What a breath of frech air you are Drew. If you was a broad I'd kiss you!

I especially appreciate that you, like myself would like to inform all of secular commandos that the first amendment also says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The secular commandos seem to forget that. I call that phenomena "selective interpretation." They like to cherry pick snippets of the constitution to advance thier own beliefs at the rights of others.

I am surprised people have faith have taken the abuse for so long. I cannot envision an America in which the law would tell churches that practice the Christian faith that they must conduct and celebrate gay marriage, tell Catholic hospitals that they must perform abortions, but sadly this is where we seem to be headed.


Secularist, atheist facist, commando, warriors will not be happy until there is a complete abscence of all religion in our society and everyone is forced to if not share thier beliefs, be constrained by them. It is not good enough that people be allowed to practice thier religion without forcing it on others........no the only acceptable solution is to kill god once and for all.

So what are we to do Drew? Succumb to the secularist, atheist facist, commando, warriors and let them kill god? Or shall we fight back? Shall we tell the ACLU to go fuck themselves every time they try to stifle the religious expression of an american citizen through their perverted purposeful misinterpretation of the first amendment. To tell every secularist, atheist facist, commando, warrior that tells us we may not express our religion because it offends them....... too bad deal with it jerkoff!

Gos is already dead in most of Europe. Are we going to let that happen here too?

I sure as hell hope not!


You are pretty much dead on in everything you say in your post Drew. Keep up the good work and never let the secularist, atheist facist, commando, warriors get away with it!

Drew, I have to take issue with one assumption you make here--that is, you begin by defending against "outright hostility against religion and potential criminalization of adherents who practice their faith in their daily lives." I'm with you so far, but then you bring in examples such as "euthanasia, gay marriage, infanticide of imperfect children, and most recently, the sanctioning of gay polygamous unions."

Infanticide is one thing, euthanasia and gay marriage are others. Euthanasia is by definition instigated by the person whose life is ending, while infanticide is instigated by another. Gay marriage is not life-ending to anyone, so it's a different type of morality.

Infanticide is not even worth discussing, that should be illegal in all ethical, moral and religious belief systems. Euthanasia is above all, to many, a question of a man's inherent right to liberty--who am I to say that another person is NOT in so much pain that they'd be better off ending it? Some religions view this act as sinful; however, as a society of laws and of liberty, that should be up to the individual.

The problem as I see it is that both secularists and the religious agree on those issues where an action directly harms another; where the act does not--such as gay marriage or euthanasia--is the gray area. At that point, legislation of these areas borders on legislating personal choice, which conservatives claim to champion. This is where the minority, in this case secularists, need protection from the majority.

Further from the harming another person realm is gay marriage, which to conservatives threatens an institution. Our nation is a nation of individuals; one person's adherence to a religion that denies marriage rights to some does not trump others' adherence or non adherence to another belief system--when it doesn't directly harm another person. That's the price of liberty.

I do sense that many secularists believe religious belief and daily life should be separate; true people of faith live their faith every minute. THey can choose to participate or not in things they do not believe in; however, they are unable to deny others' rights in an open and free society.

"Infanticide is not even worth discussing, that should be illegal in all ethical, moral and religious belief systems."

It's legal in America only it's called abortion.

I have one quibble with Drew's article. If he's in the US, he should know that we have plenty of hate crime laws on the books, at the federal and state levels. Now, I'm the last guy to support gay rights on these boards, but I have no problem with hate crime legislation. There are many comparable laws, for example the way state of mind is taken into account during sentencing. Similarly, state of mind is an implicit part of any "attempt" laws: assault with attempt to kill, possession with intent to distribute, et cetera. So hate crime laws don't break any new ground in analyzing the criminal's thinking.

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion to those of use who refuse to allow any groups religious dogma to use the laws of this country to compel us to act in opposition to our conscience.

More and more people refuse to allow magic, superstition, bigotry and ignorance to dominate our life. Reality is our truth, justice is our faith.

"Freedom of religion is freedom from religion to those of use who refuse to allow any groups religious dogma to use the laws of this country to compel us to act in opposition to our conscience.

More and more people refuse to allow magic, superstition, bigotry and ignorance to dominate our life. Reality is our truth, justice is our faith"


Let's all pat Mohjo on the back for overcoming the magic, superstition and ignorance that over most citizens of this nation practice. He is such an enlightened marvel. Lert's all gaze in awe.

Maybe when you're done feeling superior Mohjo you can actually come back down to planet earth with the rest of us and deal with the situation at hand.

As long as the state is not endorsing a particular religion, which in this nation it does not, individual citizens have the right to express their religion, whatever it mey be , and if you are offeded by this it is too fucking bad. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion in the sense that all people of faith must keep thier mouths shut in your presence or in the prsence of any other Secularist, atheist facist, commando, warrior.

The last time I checked Congress has not made any laws based on the tenets of any religion. But citizens do have the right to consider thier religious convictions in choosing who they will vote for. If you do not like this it is also too damn bad.


Why is it unacceptable for religious people to use the laws to shape society to conform to their value system but it is acceptable for secularist, atheist, facist, commando, warriors, who most definitely have their own unique value system to do so?


It also happene that

The solution to the problem of religious freedoms is so simple. You are free to practice your religious beliefs as you so choose...however, they end at my front door. You do not have the right to impress your religious values upon me, just as I don't have the right to try to force mine on you, in return.

