Politics and Religion

Why so hostile to religious freedom laws?
marikod 1 Reviews 236 reads
posted

There is a reason why what you call n“discrimination in the name of religious advancement (or whatever they claim, frankly it seems like utter trash to me)”  is “perfectly acceptable by law.”

        It is called the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  What the religious freedom restoration acts do is prevent laws of general applicability from overriding this constitutional guaranty, except where there is a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means are used

        Should Hobby lobby be required to provide contraceptive products to employees per Obamacare, even though the founders’ religion says life starts at conception? Should the Amish be required to keep their children in school, even though their religion requires them to focus on Amish values during their teen years? Should the law deny employment benefits to someone fired for refusing to work on the Sabbath?

        Our Constitution says “no,” and when activist judges started saying “maybe” the legislatures – not the president -  stepped in and attempted to bolster the Free Exercise Clause.

       You may disagree with this as a matter of policy but to call these laws “utter trash” seems a bit harsh.

         Finally, as to Iceland making blasphemy “legal,” my guess is that applies only as to limited criminal laws. In our country, you can still be kicked out of your church for blasphemy, and you can be sentenced to enhanced punishments for “hate crimes.” So the notion that we have complete “freedom of expression” for negative religious utterances is quite misunderstood

An interesting headline in itself, but by far and away the best part of this article, for me, is the following quote:

The Iceland Monitor website said that the Church of Iceland supported the change, and quoted them as saying that "any legislative powers limiting freedom of expression in this way is at variance with modern-day attitudes towards human rights".
Not all religions worldwide are apparently as rigidly stuck in the dark ages as others are. Maybe it's the bias of getting the overwhelming majority of my news regarding religion in the US and the politics thereof from this board, but I can't for one moment imagine a religious leader in the US of any denomination taking the same forward thinking, progressive stance. By all means though, please feel free to point me in the direction of examples; I'm not saying they don't exist, only that I don't know of any, for reasons that I've discussed previously.

GaGambler255 reads

While I applaud the Icelanders for making the first small steps out of the Dark Ages, has it escaped your notice the nowhere in the United States do we have, nor have we ever had "blasphemy laws" in the first place. and our founders considered "freedom of expression" so important it was number one in our Bill of Rights.  

Your precious Euro trash are 250 years behind us backward American hicks it appears.  

Are you really as dumb as some of your posts make you look? Sheesh

You may not have blasphemy laws; what you do have however are the religious freedom restoration acts and the like, wherein discrimination in the name of religious advancement (or whatever they claim, frankly it seems like utter trash to me) is perfectly acceptable by law. My comment was not on blasphemy laws being repealed, but more on the fact that any law outwardly benefitting religious entities being repealed *and the church itself agreeing to this* seems remarkably unlikely. I'm sorry for not making a post purely in exposition and believing you would have the intelligence to actually infer what is meant, my apologies for greatly overestimating your intelligence. In future I will use as many pictures as I can, in case the words are too difficult for you.

Quite why you thought the Euro trash and American hicks comment was necessary was beyond me.

GaGambler307 reads

and we don't need a church to "agree" to anything, for the record we don't even have a concept like "the church" in this country. We don't have "a" church in this country we have thousands of different churches, (much to my dismay), but none of them are consulted before passing any laws in this country. Please get back to me when your precious Euros catch up to us backwards and religiously oppressive  Americans.

as for why my Euro trash and American hicks comment was necessary, it has become obvious that you see Europe as being superior in almost all regards. I guess a lot of comments are beyond your ability to grasp.

For the record when Indiana tried to allow religious based discrimination, based on those "religious freedom restoration acts" there was an immediate uproar and the Governor quickly backpedaled rather that face financial ruin for his state. So much for that type of law being "perfectly acceptable"

Once again, you  miss on all accounts. don't you ever tire of being wrong?

Posted By: GaGambler
and we don't need a church to "agree" to anything, for the record we don't even have a concept like "the church" in this country. We don't have "a" church in this country we have thousands of different churches, (much to my dismay), but none of them are consulted before passing any laws in this country. Please get back to me when your precious Euros catch up to us backwards and religiously oppressive  Americans.
None of them are consulted before any laws are passed. Agreed. Instead, you just elect presidents who claim to be working specifically in god's name, or whatever the hell Bush's outlandish claims were. It's hard to act as though religion is not a pervasive part of US politics when you have one political party out of two whose goals seem to be at the very least religiously motivated.  
   
as for why my Euro trash and American hicks comment was necessary, it has become obvious that you see Europe as being superior in almost all regards. I guess a lot of comments are beyond your ability to grasp.
Not superior, not inferior, different. If I felt the US was inferior to Europe in general, I wouldn't be asking for the opinions of Americans, here, on this American site. There are many things that Europe does politically and religiously that are, in my opinion, better than the US. The inverse is also true.

As you and I have already discussed here previously, I am not like many here who have already picked a side, as it were. I don't form arguments based on predisposed notions. I'm certainly left leaning, but I'm not a liberal. Being European doesn't make me automatically approve of all things European, nor does it have me automatically dismiss all things American. Genuinely, I thought you of all people here would be the last to use such generalisations.  
   

