Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on February 05, 2023, 09:45:47 AM
-
Vlad's laws of antitheism and goddodging:
When the extent of religious minority is exaggerated.
When the extent of political power of religion is exaggerated.
When the level of coercion, threat of arrest and penalty against the religious, actual or desired, exceeds that alleged of religion.
When one's national religious statistics are taken as globally representative.
When freedom from religion exceeds freedom of religion.
When one advocates religious activity, expression or signage to be removed from the public forum.
When the wierdness of argument matches or exceeds that of religious argument.
-
Is that a worldwide set of laws or is it limited geographically in some way?
-
Is that a worldwide set of laws or is it limited geographically in some way?
That, Seb, is up to you. But it is dedicated to my friends on this board and HumanistUK.
-
Vlad's laws of antitheism and goddodging:
When the extent of religious minority is exaggerated.
When the extent of political power of religion is exaggerated.
When the level of coercion, threat of arrest and penalty against the religious, actual or desired, exceeds that alleged of religion.
When one's national religious statistics are taken as globally representative.
When freedom from religion exceeds freedom of religion.
When one advocates religious activity, expression or signage to be removed from the public forum.
When the wierdness of argument matches or exceeds that of religious argument.
I suspect a wee bit of refinement is need, Vlad, plus some accompaying information: for example, how is "wierdness of argument"(sic) measured in order to determine that it "matches or exceeds that of religious argument".
I fear it is back to the drawing board for you!
-
I suspect a wee bit of refinement is need, Vlad, plus some accompaying information: for example, how is "wierdness of argument"(sic) measured in order to determine that it "matches or exceeds that of religious argument".
That's up to you though.
Did you just wanted to send me back to the drawing board because you just love to task someone with something?
-
Seb,
Is that a worldwide set of laws or is it limited geographically in some way?
The latter - specifically, it's limited geographically to the contents of Vlad's imagination.
-
Seb,
The latter - specifically, it's limited geographically to the contents of Vlad's imagination.
I'd be surprised if you didn't see yourself in the penultimate law.
-
Vlad,
I'd be surprised if you didn't see yourself in the penultimate law.
As I've only ever argued for the removal of privileged access by right that various faiths arrogate to themselves I have no idea why you'd be surprised about that. If though religions want to put signs up outside their buildings, pay for advertising (subject to the relevant rules about advertising) etc just like other private members' clubs do that's no-one's business but their own.
-
That, Seb, is up to you.
Pretty pointless calling them Vlad's laws then isn't it?
But then again a lot of what you post on here is pointless so I'm not entirely surprised.
-
Vlad,
Vlad's laws prejudices of antitheism and goddodging:
FIFY
-
Pretty pointless calling them Vlad's laws then isn't it?
But then again a lot of what you post on here is pointless so I'm not entirely surprised.
That,Seb, is up to you.
-
When the extent of religious minority is exaggerated.
Surely applies both ways?
When the extent of political power of religion is exaggerated.
Subjective, unless you have a clear metric for measuring political power that I've not come across before.
When the level of coercion, threat of arrest and penalty against the religious, actual or desired, exceeds that alleged of religion.
Subjective, again, and geographically massively varied.
When one's national religious statistics are taken as globally representative.
Vs when historic data is taken as representative? Vs when 'religiosity' is seen as some monolothic enorsement?
When freedom from religion exceeds freedom of religion.
And when is that?
When one advocates religious activity, expression or signage to be removed from the public forum.
And when is that?
When the wierdness of argument matches or exceeds that of religious argument.
Again, subjective. Reality's 'weird' is religion's raison d'etre, after all...
O.
-
Surely applies both ways?
Maybe, but many antitheists think they are immune to the ''both ways'' e,g, antitheists think they can't be fundamentalist or evangelical.
What I'm talking about here is antitheists exaggerating the implications of statistics for example when the number of religious slipped down to over 40% by census. Humanist UK as reported particularly in the Guardian and Independent commented that the religious infrastructure in UK life could now be dismantled on a 'let's face it, religions time is up' basis
Subjective, unless you have a clear metric for measuring political power that I've not come across before.
Measurement of membership of the Houses of Parliament. Several Hundred members of members representing secularism and 24 representing spirituality.Subjective, again, and geographically massively varied.
Subjective? Not if someone can have somebody penalised perhaps to the point of imprisonment for not allowing a wedding in that ''nice little church.''.
Vs when historic data is taken as representative? Vs when 'religiosity' is seen as some monolothic enorsement?
Since posting these laws we have had a claim on this forum that Atheism was on the rise. Yes but in only a few countries and the rise is unable to match the rise in the numbers of religious globally
And when is that?
Certainly when a secular countries legal situation looks more like it could have been written by Humanist UK than theists. When there are section 28 type rules against religion in the UK perhaps?
Again, subjective. Reality's 'weird' is religion's raison d'etre, after all...
Subjective. I am conceding to the prevailing cultural empiricism here however some atheists around here have offered Unknown unknowns to get round theistic argument, Circular heirarchies of causation, revoking the principle of sufficient reason, infinite regress, Brute fact etc all weird in their way. All with a straight face.
-
Maybe, but many antitheists think they are immune to the ''both ways'' e,g, antitheists think they can't be fundamentalist or evangelical.
You'd have to explain what 'fundamental' a fundamentalist antitheist was cleaving to, but I can see that there are some evangelical atheists - I don't accept that they're seen in the same light, and it's surely apparent to you that religious evangelists are given a broader scope than the atheist equivalent.
What I'm talking about here is antitheists exaggerating the implications of statistics for example when the number of religious slipped down to over 40% by census. Humanist UK as reported particularly in the Guardian and Independent commented that the religious infrastructure in UK life could now be dismantled on a 'let's face it, religions time is up' basis.
It's a trend that's been happening for some time, and in the latest iteration it's not slowing down - it's a valid take that religion has had its day, and to predict that the explicitly religious as a proportion of the populace will be negligible soon. You could do a more detailed statistical analysis if that shows that they're mistaken, you could argue that despite that small proportion religion still has an important place in society at large, or you could argue that even if the religious proportion is small that it's still of cultural significance and should be respected or treasured or supported. It's not an unreasonable stance to take, though, on the face of the available information.
Measurement of membership of the Houses of Parliament. Several Hundred members of members representing secularism and 24 representing spirituality.
No. Several hundred representing the spread of belief systems because they are not reserved particularly based on faith, and then 26 reserved seats for one particular cult of one sect of one religious branch, with divested powers to also manage their own affairs and exemption or partial exemption from some of the legislation (taxes, equality) that everyone else has to abide by. Regardless of whether religion remains relevant in the UK, now or in the long term, the special privilege for the Church of England in a notionally multi-cultural, egalitarian society is untenable.
The various religious faiths are already adequately represented amongst the various Lords, some of whom are religious and some of whom are not, some of whom are Church of England, or other Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu - what is the justification for additional reserved seats for the CofE?
Subjective? Not if someone can have somebody penalised perhaps to the point of imprisonment for not allowing a wedding in that ''nice little church.''
And, currently, they can't be. At the same time, though, they want to be able to conduct state business, but be able to exclude some members of the state. Again, untenable in the long term, something has to give. Like Archbishop Welby, I can see disestablishment as the way forward.
Since posting these laws we have had a claim on this forum that Atheism was on the rise. Yes but in only a few countries and the rise is unable to match the rise in the numbers of religious globally.
Only in a few countries? I'd suggest in many countries, perhaps even most - it might remain a small contingent in some, but I suspect it's increasing (or, at least, the reporting of it is?). Is it approaching the numbers of the explicitly religious worldwide, perhaps not yet, but given that we see a direct correlation between formal education and reduction in religiosity we either have to commit to keeping third-world places uneducated or face the prospect that it's growth is likely to spread.
Certainly when a secular countries legal situation looks more like it could have been written by Humanist UK than theists.
As it should. Humanists focus on the humanity, not the ideology, but theists are at least influenced by the theology. A legislature without overt religion does not necessarily exclude the religious, but a legislature with overt religion does exclude the non-religious, or those of different religions, or those with heretical views from within the religion...
When there are section 28 type rules against religion in the UK perhaps?
If that happens, let me know. If it's not just, you know... ...exaggerating the implications...
Subjective.
Absolutely, so probably shouldn't be legislated on.
I am conceding to the prevailing cultural empiricism here
I think that's paraphrased as 'acknowledging reality'.
...however some atheists around here have offered Unknown unknowns to get round theistic argument, Circular heirarchies of causation, revoking the principle of sufficient reason, infinite regress, Brute fact etc all weird in their way. All with a straight face.
Circular reasoning, if you find, should get called out. Revoking the principle of sufficient reason is only a fair complaint if you've established the principle in the first place - I've not been involved hugely in those arguments, it's not a concept I'm up to speed on.
Infinite regress, as I've said before, is not an argument it's a description. If you wish to argue against the notion of an infinite regress you need, you know, an argument, and not just a header.
Brute fact? If there were brute facts in support of theism we wouldn't have the discussions.
Straight faces... humour is as subjective as anything else. I can characterise, say, group prayer as ritual spellcasting, where the congregation makes an entreaty to a supernatural being, drinks a special potion and then seals their pact with a magic word at the end. That's amusing, to me, and not inaccurate, but I appreciate that's my viewpoint - that you might not find it funny doesn't make it wrong, and the fact that atheists might be saying something that seems funny to you at first glance without cracking a smile doesn't meant that they're wrong either.