Reality is our truth, justice is our faith

This got a legitimate laugh. I'm sure most schizophrenics believe they live in reality too.

Gary, the nature of laws is that one system of beliefs is enforced over another. We can both agree that an "anything goes" policy would be the only way to avoid this. I bet we can also agree that this style is just irrational.

Amazing how religionistas are always the first and loudest to squeal when they perceive (rightly or wrongly) their rights being infringed, but are utterly indifferent when it comes to them infringing on others. No wonder organized religion has such a bad rep.

"Gary, the nature of laws is that one system of beliefs is enforced over another."

To quote meatloaf Josh, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Both laws and ehtics are man made concepts. Organized religion and organized secularism are also both man made concepts. Where else is society to get the basis for establishing law than thse man made concepts wether it be secularism or religion. To say that we may not use religion in part to create our laws but we may use secualrism in part to do so is hypocritical.

In a fair and just society the views of all must be taken into consideration and a consensus agreed upon by the majority as to what laws shall be.

What rights of other have "religionists" infringed upon Nancy? Could you be a little less vague?

you know exactly what she is talking about bing. and you know you know it.

"To say that we may not use religion in part to create our laws but we may use secualrism in part to do so is hypocritical."

how? where else do we get anything from? something is either religious or secular. there is no other way. if we cannot use religion as a basis for our laws, then laws have to have secular origins. pretty simple. if you can find some truth that is a)useful, and b)consistent with all religions, including animal and sun-god worship, and those that worship lima beans (oh... that's the christians...), then fucking do it.

if not, secularism is all we have. secularism does not enforce any particular belief system. it means of or relating to the worldly or temporal or not overtly or specifically religious. relating to the world. reality. not any of your ghost worship.

in a fair and just society, the majority cannot push their will upon the minority. we've seen where that goes. don't forget it.

secularism does not enforce any particular belief system.

sure it does...... secularism itself is a belief system , one that relegates all aspects of religion in a society to the dustbin.........

and it is hypcritical to say you cannot consider any tenets of faith (even one praciced by a large majority of the population) to formulate law but you can use secularism (the belief system that states only ideas that have no religious associations at all in the slightest may be used to formulate law) to create law


I know it's all the rage for people liek you to scream "the majority cannot push their will upon the minority."

so i guess that logic applies to everything zing?

every group that has a desire to do something that flys in the face of society at large should be allowed to do so?

is that what you're saying? and if not why not? who gets to make the distinction as to which minority group are entitled to have "rights" to do as they wish and which groups don't? and what basis is used to make this distinction?

"what basis is used to make this distinction?" if it harms another person, or lessens their freedoms in any significant, personal way.

secularism ignores religion as a valid viewpoint in the lawmaking process. that's the best way to do something in america because there are a lot of different religions floating around here. we are a secular state. if we were a majority islamic, would you want islamic law governing you? no, you wouldn't. you can't make a law that says this religion is more important than that religion. therefore, you can't use christianity in the process of making laws.

so, it's no hypocrisy, it's protection.

minorities have all the rights you do. none of us want someone else's religion trampling on our basic rights. you can run your house like a monastary for all i care, but you try to make mine into one and you are crossing the line.

you didn't answer my question you just recycled your previous posts [Edited]

let me ask another way then......... secularists are on group in america.........christians are another group.......... there are for more christians than secularists........ so what you're basically saying is that christians aren't allowed to bring any of thier beliefs into the lawmaking/political arena but secularists are?

you keep droning on about minority rights........... there's no such thing as minority rights if society at large doesn't recognize them.... why can't you understand that? it seems as if the only thing you will accept is when people who agree with you say there is a certain minority group that has rights and you and your side define those rights and no one else in american society is allowed to have a say........

you don't want tyranny of the majority you want tyranny of the minority

[Edited] bing--

secularists don't want place one faith-based belief above another. everyone can agree with secular ideas. secularism does not espouse any particular belief, it just means that it is not religion based. it is a common ground that people of all religions can agree on, nothing more. of course, certain secular ideas are easier for each faith-based group to entertain.

anything that is one religion-specific--ie-it only pertains to christianity, but leaves juddaism, islam, buddhism, hindus, etc out in the cold--is not kosher in the united states. can't do it. one religion trampling on the rights of another is not acceptable.

"there's no such thing as minority rights if society at large doesn't recognize them.... why can't you understand that?"

because it's not true. everyone has certain rights, whether or not you and a whole lot of other people believe they should. they are called human rights, civil rights, etc. everyone has them. you can't take them away. i don't give a flying fuck what you say, the nearest gay devil worshiping one-legged hair-brained immigrant green-skinned non-english-speaking dog-eating disco-dancer has the same rights you do, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

i (nor the left, nor liberals, nor any other group you want to put me in) don't define these rights, the mother-fuckin constitution does. ever heard of it?

and there is no such thing as the tyranny of the minority. minority rights do not affect you one bit. they do not take anything away from you. the tyranny of the majority denies basic rights to minorities. it is not true the other way around.

duh.

