Faster than I predicted

[babe]

All I know is, as soon as they start forcing pastors to marry gay guys and get gay sexy with them, I'm moving to Canada.

Canada is actually a good place to go for proofs of Pearl's prediction.

In Canada, reading the Bible can be legally prosecuted. Ministers have to be careful to skip over a substantial number of Bible stories, like the events transpiring in Jezebel's reign.

While the whole American Experiment is a radical departure from faithful, scripture-based theocracy following the tradition of Solomon, who regulated the religion of the State of Israel, and the Catholicism that ushered in the Dark Ages of medieval times, or the vicious State Religions of England or Germany during the reformation era, a government like ours that's supposed to be responsive to the ordinary people and protect their individual rights and lives and property has always needed a "moral" society adhering to some christian concepts like respecting others and acting on a consistent model of actions following from expectations. . . rather than just "corrupt" politicians controlled by financially interested supporters.

Our fundamentalist religious folks invoke God as a protector of human rights and liberties such as freedom of conscience, and I think the attacks on them are generally just as bigoted and hateful as anything any redneck generally comes up with.

Fundamentalist Christians are correct on one philosophical point, at the very minimum. Once we as a nation, or government, dispense with the notion of accountability to the public, or to God, our laws will no longer be rooted in any principled system of thought, and our nation and government will become the plaything of whoever among us has the most money to buy the system's functionaries.

Whether that devolves to simple bribes passed out to cops on the street, as in Mexico or the Philippines, or remains as we have it now, with policians dependent on major corporate contributors, the result is the same. It means we do not have " rule of law" in fact, but our government has become a negotiable tool that will systematically be used against the interest of the general public.

 

[LogGrad98]

WHO CAN STOP MOEFELD?

That almost deserves a neg. Can I give a neutral rep with a mild reprimand? Hmm.

 

[babe]

a chapel is not necessarily associated with a religion - there is no restriction on the use of the term "chapel"

and just because something may call itself a religion or someone may call themselves a "reverend" or "pastor" does not mean that are associated with an IRS recognized religion. A for-profit business, by it's definition, is NOT a religion. If those two "pastors" don't want to preside over homosexual weddings, they don't have to. But the Hitching Post, as a for-profit business, and NOT a religious institution, cannot discriminate in that fashion.

Plenty of people can preside over weddings who are not affiliated in any way, shape or form with religion.

My neighbor got herself "ordained" so she could legally preside over her son's wedding. I'm not sure exactly what was involved but it was recognized by the state, yet had nothing to do with any religion whatsoever. Another neighbor is a judge (in juvenile court, but that doesn't matter) and has presided over a number of weddings. In some cases, the County Clerk can legally officiate a wedding.


I wish I understood why some of those reading these posts keep ignoring the facts.

Pretty clear you are working with a definition of "religion" that necessarily invokes organizational, legally-established status.

I think the rhetoric OB and other progressives use is pretty tightly engineered to discredit personal convictions invoking God in any way, replacing them with legal technicalities which in effect make even personal beliefs legally prosecutable. It is really intolerance of religious conscience in individuals. People who reject statist rules are the problem. They are systematically reduced by law to criminal status.

OB might not have that intent, and might actually believe he is advocating a reasoned sort of society operating on better principles, but I am looking at what the net effect long-term will be if we have governments prosecuting individuals or business owners for not performing services they may deem objectionable on the level of their own personal conscience.

We have civil alternatives. . . . publicly-paid judges of various descriptions, widely available in all legal jurisdictions, who will perform legal weddings. The government does not need to regulate individuals on their own enterprise of serving any category of clientele in this manner. Nobody should have to do things they consider wrong. We even let some men called up for military service make a statement of conscientious objection so they won't need to kill people. Or at least we should, if we don't do this anymore.

 

[babe]

WHO CAN STOP MOEFELD?

thanks for injecting some humor in this thread. badly needed.

I've got to go laugh at myself now.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Canada is actually a good place to go for proofs of Pearl's prediction.

In Canada, reading the Bible can be legally prosecuted. Ministers have to be careful to skip over a substantial number of Bible stories, like the events transpiring in Jezebel's reign.

Canada is not the US. It has a totally different set of traditions respecting religious freedom. While perhaps instructive, your example has limited relevance, I think.

While the whole American Experiment is a radical departure from faithful, scripture-based theocracy following the tradition of Solomon, who regulated the religion of the State of Israel, and the Catholicism that ushered in the Dark Ages of medieval times, or the vicious State Religions of England or Germany during the reformation era, a government like ours that's supposed to be responsive to the ordinary people and protect their individual rights and lives and property has always needed a "moral" society adhering to some christian concepts like respecting others and acting on a consistent model of actions following from expectations. . . rather than just "corrupt" politicians controlled by financially interested supporters.

Morality DOES NOT come from God. It is inherent to the human species and existed long before humans got around to codifying moral rules within the context of organized religion. The extent to which a society is 'moral' depends largely on how one defines morality. If it is defined by creating more 'just' societies (and not largely sexual terms, such as is the case among fundies and evangelicals), then the those countries that are the most non-sectarian (e.g., Northern Europe), are arguably among the most moral. Any suggestion that religion is a pre-requisite for morality is, to put is simply, BS.

