sir albion
New member
If you're religious the world is your oyster...Well in this country anyway 
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ukip offers legal protection to Christians who oppose same-sex marriage
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
Exactly my point.
You don't know what rights are.
By your logic, if a law is passed giving one group the "right" to kill another group, then they have that right. & if it is decided that another group doesn't have a right to their property, then they don't have that right.
Rights are precisely not just what we are willing to assert they are, to argue that they are just what we are willing to assert that they are means that it's just as correct to say that people have no rights at all, if that is what we decide.
That is not so.
Dandyman
In London village.
So if rights are not the assertion of group interests and are also not divinely given, where do they arise from ?
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
If I tell you that nobody has a right to take from you or to hurt you, I'm sure you would probably agree, with or without an explanation as to why that is the case.
These questions are not super clear cut, I relate the concept of rights to the concept of Natural Law, and sometimes people refer to rights as "natural rights".
http://www.ndelt.com/diccionarios/blacks/blacks_dicionary_of_law_n.htm
sjamesb3466
Well-known member
Hi, I most definitely don't believe most Christians would go along with such narrow minded beliefs. I don't normally go about trying to mock (badly I admit) people's religious beliefs however I do have issue with the general fact that people can be as bigoted as they like and hide behind religion however anyone criticising religious beliefs are often castigated for being offensive. This is all religions btw, not just Christians.
sjamesb3466
Well-known member
UKIP supporter gets overly defensive and dismissive when someone disagrees with a point of view and instead of putting forward some sort of counter argument just makes a sarcastic response and claims a win.. Hmm
sjamesb3466
Well-known member
You can get away with most things in an Internet forum. Refuse to serve someone in a bakery or bed and breakfast because they are a Christian, Jewellery or Muslim and you will see how quickly you will end up in trouble. Please also know I am not advocating people discriminating against religious people. Am just amazed that in this day and age the people that are meant to be the most forgiving and loving in society are often filled with the most divisive and judgemental views.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,303
i though you might. we've since moved on from the Romans, a point implied in your own quote, and now set down rights in our legislation. as Creeky pointed out around #116, your argument is selfcontradicting.
Dandyman
In London village.
Thanks for the link.
As far as I can this again is simply an assertion that something is a right because it fits with a certain set of personal viewpoints.
I do, in fact, think that the State has a right to take from me in the form of taxes if they are used to advance the interests of the community/country that I am part of - "no man is an island..."
In certain circumstances I would also defend the right to cause harm if in was in the defence or advancement of those interests that I happen to support.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
People have a right, for example, to self defense. So force could be used in that sense, but that really is the protecting of a right.
As for the state having a right to take your property for the good of the community, it doesn't really have that right in a free society, although it does act as though it does.
I'm not against you or me or anyone else giving money or property to the state for the good of the community, as long as it's voluntary. But that's another discussion.
The quote about Natural Law is not an assertion that something is a right because it fits with a certain set of personal viewpoints, just read the definition. It's the opposite, "independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people." The whole point was to try to find a way to determine those things which are not subjective.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
We've moved on from all of the origins of Jurisprudence, I wouldn't abandon it just because it's old.
Check out my sig. ;-)
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,582
I wasn't taking offence....... I just think it is UKIP jumping on a "common-.sense" bandwagon which is not common sense at all.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
Ukip out
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
[MENTION=251]Dandyman[/MENTION]
The general point I have been trying to make is that what people are doing is saying that they know how things ought to be, and they should be able to use the Law to make it so. But what we should have learned through the experience of history is that nobody knows how things ought to be. Generations in the past got it wrong, generations in the future could too.
A society which believes that the state has a right to use the Law to force you to provide a service to X, is a society which will also be willing to believe that the state has a right to use the Law to force you NOT to provide a service to X.
Only in a society which understands that the state has no business telling you who you can and cannot provide a service to (a free society) are minorities truly protected.
Remember that Jim Crow was a Law.
The general point I have been trying to make is that what people are doing is saying that they know how things ought to be, and they should be able to use the Law to make it so. But what we should have learned through the experience of history is that nobody knows how things ought to be. Generations in the past got it wrong, generations in the future could too.
