DXP #94 begins with a brief lament over the death of one of pop culture’s most beloved and talented icons (but enough about Chyna), and then we address the recent barrage of faith-based films and the agenda behind them. We spend a fair bit of time addressing the relationship between religion and morality (as in, how immoral are atheists on a scale of four to ten?), after which we take a call asking us to compare and contrast bakers and The Boss. We discuss our recent “bathroom meme” and the differences, if any, between laws restricting gun ownership and laws restricting rape (turns out, rapists are among society’s most conscientious rule-keepers. Who knew?). Our “Feeding Friendsy” segment deals with the response to the new $20 bill, and “Dick Move, God” introduces us to a man whose wife was raped by Yahweh’s favorite guy ever. Christian is biebered by having to tolerate the intolerant, while Jason’s bieber has to do with people who make math too simple.
Also, is it wrong for the petri dishes that contain human embryos to be made in inhumane conditions?
Links from this Episode:
Podcast #487: Some Like It Hot
Podcast #305: You Say You Want a Revolution?
Podcast #489: Crooks, Biden, and Pastor Jack
Podcast #224: Parenting and Personality Tests
God’s not dead. He’s just pining for the fjords!
I agree “Christian movies” tend to be too overt and superficial. They are beating you over the head with their agenda. I don’t like that in any movie. There are many classic books and movies with very thoughtful deep Christian messages that aren’t overt and superficial, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy come to mind.
If you guys were wanting to watch a recent-ish (2014) movie that is Christian, but isn’t superficial and quite biting (not for children at all, you’ll figure that out 10 seconds in), I recommend Calvary. It “confronts the impact of the clerical sex-abuse scandal on the Church in Ireland and the role of the Church in increasingly secular, post-Christian Ireland.”.
I think Calvary is right up DXP’s alley.
Will check it out, Lane. I also wanted to see the Joseph Fiennes movie about the Roman soldier that came out earlier this year. I heard it was good.
Man that Lane guy sounds like a jerk!
I don’t particularly care to get into the argument again, I just got called out on the cast and felt the need to respond.
“Just a technical way to discriminate against gays”
[eye roll] So you think it is technically not discrimination against gays, but you know that it HAS to be the intent of those people down there? So much for all the talk of nuance. If the nuance goes against your opinion, you dismiss it. Not very consistent or charitable to those people down there.
“Give me a difference in principle between that and … an interracial wedding”
Because when business owners did not want to participate in an interracial marriage, the only difference was race. Nothing else about the marriage is different other than the race. The business owner would participate if the husband was white, but not if the husband is black. There was no fundamental difference of the marriage itself. That is discrimination based on race. Gay marriage, or 3 or more person marriage, and so forth (let your imagination run wild) is fundamentally different than a marriage between one man and one woman for life. The marriage itself is fundamentally different between the two situations, is the argument. If a gay man and a gay woman want to get married, and the bakery still doesn’t want to participate – then yes – they are definitely discriminating based on sexual orientation.
I shared this chart before. It helps to think through one’s level of cooperation with evil/immorality from a Catholic perspective. Check it out, nuance!
I’ve said this before, if I was a baker I would probably just bake the cake. Looking at the chart, I think baking a cake doesn’t “contribute to the principal agent’s act” (2nd question). Maybe, if I was a wedding planner I wouldn’t do it. Looking at the chart, I think planning the wedding “provides something essential” (4th question). I think freedom of religion should extend this far, maybe you guys don’t.
I don’t think the picture is attached well, here is a link
http://aleteia.org/2015/08/05/this-flowchart-will-tell-you-when-cooperation-with-evil-is-immoral/
Thanks, that one slipped past me. Yeah, I need to check that one out as well!
• I bet working used to be so much fun in the 50’s and 60’s when day drinking was cool instead of a tragic, debilitating, personal addiction.
• And then you could get in your big gas guzzling car and drive drunk and run over minorities and no one would bat an eye. Now it’s all ‘you killed him’ and ‘you need help’ and ‘you’re a monster.’
• Yeah, sadly, he got pain killers for a hip or knee replacement and got addicted.