"everyone can agree with secular ideas" "it is a common ground that people of all religions can agree on"

they can? you speak for evryone in america now?

well here's my view of secularism.... SECULARISM SUCKS!.... and i'm willing to bet there are more than few people in america that agree with me

secularism does espouse a particular belief....that belief being that religious ideas/values have absolutely no place in society

secularism is what tells the valedictorian of the graduating high school class that he/she may not make any remarks referring to religion in his or her speech about HIS OR HER LIFE at graduation

secularism is what tells the employee that he may not wear anything inconspicuos but still visible that reflects his religion....

secularism as drew pointed out is on it's way to telling privately owned catholic hospitals that they must perform abortions

"everyone has certain rights, whether or not you and a whole lot of other people believe they should."

they do? who defines these rights that evryone has? do i have the right to marry my first cousin if i want to zing? can i just say that i have the right to do anything i want and expect people to acknowledge that right or does society have the right to say to me ... no you dont have that right [Edited]

yes i have hear of the constitution i think theres something in there that says congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion..........

did you skip that part [Edited]? yes there is such a thing as tyranny of the minority..........if a minority moves into a nation and demands that the people already living there subjugate thier own culture to cater to the culture of the new people and uses threats if they don't get their way.........that is tyranny of the minority............

duh!

"everyone can agree with secular ideas" "it is a common ground that people of all religions can agree on"

they can? you speak for evryone in america now?

SORRY TO YELL, BUT MUST DIFFERENTIATE.

NOPE, I DON'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE IN AMERICA, BUT THAT'S WHAT A SECULAR BELIEF IS. A SECULAR IDEA IS SOMETHING THAT PATENETLY DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY RELIGION OVER ANOTHER. THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

well here's my view of secularism.... SECULARISM SUCKS!.... and i'm willing to bet there are more than few people in america that agree with me

CONGRATS. THAT'S FANTASTIC. I'M SURE A LOT OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE DON'T LIKE CERTAIN PARTS OF IT. BUT SO WHAT? YOU'LL LOVE IT WHEN IT PROTECTS YOU FROM ANOTHER RELIGION'S BELIEFS AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR OWN.

secularism does espouse a particular belief....that belief being that religious ideas/values have absolutely no place in society

NOPE, JUST LAWS.

secularism is what tells the valedictorian of the graduating high school class that he/she may not make any remarks referring to religion in his or her speech about HIS OR HER LIFE at graduation

DOESN'T HAPPEN. ANYONE CAN SAY ANYTHING THEY LIKE. HAPPENED AT MY GRADUATION.

secularism is what tells the employee that he may not wear anything inconspicuos but still visible that reflects his religion....

MMHMM. NOPE. DOESN'T HAPPEN EITHER. MAYBE AT GOVERNMENT JOBS. BUT WHY DOES ONE OF MY CO-WORKERS WEAR A CROSS AND ONE OF MY OTHER CO-WORKERS HAVE A STATUE OF SOME HINDU GOD OR ANOTHER IN HIS OFFICE? BECAUSE THEY CAN, THAT'S WHY.

SECULARISM PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE TO DISPLAY THEIR RELIGIOUS IDEAS, BUT DOES NOT DO SO FROM THE POV OF ONE RELIGION IN PARTICULAR.

secularism as drew pointed out is on it's way to telling privately owned catholic hospitals that they must perform abortions

DOES THAT HAPPEN? MAYBE IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. BUT I DOUBT THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD PICK THE CATHOLIC HOSPITAL AS THEIR FIRST PLACE FOR SUCH A THING.

"everyone has certain rights, whether or not you and a whole lot of other people believe they should."

they do? who defines these rights that evryone has? do i have the right to marry my first cousin if i want to zing? can i just say that i have the right to do anything i want and expect people to acknowledge that right or does society have the right to say to me ... no you dont have that right now shut the fuck up ya dumbass

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING, "YA DUMBASS." WHAT DOES "CERTAIN" MEAN TO YOU? THAT LITTLE WORD IS USUALLY FOLLOWED UP BY "INALIENABLE." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? OH YEAH, SOMETHING LIKE "INCAPABLE OF BEING SURRENDERED OR DENIED." SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NO, YOU CAN'T MARRY YOUR COUSIN. IT'S NOT A RIGHT THAT ANYONE HAS. BUT EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO EQUALITY. THEREFORE....

yes i have hear of the constitution i think theres something in there that says congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion..........

BUT DOES IT ADD "AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL OTHERS?" NOPE. OR DOES IT SAY "THE FREE EXERCISE OF YOUR RELIGION?" NOPE. IT SAYS RELIGION. SO, IF A LAW IS DESIGNED TO MAKE YOUR RELIGION MORE IMPORTANT THAN SOMEONE ELSE'S, IT ABRIDGES THE RIGHTS OF THAT OTHER RELIGION, AND THEREFORE--THEREFORE!--THAT LAW CANNOT BE MADE. SIMPLE?

did you skip that part [Edited]?

DID YOU NOT THINK IT THROUGH [Edited]?

yes there is such a thing as tyranny of the minority..........if a minority moves into a nation and demands that the people already living there subjugate thier own culture to cater to the culture of the new people and uses threats if they don't get their way.........that is tyranny of the minority............

