Should religious belief inform public policy?

[ananda]

What if someone private belief is racist and they claim they should have personal freedom to operate a business that will not cater to minorities? You would probable not support that--but why?

I would actually honor their freedom to operate such a business. Government's only tool is force & no amount of external force can pressure people to change their minds: it only drives their beliefs underground.

The only way to truly change - self & others - at the core is through knowledge, experience, and wisdom.

 

[Caliban]

I would actually honor their freedom to operate such a business. No amount of external force can pressure people to change their minds: it only drives their beliefs underground. Government's only tool is force.

The only way to truly change - self & others - at the core is through knowledge, experience, and wisdom.

That is the most horrific thing I have heard in a long time.

 

[ananda]

That is the most horrific thing I have heard in a long time.

Which part & Why?

 

[Caliban]

Which part & Why?

Did I misunderstand you when you said you would be okay with a business owner turning away minorities as a way of exercising personal freedom?

 

[ananda]

Did I misunderstand you when you said you would be okay with a business owner turning away minorities as a way of exercising personal freedom?

No, you did not misunderstand me.

Keep in mind that I am *not* a supporter of businesses as they currently exist in America, however. What I mean by that is this: individuals are currently encouraged to create fictional business entities to separate their personal wealth from their business' wealth. IMO this prevents individual from reaping much of the direct, negative consequences of their business decisions, disconnecting cause & effect which is essential to personal growth.

If this separation of individual & business was not supported by government, individuals would be personally and directly responsible for their own business practices, beliefs, etc. I would wholly welcome boycotts from potential customers which would hit these individuals on a personal level and would, in consequence, hopefully affect them to the point that they would be encouraged to change their practices & beliefs at the core, resulting in a more enlightened individual.

 

[Speedwell]

Which part & Why?

Because that policy would affect too many people's lives. So the only stores in town are run according to that principle. What do you do? Drive to the next town to shop? Get together and start another store? Sure, it's possible, but it's a nuisance. It's a nuisance for a lot of people just to let one or a few individuals use the government-granted license to operate a public business in that fashion.

 

[ananda]

Because that policy would affect too many people's lives. So the only stores in town are run according to that principle. What do you do? Drive to the next town to shop? Get together and start another store? Sure, it's possible, but it's a nuisance. It's a nuisance for a lot of people just to let one or a few individuals use the government-granted license to operate a public business in that fashion.

That would be true in today's business climate, but my comment is predicated on the wholesale dissolution of fictional business entities.

 

[FireDragon76]

That is the most horrific thing I have heard in a long time.

A perfect example of what I was talking about. You find it horrific, Ananda finds it logical and consistent with his understanding of ethics, which are probably rooted in his religious beliefs.

 

[Speedwell]

That would be true in today's business climate, but my comment is predicated on the wholesale dissolution of fictional business entities.

Fictional business entities don't come into it. A business selling goods and services to the general public requires a licence. That licence is a privilege and comes with restrictions, whether the business is a "fictional business entity" or a sole proprietorship.

 

[Caliban]

A perfect example of what I was talking about. You find it horrific, Ananda finds it logical and consistent with his understanding of ethics, which are probably rooted in his religious beliefs.

Go back and read ananda's post carefully and see if you actually agree and if you think it represents your religious belief.

 

[Caliban]

No, you did not misunderstand me.

Keep in mind that I am *not* a supporter of businesses as they currently exist in America, however. What I mean by that is this: individuals are currently encouraged to create fictional business entities to separate their personal wealth from their business' wealth. IMO this prevents individual from reaping much of the direct, negative consequences of their business decisions, disconnecting cause & effect which is essential to personal growth.

If this separation of individual & business was not supported by government, individuals would be personally and directly responsible for their own business practices, beliefs, etc. I would wholly welcome boycotts from potential customers which would hit these individuals on a personal level and would, in consequence, hopefully affect them to the point that they would be encouraged to change their practices & beliefs at the core, resulting in a more enlightened individual.

I am not interested in a hypothetical future business model. You are talking about the negation of the the Civil Rights act of '64. Your position would allow a business owner to turn away black customers. That is unacceptable. Maybe that isn't your intent--fine. But it's what would result if what you said in post # 81 became law. How am I getting you wrong?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Should religious belief inform public policy? No. Christians and other religious need to worry about themselves . Instead of forcing the moral belief on the rest us. They should set a good example.

