Religious Freedom and the US election.

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I read @Revoltingest , So your theory would be that Kim Davis complaint was a petty crime. Where her rights being ignore or those rights that she offended both petty? If so why are we even having this conversation. It should be a non-issue.

As to the irony, It is the governments responsibility to separate state and church. It is also the governments responsibility to protect the rights of the citizens of this country. Religious and Civil and I do not believe protecting peoples rights to be petty.

As a summary, I offered an opinion that a lot of people are overlooking. Religious Rights what ever your belief are protected by the constitution. People know this. You could bully them into believing civil rights are more important or you could actually hold them accountable to there religions. You would following the constitution and still allowing civil rights. It is quite hard to actually practice any Religion fully.

No, actually. I just figured Revolting would be able to give you a more plausible reason as to why Davis was denied a trial. It could be that the law (at any particular level) felt her crime wasn't serious enough to warrant a trial by a jury of peers. It might even be that her refusal to issue marriage licences (er go do her job) wasn't a criminal offence but her contempt of court is viewed as a petty offence. I'm uncertain here as my knowledge of U.S. law is limited. Personally, I don't think her actions were 'petty'; I think it was more serious than that but I also recognise that the American legal system and I probably have different definitions for the term 'petty' here with mine being more dismissive or derogatory.

You're partly right about church & state - it's the government's responsibility but it's also the responsibility of religious organisations not to interfere - especially since they're tax-exempt and thus are influencing a system they actively leech from.

Religious rights are protected by the Constitution within reasonable limits i.e. so long as they do not infringe on other peoples' rights (hence Neo Deist's example of human sacrifice being illegal) and hence the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges - the argument for retaining the 'traditional' definition of marriage arose purely from 'it's my religious beliefs' and that is a failure of an argument when it comes to lawmaking in America. That is why the Supreme Court ruled as it did.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, actually. I just figured Revolting would be able to give you a more plausible reason as to why Davis was denied a trial. It could be that the law (at any particular level) felt her crime wasn't serious enough to warrant a trial by a jury of peers. It might even be that her refusal to issue marriage licences (er go do her job) wasn't a criminal offence but her contempt of court is viewed as a petty offence. I'm uncertain here as my knowledge of U.S. law is limited. Personally, I don't think her actions were 'petty'; I think it was more serious than that but I also recognise that the American legal system and I probably have different definitions for the term 'petty' here with mine being more dismissive or derogatory.

You're partly right about church & state - it's the government's responsibility but it's also the responsibility of religious organisations not to interfere - especially since they're tax-exempt and thus are influencing a system they actively leech from.

Religious rights are protected by the Constitution within reasonable limits i.e. so long as they do not infringe on other peoples' rights (hence Neo Deist's example of human sacrifice being illegal) and hence the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges - the argument for retaining the 'traditional' definition of marriage arose purely from 'it's my religious beliefs' and that is a failure of an argument when it comes to lawmaking in America. That is why the Supreme Court ruled as it did.

Davis was found in contempt of court for refusing to obey a court order (to marry gay folk).
This isn't really the same as being tried for a crime.
But to say more is far above my pay grade.
All I know about the law I learned from one course & from watching Harvey Birdman.

 

[bobhikes]

No, actually. I just figured Revolting would be able to give you a more plausible reason as to why Davis was denied a trial. It could be that the law (at any particular level) felt her crime wasn't serious enough to warrant a trial by a jury of peers. It might even be that her refusal to issue marriage licences (er go do her job) wasn't a criminal offence but her contempt of court is viewed as a petty offence. I'm uncertain here as my knowledge of U.S. law is limited. Personally, I don't think her actions were 'petty'; I think it was more serious than that but I also recognise that the American legal system and I probably have different definitions for the term 'petty' here with mine being more dismissive or derogatory.

You're partly right about church & state - it's the government's responsibility but it's also the responsibility of religious organisations not to interfere - especially since they're tax-exempt and thus are influencing a system they actively leech from.

Religious rights are protected by the Constitution within reasonable limits i.e. so long as they do not infringe on other peoples' rights (hence Neo Deist's example of human sacrifice being illegal) and hence the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges - the argument for retaining the 'traditional' definition of marriage arose purely from 'it's my religious beliefs' and that is a failure of an argument when it comes to lawmaking in America. That is why the Supreme Court ruled as it did.

As you point other Laws where made by trial I to limit certain Religious Rights. The law was made by trial to allow gay marriages. These laws are passed one by one not as a blanket.

