Let's finally hash it out -- what religious liberties are Americans lacking?

[amorphous_constellation]

I call it stupidity thats dragging America down and going backwards. We tolerate hate speech so we have society busting at the seems with unbridled hatred.

I think being polite to other people is nice, but if the powers limit speech enough, you can't criticize the government.

Watch the latest Mehdi Hasan interview with Victor Gao, see what you think of that

 

[crossfire]

You only got one thing partially correct, for example what would "secular" polygamy be? The banning of polygamy could be the result of religious people who think that marriages should only be monogamous & in fact that's what the ban on polygamy here in the US might actually be about. If that's the case, then those who want to practice "secular" polygamy are having their right to separation of church and state infringed.

In general, it's not just a religious freedom infringement, it's also an infringement on the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

Polygamy is just one example and not essential to the underlying point; it's so much broader than that.

Well, is marriage a secular matter or a religious matter? This will have to be determined, otherwise it will be forever caught up in the whole state/religion infringement thing. I see it as a secular thing, as it is not a requirement of religion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You only got one thing partially correct, for example what would "secular" polygamy be? The banning of polygamy could be the result of religious people who think that marriages should only be monogamous & in fact that's what the ban on polygamy here in the US might actually be about. If that's the case, then those who want to practice "secular" polygamy are having their right to separation of church and state infringed.

In general, it's not just a religious freedom infringement, it's also an infringement on the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

Polygamy is just one example and not essential to the underlying point; it's so much broader than that.

It is perfectly possible to be in multi-person sexual relationships -- people do it all the time. It's just not considered marriage, since marriage is defined as two people. No fewer, no more. Thus, when it comes to a breakdown of the relationship, there is no legal help available. No rules about property, about children, etc., unless there are legal contracts in place that courts can examine, and this is pretty atypical in such situations. Caveat emptor, as they say.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think being polite to other people is nice, but if the powers limit speech enough, you can't criticize the government.

Watch the latest Mehdi Hasan interview with Victor Gao, see what you think of that

England, France, Canada, Australia and more all allow you to criticizs the state (and Royal Family if they're subject).
Why don't you, and others, try more realistic examples?

 

[anotherneil]

Well, is marriage a secular matter or a religious matter? This will have to be determined, otherwise it will be forever caught up in the whole state/religion infringement thing. I see it as a secular thing, as it is not a requirement of religion.

It's both, but that doesn't matter. When it comes to religious liberties, what matters is whether the government is trying to get into marriage (just like it has tried to get into the bedroom), is trying to mandate marriages, or is trying to prohibit marriages.

It is a requirement (or expectation or aspiration by members) of some religions; for example, in the Roman Catholic church, it's what's called a sacrament.

 

[crossfire]

It's both, but that doesn't matter. When it comes to religious liberties, what matters is whether the government is trying to get into marriage (just like it has tried to get into the bedroom), is trying to mandate marriages, or is trying to prohibit marriages.

It is a requirement (or expectation or aspiration by members) of some religions; for example, in the Roman Catholic church, it's what's called a sacrament.

The government needs to regulate marriage so we don't end up with eight-year-old brides.

 

[anotherneil]

It is perfectly possible to be in multi-person sexual relationships -- people do it all the time. It's just not considered marriage, since marriage is defined as two people. No fewer, no more. Thus, when it comes to a breakdown of the relationship, there is no legal help available. No rules about property, about children, etc., unless there are legal contracts in place that courts can examine, and this is pretty atypical in such situations. Caveat emptor, as they say.

Polygamy is, by definition, a type of marital situation. A man married to 2 women is married to both.

It's not "legal" in the US because of an unconstitutional federal law banning it, and there are probably also some unconstitutional state laws that also ban it. It's unconstitutional because it goes against separation of church and state.

Polygamy is in the Bible, and this federal law banning it is the product of a Christian-dominated US Congress, so it's odd that they banned something that's in their own religious texts. Religious people are very strange and perplexing.

 

[Argentbear]

Polygamy is, by definition, a type of marital situation. A man married to 2 women is married to both.

It's not "legal" in the US because of an unconstitutional federal law banning it, and there are probably also some unconstitutional state laws that also ban it. It's unconstitutional because it goes against separation of church and state.