O.
-
It's a trend that's been happening for some time, and in the latest iteration it's not slowing down - it's a valid take that religion has had its day,
Not at over 40%, Nor at over 30% or 20%. That's just like saying any minority has had it's day.
And, currently, they can't be. At the same time, though, they want to be able to conduct state business, but be able to exclude some members of the state. Again, untenable in the long term, something has to give. Like Archbishop Welby, I can see disestablishment as the way forward.
How is disestablishment going to prevent punishment of priests who take God's word literally? There will still be coercion egged on by the axegrinders at HumanistUK who want payback.
-
Vlad,
How is disestablishment going to prevent punishment of priests who take God's word literally? There will still be coercion egged on by the axegrinders at HumanistUK who want payback.
What would “take God's word literally” entail in practice, and if whatever it was was unlawful why shouldn’t those priests be “punished” (ie prosecuted)?
-
You'd have to explain what 'fundamental' a fundamentalist antitheist was cleaving to.
A more profound expression of the 'anti' in 'antitheist'. Dawkins is well known for criticising atheists for not giving more throat to their objections of theism which Harris takes to mean that it may be necessary for western secular society to resort to Nuclear first strike.
-
Vlad,
What would “take God's word literally” entail in practice, and if whatever it was was unlawful why shouldn’t those priests be “punished” (ie prosecuted)?
Or jailed even.....Not performing a marriage in that ''Nice little country church'' that someone wanted.
-
Vlad,
Or jailed even.....Not performing a marriage in that ''Nice little country church'' that someone wanted.
But what you said was: “How is disestablishment going to prevent punishment of priests who take God's word literally? There will still be coercion egged on by the axegrinders at HumanistUK who want payback".
So far as I know there’s nothing illegal about not performing marriages in country churches is there so what “punishment” do you think might be attempted?
-
Vlad,
But what you said was: “How is disestablishment going to prevent punishment of priests who take God's word literally? There will still be coercion egged on by the axegrinders at HumanistUK who want payback".
So far as I know there’s nothing illegal about not performing marriages in country churches is there so what “punishment” do you think might be attempted?
Not at the moment no but then Vlad's law isn't happening in all respects in all the world. We would be back in ''Gay cake controversy'' territory again.
I seem to recall, back along, atheists argue that Christian marriage ceremonies should not be considered as marriages though but whether it was on here or another message board and which, I could no longer provide those details.
-
Vlad,
Not at the moment no but then Vlad's law isn't happening in all respects in all the world. We would be back in ''Gay cake controversy'' territory again.
I seem to recall, back along, atheists argue that Christian marriage ceremonies should not be considered as marriages though but whether it was on here or another message board and which, I could no longer provide those details.
Ah, so Vlad's "law" is actually rather: "Vlad's fever dream imaginings with no supporting evidence to suggest they apply now or will apply in future".
Do you not think "somewhat paranoid speculations" would have been more appropriate than "law" here?
-
Not at the moment no but then Vlad's law isn't happening in all respects in all the world. We would be back in ''Gay cake controversy'' territory again.
I seem to recall, back along, atheists argue that Christian marriage ceremonies should not be considered as marriages though but whether it was on here or another message board and which, I could no longer provide those details.
Eh?
-
NS,
Eh,?
Vlad seems to have been smashing the bath salts pretty hard recently... ;)
-
Vlad's laws of antitheism and goddodging:
When the extent of religious minority is exaggerated.
When the extent of political power of religion is exaggerated.
When the level of coercion, threat of arrest and penalty against the religious, actual or desired, exceeds that alleged of religion.
When one's national religious statistics are taken as globally representative.
When freedom from religion exceeds freedom of religion.
When one advocates religious activity, expression or signage to be removed from the public forum.
When the wierdness of argument matches or exceeds that of religious argument.
Its got zero to do with atheism which is just not believing in gods
-
Its got zero to do with atheism which is just not believing in gods
It's about antitheism though which is more than just not believing in Gods.
-
It's about antitheism though which is more than just not believing in Gods.
Do they have club rules, a club house and days out ?
-
Do they have club rules, a club house and days out ?
https://www.atheistalliance.org/blog/sponsored/the-anti-theism-international-convention-april-2020/
-
Not at over 40%, Nor at over 30% or 20%. That's just like saying any minority has had it's day.
Not in the context of an ongoing, some might say accelerating, decline. It's the difference between 'put it out of its misery' and 'do not rage against the dying of the light' - they're different approaches to the same presumed conclusion.
How is disestablishment going to prevent punishment of priests who take God's word literally?
Because if the Church is disestablished and ALL of their ceremonies are just blessings, not state-sanctioned marriages, then they're no longer treating any group differently to any other. I've not seen Welby expressly explain that as the mechanism, that's my presumption of what he means, but it makes sense to me as a way forward.
There will still be coercion egged on by the axegrinders at HumanistUK who want payback.
Those bastards and their 'equal rights' and their 'human dignity' in the face of 'good' old-fashioned sanctified bigotry of an organ of the state...
O.
-
Because if the Church is disestablished and ALL of their ceremonies are just blessings, not state-sanctioned marriages, then they're no longer treating any group differently to any other. I've not seen Welby expressly explain that as the mechanism, that's my presumption of what he means, but it makes sense to me as a way forward.
So we are talking about the banning of Holy matrimony here by legislation. I can't see how that can be policed. I think you would have to sell that to people. What do you mean, all of their ceremonies are just blessings are you suggesting secular authorities have the capacity to determine the nature of church ceremonies and which can or cannot go ahead? I can see Humanists calling for jailtime for priests on this one. So pubs, hotels(Not established) etc can be venues for weddings and churches no longer?
I can see the law of unintended consequences coming back on this assault on what is a staple of British culture, Outrider, You obviously see prostration in gratitude before the chairman of HumanistUK for his benificence.
-
So we are talking about the banning of Holy matrimony here by legislation.
Sometimes I would love to try to work out the process that gets you from what people write to what you read into it - no, no-one is talking about banning anything. What we're talking about is removing the civil, legal element from the Church's marriage ceremony so that you can holy it up the wazoo as much as you'd like, but it's nothing to do with the state, and therefore the state is not engaged in discriminating against certain classes of people.
I can't see how that can be policed. I think you would have to sell that to people. What do you mean, all of their ceremonies are just blessings are you suggesting secular authorities have the capacity to determine the nature of church ceremonies and which can or cannot go ahead?
No, I'm suggesting that the secular authorities don't give the Church the power to conduct civil procedures tied in with their religious ceremonies - if you want to get married in a church you get a registrar to attend the church to do the civil bit, or you do the legal bit somewhere else and have your fancy shindig in the church, or you have a big ceremony in the park with your friends, and get your church to bless your union quietly on Friday before you leave on your honeymoon.
I can see Humanists calling for jailtime for priests on this one.
But, then, you can see antitheists everywhere, so....
So pubs, hotels(Not established) etc can be venues for weddings and churches no longer?
No. Just like having your wedding in a pub doesn't meant that the landlord gets to authorise your ceremony, so getting married in a church wouldn't mean the vicar gets to do it either. You have a civil registrar and registration process that is functionally independent of your religious ceremony, and then if you want to arrange for those to be conducted at the same time you do so in exactly the same way as civil ceremonies in private establishments have been doing for years now.
I can see the law of unintended consequences coming back on this assault on what is a staple of British culture, Outrider,
There's always a possibility of unintended consequences; it's a possibility, though, pitched against the actual unequal treatment we currently have. This wouldn't in any way stop the internal wranglings of the church, where gay Christians and traditionalists (to be generous) are at odds about what path the church should take - given that I don't see that being resolved any time soon (and neither, it seems, does Archbishop Welby), I think the state needs to make this no longer the state's problem.
You obviously see prostration in gratitude before the chairman of HumanistUK for his benificence.
I'm still in the queue, it seems Archbishop Welby got there before me... ::)
O.
-
Sometimes I would love to try to work out the process that gets you from what people write to what you read into it - no, no-one is talking about banning anything
Really? Let me put your proposal before you again the Church is disestablished and ALL of their ceremonies are just blessings
Banning Holy matrimony or downgrading it to just a blessing as you suggested. What is the difference? What we're talking about is removing the civil, legal element from the Church's marriage ceremony
And be forced down the local registry office or pub to make your vows in front of a council official, I get that. so that you can holy it up
Holy what up? You have downgraded holy matrimony down to a blessing. but it's nothing to do with the state
But it would be since the state would have to police churches to make sure only blessings and not full scale holy matrimony was going on and therefore the state is not engaged in discriminating against certain classes of people.
But it would be since policing would be to ensure that priests only perform blessings. We would have gone from no one being legally penalised to churches and priests being penalised before you start to include mosques and synagogues.
No, I'm suggesting that the secular authorities don't give the Church the power to conduct civil procedures tied in with their religious ceremonies - if you want to get married in a church you get a registrar to attend the church to do the civil bit, or you do the legal bit somewhere else and have your fancy shindig in the church, or you have a big ceremony in the park with your friends, and get your church to bless your union quietly on Friday before you leave on your honeymoon.
But that still leaves priests who take the word of God seriously, who won't perform that nice little church wedding someone wanted''. You would be forced to prosecute and with non payment of fines comes prison.
But, then, you can see antitheists everywhere, so....
