In this video I talk about some pros and cons of religious accommodation. Here is the link to the video about the Kosherswitch. It isn't supposed to be funny, but it is. • KosherSwitch Launch
That commercial is hilarious. Who are they trying to fool? Reminds me of when Hasidic Jews use a rope (eruv) to demarcate an area that is then officially "indoors" so they can move around more freely on the Sabbath. Might as well have a rebbe ritually bless every satellite in space so the entire network can be seen as an eruv that encapsulates the earth, making the whole world "indoors".
8 ปีที่แล้ว
Are you still working out? Remember my advice; eat a minimum of 5 meals a day, it will work. :) Great video.
Epy, were you inspired to do this video by the Kim Davis story? Whats your opinion on that? For me, she went into the job with good conscience and the state changed the rules on her. Suddenly she was left in a morally very uncomfortable situation. In my state, NC, there is religious accommodation for public servants to exempt themselves from gay marriage associated formalities. Gay marriage is a very, very morally divisive issue (like abortion). There should definitely be accommodation there.
+tabletop581 It's partly inspired by Davis. It does seem to apply. She is treated as a martyr and requests religious accommodation. She thinks an evil action is being done, but seeks to turn a blind eye to it and still get paid. She could easily successfully get religious accommodation. The state would have no problem letting her excuse herself so long as her deputies can do the task for her. The difficult in this particular case is that she objected to letting her deputies do it either. She didn't want any of the forms to have her signature on it (her signature signifying they meet the standards set by the state, not that she personally approves of the union). A county clerks signature is on pretty much all of the forms, which is why she wanted to stop all gay people from getting licenses. In short, the question is not whether or not she can have religious accommodation (she can), but how many steps must be taken to accommodate her position? The question I pose in this video is not "Should the government offer religious accommodation?" but is "Is it moral to accept that offer if you really believe moral evil is being done?".
I don't see any difference. I think the argument is that killing is really bad, but selling condoms is a step lower at just bad. So it's the difference between a major sin and a minor sin.
+Houston Davis Great question. There might not be a real difference. If you view selling condoms as an evil in the world (and not just something prohibited for religious folks to do) then it asking for religious accommodation seems like asking for permission to turn a blind eye to something you see as evil.
Actually, what we learn from the story of The Good Samaritan is that Jews are no damn good and that Samaritans, and gentiles generally, are where it's at. ;) It's a very antisemitic parable that denigrates Jewish culture in favor of the New Covenant. It's literally, "Every kind of Jew walks by a dying man and leaves him to his fate. Then a gentile comes by...." Cartman could have told it!
There is no accommodation for evil things, you just quit, and even complain to the authority, but if it's not illegal, it's just 'evil' for you, YOU quit or declare war, hope you have a fucking good reason or you and your religion will just be crushed for your nonsense. Accommodation are for those things that you are forbidden by your religion, not for other people, then you can let other people accommodate and do it to a limit, I would not bear cost or undue disagreement for YOUR religion.
+moestietabarnak "I would not bear cost or undue disagreement for YOUR religion." In America you wouldn't have a choice. In the same way you can't refuse someone hire someone because they could get pregnant, or because they might get deployed by the military, you literally cannot refuse religious accommodation which does not: 1. Prevent the main aspects of the job from being done. 2. Cause significant and unreasonable cost on the employer.
This video is very useful...I like this video... thanks for sharing with us
That commercial is hilarious. Who are they trying to fool? Reminds me of when Hasidic Jews use a rope (eruv) to demarcate an area that is then officially "indoors" so they can move around more freely on the Sabbath. Might as well have a rebbe ritually bless every satellite in space so the entire network can be seen as an eruv that encapsulates the earth, making the whole world "indoors".
Are you still working out?
Remember my advice; eat a minimum of 5 meals a day, it will work. :)
Great video.
Epy, were you inspired to do this video by the Kim Davis story? Whats your opinion on that?
For me, she went into the job with good conscience and the state changed the rules on her. Suddenly she was left in a morally very uncomfortable situation.
In my state, NC, there is religious accommodation for public servants to exempt themselves from gay marriage associated formalities. Gay marriage is a very, very morally divisive issue (like abortion). There should definitely be accommodation there.
+tabletop581
It's partly inspired by Davis.
It does seem to apply. She is treated as a martyr and requests religious accommodation. She thinks an evil action is being done, but seeks to turn a blind eye to it and still get paid.
She could easily successfully get religious accommodation. The state would have no problem letting her excuse herself so long as her deputies can do the task for her.
The difficult in this particular case is that she objected to letting her deputies do it either. She didn't want any of the forms to have her signature on it (her signature signifying they meet the standards set by the state, not that she personally approves of the union). A county clerks signature is on pretty much all of the forms, which is why she wanted to stop all gay people from getting licenses.
In short, the question is not whether or not she can have religious accommodation (she can), but how many steps must be taken to accommodate her position?
The question I pose in this video is not "Should the government offer religious accommodation?" but is "Is it moral to accept that offer if you really believe moral evil is being done?".
+Epydemic2020 (I deleted my reply by mistake !) :(
I cant be bothered to type all that in again.
Peace.
What is the morally relevant difference between the mafia member and killing scenario and drug store employee and selling condoms scenario?
I don't see any difference. I think the argument is that killing is really bad, but selling condoms is a step lower at just bad. So it's the difference between a major sin and a minor sin.
+Houston Davis
Great question. There might not be a real difference.
If you view selling condoms as an evil in the world (and not just something prohibited for religious folks to do) then it asking for religious accommodation seems like asking for permission to turn a blind eye to something you see as evil.
+Houston Davis for starters: condoms don´t kill anything! they prevent the creation of life.
+aednil
I agree.. Condoms being evil isn't one of my religious beliefs.
aednil Epydemic2020 Is the fact that condoms don't kill people a morally relevant difference to the context of the mafia scenario?
Actually, what we learn from the story of The Good Samaritan is that Jews are no damn good and that Samaritans, and gentiles generally, are where it's at. ;) It's a very antisemitic parable that denigrates Jewish culture in favor of the New Covenant. It's literally, "Every kind of Jew walks by a dying man and leaves him to his fate. Then a gentile comes by...." Cartman could have told it!
There is no accommodation for evil things, you just quit, and even complain to the authority, but if it's not illegal, it's just 'evil' for you, YOU quit or declare war, hope you have a fucking good reason or you and your religion will just be crushed for your nonsense.
Accommodation are for those things that you are forbidden by your religion, not for other people, then you can let other people accommodate and do it to a limit, I would not bear cost or undue disagreement for YOUR religion.
+moestietabarnak
"I would not bear cost or undue disagreement for YOUR religion."
In America you wouldn't have a choice. In the same way you can't refuse someone hire someone because they could get pregnant, or because they might get deployed by the military, you literally cannot refuse religious accommodation which does not:
1. Prevent the main aspects of the job from being done.
2. Cause significant and unreasonable cost on the employer.