Polygamy is in the Bible, and this federal law banning it is the product of a Christian-dominated US Congress, so it's odd that they banned something that's in their own religious texts. Religious people are very strange and perplexing.

Do you think laws preventing someone marrying an 8 year old child is also unconstitutional?

 

[anotherneil]

The government needs to regulate marriage so we don't end up with eight-year-old brides.

Yet the government doesn't ban the Roman Catholic church from dressing eight-year-olds in wedding gowns for brides of Christ for their First Communion.

 

[anotherneil]

Do you think laws preventing someone marrying an 8 year old child is also unconstitutional?

I don't think so, since laws basically don't recognize contractual agreements with anyone under 18. Since marriage is a contract, the state doesn't have to recognize a marriage to anyone under 18. I'm not sure, but I would guess that the 13th Amendment banning slavery could also prevent parents or anyone else from giving permission for their under-18 children to marry.

BTW I'd be uncomfortable asking such a question with a forum member name like that. (I'm just messin' with you - couldn't help it. LOL)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Polygamy is, by definition, a type of marital situation. A man married to 2 women is married to both.

It's not "legal" in the US because of an unconstitutional federal law banning it, and there are probably also some unconstitutional state laws that also ban it. It's unconstitutional because it goes against separation of church and state.

Polygamy is in the Bible, and this federal law banning it is the product of a Christian-dominated US Congress, so it's odd that they banned something that's in their own religious texts. Religious people are very strange and perplexing.

Just a quickie question -- you seem fixated enough on this that it seems almost as if you're anxious to have more than one wife. Are you?

 

[anotherneil]

Just a quickie question -- you seem fixated enough on this that it seems almost as if you're anxious to have more than one wife. Are you?

As you may know, normally I don't like making threads that don't have me as a topic about me; in this case I'll think about how much I want to mix myself into this thread (maybe sharing my bias on the issue is relevant), because I'm not married, and I don't have any children; I was raised as a Roman Catholic believing that one day I would get married, that everyone got married, no one was supposed to get divorced (I thought divorces were super rare and that those who got divorced were practically criminals), and that marriage was to only one woman.

Now that I've wised up, I've decided that I don't want to get into something that'll likely end in divorce. Maybe I'd be good at knowing how to avoid the divorce pitfalls since I'm probably so mindful of them, but that's beside the point. I'd like to have children soon so when I get old I have a family to avoid that type of loneliness, but I'm not a rich person and I've gotten to the point that if I do have children, I want to be able to provide a good home, and send them to good K-12 schools and good colleges (if that's what they want), so they don't have to put up with this stupid rat race we have today that's seems like it'll only get worse.

If I were to suddenly get rich, and since I don't want to get married, this means that I have no constraints to have children with only one woman. Not that I want to go out of my way to do that, but since there are many people who go back and forth between getting married and divorced with many women, and having children with them - not to mention that there are couples who don't get married and have children, and they do the same (or it's a mixture of getting married and having children, and getting divorced, and having more children with other women out of "wedlock"), my personal thinking is that I shouldn't feel guilty in any way for having multiple children with multiple women - as long as I provide them with good homes and a good education so they turn out to be decent adults. That wouldn't be polygamy per se, but it is similar or analogous to it.

You can judge my bias and me for that if you wish, but I don't think that for the sake of this thread it matters. I'm pretty sure that the only reason I keep discussing polygamy is because members keep bringing it up in replies. I'm going to continue to respond to replies to me about polygamy; if members would stop dwelling on polygamy on this thread, so will I.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As you may know, normally I don't like making threads that don't have me as a topic about me; in this case I'll think about how much I want to mix myself into this thread (maybe sharing my bias on the issue is relevant), because I'm not married, and I don't have any children; I was raised as a Roman Catholic believing that one day I would get married, that everyone got married, no one was supposed to get divorced (I thought divorces were super rare and that those who got divorced were practically criminals), and that marriage was to only one woman.

