In sympathy - TTLG Forums

faetal on 24/11/2015 at 10:58

I totally support everyone's right to practice whichever religion they choose in the privacy of their own lives. It's 100% none of my business. When religious people choose to start infringing on the rights of others however, then that can fuck off.

Take the following posted by Harvester:

Quote:

Take ChristenUnie politicians for instance, you might not agree with their position on gay marriage or abortions, but they're among the most respected 'Kamerleden' in the Second Chamber, even among secular politicians.

The bolded part completely invalidates how proficient they may be as politicians, because they are potentially in a position to force their religious beliefs on those who don't share those beliefs. So religious politicians are fine, so long as they keep their religion private, as that's no one else's business. Church and state should be kept separate.

icemann on 24/11/2015 at 11:13

Over here in Aus, the one Islam-related issue that tends to piss everyone (non Muslims) off is the Halal meat issue. Even annoys me a little.

To go into more detail:

In kebab, ethnic style restaurants etc, Halal meat is the meat of choice. No'one has an issue there.

But in areas where there is a large amount of Muslim people, the larger food places (eg Macdonalds, KFC etc) have gone all 100% Halal meat. Now taste wise, there is absolutely no difference halal and non halal meat since the only difference is that a prayer is done over the animal after it is killed via a specific sort of knife (to my knowledge).

Many people feel that this move in meat choices discriminates against Non-Muslim people since they are given no choice for non-halal meats in these larger food outlets. And I agree totally with them on this one. Democracy = choice in my book. No choice = Not democratic on the flip side. And your only choice in such stores is to either eat meat done for a religion that is not your own, where your only choice is to eat it, or have to go to another suburb where the food is prepared differently. That to me is not Australian.

I happily eat halal meat when it's from kebab stores, my girlfriend's place (since she + her family is Muslim) or specialty stores etc, my only issue is in the lack of choice aspect to it all.

Some of the more ignorant racists/bigots (eg the Reclaim Australia extremist movement) say "Halal meat funds terrorism", which is the most STUPID thing I've ever heard. But when it's just an issue over the lack of choice, then that is one issue where I'm in COMPLETE agreement.

Harvester on 24/11/2015 at 11:41

Quote Posted by faetal

I personally support gay marriage, for reasons I won't get into now (too much of a thread derail). But regarding that, they are a small minority party. If there was any real chance of them being able to overturn gay marriage, I would vote for another party. I actually feel quite strongly on that particular issue.
They are not potentially in any position to overturn gay marriage, it's been a long time since that might have been the case. I still disagree with their position, but there's not a single party where I agree with all their positions. I agree with a lot of their other positions, more so than with other parties. Economics, immigrants, health care, environment, education etc., we're largely on the same page. Because they don't have any power to make changes on gay marriage (that would be a deal breaker), I don't see much of a problem.
They currently aren't even trying to do anything concerning gay marriage. Many CU politicians even don't mind gay marriage personally, it's just the official party line to please more right-wing Christians.

On abortions, pretty much same thing. They can't overturn the abortion laws, there's no majority for it. Would they do it if they could? Purely hypothetical discussion, there's no way they can ever do it. I support some of the things they try to do though. They do stuff like trying to provide easier access to adoption programs, or practical aid if a girl or a couple don't really want an abortion but they're scared and don't know how to go about taking care of a child. Providing alternatives without forcing them (ultimately, it has to be the girl/woman's decision, I agree with atheists that much despite being sad about the number of abortions taking place), that sort of stuff. As you might guess, I support that.

Maybe I'll go into Gryzemuis' post too later today or tomorrow or something. If I get around to it, I'll do so respectfully this time, because you were right, that previous post was a bit much. I also agree with not derailing the thread with specifics about Dutch politics. I did so in this post, but that was to clear up a misconception. These small Christian parties over here don't have the power of the US Republican Party, I just wanted to make that clear.

faetal on 24/11/2015 at 12:19

It's more a case of would they try. Separation of church and state should be such that if there was an attempt to shape legislation to fit a strictly religious concept, it should be rejected out of hand. The gay marriage thing is ridiculous for example - why should any religious group have any say on what other people can do unless that thing somehow harms other people?