There is no law to force the coverage of abortion by insurance passed by trial.
There is no law to force the coverage of contraceptives by insurance passed by trial.
There is no law forcing hospitals to complete abortions
There is no law forcing hospital to complete euthanasia

These are some of the Civil rights that trying to be sent to court to override the religious rights.

America is 75% religious, Has the constitutional protection of religious rights. If you want to attract voters your best bet is to treat Religious Rights as you do Civil rights. Process them in court. Not the media.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It should be a simple matter of schematics.

If it's a religious issue, then it's a matter of the church.

The Goverment recognises civil unions in its part hence the licence.

There's no valid reason the ceremony can't be performed as this is not under any specific religious pretense.

It's a civil ceremony. Not a religious ceremony.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This country was first settled for Religious Freedom.

If you're talking about European settlement, then I guess there is some truth to that. Let's not kid ourselves that all religions were considered equal.

Religious Freedom not civil rights is actually built into the constitution. I believe Obama pushed civil rights a little to far during his tenure which added to the back lash. The liberals actually made fun of the religious rights over civil rights. To correct this going forward we need a balance. In the US our blood boils if our Religious rights are being trampled.

It would be nice, occasionally, to see groups more interested in protecting the religious rights of others. That doesnt really seem to be how it works, though...

Government should have no say in how religions operate.

Why not? Should the be considered outside the law, as well as the tax system? All religions? Or is there a threshold? All laws? Or is there a limit?
Simple example, and I am going for low-hanging fruit here, but what are your thoughts on Sharia Law?

Rather than protest the religion use your anger to compete against the religion. Catholic hospitals wont allow abortion. Collect money and build the best hospital that will allow abortions. Put the catholic hospital out of business.

Yeah...cos religions never protest or get angry...

Individuals that can prove Religion is the most important thing in there life should have rights too.

Agree totally.

They should be required to prove there religious values though.

Disagree. I'd let them have their rights regardless!!

If we don't respect Religious rights has much as civil rights the US will always be divided. Think about it, Religion has always and will always be important to this nation.

The funny thing about rights is that one man's rights is another man's infringement on freedom.

 

[idav]

Not at all, I don't think the marriage thing had anything to do with it. I do believe there was backlash against forcing individual's to comply. I believe there should have considerations for individuals.

There is a difference between a county clerk issuing a cert and a priest doing a religious ceremony. There are churches where marraige not an issue, there, are also religions a lot more strict about it, like sometimes requiring being the same religion.

 

[Shad]

This country was first settled for Religious Freedom.

No it wasn't as most colonies which became states contained laws that were Protestant and/or pro-Protestant. The Puritans that first settled were one in long line of religious sects that oppressed other view points when it had power only to become oppressed when they lost it. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that such laws became unconstitutional

 

[Neo Deist]

Religions don't force there views on others you chose your religion.

Here is a list of things that religions try and force on others by way of law, or flat out reject certain laws:

(some I have no problem with, just listing off the top of my head)

1. No alcohol sales on Sunday, the Sabbath for Christians.
2. Pro Life position.
3. Gay marriage being outlawed.
4. Religious icons (statues) on government buildings.
5. Prayer in school to the Christian God.
6. Having God attached to our currency, pledge, and judicial proceedings.
7. Religious institutions are exempt from federal income tax.
8. Stay of execution because of religious beliefs.
9. Want creationism taught in public school.
10. Some deny women the equal opportunity to serve in a pastoral position.

Shall I go on?

 

[Twilight Hue]

As long as the person supports all there Religious Rules they are within there rights. They should advertise as such if they have a public business and step aside if in government and they can't do there job for Religious reasons.

I agree. A civil union ceremony is not a religious ceremony. There should have never been any problem in the first place.

A civil ceremony is devoid of any religious signifence or applicability when it comes to marriage in the context it's administered.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If your not going to be open to debate you will constantly fail.

Truly, there was nothing there to debate, much less to discuss. While it might be obvious to you, none of us could follow your reasoning to any conclusion or contention. It's certainly not my fault if you can't communicate your ideas and concepts adequately for us to discuss them. Try again, only this time proof read your work for clarity and substance before hitting 'post'.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Davis was found in contempt of court for refusing to obey a court order (to marry gay folk).
This isn't really the same as being tried for a crime.
But to say more is far above my pay grade.

That's it in a nutshell. It's not that she was being accused of committing a misdemeanor or felony, but as a government agent, she failed to carry out court orders. That's a contempt, pure and simple. She doesn't have to perform those marriages if she stops being a government agent. It's like a mechanic doesn't have to fix cars at work... That's his choice but he's going to face consequences for his decision. Do your job.

