Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Laws in the US that restrict the rights of Christians
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 46 of 84 (423246)
09-20-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Taz
09-20-2007 1:41 PM


Re: Laws that target groups directly
The nazis also got the majority vote. Just because the majority believe in something doesn't make it good.
i didn't say it was good, i said it's how the system works. want a different system? buy a large tank and try it.
Will civil union on a state level help my friend live with his partner in a place that they both can have economic and political opportunities like the rest of us?
i don't know. maybe. i'd have to look it up.
I'm saying the improvement is surprisingly staggering at this point in time and place.
i'm assuming you mean stagnating. i feel that way about a lot of things. like for the fact that we passed an international resolution to prevent genocide at all costs in 1948 and have since done almost nothing to enforce it. "never again" continued to be "not my problem". but that doesn't mean that small steps like more resolutions calling people on their crimes aren't worthwhile. i'm not going to stop working and just stamp my feet because no one is willing to create a standing force of troops to enforce human rights law.
baby steps. it was only 2003 that sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional. we've made great strides considering. it's only been 4 years and people can almost get married? i think it's great. but 59 years and even the jews are restricting people's movements and livelihood based on nationality and religion? that's shite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Taz, posted 09-20-2007 1:41 PM Taz has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 47 of 84 (424750)
09-28-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
09-14-2007 8:39 PM


Not sure if this would count, but what about laws against polygamy?
Historically, at least, the mormons had a tendency to support polygamy. In order for Utah to reach statehood, it had to ban polygamy--thus restricting their "religious expression".
Eh, just a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-14-2007 8:39 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Taz, posted 09-28-2007 12:38 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 09-28-2007 12:41 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 48 of 84 (424757)
09-28-2007 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by kuresu
09-28-2007 11:57 AM


This is actually a pretty damn valid point.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by kuresu, posted 09-28-2007 11:57 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 84 (424759)
09-28-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by kuresu
09-28-2007 11:57 AM


I'm not sure that this counts in the spirit of the OP.
The pressure on the Mormon Church to conform to mainstream standards was pretty much due to mainstream Christian's prejudice against Mormon beliefs and practices, not a policy in the interests of a secular society.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by kuresu, posted 09-28-2007 11:57 AM kuresu has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 50 of 84 (427948)
10-13-2007 6:45 PM


I would welcome a total change to marriage, that is, all unions be civil unions. People, if they wish could have a traditional marriage, but under the law, the union would be a civil union. Then it would not matter if the union was male-female, male-male or female-female. All would have the sames rights.

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taz, posted 10-13-2007 8:43 PM bluescat48 has not replied
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 10-13-2007 11:35 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 51 of 84 (427958)
10-13-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by bluescat48
10-13-2007 6:45 PM


bluescat48 writes:
I would welcome a total change to marriage, that is, all unions be civil unions. People, if they wish could have a traditional marriage, but under the law, the union would be a civil union. Then it would not matter if the union was male-female, male-male or female-female. All would have the sames rights.
I've seen this proposal before. This reminds me of how some school districts in the south decided to close down all their schools rather than allow black students to attend the same schools as white students.
I've said this before and I'll say it a million times more if necessary. Human rights issues are not up for debate. Human rights issues are not up for compromise. I don't care what the bible says and I certainly don't care what the law says. A human right is a human right.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by bluescat48, posted 10-13-2007 6:45 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by nator, posted 10-16-2007 10:01 AM Taz has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 84 (427981)
10-13-2007 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by bluescat48
10-13-2007 6:45 PM


A couple of years ago, I started a thread on this very idea. It degenerated in several people (including myself) just arguing about stuff. But if you're interested, it could be resurrected.
I think that some countries do this very thing -- for some reason, France comes to mind, but I may be wrong -- to be legally valid, the partners must enter into a state sanctioned "civil union", and if the couple wants religious recognition they must then have a separate religious "marriage" ceremony.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by bluescat48, posted 10-13-2007 6:45 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 53 of 84 (428031)
10-14-2007 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taz
09-15-2007 8:29 PM


What about the Chaplains?
This is taken from the A.C.L.J. website. (Yes, Jar...I know that Pat Robertson sponsors Jay Seculow, but the man has more intelligence than the average fundie! )
Seculow writes:
Free Speech for Chaplains
This morning I was on the phone with Congressman Trent Franks from Arizona. We talked about the concern that has been surrounding the inability of military chaplains to pray according to the dictates of their conscience. Christian military chaplains have been denied the right to pray in Jesus’ name for fear of retribution and even discipline by military officials. The President has been sent a request from a number of members of Congress for an Executive Order to protect our military chaplains. We are aggressively working on this issue.
Under the guise of free speech, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was given access to Columbia University and national media in the United States. Military sources have already indicated that Iran has supplied weapons that have been used against our soldiers. While President Ahmadinejad is given First Amendment protection, chaplains are not.
So whats wrong with Seculows argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 09-15-2007 8:29 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2007 8:19 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 10-14-2007 9:40 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 56 by jar, posted 10-14-2007 10:49 AM Phat has replied
 Message 69 by Rrhain, posted 10-14-2007 3:45 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 72 by Rahvin, posted 10-14-2007 5:34 PM Phat has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 84 (428034)
10-14-2007 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Phat
10-14-2007 7:36 AM