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THAT IS THE CORRECT THING TO DO. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. YOU MAY THINK THAT YOU ARE BEING SUBJUGATED, BUT YOU AREN'T. HOW DOES A SIGN SAYING "EL BANO" UNDERNEATH "RESTROOM" REALLY HURT YOU? SOME MEXICAN JUST WANTS TO KNOW WHERE TO PEE. LET HIM PEE.

THE TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY MAY ANNOY YOU, BUT IT DOES NOT INFRINGE UPON ONE DAMN RIGHT YOU CAN CLAIM.

duh!

DER.

(zing - note for the future...by leaving bing's comments in 'reasonable' small type and giving your responses in 'loony' all caps makes you look like the unreasonable one)

it's just to differentiate. did you see the note? said, sorry for yelling, just had to differentiate. i think the peeing mexican image makes me look looney anyway. maybe i am looney. ever think of that? i'm sure you have.

that said, read things before you mouth off. loon.

hey editors, you missed the "ya dumbass"s in there. no more slapnuts? i had grown fond of being called slapnuts... ahh, well...

understood - just suggesting you reverse who gets the caps

i would if i could, but i am not able...

Zing, you're completely wrong.

There is no single secular code, no agreement on rights within a secular society, any more than there is a single religious code. Tell me what rights the secular states of Cuba and the United States agree upon. And that's only taking about human rights. There is no agreement at all on civil rights, by definition.

The US solved the question of human rights by starting its founding document with an assertion about the Creator. As JP notes, Holland bases its euthenasia law on a different vision of secular society. China imprisons people for challenging the state, because the Chinese government believes that a strong state is the center of a good secular society. That's another vision.

Tell the blacks of South Africa that the minority cannot be tyrannical. Or the blacks of Tennessee, the Russian serfs, or anyone in England whose last name wasn't Hanover. Of course the minority can have a tyranny, if they are favored disproportionately by the law. I think that's the heart of Drew's argument, that secularists' rights are protected in a way that religious people's aren't.

"Amazing how religionistas are always the first and loudest to squeal when they perceive (rightly or wrongly) their rights being infringed, but are utterly indifferent when it comes to them infringing on others." -- Nancy

Nancy.... I would put it more like...

Everyone needs a little cheese with that whine.
GoodGawdAlmighty!

I could never understand why athesists, secular humanist et al... swear. They don't believe in God, but will use the terminology in everyday foul discourse. It's wierd. Would Freud say that deep down in the recesses of their conscience lay the foundations of faith? Perhaps not, but Darwin might.

Baronius: The US solved the question of human rights by starting its founding document with an assertion about the Creator.

Then:

Tell the blacks of South Africa that the minority cannot be tyrannical. Or the blacks of Tennessee...

Wait a minute... Isn't Tennessee in the U.S.? Weren't those blacks subject to some form of tyranny for something like 200 years after that "assertion about a Creator"?

can a tyranny of the minority exist in the united states? of course it can.

does it? no.

does equal rights for everyone, not dependant on race, creed, sexual orientation, etc create a tyranny of the minority? no. it creates equality.

i'm only talking about the united states. you either have a religious government or a secular government. the two don't mix. can't. it's against their nature. if we have a one-religion-specific (like christian) government, it "abridges the free exercise" of another religion. and that's against the constitution.

and that's my point. can you really argue with that?

oh yes, and a non-specific-religion government (i'm making up terms left and right) does not infringe upon any religions right to free exercise, as it allows for the free exercise of ALL religions. which, of course, is the fucking idea.

zing you went from saying that there is no such thing as tyranny of the minority to positing wether or not it actuall exists in america today

i am not talking about having a state sponsored religion ..........

let me just put it this way............ what i am talking about is where you have different individuals making the law.....guy number one says i am a christian and these are some of my beliefs and based on them i think such and such..........guy number two says well i am a secularist and these are my beliefs and i think such and such..........guy number three says well i am a jew and these are my beliefs and i believe such and such.............and then they all give each other's different views serious consideration and make a sincere attempt at forming a law that satifisifies all of thier beliefs and then if the american voting public feels that any of these guys does not represent thier values they will not vote for him..........

what is wrong with that?

one last thing............i do realize that there are some fundamentalist christians who feel the need to tell others they're going to hell and what not but let me make it clear that that is not me.....it doesn't really bother me if my neighbor is an atheist and i will not lecture him......but for the life of me..... aside from gay marriage i don't see why people would have such a difficult time with christian ideas being brought to the legislative table.............

after all who can deny that the ten commandments have had a deep impact on our culture and legal system?

bing-right, there is no such thing as a tyranny of the minority. it is not happening here. it does not exist as such. giving people equality will not make it happen.

if your elected official makes it illegal to hold an islamic marriage ceremony in downtown buttfuck, alabama, then there is something wrong. your religious beliefs can get you into office, but no law can be made using those religious beliefs in its language. and no law can be made that decreases the right of any religion. this thing works both ways. it protects you from others and others from you. it's the only way for things to work. you get that, yeah?

people have a hard time with "christian ideas being brought to the legislative table" when they aren't christian. would you have a problem if an islamic representative decided to make it illegal for women to attend sporting matches? yep. probably so.

the parts of the ten commandments that made it into us law are completely secular ideas that everyone can agree on. there is no law against disrespecting your parents. or worshiping only the christian god. or not working on sunday. or pagan idols or boiling goats in the milk of their mother or any of that other nonsense.

