's democracy!

Which is while there need to be processes and regulations in place to ensure that "democracy" doesn't turn into "tyranny of the majority".
In short, a democracy without a framework of laws guaranteeing the untouchable rights of minority groups would be a pretty nasty place to live.
Secularism is one of those frameworks.

Leftist · 22-10-2012 10:30am

Victor wrote: »

Normal weekends are bad enough, do we really need people drinking on a 4-day weekend?

Maybe not, but that's certainly not a decision to be made by one religious organisation on behalf of the rest of us. A religious law designed to pay respect to the martyrdom of it's founder.

To be honest, I don't really care about it that much, I used to drink more on a good friday than most fridays. Was a night for a good house party and then off to the nightclub at midnight.

What I would have a problem with is interference in the rights and lives of minorities because of a majority religious group.

donegal_road · 22-10-2012 10:34am

pubs close for 'Holy hour' on a Sunday

joseph brand · 22-10-2012 11:31am

Victor wrote: »

Normal weekends are bad enough, do we really need people drinking on a 4-day weekend?

Won't someone think of the children?

You're right though. If people are able to have a beer on good Friday, the country will go even further down the toilet. It's the only law stopping us turning into Mexico.

Besides, what makes you think that everyone has the whole four days off? Shift workers, as one example, could be working three of the four days. It would be fine if everyone worked Mon-Fri, but life just isn't that simple.

Regarding the OP, wasn't Stringfellows closed due to protests by crusty religious old biddies?

He said he was disappointed about the closure, which will mean the loss of about 100 jobs.

Jobs. Who needs em eh? Besides, the exchequer doesn't need cash, we're swimming in it.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.
If you don't like strip clubs, don't visit strip clubs.
If you don't like marijuana, don't buy it.
If you don't like tattoos or piercings, don't get any.
If you don't like brown shoes, don't buy any.
If you don't like meat, don't eat it, etc etc etc. .

Simple logic. Why do religious conservatives have this superiority complex which tells them that they can dictate the lives of strangers? "I 'believe' such and such, therefore, by the powers vested in me and my own feelings of self importance, I shall do all I can to infringe on the rights of others." Typical religious zealot/ Militant theist.

Leftist · 22-10-2012 11:50am

good point re: stringfellows, but wasn't that just plain and simple sabotage of business, instead of influencing the laws? basically it's evidently o.k for religious groups to intimidate and harrass a private company into removing their business if it suits them.

They are fanatics, and it's compeletely tolerated.

If it was nationalists harrassing non-nationals out of conducting business, there would and rightly so, be an outcry. Or at least I would hope there would.

But when it comes to a belief in a faith based religion then its' fair game.

philologos · 22-10-2012 12:08pm

Protesting != harassment. It's freedom of speech to express ones displeasure at something in society. Unless you're going to curb free speech that is.

If I was living in a local area and someone wanted to construct a strip club near my house, at the very least I would let my MP know my concern, particularly if I had kids.

Why should people tolerate everything?

Leftist · 22-10-2012 12:21pm

not sure if they allow kids into the strip club.

Shenshen · 22-10-2012 12:40pm

philologos wrote: »

Protesting != harassment. It's freedom of speech to express ones displeasure at something in society. Unless you're going to curb free speech that is.

If I was living in a local area and someone wanted to construct a strip club near my house, at the very least I would let my MP know my concern, particularly if I had kids.

Why should people tolerate everything?

I remember seeing that "protest" myself, walking past on my way to the cinema.
They were pretty much camping on the doorstep of the establishment, and were yelling bloody murder at one poor lad who had gathered up the courage to try and squeeze past them.

I would call it harrassment, personally.

What reason do you have for not tolerating it? If you've got kids, watch them.
I seriously cannot stand the argument that because some people have children, the rest of us should not be allowed anything that isn't child-friendly.

Leftist · 22-10-2012 12:54pm

tbf I assumed it was a religious protest based on an earlier comment. If it was a feminist protest I would respect that a lot more.

They can't stop us from using contraception anymore. Or eating meat on fridays, or divorcing. So I have far more objection to the anti-homosexual agenda by the religious groups these days. Not because I am gay, I don't dig dudes, I've never had a broseph chuck his junk all up in my grill and it's not something I would like, but how some priest botherer can tell them what to do is just beyond my comprehension.

philologos · 22-10-2012 12:57pm

Leftist wrote: »

tbf I assumed it was a religious protest based on an earlier comment. If it was a feminist protest I would respect that a lot more.

They can't stop us from using contraception anymore. Or eating meat on fridays, or divorcing. So I have far more objection to the anti-homosexual agenda by the religious groups these days. Not because I am gay, I don't dig dudes, I've never had a broseph chuck his junk all up in my grill and it's not something I would like, but how some priest botherer can tell them what to do is just beyond my comprehension.

It doesn't really matter how much respect you have for a protest. The fact of the matter is that the law gives people the right to assembly and freedom of speech in public places (with the exception of the ridiculous Section 5 of the Public Order Act in the UK and Ireland).

If I'm a resident and I disagree strongly with a strip club opening right by my house, I have every right to raise that objection with my MP / council. They might ignore it, or they might take heed to the fact that many residents simply wouldn't want it there.

Leftist · 22-10-2012 1:31pm

philologos wrote: »

If I'm a resident and I disagree strongly with a strip club opening right by my house, I have every right to raise that objection with my MP / council. They might ignore it, or they might take heed to the fact that many residents simply wouldn't want it there.

