Continued theology discussion... Not sure what to call this really....

[The_Doc_Man]

When I was still a practicing Methodist, I got into a discussion of that type. God's kingdom is not of this world. Well, Jesus said His kingdom wasn't, anyway, and he was going to be at the right hand of the father.

What happens in this physical world isn't important to God. Earthquakes and hurricanes aren't punishment. They just happen. It is how we handle such things that make the big difference.

Of course, my views have changed since I lost my faith. (No, I'm not looking for it...) And in my new viewpoint, the earthquake or a hurricane aren't acts of God. They are accidents of nature. So again, God didn't send that stuff as punishment. Either way, the folks who say "Goddidit" as punishment are just full of it. Like Pat Roberston, clearly one of the most annoying persons I've ever heard on the news.

[ShaneMan]

Originally Posted by The_Doc_Man

When I was still a practicing Methodist, I got into a discussion of that type. God's kingdom is not of this world. Well, Jesus said His kingdom wasn't, anyway, and he was going to be at the right hand of the father.

What happens in this physical world isn't important to God. Earthquakes and hurricanes aren't punishment. They just happen. It is how we handle such things that make the big difference.

Of course, my views have changed since I lost my faith. (No, I'm not looking for it...) And in my new viewpoint, the earthquake or a hurricane aren't acts of God. They are accidents of nature. So again, God didn't send that stuff as punishment. Either way, the folks who say "Goddidit" as punishment are just full of it. Like Pat Roberston, clearly one of the most annoying persons I've ever heard on the news.

For me personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say what happens in this world is not important to God, on the other hand, I am certainly not in agreement with Pat Robertson or anyone that agrees to that sort of thinking.

[The_Doc_Man]

Then let me clarify, Shane, because I respect you and don't want it to come off as an insult or radical disagreement.

From my days as a Methodist:

God doesn't punish us physically on this world with disasters and won't as long as there are rainbows. (You know the reference.) According to Christian teachings, God cares about what is in our hearts and how we treat each other. Disasters may bring out the worst or the best in us, but they are not created by God for testing purposes. So to clarify, God doesn't care about the physical things that happen in this world. That stuff happens. God cares about what we do with the hand we are dealt. And Pat Robertson, for what he said, is an absolute schmuck.

Does that make my original statement better by your understanding?

Shane, I'm not ashamed of being atheist but I respect that your belief differs from mine and I like you. So I'm not going to try to drag this out into a protracted argument.

[ShaneMan]

Originally Posted by The_Doc_Man

Then let me clarify, Shane, because I respect you and don't want it to come off as an insult or radical disagreement.

From my days as a Methodist:

God doesn't punish us physically on this world with disasters and won't as long as there are rainbows. (You know the reference.) According to Christian teachings, God cares about what is in our hearts and how we treat each other. Disasters may bring out the worst or the best in us, but they are not created by God for testing purposes. So to clarify, God doesn't care about the physical things that happen in this world. That stuff happens. God cares about what we do with the hand we are dealt. And Pat Robertson, for what he said, is an absolute schmuck.

Does that make my original statement better by your understanding?

Shane, I'm not ashamed of being atheist but I respect that your belief differs from mine and I like you. So I'm not going to try to drag this out into a protracted argument.

Thanks Doc on both accounts. For the explanation and for not dragging it out. The respect is mutual. Also, I appreciate you not being ashamed of what you believe, or don't believe We can always agree to disagree and remain civil and friendly.

[chergh]

Oh, looks like I was wrong and god does exist after all.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

[Rabbie]

Originally Posted by chergh

Oh, looks like I was wrong and god does exist after all.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

A fine collection of logical fallacies and non-sequiturs

[chergh]

This is what really pisses me off about religion:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8492597.stm

In particular:

"Religious leaders have voiced concern that the Equality Bill may force churches to employ sexually active gay people and transsexuals when hiring staff other than priests or ministers."

If you tried to exclude a christian on the ground of their belief and these people would be in uproar but they want to be able to discriminate against others on grounds of sexuality and anything else that their book of nonsense tells them is "wrong".

[Mike375]

Originally Posted by chergh

If you tried to exclude a christian on the ground of their belief and these people would be in uproar but they want to be able to discriminate against others on grounds of sexuality and anything else that their book of nonsense tells them is "wrong".

But being a queer is not a belief.

[chergh]

Originally Posted by Mike375

But being a queer is not a belief.

No shit, did someone say it was? and what point are you trying to make?

[Mike375]

Originally Posted by chergh

No shit, did someone say it was? and what point are you trying to make?

They are not discriminating against a belief

[chergh]

Originally Posted by Mike375

They are not discriminating against a belief

Surely it is that they are discriminating that is important not why they are discriminating.

[The_Doc_Man]

But being a queer is not a belief.

mike375, discrimination against a person for being homosexual is like discriminating against a person for being left-handed. And it IS a belief that homosexuals don't have a choice in their gender identities.

According to the American Psychiatic Association and the American Medical Association, homosexuality is not a choice that the person made, but rather is a condition that occurred for any of several reasons including possible genetics issues, gestational issues, or even very early nurturing issues. It is not classified as a disease or illness. As I recall, it isn't even a neurosis. Homosexuality occurs naturally in rats, dogs, and some other animals that will hump anything that moves and some things that don't.