oh my stars and garters, i leave yas alone fer a day or so, and look what pops up...

i'm going to leave the ongoing conversations alopne for the nonce..and just deal with some of the misconceptions, factual errors, flawed logic, and general silliness of the original Article...

such as...in one paragraph the OP talks about the possible British law that woudl legislate against discrimnination surrounding goods and services...fair enough...bu tthen goes on to cite the US's interstate commerce clause as being applied to a British law? non-sequitor...but let's go with it for a second, here in America as long as it si not an "essential" service as defined by the State, nor does it require a state license..then Management can always refuse service...that's the law...

now, where this is implied as to be going is obviously things like pharmacists who don't want to dispense certani drugs or items from a legal presciption....note what i said earlier about licensed matters...if siad pharmacist believe so devoutly that such a thing is wrong, then he shoudl stand by his Belief and quit being a state licensed pharmacist...that secular license that allows him to practice his trade makes who gets dispensed what up to the DOCTOR...also licensed, NOT the pharmacist

this goes also into the "essential" bits here...one cannot refuse someone into the emergency room of a hospital...even a religiously owned and operated one...( in the latter case, if they do..they loose state funding and licensing)

and there, kiddies..there you see why some are screaming "persecution" so loudly...

the Poster sez...
*he implications don't stop there. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback recently pointed out that, "...in states with same-sex marriage, religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, etc. will be forced to choose between violating their own deeply held beliefs and giving up government contracts, tax-exempt status, or even being denied the right to operate at all."*

what we are talking about here is money...and NOT money in the church itself, but in some churches various incorporated business interests...read that again, and then remember this Administration wants to pout billions into so-called "faith based initiatives"....meaning those self same church owned businesses...

does anyone else remember the Story about a rabbi, a temple, and some moneylenders?

Excelsior?

This post appears to be the real answer to Chris Evans post about gay marriage. Much of Drew's fire seems aimed at gay people and those who support them in your country.

Again, I raise the proposal of getting the government out of the marriage business, one that Bing seemed to agree to out of Steve S's mouth at that article on Gay marriage.

A note here. I like the secular élite in Israel as much as you like the "secular humanists" in your country. But American concepts of how to separate religion from state are very different from the ideas prevalent here and in Lebanon.

does anyone else remember the Story about a rabbi, a temple, and some moneylenders?

umm is that the one with raquel welch in the lifeboat and the punchline is "i said bouys"?

A note here. I like the secular élite in Israel as much as you like the "secular humanists" in your country. But American concepts of how to separate religion from state are very different from the ideas prevalent here and in Lebanon."

Different how Ruvy? I am not familiar with Jewish culture and would ike to hear your take on the differences between the american and israeli approaches to separating church and state.

that one is relatively easy just from reading Ruvy's stuff

he believes that Isreal should be a theocracy, with a recognized Sanhedrin to adjucate matters in accordance with the Torah and other scriptures...there's more, but that's the gist from my readings of his work

same as the Taliban...but Jewish, with bagels...

objects in mirror are closer than they appear

Excelsior?

In essence what it boils down to is this. In Israel, there is no such thing as civil marriage. Certain aspects of life known as "personal status" matters are under the control of religious officials; marriage, divorce, inheritance, burial, etc. The state stays out of these things for the most part, BUT the state pays the salaries of many of the rabbis, priests and kadis in the country.

This is not a "Jewish" idea, by the way, it is the way the Ottoman Empire ran things before it fell, and the British did not really change things too much.

Bear in mind that there is no written constitution in Israel. So there is no "bill of rights" that stands above the law either.

oh yes..and ArchBing...nice quip..but you don't address the Point...the only conflict i see with "religion" right now is when they enter the secular arena of business

no one is shutting down churches, no one is forcing Believers to walk into a fire (see the
Catholic Church and the Cathars in France), or holding secular Inquisitions and forcing folks to confess that they are atheists...

so...how is an Individuals right to practice their Faith being impinged, infringed, or harmed?

their sensibilities may be offended, but no one is forcing them to..say....have an abortion, or marry someone of the same sex... so how are they harmed by the people who chose to do so themselves in excercise of their own personal Liberty?

i AM genuinely curious as to your answer...

Excelsior?

Gonzo,

I interpreted Bing's question as a request for a desciption of what is, not a prescription of what I think ought to be.

understood Ruvy..my only point was that your own perceptions of what IS are definately colored by your honest Belief in what you think shoudl Be...

a crucial distinction, IMO

Excelsior?

umm i have cited numerous examples


first of all there's the whole thing where the aclu sues every time a high school student mentions jesus..... or am i imagining this gonzo?

then there's the state of massachusetts telling the catholic charities there that they must allow homosexuals to adopt children or thier adoption status will be revoked

there are many more examples of how hypersensitive and hostile to anything religious in public the left has come to be but it's dinner time and I don't feel like listing them all

I do believe that, if it were possible for some people to actively practice their faith and mind their own business at the same time, there wouldn't be a problem. If two people fall in love and want to get married, that's their business. If a couple or single woman may decide, for their own reasons, to get an abortion... again, that's their business. But, no. Here come the busybodies, hell bent on injecting misery into the lives of others. Here's a couple of things to consider. Without your precious undergod, we could have one nation indivisible. Also, there is a possibility that somewhere in the process of spending a lifetime with you, the prospect of spending an eternity with you can become quite distasteful; simply because of your oft demonstrated inability to mind your own business.

then there's the state of massachusetts telling the catholic charities there that they must allow homosexuals to adopt children or thier adoption status will be revoked

Well, I don't believe Catholic Charities should be forced to allow hopmosexual adoptions. That being said, I DO believe that no state funding of any kind should be given to them as a result of any discriminatory policies. There are thousands of unwanted gay teens out there who would do well to be nurtured in a gay home. But, noooooooooooo. The Baptists and their kind would rather place electrodes on their penises and shock them into heterosexuality. Choices, my ass.

