Now, it's not that I like Wiccans any more than I like Christians, but this is just plain ridiculous. Perhaps someone on the right would care to comment about 'activist judges'?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course it's utterly ridiculous, especially given that neither parent desired such a restriction.
Perhaps someone on the left would care to drop the pissy little questions. And maybe look into all the "right-wing" organizations who went to bat for Native Americans who wished to consume peyote as part of their religious rituals.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
That's insane. I don't agree with Wiccan beliefs myself, but so what?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Perhaps someone on the right would care to comment about 'activist judges'?<<
Sure. It's not right in this case any more than any of the other cases I've heard people squeal about it.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I can't believe the judge's decision wasn't overturned immediately.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
This is crazy. Go ACLU.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The ICLU (Indiana branch of the ACLU) is already on it, I bet it will be overturned with rapidity.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That's absolutely nuts and I can't imagine it will stand up. Yeah, I'm Christian and I would love to see the boy raised in a Christian home but guess what? It's not my kid. And the rights that I have to raise my children Christian are the same ones this family has to raise their child Wiccan, if they so choose.
Religious freedom is the issue here, you may not like the parent's choices, but they do have the right to choose their own religious beliefs and practices.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
-edited-
Sorry. I was trying to be flippant and came across as rather offensive. I apologize.
[ May 26, 2005, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Annie, Christianity as a whole has done quite a bit to discredit itself at times, too, but an awful lot of people take it very seriously. And since (I believe) we have a couple Wiccans here, your words might be a little harsher than you may have intended.
<Reads link.>
Yeah, it's ridiculous and offensive and a judge should know better.
--Pop
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I think Wicca does enough to discredit itself; I'm not particularly worried that a child would grow up to honestly take it seriously.
This could also be said of any religion, mainstream or otherwise, that members of this board practice.
This coming from an agnostic without much stake in any religion, but a sort of awed respect for people who manage to believe in anything. It's insulting to distill any religion to its most ridiculous stereotypes. I'm sure everyone on this board has been the brunt of that sort of thing at one time or another, but I may be wrong in assuming that it would make us less quick to judge.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've got agree with Pop on this one Annie. Clearly, I don't believe Wicca to be true. But then there's a whole lot of us on the board who don't consider each other's religion (if any) to be true. If we wish to maintain a collegial atmosphere, mutual respect of others' beliefs even while firmly believing them to be untrue is necessary.
Implications of dishonesty amongst those who take a particular belief seriously don't seem particularly respectful to me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I guess you might know, is there a disciplinary process for judges who just out and out violate their responsibilities this way? Like when the higher court rules that there is no way anyone could think that this was constituional, does something bad happen to the judge or is his decision just overturned?
edit: Pops, for clarification, are Annie's words (and porter's laughter, which he's apparently since deleted instead of appologizing for - nice) actually worse because we have Wiccan members? I figured that it would be just as bad if she mocked Sikhs or some other religion that I don't think we have members of here.
[ May 26, 2005, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
That's a complete violation of the Constitution. It will be overturned, but will anything happen to the judge I wonder?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jinx, EM, you owe me a coke.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I think Wicca does enough to discredit itself; I'm not particularly worried that a child would grow up to honestly take it seriously.
There are tens of thousands of practicing Wicca and Pagens in the US alone. Someone grows up to take it seriously it would seem. Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jinx, EM, you owe me a coke.
D'OH! Posted by 1lobo1 (Member # 7762) on :
This is just outrageous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I guess you might know, is there a disciplinary process for judges who just out and out violate their responsibilities this way? Like when the higher court rules that there is no way anyone could think that this was constituional, does something bad happen to the judge or is his decision just overturned?
Not really. Impeachment isn't suitable as a response to bad legal reasoning, as much as I might wish it to be in my weaker moments. Strong language in the appellate decision can be used in against the judge future elections or appointments. Future violations of an explicit override might be subject to sanction, but we're a long ways from there. Incompetence in general would have to be shown by a pattern, and technically that's not even a reason for removal in the federal courts.
Where a judge can get in trouble is where a clear outside influence prevailed. Bribery is the obvious and easy example. Failing to disclose a relationship with one of the parties is another. Overt racism or religious bigotry becomes harder to prove. Although clearly outrageous decisions will be given more weight in such an analysis, they will not in and of themselves provide enough proof to take action.
In this case, a pattern of anti-Wiccan decisions or a public record of a lot of anti-Wiccan speech (far more than merely refuting their beliefs) would be necessary to move against the judge, I think.
Dagonee
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:There are tens of thousands of practicing Wicca and Pagens in the US alone. Someone grows up to take it seriously it would seem.
I wonder how much the children of Wiccans tend to carry on in their parent's religion. Is the percentage higher or lower than for more mainstream religions?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Squick -- I don't necessarily think they're worse, but they have an even greater chance of offending someone here.
To try to illustrate -- I believe telling racist jokes is inappropriate no matter who is present, but telling them in the presence of someone of the race in question is perhaps more likely to result in offense rather than simply distaste.
--Pop
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Most of the people I know do not practice their parent's religion in any significant way. Even the UberBaptists next door have heathens for parents, not other Baptists.
Which is kinda funny, if you think about it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, unless he does some really big stuff, it comes down mostly to public opinion, where, I think it's likely having a history of trying to unconstitutionally force "mainstream" religions on people isn't exactly going to hurt you. Ah well.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
This is craziness. Hasn't this judge ever heard of freedom of religion? What right does he have to ban parents from teaching their son any religion they want to?
One question is how did the judge find out the parents practice Wicca if neither one brought it up?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This fanatic judge is what those of us on the left and many in the middle fear from the right. When you have evangelical groups running ads a gavel and a bible and saying "Judges shouldn't have to choose" you get many people nervous.
Howver those nerves could be soothed over, and a moderate main-stream concensous could be reached. Then a fool like this judge just scares everyone all over again.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by Portabello:
quote:There are tens of thousands of practicing Wicca and Pagens in the US alone. Someone grows up to take it seriously it would seem.
I wonder how much the children of Wiccans tend to carry on in their parent's religion. Is the percentage higher or lower than for more mainstream religions?
A good question. I bet there is no hard data though because most Wicca practice by themselves. There is no central "church" per se, and the individual covens normally do not interact with other covens except during festivals as far as I know. I have been doing some research on Wicca and Paganism. If I come across any hard data on that I'll let you all know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, unless he does some really big stuff, it comes down mostly to public opinion, where, I think it's likely having a history of trying to unconstitutionally force "mainstream" religions on people is exactly going to hurt you. Ah well.
Historically, attempts to force parents to not expose their children to the parents' religion has been met with enormous hostility by people most commonly associated with the religious right. Again, check out who filed briefs in the Smith case. As another example, the Christian Legal Society filed an amicus brief to support the right to use Hoasco Tea in a religious ceremony.
These types of groups will usually be at the forefront of a pure free exercise case, while they will typically split widely on establishment clause cases. So your fear of widespread support of having mainstream religions forced on others isn't applicable in this case, I don't think.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This fanatic judge is what those of us on the left and many in the middle fear from the right.
Funny, this is exactly parallel to what those of us on the right fear from the left with respect to judges.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hmmm...that's interesting Dag. I didn't know that. I hope that this is true.
On the other comment, you fear that judges will legally bind parents to not teach their children Christianity? From my perspective, I don't think you have anything to worry about on that score.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think this is something that the right and the left can unite on, though perhaps for different motivations (or perhaps not): the judge is clearly in the wrong here.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I think this is something that the right and the left can unite on, though perhaps for different motivations (or perhaps not): the judge is clearly in the wrong here.
Agreed.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I don't see why the right and left would have different motivations -- none of us want anybody else to tell us what to do concerning religion.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, neither do I, but I could concieve of it happening, so I said it to forestall comments on it.
See how well that worked?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:On the other comment, you fear that judges will legally bind parents to not teach their children Christianity? From my perspective, I don't think you have anything to worry about on that score.