Harvester on 24/11/2015 at 12:50

Well, I kind of agree, in the sense that if a thing doesn't harm anyone or anything (themselves, other people and the environment), and the only objections one could possibly have against it are religious in nature, I would not want to make it illegal.

There you have my stance on gay marriage. There's nothing against it, but some people believe God doesn't want gay relationships. Whether I share these concerns or not, the only objections one could have are religious, there's nothing else against it. No one is being harmed whatsoever. Therefore I would not impose it on other people, because a) they might not believe in God b) they might believe that He exists but that He is fine with their relationship and c) there are no other objections. Hence, I support gay marriage.

I cannot say that abortions are exactly the same thing. There are concerns one might have that are not religious in nature. Whether a clump of cells and a fetus are life forms is semantics. If unimpeded, the clump of cells/the fetus will become a fully functioning human being. With an abortion, you're actively stopping that.

As I said, ultimately I cannot and would not force a decision onto a girl or woman. I would make sure alternatives are present and maybe have a good talk with them, offer help, but that's about it. Ultimately they should be able to make the decision for themselves.

One could argue however that something, a life form in the making, is being harmed. It's not the same thing as gay marriage. Don't want to start an abortion debate, just wanted to point out that I think there's a difference.

EDIT: and that's what the party I vote for tries to do. Where other parties went: abortion is legal now, yay! and left it at that, this party fights for the availability of viable alternatives. Would they outlaw abortions again if they had the chance? I consider that moot. It's not going to happen. And I support what they're doing now.

Gryzemuis on 24/11/2015 at 13:01

The main arguments of your posts, Harvester, about Dutch politics seem to be:

1) You claim that everything has gone downhill since "the purple administration". (Lack of confessional parties in the Dutch government, 1994-2002, first time ever).

For me, the nineties were the best years. But that had nothing to do with our national cabinet. The Iron Curtain had just fallen. No more Cold War. Economic boom. Technology boom (thanks to computers and the Internet). Apartheid gone. A Democrat as US president. No new wars. And no 9/11 yet. However, since then we've had our Balkenende administrations (2002-2010). Those were terrible. There is absolutely no validity in claiming that a religious party in the administration is better.

2) You claim that the Dutch politicians of the small confessional parties (CU en SGP) are well-respected. No, they are not. Those parties are 99.99% irrelevant. Nobody cares about CU or SGP. They have no influence. And when somebody is irrelevant, it is very easy to say you respect them. Just like nobody says anything bad about the dead. There is no point. Why confront or insult someone in public without a reason ? That's why you hear "well respected". In reality, they are irrelevant.

Harvester on 24/11/2015 at 13:16

Quote Posted by Gryzemuis

The main arguments of your posts, Harvester, about Dutch politics seem to be:

There is absolutely no validity in claiming that a religious party in the administration is better.

Oh I agree, I don't really like the Republicans in the US either. However, the claim of many atheists is that it's going to be so much better without Christians in power. So far that has not been the case. That's my personal opinion, but many people have lost faith in politics, and it has not improved since Rutte succeeded Balkenende.

Quote:

2) You claim that the Dutch politicians of the small confessional parties (CU en SGP) are well-respected. No, they are not. Those parties are 99.99% irrelevant. Nobody cares about CU or SGP. They have no influence. And when somebody is irrelevant, it is very easy to say you respect them. Just like nobody says anything bad about the dead. There is no point. Why confront or insult someone in public without a reason ? That's why you hear "well respected". In reality, they are irrelevant.

Ever heard of the Lenteakkoorden, and de 'Constructieve oppositiepartijen'? They were very relevant back then, and that was recently. Without them, we might have had new elections by now. People who follow debates closely, the parliamentary press, often have good things to say about the CU and SGP's chamber members' contributions. The CU's Carola Schouten for example, is a highly knowledgeable financial powerhouse. (http://www.eo.nl/geloven/nieuws/item/carla-dik-faber-cu-beste-politica/) Here, an article on how Carla Dik-Faber (CU) is the best second chamber member according to the very non-religious Vrij Nederland magazine. 53 of her proposals were accepted by a majority of votes. Actual policies and laws are now in effect because of her contributions. Call that irrelevant? Carola Schouten gets third place in VN's opinion, by the way.