 

[FireDragon76]

Go back and read ananda's post carefully and see if you actually agree and if you think it represents your religious belief.

My agreement with him is less pertinent than his divergent thinking, which is precisely my point. Once you step outside the Christian-vs.-secular dichotomy, alot of possibilities open up.

 

[ananda]

Fictional business entities don't come into it. A business selling goods and services to the general public requires a licence. That licence is a privilege and comes with restrictions, whether the business is a "fictional business entity" or a sole proprietorship.

I disagree with such licensing practices.

 

[ananda]

I am not interested in a hypothetical future business model. You are talking about the negation of the the Civil Rights act of '64. Your position would allow a business owner to turn away black customers. That is unacceptable. Maybe that isn't your intent--fine. But it's what would result if what you said in post # 81 became law. How am I getting you wrong?

If a business owner decides to turn me away because of my skin color, I wouldn't want to shop at his store & enrich him in the first place.

I agree that such behavior from a business owner (or anyone, really) is reprehensible, but we simply disagree on how it should be properly addressed. As I see it, the discussion revolves around a superficial whitewashing (e.g. regulation of activity via government force), or at a far more more fundamental level (e.g. through the application of the law of cause & effect, and the encouragement of wisdom and knowledge).

We can't legislate and force the ethics & morality of any particular religious group - it will slowly creep to encompass all areas of human activity, and deprive us of what makes us human: the freedom & ability to make personal, informed choices. The best we can do is to encourage and effect personal change, especially through personal example, cause & effect, and wisdom and knowledge.

 

[Caliban]

My agreement with him is less pertinent than his divergent thinking, which is precisely my point. Once you step outside the Christian-vs.-secular dichotomy, alot of possibilities open up.

I guess I don't understand your point. What is a Christian vs secular dichotomy. Is is similar the theism vs. atheism?

 

[Caliban]

If a business owner decides to turn me away because of my skin color, I wouldn't want to shop at his store & enrich him in the first place.

I agree that such behavior from a business owner (or anyone, really) is reprehensible, but we simply disagree on how it should be properly addressed. As I see it, the discussion revolves around a superficial whitewashing (e.g. regulation of activity via government force), or at a far more more fundamental level (e.g. through the application of the law of cause & effect, and the encouragement of wisdom and knowledge).

We can't legislate and force the ethics & morality of any particular religious group - it will slowly creep to encompass all areas of human activity, and deprive us of what makes us human: the freedom & ability to make personal, informed choices. The best we can do is to encourage and effect personal change, especially through personal example, cause & effect, and wisdom and knowledge.

I strongly disagree. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is in place because what you are suggesting did not work.

 

[Speedwell]

If a business owner decides to turn me away because of my skin color, I wouldn't want to shop at his store & enrich him in the first place.

I agree that such behavior from a business owner (or anyone, really) is reprehensible, but we simply disagree on how it should be properly addressed. As I see it, the discussion revolves around a superficial whitewashing (e.g. regulation of activity via government force), or at a far more more fundamental level (e.g. through the application of the law of cause & effect, and the encouragement of wisdom and knowledge).

That might work in a free market, but not all businesses operate in a free market. I don't care if the guy running the store down at the corner hates my race or not. All I want from him is to sell me the goods in a civil manner.

 

[Caliban]

That might work in a free market, but not all businesses operate in a free market. I don't care if the guy running the store down at the corner hates my race or not. All I want from him is to sell me the goods in a civil manner.

my point was that the Civil Rights Act is a good thing because it ensures that racists engaged in serving the public must not discriminate. They can have all the little racist and underdeveloped thoughts they want floating around in their head; but they cannot act on them when engaged in business.

 

[ZNP]

I would defend against the charge that this poll is simplistic. It presents a binary choice and it's a binary issue. If there is ever a time when religion should inform law, then the answer would be yes. There is no middle ground. It is a good example of the excluded middle.

The Bible definition of religion is to care for widows and orphans in their affliction and to be free of the world's corruption.

Anyone who thinks we need to deal with corruption in government, that is a religious belief. Anyone who thinks we need to have social policies that help the poor, that is a religious belief. If you don't think we should, that also is a religious belief.

Anyone who voted that these beliefs should not inform your policies is clueless about what religion is.