Not now, perhaps. But it has happened in the past, and there's really nothing preventing it from happening in the future. Civilizations come and go...and we really don't know what's going to happen. I know that a lot of us believe that the "end times" will have quite a lot of religious persecution--though we might disagree on which group we believe will be persecuted. But even if you don't believe that, you can look at history and the way nations rise and fall and understand that religions have been persecuted over and over throughout the history of the world and it can and probably will happen again in whole or in part to Christianity.
And when it happens, we'll have no justification to complain about it if we stood idly by and let the same thing happen to other religions--simply because we didn't agree with them.
-Katarain
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There's people on both sides who don't want anyone to tell them what to do concerning religion. There are also people on both sides who don't want anyone to tell other people what to do concerning religion. At some point, I hope we could have a country where most people were in the second group.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:you fear that judges will legally bind parents to not teach their children Christianity? From my perspective, I don't think you have anything to worry about on that score.
Not precisely - I said it was parallel. Although I have seen several cases of orders preventing one parent from taking another to a particular church where the "winning" side was non-Christian and the "losing" side was Christian. But I don't fear those in the current situation any more than I fear that this order here will stand.
I was really getting at prohibitions that limit the ability of a person to act on their conscience or religious beliefs. For example, many Catholic organizations must cover birth control in California if they cover prescriptions for their employees.
Dagonee
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
This is just nuts. I wish that a judge could be impeached for this. It is a clear misuse of power. It is like he forgot what country he was in...and that we have a constitution.
The reason that people on the right are so against this...is many of us have been saying all along, that the constitution is not meant to protect the government from the religion of its citizens (or to allow the government to protect others from being exposed to the religion of other citizens), but to protect people's right to practice their own religion without interference from the government. An insane ruling like this violates that right that those of us on the right value. What religion that the courts are oppressing is irrelevant, it is still the government oppressing a religion.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Portabello: I don't see why the right and left would have different motivations -- none of us want anybody else to tell us what to do concerning religion.
I think a lot of the left's concerns arise, Porter, when it seems as if right-wing political leaders are trying to do exactly that--making laws based on religion, which is where the whole right and left thing comes into this particular mess.
I do agree, though, that most people on both sides of the political spectrum are going to view this particular case the same way (unless they believe there should be a state religion--and there are people out there that do).
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Thanks for bringing that into focus Megan. I myself could not think how to do it exactly.
Good job on both points.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Katarain, From what I see, thre are plenty of people in the religious majority who are blithely willing to force their religion on others in ways that would have them screaming bloodly murder if it were done to them. So I don't really buy that argument.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
No problem, Mr. Monkey. Nice to meet you!
(I originally said Welcome, and then realized you'd been here a while, and I'd just never seen you before. )
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Squicky, I believe a large number of folk would disagree with how you likely define "force their religion on others." That said, I think, sadly, that I agree with you. And I wonder at times if I'm one of those to whom you refer, despite my trying not to be.
--Pop
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Indeed MrSquicky. I have been screamed at to my face by a Quaker, a Christian, and several Catholics. All claimed I was going to burn in hell because I am an agnostic.
The Quaker was hilarious. The Chrsitian would hear no one's views but her own. The group of Catholics came pretty close to getting knocked out by me. The were so violent that they were almost spitting in my face.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Katarain, From what I see, thre are plenty of people in the religious majority who are blithely willing to force their religion on others in ways that would have them screaming bloodly murder if it were done to them. So I don't really buy that argument.
Um.... yeah.... I agree with that. I never said otherwise. There is a disturbingly large amount of so-called Christians who want to trample all over the religious freedom of others and call it the good and right thing to do. I never argued against that. I argued that it definitely IS possible, even likely, that at some point in the future, whether it be 10 years or a 1000 years, Christians will be persecuted for their religious beliefs--and that if they have continued to ignore or inflict religious persecution on others then they have no justification for whining about it. So what about that argument don't you buy...because your comment didn't really seem to address mine.
-Katarain
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:I think a lot of the left's concerns arise, Porter, when it seems as if right-wing political leaders are trying to do exactly that--making laws based on religion, which is where the whole right and left thing comes into this particular mess.
Um, that is not exactly the same. Making laws that are influenced on people's religion is not the same as making laws (or judgments) about somebody's religion.
To me, those are completely different things.
You might find them both equally objectionable, but don't just lump them together and expect me to go along with it.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: No problem, Mr. Monkey. Nice to meet you!
(I originally said Welcome, and then realized you'd been here a while, and I'd just never seen you before. )
I haven't been here all that long. I lurked for a while and then went off on OSC the other day. He replied back to me in a cool headed manner and it made me reconcider how I looked at things.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah Pop, it's like the bigotry thing from the other side. People often aren't aware of why things are wrong unless they actually get the perspective of having them turned on them. Some (I'd argue a lot) of them know that they are forcing their religion on people, but quite a few don't realize it because they lack the perspective. Not having others' religion forced on them, they don't realize that they are actually doing this to others.
Although, of course there are examples like Dag provided where you could argue that people are being forced to act against their own beliefs (although I feel ambigiously about that example).
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
"But we should be allowed to force this religion on them, because this religion is true."
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:I haven't been here all that long. I lurked for a while and then went off on OSC the other day. He replied back to me in a cool headed manner and it made me reconcider how I looked at things.
Heh... yeah.. and you called Dagonee (and ScottR--but I'm not familiar with his posting style--although he seemed fine in that thread) a spammer... flamer... etc., which I found so shocking...and completely absurd. You've been blessed to not meet a real spammer or flamer, obviously...
But welcome anyway.. with your rapidity of posting, you'll soon overtake those with low post counts like mine.
-Katarain:)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I have been screamed at to my face by a Quaker, a Christian, and several Catholics. All claimed I was going to burn in hell because I am an agnostic.
1) Quakers and Catholics are Christian.
2) I really, really doubt that a Quaker screamed that you were going to "burn in hell."
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Katarain,
I was being pig-headed. OSC was right, I had not used any empathy for others. It really made me rethink a lot of things about myself.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
My bad, Kat. I read you as saying that as a reflection of current affairs as opposed to an indictment of it.
Were what you desribe come to pass, I'd hope that my intellectual descendents would stand up for the Christians, and with a minimum of ironic enjoyment of their persecution.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Portabello: Um, that is not exactly the same. Making laws that are influenced on people's religion is not the same as making laws (or judgments) about somebody's religion.
To me, those are completely different things.
You might find them both equally objectionable, but don't just lump them together and expect me to go along with it.
I don't expect you to go along with anything. All I'm trying to do is illustrate how I (me, personally) currently perceive the actions of the right-wing. To me, laws that I disagree with based on the religious beliefs of someone else (religious beliefs that are not my own and play absolutely no role in my life) are exactly the same as this. To me, it's an extreme version of what the right-wing seems to want to do: make sure that Christian beliefs are the only acceptable ones.
(See, I can bring the bold and italics, too! )
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: 1) Quakers and Catholics are Christian.
Depends on your point of view. I used to attend a Christian church that taught us Catholicism was a cult. 2) I really, really doubt that a Quaker screamed that you were going to "burn in hell."
Maybe he wasn't a Quaker as he never identified himself as such. I just assumed. He wasn't really screaming like the others were though. But he was still going off pretty bad. I was entertained at least. Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Megan -- I really don't see how you can consider those two things to be identical. They are different.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
[sound of personal hot-button being pushed]
There are an awful lot of right-wing people who are not Christian. There are an awful lot of left-wing people who are. In my experience, the majority of people, left- and right-wing, are not religious activists of any stripe.
Please, please, please, when something happens in American politics, stop blaming it on or crediting it to an imaginary group of utterly uniform, conspiring extremists!
I'm tired of people who insist on defining every member of a group by the most extreme members of that group and demanding that all be judged by the actions of a few. I'm tired of political discussions that are straw man arguments from start to finish.
When you refer to the Right trampling on religious rights, how do you account for my friends who are Republican and atheist? When you bring up the Left who are trying to remove religion from all aspects of life, where does that leave the liberal Baptists in my mom's church?
This is why I rarely comment on political threads anymore. It's also why I can't read OSC's political essays. I know that at some point he will say something like, "This is just another example of how the Left..." and I surf to another page. Same goes for damn near every political commentator out there.