[/QUOTE]Our fundamentalist religious folks invoke God as a protector of human rights and liberties such as freedom of conscience, and I think the attacks on them are generally just as bigoted and hateful as anything any redneck generally comes up with.[/QUOTE]

Yes, true. Some many on them are bigoted, but many are principled attacks on the ideas espoused by religious folk, many of which are just plain bad. The problem is that people conflate the former with the latter and any 'attack' on Christian ideas/beliefs are construed as bigoted attacks on Christianity in general.

Christians have been dishing up the hate for millennia now, and they are surprised that there's finally some pushback now that their power is diminished?

[/QUOTE]Fundamentalist Christians are correct on one philosophical point, at the very minimum. Once we as a nation, or government, dispense with the notion of accountability to the public, or to God, our laws will no longer be rooted in any principled system of thought, and our nation and government will become the plaything of whoever among us has the most money to buy the system's functionaries.[/QUOTE]

We don't need God to have a principled system of thought.

Besides, I'd argue that Western society today is far, far more moral than its ever been, at the same time it's become LESS not more religious. The extension of civil rights, liberties, equal protection under the law, and the respect for the dignity of the person that underpins the progressive political, social and economic reforms of Western Society over the past few decades has been the single greatest expression of human morality in the history of the world.

 

[LogGrad98]

So, let me get this straight. We shouldn't try to provide equal protection under the law to all, because some people might take it too far?

Ok, so let's force them gay people back into the closets where they belong, and once again deny them their equal protection under the law and full slate of civil rights, because some people might overreact. Yep, makes perfect sense to me.

IF and WHEN this becomes a real problem, and not just some isolated anecdotes, then we can deal with it as a serious problem. Discrimination against gays, however, much of it imposed by religious folk, has been a systematic and pervasive problem for millennia.

Fundamental Christianity will survive this just fine and will move on to find new 'out groups' to oppress.

By the way, I would stand with you to defend to the rights of religions and religious folks to practice their religion (provided it does not cross over into abuse, law breaking, etc.).

Do you know what a millennium is? It is 1000 years. Not even 2000 years ago the Romans ruled most of the modern world and they embraced many forms of sexuality. Homosexuality has not always been viewed as deviant. It is a relatively new social construct, although of course there have been societies at different points in time with differing view on the subject, but the current state of most of the world following suit is relatively new.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Do you know what a millennium is? It is 1000 years. Not even 2000 years ago the Romans ruled most of the modern world and they embraced many forms of sexuality. Homosexuality has not always been viewed as deviant. It is a relatively new social construct, although of course there have been societies at different points in time with differing view on the subject, but the current state of most of the world following suit is relatively new.

Yes, I know what a millennium is. Christianity, and its restrictive view of human sexuality, has been ascendent in the West for around 1,500 years. That's 1000+ years, if my math is correct. That qualifies as millennia (plural), right?

I'd say 1,500 years (give or take) of teachings on the evils of homosexuality within the Christian sexual ethos qualifies for 'longstanding' as opposed to 'relatively new.'

This doesn't even consider Islam.

Also, I'd add, don't confuse the more and behaviors of the elites with that of the common folk. Elites have frequently tended toward more licentious sexual more and practices. It's not clear to me, for example, that the practice of pederastry among the ancient Greek elites (not to be confused with homosexuality) equates with tolerance/acceptance of homosexuality among the common folk. It may have, I don't know.

 

[babe]

@jimmy

I appreciate the high level of intellect demonstrated in your response. Right up there with OB who has won the rank of a master in my book of political thinkers. I don't really care to argue against the factual parts of what you say, just with what I see as the long-run consequences of it.

Not that I think we have actually done well up to now.

I just don't think the human herd is benefited from even modern management. We face complex risks as a species, as a world. . . . which have been successfully coped with historically. . . in my opinion. . . . by a human species that has responded individually better than it has responded organizationally.

We don't really do better with a top-down world.

 

[One Brow]

I believe the Catholic Church has/does...especially in the case of divorced couples.

Churches have and will continue to be able to refuse to perform any marriages they choose, in addition to making some pretty good chicken. That's not changing.

 

[One Brow]

I wish I understood why some of those reading these posts keep ignoring the facts.

Facts have a liberal bias.

 

[Stoked]

Facts have a liberal bias.

Hahahaha, you make me smile.

 

[LogGrad98]

a chapel is not necessarily associated with a religion - there is no restriction on the use of the term "chapel"

and just because something may call itself a religion or someone may call themselves a "reverend" or "pastor" does not mean that are associated with an IRS recognized religion. A for-profit business, by it's definition, is NOT a religion. If those two "pastors" don't want to preside over homosexual weddings, they don't have to. But the Hitching Post, as a for-profit business, and NOT a religious institution, cannot discriminate in that fashion.

Plenty of people can preside over weddings who are not affiliated in any way, shape or form with religion.

My neighbor got herself "ordained" so she could legally preside over her son's wedding. I'm not sure exactly what was involved but it was recognized by the state, yet had nothing to do with any religion whatsoever. Another neighbor is a judge (in juvenile court, but that doesn't matter) and has presided over a number of weddings. In some cases, the County Clerk can legally officiate a wedding.


I wish I understood why some of those reading these posts keep ignoring the facts.

But the ACLU of Idaho states that "religious businesses" are exempt. Not sure what that definition is, but this one could fall under that definition.