Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

As to the government protecting equality, we have already discovered that discrimination against one group in favour of another doesn't work.
If the government is truly going to "equally" protect peoples rights then continuing on a path that is guaranteed to create an inequality is, at best, counter-productive.

How would "granting" marriage rights to same sex couples be "guaranteed to create an inequality" ??

By the government being in favour of gay "marriage" it would open the religions(private organizations) to federal and various states anti-discrimination laws. Churchs or Pastors could be fined under laws like Houston's new anti-discrimination ordinsnce for refusing to marry openly gay couples.

This creates a defacto situation of where gay > religion in the eyes of the law.

 jasper76 wrote:
Yes, I do. Religious people should not have the right to abuse children behind the shield of their religious belies.

As I've already said, please explain how religious people abuse children, and are not prosecuted because of their beliefs.

Yes, I believe that there is a prevelant attitude in the United States that the religious are morally superior to everyone else, and that their beliefs should be shielded from criticism and given an exalted place in the public arena.

Well, I believe that there is a prevelant attitude in the United States that atheists are morally superior to everyone else, and that their beliefs should be shielded from criticism and given an exalted place in the public arena.

See? Sweeping generalisations get you nowhere.

 -Shrike- wrote:
Care to clarify yourself here?

If a teacher tells a child that she will burn forever and ever if she doesn't follow the rules on the chalkboard, it would rightfully be called child abuse, the teacher woul be fired, and the case would probably end up in courts and likely result in civil and perhaps criminal penalties for that teacher.

If a parent or clergy does the same thing under the shield of religious protection, it is still child abuse, but it is not illegal.

 jasper76 wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights?

Yes, I do. Religious people should not have the right to abuse children behind the shield of their religious belies.

 focusedfire wrote:
Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?

Yes, I believe that there is a prevelant attitude in the United States that the religious are morally superior to everyone else, and that their beliefs should be shielded from criticism and given an exalted place in the public arena.

Nice, you cloak your anti-religious bigotry with the "What about the children defense?".

I say bigotry because my questions were polite references of the terms historically used by those who wish to discriminate.

In essence, what I asked was if you feel these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place. This same type of language was used against my ancestors and other minorities by groups preaching intolerance and hate.

OK...

All I said was religious people shold not have the right to abuse children.

Do you think that religious people should ave the right to abuse children?

As you asked of me, just answer the question.



P.S. Trying to trick someone into providing answers to questions you did not ask is pretty rude. If you waned to ask me whether I think religious people are "uppity" or "need to be taught their place", both of which are clear allusions to racial discrimination, you should have just asked me that question, instead of asking a different question, using my answer as the response to a question you did not aks, and then trying to paint me as some sort of evil oppressor or somehting by subterfuge and verbal trickery. You did not ask me if I think "these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked me: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.

 jasper76 wrote:

P.S. Trying to trick someone into providing answers to questions you did not ask is pretty rude. If you waned to ask me whether I think religious people are "uppity" or "need to be taught their place", both of which are clear allusions to racial discrimination, you should have just asked me that question, instead of asking a different question, using my answer as the response to a question you did not aks, and then trying to paint me as some sort of evil oppressor or somehting by subterfuge and verbal trickery. You did not ask me if I think "these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked me: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.

He didn't have to paint you in any way shape or form. It's pretty clear that you an irrational hatred of religion and religious people.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

P.S. Trying to trick someone into providing answers to questions you did not ask is pretty rude. If you waned to ask me whether I think religious people are "uppity" or "need to be taught their place", both of which are clear allusions to racial discrimination, you should have just asked me that question, instead of asking a different question, using my answer as the response to a question you did not aks, and then trying to paint me as some sort of evil oppressor or somehting by subterfuge and verbal trickery. You did not ask me if I think "these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked me: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.

He didn't have to paint you in any way shape or form. It's pretty clear that you an irrational hatred of religion and religious people.

This is a perfect example of the prevalant attitude I was talking about. You are equating criticism with hatred.

I also don't think that men who are 5'6" should be allowed to steal money from the elderly. Do I now have an "irrational hatred" of men who are 5'6"?

 jasper76 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

P.S. Trying to trick someone into providing answers to questions you did not ask is pretty rude. If you waned to ask me whether I think religious people are "uppity" or "need to be taught their place", both of which are clear allusions to racial discrimination, you should have just asked me that question, instead of asking a different question, using my answer as the response to a question you did not aks, and then trying to paint me as some sort of evil oppressor or somehting by subterfuge and verbal trickery. You did not ask me if I think "these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked me: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.