I certainly see antitheism in a scheme that doesn't deliver equal holy matrimony for the religious same sex couple but a downgraded blessing for everyone. That certainly looks like antitheistically motivated removal of holy matrimony.
-
Really? Let me put your proposal before you again Banning Holy matrimony or downgrading it to just a blessing as you suggested. What is the difference?
Perhaps I wasn't as clear as needed - from the point of view of the state, it becomes just a blessing. What the church considers it to be, then, is entirely up to the church.
And be forced down the local registry office or pub to make your vows in front of a council official, I get that.
I don't see that you'd be forced to do that, though it would be an option. I don't see any reason the civic officiant couldn't come along to the church to do their bit, just as many of them do now.
But it would be since the state would have to police churches to make sure only blessings and not full scale holy matrimony was going onBut it would be since policing would be to ensure that priests only perform blessings. We would have gone from no one being legally penalised to churches and priests being penalised before you start to include mosques and synagogues.
How? Do they currently police, say, public gardens in case someone performs an unsanctioned drive-by wedding? Of course not, the church can drape its ceremonies in whatever it wants, and the state would be largely uninterested unless people tried to claim that it had any legal standing.
But that still leaves priests who take the word of God seriously, who won't perform that nice little church wedding someone wanted.
That, though, is a church problem, not a legal and state problem. It's not the organs of the state discriminating against someone, it's a private group that lays claim to a religious freedom - there's still a debate, but there's a greater degree of freedom for the church to define its own path.
You would be forced to prosecute and with non payment of fines comes prison.
Prosecute for what, exactly?
I certainly see antitheism in a scheme that doesn't deliver equal holy matrimony for the religious same sex couple but a downgraded blessing for everyone. That certainly looks like antitheistically motivated removal of holy matrimony.
See above, I hope I've clarified that.
O.
-
Perhaps I wasn't as clear as needed - from the point of view of the state, it becomes just a blessing. What the church considers it to be, then, is entirely up to the church.
I don't see that you'd be forced to do that, though it would be an option. I don't see any reason the civic officiant couldn't come along to the church to do their bit, just as many of them do now.
How? Do they currently police, say, public gardens in case someone performs an unsanctioned drive-by wedding? Of course not, the church can drape its ceremonies in whatever it wants, and the state would be largely uninterested unless people tried to claim that it had any legal standing.
That, though, is a church problem, not a legal and state problem. It's not the organs of the state discriminating against someone, it's a private group that lays claim to a religious freedom - there's still a debate, but there's a greater degree of freedom for the church to define its own path.
Prosecute for what, exactly?
See above, I hope I've clarified that.
O.
I still don't think you realise that anybody providing a service like a wedding cake or a room for the night requires zero discrimination. The jailing of somebody for not providing a service to anybody requires a jailing. You are inevitably at the junction where freedom from religion outweighs freedom of religion. You have to jail them Outrider, you have to Outlaw holy matrimony.
-
I still don't think you realise that anybody providing a service like a wedding cake or a room for the night requires zero discrimination.
Except that religious organisations already have an explicit exemption from those sections of the Equalities Act, unlike bakers and hotels.
The jailing of somebody for not providing a service to anybody requires a jailing.
Of course, jailing requires jailing.
You are inevitably at the junction where freedom from religion outweighs freedom of religion. You have to jail them Outrider, you have to Outlaw holy matrimony.
Well, you go make the case, I'll be at the football not caring any more because what religions do is now no more of my business than that of, say, the Bethnal Green Girl Guides because they're also not part of the state apparatus.
O.
-
I still don't think you realise that anybody providing a service like a wedding cake or a room for the night requires zero discrimination.
Nope Vlad - they require zero unlawful discrimination. Not the same as zero discrimination. And, of course, religious organisations have been given opt-outs as special privileges to elements of the equalities legislation that apply to all non-religious organisations. But you do seem rather confused about the distinction between a religious organisation and a non-religious organisation or business that may be run by christians. While we can argue until the cows come home about whether religious organisations should be afforded special privileges in the form of opt-outs, surely all cake shop owners and all B&B owners should be held to the same legal standard on discrimination regardless of their religious or other beliefs or lack of them.
-
Except that religious organisations already have an explicit exemption from those sections of the Equalities Act, unlike bakers and hotels.
I think preservation of that is the only way to keep people out of jail here.
-
Vlad,
I still don't think you realise that anybody providing a service like a wedding cake or a room for the night requires zero discrimination. The jailing of somebody for not providing a service to anybody requires a jailing. You are inevitably at the junction where freedom from religion outweighs freedom of religion. You have to jail them Outrider, you have to Outlaw holy matrimony.
Paranoid madness.
First, no-one has even been jailed for not providing a room or a cake.
Second, on the cake case specifically the European Court ruled the case inadmissible in any case:
“A gay rights activist has lost a seven-year discrimination dispute over a cake order as the European Court of Human Rights ruled his case inadmissible.
Gareth Lee started legal action back in 2014 after a Christian-run Belfast bakery refused to make him a cake with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage".
The family firm Ashers said the slogan contravened their Christian beliefs.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59882444
Third, discrimination cases are civil, not criminal so you cannot be jailed for the offence:
“If someone loses a case in civil court, that person may be ordered to pay money to the other side or return property, but that person does not go to jail just for losing the case.”
https://www.lawhelp.org/files/1814550B-B14C-5F28-66B9 295AF39C97B1/attachments/EA876BFD-5BBB-4FC6-A603-952438FE8E69/differences-between-criminal-and-civil-court.pdf
Fourth, you would (presumably) support censure for discrimination against, say, black people when refusing a service on the grounds of religious conviction, so why arbitrarily select a different protected class for discrimination to be fine?
Fifth, Outy is suggesting no such thing. He’s very clearly suggesting only that the civic part should be a matter for the state, and that the religious hoo-hah can continue entirely unaffected by that.
Why does that trouble you so?
-
Regarding policing mosques - I don't think that happens or needs to happen. Currently, people can have a nikah - the Muslim religious marriage - in a mosque or at home or in a hotel or hall but the civil i.e. legal marriage needs to be officiated by a registrar and happen in a registered building. I don't think the police come to check in case any civil marriages are being illegally conducted. Apparently quite a few Muslims don't bother having a civil ceremony, which obviously has repercussions as some of the legal rights and protections and responsibilities are unavailable for the couple.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8747/
I believe there are a small handful of imams (though you don't have to be an imam to conduct a Muslim marriage ceremony) or whoever the Muslim is who is officiating the religious marriage ceremony, who will conduct a nikah for a same-sex couples. Most won't as they consider that the verses in the Quran relating to marriage describe a nikah as a union between a man and a woman.
-
Nope Vlad - they require zero unlawful discrimination. Not the same as zero discrimination. And, of course, religious organisations have been given opt-outs as special privileges to elements of the equalities legislation that apply to all non-religious organisations. But you do seem rather confused about the distinction between a religious organisation and a non-religious organisation or business that may be run by christians. While we can argue until the cows come home about whether religious organisations should be afforded special privileges in the form of opt-outs, surely all cake shop owners and all B&B owners should be held to the same legal standard on discrimination regardless of their religious or other beliefs or lack of them.
I think Peter Tatchell had the most sensible take on the Bakery issue.
Putting a roof over peoples heads and providing shelter for the Stranger no matter who they be is probably a tradition and sentiment going back centuries. It's a pity our Government don't quite see things that way.
-
Vlad,
Paranoid madness.
First, no-one has even been jailed for not providing a room or a cake.
Second, on the cake case specifically the European Court ruled the case inadmissible in any case:
“A gay rights activist has lost a seven-year discrimination dispute over a cake order as the European Court of Human Rights ruled his case inadmissible.
Gareth Lee started legal action back in 2014 after a Christian-run Belfast bakery refused to make him a cake with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage".
The family firm Ashers said the slogan contravened their Christian beliefs.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59882444
Third, discrimination cases are civil, not criminal so you cannot be jailed for the offence:
“If someone loses a case in civil court, that person may be ordered to pay money to the other side or return property, but that person does not go to jail just for losing the case.”
https://www.lawhelp.org/files/1814550B-B14C-5F28-66B9 295AF39C97B1/attachments/EA876BFD-5BBB-4FC6-A603-952438FE8E69/differences-between-criminal-and-civil-court.pdf
Fourth, you would (presumably) support censure for discrimination against, say, black people when refusing a service on the grounds of religious conviction, so why arbitrarily select a different protected class for discrimination to be fine?
Fifth, Outy is suggesting no such thing. He’s very clearly suggesting only that the civic part should be a matter for the state, and that the religious hoo-hah can continue entirely unaffected by that.
Why does that trouble you so?
Firstly The Gay cake case was dismissed because the ECHR felt that the Gay rights activist bringing the case had not fully exhausted all legal means in his own country not on any demerits his case had intrinsically and so he and others have not yet obtained what they desire.
If he and you are content to let religious exemptions stand, and I believe that is necessarily the only course left open to you, then I have no objection against you.
There does remain the question of Outrider reducing holy matrimony to merely a blessing in the state's eyes. That sounds like a phrase calculated to demean to me...New atheism at it's shit stirring best perhaps?
-
Vlad,
Firstly The Gay cake case was dismissed because the ECHR felt that the Gay rights activist bringing the case had not fully exhausted all legal means in his own country not on any demerits his case had intrinsically and so he and others have not yet obtained what they desire.
