I thought Religious don't force their views on other people?

[sherminator]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8586344.stm


I find this absolutely shocking!

No question just a bit of early morning venting!

[ludwig]

TCL, you don't seem to grasp that it's not the legality that being debated here but the 'rights and wrongs' of the situation. I shouldn't be surprised because I've been down this road with you before.

I recall you were one of the very few people (along with jno I think) who defended the MPs behaviour when the expenses scandal broke, and the argument was the same then - 'It's not illegal so they've done nothing wrong, it's not illegal so they've done nothing wrong'.

[boxtops]

This one is just going round and round. Can you not just agree to disagree on the fundamental points already aired and discussed?

[naomi24]

Boxtops, no I don't think we can agree to differ. Even though jno and TCL Mumping consistently refuse to acknowledge it, this is a matter of fundamental moral principle - although in the case of the latter I'm convinced he has no comprehension of what that actually means. Neither has answered my question and I therefore suspect that neither has courage enough in their own convictions to tell us what they really think.

I wonder if, as well as worshiping their God, both, in reality, worship that other sky-dwelling man of fiction too? Their philosophy seems to be 'all men are equal but the religious are more equal than others.' Positively Orwellian!

[jno]

ludwig, I didn't defend all MPs, but I did say those who obeyed the rules weren't at fault, the rules were. (The question of who made the rules is a separate issue.)

But as I think I said earlier, if you want the 'conscience clause' dropped, that is a legal matter. The law allows the assistant to act as she did; to change that, you need to change the law.

As to whether it's 'right', regardless of the law: yes, I think it is. Naomi can talk all she wants about 'fundamental moral principles'; as far as I'm concerned, allowing people freedom of conscience is also a fundamental moral principle, a far more significant one than saying customers should be able to buy anything they want.

[naomi24]

Answer my question.

[jno]

naomi, I was responding to ludwig, who is polite and not abusive. You are neither.

[chakka35]

I'd like to know where 'conscience' comes into this shop assistant's behaviour.

Conscience tells me that, regardless of the law, it is wrong to steal, rape, injure, murder, abuse children, defraud, lie for the sake of gain and so on.

The ban on contraception is merely a rule made by a religion - in the case of Roman Catholicism by just one branch of one religion. If I belonged to a golf-club which told me that I must wear a tie after 6pm, I might be embarrassed at not being able to on occasion but I would hardly claim that my conscience was involved. And if my insisting on wearing a tie involved causing insult and medical inconvenience, even harm, to someone else then I would be wrong to do so.

'Conscience' is more important than just obeying some artificial rule, having no basis in normal morality, invented by a particular group of people. The term should not be so devalued.

[naomi24]

jno, of course you were responding to Ludwig - except you made the mistake of throwing my name into the arena. When you're floundering for a rational answer your response is either to disappear, or to accuse me unjustifiably of being impolite, abusive, and recently on this very thread, of inventing 'facts'. Who's impolite and abusive - and who invents 'facts'? You may take the people who are disagreeing with you here for fools - but I can assure you, they're far from that, so it's not good enough, jno. Your agenda in continually endeavouring to disparage me because I consistently challenge your bigoted religious notions is all too transparent, and whereas it might work with those who are of the same mind as you, it is never going to work with anyone who possesses the slightest modicum of common sense. It's patently obvious that it's simply a cop out, because you don't have the answers to the questions - as usual.

//as far as I'm concerned, allowing people freedom of conscience is also a fundamental moral principle, a far more significant one than saying customers should be able to buy anything they want.//

Give me one good reason why their principles should override other people's freedoms, or interfere with their lives, or inconvenience them in any way at all. What's your justification?

[TCL-MUMPING]

What happens when the principles differ? If someone likes to walk around naked all day out and about because he or she believes that is his or her right to do so, what happens when that conflicts wi the notion of public decency?

[naomi24]

//'Conscience' is more important than just obeying some artificial rule, having no basis in normal morality, invented by a particular group of people. The term should not be so devalued. //

Chakka, Quite right.

[ludwig]

//What happens when the principles differ? If someone likes to walk around naked all day out and about because he or she believes that is his or her right to do so, what happens when that conflicts wi the notion of public decency//

The majority view usually takes precedence, and the person in question is told that their unusual views cannot be allowed to cause inconvienience or upset to the rest of us, as should be the case with the chemist.
In fact there is just such a person as this. I think they call him the naked rambler. He persistently wanders around naked despite all objections, and I believe he's going to jail.

Come on flks, lets try and reach 200 answers.

[mibn2cweus]

Runnin' 'round naked. Someone might consider that an invitation for retroactive birth control. It's not always a good thing to stand out in a crowd.

192

[naomi24]

^^ Tut! :o)

[TCL-MUMPING]

Is freedom of expression not a valued principle as long as that freedom of expression within the law? What if a particular group containing members representing those of faith and non-faith decided upon a certain course of action open to them all, is that justified?

[naomi24]

TCL Mumping, your friend hasn’t come back to answer the only question that‘s relevant here, so since you share her opinions, perhaps you'd like to answer it. Here it is again.

Why should the principles of the religious override other people's freedoms, or interfere with their lives, or inconvenience them in any way at all?

Ludwig, well, Mibs made it to 192, so I reckon we’ll make the 200 - even if we only talk amongst ourselves. ;o)

[ludwig]

//What if a particular group containing members representing those of faith and non-faith decided upon a certain course of action open to them all, is that justified? //

It depends what it is. If their way of expressing themselves is going to hurt other people, it's probably not justified whether it's within the law or not.

But your question is such a generalisation that it digresses from the issue. Freedom of expression is a different thing than refusing to serve a product that's on sale in your shop, because you don't approve of the product. The onus is on you to find a shop to work in that isn't going to compromise your beliefs, not for the customer to find another shop that employs someone who's prepared to serve everything that's on sale in the shop.

How would it be if I as a vegetarian got a job in a butchers and then refused to serve anybody? That's not freedom of expression, it's just stupidity.

Naomi, - nearly there.

[TCL-MUMPING]

"The onus is on you to find a shop to work in that isn't going to compromise your beliefs" if the manager of the chemist was of the same view as the pharmacist that would be okay then would it?

[mike11111]

Nearly there...

[mike11111]

Nearly there...

[mike11111]

There!!!!

Hope you're now happy. Let's move on.