The slippery slope of secular humanism continues to become even more so all around the world. We are quickly moving beyond a mere degradation of social virtues to outright hostility against religion and potential criminalization of adherents who practice their faith in their daily lives.
In recent years we have seen the Dutch government change its laws to allow euthanasia, gay marriage, infanticide of imperfect children, and most recently, the sanctioning of gay polygamous unions.
Gay marriage as become a reality in Canada and Massachusetts. For years our own government has flirted with passage of so called “hate crimes” legislation that essentially criminalizes individual thoughts by way of adding extra penalties if bias, hatred, or intolerance are perceived in the commission of a crime.
And now the British government is proposing a sweeping new legal code that would forbid discrimination against homosexuals when in the market for “goods and services.” As we know from our own experience in this country with the broad interpretation of our Constitution’s language regarding “interstate commerce,” it’s no leap of logic to deduce that “goods and services” will soon encompass just about any human interaction involving an exchange of money. Its effect will be that of forcing people of faith, be it Christian, Jew or Muslim -– pretty much everyone except secular humanists -– to act contrary to their religious beliefs in the conduct of their everyday lives or else become a criminal.
For example, religious schools would commit a crime by not allowing gay students or teachers. Churches that occasionally rent our their facilities for community events would violate the law by not allowing gays the same access – perhaps even to hold same-sex “marriage” services. Religious newspapers would violate the law if they refuse to run advertisements for gay lobbying groups. A Christian-owned ad agency would be unable to refuse to do work for a campaign promoting gay marriage.
In short, the active practice of one’s faith in everyday life would no longer be legal.
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 its faith.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Arch Conservative
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!
2 - JP
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.
3 - Arch Conservative
"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.
4 - Baronius
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.
5 - Mohjho
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.
6 - Arch Conservative
"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
7 - Gary Sargent
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.
8 - Josh
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.
9 - Nancy
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.
10 - Arch Conservative
"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?
11 - zingzing
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.
12 - Arch Conservative
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?
13 - zingzing
"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.
14 - Arch Conservative
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
15 - zingzing
[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.
16 - Arch Conservative
"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!
17 - zingzing
"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.
18 - troll
(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)
19 - zingzing
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.
20 - zingzing
hey editors, you missed the "ya dumbass"s in there. no more slapnuts? i had grown fond of being called slapnuts... ahh, well...
21 - troll
understood - just suggesting you reverse who gets the caps
22 - zingzing
i would if i could, but i am not able...
23 - Baronius
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.
24 - Joey
"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.
25 - JR
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"?