Yes, so there was no finding of guilt but nor was there a return to the UK courts. Thus no-one went to jail.
If he and you are content to let religious exemptions stand, and I believe that is necessarily the only course left open to you, then I have no objection against you.
I’m not “content” to let religious exemptions strand at all, but that’s a different matter. The point is that, even if the religious exemption was removed and the church concerned carried on discriminating nonetheless, that would be a civil case not a criminal one – ie, no jail time.
There does remain the question of Outrider reducing holy matrimony to merely a blessing in the state's eyes. That sounds like a phrase calculated to demean to me...New atheism at it's shit stirring best perhaps?
People who claim special privileges for themselves and their beliefs will often whine at the suggestion that those special privileges should be removed (“calculated to demean to me” etc), but that’s just spitting the dummy at the possibility of losing the special privileges.
-
Vlad,
People who claim special privileges for themselves and their beliefs will often whine at the suggestion that those special privileges should be removed (“calculated to demean to me” etc), but that’s just spitting the dummy at the possibility of losing the special privileges.
I think it is in the nature of the reality of the situation that you have to grant what you see as special privileges here rather than anybody have to claim them. In other words you are over a barrel here.
-
Vlad,
I think it is in the nature of the reality of the situation that you have to grant what you see as special privileges here rather than anybody have to claim them. In other words you are over a barrel here.
Wrong again. “Anyone” can’t claim them at all. I could not for example start my emergency falafel delivery business but refuse to sell to protected classes of people (black, gay, handicapped, whatever) on the grounds of my "convictions". Only religions can do that – ie have special privileges that exempt them from the usual rules:
“Exemption
the action of freeing or state of being free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=exemption+definition&oq=exemption+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l9.9886j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
-
Vlad,
Wrong again. “Anyone” can’t claim them at all. I could not for example start my emergency falafel delivery business but refuse to sell to protected classes of people (black, gay, handicapped, whatever) on the grounds of my "convictions". Only religions can do that – ie have special privileges that exempt them from the usual rules:
“Exemption
the action of freeing or state of being free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=exemption+definition&oq=exemption+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l9.9886j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Yes and you seem to have no idea how and why this situation was arrived at. Technically, though do you not think only a christian would have a hope of successfully arguing that he believed holy matrimony was even a thing since the disbelief of a mischievious and vexatious atheist would disqualify a claim to a right to it since it is not enshrined in law. In a secular humanist jurisdiction recognition of such a thing would be removed. However a proper secular country faces a dilemma of having to refrain from too much one sided domination of secular or religious influence and the fining of congregations is not a good look.
-
Vlad,
Yes and you seem to have no idea how and why this situation was arrived at.
Irrelevant. You referred to “…rather than anybody have to claim them”. “Anybody” can’t claim them though – you were wrong about that. Why some people (ie religions) can claim them though is a different matter entirely.
Technically, though do you not think only a christian would have a hope of successfully arguing that he believed holy matrimony was even a thing since the disbelief of a mischievious and vexatious atheist would disqualify a claim to a right to it since it is not enshrined in law.
I have no idea what trying to say here, but if a Christian (or, presumably, a member of any other faith who thinks there's such a things a “holy”) wants to attach that term to his or her activities that’s a matter for them.
In a secular humanist jurisdiction recognition of such a thing would be removed.
No it wouldn’t. A “secular humanist jurisdiction” would “recognise” that a religion wanted to label its services “holy” just as much as it would recognise that I wanted to label my club’s activities “leprechaunal”. The only thing it wouldn’t recognise (in ether case) would be the civic status of their respective services.
However a proper secular country faces a dilemma of having to refrain from too much one sided domination of secular or religious influence and the fining of congregations is not a good look.
No it doesn’t. A secular society just has to keep its civic responsibilities separate from those of religious faiths, which seems like a good “look” to me.
-
Vlad,
Irrelevant. You referred to “…rather than anybody have to claim them”. “Anybody” can’t claim them though – you were wrong about that. Why some people (ie religions) can claim them though is a different matter entirely.
I have no idea what trying to say here, but if a Christian (or, presumably, a member of any other faith who thinks there's such a things a “holy”) wants to attach that term to his or her activities that’s a matter for them.
No it wouldn’t. A “secular humanist jurisdiction” would “recognise” that a religion wanted to label its services “holy” just as much as it would recognise that I wanted to label my club’s activities “leprechaunal”. The only thing it wouldn’t recognise (in ether case) would be the civic status of their respective services.
No it doesn’t. A secular society just has to keep its civic responsibilities separate from those of religious faiths, which seems like a good “look” to me.
How can holy marriage before God be a thing in a secular humanist, atheist bus supporting society or jurisdiction? Sounds like you want your cake and eat it.
-
Vlad,
Irrelevant. You referred to “…rather than anybody have to claim them”. “Anybody” can’t claim them though – you were wrong about that. Why some people (ie religions) can claim them though is a different matter entirely.
And what I'm saying is that these people you say can claim them don't actually need to because they are provided.
-
Vlad,
And what I'm saying is that these people you say can claim them don't actually need to because they are provided.
Do you ever read your efforts to see whether they scan before you post them? What is this even supposed to mean: "... don't actually need to because they are provided" ???
-
Vlad,
Do you ever read your efforts to see whether they scan before you post them? What is this even supposed to mean: "... don't actually need to because they are provided" ???
I think we have to see my response in the context of your strange viewpoint in which people like me are going around claiming some kind of ancient right. There isn't however some kind of group who society has to contend with and put up with. This strange ghetto is part of society. These aren't ancient privileges enjoyed these are things a tolerant society must concede to remain a tolerant society. While we have that I don't need to claim these rights they are on tap and whoever is in charge of it all has a balancing act.
And that is aside from the logical nonsense of suppressing something you think cannot exist anyway.
-
Vlad,
I think we have to see my response in the context of your strange viewpoint in which people like me are going around claiming some kind of ancient right.
Er, isn’t that exactly what various religions do claim? What’s more, those claims have been granted inasmuch as for example they’re exempt from the anti-discrimination laws that apply to others.
There isn't however some kind of group who society has to contend with and put up with. This strange ghetto is part of society. These aren't ancient privileges enjoyed…
Yes they are “ancient privileges enjoyed”. That’s exactly what they are.
…these are things a tolerant society must concede to remain a tolerant society.
Why? What about the intolerance that comes with these exemptions – the intolerance toward those otherwise protected classes that the specially privileged religions are thereby allowed to discriminate against?
Do you not think a “tolerant” society should concern itself with the balance of tolerance – ie, with the cost to tolerance in the larger society of sanctioning the intolerance of certain faith groups within it?
While we have that I don't need to claim these rights they are on tap and whoever is in charge of it all has a balancing act.
Yes, “on tap” is the status quo – and some of us think that’s wrong.
And that is aside from the logical nonsense of suppressing something you think cannot exist anyway.
You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. What are you trying to say here?
-
I think preservation of that is the only way to keep people out of jail here.
I don't see any immediate danger of it being stripped away - there's no appetite for that in any of the major political parties, and by and large the 'anti-theist' groups you talk about are not talking about removing the exemption entirely. There's a case to be made that discrimination in, say, employment for schools with a religious flavour should not be included, but I can't see anyone suggesting that churches (or mosques or synagogues) should be compelled to marry against a fairly common interpretation of the tenets.
O.
-
There does remain the question of Outrider reducing holy matrimony to merely a blessing in the state's eyes. That sounds like a phrase calculated to demean to me...New atheism at it's shit stirring best perhaps?
Is levity something that's exclusive to 'anti-theists' too? What is it about getting married in the pointy-house that makes it holy? What is it that makes it holy if it's not being blessed? The point is that the state no longer cares if it's 'holy matrimony' (copyright Christianity-de-jour) or 'Allah's Blessing' or whatever the Judaist equivalent might be - they're all 'blessings', and therefore for the state's purposes entirely irrelevant. For anyone getting married who isn't choosing to do so in one of those traditions it's entirely irrelevant.
What the church does then becomes of interest only to those who want to go to the church, and the rest of us can carry on untroubled by it.
Time to 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's', no?
O.
-
The point is that the state no longer cares if it's 'holy matrimony' (copyright Christianity-de-jour) or 'Allah's Blessing' or whatever the Judaist equivalent might be - they're all 'blessings', and therefore for the state's purposes entirely irrelevant.
Correct - marriage has always been a legal construct within particular societies and without the appropriate legal element there is, frankly, no marriage.
VG's link is clear on this as it describes situations where individuals have engaged in a religious "marriage" ceremony but failed to complete the legal requirements for marriage and the position is clear - this is a "non-marriage". In other words these people are not married regardless of what any religion may claim.
So religions can install all sorts of "marriage" ceremonies etc, but without the legal part these are really nothing more than a blessing or a ceremony - these aren't marriages and the couple isn't married without the legal part.
So I guess the question here is firstly whether we should keep the legal part and the religious ceremony separate - as is already the case for most religions as their religious officials aren't registrars and their premises aren't registered. That seems to be Outriders preference and this would bring, largely CofE and RCC in line with other religions. Alternatively we can allow the legal bit (the actual marriage) to be embedded within the religious bit (the "non marriage") but surely if we want equality we should support this for all religions, not just a few as seems currently to be the case with CofE, in particularly having special privileges in this regard.