There is no Left. There is no Right. There's just people, all with their own motivations. When you comment on their actions, make sure you really know what those motivations are instead of assigning them the motivations you fear.
Rant over. Please return to your regularly scheduled conversation.
And, for the record, this was not the action of an activist judge. It's the action of an ignorant judge, who shouldn't be allowed to stay on the bench if he's that ignorant or intentionally dismissive of the Constitution.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
What it boils down to is that by making laws based on ideas that are strictly religious in nature, the government is tacitly endorsing that religion and making it a state religion.
For example, if we were primarily a Muslim country, there might be a law saying all women (regardless of their own beliefs) had to wear head scarves. This law has no non-religious basis; therefore, it forces aspects of a religion on people who do not believe.
Laws based solely on religion, in essence, are saying, "You are wrong not to believe as we do. We can't force you to believe, but we can force you to behave as if you do."
That's how it seems to me. YMMV.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Chris, that's a very valid point. My apologies for the generalizations I made.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Megan,
I agree. This is often how I feel as well.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>What it boils down to is that by making laws based on ideas that are strictly religious in nature. . .
What about laws that are made based solely on philosophical understandings of health and harm?
Whose philosophy will you use?
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Scott, that is debatable, but religion should NEVER become a factor in law.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Good points Chris Bridges.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Religion will cease to be a factor in law only when religion ceases to be a factor in people's lives.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
What's YMMV?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Your Mileage May Vary.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by Portabello: Religion will cease to be a factor in law only when religion ceases to be a factor in people's lives.
Of course we are always influenced by our value systems and will incorporate them into our daily lives as such. So what you say it true.
But when the line gets crossed like this, it is our duty to set it right.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Scott, I think laws should have as general a basis as possible, in order to avoid limiting someone from practicing their own beliefs. To my mind, making laws based solely on religion forces me to practice someone else's beliefs, which I find very limiting.
Porter, but to give you Scott's question, whose religion? In a society that contains SO many different beliefs, why can't we make the law as general as possible, in order to avoid forcing someone into the practice of a belief that isn't their own?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I have lived most of my life in places where my religion was is not only an extreme minority, but sometimes outright persecuted. The customs and many times laws supported other religions.
And yet I have never felt forced into any practices that weren't my own. I was always free to not participate.
EM -- I don't think anybody here disagrees that what happened with this judge is horrible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, And it's mostly okay if it is a factor. One of the major complaints is when it is the only factor, or (as is the case in a lot of gay marriage arguments) is the only real factor with a lot of mumbo jumbo thrown in.
The goal of an Enlightenment nation is to only use force ont its citizens when either the rationale for doing so is transferable or possibly in cases where the compelling interest is great enough to override this. I don't think that this could ever be adequately codified, but it's an idea that I think we should try to live up to.
There is no rationale (or at least none that I've seen presented) for making laws like it's illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday that are transferrible. The rationale presented for inserting "under god" into the Pledge of Alliegence was specifically to affirm that being American is inextricibly linked to being Christian (or failing that at least monotheistically religious). These are grave failings in living up to the principles of our country and the same people who champion them would be vehemently opposed to, for example, being prohibited from eating pork because it's not kosher or being forced to orient yourself towards Mecca when saying the Pledge.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>To my mind, making laws based solely on religion forces me to practice someone else's beliefs, which I find very limiting.
Just because it is called philosophy rather than religion doesn't take away its capability to repress.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Squicky -- your comparisons are unbalanced.
Better parallels would be to make it illegal to purchase pork on Saturday, or to make part of the pledge orienting yourself towards Mecca.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Assume that the judges religion is Evangelical. It is not so stated in the article. The reasoning against Wiccans seems to be a fear of a misunderstood religion, but assume for this argument, the judges religion is Evangelical.
That means it his religious calling to spread his religion to unbelievers.
If the government denies him the ability to do that, to practice his religion, even during his time in court--ie Ordering people to attend a church perhaps, or sermonizing on the gospels, then isn't the government infringing on his right to practice the religion of his choice?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Porter: I'm assuming you mean you always felt free not to participate in religious practices that weren't your own.
I will tell you that I, too, have lived most of my life in places that tended toward a belief that was definitely not my own, and I can tell you that there were plenty of times when I did NOT feel free not to participate (prayer in school, for example ). I DID feel forced into practices that did not reflect my beliefs in the slightest.
To me, however, the difference in our respective personal experiences is indicative only of how each of us views the effects of relgion in our society, not particular laws.
I'm talking about specific federal/state law-making that reflects a specific religion's ideas with NO basis other than those religious ideas. To me, that is a tacit violation of the first sentence of the first amendment--it establishes a religion favored by the state. No, it doesn't force ALL the precepts of that religion into law, but the establishment of one favored religion is still there.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, I don't think they are (although the forcing people to orient towards Mecca not so much valid now as it was in the past). In any case, would you be okay with those?
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
I am learing that Wicca is very misunderstood.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>To my mind, making laws based solely on religion forces me to practice someone else's beliefs, which I find very limiting.
Just because it is called philosophy rather than religion doesn't take away its capability to repress.
Scott, how exactly does your response relate to the passage you've quoted?
And how does a law with a general basis repress you? Does it prevent you from practicing your religion? Or does it merely prevent you from forcing it on others?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:I can tell you that there were plenty of times when I did NOT feel free not to participate (prayer in school, for example [Razz] ).
I did not feel that way. When I wasn't comfortable with the prayer in school, I would just be silent and wait it out. I wouldn't participate, but I wouldn't try to keep others from doing so.
Did somebody try to force you to participate in prayer in school?
Squicky -- I don't know what you just asked.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
And, on that note, I have to go to work. This has been a very interesting conversation, though! I'll be back when I can. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'd say that the government is infringing on his rights to practice his religion as he sees fit and that I'm completely okay with that (as is the law of the land). In this case, he is using the power of the government to inappropriately infringe on the rights of others. Having something as part of your religion doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. When it affects only yourself, that's one thing (although there have been plenty of objections to this), but when you start affecting other people, rules some into play. You don't get to kill someone but be exonerated because the Bible told you to. Rights exist in a framework, not as isolated absolutes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, I was asking would you be okay with either version of the non-Christian religious stuff being forced on you?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Which stuff?
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
I'm gonna roll too. Good chatting everyone!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Porter, not to the point of forcing me to pray, no (that, I would've fought kicking and screaming), but certainly to the point of exerting SO much social pressure in a classroom situation that there was no way I could've avoided it. I was stubborn, and I fought it, but it was DEFINITELY a fight, and it definitely WASN'T just against my peers--the teacher was also involved.
Still, I tend to think that anecdotes don't stand as proof for something. To me, the above story only illustrates the direction I think things will go if there is a wholesale endorsement of laws based on religion.
Anyway, I do have to go to work. Let me say again, though, that I do admire the way we can have a (for the most part) civil conversation about this here.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Megan-- just making the point that philosophy can repress as easily as religion.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Megan -- if they weren't forcing you to pray, what were you forced to do then?
Or rather, what were you coerced to do?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The pork and Mecca things.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Yes, but which pork and mecca things? Because as I said before, the ones that you came up with are not even close to the current laws that you compared them to.
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
I really shouldn't come into this thread at this point, showing up so late and all and having nothing original to say, so I'm just gonna echo what Chris said.
</fluff post>
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, As I said, I don't agree that they are not analogous and, either version. And for good measure, do you think it would be as funny if someone mocked your religion the way that Annie mocked Wiccans? I mean, would you laugh like you did or at least think it was okay for other people to laugh?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The fact that Megan's teacher was involved in the prayer makes it wrong to me, assuming this is a public school.
I'm all for students being able to practice their respective religions and being able to share their beliefs with other students. This does not include taking up class time. What it does include to me is sharing faith at recess and lunch time (hopefully respectfully--harrassment is NOT okay), and reading whatever religious books they want during their own free time, and praying whenever they want--again, just as long as it doesn't interfere with the learning process. For example, if a student is standing up in the middle of class praying loudly, that would certainly be interfering with learning. (Obviously.)