• You build up a tolerance to opioids the longer you’re on them, so a fatal dosage will vary depending upon the person, their weight, how long they’ve been taking them, and what else they might have mixed with their medication (alcohol, other prescription drugs, narcotics, etc.)
• Richard Blade.
• There were a few fun reactions talking about how now Prince is burning in hell and wishes he had written good Christian music instead of the devil’s tunes. Keepin’ it classy, guys. Keepin’ it classy…
• Well, you need to understand that there are no real atheists. “Atheists” are just people who hate God and want to sin. So they’re being deliberately evil. Thus depicting them as cartoon mustache twirling evil is perfectly acceptable.
• Christian movies have gone too far to be effective evangelism tools, I think, but that’s not really the purpose of the modern Christian film. The purpose of the modern Christian film is to get Christian money, and to that effect, they’ve become Christian porn: the martyrbation, the idyllic ‘Christian’ vision of good America, the tools of Satan that disagree with them, all building up to the money shot where the misguided heathen converts and the angry rebel against God, America, and Apple Pie gets their comeuppance while a band plays the rock music to let everyone know that Jesus is Cool!
• I remember at the start of every year, Pastor Chuck would get up and say with a smile that this could be the year when Jesus comes back to take his church to heaven.
• We’re still here.
• Also “Yea! We get to go to paradise while billions of people suffer and die at the hands of God! Yea!”
• “It’s not about religion, it’s about relationship.”
Great, what do I need to do to have a relationship with God?
“Well, you need to start by saying a prayer, then get a bible and read it every day, go to church at least once a week though twice is better, and you’re gonna have to go out and tell others about Jesus, and you should probably not drink, don’t listen to the devil’s music, and definitely no sex if you’re not married or gay, and you have to agree with our doctrines and possibly our politics. But it’s not a religion!”
Clearly…
• Atheists are being persecuted in Bangladesh right now.
• Now just imagine how fun it will be when hackers exploit the vulnerabilities in the car’s operating system…
• Secular humanism used to be the boogeyman in Evangelical circles.
• These are the sexual ethics I plan on teaching my kids:
o Always have clear, enthusiastic consent.
o Don’t use someone as an object.
o Don’t allow yourself to be used as an object.
o Don’t harm others.
o Wait until you’re ready. Don’t be pressured.
o Make sure you’re doing it for the purpose of enhancing your intimacy and relationship with your partner.
o Use protection.
• Coming from the fundamentalist Christian sexual/purity ethic, I think mine is more healthy.
• Context matters. If I shoot someone for letting their dog poop on my lawn, I’m evil. If I shoot someone who was going to shoot a toddler, I’m heroic. Likewise, if I say “You’re law harms others therefore I’m not going to do business with your state” it’s a bit different than if I said “You’re being too inclusive to those people, and I don’t like it, therefore I’m not going to do business with your state.”
• Back during segregation days, there were places that would sell to both white and black customers that were still discriminating. There were restaurants that required blacks to use the service entrance to pick up their food and forbid them from eating on the premises.
• Okay, here another case where nuance is important. Laws that regulate goods can make it more difficult for people to acquire them. Think of fully automated machine guns. You don’t see, well, any mass shootings taking place by a man with an M-60. You don’t see very many people buying rocket launchers. Why? They’re difficult to get. You can, with expertise, change a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic one, but it takes knowledge and intent. You can’t just buy one.
In the case of a hypothetical bathroom rapist, saying transgendered men can’t use the bathroom doesn’t it make it more difficult for our would-be rapist to find a bathroom to rape someone in.
• I think what makes their motives in this bathroom brouhaha so transparent is, that in almost every other context, the politicians so worried about hypothetical bathroom rape have generally been indifferent to the victims of real, actual rape and dismissive about the idea of rape culture.
• Feeding Friendsy: “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
• US Grant was the 18th president of the United States.
• We had a bit of a problem with the “I was just following orders” defense when the Germans tried to give it. .
• It’s funny how we think that 40 or 50 isn’t that old now.
• Uriah was Boromir.
• If the girl was already married, then the penalty was death, because you violated another man’s property. The 50 shekels was payment to the girl’s father for ruining the value he would have gotten from another man for a virgin.
• One man, one woman whether she wanted to or not.
• Well, God did punish David by killing the innocent baby instead of him.