He didn't have to paint you in any way shape or form. It's pretty clear that you an irrational hatred of religion and religious people.

This is a perfect example of the prevalant attitude I was talking about. You are equating criticism with hatred.

I also don't think that men who are 5'6" should be allowed to steal money from the elderly. Do I know have an "irrational hatred" of men who are 5'6"?

Of course you do.

Oh boy...I can't tell who is joking and who's not at this point.

 focusedfire wrote:

By the government being in favour of gay "marriage" it would open the religions(private organizations) to federal and various states anti-discrimination laws. Churchs or Pastors could be fined under laws like Houston's new anti-discrimination ordinsnce for refusing to marry openly gay couples.

This creates a defacto situation of where gay > religion in the eyes of the law.

Except that, as of yet, no State that has legalized gay marriage has put a PRIVATE organization, such as a church under that umbrella. So thus far, churches are still able to decline a couple's wedding on the grounds that they are the same sex/gender.... For the State to do so would severely infringe on the Pastor's and church organizations ability to practice their 1st amendment rights.

So, legalizing same-sex marriage does not create a gay>religion situation, nor does it create a discriminatory situation.

 jasper76 wrote:

This is a perfect example of the prevalant attitude I was talking about. You are equating criticism with hatred.

I also don't think that men who are 5'6" should be allowed to steal money from the elderly. Do I now have an "irrational hatred" of men who are 5'6"?

If you go on for several pages creating strawman arguments about how 5'6 men are constantly stealing money for the elderly and regurgitating stereotypes (like you were with priests molesting children) then most certainly, you would be displaying an "irrational hatred" of men who are 5'6.

The priest pedophilia attacks are sensationalized propaganda against religion. http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

Once actual research was done, it flat out dispelled that myth. Using the child molestation scandal as a justification to attack religion is extremely bigoted. That kind of stereotype is on par with saying jews are greedy, mexicans lazy and blacks less intelligent than whites. There is zero evidence to support those claims and mountains of evidence that completely dispel those stereotypes. Just like there is ample data to show that a child is 50% less likely to be molested by a priest than by any other person in the general population.

You can sit there bashing religion all you want because right now it's politically correct to do so. It doesn't make what you are saying any less inflammatory and frankly, you've been excessively hateful. It's one thing to be critical, it's another thing to be hateful. Based on the choice of your words, it's pretty clear that you hate religion.

So you just proved to me that you didn't even read my posts, because I never once mentioned or alluded to priests molesting children, which is totally illegal already.

 jasper76 wrote:
So you just proved to me that you didn't even read my posts, because I never once mentioned or alluded to priests molesting children, which is totally illegal already.

You quite clearly eluded to it when you called their teachings "abuse". Own up to it because it's pretty damn obvious.

Own up to nothing. You are flat out putting words in my mouth. When pressed on the issue, I said very specifically what I meant.

Part of a conversation is actually listening to what the the other conversant has to say.

I don't know how or why you took anything I said to be a reference to the RCC pedophilia situation, but please stop putting words in my mouth.

jasper76 wrote:
If a teacher tells a child that she will burn forever and ever if she doesn't follow the rules on the chalkboard, it would rightfully be called child abuse, the teacher woul be fired, and the case would probably end up in courts and likely result in civil and perhaps criminal penalties for that teacher.

If a parent or clergy does the same thing under the shield of religious protection, it is still child abuse, but it is not illegal.

Nice but inaccurate "Hyperbole" there. Lets go point by point:

A)The teacher would most definitely be fired over violating what has become an all to common zero-tolerance rule about religion in public schools.(Odd that many forget that such policies are in direct contradiction to the exact wording of the 1st amendment...please note that such policies are currently being challenged in the court system.)

B)The Teacher could try to sue to get her job back.

C)The thought that as per your example, that she would be facing criminal charges is far, far beyond the scope of reality. It does show how you think religions should be treated and is further evidence that you are not criticizing but are using hateful rhetoric.


Now to your example itself. Let us get past the "Hyperbole" and look at the basics of what you are saying. In essence the teacher says if you mis-behave(sin) you will be punished(Go to hell).

Would you be so quick to charge a teacher with abuse if they told said child that they would go to jail if they commited a crime(brought a gun to school)?
Should a teacher be fired for telling students that if they commit murder that they can get the death penalty in many states?

*Warning:To answer no to these will put you in a very difficult to defend position

jasper76 wrote:OK...

All I said was religious people shold not have the right to abuse children.

Do you think that religious people should ave the right to abuse children?

As you asked of me, just answer the question.