A society which believes that the state has a right to use the Law to force you to provide a service to X, is a society which will also be willing to believe that the state has a right to use the Law to force you NOT to provide a service to X.
Only in a society which understands that the state has no business telling you who you can and cannot provide a service to (a free society) are minorities truly protected.
Remember that Jim Crow was a Law.
W.C.
New member
- Oct 31, 2011
- 4,927
But you said a comment that there was nothing wrong with this was 'spot on' and then complained about too many people getting offended these days. So these christians should be allowed to get offended or not?
pastafarian
Well-known member
I see where [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] is going with this, and he isnt entirely wrong as some think. He has some very valid points
Its a total minefield though,im not sure NSC can come up with any solutions to freedom of expression or free speech when the USA Supreme Court struggles with it still today.
You shouldnt be able to discriminate but you should be able to have an opinion even if others hate it.I detest Ramjam Choudray and his take on religion,i despise holocaust deniers, i loathe christian extremists with their view the earth is 10000 years old and i abhor political extremists and their distain that the average man is stupid.
But i will fight for these mongs to have their right to hold these views with every breath i have
Its a total minefield though,im not sure NSC can come up with any solutions to freedom of expression or free speech when the USA Supreme Court struggles with it still today.
You shouldnt be able to discriminate but you should be able to have an opinion even if others hate it.I detest Ramjam Choudray and his take on religion,i despise holocaust deniers, i loathe christian extremists with their view the earth is 10000 years old and i abhor political extremists and their distain that the average man is stupid.
But i will fight for these mongs to have their right to hold these views with every breath i have
pastafarian
Well-known member
Out of interest,when you quoted the guardian article word for word did you have a specific reason for ending it when you did
Ukip has released a mini-manifesto for Christians, saying it would extend protection to those who want to oppose gay marriage because of their religious beliefs.
The document is published on the websites of some candidates and the election page of Christian Concern, a group that is against abortion and same-sex marriage.
The manifesto for Christians says Ukip would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.
This could include the Christian owners of a bakery who did not want to bake a Bert and Ernie gay marriage celebration cake or Christian relationship counsellor who wanted to counsel only heterosexual couples.
The manifesto says: “We will not repeal the legislation, as it would be grossly unfair and unethical to ‘un-marry’ loving couples or restrict further marriages, but we will not require churches to marry same-sex couples. We will also extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue.”
Reasonable accommodation means employers would have to makes allowances for people’s beliefs as long as this does not impose an undue burden.
Ukip has been particularly chasing the Christian vote in light of the coalition’s passage of same-sex marriage legislation. The party’s leader, Nigel Farage, has repeatedly emphasised his belief that the UK has a Judaeo-Christian culture and says there needs to be a more muscular defence of the country’s Christian heritage.
In a foreword to the Christian manifesto, Farage said: “This does not, of course, mean we should be disrespectful of other faiths, only that ours is fundamentally a Christian nation and so we believe Christianity should be recognised by government at all levels.
“Sadly, I think Ukip is the only major political party left in Britain that still cherishes our Judaeo-Christian heritage. I believe other parties have deliberately marginalised our nation’s faith, whereas we take Christian values and traditions into consideration when making policy.”
Ukip is also emphasising the importance of traditional families, saying: “Traditional Christian views of marriage and family life have come under attack of late.” It added: “We have no problem in supporting and even promoting conventional marriage as a firm foundation for a secure and happy family.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
I personally think the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion once again and there is a lot over reaction going on.
pastafarian
Well-known member
Luckily for us normal people we dont have to rely on your personal misinformed rant to garner any truth.
For those that like informed facts there was a yougov poll recently which showed UKIP supporters were by far the worst who showed "racist" views at 28% of its supporters. Not ideal or wanted by any stretch of the mind. Tories however were 22%,Labour 13% and Lib Dems 12%
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...d-against-people-of-other-races-10062731.html
Now where is your indignation of these parties?
I rather suspect your unfounded claims that UKIP are 100% racist are more to do with you being desperate to be some sort of centre of attention ,almost troll like with fake statistics.
your figures dont hold up at all, someone is talking out of their arse,its either you or YOUGOV ......i wonder who
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
Thank you for putting some perspective on things.