• Here’s a principle to substitute for tolerance: stand against injustice, don’t be an asshole, but otherwise mind your own business.
• I feel the same way about Dr. Who. I tried to get into it because so many other people were, but I just didn’t get it.
• With that, another good start to the week. Thank you, gentlemen.
“Martyrbation” is now my favorite word.
I agree with your sex education curriculum. 🙂
However, I might change one thing:
“Don’t allow yourself to be used as an object, unless that’s what you want.”
Some people get off on being objectified. Right? Hello?
I would say it’s still discrimination because you’re not offering them equal service, like the restaurant owners during segregation I mentioned in my notes.
It’ll be messy for a while, but we’ll figure it all out and I’d be surprised if this is still an issue in 20 years.
If the nuance goes against your opinion, you dismiss it.
Sheesh! Not all the time. 😉
Got it. So the Christian wedding planner will gladly plan the wedding of a gay man, as long as he marries a woman. That’s very non-discriminatory of them.
And you know we like you. Didn’t mean to make you sound like a jerk if we did. Plenty of people listen to our podcast who agree with you. You’re welcome to start your own podcast and call us jerks if it helps. 🙂
Normally I’d agree with this, but I’ve considered the idea quite a bit lately and I’m not so sure anymore.
I find myself asking “Is this really the best we can do?” and I can’t help but think that simply encouraging unchecked hedonism and gratification of any possible desires is not what I hope for the people I care about.
To be clear, I think the same question should be asked about the dogmatic asceticism and the often observed fetishization of sex itself that I’ve seen in many religious groups.
I don’t think liberalism is the ideal, if that liberty is merely used to the person’s own detriment.
And that might not be convincing in itself, but I’ve known far too many people who enjoy—as well as hate; there is usually an internal conflict, a bifurcation—doing things that are unquestionably terrible for them. Telling them that it’s all perfectly okay as long as they like it is a bit disingenuous and not particularly helpful (although undoubtedly better that telling them their a piece of shit that’s going to be tormented forever for everything they do).
I feel like there has to be a sort-of middle ground where a person is not castigated, but instead encouraged to always seek to actualize their ideal.
I’m not really interested in hashing out the stale, old debate about this lol But there’s a question about it that always hangs me up, and I rarely hear people directly talking about it.
How does the issue of power dynamics work into this?
That is, when minorities of any stripe are in opposition to the dominant culture what does justice look like? I hear a lot of talk about “religious freedom” and “discrimination” but isn’t it more important to consider how the interests of groups can work to find a balance without one voice drowning out the others?
The problem is that when there is such a discrepancy between the various group’s power. The wedding cake issue is obviously petty, but imagine a limiting case involving something actually important.
If Group A has dominance in a region and Group B has different interests, then Group A can easily “stiff-arm” Group B into going against B’s best interests. This becomes a problem when you’re a member of Group B and your entire city, county, state, country identifies as Group A.
As I said, this is the limiting case, but it establishes the order of the problem. And I think it encompasses both “religious freedom” and other sorts of “discrimination”.
Nah, it was a tongue in cheek comment. I enjoy arguing, it helps me understand an issue.
See, the sexual orientation doesn’t enter into it. They wouldn’t plan you and Jason’s marriage either, where both are heterosexual.
When I was thinking of this, I was thinking more along the lines of letting yourself be used as an object for someone’s meaningless sexual gratification, one night stands and the like, but I think I would still apply this to the whole BDSM scenario too.
Something just seems unhealthy about allowing yourself to be degraded in that fashion.
What if what turns you on is being desired sexually? What if what you like is someone objectifying you and wanting you solely for sex? What if you have enough great relationships and friendships/relationships and that’s just something you feel like you need every once in a while?
I’ve seen girls that hate to be objectified and I’ve seen girls that get off on it. Same for guys.
The arguments against interracial marriage (as they were made in court cases, at least) tended to rest on claims that it is unnatural, contrary to God’s will, would produce moral impurity in the population at large, would destroy society because interracial couples either could not produce offspring or would produce “effeminate, impotent,” offspring, and that interracial couples were themselves immoral and socially inferior because they were involved in illicit sex and were therefore not fit as parents. It’s not a perfect parallel, but I think there are some important similarities with the current debate.
