What would you do

[ronandannette]

Of course I can, and do! I'll expound: If your faith leads you to, or allows you to, believe that it is ok to discriminate against others, it is wrong.

....AND, you feel you have the right to determine that some laws are wrong, but I don't have the right to say someone's beliefs are wrong. I got it the first time.

If the laws on either of the topics being obliquely discussed between you and @luvsJack were to change, as laws sometimes are, to limit or prohibit the actions involved, will you accept that the new laws are "right"?

 

[Skywalker]

You're certainly entitled to your own morality, but you are not entitled to inflict it on others.

Ha Ha Ha....but YOU are entitled to right?

 

[wgeo]

Ha Ha Ha....but YOU are entitled to right?

I think that is the base of the entire argument boiled down.

When two people's "rights" or "beliefs" conflict, how do we decide who gets to have their beliefs and who doesn't? I very much don't know the answer to that question and it is starting to happen very very frequently in our society. Both sides feel victimized and both sides feel like they are being forced to compromize their "beliefs". So how does one side get picked over the other?

 

[DeniseJH]

Seems to be a comprehension problem here. Not what I said. I said laws can be wrong. Besides none of this is about the law.

So it is ok for you to judge someone’s faith but it’s not ok for them to have a belief. Nice.

And no. You can say it. You can yell it to the roof tops. But you do not get to decide it.

Then we agree - earlier you said that I can not say that someone's faith is wrong, now you agree that I can. Thank you.

I'll say over and over that everyone has the right to their own beliefs, and I'll say for maybe the 5th, 6th time that I don't have to respect those beliefs.

And I do get to decide it - there is right, and there is wrong. Discrimination is wrong.

 

[DeniseJH]

Ha Ha Ha....but YOU are entitled to right?

Yes, I along with everyone else is entitled to their own morality. We live by laws here, not your morals, not my morals. It just so happens that in this instance MY morals align with the law of the 50 states.

 

[DeniseJH]

I think that is the base of the entire argument boiled down.

When two people's "rights" or "beliefs" conflict, how do we decide who gets to have their beliefs and who doesn't? I very much don't know the answer to that question and it is starting to happen very very frequently in our society. Both sides feel victimized and both sides feel like they are being forced to compromize their "beliefs". So how does one side get picked over the other?

By the law. Don't like it - try to change it.

 

[DeniseJH]

If the laws on either of the topics being obliquely discussed between you and @luvsJack were to change, as laws sometimes are, to limit or prohibit the actions involved, will you accept that the new laws are "right"?

That's quite the hypothetical - how can I possibly answer that when it is not a truth.

The part you highlighted was stated as a response to the poster saying that I wasn't allowed to decide if someone's beliefs were right or wrong, but yet they seemed to be able to make those types of determinations themselves. (As in: I'm wrong, some laws are wrong...) That statement was about the hypocrisy, not whether or not a person has the right to believe laws are wrong.

 

[wgeo]

By the law. Don't like it - try to change it.

Ok sure -using the law as a method is certainly an option. But what about something like slavery then. It was legal for a very long time, but I think we would all agree it was morally wrong. But if, like you state, we use the law as the judge - then people who were slaves should have had no rights at all until the laws got changed. I'm not comfortable with saying that the "white" people were always correct because that is what the law stated.

 

[luvsJack]

Then we agree - earlier you said that I can not say that someone's faith is wrong, now you agree that I can. Thank you.

I'll say over and over that everyone has the right to their own beliefs, and I'll say for maybe the 5th, 6th time that I don't have to respect those beliefs.

And I do get to decide it - there is right, and there is wrong. Discrimination is wrong.

The fact that you feel you do not need to respect the beliefs of others says a whole lot.

 

[DeniseJH]

The fact that you feel you do not need to respect the beliefs of others says a whole lot.

Yes, it does. Discrimination is wrong. Do you believe otherwise?

 

[DeniseJH]

Ok sure -using the law as a method is certainly an option. But what about something like slavery then. It was legal for a very long time, but I think we would all agree it was morally wrong. But if, like you state, we use the law as the judge - then people who were slaves should have had no rights at all until the laws got changed. I'm not comfortable with saying that the "white" people were always correct because that is what the law stated.

Slavery was horrendous - slaves DID NOT have rights until the laws changed, and people with better minds changed those laws. We are ever evolving - as it stands the majority of this country is in favor of gay marriage. Are you saying that gay marriage is commensurate to slavery, and as such should be abolished?

