| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/05/2010 03:28:20 PM · #4526 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
The rights of gays to marriage should not usurp others' right to freedom of religion. |
Out of curiousity, exactly why do you think that granting gay's the right to marry would usurp the freedom of religion of others?... I really fail to see the link.
Ray |
"And being as my freedom of religion is one of the freedoms I value most highly - I think any laws passed granting the right for gays to marriage also need to protect religious persons and institutions from becoming persecuted. For instance - a church in New Jersey was sued for refusing to allow a lesbian couple to hold a commitment ceremony on their property. A photographer in New Mexico was sued for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony. The rights of gays to marriage should not usurp others' right to freedom of religion."
Message edited by author 2010-03-05 15:30:42. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 04:02:13 PM · #4527 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
The rights of gays to marriage should not usurp others' right to freedom of religion. |
Out of curiousity, exactly why do you think that granting gay's the right to marry would usurp the freedom of religion of others?... I really fail to see the link.
Ray |
"And being as my freedom of religion is one of the freedoms I value most highly - I think any laws passed granting the right for gays to marriage also need to protect religious persons and institutions from becoming persecuted. For instance - a church in New Jersey was sued for refusing to allow a lesbian couple to hold a commitment ceremony on their property. A photographer in New Mexico was sued for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony. The rights of gays to marriage should not usurp others' right to freedom of religion." |
Do you have a link to the church story?
As for the other case, if you're referring to the photographer that was discussed earlier that was a case regarding business rights not individual rights. As a business you can't discriminate against race, gender, religious afflilation or sexual orientation under the laws of her state. If she was an atheist business owner refusing service to Christians would you have been ok with that?
|
|
|
|
03/05/2010 04:43:48 PM · #4528 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
The rights of gays to marriage should not usurp others' right to freedom of religion. |
I see. So if my religion obliged me to stone homosexuals to death, the right of homosexuals not to be stoned should be overturned, correct? |
I don't know about Canada, but here in the United States capital punishment is conducted by the state, not religious groups. ragamuffingirl's point about protecting the rights of photographers and churches is a legit issue in the USA. Stoning... not so much a problem here. I think her point is that religious law should not interfere with state law, and state law should not interfere with religious law. I agree with that. Obviously religions that condone stoning are not allowed to enforce those laws in the USA. So, if religious law is not allowed to be imposed on the state, then why is state law allowed to be imposed on religion (like the case of the church getting sued by the lesbian couple)? That's a major inconsistency.
If I have a no alcohol rule in my house, but my neighbor drinks all the time in his own house, I rightly have no authority to tell him that he cannot drink in his own house. But, if he shows up at my front door one day with cooler full of beer, I have the right to send him away. In the same way, church rules rightly have no authority in secular society, but secular society should be allowed to waltz into a church and force them to do whatever they want? That's not right.
Message edited by author 2010-03-05 16:45:58. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 04:50:32 PM · #4529 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
And being as my freedom of religion is one of the freedoms I value most highly - I think any laws passed granting the right for gays to marriage also need to protect religious persons and institutions from becoming persecuted. For instance - a church in New Jersey was sued for refusing to allow a lesbian couple to hold a commitment ceremony on their property. |
This is a myth.
The facts are that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (a Methodist group) owns a small beachside town in New Jersey. Although Ocean Grove has many areas that are restricted for religious use, for decades the beach, the boardwalk, and a pavilion have been open to the public.
As part of the state̢۪s Green Acres program, those who make their land open to all residents get special property tax benefits denied to other property owners. And so those areas that were public use (but not the private religious property) had received exemptions.
However, when the Association decided that the pavilion was a religious building that could only be used for heterosexual ceremonies, and not gay ceremonies, they no longer qualified for the exemption and the pavilion lost its special status. While the beach and the boardwalk remained privileged and received preferential treatment, the pavilion was treated like the rest of the Association̢۪s property.
R. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 05:08:03 PM · #4530 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
The rights of gays to marriage should not usurp others' right to freedom of religion. |
I see. So if my religion obliged me to stone homosexuals to death, the right of homosexuals not to be stoned should be overturned, correct? |
I don't know about Canada, but here in the United States capital punishment is conducted by the state... |
First thing I should say is that Canada, like most of the world, does not commit capital punishment. Secondly, if you took my example to mean exactly what it said, then yes, you're right, it's hyperbole. If you took it as an analogy, maybe you would see that someone's religious beliefs should not be allowed to trump someone else's civil rights. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 05:37:49 PM · #4531 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
The rights of gays to marriage should not usurp others' right to freedom of religion. |
I see. So if my religion obliged me to stone homosexuals to death, the right of homosexuals not to be stoned should be overturned, correct? |
I don't know about Canada, but here in the United States capital punishment is conducted by the state... |
First thing I should say is that Canada, like most of the world, does not commit capital punishment. Secondly, if you took my example to mean exactly what it said, then yes, you're right, it's hyperbole. If you took it as an analogy, maybe you would see that someone's religious beliefs should not be allowed to trump someone else's civil rights. |
You're right, religious beliefs should not be allowed to trump civil rights.