Now that I've wised up, I've decided that I don't want to get into something that'll likely end in divorce. Maybe I'd be good at knowing how to avoid the divorce pitfalls since I'm probably so mindful of them, but that's beside the point. I'd like to have children soon so when I get old I have a family to avoid that type of loneliness, but I'm not a rich person and I've gotten to the point that if I do have children, I want to be able to provide a good home, and send them to good K-12 schools and good colleges (if that's what they want), so they don't have to put up with this stupid rat race we have today that's seems like it'll only get worse.

If I were to suddenly get rich, and since I don't want to get married, this means that I have no constraints to have children with only one woman. Not that I want to go out of my way to do that, but since there are many people who go back and forth between getting married and divorced with many women, and having children with them - not to mention that there are couples who don't get married and have children, and they do the same (or it's a mixture of getting married and having children, and getting divorced, and having more children with other women out of "wedlock"), my personal thinking is that I shouldn't feel guilty in any way for having multiple children with multiple women - as long as I provide them with good homes and a good education so they turn out to be decent adults. That wouldn't be polygamy per se, but it is similar or analogous to it.

You can judge my bias and me for that if you wish, but I don't think that for the sake of this thread it matters. I'm pretty sure that the only reason I keep discussing polygamy is because members keep bringing it up in replies. I'm going to continue to respond to replies to me about polygamy; if members would stop dwelling on polygamy on this thread, so will I.

I'm not in the business of judging. I don't want children because the chance that I would be a poor or abusive father is far too great, as a battered child myself. It helps that I'm gay, so that's not causing me any pain. On the other hand, I've been in a committed, faithful relationship with my partner for over 30 years now, and have no desire to look for anything outside of that.

I'm not "wedded" to the notion of monogamy (I use the term loosely now) and marital fidelity, but it seems to suit me fine. A personal thing? Absolutely.

But look at what you wrote: "I shouldn't feel guilty in any way for having multiple children with multiple women - as long as I provide them with good homes and a good education so they turn out to be decent adults." What guarantees that if, say, you happened to die? Especially -- and this is key -- if you die intestate (without a will)? How will all those wives and children be provided for? How much of whatever estate you might have goes to each of them -- and based on what? Seniority (first wife, first child or whatever)? Age? Need? Who decides?

The law seeks to cope with those questions, because it's not just you who is important -- it's all those other people, too.

Out of curiousity, by the way, King Solomon was said (in the Bible) to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines -- and yet he managed only 3 children (possibly 4, if you include a fling with the Queen of Sheba). Do you suppose that's because he was mostly "shooting blanks," or perhaps a very low libido? And don't all those wives and concubines deserve a husband and lord who can provide for their "needs?" Or might it be, possibly, that "surplus" children just weren't considered worth counting or remembering?

 

[crossfire]

As you may know, normally I don't like making threads that don't have me as a topic about me; in this case I'll think about how much I want to mix myself into this thread (maybe sharing my bias on the issue is relevant), because I'm not married, and I don't have any children; I was raised as a Roman Catholic believing that one day I would get married, that everyone got married, no one was supposed to get divorced (I thought divorces were super rare and that those who got divorced were practically criminals), and that marriage was to only one woman.

Now that I've wised up, I've decided that I don't want to get into something that'll likely end in divorce. Maybe I'd be good at knowing how to avoid the divorce pitfalls since I'm probably so mindful of them, but that's beside the point. I'd like to have children soon so when I get old I have a family to avoid that type of loneliness, but I'm not a rich person and I've gotten to the point that if I do have children, I want to be able to provide a good home, and send them to good K-12 schools and good colleges (if that's what they want), so they don't have to put up with this stupid rat race we have today that's seems like it'll only get worse.

If I were to suddenly get rich, and since I don't want to get married, this means that I have no constraints to have children with only one woman. Not that I want to go out of my way to do that, but since there are many people who go back and forth between getting married and divorced with many women, and having children with them - not to mention that there are couples who don't get married and have children, and they do the same (or it's a mixture of getting married and having children, and getting divorced, and having more children with other women out of "wedlock"), my personal thinking is that I shouldn't feel guilty in any way for having multiple children with multiple women - as long as I provide them with good homes and a good education so they turn out to be decent adults. That wouldn't be polygamy per se, but it is similar or analogous to it.