I teach Intro to Philosophy from time to time and I never pee on Bibles or any other objects in class. I just think it would be awkward. 😉
Also, I distinctly remember the scenario about the gunman holding his gun to your head and asking if you’re a Christian, but it occurred in skits at Bible camp when I was a kid way before Columbine. That just seems too convenient that it was a recurring theme in evangelical culture and then magically appeared in a mass shooting.
I don’t think it should be illegal or anything, I just don’t think it’s the healthiest expression of sexuality.
“When you’re accustomed to privilege for so long, equality starts to feel like oppression”
When evangelicals finally realize they’re on the wrong side of history, they’ll claim they were bastions for equality
Someone sent this to me today. Made me laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwffbQiUwLc&feature=youtu.be
Right. This is my point. It’s a sneaky way to discriminate against gays.
The whole priding one’s self on tolerance and inclusivity, is way too simply obviously. Tolerance for tolerance sake, as you point out, is self-defeating if you also wish to be intolerant of intolerance. You could be tolerant to intolerance, but as you said in the cast, then the intolerant people would win. So I guess you could just stop using the simple phrase, and be more concrete about that which you wish to be intolerant against.
We have free speech and freedom of religion. Of course, they wouldn’t need to be protected constitutionally if they were just protecting easy stuff. These are things we have decided to have high degrees of tolerance for. Sometimes you have to tolerate someone else’s belief that you are doing things that is viewed as evil or immoral and that they do not wish to also be forced to participate with. They may not get to criminalize your practice in some cases, but you don’t get to criminalize/fine them either.
I wish the people who were so proud of their tolerance weren’t also so easily offended.
Here’s an article I enjoyed on The Paradox of Tolerance. Basically, intolerance may be more “rational” than tolerance, but tolerance is still better, even when it breaks down due to intolerance of intolerance.
http://bigthink.com/articles/the-paradox-of-tolerance
As for Christian feeding friendsy. What she said is idiotic and uninformed. Putting all the dumb stuff she said to the side, there was one point she made (uninformed) that I have heard others say, and that is that Jackson has been on the bill the whole time. One of the guys I work didn’t like that they were changing it, changing for changing sake. When I pointed out that there had been half a doze different people and a couple of symbols used on the 20 note for the 60 years prior to Jackson, he didn’t care anymore.
However, I do agree with her husband. Why do people feel the need to contact her employer? This is the sort of intolerance of the Left that drives me nuts. You want people to lose their job over stuff. How does that seem cool? Is she uninformed and made some bad logical arguments? Yes. Is there a need to pressure her boss publically to fire her? Absolutely not. Just argue with her, show the mistake to her.
Tired and shagged out after a long squawk.
I don’t totally disagree with you. However, most employers have contracts you sign about how you’re going to represent the employer. If she didn’t write a completely racist post and advertise publicly that she worked at Whole Foods, there probably wouldn’t be an issue.
Also, it’s still publicly. 😉
Are you suggesting the first time someone was killed for being a Christian was Columbine? And further, that the Christians themselves are to blame for this scenario happening there?
That’s quite a leap, Lane.
It isn’t “sneaky”, it is viewed as immoral and some Christians don’t want to be forced by law to be involved. We can argue about how involved is too involved. But don’t paint it as “those bigoted Christians are trying their best to stick to those gays”. In 20 or so states it is completely legal to hang a sign that says “we don’t serve gays”, because discrimination of this sort is legal. How many of those signs do you see? Or are you only seeing people not wanting to be involved in weddings?
Stop trying to legislate your morality liberals! hahaha =)
Jason, I thought what you said about us humans naturally recoiling at aspects evolution interesting. It made me think about how we often attribute human motives, attributes, and an over all sense of intelligence to evolution where there are none. Evolution is messy, inefficient and haphazard. I personally believe it has no underlying philosophical truth to it or tenants to follow. Once I realized that, coupled with the fact that our entire human existence is not even a tiny blip on radar of the history of our planet and universe, I felt I was right where I belong and how incredible it is that we are here. Given the full context of our existence how little significance we’ve played in the grand scheme of things and what we’ve come to know of evolution, I recoil at the idea that an all knowing, all powerful and loving god did it all in the craziest way possible so that one day I, Mike, would be saved from myself.