ragamuffingirl argued that civil rights should not be allowed to trump religious rights. Then you responded with the stoning question implying that you mistook her plea to protect religious freedom as a plea to infringe on civil freedom. Arguing that religious freedom should be protected from violation by civil law is not the same as arguing that religious freedom should gain influence over civil law. Her argument was very simple. Your question assumes that her argument was making further implications. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 05:48:07 PM · #4532 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Arguing that religious freedom should be protected from violation by civil law is not the same as arguing that religious freedom should gain influence over civil law. |
I'm not convinced of that, being suspicious of the motivations of most politically oriented religious people.
Nevertheless, ragamuffin actually said: "The rights of gays to marriage should not usurp others' right to freedom of religion." That seems to be a clear indicator that she thinks the civil rights of others -- in this case, the right to marry whomever one loves -- need to be curbed to allow the practice of religion in whatever way one sees fit -- in this case, to discriminate, as evidenced by her inclusion of the Elaine Huguenin story. So, no, my question assumes nothing she hasn't said herself. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 06:44:04 PM · #4533 |
Originally posted by Louis:
That seems to be a clear indicator that she thinks the civil rights of others... need to be curbed to allow the practice of religion in whatever way one sees fit... |
Even if that is what she believes, that is still a far cry from suggesting that capital punishment be transferred from state jurisdiction to religious control. I'm just saying that your question seemed to exaggerate ragamuffin's point. Some politically motivated religious people might be willing to take discrimination to extreme levels, but I don't think that's ragamuffin's intention. She seems to be advocating separation of church and state, not increased religious power. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 06:50:58 PM · #4534 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If I have a no alcohol rule in my house, but my neighbor drinks all the time in his own house, I rightly have no authority to tell him that he cannot drink in his own house. But, if he shows up at my front door one day with cooler full of beer, I have the right to send him away. In the same way, church rules rightly have no authority in secular society, but secular society should be allowed to waltz into a church and force them to do whatever they want? That's not right. |
Not black and white, as you've said yourself. If a church practices stoning, would not the secular society (in the US anyway) "waltz in" and say no go to the stoning bit? That's definitely forcing a secular view onto a religious society. Should we allow stoning if that is part of the religion's practices? |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 07:15:24 PM · #4535 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm just saying that your question seemed to exaggerate ragamuffin's point. |
Well... yeah.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
She seems to be advocating separation of church and state, not increased religious power. |
"Don't let the proposed right of gays to marry interfere with anyone's right to discriminate against them using the excuse of religious freedom." I'm convinced that is not what she intended to say, but that is in fact what she is saying. She is not advocating separation of church and state; she is advocating the reverse. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 08:43:39 PM · #4536 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Not black and white, as you've said yourself. If a church practices stoning, would not the secular society (in the US anyway) "waltz in" and say no go to the stoning bit? That's definitely forcing a secular view onto a religious society. Should we allow stoning if that is part of the religion's practices? |
If a church practiced stoning, they would be assuming a power that they don't have a right to possess. On the other hand, I don't think that the state should have the power to tell a church how they can or cannot use their property. There has to be a line somewhere. Religion shouldn't be allowed to cross over into state territory, and the state shouldn't be allowed to cross over into religious territory. The problem is that people disagree on where that line should be drawn. |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 09:26:41 PM · #4537 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Not black and white, as you've said yourself. If a church practices stoning, would not the secular society (in the US anyway) "waltz in" and say no go to the stoning bit? That's definitely forcing a secular view onto a religious society. Should we allow stoning if that is part of the religion's practices? |
If a church practiced stoning, they would be assuming a power that they don't have a right to possess. On the other hand, I don't think that the state should have the power to tell a church how they can or cannot use their property. There has to be a line somewhere. Religion shouldn't be allowed to cross over into state territory, and the state shouldn't be allowed to cross over into religious territory. The problem is that people disagree on where that line should be drawn. |
How do you figure the church is assuming a power they "don't have a right to possess" - with respect to what? Who gives them their "rights"? Wouldn't it be their god? And if their god says to stone the sinners (which I think they did in the Bible somewhere) then who's to say they cannot? And if a state cannot tell a church how to use their property, then they can use it for blood sacrifice, for stoning, for whatever their religion requires of them, and the rest of the people just have to live with that, yes? |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 09:53:38 PM · #4538 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
And if a state cannot tell a church how to use their property, then they can use it for blood sacrifice, for stoning, for whatever their religion requires of them, and the rest of the people just have to live with that, yes? |
That didn't work out so well for the Texas polygamy sect, although another group did succeed in avoiding state oversight by moving to Guyana in the 1970's. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 03:06:46 AM · #4539 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