Unlike Outrider I think I'd go for the latter approach as personally I think we should allow people to get married (legally married) in as many places as possible, as this will often be very personal to the individual. So we once had a situation where your choice was a pretty church (which would require a religious ceremony) or a austere civic building for a civil ceremony. We've moved on, allowing all sorts of beautiful, but non religious, venues to be licensed for marriage. I don't really see an issue with this being extended to other religious buildings. Indeed I think this would reduce the likelihood of non marriages where couples have gone through a religious "marriage" ceremony but aren't actually married.
-
Correct - marriage has always been a legal construct within particular societies and without the appropriate legal element there is, frankly, no marriage.
VG's link is clear on this as it describes situations where individuals have engaged in a religious "marriage" ceremony but failed to complete the legal requirements for marriage and the position is clear - this is a "non-marriage". In other words these people are not married regardless of what any religion may claim.
So religions can install all sorts of "marriage" ceremonies etc, but without the legal part these are really nothing more than a blessing or a ceremony - these aren't marriages and the couple isn't married without the legal part.
So I guess the question here is firstly whether we should keep the legal part and the religious ceremony separate - as is already the case for most religions as their religious officials aren't registrars and their premises aren't registered. That seems to be Outriders preference and this would bring, largely CofE and RCC in line with other religions. Alternatively we can allow the legal bit (the actual marriage) to be embedded within the religious bit (the "non marriage") but surely if we want equality we should support this for all religions, not just a few as seems currently to be the case with CofE, in particularly having special privileges in this regard.
Unlike Outrider I think I'd go for the latter approach as personally I think we should allow people to get married (legally married) in as many places as possible, as this will often be very personal to the individual. So we once had a situation where your choice was a pretty church (which would require a religious ceremony) or a austere civic building for a civil ceremony. We've moved on, allowing all sorts of beautiful, but non religious, venues to be licensed for marriage. I don't really see an issue with this being extended to other religious buildings. Indeed I think this would reduce the likelihood of non marriages where couples have gone through a religious "marriage" ceremony but aren't actually married.
What is the difference between you slyly referring to a religious marriage as a ''marriage'' and a homophobe referring to a same sex marriage as a ''marriage''?
-
What is the difference between you slyly referring to a religious marriage as a ''marriage'' and a homophobe referring to a same sex marriage as a ''marriage''?
Because the government via the legislation in this country does not consider a religious ceremony that does not include the requisite legal elements (specific wording, licenses premises and licensed person) to be a valid marriage, hence their term of "non-marriage".
By contrast the law is clear that gay couples are married if their ceremony meets those legal requirements. They are not been through a 'marriage', they have been through a marriage and are married. By contrast a couple who have not completed the legal elements are not married, hence their ceremony can reasonably be considered a "marriage" (although government prefers "non-marriage" which is rather stronger) rather than a marriage.
-
Unlike Outrider I think I'd go for the latter approach as personally I think we should allow people to get married (legally married) in as many places as possible, as this will often be very personal to the individual. So we once had a situation where your choice was a pretty church (which would require a religious ceremony) or a austere civic building for a civil ceremony. We've moved on, allowing all sorts of beautiful, but non religious, venues to be licensed for marriage. I don't really see an issue with this being extended to other religious buildings. Indeed I think this would reduce the likelihood of non marriages where couples have gone through a religious "marriage" ceremony but aren't actually married.
Personally I'm not that invested either way, but I understand the viewpoint of people who feel aggrieved at the discrimination the current situation implements. Disestablishment of the CoE, presuming that make the CofE weddings on a par with other religious ceremonies as having no legal weight, means that the state is no longer involved in the discrimination, which for me removes a lot of the underpinnings of the argument.
If it doesn't result in that then not only does that state discrimination still exist, which is problematic, but it also discriminates on the basis of religion between adherents of the CofE and every other religion in the country.
In and of itself not the greatest problem facing the world, but clearly not justifiable in the long term.
O.
-
Outy,
Personally I'm not that invested either way, but I understand the viewpoint of people who feel aggrieved at the discrimination the current situation implements. Disestablishment of the CoE, presuming that make the CofE weddings on a par with other religious ceremonies as having no legal weight, means that the state is no longer involved in the discrimination, which for me removes a lot of the underpinnings of the argument.
If it doesn't result in that then not only does that state discrimination still exist, which is problematic, but it also discriminates on the basis of religion between adherents of the CofE and every other religion in the country.
In and of itself not the greatest problem facing the world, but clearly not justifiable in the long term.
Yes to all that, but it's an anomaly in another way - if (selected) churches can carry out marriages that are both religious and civic, why not divorces too? Or indeed other civic legal proceedings? There was a row a while ago when the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that Sharia law should play a larger part in civic society, and I know there are tensions in the Jewish community about gender disparity in obtaining Judaic divorces. I don't sense any great desire from the main faiths to extend their civil law reach just yet, but if they did "but you already allow us to conduct legal marriages so what's the big deal about extending to X?" would be a useful precedent.
Like you I'm not particularly invested in this issue, but on balance I tend to the "render unto Caesar" line i think.
-
Outy,
Yes to all that, but it's an anomaly in another way - if (selected) churches can carry out marriages that are both religious and civic, why not divorces too? Or indeed other civic legal proceedings? There was a row a while ago when the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that Sharia law should play a larger part in civic society, and I know there are tensions in the Jewish community about gender disparity in obtaining Judaic divorces. I don't sense any great desire from the main faiths to extend their civil law reach just yet, but if they did "but you already allow us to conduct legal marriages so what's the big deal about extending to X?" would be a useful precedent.
Like you I'm not particularly invested in this issue, but on balance I tend to the "render unto Caesar" line i think.
I think the potential way around this is to insist that the bit of the ceremony which is the actual legal part is clearly indicated as such. And to require the celebrant (whether religious or non religious) to indicate that in this part they are acting as a legal registrar rather than a priest, imam, humanist celebrant etc, under circumstances where it is one and the same person.
-
I think the potential way around this is to insist that the bit of the ceremony which is the actual legal part is clearly indicated as such. And to require the celebrant (whether religious or non religious) to indicate that in this part they are acting as a legal registrar rather than a priest, imam, humanist celebrant etc, under circumstances where it is one and the same person.
I'm not really sure I see how that helps - it's not that people do or don't recognise that's the problem, it's that people who are kept outside and don't get to see are being discriminated against by an organisation which is part of the state that's supposed to be committed to equality.
I don't see a need to interrupt what is, for the people that want to take part in it, a traditional and beloved ceremony in order to shoe-horn in a legal disclaimer - I think the legal element can be as subtle as need be, it's about ensuring that in the eyes of the law the CofE is not discriminating on behalf of the state, either against (say) gay people, or in comparison to adherents of other faiths.
O.
-
Prof,
I think the potential way around this is to insist that the bit of the ceremony which is the actual legal part is clearly indicated as such. And to require the celebrant (whether religious or non religious) to indicate that in this part they are acting as a legal registrar rather than a priest, imam, humanist celebrant etc, under circumstances where it is one and the same person.
But conducting the “legal” part of the marriage in a non-religious context must be done by an official registrar who’s been trained, employed and state authorised. There’s an alternative of being employed as a “celebrant”, which also has some formal civic standing. As I understand it though when clerics officiate on the civic part they act as if they are a registrar/celebrant, but without any of the obligations that would apply to anyone else wanting those jobs.
Of course if the cleric concerned was also an official registrar/celebrant then I suppose s/he could do both the religious part and the civic part wearing different hats for each, but as it stands they enjoy an “as if” exemption not afforded to the rest of us.
-
Prof,
But conducting the “legal” part of the marriage in a non-religious context must be done by an official registrar who’s been trained, employed and state authorised. There’s an alternative of being employed as a “celebrant”, which also has some formal civic standing. As I understand it though when clerics officiate on the civic part they act as if they are a registrar/celebrant, but without any of the obligations that would apply to anyone else wanting those jobs.
Of course if the cleric concerned was also an official registrar/celebrant then I suppose s/he could do both the religious part and the civic part wearing different hats for each, but as it stands they enjoy an “as if” exemption not afforded to the rest of us.
Of course those conducting the legal part would need to be appropriately trained. In some cases that could be the same person - trained as both a registrar and, in effect a celebrant (whether that be a minister of religion of, for example, a humanist celebrant). The alternative would be the need for the presence of a second person, who steps in for the legal bit. I think this is all pretty common in lots of religious and non-religious marriages. I think the issue is consistency and equality and not providing special privileges to, largely the CofE, that don't apply to other religions, nor to non religious marriages.
But there is clearly an issue with people entering into "marriage" within a religious ceremony that is not valid and therefore is not recognised legally, does not provide legal protections and presumably would not be recognised in other countries.
-
https://www.atheistalliance.org/blog/sponsored/the-anti-theism-international-convention-april-2020/
But that's for atheists not anti-theists although I'm sure anyone is welcome.
-
Of course those conducting the legal part would need to be appropriately trained. In some cases that could be the same person - trained as both a registrar and, in effect a celebrant (whether that be a minister of religion of, for example, a humanist celebrant). The alternative would be the need for the presence of a second person, who steps in for the legal bit. I think this is all pretty common in lots of religious and non-religious marriages. I think the issue is consistency and equality and not providing special privileges to, largely the CofE, that don't apply to other religions, nor to non religious marriages.
