Vlad's laws of antitheism

[splashscuba]

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 ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do they have club rules, a club house and days out ?

https://www.atheistalliance.org/blog/sponsored/the-anti-theism-international-convention-april-2020/

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?         

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?