I may have gone off on a tangent here…
Wow, those would both be bizarre claims. Obviously there are many instances of people killing and being killed in the name of religion, and I’m familiar with pre-Columbine history.
None of us know what was said inside that school that day. I think it’s entirely possible that the people recounting the story as well as the people involved (such as Klebold and Harris) may well have been exposed to this recurring theme that was a fairly prominent and emotionally intense piece of evangelical mythology at the time.
“I don’t totally disagree with you.”
I’m going to just sit here and enjoy that statement for a while…
Oh you were suggesting they made that part up, or some how unintentionally made that leap based on experience of seeing it in skits. My first read was that you were suggesting that the shooters got the idea from seeing the skits.
I thought Rachel was the one making the leap.
I think it is plausible that the shooter could have gotten the idea to say that (if in fact he said it) from this recurring idea that circulates through conservative Christian circles. That doesn’t mean the skits or the idea caused the shootings. I think we know that Harris and Klebold had some other fairly complex motivations for the shootings. But it’s the words I’m talking about – the dialogue. It’s a very common human behavior to take a pre-existing meme (in the pre-internet meaning of meme) and adopt it as our own narrative or as a way to explain our own behavior.
Here are some examples of what the meme looks like:
http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/59554/20151106/with-a-gun-to-my-head-would-i-deny-jesus-christ-john-piper-reveals-7-things-christians-should-do-to-prepare.htm
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/gun-to-your-head-will-you-deny-christ
And I’m not sure there was an implication that he wouldn’t shoot her if she “denied Christ” either.
I found that article confused and unhelpful. It creates a false dichotomy, where either you are for tolerance or you are for intolerance. But clearly, even the person who values tolerance, doesn’t tolerate everything. So just drop the pretense.
What. You can be rational at the same time as being practical. The rational thing to do IS the best thing to do. This advocacy for being irrational, and just “following common sense”, sounds like “trust your feelings”. This is garbage.
You clearly find things objectionable, and not just objectionable for you personally, but for everyone. You should have a solid foundation for defining these things. For example, you like justice? Define justice, and then apply it. You value freedom, how far? What defines the limits. My goodness, don’t simply appeal to “common sense” and “feelings”.
I found that article confused and unhelpful.
That doesn’t surprise me. 😉
http://www.acl.org.au/2015/08/7-reasons-why-the-current-marriage-debate-is-nothing-like-the-debate-on-interracial-marriage/
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/marriage-reason-and-religious-liberty-much-ado-about-sex-nothing-to-do-with-race
To me, tolerance is like someone saying this, “As a rule, I do not cut appendages off of my body. However, if one of them contracts gangrene, I will cut it off.” Finding hypocrisy in the person who is willing to cut an appendage off because of gangrene is similar to finding hypocrisy in someone who will not tolerate intolerance.
I’m not necessarily calling out hypocrisy, but pointing out needless simplicity that will confuse some. Think of the video of the guy going around UW where students out of a confused sense of tolerance and identity wouldn’t correct him if he were to claim that he was a 7 ft asian woman (although he was a 5.5ft white guy).
I was really going to leave this one alone but I can’t because I love these kinds of discussions.
First, I think if you look at the kinds of arguments that were made in court in regard to interracial marriage (as listed in my comment above), you will see a number of important parallels with the arguments against same sex marriage. And I’m not sure that either of your links addresses those arguments as they were made in court. Underlying these arguments is a fundamental view of marriage as being primarily about procreation, child-rearing, and the family as the core unit that gives stability to society. And that’s basically the source of all the objections to same sex marriage as well.
Second, note that the way we think of marriage now doesn’t align with this view of marriage as being about procreation and child-rearing. We think spouses should love each other and be each other’s life partners and best friends and all that. We think that both partners should consent to the marriage and find it fulfilling in some way. Even conservative people view marriage this way. But you don’t get any of that out of the procreation model, and that didn’t exist in whatever it is that people mean when they refer to “traditional” marriage. If you mean being sold by your father to your husband, and having no say in it, being forced to marry your rapist, being forced to marry your husband’s brother if your husband dies, polygamy, concubines, etc. as “traditional marriage,” then you’re at least being consistent but it’s hard to see how that translates into the one man one woman model that is being defended today.