But there is clearly an issue with people entering into "marriage" within a religious ceremony that is not valid and therefore is not recognised legally, does not provide legal protections and presumably would not be recognised in other countries.
Guys.
I think you are trying hard here to make it look as though antitheism is not a factor here and that there is no weaponising
This issue for the real goal of the elimination of religion.
Toksvig says this is causing LGTBQ people mental issues but same sex holy matrimony wasn't a thing until it was adopted by atheists and so one must question who is responsible for any anguish. I can foresee many LGBT Christians disturbed at having been played by antitheists.
Let us not forget that Toksvig is patron of Humanist UK.
-
But that's for atheists not anti-theists although I'm sure anyone is welcome.
What we have here is atheists linking themselves with antitheism something that was previously a straw man link made by theists according to some of the same people now coming out as antitheists.
-
but same sex holy matrimony wasn't a thing until it was adopted by atheists
When and where was same sex holy matrimony adopted by atheists?
-
Guys.
I think you are trying hard here to make it look as though antitheism is not a factor here and that there is no weaponising
This issue for the real goal of the elimination of religion.
Do you actually bother reading what others are posting rather than come out with knee jerk responses (emphasis on the jerk ;).
I was actually arguing for making it easier for most religions to be able to conduct valid weddings as part of religious ceremonies within their religious buildings. Easier, not harder.
As a secularist I believe in level playing fields. And that isn't just a level playing field between the religious and non religious but also a level playing field between various religions.
-
When and where was same sex holy matrimony adopted by atheists?
As a weapon? Subsequent to the legalisation of same sex marriages.
-
Do you actually bother reading what others are posting rather than come out with knee jerk responses (emphasis on the jerk ;).
I was actually arguing for making it easier for most religions to be able to conduct valid weddings as part of religious ceremonies within their religious buildings. Easier, not harder.
As a secularist I believe in level playing fields. And that isn't just a level playing field between the religious and non religious but also a level playing field between various religions.
I have little trepidation for your apparent proposals however they do mask operators like certain MPs and humanist UK personnel who want to flip this into state intervention into the consciences and theology of certain parts of the church church. Their actions fulfil my observations that this issue is digital and coercion of belief with draconian penalties are inevitable and all for that nice wedding in that particular church...and since the downsides of that far exceed any benefit, it must be part of the scheme to annihilate religion.
-
As a weapon?
Is that what you meant because you never stated it?
-
I have little trepidation for your apparent proposals ...
What, making it easier for most religious organisations to be able to conduct valid marriages as part of a religious ceremony within their religious settings. I mean FFS - in what way is that somehow an attack on religion.
... however they do mask operators like certain MPs and humanist UK personnel who want to flip this into state intervention into the consciences and theology of certain parts of the church church.
News for you chum, the state already 'intervenes' in marriages - because a valid marriage has to be conducted in accordance with the relevant laws, which are defined by the state. What I am proposing is a mechanism to make it easier for most religions to conduct valid marriages, not least because I have concerns that there are too many illegal marriages being conducted that are not legally valid and that impacts both those going through such ceremonies, but also the organisations conducting them. Now I'm not suggesting that there is somehow deliberate law breaking here, but clearly there is an issue if couples are going through a 'marriage' ceremony which is not legally valid.
-
Vlad,
This issue for the real goal of the elimination of religion.
Your paranoia is showing again. The argument isn't for the "elimination" of religion; it's for just the removal of the various special rights and privileges (some) religions arrogate to themselves and the state indulges. If religions became private members' clubs subject to the same laws that apply to any other private members' clubs (as I think they should) no-one would have an issue about that.
-
Vlad,
Your paranoia is showing again. The argument isn't for the "elimination" of religion; it's for just the removal of the various special rights and privileges (some) religions arrogate to themselves and the state indulges. If religions became private members' clubs subject to the same laws that apply to any other private members' clubs (as I think they should) no-one would have an issue about that.
What you propose is nothing short of an atheist state run for the benefit of atheists with automatic repression of religion. It is difficult to see how LGBT christians are being benefitted by possibly getting a wedding in a particular church and definitely getting a state church whose theology is written by committed humanists.
-
Vlad,
What you propose is nothing short of an atheist state run for the benefit of atheists with automatic repression of religion.
Wow – your bonkers paranoia is strong with this one. It’s no such thing of course – it’s just the proposed removal of the anomaly that various religions are permitted responsibility for some civic activities (eg marriage licences) but not for the rest (eg driving licences). Those religions would of course be free to continue as now with whatever rituals, naming (“holy”), incantations and anything else that took their fancy, but the civic bit would be regularised as rendered unto to Caesar.
It is difficult to see how LGBT christians are being benefitted by possibly getting a wedding in a particular church…
Why? Do you not think that equality is a basic, foundational principle that should be respected?
…and getting a state church whose theology is written by humanists.
Now you’ve gone mad again. What on earth “theology” do you think humanists write?
Humanists are merely concerned that various civic activities should be separate from theology, not subject to a different stripe of it. Good grief.
-
Vlad,
Wow – your bonkers paranoia is strong with this one. It’s no such thing of course – it’s just the proposed removal of the anomaly that various religions are permitted responsibility for some civic activities (eg marriage licences) but not for the rest (eg driving licences). Those religions would of course be free to continue as now with whatever rituals, naming (“holy”), incantations and anything else that took their fancy, but the civic bit would be regularised as rendered unto to Caesar.
I think there was a bit of a difference between what Jesus wanted rendered unto Caesar and what Caesar wanted rendered unto Caesar.
-
Vlad,
I think there was a bit of a difference between what Jesus wanted rendered unto Caesar and what Caesar wanted rendered unto Caesar.
So? Are you suggesting that whatever Jesus (allegedly) said should therefore be the model now for state/church separation?
-
Vlad,
So? Are you suggesting that whatever Jesus (allegedly) said should therefore be the model now for state/church separation?
If both parties are separating without consideration of what Christ said then in what way can it thus be described as a church/state separation?
-
What, making it easier for most religious organisations to be able to conduct valid marriages as part of a religious ceremony within their religious settings. I mean FFS - in what way is that somehow an attack on religion.
... however they do mask operators like certain MPs and humanist UK personnel who want to flip this into state intervention into the consciences and theology of certain parts of the church church.
News for you chum, the state already 'intervenes' in marriages - because a valid marriage has to be conducted in accordance with the relevant laws, which are defined by the state. What I am proposing is a mechanism to make it easier for most religions to conduct valid marriages, not least because I have concerns that there are too many illegal marriages being conducted that are not legally valid and that impacts both those going through such ceremonies, but also the organisations conducting them. Now I'm not suggesting that there is somehow deliberate law breaking here, but clearly there is an issue if couples are going through a 'marriage' ceremony which is not legally valid.
In my Christian life I firstly backed disestablishment, then on contact with new atheists, internet atheism and the influence of celebrity new atheism in Humanist UK backed there being Lords spiritual and establishment.
-
That's up to you though.
Did you just wanted to send me back to the drawing board because you just love to task someone with something?
They are your laws, Vlad, it's not up to us how to interpret them.
-
They are your laws, Vlad, it's not up to us how to interpret them.
I'm not sure that's true.
-
I think you are trying hard here to make it look as though antitheism is not a factor here and that there is no weaponising This issue for the real goal of the elimination of religion.
Welby is in the press telling MPs and the like that they shouldn't be involving themselves in the INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS of the CofE on this - are you suggesting that there's a fifth column of anti-theists buried deep in the CofE establishment? Which side of the debate are they on?
Toksvig says this is causing LGTBQ people mental issues but same sex holy matrimony wasn't a thing until it was adopted by atheists and so one must question who is responsible for any anguish.
I think it's more likely that it wasn't a thing while same sex relationships were some combination of socially taboo and literally illegal. Now that neither of those is the case people are asking the questions that couldn't be asked before.
I can foresee many LGBT Christians disturbed at having been played by antitheists.
Ironically, many of us can see pretty much all Christians having played by the churches, but there you go.
Let us not forget that Toksvig is patron of Humanist UK.
Let us not forget that you're playing the man, and not the argument...
O.
-
I think it's more likely that it wasn't a thing while same sex relationships were some combination of socially taboo and literally illegal.
or it wasn't a thing. That's not to say same sex couples didn't carry out the occasional ceremony that they referred to as a marriage and since religion doesn't have a monopoly on what a wedding is...or the state, whose to say it isn't. What religions do have is there own idea of what a wedding or marriage is. And so, according to some, if Christians were found having such church marriages under a disestablished church subject to private members rules, they would now be investigated to see whether the celebrant had refused to perform a same sex ceremony with whatever church at risk of losing it's private members licence. Although successfully reducing religion, perhaps the greatest social force for humanity to a private members club is probably a wank fantasy.
Ironically, many of us can see pretty much all Christians having played by the churches, but there you go.
What are you insinuating and could you better insinuate it on another thread?
-
Vlad,
Your paranoia is showing again. The argument isn't for the "elimination" of religion; it's for just the removal of the various special rights and privileges (some) religions arrogate to themselves and the state indulges. If religions became private members' clubs subject to the same laws that apply to any other private members' clubs (as I think they should) no-one would have an issue about that.
Apart from those who did.
Wouldn't you have to coerce the Church into becoming a private members club?
Why would it accede to that? Sounds like an antitheist' wank fantasy to me.