Especially since the Rutte administration has a minority in the first chamber, there are no irrelevant parties. The CU and even the SGP have proved crucial during this administration. Look it up if you want to.

faetal on 24/11/2015 at 14:22

Quote Posted by Harvester

I cannot say that abortions are exactly the same thing. There are concerns one might have that are not religious in nature. Whether a clump of cells and a fetus are life forms is semantics. If unimpeded, the clump of cells/the fetus will become a fully functioning human being. With an abortion, you're actively stopping that.

Stopping the continued development of a foetus into a baby should be solely the choice of the person carrying it. It's not about whether it is a life, it's about whether or not that life has any experiential role in the procedure - the research say it does not. Whether all life is sacred is certainly a religious issue, since the primary argument of pro-lifers is that god creates a soul inside a human at the point of conception (or other arbitrary point they've used to retcon something not explicitly covered in scripture). It could be argued that a contraceptive coil is the same since it prevents proper implantation of the fertilised egg.

Quote:

As I said, ultimately I cannot and would not force a decision onto a girl or woman. I would make sure alternatives are present and maybe have a good talk with them, offer help, but that's about it. Ultimately they should be able to make the decision for themselves.

One could argue however that something, a life form in the making, is being harmed. It's not the same thing as gay marriage. Don't want to start an abortion debate, just wanted to point out that I think there's a difference.

Yes there's a difference and it is something which has had a great amount of ethical input into the determination of the legal limits and the medical procedure. It's when religious groups want to get their specific religious convictions to weigh on it that I think the line should be drawn. This is a question for medicine and ethics - not religious groups. Religion has nothing of use to add to the conversation.

Quote:

EDIT: and that's what the party I vote for tries to do. Where other parties went: abortion is legal now, yay! and left it at that, this party fights for the availability of viable alternatives. Would they outlaw abortions again if they had the chance? I consider that moot. It's not going to happen. And I support what they're doing now.

What are the viable alternatives to abortion? Because adoption is not one, given that it requires the pregnant woman to take a baby to term which they don't want and thus relegates them to the role of "incubation unit for this cluster of cells which inexplicably has more rights than you".

Harvester on 24/11/2015 at 14:36

Mostly agree with your post above this part. Don't have a lot of time to comment in detail.

Quote Posted by faetal

It can be an alternative, if a voluntary one and not a forced one. I mean those cases where the girl/woman or the couple don't want to keep the baby, but prefer the foetus not being terminated. For some reason, they just don't want to keep the baby for themselves, because they think they can't raise it right, or they just don't want to. Some would rather not carry the fetus to completion, and I agree, ultimately that's their decision. Some others would prefer not to abort the fetus as long as they don't have to keep the baby. That can be for emotional reasons as well as religious ones. For those girls/women, adoption is an alternative. Which, for the record, should be suggested to them, not forced on them.
Bit puzzled as to why you seem to think my position is 100% contrary to yours, as if I've shown myself to be the stereotypical right-wing bible thumper on TTLG...

faetal on 24/11/2015 at 14:48

I apologise if you think that my oppositional tone is directed at you, it's not - it's pointed at the subject of religious intervention in politics - you're just feeling it because you're the one I'm discussing it with. You certainly don't come across as a forceful Christian and I'm not anti-Christian - I even married one!

I'm not sure on the "discussion of alternatives" issue since adoption is hardly some obscure secret alternative to abortion, so I'd imagine that those who don't wish to abort but also don't wish to keep the child are unlikely to find themselves accidentally signed up for abortion or signed up through ignorance of the existence of adoption.
Counselling would likely only really be there to try to persuade those considering an abortion to consider adoption instead, which would almost certainly involve an element of guilt-tripping - intentional or otherwise since very few people having abortions *want* to do it, but feel instead that it is their only option to truncate a mistake they made or a crime which was committed against them, without having their body consigned to a hugely disruptive medical condition for the remainder of the 9 months.