Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[Mycroft]

Cant we just take deutoronomy out, its disturbing. Thats why jefferson cut out like ninety percent of the bible.

Deuteronomy 22:
28*“If a man finds a young woman*who is*a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,*29*then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father*fifty*shekels*of silver, and she shall be his wife*because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

LIke I said. The Bible is not Haribo, you can't pick the bits you like.

So...is it wrong to execute a woman who is not a virgin before her marriage?

 

[idav]

LIke I said. The Bible is not Haribo, you can't pick the bits you like.

So...is it wrong to execute a woman who is not a virgin before her marriage?

I actually wanted to start a thread with that chapter. That collection of books isnt the greatest. They are still seperate books, what we have is a most popular compilation. But I agree completely, the bible is worth dropping for a lot of the stuff in it. God breathed they say?

 

[Mycroft]

I actually wanted to start a thread with that chapter. That collection of books isnt the greatest. They are still seperate books, what we have is a most popular compilation. But I agree completely, the bible is worth dropping for a lot of the stuff in it. God breathed they say?

And yet...it is wrong. In fact as you unwittingly pointed out the Bible is wrong twice in the same chapter. So if that can be so...could not the rest of it also be wrong?

 

[1137]

LIke I said. The Bible is not Haribo, you can't pick the bits you like.

So...is it wrong to execute a woman who is not a virgin before her marriage?

Why's that? How do you have the right to just declare that?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

LIke I said. The Bible is not Haribo, you can't pick the bits you like.

Everyone does. Catholics, for example, look at a lot of the OT as tribal history and don't see it all as a good thing. In fact, the notes of Catholic Bibles often point out that the Jews gained a greater understanding of god as time went on and were still stuck in tribal mode during much of the OT.

There's much more nuanced ways of looking at it.

 

[idav]

And yet...it is wrong. In fact as you unwittingly pointed out the Bible is wrong twice in the same chapter. So if that can be so...could not the rest of it also be wrong?

I said it knowing that about that chapter. I have been considering that chapter for some time which my response. One chapter of one book out of a compilation of many books and letters. Certainly others can be off or even wrong.

 

[Mycroft]

This I find pretty disasteful: http://www.dayofdialogue.com/

But one guy has the solution.

Here’s the Perfect Response to the Christian Anti-Gay ‘Day of Dialogue’ Cards

 

[dawny0826]

If there are such Sikhs, I haven't met them. As I touched on earlier, the "5 Ks", or the obligations of a baptized Sikh, include long hair, not wearing a turban:

BBC - Religions - Sikhism: The Five Ks

I think what's actually important here is that asking an observant Sikh to remove his turban demonstrates cultural insensitivity and is an affront to his dignity.

In my opinion, understanding that the turban serves as such an importance from a cultural perspective would be reason enough for government to consider assigned religious value as well.

Our consitutional rights do not prohibit cultural insensitivity as a generality.

Interestingly, though, our hypothetical Sikh friend has another religious obligation that the courtroom staff would probably care quite a bit about: the kirpan. Baptized Sikh men are obliged to carry a dagger or sword.

Is religious obligation enough reason to allow someone to bring a weapon into a courtroom?

Not as a rule and the bill touches on this. A knife may have religious significance but, it, unlike a turban can cause harm to others. When safety is in question, the government CAN lawfully request that such an article be removed.

I interpret it differently: I don't think this is just a matter of protecting First Amendment rights; I think it sets up a situation where religious concerns will be the overriding factor on decisions that affect a wide spectrum of concerns.

In particular, I worry that this will give a "get out of jail free card" to churches and religious individuals on all sorts of issues. Will it be considered a "substantial burden on the exercise of religion" to require a church to get a retrofit to allow access for persons with disabilities? Could someone argue that a county should widen Road A instead of Road B because the congestion on Road A (his route to church) amounts to a "substantial burden" on his exercise of religion?

Churches are already exempt from providing ADA accessible facilities except when they have employees in hire. If they do, they are legally bound to accommodate the needs of their employees. Most either have ADA accessible features or plan to remedy this through their building funds or relocation.

As most churches have employees, I'm curious as to how big of an issue this is.

It could be a substantial burden on a church to require that they pay for rennovations if such funding competes with that needed to execute mission related tasks.

I can honestly tell you that I've never been in a church that lacks ADA accessible facilities. Not saying that they don't exist, but, in my experience, churches aim to be as accommodating as possible to their congregations, whether legally obligated to do so or not.