So obviously marriage has evolved over time, and that’s a good thing. But if it is now primarily about being life partners then it seems that some of the other stuff has got to go too. And that’s where I think the most basic conflict is going to be for religious conservatives, because allowing for that evolution is conflicting and hard to reconcile, and I don’t know what the solution is. I know that the two weddings I went to last summer that took place in church environments didn’t look like marriage in Deuteronomy. There was all kinds of talk about love and mutual support and completing each other and basically no talk about procreation or her becoming his property.
To respond to the “7 reasons” article directly:
1. One man one woman has never been universal culturally (polygyny, polyandry, child marriages, etc. are still quite common around the world) or historically (I’m looking at you Abraham, Solomon, David, etc.).
2. Deuteronomy forbids interracial marriage.
3. I can choose a list of great thinkers that have the opposite view on marriage, and it was only “late in human history” that the so-called “traditional marriage” came about. The hetero nuclear family that we imagine to be the traditional family was a product of the 1950s, or maybe the 40s. I can’t remember off the top of my head.
4. You can call it a partnership or you can call it a marriage (I myself am not a huge fan of marriage but I get why people want the recognition and the legal benefits that come with it), but the history of how we’ve historically viewed it cannot in itself be an argument about rights and fairness and equality in our current cultural and historical context.
5. If in fact marriage is fundamentally about procreation then we also should not allow older couples, sterile couples, couples who don’t plan to have children, etc. to marry. I don’t think anyone is ready to go there.
6. “Marriage has everything to do with uniting the two halves of humanity.” Wait, I thought it was about procreation (and property rights, TBH). What’s the source of this argument that it’s about uniting humanity? And even if there is a good basis for this argument it seems like a pretty poor mechanism with a rather low success rate.
7. We now think that race is not related to marriage, but it wasn’t that long ago when the prevailing view was that people of different races were fundamentally different, and that’s what made interracial marriage such an abomination. The whole narrative on purity and pollution of the blood stream can’t stand up without the premise that blacks and whites are fundamentally different. So these views on race shifted in the past, and currently views on gender and sexual orientation are shifting. What’s to prevent the corresponding shift in how marriage is viewed?
This is an interesting read on the evolution of marriage, although I can’t say I’ve read the whole thing: http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-How-Love-Conquered/dp/014303667X
You teach philosophy? Tell me more! I wanted to go into education, but ended up having babies and starting my own business instead. What degrees did you earn? Where do you teach?
On baking cakes, freedom, and discrimination….
1. Tell me the difference in principle between passing anti discrimination laws and laws against hate speech? Should we also legislate against people expressing negative opinions about certain groups, cultures, and ideas via the written or spoken word?
2. Is there a logical end to the anti discrimination chain? Can model agencies discriminate against fat people? Can universities discriminate against students with low GPAs? Can a clothing company charge a price that some people can’t afford? Is that discrimination against poor people? MUST a private catholic school hire a pregnant unmarried teacher? Today its not just about treating everyone equally but also making special accomodations. You can’t MERELY hire Muslims…. You must also accommodate their religious needs. You can’t merely hire a handicapped individual, but you MUST also make expensive accommodations for them. It seems these laws can be infinitely malleable. We have to draw the line somewhere. Freedom of religion would be as good a place to start as any.
3. How much does historical context matter in these discussions? Obviously during the reconstruction period it was pressing to make sure that all blacks had access to housing, employment, and public goods. I’m not sure if it was NECESSARY to pass the laws, (for them to have been passed in the first place public opinion must have been with the blacks) but it was at least excusable and relatively benign. But does anyone seriously think these concerns apply in the modern era? Anti discrimination laws have morphed beyond recognition. Now I MUST plan a gay couples wedding and violate my conscience and religious values? The original drafters of the civil rights act would never have agreed to such a thing. By expanding these rules we have given the government almost unlimited power.
Forcing people to serve, hire, and accommodate others against their will is spooky. It reminds me of………. Wait for it…….. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE!!!!! (Ominous horns playing, drums clashing, a piano falls down the stairs) If compromise and reconciliation was on the heart of some liberal, if reaching across the aisle is important at all, I would like to hear some opinion on where this train stops.