 

[bobhikes]

Here is a list of things that religions try and force on others by way of law, or flat out reject certain laws:

(some I have no problem with, just listing off the top of my head)

1. No alcohol sales on Sunday, the Sabbath for Christians.
2. Pro Life position.
3. Gay marriage being outlawed.
4. Religious icons (statues) on government buildings.
5. Prayer in school to the Christian God.
6. Having God attached to our currency, pledge, and judicial proceedings.
7. Religious institutions are exempt from federal income tax.
8. Stay of execution because of religious beliefs.
9. Want creationism taught in public school.
10. Some deny women the equal opportunity to serve in a pastoral position.

Shall I go on?

Please, All I'm saying is that they should be settle in court and not in the media. All I said was that a large portion of the US voted for Trump because they perceived there religious rights being trampled. All I'm saying is the constitution protects Religious Rights as well as Civil rights. If the democrats want to win these people back they need to treat Religious rights with respect.

 

[Scuba Pete]

a large portion of the US voted for Trump because they perceived there religious rights being trampled.

We disagree here. They voted for Trump to ensure their right to hate and discriminate against others. It wasn't a religious thang as much as it was a hate thang. I hope this clears this up for you. Hate won. Bigotry is the new norm. Wave those confederate flags, boys, the Trump will rise again!

 

[bobhikes]

I agree. A civil union ceremony is not a religious ceremony. There should have never been any problem in the first place.

A civil ceremony is devoid of any religious signifence or applicability when it comes to marriage in the context it's administered.

The problem is that marriage is a Religious Ceremony and to be honest the Government should never have gotten involved. Marriage should have stayed in the realm of religion. Government should never have given special rights to married people. Civil Unions should not exist.

I am not saying Gay marriage should not exist Religions that allow gay marriage would be allowed to preform gay marriages but no one would get government benefits from being married.

 

[bobhikes]

We disagree here. They voted for Trump to ensure their right to hate and discriminate against others. It wasn't a religious thang as much as it was a hate thang. I hope this clears this up for you. Hate won. Bigotry is the new norm. Wave those confederate flags, boys, the Trump will rise again!

We disagree here as well.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Marriage should have stayed in the realm of religion.

Except for tax purposes, the right to adopt, inheritance and so forth. Did you want couples to have to have two ceremonies if they are religious? Once for state and the other for their God?

 

[bobhikes]

Except for tax purposes, the right to adopt, inheritance and so forth. Did you want couples to have to have two ceremonies if they are religious? Once for state and the other for their God?

You would see reading through That I already said government should not give anything just because you are married. Taxes the right to adopt, inheritance should be individual concerns.

In the past women couldn't work so marriage allowances where made to protect them. Today they have the option to work those allowances are not needed. Yes it would make certain things harder but the government being involved in marriage makes certain things harder.

 

[McBell]

You would see reading through That I already said government should not give anything just because you are married. Taxes the right to adopt, inheritance should be individual concerns.

In the past women couldn't work so marriage allowances where made to protect them. Today they have the option to work those allowances are not needed. Yes it would make certain things harder but the government being involved in marriage makes certain things harder.

except for the fact that marriage is a LEGAL contract.

 

[bobhikes]

except for the fact that marriage is a LEGAL contract.

I'm not saying it isn't. I saying it should of stayed a religious contract.

added: some groups and individuals believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that marriage should be a matter of personal liberty, not requiring permission from the state.[7][8] Individuals that align with this libertarian stance argue that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it falsely presupposes that we merely have the privilege, not the right, to marry. Wilkapedia

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I

I'm not saying it isn't. I saying it should of stayed a religious contract.

added: some groups and individuals believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that marriage should be a matter of personal liberty, not requiring permission from the state.[7][8] Individuals that align with this libertarian stance argue that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it falsely presupposes that we merely have the privilege, not the right, to marry. Wilkapedia

Marriage never was a religious contract in this country. It was always merging wealth and decision making power before government, a government contract. The shortcoming was allowing churches to hold sway over a government process. It's the same reason antimiscegenation laws got struck down.

Incidentally, libertarians often forget that you can't remove government from a government contract and still have any sort of meaning where government is concerned. Marriage contract at it's core is designed to be a statement to the government of merging of wealth and decision making power so that it can be jointly taxed and accorded the freedoms along with that merge. Saying that 'government should get out of the marriage business' really just means 'strip marriages of any legal validity.' And, having zero government regulation means zero regulating of legitimately terrible scenarios of child marriage or coerced marriage, and other scenarios where consent or ability to consent is not present.