 

[luvsJack]

Yes, it does. Discrimination is wrong. Do you believe otherwise?

That wasn’t a compliment.


Are you not willing to discriminate against someone’s faith? Sounds like you are.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Yes, it does. Discrimination is wrong. Do you believe otherwise?

Your thinking seems very black and white.

We all discriminate at times and that isn’t always necessarily a bad thing. Say you’re walking down the street at night and you get a bad vibe about something. If you pay attention to it, that may cause you to seek out assistance or walk the other way. Some people call it instinct. Ignoring it could be hazardous to your health. Is discriminating wrong in this instance?

 

[DeniseJH]

That wasn’t a compliment.


Are you not willing to discriminate against someone’s faith? Sounds like you are.

Yes, it was a compliment - whether you intended it to be or not.

People have the right to believe whatever they want - would I discriminate against that faith? I guess you'd have to be more specific. How could I discriminate against someone's faith?

 

[wgeo]

Slavery was horrendous - slaves DID NOT have rights until the laws changed, and people with better minds changed those laws. We are ever evolving - as it stands the majority of this country is in favor of gay marriage. Are you saying that gay marriage is commensurate to slavery, and as such should be abolished?

Nope, not in the least I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm saying from a moral standpoint - did the individual who was a slave have no personal rights because the laws of the time said so? Today we would say, of course not -their rights Should have been considered equal to the "owners".

I guess I'm asking what should be the official "judge". Should it be morals? ethics? laws? religion? politics? Each of those answers mean something different for many of the hot button issues of the day. And if we dive even further - lets just pretend that we use religion as the judge - what happens when one persons religion conflicts with another person religion - well then how do we decide who gets to be "right"?

 

[DeniseJH]

Your thinking seems very black and white.

We all discriminate at times and that isn’t always necessarily a bad thing. Say you’re walking down the street at night and you get a bad vibe about something. If you pay attention to it, that may cause you to seek out assistance or walk the other way. Some people call it instinct. Ignoring it could be hazardous to your health. Is discriminating wrong in this instance?

But that's not what we are discussing. Equal rights is what I'm talking about. And yes, on the topic of equal rights in today's society my thinking is very black and white.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Nope, not in the least I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm saying from a moral standpoint - did the individual who was a slave have no personal rights because the laws of the time said so? Today we would say, of course not -their rights Should have been considered equal to the "owners".

I guess I'm asking what should be the official "judge". Should it be morals? ethics? laws? religion? politics? Each of those answers mean something different for many of the hot button issues of the day. And if we dive even further - lets just pretend that we use religion as the judge - what happens when one persons religion conflicts with another person religion - well then how do we decide who gets to be "right"?

You are exactly right. These are issues one needs to think about from a more complex viewpoint than just making blanket statements that don’t add any solutions to the problems we’re facing.

 

[DeniseJH]

Nope, not in the least I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm saying from a moral standpoint - did the individual who was a slave have no personal rights because the laws of the time said so? Today we would say, of course not -their rights Should have been considered equal to the "owners".

I guess I'm asking what should be the official "judge". Should it be morals? ethics? laws? religion? politics? Each of those answers mean something different for many of the hot button issues of the day. And if we dive even further - lets just pretend that we use religion as the judge - what happens when one persons religion conflicts with another person religion - well then how do we decide who gets to be "right"?

Yes, because the law said so that was how it was. Was it wrong? Horribly so.

It always has to revert to the law. People vote based on their beliefs and morals. That's where beliefs and morals come to play, but in this country majority rules - well, sort of. THAT is how we decide what is right and wrong. If enough decide something needs to change they have to change those laws.

No one religion should ever overrule another. I guess you'd have to come up with an example.

 

[DeniseJH]

You are exactly right. These are issues one needs to think about from a more complex viewpoint than just making blanket statements that don’t add any solutions to the problems we’re facing.

Of course there is always room for discussion, but when you are talking human rights there is right and wrong, and there are laws already in place.

 

[wgeo]

Yes, because the law said so that was how it was. Was it wrong? Horribly so.

It always has to revert to the law. People vote based on their beliefs and morals. That's where beliefs and morals come to play, but in this country majority rules - well, sort of. THAT is how we decide what is right and wrong. If enough decide something needs to change they have to change those laws.

No one religion should ever overrule another. I guess you'd have to come up with an example.

I'm so sorry but I'm not quite understanding you. So slavery was "right" because the law said it was right, but at the same time it was horrible wrong?