Do I think religious people should have the right to abuse children?

No

See how easy it is to answer succinctly when people are honest with both themselves and with whom they are conversing.


Now do I equate all religions with child abuse as you seem to?

No, to does so would be bigoted and to verbally imply such would be pretty close to hate speach

jasper76 wrote:
P.S. Trying to trick someone into providing answers to questions you did not ask is pretty rude. If you waned to ask me whether I think religious people are "uppity" or "need to be taught their place", both of which are clear allusions to racial discrimination, you should have just asked me that question, instead of asking a different question, using my answer as the response to a question you did not aks, and then trying to paint me as some sort of evil oppressor or somehting by subterfuge and verbal trickery. You did not ask me if I think "these people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked me: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.

I didn't trick you. You voluntarily answered a question. A question that I might add was directed at other posters. Of which, said other posters knew better than to answer such a loaded question. Their silence should have been your first hint.

As to the question(s), not question. There were 2 and they were asking the other posters if they felt a certain way. This was because of certain allusions that had been made about the religious and or religions having exceeded their proper place within our society. One of the individuals was arguing against the religious people having a right to sue under the 1st amendment. To say that they don't have a right to sue for constitutional protection would mean that they immediately become lesser almost non- citizens.

Now go back and re-read the original questions and you will see that they are not what you claim here.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

By the government being in favour of gay "marriage" it would open the religions(private organizations) to federal and various states anti-discrimination laws. Churchs or Pastors could be fined under laws like Houston's new anti-discrimination ordinsnce for refusing to marry openly gay couples.

This creates a defacto situation of where gay > religion in the eyes of the law.

Except that, as of yet, no State that has legalized gay marriage has put a PRIVATE organization, such as a church under that umbrella. So thus far, churches are still able to decline a couple's wedding on the grounds that they are the same sex/gender.... For the State to do so would severely infringe on the Pastor's and church organizations ability to practice their 1st amendment rights.

So, legalizing same-sex marriage does not create a gay>religion situation, nor does it create a discriminatory situation.

This case begs to differ: http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2013/04/state-sues-christian-florist-for-being.html

and also this: http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/lawsuit-finds-church-discriminated-against-lesbian-couple/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/lawsuit-finds-church-discriminated-against-lesbian-couple/

I could easily dig up various other situations but these 2 already cover the scope of a personal religiopus infringement and one directed at religion on an institutional basis.

BTW, In Houston it will be a $5000 US fine and Mayor Anise Parker has already displayed an intention to go after the churches by what had to be removed from her "personal" crusade just to get it passed as an ordinance.

I do not believe, nor have I stated, that religious people's constituational rights should differ in any way shape or form from everyone elses. I'm sorry if I missed the context of your question.

 focusedfire wrote:

jasper76 wrote:
Now to your example itself. Let us get past the Hyperbole and look at the basics of what you are saying. In essence the teacher says if you mis-behave(sin) you will be punished(Go to hell).

Would you be so quick to charge a teacher with abuse if they told said child that they would go to jail if they commited a crime(brought a gun to school). Should a teacher be fired for telling students that if they commit murder that they can get the death penalty in many states?

*Warning:To answer no to these will put you in a very difficult to defend position

No. If you can't tell the difference between warnings against legal ramifactions for crimes, and threatening a child with eternal torture, then lets just stop this part of the discussion right now.

 focusedfire wrote:
Now do I equate all religions with child abuse as you seem to?

No, to does so would be bigoted and to verbally imply such would be pretty close to hate speach

I don't know where you and derek are getting this stuff from. Please quote where I said that I equate all religions with child abuse, and I will promptly apologize and correct my statement to what I actually mean.

 focusedfire wrote:
I didn't trick you. You voluntarily answered a question. A question that I might add was directed at other posters. Of which, said other posters knew better than to answer such a loaded question. Their silence should have been your first hint.

While I did miss the context of your question, for which I sincerely apologize, I did answer the question you aksed, and then you changed the question. If you'd like me to answer a question, just ask. You did not ask if religious "people are being "uppity" and need to be "taught" their place." You asked: "Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?", which is an entirely different question.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, for the purpose of clarity, I was trying to compare the following.

Teacher: Here are my rules. No chewing gum. No talking in class. If you break these rules, you will burn forever.

Parent: Don't do "religious prohibition X, Y, Z". If you break these rules, you will burn forever.

 focusedfire wrote:

Soooo, it is ok to ignore the entire history of the word in terms of how it is applied in federal jurisprudence, just so long as some group gets to stick it to the religio's. Got it.