The problem comes when teachers are leading the class in prayer or sharing their religious beliefs during teacher-led class time. I would say it's okay for a teacher to read her Bible or other religious books during her own free time, but her position of authority in the classroom makes it innappropriate for her to bring religion into the classroom. Teachers may not always get the respect they deserve, but the fact is that their position commands respect for a lot of kids and those kids could follow their position blindly...
Was I clear there? I keep on getting interrupted.
Anyway, if the teacher was involved, then it wasn't right. It doesn't matter if Megan wasn't forced to pray--that teacher was using her influence wrongly.
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: If the government denies him the ability to do that, to practice his religion, even during his time in court--ie Ordering people to attend a church perhaps, or sermonizing on the gospels, then isn't the government infringing on his right to practice the religion of his choice?
No, they are not. If the establishment clause means anything, it means that the government cannot use its coercive power to force a person to practice a religion. That's the bear minimum protection it affords under almost any reading. A judge, of all people, should be aware of the difference between acting in ones official capacity and acting in ones own person.
Of course, the equally obvious reading of the rest of the religious protection in the first amendment, "if the free exercise clause means anything, it means that the government cannot use its coercive power to force a person to commit* an act which violates their religion" isn't enforced by the courts anymore.
Dagonee *In this usage, I am distinguishing between commission of an act and ommission of an act; I do not think the free exercise clause grants unlimited rights to do anything justified by religion.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Squicky, so you are saying that not being able to purchase alchohol on Sunday is more like making pork illegal than it is to making it so you cannot purchase pork on Saturday?
You are also saying that inserting the words "under God" into the pledge is more like forcing people to face Mecca than it is to making the facing towards Mecca part of the pledge?
That's what it looks like you are saying. Am I misunderstanding?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
MrSquicky said:
quote:There is no rationale (or at least none that I've seen presented) for making laws like it's illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday that are transferrible. The rationale presented for inserting "under god" into the Pledge of Alliegence was specifically to affirm that being American is inextricibly linked to being Christian (or failing that at least monotheistically religious). These are grave failings in living up to the principles of our country and the same people who champion them would be vehemently opposed to, for example, being prohibited from eating pork because it's not kosher or being forced to orient yourself towards Mecca when saying the Pledge.
Portabello said:
quote:Yes, but which pork and mecca things? Because as I said before, the ones that you came up with are not even close to the current laws that you compared them to.
If I could chime in here... I think the laws he imagines are very close to the Sunday Blue Laws. They're all based on religious principles, even though his examples are more extreme. I don't really think they need a particular day attached to them, but whatever... The fact is, the Blue laws extend to more than just liquor, keeping entire stores closed until noon on Sunday and closing around 6 (malls, for example). This makes NO sense in our current consumerism economy--I have often wanted to shop late on Sunday in a mall, but couldn't because of some really weird logic related to religion. It's ridiculous, but nobody really cares, do they? Well, Christians would get up in arms if similar laws were passed based on other non-Christian faiths. And I think that's the whole point.
-Katarain
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
1) Yes, witohut a doubt. 2) Yes, in that there used to be consequences if you didn't say the "Under God" in the Pledge. Thus, people were forced to say it.
And yet, these are very ancillary issues to my point which is that either way (yours or mine) constitutes a serious infringement what we're supposed to be. Or do you disagree?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I apologize for my earlier rude remarks. I said them quickly and flippantly, not thinking about the implications of what I was saying.
The few Wiccans I have known were extraordinarily flakey and hypocritical, but I have no right to judge the entire religion based on their example.
*slaps own hand*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, Ok, let's just take what you said then. Do you think it would be okay that people made it illegal to purchase pork on Saturday or made facing Mecca part of the Pledge of Allegiance? If that's not clear enough, I'm not sure what else I could say.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Squicky -- I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I don't agree with all of it.
If I moved to a place where the vast majority of the population was Jewish, and I were unable to purchase pork on Saturday, I would not consider that a "serious infringement".
Not that I'd like it, I'll grant you.
edit: This post was made before I read your last post, Squick.
edit2: There is a huge gulf between "would it be OK" and "would it be a serious infringement".
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Pretty much the same amount that the day of the week has for purchasing alchohol -- absolutely nothing, unless you belong to a religion that considers the day holy.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:If I moved to a place where the vast majority of the population was Jewish, and I were unable to purchase pork on Saturday, I would not consider that a "serious infringement".
I'm gonna butt in again... I agree with this statement IF the stores being closed had to do with the owner's personal beliefs or the fact that nobody would be shopping anyway--NOT if it was a law. We don't live in a Theocracy.
-Katarain
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Squick -- as to whether or not I would consider it OK (I already said I wouldn't consider it a "serious infringement") -- I don't know yet. I'm still thinking about it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, There's a huge difference between not being able to buy pork (perhaps because no one is selling it) and getting fined or thrown in jail because you sold pork.
And you wouldn't think it was a pretty bad thing to be considered un-American (and, at least in the past, have people do a bunch of bad things to you both government approved and not) if you didn't want to face Mecca?
Both of these are to me indications that a country is wrong in principle and also in practice. And, I'm willing to bet were you on the receiving end as opposed to the giving end, you would too, much like it wouldn't have been funny if it wasn't a member of your religion mocking another and instead someone mocking yours.
edit: Are the edit flags off?
edit 2: I guess so.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:And, I'm willing to bet were you on the receiving end as opposed to the giving end, you would too.
Squick, I already said:
quote:I have lived most of my life in places where my religion was is not only an extreme minority, but sometimes outright persecuted. The customs and many times laws supported other religions.
Your assumption that I have never been on the receiving end is wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Squick, here's some non-mainstream (in the U.S.) religions being protected or advocated for in free exercise by The Rutherford Institute:
The Rutherford Institute expresses establishment clause views you would hate, but it also advocates for free exercise rights on behalf of non-mainstream groups.
Most groups associated with the religious right on establishment clause issues come down very strongly in this regard with respect to free exercise for non-mainstream groups.
Dagonee
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report.
I am so confused by this reasoning. Plenty of non Catholics send their children to parochial school. It's a good education. I doubt the parents are pretending to be Catholic. If the school doesn't care, why should anyone else?
(shakes head)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What it boils down to is that by making laws based on ideas that are strictly religious in nature, the government is tacitly endorsing that religion and making it a state religion.
Could you give me an example of a law that 'Christians' and 'the right' have tried to pass that is strictly religious in nature?
Most of the instructions found in the Bible have as their primary reason, "God tells us so," but there are almost always a host of other good reasons to do so.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I was stubborn, and I fought it, but it was DEFINITELY a fight, and it definitely WASN'T just against my peers--the teacher was also involved.
Your teacher was wrong to do so and in fact could be construed as violating the law (well, at least I think so). This is a sign of a wrongheaded teacher, not a wrongheaded law. I think i would also define 'force' different than you are doing.
Sunday Blue Laws and the Pledge of Allegience are examples, but I don't think there are many more.
This kind of prohibition is not exclusive to the religious right, either, as much as some would like to think. Attempts to prevent fire trucks from displaying American flags comes to mind.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Although Rakeesh sort of touched on it, why isn't any distinction made between making laws influenced by the lawmakers religion or making laws that enforce the militant atheism that seems to be other choice presented in this thread? This atheism isn't the opposite of the first choice, I would say that is actually closer to making law influenced by a different set of beliefs than making laws that are truly influenced by no beliefs (which just on the face of it, is absurd.) I fail to see how this argument is any different than saying "I don't like your beliefs, I'd rather see laws influenced on mine instead"--regardless of what these beliefs maybe.
At some point the fact that we elect whole people and not atomatons must come into play. I think it is somewhat absurd to expect anyone, even a politian to completely set aside personal beliefs when doing ones job (I am not saying the judge was right in this case, because he wasn't.)
(I'm not ignoring any responses, but I won't be back until ~9 tonight.)
