Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

There are a lot of designated religious healthcare facilities bud.

that's almost contradictory
there's nothing inherently 'religious' about healthcare

unless it's about healing patients with prayer & incantations (witch doctors?)

when you said "muslim dr." I assumed you meant a real qualified medical doctor not some quack



schools are another matter cause teaching's 'generic' you can teach anything science religion etc.

[Annoyed]

I did, an nowhere does it mention anything attacking freedom or religions.


This bill does nothing to attack Freedom of Religion.

Many religions oppose gay / etc. relationships. It is often in their defining texts, such as the Bible.

Resolved, That in addressing the stigma often associated with persons who identify as LGBTQ, we call on the people of California–especially its counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators, and legislators–and the institutions of California with great moral influence–especially its churches, universities, colleges, and other schools, counseling centers, activist groups, and religious centers–to model equitable treatment of all people of the state

Don't tell me that that isn't restricting what religions teach.

That's your conclusion, not mine. I said the conversion therapy is a scam. I hardly doubt these are offered free eh?

Ever seen those crazy ''spirit possession'' mess on TV where the guy cures lethargic people back to life? Looks like they're having seizures. Assuming so because to my knowledge that zoo only exists in the US. Conv. therapies are exactly the same. They exploit people's beliefs to suck the money out of their godly wallets, there is nothing religious about that nor does it impede anyone in any way in regards to their freedom of religion.

Actually, although I don't *know*, I wouldn't expect a religion to charge for conversion therapy, effective or not.

[Chaka-Z0]

that's almost contradictory
there's nothing inherently 'religious' about healthcare

In our modern times yes, but prior to medical science (which wasn't that long ago) all hospitals to my knowledge were created and ran by Christians and holy people, nuns for the most part. In medieval age priests and butchers were also the only healers around.

when you said "muslim dr." I assumed you meant a real qualified medical doctor not some quack

Dr's can follow whatever religion they like, as long as they don't push any of it in their professional lives.

schools are another matter cause teaching's 'generic' you can teach anything science religion etc.

Except teaching religion should be left for theology classes in superior studies, I don't think children should be taught any of this until they are able to make an informed decision, it is brainwashing at a very young age imo.

[Chaka-Z0]

Don't tell me that that isn't restricting what religions teach.

Actually it does you're right. Do you understand the distinction between having the right to choose which religion you like and exerting it, versus having everyone comply to religion values?

Actually, although I don't *know*, I wouldn't expect a religion to charge for conversion therapy, effective or not.

Me neither, but everyone's got to make a living. If not paid directly they must take their funds from the church coffers or something. Money doesn't grow on trees, rent, salaries, electricity isn't paid in prayers.

[Annoyed]

Actually it does you're right. Do you understand the distinction between having the right to choose which religion you like and exerting it, versus having everyone comply to religion values?

So, why can't the gender bender individual choose a church that doesn't oppose homosexuality?

[Chaka-Z0]

So, why can't the gender bender individual choose a church that doesn't oppose homosexuality?

I don't understand your question

[SoulReaver]

versus having everyone comply to religion values?

so the (secular) state would tell a muslim how to comply with muslim values??

[Chaka-Z0]

so the (secular) state would tell a muslim how to comply with muslim values??

Secular state would tell a (insert religion here) where he can push his values, which is in private or religious centers.

And more importantly, it would ensure those values are in accordance with the human rights charters and laws because those should supercede everything else.

[Gatefan1976]

In our modern times yes, but prior to medical science (which wasn't that long ago) all hospitals to my knowledge were created and ran by Christians and holy people, nuns for the most part. In medieval age priests and butchers were also the only healers around.

Ya realise the Hippocratic Oath -predates- Christianity, right?

Dr's can follow whatever religion they like, as long as they don't push any of it in their professional lives.

Yeah, but that does not fly (though it should). See discussions on Dr's not performing abortions on religious grounds (rather than the philosophical notion of "do no harm")

Except teaching religion should be left for theology classes in superior studies, I don't think children should be taught any of this until they are able to make an informed decision, it is brainwashing at a very young age imo.

They can be taught it, IF they show interest. My son got put in Scripture class at school and he hated it, so I requested he be removed, my eldest daughter however liked it (at a similar age to my son), so I let her stay. Faith is personal, some gravitate to it, some do not, even as young kids.
Sidenote to this, The use of the word personal was very much intentional. It should have no impact on the secular part of law which is designed to be impersonal.

[Gatefan1976]

That's just my point. The bill would have the state dictate what religious institutions teach their congregations, which is a clear violation of the Constitution.

And it matters, because any law begins its life as a bill. This could very well become law in that far-left loony bin.

I find this argument from you hilarious.
You allow the states the right to ignore the constitution when it serves your.... feelings, but are now claiming that the constitution should be baseline law for the federal government AND the states therein.
Make up your mind.

[aretood2]

Except teaching religion should be left for theology classes in superior studies, I don't think children should be taught any of this until they are able to make an informed decision, it is brainwashing at a very young age imo.

I say this because it's a pet peeve of mine. "Brainwashing" doesn't exist, it's a pseudoscience. It's called "Socialization" and it's only bad if the socialized culture/belief is something you (general) disagree with. In other words, often socialization is called "Indoctrination" or "brainwashing" when the thing being "taught" is something that the speaker is at the very least ambivalent with. In any case, we do "it" all the time in every other way. To say that children shouldn't be taught religions is rather odd. It's a fundamental aspect of the human condition, a massive component of culture today and especially in history. You can't understand history without understanding the role religion plays in it and you can't understand that without understanding the religions in context.


Anyway, the california law seems okay, it depends on its implementation. When it says the things about religious leaders, is that outreach? Will it be inviting them to participate in projects and activities much in the way non-religious non-profits and other organizations will voluntarily participate? If so, then that's not an issue at all. But if it is to regulate or impose what different groups do then there can be a very real problem.


The thing about secularism is that it does not mean hiding religion or pretending it doesn't exist. It means being neutral on such matters. So if this law is about reaching out to stakeholders in the community then yes, religious leaders would most logically be included. If it's about compelling said stakeholders...then that presents more than just religious freedom issues.

[SoulReaver]

And more importantly, it would ensure those values are in accordance with the human rights charters and laws because those should supercede everything else.

dunno if you realize this but what you're saying implies that muslims would have to rewrite the quran to be in compliance with the "law of the land"

preventing the religious from imposing their religious law on secular turf is one thing but making them alter their religious law is another

[Chaka-Z0]

preventing the religious from imposing their religious law on secular turf is one thing but making them alter their religious law is another

Simple really, one word: boundaries. A society dictates the rules, a man follows regardless his kind.

In theory

[Annoyed]

Simple really, one word: boundaries. A society dictates the rules, a man follows regardless his kind.

In theory

And in our case, the Constitution is one of the more important rule books. And one of its rules is that the state shall not stick its nose into religion, which is exactly what this CA bill does by telling churches that they must teach as the state decrees in the matter, not what their religion decrees.

[Annoyed]

I find this argument from you hilarious.
You allow the states the right to ignore the constitution when it serves your.... feelings, but are now claiming that the constitution should be baseline law for the federal government AND the states therein.
Make up your mind.

Examples?