You can judge my bias and me for that if you wish, but I don't think that for the sake of this thread it matters. I'm pretty sure that the only reason I keep discussing polygamy is because members keep bringing it up in replies. I'm going to continue to respond to replies to me about polygamy; if members would stop dwelling on polygamy on this thread, so will I.

Sounds like Elon Musk.

 

[crossfire]

It's both, but that doesn't matter. When it comes to religious liberties, what matters is whether the government is trying to get into marriage (just like it has tried to get into the bedroom), is trying to mandate marriages, or is trying to prohibit marriages.

It is a requirement (or expectation or aspiration by members) of some religions; for example, in the Roman Catholic church, it's what's called a sacrament.

Do Priests, Monks, or Nuns get married?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

England, France, Canada, Australia and more all allow you to criticizs the state (and Royal Family if they're subject).
Why don't you, and others, try more realistic examples?

think what you want. I think that if you suppress speech, then people just get worse in private. Plus plenty of social media platforms, for example, add layers of regulation themselves, which I think is fine.

Where things start to get debatable is where views meet action, which is what I think this thread is about. People with certain views might want to regulate what you actually do - that's what I would debate against

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Out of curiousity, by the way, King Solomon was said (in the Bible) to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines -- and yet he managed only 3 children (possibly 4, if you include a fling with the Queen of Sheba). Do you suppose that's because he was mostly "shooting blanks," or perhaps a very low libido? And don't all those wives and concubines deserve a husband and lord who can provide for their "needs?" Or might it be, possibly, that "surplus" children just weren't considered worth counting or remembering?

I think I traced my genealogy back one time through some possible ancestors, and it eventually went back to a viking leader who I guess may have had a lot of offspring. I heard that genghis khan might have a lot as well. I haven't thought a lot about this, but in ancient times when this kind of thing occurred, the idea might have been that the leader believed that he is improving the more general stock of the population. Not to produce a thousand possible heirs, but just to impart something of the kingly nature, which may or may not connect also to higher powers

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think I traced my genealogy back one time through some possible ancestors, and it eventually went back to a viking leader who I guess may have had a lot of offspring. I heard that genghis khan might have a lot as well. I haven't thought a lot about this, but in ancient times when this kind of thing occurred, the idea might have been that the leader believed that he is improving the more general stock of the population. Not to produce a thousand possible heirs, but just to impart something of the kingly nature, which may or may not connect also to higher powers

As someone who, an orphan for most of my life, has since the age of 70 actually found my family, and traced my ancestry back 7 generations to the England of King George II, I find it extremely unlikely that you've traced yours back to a "viking leader."

 

[amorphous_constellation]

As someone who, an orphan for most of my life, has since the age of 70 actually found my family, and traced my ancestry back 7 generations to the England of King George II, I find it extremely unlikely that you've traced yours back to a "viking leader."

Oh I don't believe it either.. I'm just trying to be more of a concise writer, so I don't qualify everything.. I also am skeptical that the kings impart divine qualities in their offspring, if it is the case that some of them believed that

 

[anotherneil]

I'm not in the business of judging. I don't want children because the chance that I would be a poor or abusive father is far too great, as a battered child myself. It helps that I'm gay, so that's not causing me any pain. On the other hand, I've been in a committed, faithful relationship with my partner for over 30 years now, and have no desire to look for anything outside of that.

I'm not "wedded" to the notion of monogamy (I use the term loosely now) and marital fidelity, but it seems to suit me fine. A personal thing? Absolutely.

Sorry to hear that you were in an terrible & unfortunate situation during your childhood, but I'm glad to hear that you're in a much better situation that you're happy with, now.

Anyhow, that's another thing with religious liberties & in fact liberties, in general: gay marriage; it's something else that I think isn't any of the government's business here in the US. Religious reasons or not, government should stay out of the bedroom.

But look at what you wrote: "I shouldn't feel guilty in any way for having multiple children with multiple women - as long as I provide them with good homes and a good education so they turn out to be decent adults." What guarantees that if, say, you happened to die? Especially -- and this is key -- if you die intestate (without a will)? How will all those wives and children be provided for? How much of whatever estate you might have goes to each of them -- and based on what? Seniority (first wife, first child or whatever)? Age? Need? Who decides?