Gonzo, re Comment #38. In this instance, you are getting straight reportage with no editorial comment.

It seems the author's idea of utopia would be a christian theocracy. It has been tried already, those where known as the dark ages and not just because Thomas Edison hadn't invented the lightbulb yet.

The author seems to have a general dislike for gay people. Not only does he think that gay people don't deserve equality, he likley (and i admit this is an assumption) thinks that they will go for eternal torment..so in my opinion any good person who held that belief would want to treat them well while they are here, he should want to offer them extra rights.
Does he have no faith that the god he worships has the power to stop things he didn't want happening here on earth and eternally torment whoever he pleases? Is eternal torment not enough for him? Would he be one of the ones in heaven asking god to crank up the furnace?

No one i know is advocating taking rights away from christians, what they are advocating is to stop allowing christians to take away everyone elses.

"Whoever claims any right that he is unwilling to accord to his fellow-men is dishonest and infamous." - Col. Robert G. Ingersoll

same as the Taliban...but Jewish, with bagels...


see now that was funny and I bet even ruvy thought so too

i'm sure gonzo had no antisemitic intent at all behind the comment but why do there have to be people out there who would jump all over this as racist..........

no ome om BC has done so but maybe that's just because I or tony g or nalle didn't say it but gonzo did


I bet if i had said it christopher rose would have already threatened to ban me by now



by the way gonzo........ shouldn't it be bagels with lox?

Arch, you've identified the issue here: "and then they all give each other's different views serious consideration and make a sincere attempt at forming a law that satifisifies all of thier beliefs and then if the american voting public feels that any of these guys does not represent thier values they will not vote for him..........what is wrong with that?"

I read this answered well here: "You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions." Just because one judge wants to post the 10 Commandments in the courthouse and one doesn't, and the first judge wins the election, does not mean posting the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is constitutional. That's where the concept of protection from the majority comes in.

Archie, stop bleating and get over yourself will you? You've been told about a million times now that it is ad hominem attacks that aren't allowed.

I haven't threatened you at all, I just told you what I would do if you refused to stop insulting people - and I will if you don't knock it off...

A spurious and tendentious interpretation: "In other words, it provides for freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion."

Freedom of religion of course includes freedom not to believe. And freedom to define the 'pursuit of happiness' according to your own lights.

As the world tips into theocracy everywhere we look, that is becoming the rarest freedom of all. And to live in a State that doesn't impose it's beliefs on you - which includes taxing you to support 'faithist' (pernicious neologism) enthusiasms.

What if one is irreligious AND anti-secular humanist? I, for example, am not any kind of humanist: in fact, I'm rather misanthropic. What label then applies? Secular Misanthrope? But there ARE some people I like, even love, though few in number. So I think I'm anti-secular Misanthrope, too.

Oh worry worry worry. What cubbyhole will you religionists force me into?

From the article:
"Here in the United States, the move by Massachusetts' Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage without so much as a vote by that state's legislature, much less its citizens, has resulted in making the adoption agency practices of the Catholic Church illegal. That being the case, the Church was forced to end providing such services altogether rather than compromise their faith."

So the Catholic church is willing to leave orphans in the cold in order to protest a law that gives equal rights to homosexuals.
Drew, Arch/Bing, and the people on their side of this arguement see that as a perfectly reasonable response.
Just to clarify who is doing what and why.

The upholding of principles -- be they religious or secular in nature -- often requires sacrifices.

When principled people are "forced to choose between violating their own deeply held beliefs and giving up government contracts [or] tax-exempt status" they are not being denied the right "to operate at all," they make their choices and live with the consequences, knowing that, in a free country, one cannot have his or her cake and eat it, too.

If the religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, etc. in states that recognize same-sex marriage must give up their government contracts or tax-exempt status in order to uphold their religious principles, then so be it.

The First Amendment does not recognize some "right" to "have it all." A choice must be made to either sacrifice the government money (in the form of contracts and tax exemptions) or the principles, because the right that is protected by the First Amendment is the right to choose between the money and one's principles, not some entitlement to both.

Ah yes, the religionists cry out about their rights being impinged upon. It's always the thief who screams loudest about being robbed, the liar about being defamed, the bully about being picked upon.