-
Vlad,
If both parties are separating without consideration of what Christ said then in what way can it thus be described as a church/state separation?
Er, because if the state said “you shall no longer be authorised to carry out the civil part of the marriage service” then there would be church/state separation. Whether the church(es) concerned liked it or agreed with it would be neither here nor there – there would still be separation.
Apart from those who did.
Those who did what – object to a private members’ club carrying on its activities as a private members’ club? Why would they?
Wouldn't you have to coerce the Church into becoming a private members club?
No – you’d just legislate away the special rights and privileges re the civil part they currently enjoy for no good reason.
Why would it accede to that? Sounds like an antitheist' wank fantasy to me.
Because it would be the law. “Acceding” to it is irrelevant – the civil part of the religious marriage ceremony would have no legal standing.
-
Vlad,
Er, because if the state said “you shall no longer be authorised to carry out the civil part of the marriage service” then there would be church/state separation. Whether the church(es) concerned liked it or agreed with it would be neither here nor there – there would still be separation.
But as a private members club the church would have to change God's rules. So there would be state interference and the church would be a state licenced church. It would be a case of renderring unto caesar that which is God's Which is why I ask, why should the church accede to that? I would be OK with the church not authorised to carry out the civil part of the marriage service but it doesn't constitute a separation since the state would have to coerce or negotiate a new settlement and the state would have to change the meaning of discriminating against religion as found in equality acts.
-
Vlad,
But as a private members club the church would have to change God's rules. So there would be state interference and the church would be a state licenced church. It would be a case of renderring unto caesar that which is God's...
You’re still not getting it. Whether or not the church holds these things to be true as articles of its faith is neither here nor there – they can believe whatever they like, but that doesn’t give them an inalienable right to arrogate to themselves various civil responsibilities. With the civil part removed the church can still perform whatever services it likes (and call them “holy” too if it wants to), but the legal recognition part would be a matter for the state, just as legal recognition is in most other areas of life.
Which is why I ask, why should the church accede to that?
Who cares? They could carry on just as they are, but the state would no longer give their marriage-related activities legal standing whether or not the church acceded to that change.
I would be OK with the church not authorised to carry out the civil part of the marriage service but it doesn't constitute a separation since the state would have to coerce or negotiate a new settlement and the state would have to change the meaning of discriminating against religion as found in equality acts.
The state wouldn’t have to coerce or negotiate a new settlement at all. The state would just pass a law that said something like, “Only marriage services conducted under the legal auspices of the state by a licenced registrar or celebrant shall be recognised in law as marriages”. Simple.
-
Welby is in the press telling MPs and the like that they shouldn't be involving themselves in the INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS of the CofE
Are these the same MP's who think the church should not be involved in politics?
-
Vlad,
You’re still not getting it. Whether or not the church holds these things to be true as articles of its faith is neither here nor there – they can believe whatever they like, but that doesn’t give them an inalienable right to arrogate to themselves various civil responsibilities. With the civil part removed the church can still perform whatever services it likes (and call them “holy” too if it wants to), but the legal recognition part would be a matter for the state, just as legal recognition is in most other areas of life.
Who cares? They could carry on just as they are, but the state would no longer give their marriage-related activities legal standing whether or not the church acceded to that change.
The state wouldn’t have to coerce or negotiate a new settlement at all. The state would just pass a law that said something like, “Only marriage services conducted under the legal auspices of the state by a licenced registrar or celebrant shall be recognised in law as marriages”. Simple.
Well, yes, it is up to the state on what and how much coercion it puts on religion or how that coercion turns out to be peculiar toward the church.
-
Vlad,
Well, yes, it is up to the state on what and how much coercion it puts on religion or how that coercion turns out to be peculiar toward the church.
Still no – there'd be no coercion of any sort. The church would still be free to do whatever it liked in this respect. The only difference would be that the state would no longer afford church marriage services any legal standing. Simple.
-
or it wasn't a thing.
You'd have to ask some people who it affected at the time, I can only surmise from what I'd imagine I might have wanted in that situation.
That's not to say same sex couples didn't carry out the occasional ceremony that they referred to as a marriage and since religion doesn't have a monopoly on what a wedding is...or the state, whose to say it isn't.
The state. The state gets to define what a marriage is within the law - outside of the law, you can call whatever you'd like whatever you'd like, but it has no functional effect. It's about the legal status, about being afforded equal treatment in things like access to hospital, next of kin rights, inheritance when the time sadly comes.
What religions do have is there own idea of what a wedding or marriage is. And so, according to some, if Christians were found having such church marriages under a disestablished church subject to private members rules, they would now be investigated to see whether the celebrant had refused to perform a same sex ceremony with whatever church at risk of losing it's private members licence.
No, they wouldn't be investigated, because as religious establishments they have an explicit exemption written into the Equalities Act. There are, I don't doubt, some people (both within the church and outside) who'd like to see that changed as well, but I'm not sure that anyone here is advocating that, and I'm certainly not.
Although successfully reducing religion, perhaps the greatest social force for humanity to a private members club is probably a wank fantasy.
The only 'wank-fantasy' I can see here is you spaffing all over the board about anti-theist secular conspiracies to eradicate religion.
What are you insinuating and could you better insinuate it on another thread?
I'm not sure I've been insinuating anything, I think I've been fairly straightforward in my points. I think that the Church of England and the state currently have an issue because, as an established church, it is an organ of the state which is at the same time permitted to discriminate against otherwise protected classes. There is no (so far as I'm aware) explicit presumption of secularist reasoning behind the laws, but there is an increasingly vocal questioning of the justification for this state of affairs, to the point where some MPs have started asking why it's happening in the media.
The church therefore faces the potential of being forced to, by law, to accept marrying gay people, at a time when that very debate is the focus of what seems from the outside to be a deeply entrenched internal division; a legal prerogative disrupting what balance there currently is could pose a threat to the broader anglican community and so the church is now entertaining the possibility that disestablishment would serve to remove that threat of legal constraint.
I, and many others, have been in favour of disestablishment for some time for the broader reason that the CofE appears to be given special priveleges above and beyond other organisations which does not appear to be justifiable in the modern world, and of which this is just one example - the Lord Spiritual situation was, if I recall, the other specific example I gave.
I'm not sure what else you're inferring from that, but it's on you if you're finding much more than that, not on me.
O.
-
The state. The state gets to define what a marriage is within the law
Yes, within the law but no, it still has no monopoly on it - outside of the law, you can call whatever you'd like whatever you'd like, but it has no functional effect
It has a functional effect on the two people who are in it aside from a legal arrangement and the signing thereof. It's about the legal status, about being afforded equal treatment in things like access to hospital, next of kin rights, inheritance when the time sadly comes.
But not all about the legal status.
No, they wouldn't be investigated, because as religious establishments they have an explicit exemption written into the Equalities Act. There are, I don't doubt, some people (both within the church and outside) who'd like to see that changed as well, but I'm not sure that anyone here is advocating that, and I'm certainly not.
Well I think there would be a whole tsunami of unintended consequences for everyone were anybody to try it , with the perpetrators wondering whether it was all worth it just for an afternoon at one's favourite church.
The only 'wank-fantasy' I can see here is you spaffing all over the board about anti-theist secular conspiracies to eradicate religion.
Unfortunately antitheists are going to have their motives questioned on something like this, that goes with the territory i'm afraid. And rather than getting the church off the states books from the Humanist point of view and disestablishing to avoid coercion. The Humanist aim is to make the church change scripture and enforce clergy whatever happens regarding disestablishment.
I'm not sure I've been insinuating anything, I think I've been fairly straightforward in my points.
You left a piece of dangling innuendo about christians having been played by the church. What do you mean, How have they been played?
-
The state. The state gets to define what a marriage is within the law - outside of the law, you can call whatever you'd like whatever you'd like, but it has no functional effect. It's about the legal status, about being afforded equal treatment in things like access to hospital, next of kin rights, inheritance when the time sadly comes.
That is correct - for all intents and purposes a couple who are not legally married, regardless of what ceremony they might have been through, are not married. They aren't kind of married but in a non legal sense - they are not married. They would not be recognised as being married by the state of course, and I suspect that religions would also not accept they were married either.
So if someone had a islamic 'marriage' ceremony but didn't do the legal bit and then later converted to christianity and decided to get married in a CofE church would the CofE say 'you can't, you are already married' - nope they would accept that this person is unmarried and able to get married.
-
Yes, within the law but no, it still has no monopoly on it
But it's the only one that matters to everyone.
But not all about the legal status.
Pretty much it is, yeah. It's about the fact that the state says marriage is open to all sexualities, but the church operating on behalf of the state doesn't comply with that. It's about the state saying that all religions are equal, but then affording the Church of England the right to conduct legally binding weddings but not other religions.
There is a broader point about whether the Church of England should have a privileged position in the Lords, and whether religions should have exemptions from Equalities legislation that are linked but not directly a matter for this conversation, but again they are about the law.
Well I think there would be a whole tsunami of unintended consequences for everyone were anybody to try it , with the perpetrators wondering whether it was all worth it just for an afternoon at one's favourite church.
Ah, the slippery slope argument. There might well be unintended consequences, some of them might even be deleterious. They can be dealt with as and when they arise, that's why Parliament hasn't stopped already, the world moves on. That something might happen in the future is no reason to not do the right thing now.
Unfortunately antitheists are going to have their motives questioned on something like this, that goes with the territory i'm afraid.