How do you figure the church is assuming a power they "don't have a right to possess" - with respect to what? Who gives them their "rights"? Wouldn't it be their god? And if their god says to stone the sinners (which I think they did in the Bible somewhere) then who's to say they cannot? And if a state cannot tell a church how to use their property, then they can use it for blood sacrifice, for stoning, for whatever their religion requires of them, and the rest of the people just have to live with that, yes? |
It depends on what you mean by "rights". If were talking about legal rights, those are provided by US federal and state laws. Most religious people would probably argue that they have some rights provided by whatever god they worship, but they are still subject to state laws. The Bible does talk about stoning. That was a form of capital punishment permissible under Mosaic Law in ancient times. Jews still follow Mosaic Law to a certain extent, but they don't use stoning as a form of capital punishment anymore. Christians are not subject to Mosaic Law. Obviously blood sacrifice and stoning are issues on a completely different level. As long as a church isn't causing harm or breaking a bunch of laws, it should be able to use it's property as it chooses. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 08:26:42 AM · #4540 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Melethia:
And if a state cannot tell a church how to use their property, then they can use it for blood sacrifice, for stoning, for whatever their religion requires of them, and the rest of the people just have to live with that, yes? |
That didn't work out so well for the Texas polygamy sect, although another group did succeed in avoiding state oversight by moving to Guyana in the 1970's. |
How did it not work out for the polygamous sect in Texas? They're still there. Their children were returned. There are some groups that perform animal sacrifice - most notably Santeria. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld their right to so.
Let me be absolutely clear - I think any two (or more) consenting individuals over the age of 18 should be able to form whatever legal partnership or relationship they want. But, I think churches and persons of faith that believe these partnerships to be morally wrong should have the right to say, "No. You can't use our property," or "No. I don't want to participate in the ceremony."
Photographers pick and choose who they want to work with and what kind of work they're willing to do everyday. I don't shoot pornography or some kinds of pageant photography because I believe it's morally wrong. I don't shoot boudoir pics because I'm just uncomfortable with it. A man I know recently saw some pictures I did of someone else and asked me to shoot similar pictures of him. I don't like this person. I said no - as is my right. But, if he were gay - he would suddenly have the right to sue me? Elaine Huguenin was being gracious to say no to the couple. She could have accepted the job and done a craptastic job - or delivered 300 pictures of feet - and then all they would have been entitled to was a refund. But, their special day would be lost and gone forever. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 10:40:05 AM · #4541 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
Photographers pick and choose who they want to work with and what kind of work they're willing to do everyday. |
...with various shades of legal grey. If you present your services to the public, you are not permitted to "pick and choose" your clients based on who or what they are. If Ms. Huguenin had a problem with Koreans, she wouldn't have gotten as far as she did if her response to a relevant hypothetical couple was, "I'm sorry, but I don't believe Koreans should have a right to be in our country, and so you'll have to find another photographer."
Edit: That anyone would have the gonads to present their prejudices as arising out of religious conviction is all the more repellant.
Message edited by author 2010-03-06 10:40:38. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 12:27:25 PM · #4542 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
[quote=Melethia]
As long as a church isn't causing harm or breaking a bunch of laws, it should be able to use it's property as it chooses. |
Surely you don't mean that churches have to break a bunch of lawsbefore they are held accountable.
On another note... how would you feel if churches suddenly lost their tax exempt status. Some could argue that in order to retain this status, churches should take great care to ensure that they do not meddle or even foray into issues having any political connotation.
Just another thought,
Ray |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 01:29:49 PM · #4543 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
[quote=Melethia]
As long as a church isn't causing harm or breaking a bunch of laws, it should be able to use it's property as it chooses. |
Surely you don't mean that churches have to break a bunch of lawsbefore they are held accountable.
On another note... how would you feel if churches suddenly lost their tax exempt status. Some could argue that in order to retain this status, churches should take great care to ensure that they do not meddle or even foray into issues having any political connotation.
Just another thought,
Ray |
I don't know about tax-exempt status etc.... But the Christian church is founded on the life and divinity of a political and social rebel who was executed by the Roman government for sedition, basically. I'm pretty sure Mohammad was at odds with the powers-that-be of his place & time as well. Being political, in a nutshell, is what churches are all ABOUT, from one perspective. This was a lot clearer when there WAS no separation of church and state (when the religious leaders were the secular leaders, if "secular" even had meaning at that time), but it's still basically true in the sense that "politics" is about the coordination and organization of large groups of people into functioning, cooperative units.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-03-06 13:30:20. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 02:06:08 PM · #4544 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
But, I think churches and persons of faith that believe these partnerships to be morally wrong should have the right to say, "No. You can't use our property," or "No. I don't want to participate in the ceremony." |
If the church uses the property solely for their tax-exempted religious mission, and only allowed marriage ceremonies for actual members of their congregation, they could legally "say no" to any other couples.