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't think there should be laws enforcing any sort of atheism. That would be wrong as well... Having laws not based on religious belief does NOT mean they are automatically based on atheism. It's not one or the other. The laws of the land should be based on basic human rights--you keep yours, I keep mine, and we don't infringe on each other. It doesn't have anything to do with religion, and it's something that most people can agree on--at least in theory, if not in practice.
quote:I think it is somewhat absurd to expect anyone, even a politian to completely set aside personal beliefs when doing ones job
I think that's a gross oversimplification of the issue. You don't have to set aside your beliefs, but you DO have to allow another person to follow their own beliefs. Following what you believe does NOT include making everyone else follow it. Enforced religion means nothing--a Christian or Muslim (or whoever) that forces other people to operate under their religious rules is not earning souls to their cause.
It's not a choice between Christian laws and Atheist laws. There's a nice middle ground that allows all people to believe and worship as they choose.
And I'm a Christian...and more right than left.
-Katarain
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
A lot of the anti-gay stuff appears that way to me. Not necessarily that it comes from religion only, but either that or bigotry or both. For example.
Of course, up until the mid-60s athiests were prohibited from running for office or even being on the ballots in seom states.
Let's see, abstinence-only education, denying aid based on whether the organizations involved even mention abortion. I'm sure if I looked harder, I could find plenty of other cases. The ACLU is fighting them all the time.
And yeah, that comes from the other side. As I've probably made painfully clear by now, I really wish people were aware the Enlightenment and its revolutionary role in our country. Heck, I'd settle for it even being taught in our schools.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's not a choice between Christian laws and Atheist laws. There's a nice middle ground that allows all people to believe and worship as they choose.
Which is exactly why I have a problem with so many of the current violations of free speech that schools (mostly, sometimes municipal governments) attempt to justify via raising the establishment clause.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Let's see, abstinence-only education, denying aid based on whether the organizations involved even mention abortion. I'm sure if I looked harder, I could find plenty of other cases. The ACLU is fighting them all the time.
Neither of these are policies that can only be justified on religious grounds. Not even close.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, but I think you can make the argument that they fall into the bin of things where the main basis is religious and the rest of the reasons tend to be bs people made up to disguise their religious basis. Not true in all cases, but true in many.
edit: And without the religious/prejudice support, I don't think either of these would even be an issue.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Dag, I'm ignorant... what's the establishment clause you've been mentioning. Did you post on it already?
-Katarain
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's what I was getting at, Dagonee. I'm not saying the justifications aren't primarily religious, but there are arguments-some more substantial more than others-without religious pretext.
Do you suggest otherwise, MrSquicky?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yeah, but I think you can make the argument that they fall into the bin of things where the main basis is religious and the rest of the reasons tend to be bs people made up to disguise their religious basis. Not true in all cases, but true in many.
In that case, I think you can only look at the reasons you think are made up as the real reasons and argue for or against them. Ignoring or dismissing them is not an effective counterargument... Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, if you get to presume what people's real reasons are, why even have laws at all?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah, but I think you can make the argument that they fall into the bin of things where the main basis is religious and the rest of the reasons tend to be bs people made up to disguise their religious basis. Not true in all cases, but true in many.
I strongly contest that characterization as it applies to any abortion policy. Even if the only reasons to oppose abortion were religious (which their not - I'm assuming arguendo), there are still is a valid policy reason to not fund abortions or abortion referrals given that it is considered murder by a large percentage of the population, and otherwise immoral by another significant percentage of the population.
Your reasoning could certainly apply to some, maybe most or almost all, abstinence-only programs as currently taught, but not to the general principle. But on the abortion issue, you don't have even that basis for your statement.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I put an edit in, Rakeesh, to say that without the religious justifications, the arguments for these things are far too weak to stand on their own. It's much more of a gray area.
Without religious things with the abstinence, mostly what you'd be left with would be, "Hey, these programs don't accomplish any of their goals."
Witohut the value-oriented anti-abortion arguments, we're pretty much saying, "We'll cut off your aid if you even talk to people about a medical operation which is legal in our country."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Now it's 'value-oriented'? What law isn't 'value-oriented'?
I agree with your stance on abstinence-only sex-education, though. I think it's absurd to teach it, though not at all absurd necessarily to expect it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Since we brought up abstinence education... It is, sadly, the world we live in where abstinence only education is woefully inadequate. It is certainly the BEST for our young people--physically and emotionally--but with a culture such as ours, kids are going to have sex. I'm in favor of a program that STRESSES abstinence and WHY...with education included in proper methods of birth control and protection from STDs. And no scare tactics. Be honest with the kids. There are a lot of lies out there about sex being harmless in our media...and there are a lot of lies about sex being evil from the other side trying to scare them away from it.
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I'm ignorant... what's the establishment clause you've been mentioning. Did you post on it already?
The establishment clause is the first clause of the First Amendment. It states that the government can make no law respecting the establishment of religion. It's the clause which prohibits establishing creation of state churches, prayer in school, etc.
Unfortunately, it's also used, sometimes successfully, to exclude private religious expression from public forums. Examples where it's been attempted and smacked down by the courts include refusal to allow a private entity to put up a "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" display of lights as part of a government-sponsored program where all secular private displays were allowed. Another example are the myriad attempts by public schools to hinder religious club formation and operation when they allow other student-created clubs. And of course, public colleges funding 15 magazines but refusing to fund a Christian magazine.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: Could you give me an example of a law that 'Christians' and 'the right' have tried to pass that is strictly religious in nature?
Banning Gay Marriage.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:n that case, I think you can only look at the reasons you think are made up as the real reasons and argue for or against them. Ignoring or dismissing them is not an effective counterargument...
Yeah, but Kat, that's like expecting people to judge a political party's performance on what they did and said as opposed to the excuses that people make up for them. It's one of the most frustrating things about democracy to me that people can support things for really crappy reasons and it doesn't matter.
People come up with tons of arguments for creationism and they are almost uniformly terrible. But that doesn't matter.
People do this all the time. They have an attitude. Their arguments aren't really important (or usually logical) or a basis for their belief and disproving them will not affect the belief at all.
I can't prove this is true in any but individual cases, but that doesn't stop me from believing it happens in many many cases and to decry it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Aah. That reminds me of it being okay to say Happy/Merry Whatever-As-Long-As-It-Isn't-Christmas.
That really ticks me off.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag: college students publishing 15 magazines for the general purpose of giving students the experience of running a magazine but refusing to fund a Christian magazine Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Banning Gay Marriage.
You mean not changing our current laws to civilly recognize gay marriage, don't you?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
MrSquicky, My only point is that when they come up with those flimsy arguments, shoot them down with logic. Eventually, they're only left with the real reasons. And it also gives them the benefit of the doubt--maybe the reasons you think are made-up aren't so flimsy after all. Sure, after you've shot down the flimsy arguments, they still might cling to them... but whatever. You do what you can, ya know? -Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag: college students publishing 15 magazines for the general purpose of giving students the experience of running a magazine but refusing to fund a Christian magazine
Exactly. That's why we won: because there was no reduction in experience provided to students running a magazine (the government interest used to justify funding) based on the content of the magazine. No government interest = no viewpoint discrimination allowed. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Thanks for the explanation, btw, Dagonee.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
I always wondered why it says "In god we trust" on currency.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was mostly just joshing, but it is an important distinction. A college could fund a slew of research magazines, for instance (say, out of departments) and not be required to fund a non-research christian magazine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No problem, Katarain. The real problem analyzing the establishment clause is that, while there are clear cases where the motivation behind a policy is to "force religious views on others" (teaching mandatory bible class in public school) and clear cases where it is used as a club to prevent expression of private viewpoints, there are many more cases in the gray area where legitimate arguments can be made on both sides.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
One interesting thing about the addition of Under God to the pledge is that we have the motivations for the leaders of that movement on record -- they were explicitly religious, and explicitly in order to reject atheism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was mostly just joshing, but it is an important distinction. A college could fund a slew of research magazines, for instance (say, out of departments) and not be required to fund a non-research christian magazine.
True. Religion is really a distraction in cases like ours. The legal question is whether the restrictions of viewpoints allowed are narrowly tailored and serve a compelling state interest. If not, it doesn't matter what the viewpoint being excluded is unless it's in a category of lesser-protected speech (commercial, indecency, etc.).