For the record when Indiana tried to allow religious based discrimination, based on those "religious freedom restoration acts" there was an immediate uproar and the Governor quickly backpedaled rather that face financial ruin for his state. So much for that type of law being "perfectly acceptable"
   
 Once again, you  miss on all accounts. don't you ever tire of being wrong?
From the wikipedia article on the religious freedom restoration act: 'In response to City of Boerne v. Flores and other related RFR issues, twenty individual states have passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.'. Indiana might have backpedalled, but with 40% of the states in the US still having this law in some form or another, I'm not sure how I 'missed' or was 'wrong' there.

It was Obama who said for years he was against equal rights for gays to marry "due to his religion." As has Hillary.

Many liberals are finding themselves in a serious case of man love with the pope re: GW. Many have cited their faith and their religion as to why they believe we should tax carbon.

What about the poor, and having an already massive government, awashed in a sea of debt, spend more on entitlement programs for they think it is the moral thing to do, based on their faith?

They cite Jesus when they speak against the death penalty and how he persuaded the people to drop their rocks when they wanted to stone a hooker.

If you believe it is one political party that does this, you are not well versed on American politics.

Posted By: JackDunphy
It was Obama who said for years he was against equal rights for gays to marry "due to his religion." As has Hillary.  
   
 Many liberals are finding themselves in a serious case of man love with the pope re: GW. Many have cited their faith and their religion as to why they believe we should tax carbon.  
   
 What about the poor, and having an already massive government, awashed in a sea of debt, spend more on entitlement programs for they think it is the moral thing to do, based on their faith?  
   
 They cite Jesus when they speak against the death penalty and how he persuaded the people to drop their rocks when they wanted to stone a hooker.  
   
 If you believe it is one political party that does this, you are not well versed on American politics.
I never said it is only one party; believe me I am all too aware of the inclination that seems prevalent in US politics to use religion to make a point when it is convenient to do so, from either party. Would you not agree though that the Republicans are far, far more religiously motivated, to the point where (in my opinion) that it is one of their defining characteristics, as opposed to just one aspect of many?

"It's hard to act as though religion is not a pervasive part of US politics when you have one political party out of two whose goals seem to be at the very least religiously motivated."

Those aren't your words verbatim?

Your only example, to further my point, was taking a shot at Bush. Now, I have taken a shot at Bush myself so I am not knocking you for that, but you did certainly say it was only one party.

But it now seems like you are saying both indeed do it, but Republicans are "worse."

And for the record, I have zero problem with either party using religion to further their agenda, if it is a deeply held belief. My issue with the Left is that many of these things aren't deeply held beliefs and they use religion anyway. That is a charlatan and a deceiver.
   



-- Modified on 7/3/2015 4:48:57 PM

Posted By: JackDunphy
"It's hard to act as though religion is not a pervasive part of US politics when you have one political party out of two whose goals seem to be at the very least religiously motivated."  
   
 Those aren't your words verbatim?  
   
 Your only example, to further my point, was taking a shot at Bush. Now, I have taken a shot at Bush myself so I am not knocking you for that, but you did certainly say it was only one party.  
   
 Just own your own words, is all I am asking.  
     
   
 
Never used the word only. I named the most prevalent example of the situation I could think of to demonstrate my point; I didn't rule out the democrats at any stage.  

I own my words - not the words others would so readily put in my mouth.

Quoting you back your own words is not putting words in your mouth. LOL

Please keep posting here.  

I look for your next denial or absurd PC comment with great eagerness! :D

You quoted back my words to me, and then assigned meaning to those words that was never stated nor implied, nor could be reasonably inferred. I think you should look in the mirror before claiming intellectual dishonesty.

You spoke in absolutes. You said one party out of two, clearly stating you were ruling out the other one. Any fair minded reader would have come to the exact same conclusion.

Posted By: JackDunphy
You spoke in absolutes. You said one party out of two, clearly stating you were ruling out the other one. Any fair minded reader would have come to the exact same conclusion.
I said one party out of two. I never said only one party out of two, nor did I imply as much, nor did I say anything in that post or any further posts that would suggest as much. That is all on you, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You assigned plenty. Don't go on about quoting people verbatim when you then don't actually read the content of said quote.

GaGambler241 reads

Than you are completely full of it, Jack read it the way any English speaking person would have read it.

So which is it, are you not fluent in English, or do you simply have a problem telling the truth?

-- Modified on 7/4/2015 7:11:02 AM

There is a reason why what you call n“discrimination in the name of religious advancement (or whatever they claim, frankly it seems like utter trash to me)”  is “perfectly acceptable by law.”

        It is called the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  What the religious freedom restoration acts do is prevent laws of general applicability from overriding this constitutional guaranty, except where there is a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means are used

        Should Hobby lobby be required to provide contraceptive products to employees per Obamacare, even though the founders’ religion says life starts at conception? Should the Amish be required to keep their children in school, even though their religion requires them to focus on Amish values during their teen years? Should the law deny employment benefits to someone fired for refusing to work on the Sabbath?