Let the religionists look back upon their past history and ask themselves why others take a less than glowing view of them. I'm sure the Crusades were a great PR coup for them. And the Inquisition, that lovely campaign to gently convert the unbelievers. How many other covert and overt ploys have been used by them to turn around the pagan secularists. And by the way, pagan is a religionist term for anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

bing: "first of all there's the whole thing where the aclu sues every time a high school student mentions jesus..... or am i imagining this gonzo?"

me: i know you aren't talking to me, but yes, you are imagining this. straight up bullshit.

bing: "then there's the state of massachusetts telling the catholic charities there that they must allow homosexuals to adopt children or thier adoption status will be revoked."

me: as it should be. are those children catholic? did anyone ask them? hrm... what do they want, a home, or a religion?

for ArchBing...

yer confusing the ACLU with governmental policies and Constitutional Rights?

just as a church organization can bring it's issues before a Court, so can anyone else, including the ACLU

i woudl also like to remind you that the ACLU had defended churches from time to time, along with other organizations...some good, some bad..what they do is litigate issues surrounding Rights...no matter who it's for...or has someone like Bob Barr become a raving "godless liberal" in your eyes?

but i digress...

as i stated earlier..where is this "persecution"? how are a church's Rights being harmed? remember, if they enter the secular business arena than the rules of capitalism and secular regulations apply...they don't like it...then stay in church and out of business

Excelsior?

Why don't you persecuted Christians all go to South Carolina and secede from the union and stop bitching?

And btw, when was the last time a Christian was beaten to death in this country just for being Christian?

If I had a nickel for every time the ACLU sued aginst christian rights BIll gates would be my butler.

If I had a nickel for every time they sued for christian rights Id have about 85 cents in nickles.

no you wouldn't.

for ArchBing in #55

show yer math..yer getting called here

/wheet

excessive hyperbole, ad hominem and flat out factual innacuracy in attempting a Metaphor...15 yards, repeat 4th down

Excelsior?

Margaret, should the church decide for the orphans that they'll have to be sacrificed?
Or should the church weigh their commitment to this particular principle against the welfare of children who will not be placed in homes as they wage this battle?
Even if your against gays having the same rights as everyone else, shouldn't your concern for orphans trump your prejudice?

Margaret sez...
*The First Amendment does not recognize some "right" to "have it all." A choice must be made to either sacrifice the government money (in the form of contracts and tax exemptions) or the principles, because the right that is protected by the First Amendment is the right to choose between the money and one's principles, not some entitlement to both.*

Quoted for Truth

nuff said?

ahem

Excelsior?

Until about 50 years ago, Christianity enjoyed a de facto privileged status as our nation's unofficial "default" religion.

As we have become more enlightened about our diversity, that privilege has been in the process of being revoked over the last 50 years.

Just as pale-skinned Protestant males of Anglo-Saxon ancestry have learned to accept in the wake of the emancipation of slaves, the recognition of women's suffrage, and desegregation, equality is not a form of persecution or oppression in America -- even if said equality is a step down rather than a step up.

'in God we trust'
lol

"novus ordo seclorum"

right back at ya!

Excelsior?

ss asks, "Should the church decide for the orphans that they'll have to be sacrificed Or should the church weigh their commitment to this particular principle against the welfare of children who will not be placed in homes as they wage this battle?"

That is up to a given church's leaders when they make such decisions, whether they are based upon the tenets of their faith, their temporal need for funding or a pragmatic combination of both.

It is not up to me -- or anybody else outside of such organizations, for that matter -- to dictate what another's principles should or should not be.

I merely point out that whatever one's principles may be, that upholding them sometimes requires sacrifice. Principles mean nothing if they are cast aside the moment they become inconvenient.

ss asks, "Even if your against gays having the same rights as everyone else, shouldn't your concern for orphans trump your prejudice?"

Well, ss, I think so, but it is none of my business what others may choose according to their religious beliefs.

If a faith-based adoption agency elects to forego government contracts or its tax-exempt status (or to close its doors entirely) because its faith-based principles are in contradiction of the states' recognition of same-sex marriage, then the fate of said orphans must be laid squarely upon their consciences.

But let's not worry too much about those orphans as there are plenty of agencies whose principles have more to do with finding good homes for children than they have with asserting anachronistic beliefs with regard to homosexuality.

zing you're right..............

i wasn't giving the aclu thier credit due.......


i'd have about 1.15

But let's not worry too much about those orphans as there are plenty of agencies whose principles have more to do with finding good homes for children than they have with asserting anachronistic beliefs with regard to homosexuality.

Yeah because those are the onyl priorities catholic charities have regarding adoption right margaret........


i'm sure it goes something like this



adopting parent: i want to adopt a kid but i have a little smack problem, i'm unemployed and i just got out of attica

catholic charity: well gee fell are you straight?

adopting parent: I sure am

catholic charity: well sure you can adopt a child then


isn't it more likely that the catholic charities take more into consideration margaret?

I... I ... I feel faint, Tell me I didn't just read that, he... he must've been joking! It's the big one 'Lizbeth; I'm comin for ya honey!

Why don't you persecuted Christians all go to South Carolina and secede from the union and stop bitching?

Because their continued inbreeding would cause them to become extinct.

Yeah because those are the onyl priorities catholic charities have regarding adoption right margaret........

Ah, Catholic Charities. How many of those orphans have been raped, abused and otherwise emotionally destropyed by the priests and nuns at Catholic Charities? Let's talk about those numbers. Or better yet, let's talk about the institutions the Roman Church ran for decades which housed retarded, blind and deaf children. You want to know how many of them were mistreated? Hate to tell you, but the numbers are staggering.