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Anti-legalized-abortion arguments, abstinence-only arguments, and anti-gay-marriage arguments are not solely religous based. Cases can be made against each one that are wholly secular.
I disagree with the reasoning behind and/or conclusions in many of them, but there are secular arguments.
Disclosure: I am pro-choice, againast strict abstinence-only education, and for civil unions with the hope of later gay marriage when people can deal with it. But I don't dismiss or discount my opposite numbers as being solely religiously based.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Banning Gay Marriage (as you put it) has reasons against it aside religious reasons. Bear in mind I think all reasons-religious and otherwise-are either foolish, stupid, or hypocritical. Also remember, it is not just the religious that signed on that dotted line.
Posted by 1lobo1 (Member # 7762) on :
Whether those reasons exist or not...I have yet to see a non-religious based group come out against those positions.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I don't think you've been looking very hard, then.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
1lobo1, read some Nat Hentoff (used to be in the Village Voice, not sure if he's still there) to find an atheist who's a very strong pro-life voice. Or just check this out.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: The establishment clause is the first clause of the First Amendment. It states that the government can make no law respecting the establishment of religion. It's the clause which prohibits establishing creation of state churches, prayer in school, etc.
Careful. Yes it clearly prohibits establishing state churches, but it doesn't prohibit prayer in schools per se. It prohibits schools from leading the students in prayer, or creating an atmosphere where students are coerced to pray.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, you are correct. I was typing "school-sponsored prayer," decided that wasn't a suitable summary, and forgot to go back and change it. Also, I left out that it applies only to public schools. I was imprecise. Dagonee
Also, when I speak of what it does, I'm speaking of it as it's currently interpreted. There are many colorable interpretations that would allow public school sponsored prayer with an opt-out clause, although such an interpretation now would be a radical departure from a long line of cases.
And, of course, there are many nuances I'm leaving out.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: quote:Banning Gay Marriage.You mean not changing our current laws to civilly recognize gay marriage, don't you?
I see no way to draw the distinction you make here. Ohio and other states premptively passed laws specifically designed to prevent courts from interpreting the existing laws as requiring equal marriage rights to same sex couples. That's banning gay marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nope, that's codifying the present interpretation of the law. Was there gay marriage in Ohio prior to that amendment? (Actually, I bet there was, but let's restrict this to civil gay marriage.)
There were no civil gay marriages in Ohio prior to those votes. There are none now. Nothing has been banned. Not like polygamy has been banned, with criminal sanctions.
Gay marriage has been denied legal recognition that it never had. It's a crucial distinction.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I've gotta wonder (back to the original topic) if judges like this could be kicked out based on a single decision, wouldn't it tend to eliminate judges with extreme positions on both ends of the spectrum, and leave moderate judges in place?
I mean, this guy is clearly acting well beyond the law by adding his personal religious stipulations in this case. Doesn't that violate his "oath of office?" (or whatever you call it for judges)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dag, as a lawyer you know that what is not prohibited is legally allowed. Since there were no prohibitions against two men marrying, other than the fact that it had hardly ever been done, then it is legal.
Clarifying the law to keep that non-written standard of one man and one woman is creating a new law--hence banning Gay marriage.
The only non-religious based reason I've ever heard for not allowing Gay marriages is that they are non-reproductive. However, since we have no statutes requiring every marriage to be reproductive, nor do we give fertility tests before handing out wedding licensces, I find that argument a cover used by a few Christians to confuse the issue.
I have another defence of what the judge was doing. He was not promoting any religion. He did not say "Take this child to a Christian church." He said, "Do not expose this child to any non-mainstream religions." In other words, don't put him in a cult.
Many people will agree that some cults are terrible. The most dangerous cults promote degredation, despair, and eventual suicide. This judge was not conversant with what Wicca is, and assumed it was a "cult". Hence he was doing what he thought was best.
He was, of course, wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've gotta wonder (back to the original topic) if judges like this could be kicked out based on a single decision, wouldn't it tend to eliminate judges with extreme positions on both ends of the spectrum, and leave moderate judges in place?
I mean, this guy is clearly acting well beyond the law by adding his personal religious stipulations in this case. Doesn't that violate his "oath of office?" (or whatever you call it for judges)
Do you want that in place? The whole Supreme Court might have gone after Brown. Or, more likely, over half the Court after Roe.
It would have given DeLay's implied impeachment threats over Schiavo a lot more standing than they had. People would be seriously debating whether the judges met the standards for such removal, rather than getting pissed at him for merely suggesting it.
The idea holds a lot of appeal to me. But who could we trust to implement it?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Nope, that's codifying the present interpretation of the law
Unless there have been challenges to the status quo I'd say the bit hasn't been set. That is, there is no "present interpretation" of a law until someone has questioned whether existing law covers a situation that no one has examined before.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, as a lawyer you know that what is not prohibited is legally allowed. Since there were no prohibitions against two men marrying, other than the fact that it had hardly ever been done, then it is legal.
Are you telling me two men could have gotten a marriage license in Cleveland before that vote. I'd love to see you document that, although I won't be holding my breath.
If you're saying it was legal for two men to go to a liberal church and be married, then you're right. But since they can do that now, then clearly the law didn't ban that kind of gay marriage.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: I have another defence of what the judge was doing. He was not promoting any religion. He did not say "Take this child to a Christian church." He said, "Do not expose this child to any non-mainstream religions." In other words, don't put him in a cult.
As I recall, the Catholic religion uses the word "cult" to describe certain sub groups that pay particular attention to particular saints (correct me if I'm wrong). Just a comment on the word "cult."
I think we all agree that the judge was wrong from any number of perspectives, but would it have been ok even to stipulate that neither parent be allowed to expose the child to any religion without express permission from the other parent?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
To clarify the situation I was in: I was 14, a freshman in high school, and, at the time, an agnostic in a suburban Atlanta high school heavily populated by southern baptists. Let me also add that I was, at the time, given to argue quite a bit with my classmates, seeing as how nearly everyone disagreed with me on nearly every point. They were prone to quite a bit of name-calling, as well. I really cannot count the number of times I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I was going to hell, and that nothing would ever save me. Imagine hatrack around election time, except add some vitriol and take away some intelligence (and add the fact that it was me against the world ).
Our school district had just instituted a "moment of silence" that occured every day at a certain time (a constitutionally acceptable substitute for school-wide prayer, essentially). If it had been what it claimed to be--merely a moment for silent reflection--there would've been no problem.
Unfortunately, here's how it worked:
The teacher would say, "Let's all bow our heads and [just-long-enough-pause] have a moment of silence." Now, bear in mind that I was 14, and was surrounded by people who thought as badly as anyone can about someone whose political, religious, and social beliefs are the complete opposite of theirs.
I refused to bow my head. I made a point of reading, writing notes, working on homework, etc., during the moment of silence. I was silent, but I refused to give in to the pressure to look as if I was praying.
Other students noticed, and harassed me for it (called me names--my favorite was, "atheist [technical name for female dog]--no matter how many times I tried to explain agnosticism, they refused to accept it as valid). This, as I should've stated earlier, was a social studies class, and the teacher (who was also a football coach) used my refusal as a point of discussion--and, along the same lines as his response to my refusal to actually say the pledge, said something to the effect of, "No matter how wrong Megan might be, it's her right to do what she did."
Fortunately, the "moment of silence" disappeared never to return my sophomore year, although students still held prayer groups before and after school, and during lunch (when they weren't talking about who they were going to do at the upcoming party).
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"No matter how wrong Megan might be, it's her right to do what she did."
What a sweet guy!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Yeah, you see the issue, then. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unless there have been challenges to the status quo I'd say the bit hasn't been set. That is, there is no "present interpretation" of a law until someone has questioned whether existing law covers a situation that no one has examined before.
quote:Texas does not currently permit same-sex couples to marry, as the requirements for a valid marriage license are that one party to the marriage be a man, and the other a woman. As such, gay and lesbian couples are prohibited from getting legally married in Texas.