Anti-discrimination laws are about ensuring that every citizen in the community has equal access to the same opportunities as every other citizen, while hate speech laws are designed to criminalize horrid opinions.
Well, that would violate the 1st Amendment, but even with the 1st amendment, we do have libel and slander laws as well as privacy rights, harassment and stalking laws.
Yes. Entertainment companies have an exemption when a specific part demanding certain characteristics is required. If your roll calls for a 5’3” Asian woman, you can turn down the 7’ tall white man for the role.
Yes, universities are allowed to set admission standards, so long as those standards apply to everyone.
Yes and no. And once again, they can try to sell handbags for $1500, but what they can’t do is tell a black man they won’t serve him, or tell him that the price is $5000 because of his color.
That depends. Are they getting Federal or State money? If so, then that money comes with strings attached.
Otherwise, the law is clear that an organization that provides religious instruction may discriminate based on its religious teachings. Your hypothetical Catholic school that turns down Federal dollars does not have to hire the gay atheist with the PhD in religious studies.
“An employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.”
“Goddammit, Jensen, we don’t have a ‘ramp’. You drag yourself up those stairs and get that report to Smith, and stop your whining about losing your legs in the war, you’re really bringing me down.”
Considering the KKK was formed during this time and the 100 or so years of lynching and oppression that followed, yes, it was pretty fucking necessary.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
http://nbc4i.com/2016/04/27/report-reveals-racist-texts-sent-by-san-francisco-officer/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/danvergano/race-pains
http://addictinginfo.org/2016/03/13/cbs-reporter-describes-racism-at-donald-trump-rallies/
Yes… yes, I do.
In your statement, I hear the echoes of those landlords who refused to rent to interracial couples. It was their property, after all, and those unions were “unnatural” according to the bible, or their warped reading of it.
Sure, you can quit, leave and travel as you will, don’t get beaten, and are actually paid for your work, but other than that, it’s just like slavery. 🙂
I don’t know, different situations arise as time progresses requiring judges to try and apply the existing laws to specific scenarios, so there might always be tweaking at the edges involved. But I don’t think we’re likely to see changes on the level of gay marriage anytime soon.
At least until the robosexuals start asking to get married.
So basically your response is no end and no limit imaginable. Universities, modeling agencies, and schools can discriminate arbitrarily for now, but if the left runs out of victims ya never know for sure!
The idea that there is a single minority group that could not find employment, food, or shelter, without the aid of federal anti discrimination laws on private entities is absurd. An enormous percentage of these people work for the government or in jobs programs anyways.
The government should not have the right to FORCE service upon people that don’t wish to give any. Just as it has no right to FORCE people into military service and should FORCE people not to voice their opinion. Freedom of speech can cause all kinds of harm to people. Psychological, emotional, and sociological damage. It can drive people to suicide, alcoholism, and violence. Yet Westboro Baptist is completely fine while the average Conservative Christian wedding planner must be forced into obedience? Even while receiving no state money? Seems there are strings attached either way. Strings that have no business or justification for being there. And just why is it that I constantly hear about how “not everyone can travel to find opportunity” when hearing about slums, poor schools, etc. But when it comes to the government forcing servitude the bullied americans are expected to drop their livelihood, pack up their families, and find another occupation? The result of force is violence and civil unrest. These laws helped create Trump. Whenever you shove civil engineering down the throats of Americans who don’t want the changes prescribed riots inevitably follow. 40% of Americans don’t want gay marriage. Too bad. Fuck you all its happening federally. Mass amnesty shoved down everyones throat via executive order. Abortion legalized despite fifty percent of americans opposing it vehemently. States rights be damned this comes from the top!
Now you get to sit in your living room in fear that Trump actually pulls off this election. A monster that you helped create. The market gives everyone a chance to cooperate peacefully. We win over others through rational discourse and reasoning. Force brings force. Be careful you don’t shove too hard. There is a growing number of people willing to start pushing back. Which leaves precious little room for fear of micro aggression and safe spaces
Well, no, that’s not what I said, but I appreciate the word salad. I was feeling a bit hungry.