Re: What about the Chaplains?
So whats wrong with Seculows argument?
It's wrong.
Under the guise of free speech, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was given access to Columbia University and national media in the United States.
This is a public forum, not run by the government, and people aren't required to participate.
Christian military chaplains have been denied the right to pray in Jesus’ name for fear of retribution and even discipline by military officials.
This is not a public forum. It's the military, a branch of the government, and being run by the government it needs to apply to all people equally.
Plus military chaplains are paid by the government. Furthermore they volunteered for the job with the provisions in place, so they are not restricted by the law -- they chose their place.
This is another example of christians wanting to get special privileges instead of behaving like everyone else.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : more on topic

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 10-14-2007 7:36 AM Phat has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 84 (428037)
10-14-2007 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Phat
10-14-2007 7:36 AM


Re: What about the Chaplains?
Christian military chaplains have been denied the right to pray in Jesus’ name for fear of retribution and even discipline by military officials.
Huh. And in my job as a math instructor, I'd like to take a day off from talking about how to find the relative maxima and minima of a function and talk about my favorite hobbies.
Except I would be fired.
Like military chaplains, I have a job that requires special duties, and it is not a violation of free speech if my employer makes it clear that some absurd view of "free speech" does not over ride my obligations to do my job properly. In my case, my job requires me to use my time to teach mathematics; in the case of a chaplain, his job requires him to minister to people of different faiths and different denominations, where praying in Jesus' name might be seen as overly sectarian.
I thought all of this was already explained to you in another thread, Phat? Why are you bringing up this bogus chaplain "controversy"?

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 10-14-2007 7:36 AM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 84 (428046)
10-14-2007 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Phat
10-14-2007 7:36 AM


Re: What about the Chaplains?
(Yes, Jar...I know that Pat Robertson sponsors Jay Seculow, but the man has more intelligence than the average fundie! )
The intelligence of fundies has never been the issue. Their honesty has been.
Your quote is yet another example of the totally dishonesty of the Christian Right.
What is scary is that the audience reading that nonsense does not have their bullshit detectors going off immediately.
The basic fallacy is that Chaplains are not forbidden to pray in Jesus name when they are personally praying, exercising their beliefs, only when they are performing their job, which is to minister to their folk in the religious beliefs of the recipient.
Chaplains are not Christian or Jew of Muslim. They are Chaplains, and as such their personal beliefs must take second place to the beliefs of those being ministered to.
It has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with their job description.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 10-14-2007 7:36 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Chiroptera, posted 10-14-2007 11:27 AM jar has replied
 Message 59 by Phat, posted 10-14-2007 12:31 PM jar has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 84 (428049)
10-14-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by jar
10-14-2007 10:49 AM


Re: What about the Chaplains?
The intelligence of fundies has never been the issue. Their honesty has been.
Quite right. I suspect that what upsets the evangelical Protestants isn't issues of free speech or exercise of relgion (hell, when have evangelical Protestants ever been supportive of speech or religion they were opposed to?); it is that evangelical Protestant chaplains cannot use their official capacity to proselytize.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 10-14-2007 10:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 10-14-2007 11:53 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 58 of 84 (428051)
10-14-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Chiroptera
10-14-2007 11:27 AM


Re: What about the Chaplains?
Quite right. I suspect that what upsets the evangelical Protestants isn't issues of free speech or exercise of relgion (hell, when have evangelical Protestants ever been supportive of speech or religion they were opposed to?); it is that evangelical Protestant chaplains cannot use their official capacity to proselytize.
Absolutely. The issue is not free speech but whether or not in their official duties they can pitch the woo.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Chiroptera, posted 10-14-2007 11:27 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Phat, posted 10-14-2007 1:37 PM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 59 of 84 (428056)
10-14-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by jar
10-14-2007 10:49 AM


Re: What about the Chaplains?
Jar writes:
Chaplains are not Christian or Jew of Muslim. They are Chaplains, and as such their personal beliefs must take second place to the beliefs of those being ministered to.
The issue, however, is that a majority of those being ministered to are Christians who are giving their lives for their country and would appreciate having Jesus being mentioned in prayers that they partake in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 10-14-2007 10:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 10-14-2007 12:33 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 61 by jar, posted 10-14-2007 1:23 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 62 by Chiroptera, posted 10-14-2007 1:35 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 70 by Rrhain, posted 10-14-2007 3:59 PM Phat has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 84 (428058)
10-14-2007 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Phat
10-14-2007 12:31 PM


Re: What about the Chaplains?
The issue, however, is that a majority of those being ministered to are Christians who are giving their lives for their country and would appreciate having Jesus being mentioned in prayers that they partake in.
And they are allowed to. Chaplains are not prevented from "praying in Jesus' name" with these particular Christians. Unless they are part of a group of mixed affiliations being ministered to at once.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Phat, posted 10-14-2007 12:31 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024