Many people are under the mistaken belief that same-sex marriages are legal in some states. This is not true -- absolutely no jurisdiction in the United States permits same-sex couples to marry. Some jurisdictions do, however, offer limited benefits to same sex couples. Here is a brief description of some of the more popular legal schemes that give legal protections to same sex couples:
* In Hawaii, any two people who are unable to be legally married, such as close relatives or same-sex couples, may enter into a "reciprocal beneficiaries" relationship. Reciprocal beneficiaries gain inheritance rights, the ability to access their partners' workplace benefits, and the power to direct healthcare decisions for their partners in the event of incapacity.
* In the state of California and many cities throughout the nation, same-sex couples may enter into domestic partnership relationships. The exact benefits of such relationships vary between jurisdictions, but usually include such rights as access to workplace benefits, the ability to sue for the wrongful death of a partner, and inheritance rights.
* The most comprehensive system for the legal protection of same-sex couples is the civil union system that exists in Vermont. This system extends all of the state benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, but is not termed a 'marriage,' and therefore is not recognized as a marriage for the purposes of federal law or under the laws of any other state.
While these systems provide some legal protections in their jurisdictions, none amount to actual marriage for same-sex couples, and none are recognized state-wide in Texas. The only jurisdiction in the world that permits same-sex marriage is the Netherlands, and only if at least one of the individuals to be married is a citizen or resident alien of the Netherlands (a similar law has been passed in Belgium, and will go into effect around June 2003).
quote:No U.S. state has legalized marriage for same-sex couples. But it's right around the corner.
In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that gay couples must be given equal marriage rights under the state constitution. Same-sex marriages will be legal in Massachusetts in May 2004.
In February 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the county clerk to issue gender-neutral marriage licenses. Newsom said that California's equal-protection and non-discrimination provisions give gays equal access to marriage. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were the first same-sex couple in the U.S. to tie the knot. The lesbian activists have been together for over 50 years. When we sat down to write this, more than 3,000 gay and lesbian couples have married in San Francisco.
Later that same month, a New Mexico county clerk began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The clerk and the county attorney noted that state law was unclear and did not specify genders for marriage. The legality of the San Francisco and New Mexico marriages will undoubtedly be debated in the courts.
Even before these developments, states tried to extend some rights associated with marriage to all couples. In 2000, Vermont legalized civil unions giving gays and lesbians all the state benefits and responsibilities of marriage. California, Hawaii, and New Jersey give same-sex couples some spousal rights under their domestic-partner laws. Eight states and the District of Columbia allow bereavement and family-illness leave for domestic partners. Some of these states offer select benefits for domestic partners of government employees.
However, even states that recognize domestic partnerships don't allow the term "marriage" for gay unions. In fact, 38 states have laws banning same-sex marriage.
I do, of course, disagree with their use of the word "ban".
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Some secular arguments, off the top of my head. I'm sure there are sites that can do a better job on all of these. Note that I do not claim belief in any of these.
Anti-legalized-abortion Allowing abortions encourages promiscuous sex by removing responsibility. There is a risk with abortions, as with any invasive medical act, and repeated abortions can cause irreparable damage. Allowing underage abortions, particularly without parental notification, encourages teens to have premarital sex since they know they can "fix" it without telling me. Abortions terminate living cells, which are definitely human and may or may not be a legal person. Since the state of "personhood" is difficult to pin down, the safest method to ensure that no humans are murdered is to define "person" as "implanted fetus."
Abstinence-only sex ed It is not the government's place to offer information regarding "safe sex" to our children. That instruction belongs to the parents. Bringing up contraception and non-reproductive sex in schools is inappropriate and encourages experimentation. Discussing other methods of contraception, even when their level of failure is explicitly stated, could legitimize promiscuity to teenagers who already believe they can beat the odds.
Anti-gay-marriage Legitimizing gay marriage would encourage experimentation among people who are not naturally gay. Marriage, already in dire straits due to no-fault divorces and increasing social irrelevancy, can not survive another assault on a well-defined institution. Legitimizing gay marriage would legitimize homosexuality, a practice that can be unhealthy and can spread disease. Children of gay parents will be stigmatized and face greater pressures in school. If gay marriage is made legal, next will come requests for polygamy and other non-standard forms of marriage. Not only will this continue to trivialize the institution of marriage, it will needlessly complicate legal matters of divorce, alimony, and partner benefits.
I'm surely missing other reasons. And I can easily counter all of them. But they are real concerns, and they are all secular.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In fact, those arguments are not secular, they just push the religious argument one step further.
quote:Allowing abortions encourages promiscuous sex by removing responsibility.
Possibly, possibly. And promiscuous sex is bad because...? Secular arguments only!
quote:Abortions terminate living cells, which are definitely human and may or may not be a legal person. Since the state of "personhood" is difficult to pin down, the safest method to ensure that no humans are murdered is to define "person" as "implanted fetus."
Religious.
quote:It is not the government's place to offer information regarding "safe sex" to our children.
Or, indeed, any information on sex at all.
quote:Bringing up contraception and non-reproductive sex in schools is inappropriate and encourages experimentation. Discussing other methods of contraception, even when their level of failure is explicitly stated, could legitimize promiscuity to teenagers who already believe they can beat the odds.
Again, why is this bad, from a secular viewpoint?
quote:Legitimizing gay marriage would encourage experimentation among people who are not naturally gay.
Yes, could be. And gayness is bad because Godsaysso!
quote:Marriage, already in dire straits due to no-fault divorces and increasing social irrelevancy, can not survive another assault on a well-defined institution.
OK, I grant you that marriage has a secular purpose. Of course, the actual argument is total bullshit, as shown by the Scandinaivan countries' experience. But you knew this.
quote:Legitimizing gay marriage would legitimize homosexuality, a practice that can be unhealthy and can spread disease.
Um, I think you had this one already. Anyway, you could say precisely the same for heterosexual marriage.
quote:Children of gay parents will be stigmatized and face greater pressures in school.
Secular, but nonsense.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As a clearer example of why I think "ban" is inappropriate, Texas at one point ruled that the Unitarian Church (I think) wasn't an actual religion. Were the federal government to concur, the Unitarian Church would not receive tax exemption or certain constitutional protections. But the Church itself wouldn't be banned.
One reason for confusion may be that I consider civil recognition of marriage to be a byproduct of marriage (this is why I support it for gay couples). So that may be where our usages differ and why we disagree on whether this was a ban.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'll just deal with one, because this is pretty much a recurring theme now:
quote:
quote:Bringing up contraception and non-reproductive sex in schools is inappropriate and encourages experimentation. Discussing other methods of contraception, even when their level of failure is explicitly stated, could legitimize promiscuity to teenagers who already believe they can beat the odds.
Again, why is this bad, from a secular viewpoint?
If the government purpose of sex ed is to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancy and STD (both with documentable economic and physical costs), then a policy which increases sexual activity enough might overwhelm gains made by proper use of protection.
Certainly, it's possible to disagree with this. But the disagreements would be ones that could be discussed and resolved on purely scientific grounds.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Abortions terminate living cells, which are definitely human and may or may not be a legal person. Since the state of "personhood" is difficult to pin down, the safest method to ensure that no humans are murdered is to define "person" as "implanted fetus."
Religious.
I'll take this one...Not in the slightest. The question of when life begins is certainly not limited to just religion, and it is not universally scientifically accepted that life begins either at birth, or sometime late in pregnancy. Medical science, as far as I know, doesn't have any clearer answers than anyone else arguing this point. If there were a clearly defined secular answer to when life began, the issue wouldn't be an issue from a secular point of view.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Wait... talking about non-reproductive sex in schools is "bad"? I think it's the school's business to promote mental and emotional health in health class as much as physical health, and that the emotional importance and impact of sex should (and were, in the case of my classes) be discussed. I think it promotes an unhealthy view of sex to not allow speaking of "non-reproductive sex".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Exactly because there is no scientific answer, this is a religious concern. Where science has no answer, we may as well define things to our maximum convenience, which is to say, somewhere around the 20th week of pregnancy.