        Our Constitution says “no,” and when activist judges started saying “maybe” the legislatures – not the president -  stepped in and attempted to bolster the Free Exercise Clause.

       You may disagree with this as a matter of policy but to call these laws “utter trash” seems a bit harsh.

         Finally, as to Iceland making blasphemy “legal,” my guess is that applies only as to limited criminal laws. In our country, you can still be kicked out of your church for blasphemy, and you can be sentenced to enhanced punishments for “hate crimes.” So the notion that we have complete “freedom of expression” for negative religious utterances is quite misunderstood

... and spread all manner of vile reprehensible bullshit... whether it be the cretins of Westboro, or Pat Robertson, or David fucktard Duke, Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

Where do we draw the line? And ftr, I am using Religious leaders merely as a representative sampling. They're all equally toxic to humanity.

...Two days before the 2004 election, Rev. George F. Regas of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena gave a sermon from the pulpit criticizing "...the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, 'Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster.'"

Rev. Regas had previously criticized the Vietnam War and the Gulf War.

The IRS warned All Saints Episcopal that it was in danger of losing its tax-exempt status because of Regas's sermon.

Doc: do you think Rev. Regas was spreading "vile reprehensible bullshit" that was "toxic to humanity?

Taking comments out of context is a neat trick you masterfully employ to rile up the locals, Papasan.
After 14 years, you should already know I don't play the Game of Trolls.

Let religious leaders criticize foreign policy all they want... but not under the guise of speaking for or invoking the names of god, jesus, allah, Elvis or Xenu the Thetan from Planet Elron Hubbub. That's my issue.  

Happy Firecracker!

Posted By: GiantBombing
Maybe it's the bias of getting the overwhelming majority of my news regarding religion in the US and the politics thereof from this board, . . . ..
No "maybe" about it at all. You just stated your obvious problem.

Posted By: ed2000
 
Posted By: GiantBombing
Maybe it's the bias of getting the overwhelming majority of my news regarding religion in the US and the politics thereof from this board, . . . ..
   
 No "maybe" about it at all. You just stated your obvious problem.
It's almost as though the religious views of the US don't make the news anywhere other than the US or something...

Posted By: GiantBombing
 
   
Posted By: ed2000
 
Posted By: GiantBombing
Maybe it's the bias of getting the overwhelming majority of my news regarding religion in the US and the politics thereof from this board, . . . ..
 
     
  No "maybe" about it at all. You just stated your obvious problem.
   
 It's almost as though the religious views of the US don't make the news anywhere other than the US or something...
That being the case, you need to expand your search parameters. I get my news by surfing the Internet on a daily basis.

And there are a substantial number of sources, from superb to shitty. You should read the contempt with which the outside world views American hubris when it comes to American interpretations of the Bible and Christianity. Or do you really think the world has any respect for the "Speaking-in-Tongues While Charming Snakes and Healing in the Name of the Lord... and dont forget your donation on the way out" crowd.

But if all you do is reference TER's P&R board, then you're the one with the problem

Posted By: DoctorGonzo
   
 That being the case, you need to expand your search parameters. I get my news by surfing the Internet on a daily basis.
As do I - none of the news sources I ever use (BBC, Reuters and AP primarily) comment regularly on the state of religion in the US, and when they do, there is likely some other story that grabs my attention more. Oddly enough, it's almost as though there are more important things happening in the world.
   
And there are a substantial number of sources, from superb to shitty. You should read the contempt with which the outside world views American hubris when it comes to American interpretations of the Bible and Christianity. Or do you really think the world has any respect for the "Speaking-in-Tongues While Charming Snakes and Healing in the Name of the Lord... and dont forget your donation on the way out" crowd.  
   
 But if all you do is reference TER's P&R board, then you're the one with the problem.  
 
I am 100% aware of said contempt outside of America, what with me being someone who is from and who has always lived outside of America. I don't solely reference the board here, nor did I claim to; a fact that seems to have been lost on everyone here. I stated that this is where I hear most in regards to religion in the US and the associated politics thereof - mainly because I don't get that specific information from any other source I use, which is mainly because the rest of the world doesn't give two shits. US politics in general is a different kettle of fish entirely, and is hard to avoid worldwide.

Posted By: GiantBombing
It's almost as though the religious views of the US don't make the news anywhere other than the US or something...
The religious views of the mainstream of the U.S. hardly ever make the news. Reading or watching the news is not a good way to understand the true aspects of any culture. You will eventually pick up pieces of Pop Culture but not the underlying truths. You're probably better off watching sitcoms. Media does not cover the boring day to day life of what the vast majority of people think and do. They only cover the sensational, the salacious, the bloody, the extraordinary, the remarkable or the fringe elements etc. And then mostly when it's the negative fringe, much less frequently the positive aspects of life.  

TER P&R is nowhere near a microcosm of American life. Many of the views here are fringe views, some are not even very healthy views and almost all are one sided views.

-- Modified on 7/4/2015 9:44:01 PM

Register Now!