No. That isn't the argument I made. How you gathered that from my post is (not) a mystery to me.

 focusedfire wrote:

Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights? Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?

No and no...well maybe yes on the last question.

At any rate I dislike the phrase "the religious" as it is an oblique reference to Christians and Jews, rather than a reference to religious people in general.

Grimm's fairy tales: Don't do A, B or C, monsters and animals will eat you alive.

Is reading their stories to children abuse?

 focusedfire wrote:
Would you be so quick to charge a teacher with abuse if they told said child that they would go to jail if they commited a crime(brought a gun to school)?
Should a teacher be fired for telling students that if they commit murder that they can get the death penalty in many states?

*Warning:To answer no to these will put you in a very difficult to defend position

Actually it's very easy to defend: the legal consequences of being convicted of a given crime are indisputable facts. Hell is an absurd myth used to scare people into obeying an equally-absurd system of arbitrary rules. Is it really so hard to see a difference between "this is how our legal system works" and "my imaginary friend is going to torture you forever if you don't obey me"?

Now do I equate all religions with child abuse as you seem to?

All religions? No. Not all religions threaten children with eternal torture if they don't obey, nor do they provide a message that is essentially "you suck and deserve to be tortured forever, you'll never be anything without god". But religions that do are pretty abusive.

This case begs to differ: http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2013/04/state-sues-christian-florist-for-being.html

Oh good, a dishonest argument! Let's just conveniently ignore the fact that state anti-discrimination laws include sexual orientation, and the florist is being sued for refusing service, not for their religious beliefs. This case would be exactly the same if the flowers were for a "marriage" ceremony with no legal status.

and also this: http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/lawsuit-finds-church-discriminated-against-lesbian-couple/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/lawsuit-finds-church-discriminated-against-lesbian-couple/

You're just making this too easy. Read the details of the case, not just the title. This one involves property owned by the church (NOT the church buildings) that is offered for public use, and the church has accepted government support that includes a requirement that it be open to everyone. This isn't even close to an violation of their rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Grimm's fairy tales: Don't do A, B or C, monsters and animals will eat you alive.

Is reading their stories to children abuse?

No, because nobody is presenting them as true stories. It would be fine to teach the bible as a work of fiction in a literature class, as long as it was presented as a work of fiction. But that's not what's happening in this hypothetical scenario. It's the difference between watching a scary movie with a robbery scene, knowing that it's a work of fiction and you can walk away at any time, and getting robbed at gunpoint in the real world.

So much talk about how mean religions are in the "without talking about religion" thread...

 -Shrike- wrote:
Grimm's fairy tales: Don't do A, B or C, monsters and animals will eat you alive.

Is reading their stories to children abuse?

"And then the witch ate the kids!"

"If you touch your penis a certain way your eternal soul WILL burn forever you and you WILL be tortured forever in an infinite hellscape"

 -Shrike- wrote:
Grimm's fairy tales: Don't do A, B or C, monsters and animals will eat you alive.

Is reading their stories to children abuse?

Not a good analogy, because parents (usually, I hope) make it clear to their children that those books are make-believe.

In certain religious mindsets, the threat of eternal torture is very very real, and is presented to children as being very, very real.

 jasper76 wrote:
Not a good analogy, because parents (usually, I hope) make it clear to their children that those books are make-believe.

In certain religious mindsets, the threat of eternal torture is very very real, and is presented to children as being very, very real.

Ever heard the phrase, "the moral of the story is..."?

There is a reason why children are told these kinds of stories. They are told to reinforce beliefs... To plant seeds of morality into their impressionable brains.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Not a good analogy, because parents (usually, I hope) make it clear to their children that those books are make-believe.

In certain religious mindsets, the threat of eternal torture is very very real, and is presented to children as being very, very real.

Ever heard the phrase, "the moral of the story is..."?

There is a reason why children are told these kinds of stories. They are told to reinforce beliefs... To plant seeds of morality into their impressionable brains.

OK...no arguments with you there.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Not a good analogy, because parents (usually, I hope) make it clear to their children that those books are make-believe.

In certain religious mindsets, the threat of eternal torture is very very real, and is presented to children as being very, very real.

Ever heard the phrase, "the moral of the story is..."?

There is a reason why children are told these kinds of stories. They are told to reinforce beliefs... To plant seeds of morality into their impressionable brains.

Yes, but that is different from telling a kid he may actually burn in hell for eternity.

 jasper76 wrote:


This is a perfect example of the prevalant attitude I was talking about. You are equating criticism with hatred.