I would be referring to them as my baby mamas rather than as my wives, and I would set up accounts and college funding plans for each child with enough money for a good school. I'd also make legal/contractual/financial arrangements for funding and having the money for household, K-12, food, clothing, other personal needs, etc. for each child, so there's no dilemma if anything unfortunate were to ever happen to me. I could and probably would also have a will on top of all that. In general, people do have life insurance policies as a matter of contingency for this sort of purpose/situation. Somehow lower and middle class fathers with many partners, and children with them, manage to make it financially in that situation; if they can, why wouldn't someone who's wealthy?

The law seeks to cope with those questions, because it's not just you who is important -- it's all those other people, too.

Yes, and it can be done without prohibiting someone from practicing their religious beliefs or by forcing someone else's religion or religious policies on them; this is all I'm trying to say.

Out of curiousity, by the way, King Solomon was said (in the Bible) to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines -- and yet he managed only 3 children (possibly 4, if you include a fling with the Queen of Sheba). Do you suppose that's because he was mostly "shooting blanks," or perhaps a very low libido? And don't all those wives and concubines deserve a husband and lord who can provide for their "needs?" Or might it be, possibly, that "surplus" children just weren't considered worth counting or remembering?

Well, I'm not religious and I don't know any details about King Solomon. I'm aware of the name King Solomon, but that's the extent of what I know about him - his name & nothing else.

I'd say sure, everything you mention is a possibility; I can think of other possible explanation too. Maybe some of these women were his wives in the sense of being partners in an actual intimate type of relationship, and the rest might have been just an honorary thing for widows or whatever that he provided as a welfare service generosity to help them financially. Maybe some of them were just women who worked for him and would be what we call employees, today; what makes me think this is a possibility is because the word "maid" is used to refer to housekeepers, and there's the word "bridesmaid" which is associated with wedding ceremonies & nothing to do with housekeeping.

It could be part of that problem of taking religious texts, which were written a very long time ago, and in languages different from English, too literally.

The Bible refers to animals that live in water that aren't vertebrates with gills as fish, and the word "fish" has been commandeered and redefined by the scientific community, thus creating a situation where some say the Bible is wrong, because a fish is not a mammal. A similar situation is the Bible referring to the sky as a dome; when I go outside and look up at the sky, I see something as an observer that's in a geometric perspective of a contemporary dome made of concrete or other building materials; the word "dome" was probably meant to refer to the sky for the entire globe from the point of view of the ground rather than as a structure with a hemisphere shape, for all I know.

I don't use these types of semantics & quibbling matters as a reason to refute the Bible; only atheists do that, and I'm not an atheist - just a non-religious person. I'm not saying that you're trying to refute the Bible, only that how we interpret the Bible today isn't necessarily the correct way, including what a wife or even a concubine was or what that meant back then. I vaguely remember something about it being offensive and an insult to not take a dead brother's widow as a wife back during the "biblical" era; does that necessarily mean that they have to be a married couple in the same way that a contemporary married couple? I don't think so; I think what is really being said is that it's offensive and insulting behavior to a family member not to bring them into their home and care for them like a contemporary wife or family member.

We have the expressions "sister-in-law" and "brother-in-law" today & I imagine that there's some related traditional reason for that. Maybe the idea back then was that a brother's wife is like a sister and is expected to be treated as such, so rejecting or refusing to bring her in their home as a widow was considered to be the same as turning their back on a family member like a biological sister and leaving them out there to be homeless or on their own. I'm guessing that would also include helping her with caring for her children, the children of his deceased (biological) brother, etc.

Maybe back then a marriage was considered something that involved bringing someone into a family a little differently from contemporary norms of marriage, and maybe back then it was considered perfectly ok if he wanted to have an intimate relationship with a brother's widow and to have children with her, or to just leave the relationship with them as just a "platonic" family member (or whatever you want to label it). Maybe if she wanted to re-marry and it was with someone else other than a connection or relationship with her deceased husband's brother it was also perfectly fine.

The point is that more reliable information and details about how things were like back during King Solomon's time would be needed; I don't have any of that information or detail, and there are probably some things about it that have been lost or distorted as time has gone by.[/QUOTE]