I have no objection to that. Preventing customers from entering the premises and sabotaging business through physical presence is not the same though.

Either way, It's a moot point if the protest was not religious based.
Not becaues it makes it any less significant, just that it is off-topic.

philologos · 22-10-2012 1:39pm

Leftist wrote: »

I have no objection to that. Preventing customers from entering the premises and sabotaging business through physical presence is not the same though.

Either way, It's a moot point if the protest was not religious based.
Not becaues it makes it any less significant, just that it is off-topic.

They have the right to protest if they feel that the council isn't listening to their concerns for sure.

Obstruction is already prohibited in protest, so if there was genuine reason as to why they would be obstructing street traffic then the Gardaí could have been involved.

Your OP and subsequent posts aren't making a whole lot of sense. If people can lobby on the behalf of any other position, why can't Christians lobby? Why is that meant to be precluded in a secular state? It seems like your misunderstanding what secularism and church-state separation actually mean in practice.

Shenshen · 22-10-2012 1:42pm

philologos wrote: »

They have the right to protest if they feel that the council isn't listening to their concerns for sure.

Obstruction is already prohibited in protest, so if there was genuine reason as to why they would be obstructing street traffic then the Gardaí could have been involved.

Your OP and subsequent posts aren't making a whole lot of sense. If people can lobby on the behalf of any other position, why can't Christians lobby? Why is that meant to be precluded in a secular state? It seems like your misunderstanding what secularism and church-state separation actually mean in practice.

They weren't blocking the street, they were blocking the entrance to the premisses.
They were doing it to force the company out of business.
The guards did become involved a few times if I remember correctly, but they could not spare a guard to stand by the shop 24/7, whereas the old biddies had their sleeping bags and flasks of tea, and seemed to work a rota.

That is not a democratic protest and form of expression, it's essentially mob tyranny.

philologos · 22-10-2012 1:46pm

Shenshen wrote: »

They weren't blocking the street, they were blocking the entrance to the premisses.
They were doing it to force the company out of business.
The guards did become involved a few times if I remember correctly, but they could not spare a guard to stand by the shop 24/7, whereas the old biddies had their sleeping bags and flasks of tea, and seemed to work a rota.

That is not a democratic protest and form of expression, it's essentially mob tyranny.

How is it not a democratic protest? - These people were letting their voices be heard. There was no reason why others couldn't come along to protest against them. Western society has a tradition of freedom of expression and conscience. These people as far as I remember were residents in the local area who were genuinely concerned about this. Why shouldn't they protest if they genuinely feel that this was wrong?

Osgoodisgood · 22-10-2012 2:16pm

philologos wrote: »

I'm a Christian who is pro-secularism. My problem is when atheists add stuff to it. Separation of church and state was to allow freedom of religion in America between churches. It wasn't to say that people with faith should shutup.

Revisionist twaddle that gets more tiresome with each telling.

Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Leftist · 22-10-2012 2:22pm

philologos wrote: »

How is it not a democratic protest? - These people were letting their voices be heard. There was no reason why others couldn't come along to protest against them. Western society has a tradition of freedom of expression and conscience. These people as far as I remember were residents in the local area who were genuinely concerned about this. Why shouldn't they protest if they genuinely feel that this was wrong?

Sabotage of business. Should nationalists have the right to prevent access to an immigrant's business based on their right of free speech?

philologos wrote: »

Your OP and subsequent posts aren't making a whole lot of sense. If people can lobby on the behalf of any other position, why can't Christians lobby?

I'm not sure I understand your point. I don't think a religious group should be allowed to influence social law based on their faith. If they have some practical opposition, such as opposition to a strip club based on concern for children in the area (is an valid argument if not debatable).

But if they oppose civil partnerships/marraige for homosexuals based on a religious doctrine or tradition then it is unacceptable.

Why? because its not a threat to anyone. It's imposing their unproven, faith based illogical religious views on someone who doesn't share the same faith.

philologos · 22-10-2012 2:24pm

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Revisionist twaddle that gets more tiresome with each telling.

Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

I'm afraid it's not twaddle

The reason the state didn't favour religion was because under British rule in New England Baptists, Jews, Puritans and Presbyterians were persecuted by the Anglican establishment and the State.

Church - State separation led to the freedom of religion that has allowed churches to prosper without persecution.

Read for example how the first synagogue in the US came about. There was correspondence between Washington and the Jews involved. Will link when off phone.

What is true revisionism is that Jefferson wanted to stop Christians barred from political discourse.

Shenshen · 22-10-2012 2:40pm

philologos wrote: »

How is it not a democratic protest? - These people were letting their voices be heard. There was no reason why others couldn't come along to protest against them. Western society has a tradition of freedom of expression and conscience. These people as far as I remember were residents in the local area who were genuinely concerned about this. Why shouldn't they protest if they genuinely feel that this was wrong?

So you feel it's perfectly right to intimidate customers of a business you want to go bankrupt, just because you happen to disagree with the business?

I'm sorry, that's neither protest nor a tradition of Western society. Maybe with the exception of Sicillian society.

The freedom to express your views, just like any other freedoms, stops where it infringes on the freedoms of others, in this case the business owner, his employees and their customers.
What happened with Stringfellows was not protesting, it was clear and outright bullying.

Laws influenced by religious opinion

Comments