I also don't think that men who are 5'6" should be allowed to steal money from the elderly. Do I now have an "irrational hatred" of men who are 5'6"?

As a 5'6" man who is not Christian, I will opine that no hatred of us is irrational!


Sooon...



edit- Although I'm wildly off topic, what on the goddess's earth does anything on this page have to with people marrying who they love?

It breaks legal precedent, and some people are mad about extending the rights they enjoy to others. That's the non-religious argument in a nutshell. The rest is just trying to figure out who's morally right.

Mathematically speaking- 19 states legalized in 5 years. In another 10-15, you should be able to marry any consenting adult who'll have you.

dogma wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

Soooo, it is ok to ignore the entire history of the word in terms of how it is applied in federal jurisprudence, just so long as some group gets to stick it to the religio's. Got it.

No. That isn't the argument I made. How you gathered that from my post is (not) a mystery to me.

(Neither) is it a mystery to me, when one takes into account your what you actually posted "and" your very long history of intolerance towards christian based religions.

dogma wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights? Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?

No and no...well maybe yes on the last question.

At any rate I dislike the phrase "the religious" as it is an oblique reference to Christians and Jews, rather than a reference to religious people in general.

Thank you for at least being a little honest about your anti-religious prejudices.

As to the use of the term "the religious": So, you want to censor my use of the term because of how you interpret it? Not gonna happen.

I use the term in a non- derogatory manner to reflect any and all who are religious, whether they be Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Taoist, Muslim, Atheist or any other well know organized group with a devout belief concerning the "universals" of metaphysics. I also use the term to denote that I am not a religious person.

Though, from past post on similar topics, I understand your bias and desire to single out the Christians.

Peregrine wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
Would you be so quick to charge a teacher with abuse if they told said child that they would go to jail if they commited a crime(brought a gun to school)?
Should a teacher be fired for telling students that if they commit murder that they can get the death penalty in many states?

*Warning:To answer no to these will put you in a very difficult to defend position

Actually it's very easy to defend: the legal consequences of being convicted of a given crime are indisputable facts. Hell is an absurd myth used to scare people into obeying an equally-absurd system of arbitrary rules. Is it really so hard to see a difference between "this is how our legal system works" and "my imaginary friend is going to torture you forever if you don't obey me"?

Congratulations upon your scientific breakthrough disproving the existence of an afterlife, alternate planes and future evolution towards non-physical beings. Please, let us know when you are due to accept your Nobel peace prize. What?..wait? You haven't scientifically proven that Hell doesn't exist? Well, that would mean that you are just spouting off your personal beliefs and trying to pass them off as fact.

Peregrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote:Now do I equate all religions with child abuse as you seem to?

All religions? No. Not all religions threaten children with eternal torture if they don't obey, nor do they provide a message that is essentially "you suck and deserve to be tortured forever, you'll never be anything without god". But religions that do are pretty abusive.

What you see as abuse and damage to precious self-esteem, others might see as an educational process that attempts to reign in humanities natural tendency towards narcissism. Teaching that there are things greater than than any single human(or all of humanity) in this universe seems to be one of the more worthwhile goals of the religious.

I would also like to know if you really think that all religious groups that believe in hell beat the concept into their children on a daily basis.

Peregrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote:This case begs to differ: http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2013/04/state-sues-christian-florist-for-being.html

Oh good, a dishonest argument! Let's just conveniently ignore the fact that state anti-discrimination laws include sexual orientation, and the florist is being sued for refusing service, not for their religious beliefs. This case would be exactly the same if the flowers were for a "marriage" ceremony with no legal status.

Only dishonesty is how you are intentionally ignoring the rights of "private" businesses and individuals to refuse service for as a part of their faith. Where would you take it next? Force people to open their business on their Sabbath because their taking a day off is somehow shoving their beliefs down your throat?

Man, you are a piece of work. In your reply above, somehow you think that you won an internet cookie "by arguing the exact point that I was making". You just argued that the government "is" intruding into private religious belief and the freedom to practice such "is" being affected by how the gay marriage laws interact with current anti-discrimination laws.
Really, thank you for helping to make my case.

Peregrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote:and also this: http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/lawsuit-finds-church-discriminated-against-lesbian-couple/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/lawsuit-finds-church-discriminated-against-lesbian-couple/

You're just making this too easy. Read the details of the case, not just the title. This one involves property owned by the church (NOT the church buildings) that is offered for public use, and the church has accepted government support that includes a requirement that it be open to everyone. This isn't even close to an violation of their rights.