Well, as soon as we find one we can ask them about their motivation.
And rather than getting the church off the states books from the Humanist point of view and disestablishing to avoid coercion.
Coercion? You mean people pointing out the inequalities and immoralities of state-sponsored discrimination? Can I just remind you that ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY JUSTIN WELBY has been raising this as a way out this particular aspect of the problem, and that the general synod that's happening right now is attempting to resolve the entirely internal CofE discussions about whether this discrimination is justified or justifiable, and whether it's worth fracturing Christianity into even more even smaller sects over it. This isn't coercion, this is the church attempting to catch up to the rest of the world.
The Humanist aim is to make the church change scripture and enforce clergy whatever happens regarding disestablishment.
Really? I looked on Humanist UK's website and I didn't see that listed in their goals... I don't doubt there are individual humanists who'd like to see the Church change it stance on any number of things; there are Christians - both inside and outside of the CofE - who'd like to see the church changes some of its stances. Indeed, I refer you again to the general synod which is happening right now where that's being considered.
I think you're perhaps misattributing the motivation here, though - they aren't ideologically opposed to the Church, or the idea of religions, but rather they are in favour of equality and don't necessarily see choices like religion (or, say, gender identity in some instances) as being on a par with traits which are not chosen like sexuality. They'd therefore like to see the exemptions afforded to reliigions downgraded - I can see their point, but rather think that where there is an opposition between religion and other protected characteristics the religions should be free to establish expectations for their own activities and those who volunteer to join them. It then becomes and internal issue for, for instance, the general synod.
You left a piece of dangling innuendo about christians having been played by the church. What do you mean, How have they been played?
I'm sure you've had the innumerable scientific, moral and practical internal discords of Christian belief expressed to you in the past, which are actively touted by the various churches in different combinations - it would be a massive derail of this thread to start listing them here.
O.
-
Pretty much it is, yeah. It's about the fact that the state says marriage is open to all sexualities, but the church operating on behalf of the state doesn't comply with that. It's about the state saying that all religions are equal, but then affording the Church of England the right to conduct legally binding weddings but not other religions.
I think there is a related issue here. The law allows religious marriage and that can involve a person who is both a religious celebrant and an official registrar. And if the building is also registered all this can take place in a church, mosque, synagogue etc, so it doesn't just apply to the CoE.
However, as far as I am aware, the CofE because it is established, is obliged to marry anyone who is living within that parish unless that isn't permissible by law which is currently the case for same sex couples. So if an atheist couple pitch up, the CofE must marry them, or a muslim and a hindu etc etc.
That isn't the case for other religions which may restrict who they marry to those who can legitimately claim to be of that religion. That seems reasonable to me - I have no issue with RCC saying that its wedding ceremonies are for catholics, or at the least mixed faith marriages. But the CofE isn't allowed to do that, due to its establishment.
So on the issue of same sex marriages I can see an argument that a religious organisation will only marry those that uphold their religious beliefs, and if those religious beliefs are that gay couples cannot marry then that would be an argument not to allow gay marriage within that religious tradition. But that doesn't hold water for the CofE who have no such restrictions - they cannot turn away any opposite sex couple (unless involving a divorcee) where one lives in the parish. There is no requirement for the couple to have any involvement with the CofE, nor to be christian nor to have upheld CofE values. And that is because of establishment. Were the CofE to become disestablished then like other religions it could legitimately restrict who it conducts wedding for to members of the CofE.
-
That is correct - for all intents and purposes a couple who are not legally married, regardless of what ceremony they might have been through, are not married. They aren't kind of married but in a non legal sense - they are not married. They would not be recognised as being married by the state of course, and I suspect that religions would also not accept they were married either.
I think most people would hold with a state of marriage that is deeper than what is on the statute books. Then of course we live in a world where someone can have several spouses in one jurisdiction and there be a question of those marriages in another.
So if someone had a islamic 'marriage' ceremony but didn't do the legal bit and then later converted to christianity and decided to get married in a CofE church would the CofE say 'you can't, you are already married' - nope they would accept that this person is unmarried and able to get married.
I don't know.
-
I think most people would hold with a state of marriage that is deeper than what is on the statute books.
I think that might just speak to the idea of the range of people that you know - I'd say very few of the people i know would see the state of marriage as being very much more than the legal documentation of their relationship. I happy to accept that a large part of that is that very few of the people I know are overtly religious, and those that are appear reasonably 'moderate' about it.
O.
-
But it's the only one that matters to everyone.
Pretty much it is, yeah.
Looking at all aspects of your marriage as a legal contract is a pretty strange way of carrying on but whatever floats your boat It's about the fact that the state says marriage is open to all sexualities, but the church operating on behalf of the state doesn't comply with that.
Well that's flat wrong. The state says that civil marriage is open to all sexualities and what the church collectively says is that some jurisdictions extend that to Holy matrimony and some don't. and others It's about the state saying that all religions are equal, but then affording the Church of England the right to conduct legally binding weddings but not other religions.
No it's about the state saying the established church is the only church where the Minister can act as the registrar. And how did that come about? Because many demominations withdrew from establishment. They did not demand changes in the Church of England as opposed to Humanist UK who seek to replace the Church of England as the settled world view of the realm and state.
Ah, the slippery slope argument. There might well be unintended consequences, some of them might even be deleterious. They can be dealt with as and when they arise, that's why Parliament hasn't stopped already, the world moves on. That something might happen in the future is no reason to not do the right thing now.
Not really, for example Hillslide's solution is to have Licensed Churches operating under private members club rules. Since licensing means State licensing, implementation of that immediately means conformity to state rules, inspection, raids and closing downs. As for Toskvig, she is well and truly into coercion of the church
-
I think that might just speak to the idea of the range of people that you know - I'd say very few of the people i know would see the state of marriage as being very much more than the legal documentation of their relationship. I happy to accept that a large part of that is that very few of the people I know are overtly religious, and those that are appear reasonably 'moderate' about it.
O.
I haven't the foggiest of what you are trying to say here.
-
I haven't the foggiest of what you are trying to say here.
You suggested that you though the majority of people would think of their marriage as something more than just a legal arrangement. I pointed out that might say more about the sort of people that you know, as the majority of people that I know would see their marriage as a legal accompaniment to their relationship, and not some all-encompassing description of that relationship.
O.
-
I think most people would hold with a state of marriage that is deeper than what is on the statute books.
I don't think I agree with that as we've moved way beyond the world where being in love, living together, having children etc was synonymous with marriage. So people chose to live together and have kids without being married and/or get married without having any intention of having kids and societies/individuals don't bat an eyelid. So what it left is two things - one being the loving consensual commitment (which of course doesn't need to be given in marriage) and the other being the formal, legal recognition of that relationship.
So I think people are pretty clear that when they are asked whether they are married or not, or even if they consider from an individual perspective whether they are married or not, what is meant is whether they are legally married. And of course the opposite of being legally married isn't being married in some other way - nope it is not being married.
-
You suggested that you though the majority of people would think of their marriage as something more than just a legal arrangement. I pointed out that might say more about the sort of people that you know, as the majority of people that I know would see their marriage as a legal accompaniment to their relationship, and not some all-encompassing description of that relationship.
Absolutely - and in many cases it makes no difference to the relationship per se as in most cases, I suspect, the couple will have been living together, having sex etc prior to getting married and after getting married. The relationship doesn't change but there is a new legal status and a formal public commitment to each other.
-
You suggested that you though the majority of people would think of their marriage as something more than just a legal arrangement. I pointed out that might say more about the sort of people that you know, as the majority of people that I know would see their marriage as a legal accompaniment to their relationship, and not some all-encompassing description of that relationship.
O.
So you think that I am suggesting the legal aspect of Marriage is like a musical lietmotif recurring at different times in the piece while you are suggesting it's more like the string section in a piece of music?
-
So you think that I am suggesting the legal aspect of Marriage is like a musical lietmotif recurring at different times in the piece while you are suggesting it's more like the string section in a piece of music?
No, I'm suggesting that it's like the programme at the opera - for some people it's an integral part of the experience, but for others it's a relatively trivial add-on. Neither of them is definitively right, I guess, though some of them might get tribal about it.
O.
-
Absolutely - and in many cases it makes no difference to the relationship per se as in most cases, I suspect, the couple will have been living together, having sex etc prior to getting married and after getting married. The relationship doesn't change but there is a new legal status and a formal public commitment to each other.
I thought that was what I was broadly saying. You seem to be confusing me with somebody who is given to saying that or this marriage isn't a proper marriage but that's what I'm accusing you of because as you've said, anything short of a state marriage isn't a marriage.
-
No, I'm suggesting that it's like the programme at the opera - for some people it's an integral part of the experience, but for others it's a relatively trivial add-on. Neither of them is definitively right, I guess, though some of them might get tribal about it.
O.
Well I broadly agree with you.
-
I thought that was what I was broadly saying. You seem to be confusing me with somebody who is given to saying that or this marriage isn't a proper marriage but that's what I'm accusing you of because as you've said, anything short of a state marriage isn't a marriage.
I think that the overwhelming position would be that if you aren't legally married then you aren't married. And that would be the position of both 'the state' as you might describe it, but also the individuals in that state.
I simply don't recognise this notion that you can not be legally married but are somehow considered still to be married. Being legally married and being married are, in my opinion, the same thing.