All in the name of Christ. How lame.

Or better yet, let's talk about the institutions the Roman Church ran for decades which housed retarded, blind and deaf children. You want to know how many of them were mistreated? Hate to tell you, but the numbers are staggering.

Who compiled the numbers, Silas? Was any other entity willing to take those kids at the time? Who? Why didn't they?

Clavos, my mother was housed in a Roman Catholic run school for deaf children. She was traumatized beyond words. Only 65 years later has she talked about some of what went on within the walls of that place. The truth is coming out and the sins of the Roman Church are being revealed. Don't talk to me about other entities being willing to take society's rejects. Those children were ripped from their families upon counsel of medical and religious personnel. It was better to hide God's imperfections in those days and that was the "norm". Thank God those days are behind us. That's the lesson we must learn. That which was the norm 50 years ago does not necessarily fit in today's world.

I'm very sorry to hear about your mother's childhood experiences, Silas.

However, with all due respect, anecdotal evidence from one, or even a few, individuals is not proof that, as you put it, "the numbers are staggering" regarding how many children were mistreated in all Catholic institutions years ago.

Further, I suspect that such mistreatment could be found in institutions run by other churches, as well as, and especially, those run by various levels of government.

Throughout history, as we all know, much pain and suffering has been inflicted on human beings in the name of virtually every religion invented by mankind, the Catholic church doesn't have a monopoly on it.

Again, I'm not making light of your mother's suffering. I do think that what she experienced in a Catholic institution could just as likely have happened to her in any other similar institution of the day.

"Criminalizing Faith"?

Is the USA convicting and imprisoning faithists? Or is that just exaggeration and hyperbole?

yu gies r all stoopid.

In all of everyone's passive aggressiveness towards the "right" or "left" lies a basic paranoia and misunderstanding of the aggressiveness of the other side. Aggression is never the answer. Truth is.

nugget sez...
*In all of everyone's passive aggressiveness towards the "right" or "left" lies a basic paranoia and misunderstanding of the aggressiveness of the other side. Aggression is never the answer. Truth is.

Quoted for Truth

if both "gangs" would do more listening and working , and less posturing and campaigning (read: lies and damn lies)...perhaps things could get better day by day...rather than get worse, or at times...stagnate

silly ole me...thinking of solutions rather than ad hominem...

must...check...medication...levels...

Excelsior?

Yes. The sports-drugged American observer has come to think that left vs. right is some kind of a football game, as remote from their lives as giants vs. dodgers. That they themselves are only observers, "fans", with only an ego stake in the outcome. How stupid.

Gonna prove your point, Bliffle: as of this moment,

MIAMI LEADS!!!!

"Let's all pat Mohjo on the back for overcoming the magic, superstition and ignorance that over most citizens of this nation practice. He is such an enlightened marvel. Lert's all gaze in awe."

Blush..Thank you Arch, but I think you got me confused with all you smart guys. I'm just a hard working family man. Appreciate the back pat though, how about a group hug?

/mutter

the smart ones are those will their health and family...well lucky to have them, and smart to hold both close...

/end mutter

Excelsior?

ha!

to #73,

but who really wants solutions?? If there were no missing blonde headed girls, would primetime exist?

The secularist commandos are ta it again.

This time they cut the microphone off while Brittany Mccomb, high school valedictorian was giving her graduaiton speech? Why? Because she mentioned Jesus as an influence in her life..........

To all of you that asked how the rights of religioug people were being infringed upon...........

THAT'S FUCKING HOW!

Not like it hasn't happened before b ut you secualrist commandos on ly see what you want to see.

ok Arch..i'm willing to bite on this one...you have a link to the news story?

or somewhere that has the full text of her speech?

if so, i'm happy to read it, and if she was edited unfairly...i'll be right there Free Speeching it next to you

if, however the circumstance is NOT how you describe it, or the ocntent is different due to something omitted by you or the reporting source...(fake example: "Jesus told me to shoot the gay people"...which shoudl get the plug pulled, yes?)...then we can Dance...

just Asking so we can all know more

Excelsior?

To Bliffle at Comment #74,

I used to belong to the DFL in Minnesota, and every year the paty had caucuses - meetings of party members to discuss issues and elect party officials. The attendance was dismal.

The common view in America that politics is nothing but a spectator sport is part of what is hurting its system from the inside...

ok ArchBing....found it from a local paper...reviewjournal.com

which sez...
*Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.

School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.

But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.*

note here that the school followed procedures set by their own state as well as federal courts...

those school speeches are part of school activities...and even afyter vetting by authorities...some of the mentions of "god" were left alone..it was only the bits they considered "proselytizing"...ie:preaching....that got cut, and she deliberately went against it, whcih she was warned would get her mic cut off

fair enough..and her Right to try the civil disobedience route...but NO excuse for whining about a deliberate stunt when it goes just the way they were told it would

this is ethically exactly the same as that officer who won't serve in Iraq...face the fucking Consequences, and bear Responsibility for yer actions...

oh yeah..and stop whining...

k?

tnx

Excelsior?

Archie: "The secularist commandos are ta it again. "

So the 'secularist' commandos outdid the religionist commandos this time. Not much to choose among here.

All's fair in love and war.

Secular humanists show their love to other people without the need of a supernatural intermediatry.