Ahh, yeah. Instead of just doing a casual perusal of the case, you might want to look deeper. You see, the Church stopped taking state money several years before this case. As such, they were no longer bound by the states public land clause. This is why the gay-lesbian community consider it a bench mark case. The ruling set the precedent for gays&lesbians to sue churches for refusing to conduct same-sex marriages on church property.


It is odd, with you being such a religious person, seems you would have more empathy for those of other beliefs.



BTW, this is getting a bit afield. I have already offered up several ways that would accomplish the stated goals of all groups involved. Even pointed out a few possible loopholes in the Christian/Judaic texts that people could use to argue the technical right to have Judaic-Christian same-sex marriages. Unfortunately, seems that many here would rather indulge in their hatred of certain religions rather than have a discussion on the difficulties of separating religion and government where marriage is concerned.

 focusedfire wrote:
I use the term in a non- derogatory manner to reflect any and all who are religious, whether they be Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Taoist, Muslim, Atheist or any other well know organized group with a devout belief concerning the "universals" of metaphysics.

You certainly don't, because under that definition "the religious" includes everyone. And therefore asking things like "do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights" doesn't make any sense at all. Your question is only a reasonable thing to ask if you interpret "the religious" in a much narrower way, to create a defined subset of the population that could act as a unified whole. So yeah, I think it's pretty clear that you're using "the religious" in the common way, where it means "Christians".

Congratulations upon your scientific breakthrough disproving the existence of an afterlife, alternate planes and future evolution towards non-physical beings. Please, let us know when you are due to accept your Nobel peace prize. What?..wait? You haven't scientifically proven that Hell doesn't exist? Well, that would mean that you are just spouting off your personal beliefs and trying to pass them off as fact.

I don't think you understand the concept of a burden of proof. I have no obligation to prove that hell doesn't exist, I can simply point to the fact that nobody, in the entire history of humanity, has provided even the slightest credible evidence that it exists. Unless you want to consistently apply your standards of proof and never, under any circumstances, say "X doesn't exist" then I think we can end this ridiculous diversion into nitpicking and bad philosophy.

I would also like to know if you really think that all religious groups that believe in hell beat the concept into their children on a daily basis.

No, of course they don't. But it's the difference between beating your children occasionally, and beating them daily. It's still wrong even if you don't do it as much as other people.

Only dishonesty is how you are intentionally ignoring the rights of "private" businesses and individuals to refuse service for as a part of their faith.

Do you also support the right of private businesses and individuals to refuse service as a part of their racist beliefs? Should we go back to the days of "whites only" signs? Or does the right to refuse service only apply when it's discrimination against a group that you don't mind people discriminating against?

Force people to open their business on their Sabbath because their taking a day off is somehow shoving their beliefs down your throat?

WTF? Do you honestly think that this is a good argument? I really don't see how anyone can reasonably make a connection between "you can't refuse service" and "you must be available any time I want you to be available".

You just argued that the government "is" intruding into private religious belief and the freedom to practice such "is" being affected by how the gay marriage laws interact with current anti-discrimination laws.

No, you just didn't pay attention. The case has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. It's a straightforward case of violating anti-discrimination laws, the fact that the refused service had to do with weddings was purely a coincidence. The outcome would have been exactly the same if the flowers had been for a "marriage" ceremony with no legal status. Giving that legal status is a completely independent issue.

You see, the Church stopped taking state money several years before this case. As such, they were no longer bound by the states public land clause.

Under whose rules? The state's rules, or the church's desire to have those restrictions end as soon as they want them to go away? Could you cite the exact laws governing the conversion of a public space into a private one?

The ruling set the precedent for gays&lesbians to sue churches for refusing to conduct same-sex marriages on church property.

For a very limited definition of "church property" that only includes public-use property that just happens to be owned by a church. If you make a park available to anyone who wants to use it and accept state support that comes with a requirement to continue that availability then yes, you lose the right to kick people out just because you don't like them. But don't try to present this as some kind of dangerous precedent that inevitably leads to gay couples getting married in anti-gay churches because the poor church officials are afraid of going to prison if they object.

It is odd, with you being such a religious person, seems you would have more empathy for those of other beliefs.

I don't see where you get the idea that I'm a religious person. I'm not. And I have no empathy for repulsive bigots.

 Peregrine wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
I use the term in a non- derogatory manner to reflect any and all who are religious, whether they be Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Taoist, Muslim, Atheist or any other well know organized group with a devout belief concerning the "universals" of metaphysics.