But, as soon as they rent the property out to the general public for weddings (or other activities), they are engaging in a for-profit, non-religious commercial enterprise, and are no longer allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc.
No one (in favor of same-sex marriage) has ever suggested that, even if they rented their property to a gay (or black, or inter-racial) couple, that they would have to participate in any ceremonies, other than having custodial and security personnel present, like any other rental hall would have to provide. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 04:26:47 PM · #4545 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Surely you don't mean that churches have to break a bunch of lawsbefore they are held accountable.
|
That's not at all what I mean... Not even close.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2010 05:24:41 PM · #4546 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Melethia:
How do you figure the church is assuming a power they "don't have a right to possess" - with respect to what? Who gives them their "rights"? Wouldn't it be their god? And if their god says to stone the sinners (which I think they did in the Bible somewhere) then who's to say they cannot? And if a state cannot tell a church how to use their property, then they can use it for blood sacrifice, for stoning, for whatever their religion requires of them, and the rest of the people just have to live with that, yes? |
It depends on what you mean by "rights". If were talking about legal rights, those are provided by US federal and state laws. Most religious people would probably argue that they have some rights provided by whatever god they worship, but they are still subject to state laws. The Bible does talk about stoning. That was a form of capital punishment permissible under Mosaic Law in ancient times. Jews still follow Mosaic Law to a certain extent, but they don't use stoning as a form of capital punishment anymore. Christians are not subject to Mosaic Law. Obviously blood sacrifice and stoning are issues on a completely different level. As long as a church isn't causing harm or breaking a bunch of laws, it should be able to use it's property as it chooses. |
My question was based on your statement of "So, if religious law is not allowed to be imposed on the state, then why is state law allowed to be imposed on religion (like the case of the church getting sued by the lesbian couple)? That's a major inconsistency." That's what I meant by "rights" - if the state cannot impose its laws on the church, how do you stop them from stoning people on their own grounds? But you followed up by saying churches ARE subject to state laws. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 05:39:21 PM · #4547 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
My question was based on your statement of "So, if religious law is not allowed to be imposed on the state, then why is state law allowed to be imposed on religion (like the case of the church getting sued by the lesbian couple)? That's a major inconsistency." That's what I meant by "rights" - if the state cannot impose its laws on the church, how do you stop them from stoning people on their own grounds? But you followed up by saying churches ARE subject to state laws. |
The church is subject to laws that have already been passed. Like I said earlier, there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Separation of church and state needs to be maintained. If the state starts passing laws that restrict freedom of worship, and the worship/religious practices are not harmful, then the line has been crossed. |
|
|
|
03/06/2010 06:54:36 PM · #4548 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The church is subject to laws that have already been passed. Like I said earlier, there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Separation of church and state needs to be maintained. If the state starts passing laws that restrict freedom of worship, and the worship/religious practices are not harmful, then the line has been crossed. |
So religious people should be free to break any new law that does not accord with their belief?
Why does this only apply now? Have we reached a moral pinnacle of some kind?
|
|
|
|
03/06/2010 06:59:59 PM · #4549 |
Incidentally, this is happening in the UK. Faith schools are getting an exemption from non-discrimination legislation to add "religious character" to sex education classes:
//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8533235.stm
|
|
|
|
03/06/2010 08:34:41 PM · #4550 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
So religious people should be free to break any new law that does not accord with their belief?
Why does this only apply now? Have we reached a moral pinnacle of some kind? |
Religious people should not be free to break any law. What I'm saying is that the government should not be free to pass laws that restrict free practice of religion as provided by the first amendment. It's fine if the government allows gay marriage. It's not fine if the government allows churches to be sued for their religious practices. Here's what I think: If person A does not agree with gay marriage, then person A does not have to go to a gay marriage ceremony. If person B does not agree with a churches stance on gay marriage, then person B does not have to get married at that church. There's no problem until Person B insists on having their marriage ceremony on church property, at which point Person A is offended because their church is used for something they disagree with. I realize that the Ocean Grove situation involved property that was open to the public. What I don't get is why a gay couple would even want to have their ceremony on property owned by a church that didn't approve of gay marriage. Would a Jewish couple want to get married on property owned by an anti-semitic group? I doubt it.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Incidentally, this is happening in the UK. Faith schools are getting an exemption from non-discrimination legislation to add "religious character" to sex education classes:
//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8533235.stm |
I don't see how this is a problem. The school is still required to teach all the views. The only difference is that the school is no longer prevented from telling the students which view their faith holds. |
|