No force necessary! Happy to serve it up lol
I’m drinking Barefoot wine because when I look back at the dark times in life and I only see one set of winding, stumbling footprints on the beach, I know it carried me through.
This could be something interesting to talk about in your next podcast. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/check-out-this-eucharistic-miracle-in-poland-96162/
I have a BA in Philosophy from Pepperdine University, an almost-PhD in Philosophy, and an MA in Philosophy from UC Riverside, and a Masters of Library and Information Science from University of Washington, which explains why I currently work as a database administrator and teach classes on the side. 🙂 Oh, and I started out at University of Washington in engineering and did that for three years before dropping out for a year and then switching to Philosophy and transferring to Pepperdine because I figured out I didn’t want to do engineering.
I mostly teach online because of the day job, although I occasionally teach classroom courses at University of Wyoming.
Wow! Thats awesome! What aspect of philosophy are you specializing in?
I wouldn’t equate that video with tolerance. There’s a difference between something you can prove to someone and something you can’t. (i.e. height vs gender identity). Also, while I may tolerate someone who thinks they’re 7 ft tall when they’re not, that doesn’t mean that I’m going to let them think that I think they’re 7 ft tall if they ask me.
Lets talk about sex and polygamy!
While listening to you guys talk about those sweet orgies between consenting adults, it got me thinking about polygamy. If we are comfortable with people having these multi-adult relationships, why are we still against people legally marrying multiple people? Just a thought!
Marriage inflation continues
This is what happens when government tinkers with the market! Massive hikes in premiums for the shitty insurance no one wants. No more PPOs in Texas. United Health pulls out entirely. Hooray compassion!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/28/significant-premium-hikes-expected-under-obamacare.html
I’m new to the comments section, but I am going to take this as you being against polygamy, correct? Would you mind expanding on your reasons why? Do you just oppose it morally? For biblical reason?
Your opinion on polygamous marriage is the logical outcome of the recent ruling from the supreme court. Its funny, because I had many friends deny, vehemently, that anyone would be calling for such a thing just a few months ago.
Anyways, the goal from the left is supposed to be to give the “dignity” of marriage to same sex couples. Now you say we should give that same “dignity” to polygamous relationships. The result is inflation. Marriage inflation. The concept no longer means anything and no longer has any dignity to offer.
Nice to e-meet you btw
In your opinion, what makes gay marriage or polygamous marriage undignified?
In my opinion those things can not even in principle be “marriages”.
Jason and Christian,
Check out this game! Its pretty fun if you are into politics and what not.
http://www.fiscalship.org
Thanks!
Wittgenstein, post-structuralism, critical theory, environmental ethics.
I also teach gender theory, logic, critical thinking, existentialism…
And lately I’m interested in philosophy of forgiveness. Basically I’m interested in everything and I’m an information junkie and I don’t sleep that much, so…
But I have no interest in a tenure-track job, so it’s hard to see the point of finishing my dissertation. 🙂
Totally off topic – I’m glad I don’t have to deal with Seattle traffic right now, but I’m also kinda sad about the Alaskan Way Viaduct. As a kid growing up in Seattle so much of the fun stuff you did was accessed via the AWV. It may be ugly and dysfunctional, but still… I have a sad.
Because I live out east, I rarely get on the 99, but when I do, it’s one of the prettiest drives with the water on one side and downtown on the other.
Yep. Next people are going to be wanting to marry their dogs. 😉
In my best recollection, I never denied that polygamy wouldn’t be advocated for or come back in style. It does, after all, fall under the umbrella of biblical marriage.
… Dr. Sam Beckett stepped into the Quantum Leap accelerator and vanished …
LOL!
It seems odd to describe marriage as either dignified or undignified. Human relationships are complicated and messy and go through different phases and they’re frequently not that dignified, but that’s what makes them human, right?
All of this reinforces my belief that the state should stay out of the business of marriage altogether. Every religious group can define marriage as they see fit and conduct their own wedding ceremonies. But whatever is done in churches and other religious settings will have no bearing on legal rights and privileges. Every individual files paperwork to identify their beneficiaries and designate power of attorney in case they’re incapacitated. Done. Separation of church and state. Everyone can stop worrying about what other people are doing in the bedroom and move on with their lives.