You certainly don't, because under that definition "the religious" includes everyone. And therefore asking things like "do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights" doesn't make any sense at all. Your question is only a reasonable thing to ask if you interpret "the religious" in a much narrower way, to create a defined subset of the population that could act as a unified whole. So yeah, I think it's pretty clear that you're using "the religious" in the common way, where it means "Christians".

Really? So My Orthodox Jewish relatives would not be a part of this? How about practitioners of Islam? What about the Theravada Buddhists? How about the few Hindu Nationalists in the US?

No, Your extensive knowledge says that there are no such groups and that I must be only talking about the Christians. Gods man, seems your bigotry and hate for Christians may be blinding you to how others could be affected.

Peregrine wrote:

Congratulations upon your scientific breakthrough disproving the existence of an afterlife, alternate planes and future evolution towards non-physical beings. Please, let us know when you are due to accept your Nobel peace prize. What?..wait? You haven't scientifically proven that Hell doesn't exist? Well, that would mean that you are just spouting off your personal beliefs and trying to pass them off as fact.

I don't think you understand the concept of a burden of proof. I have no obligation to prove that hell doesn't exist, I can simply point to the fact that nobody, in the entire history of humanity, has provided even the slightest credible evidence that it exists. Unless you want to consistently apply your standards of proof and never, under any circumstances, say "X doesn't exist" then I think we can end this ridiculous diversion into nitpicking and bad philosophy.

A Bad understanding of how theorems and proofs work has led you to bad scientific example. How the burden of proof works is when someone(in this case you) makes an assertion(puts forth a theorem) on the properties of something. In this case whether something exists or does not. Then you have to come up with a scientific way of proving your theorem before they can be considered fact.

Seeing as there is no current way to prove that Hell does or does not exist then to make a claim as to its existence or non-existence is to lie. Basically, you are doing the thing of which you accuse the Christians. Only, in your case I feel that it is worse. Most Christians say that they believe in a heaven and hell, but most will admit that it cannot be proven until they die. You, on the other hand are making blanket declarations of facts that you cannot prove.

I will agree, that with your willingness to violate research methodology 101, it is useless to have this discussion with you.

Peregrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote:I would also like to know if you really think that all religious groups that believe in hell beat the concept into their children on a daily basis.

No, of course they don't. But it's the difference between beating your children occasionally, and beating them daily. It's still wrong even if you don't do it as much as other people.

There is a difference between telling your child about your faith and its tenets and browbeating them daily with threats of burning. Again, it seems as if hatred and bigotry are clouding your view.

Also, as mentioned by others in this thread,"Who says that the threat of hell is abuse?". No different than telling your kids that the Boogey man will get them if they misbehave. It has more to do with how the topic is handled than the mention of the topic.
But wait, you said it is abuse so it has to be.

Peregrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote:Only dishonesty is how you are intentionally ignoring the rights of "private" businesses and individuals to refuse service for as a part of their faith.

Do you also support the right of private businesses and individuals to refuse service as a part of their racist beliefs? Should we go back to the days of "whites only" signs? Or does the right to refuse service only apply when it's discrimination against a group that you don't mind people discriminating against?

Sure, I also believe in the right to refuse to sell to a customer with long nose hair. If someone wants to be a poor business person, let them. Their competition will reap the benefits and word of mouth will hurt the business if that is the way society feels. You see, I don't like the concept of societal engineering, I think that societies should be left to develop more organically.

Peregrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote:Force people to open their business on their Sabbath because their taking a day off is somehow shoving their beliefs down your throat?

WTF? Do you honestly think that this is a good argument? I really don't see how anyone can reasonably make a connection between "you can't refuse service" and "you must be available any time I want you to be available".

I'm not the one making the argument: http://donklephant.com/2006/10/05/is-this-discrimination/

While I am glad to see that your hatred of the Christians hasn't pushed you to this point, there are other groups willing to go after various religious groups just for this reason. When the NAACP does something like this, you can bet that the Anti-religious groups will start filings such lawsuits en mass.
(And yes, the clinic receives federal funding. Does this mean that the Government employees can't have the Sabbath off? Will have to see how this progresses)

Peregrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote:You just argued that the government "is" intruding into private religious belief and the freedom to practice such "is" being affected by how the gay marriage laws interact with current anti-discrimination laws.

No, you just didn't pay attention. The case has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. It's a straightforward case of violating anti-discrimination laws, the fact that the refused service had to do with weddings was purely a coincidence. The outcome would have been exactly the same if the flowers had been for a "marriage" ceremony with no legal status. Giving that legal status is a completely independent issue.