Would you discriminate against left-handedness? I hope you ARE aware that while you can "break" a child of left-handedness, doing so introduces all sorts of conditions that ARE classified as mental illnesses - either neurosis or psychosis. Breaking a person of homosexuality also causes such conditions. (Mostly stress-related reactions.)

Or how about discrimination because someone was born a member of the Mongol or Negro sub-races? Did they have a choice there, either? I am reminded of Archie Bunker's line from All in the Family when he met Sammy Davis, Jr. Something to the effect of "I know you couldn't help bein' born black, but why the Hell is you Jewish?" Even Archie knew which things were choices and which were not.

Discrimination against individuals might be justifiable if they commit heinous crimes or have such impossible personal habits as to be hazardous to your health. Discrimination against people who aren't criminals, however, is just flat-out wrong. And making up a law to turn people you don't like into criminals just by being what they are is a form of discrimination of the worst kind. I refer to the "crime against nature" and "sodomy" laws as examples. Criminal sexual contact should ALL be rape. The details are immaterial. And if it was consensual and nobody was injured, then it ain't a crime whatever you call it. This is why I go bonkers when someone uses religion to justify discrimination.

[Banana]

While I think anti-discrimination laws usually have noble intention, they don't really work that well in practice. Discriminations does occur in all forms.

Let's consider the job of a burger flipper. A manager has two candidates. One flips the burger faster and better than other. If the manager was competent, the manager would hire the faster & better flipper.

That's a no-brainer. I'm sure you also noticed the details about applicants weren't discussed, which is deliberate and should be immaterial.

Now, let's turn up the heat.

Now there's two applicant equally qualified. Both are of same race. One is clean cut and dress nicely. Other has dreadlocks, hemp for clothing and is scraggy. Who will the manager hires? The answer is "Depends". If the manager was a manager of a food co-op mostly serving hippies, the dreadlock applicant will be the one with the job. OTOH, a upscale restaurant manager may prefer clean-cut applicant.

Discriminatory? Probably, yes but managers are doing what is best for their business (again, assuming they are competent) and forcing either applicant to fit the mold may be more problematic and managers does not want problematic employees. That's good business sense so far.

Now to turn it up a bit more.

If having the same applicant as above (clean cut preppie vs dreadlocked hippie), but this time, hippie is better qualified for the job. Who should the upscale restaurant manager hire? Again, it depends. The manager will have to assess the benefits against risks. Do the manager really need a flipper that does great job that he can do with less payroll hours, or does the manager need a flipper who will fit in the mold and atmosphere, especially since everyone can see the burger flipper flipping the burger behind a windows? If the manager then picks the clean cut preppy over the dreadlock hippie, is manager totally in wrong? One could argue the manager isn't being sensible because the manager isn't picking the best qualified applicant, but we're going to forget that the burger flipping ability isn't the only criteria here. Either way, manager still takes a risk with the choice and will pay or benefit from it. Again, if the manager is competent, the choice should result in benefit for the business overall.

Now I'm sure you've noticed I've never touched upon applicants' race, beliefs, or orientation. This is deliberate because I want to call attention to the point that we do discriminate on many other criteria, even almost totally arbitrary ones. Now here's a case to ponder on.

For those not familiar with a franchise chain, there's "Hooters", which is well-known for hiring only young french-fry girls with busty bosoms. It's their selling point and appeal of the whole franchise. A bit distasteful, but hey they've been in business for many years so they've doing something right.

Recently, Hooters has been a subject of a lawsuit brought on by a gay man who wanted to work at Hooters. Again, I remind you the business model here is to hire busty girls as waitresses, and usually the only male employees there are cooks or maybe managers. The courts sided with the gay man and forced Hooters franchise to hire him.

Basically, the business sensibility is being tossed aside in name of noble intentions, but who really benefits? If I were the applicant, I wouldn't want to be employed by someone who was forced at the gunpoint to hire me. I'm sure you know about 'passive-aggressiveness' and all that crap. The customers would not be happy because they came to the place for the busty women.

Now, to be clear: There is nothing stopping anybody nor should there be any reason to do so from building a new franchise based on six-packed he-men serving drinks. If they attract enough people, they could be successful doing this, whether as a niche speciality or generally. Either way, there's no reason why they can't try this out and thus hire six-packed men and discriminating against busty-bosomed women.

All in all, I am inclined to believe that anti-discriminatory laws do more harm than goods. I would be wholly in favor of equality treatment & rights for people to pursue their life as they see fit, but I could not support the idea of 'group equality' which is nebulous concept. Protecting individual is far more simple and straightforward. In context of hiring employees, the owner has sole discretion to decide how his business should be run and what kind of employees he would hire, but that also follows that the same employer cannot bar another person from creating a new business based on similar business model but targeting different audience. That's real discrimination in my eye.

Anyway, that's my $0.02, FWIW.

[The_Doc_Man]

based on six-packed he-men serving drinks.

If a six-pack belly is good, is a barrel belly better?

[Banana]

Beat me. I'm not in business of deciding whether six-pack abs is preferable to barrel abs. Busty bosoms, OTOH....