One can resolve a question of "Is this kind of education effective in preventing STDs" scientifically, and this is a useful secular purpose. But as you point out, you cannot answer "When does life begin" scientifically, because it is not a question of fact but of definitions. Hence, ipso facto, life begins when we say it does, and there is no secular avoidance-of-murder issue, because it is a religious standpoint that abortion is murder.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Hence, ipso facto, life begins when we say it does, and there is no secular avoidance-of-murder issue, because it is a religious standpoint that abortion is murder.
I keep thinking, "He can't actually mean that, can he?" But I'm guessing you do.
Please explain to me why, if there is no scientific answer to when life begins, it is "secular" to set the beginning at one point and "religious" to set it at another.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is religious when the case is argued from the Bible; it is secular when it is argued from the maximum convenience of society.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Wouldn't the maximum convenience be to err on the side of caution?
(Not that I actually believe life begins at conception, but I'm very cautious about when it may begin.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*snort*
There are plenty of non-religious arguments that don't proceed from maximum convenience to society.
Not to mention that maximum convenience to society is so vague as to be nearly useless.
Not to mention that essentially no theories of policy proceed from maximum convenience to society due to the above point. Instead you get things like rights-based approaches.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is religious when the case is argued from the Bible; it is secular when it is argued from the maximum convenience of society.
So it's not secular you favor, but your own brand of warped utilitarianism.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dag,
Yes, of course, the vast majority of people operate under the historically accepted "one man, one woman" definition of marriage. But was that limitation actually written into law or legal finding? Or just assumed?
What happened in New Paltz with Jason West was that he basically looked at the marriage registration form and compared it to the law. The law had no such stipulation, so he made up his own form, and argued that he had the right to do so, because the state constitution requires equal treatment. The court initially found that he needed the town clerk's cooperation to do this, since it was not the mayor's job to record the marriage, only to perform the ceremony. The town clerk stood by the existing document, which had a place for the "husband" and "wife" on it.
Imagine that a brother and sister decide to adopt a child together. Has anyone considered that? It's just assumed that married couples adopt, but sometimes common law couples and even gay couples adopt. But I could see where since the brother would become the father, and the sister becomes the mother, that somehow this would trigger an incestuous marriage clause. Does the law account for it? I doubt it.
So if someone writes a law preventing siblings from adopting, is that a ban or not?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Glenn, there is common law precedent. Most, if not all states, adopted English common law as of July 4, 1776.
See Ng Suey Hi v. Weedin, 21 F.2d 801.
quote: 'It is implied in the conception of marriage in all Christian countries that the relation can exist only between one man and one woman, a polygamous or polyandrous union being under the law no marriage.' 38 C.J., 1274
I'm trying to figure out what the primary source for 38 C.J. 1274 is.
The word "marriage," in jurisdprudence based on English common law, contained the definition of one man, one woman, just as homicide contained the implicit element of someone "born alive" when describing the victim.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:
quote:Allowing abortions encourages promiscuous sex by removing responsibility.
Possibly, possibly. And promiscuous sex is bad because...? Secular arguments only!
It is. The government has an interest in promoting committed relationships because promiscuity can also bring higher disease rates, more crimes of passion, less of an interest to work towards strengthening the society, etc.
quote:
quote:Abortions terminate living cells, which are definitely human and may or may not be a legal person. Since the state of "personhood" is difficult to pin down, the safest method to ensure that no humans are murdered is to define "person" as "implanted fetus."
Religious.
Nope. Just because science cannot answer the question now doesn't mean it can never be answered, or that the question is therefore religious.
quote:
quote:Bringing up contraception and non-reproductive sex in schools is inappropriate and encourages experimentation. Discussing other methods of contraception, even when their level of failure is explicitly stated, could legitimize promiscuity to teenagers who already believe they can beat the odds.
Again, why is this bad, from a secular viewpoint?
See above.
quote:
quote:Legitimizing gay marriage would encourage experimentation among people who are not naturally gay.
Yes, could be. And gayness is bad because Godsaysso!
Didn't state gay was bad. Just suggested that people who are not actually gay might experiment out of a need to trendy, rebellious, or carelessly curious. Irresponsible sexual experimentation has many of the same dangers as promiscuity, see above.
It can also be argued that being gay is a danger in this society, at this time. While changing the society would be more logical and ultimately useful, in the short term discouraging casual experimenters from dabbling in homosexuality might very well be for their own good.
quote:
quote:Marriage, already in dire straits due to no-fault divorces and increasing social irrelevancy, can not survive another assault on a well-defined institution.
OK, I grant you that marriage has a secular purpose. Of course, the actual argument is total bullshit, as shown by the Scandinaivan countries' experience. But you knew this.
I know that gay marriage elsewhere has failed to cause widespread havok, yes. However, I would suggest that the experiences of a small country that already had a fairly open attitude towards sexuality is quite different from what could be expected from the United States embracing gay marriage. Apples and oranges.
quote:
quote:Children of gay parents will be stigmatized and face greater pressures in school.
Secular, but nonsense.
Actually that's the only argument that can be conclusively proven. Children of gay parents do get made fun of in school and it's ridiculous to pretend they don't. Again, obviously it would be better if society didn't stigmatize them, but right now it happens.
Remember, I'm not advocating any of these arguments, and have in fact argued against all of them at different times on this forum. I just presented them to prove that not all arguments against these things are based in religious dogma.
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
quote:I always wondered why it says "In god we trust" on currency.
Because it is in God we trust. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because a group of people lobbied hard for it.
Posted by AC (Member # 7909) on :
"promiscuity can also bring . . . less of an interest to work towards strengthening the society"
explain why
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Pops, for clarification, are [those posts] actually worse because we have Wiccan members? I figured that it would be just as bad if she mocked Sikhs or some other religion that I don't think we have members of here.
I've been thinking about this, and one thing that it seems is overlooked in this comment is that deomonstrating how someone's actions can hurt someone known to the actor is an efficient way to encourage people to make amends and correct such potentially harmful acts.
This actually works better on basically well-intentioned people. It was a very safe assumption that the target of Pop's chiding is such a well-intentioned person, and later events proved her to be very gracious about aknowledging and apologizing.
A complete argument is sometimes not the most effective.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I wasn't criticizing what Moose said. I was trying to establish some clarification, which was that whether or not people are offended, mocking people's sincerely held religious beliefs is not acceptable.
In the past, we've had threads started to do just that. I remember one thread where people luaghed at a group of people who were celebrating Spring and fertility by melting chocolate bunnies down and then dipping pretzel rods into the chocolate and eating the rods. Not only did these people look foolish (to me at least, but then I know a bit more about the origins of Easter and comparative fertility festivals than most people here), but they were also breaking the user's agreement. It was wrong even though the only person who (at least initially) took exception to it was me and I wasn't offended.
Annie especially has come across as someone who thinks that personal offense is a reason for a person to think that they've done something wrong. She's come at me a few times for that, when, in my eyes at least, I was not in the wrong even though people may not have liked what I said. So it's easy for her to think that what she did was wrong because she could offend people, but it's important to realize that the central thing she did wrong was mock another religion. Regardless of whether there was anyone who would be offended by that, it's both against the spirit and the letter of Hatrack.
That is important enough an issue for me that I felt it should be made explicit in this case. But maybe I've just read A Man for All Seasons too much.
Posted by 1lobo1 (Member # 7762) on :
undoubtedly the answer to the misphrashed questions, "when does life begin" is unanswerable by science. It is srtictly definitional, and values based -- taking a completely secular viewpoint (ie, no soul) the best science can do is explain when certain events occur - the beating of the heart, the formation of alpha-waves, fingers, etc. -- society must place a value on those occurences in terms of when rights become attached to the ball of cells.
Posted by 1lobo1 (Member # 7762) on :
As for gay marriage...
Society has an interest in promoting reproduction...but in this day and age the classical method of reproduction just doesn't apply anymore as a basis for marriage. (And, it really never did - kids have been born out of wedlock forever)...as far as promoting unhealthiness...please...how many disgusting hetero relationships extist? how many diseases are passed by heteros? Those sorts of reasons are not reasonable when critically examined. So, we are left with "tradition" (which is rarely a good reason for continuing to do something) and religion...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). I DID feel forced into practices that did not reflect my beliefs in the slightest.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
Dagonee