Go..back..and..re-read..the..end..of..what..you..quoted. This subject was a reply to another poster about how state ratified same-sex marriage would interact with current anti-discrimination laws in a way that would force private individuals and businesses to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. Your inability to see how these interact and relate comes across like you are "compartmentalizing". You might want to work on that.

Peregrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote:You see, the Church stopped taking state money several years before this case. As such, they were no longer bound by the states public land clause.

Under whose rules? The state's rules, or the church's desire to have those restrictions end as soon as they want them to go away? Could you cite the exact laws governing the conversion of a public space into a private one?

It would seem that it would be under the state and federal rules. The ones that stopped providing protections and coverage when the church stopped taking the money. If a deal is off then it is off, kinda hard to argue that the Church gets all the hassle, none of the benefits and still has to abide by a deal no longer in effect.

Expect this to get appealed.

Peregrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote:The ruling set the precedent for gays&lesbians to sue churches for refusing to conduct same-sex marriages on church property.

For a very limited definition of "church property" that only includes public-use property that just happens to be owned by a church. If you make a park available to anyone who wants to use it and accept state support that comes with a requirement to continue that availability then yes, you lose the right to kick people out just because you don't like them. But don't try to present this as some kind of dangerous precedent that inevitably leads to gay couples getting married in anti-gay churches because the poor church officials are afraid of going to prison if they object.

Please to refrain from asserting your hyperbole as my having said such, Never argued the imprisonment of clergy (though a contempt of court ruling could lead to such happening). I did argue that the ground work is being laid to do just what you are saying won't happen. That the anti-religious groups and gay couples that are willing to put their desires before the rights of various religious entities will sue to force anti-gay congregations to marry them. You know, to teach them a lesson. Teach them how wrong they are to follow what is to them the highest authority.

Peregrine wrote:

focusedfire wrote:It is odd, with you being such a religious person, seems you would have more empathy for those of other beliefs.

I don't see where you get the idea that I'm a religious person. I'm not. And I have no empathy for repulsive bigots.

Well, by your own words I've quoted below, you would be be both.

Peregrine wrote:When I, a devout atheist, die I will have some kind of funeral ceremony and it will have nothing to do with religion.

A devout person who has ceremonies definitely fits the term religious

 focusedfire wrote:
Really? So My Orthodox Jewish relatives would not be a part of this? How about practitioners of Islam? What about the Theravada Buddhists? How about the few Hindu Nationalists in the US?

Please don't change the context of the statement you quoted. I'm talking about your use of "the religious", which is clearly much narrower than your later defense of "it's everyone" claims, not saying that only Christians would be affected by gay marriage.

Gods man, seems your bigotry and hate for Christians may be blinding you to how others could be affected.

I know other groups can be affected, and I don't care. In fact I enjoy the thought of repulsive bigots, whatever their religion may be, being forced to watch as the world changes around them and they are helpless to do anything but pray to their imaginary gods and whine about how persecuted they are.

A Bad understanding of how theorems and proofs work has led you to bad scientific example.

No, you just don't understand how proof works. And honestly, I've done this debate enough times already, so I'm not going to get dragged into it again. By the standards we apply to everything but religious claims "hell doesn't exist" is indisputable fact, just like "1+1 is not equal to 5". You can argue bad philosophy all you want (which, btw, doesn't impress anyone over about 20 or so), but all you're doing is nitpicking the definition of "proof" and coming up with your own version that is only used to win forum arguments.

There is a difference between telling your child about your faith and its tenets and browbeating them daily with threats of burning. Again, it seems as if hatred and bigotry are clouding your view.

No, you just don't bother reading what I said. I specifically said that not all religious people are guilty of it, so don't go whining about bigotry just because I consider hell a morally appalling concept (as should anyone with a functioning sense of morality). You're the only one who seems to think that I'm talking about all religious people, rather than just the ones who threaten their kids with hell if they don't obey.

No different than telling your kids that the Boogey man will get them if they misbehave.

Of course it's different. The boogey man or whatever is presented as a silly story. Sure, you might scare your kids with it, but in the end everyone knows it's just a joke and nobody takes it seriously (and if you seriously use it to threaten them into obedience then you're a just like the people threatening hell). Hell, on the other hand, is presented as a real thing that they have to worry about.

Peregrine wrote:Do you also support the right of private businesses and individuals to refuse service as a part of their racist beliefs? Should we go back to the days of "whites only" signs? Or does the right to refuse service only apply when it's discrimination against a group that you don't mind people discriminating against?

Sure, I also believe in the right to refuse to sell to a customer with long nose hair.