Could someone argue that the county should widen one road vs. another to benefit a church? Sure. They could argue this before the bill passed. They can cite substantial burden, but, the government still has the responsibility to consider its own interests, which, in this case, would be the best interests of the public at large vs. a church congregation.

My understanding is that the bill doesn't guarantee anything, save, the government being required to consider burden upon religious freedom if a substantial burden is cited.

I think that religious issues are just one of many concerns, and it's government's job to try to strike the most appropriate balance between all of them. AFAICT, this law effectively says "screw that balance in favour of religions, as long as the effects on everything else aren't completely unacceptable."

It is the government's job to consider the interests of all parties involved. I don't see where this bill negates this. Laws within a state should support our constitutional rights.

People will still go to court and anti-discrimination laws, fair housing laws, state employment related laws, etc. will be weighed against other considerations.

My understanding is that you don't have a constitutional right to the services or memberships of a private establishment. You have the constitutational right to equal protection under the law.

If anti-discrimination laws are lacking, that's a significant issue and could give one group or person more leverage in court.

Of course. It's offensive and unnecessary on several levels. I just think that any religious concerns are minor compared to the more important factors.

It will remain a balancing act. One group or person will always be favored over another.

See... this is part of why I disagree with religious exemptions to the law, because they inevitably end up with the government judging what is and isn't "legitimate" religious expression.

This bill focuses on substantial burden. Logically, substantial burden would have to be demonstrated.

There was a case here in Ontario a few years ago. In one of our government-run Catholic schools (which are a whole kettle of fish that I probably shouldn't get into because it'll just get me riled), a lesbian student at one of these Catholic schools wanted to bring her girlfriend to the prom. The school refused, and she brought a case to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, where the school board argued that it would violate Catholic doctrine to allow a student to bring their same-sex boyfriend/girlfriend to an official school function. However, the Tribunal decided that Catholic doctrine doesn't actually prohibit a lesbian student bringing her girlfriend to the prom, and ordered the school to let the girlfriend come.

Do I want the courts (and quasi-judicial bodies like human rights tribunals) ruling on the legitimacy of other people's religions? Not at all... but when the law allows for special treatment on the basis of religion, it's inevitable.

The school had the right to refuse just as she had the right to protest it. I'm glad that things worked to her benefit.

Of course. But when those rights are in conflict, it's impossible not to choose a side.

The seeming projection in this thread is that it's just not possible for the government to discriminate against a religious group or person. That makes me uncomfortable. Christians, in particular, are painted too often as unrelenting bigots and that's just not always the case.

Regardless, the constitutional freedoms of all should be considered and valued.

Huge parts of our lives, communities, and societies are in the hands of private businesses. Telling those private businesses that they're free to discriminate as they see fit is effectively the same as telling the people being discriminated against that they don't have a right to a community or a society.

I think that often, maximizing liberty is a matter of putting restrictions in place that limit the freedom of people to limit the freedom of others.

Private business should be able to operate with as minimal government intervention as possible and the people should regulate how successful a business becomes in my opinion.

Time will tell how this translates in day to day application. I remain flexible to adjust my views as I learn and see.

 

[Agnostic75]

The seeming projection in this thread is that it's just not possible for the government to discriminate against a religious group or person. That makes me uncomfortable. Christians, in particular, are painted too often as unrelenting bigots and that's just not always the case.

I am not aware of anyone in this thread who has said that Christians are always unrelenting bigots.

Why are you wasting your time since there are lots of unreasonable people on both sides? That will always be the case, and that is human nature.

Generally, Christians have always had a big advantage since the founding of the U.S. The rights of non-Christians have improved, but all of the U.S. Supreme Court justices are Christians, and the vast majority of U.S. Senators, and Congressmen, are Christians. All of the states where same-sex marriage, and civil unions are illegal have far more conservative Christians per capita than other states do.

 

[dawny0826]

I am not aware of anyone in this thread who has said that Christians are always unrelenting bigots.

Why are you wasting your time since there are lots of unreasonable people on both sides? That will always be the case, and that is human nature.

Generally, Christians have always had a big advantage since the founding of the U.S. The rights of non-Christians have improved, but all of the U.S. Supreme Court justices are Christians, and the vast majority of U.S. Senators, and Congressmen, are Christians. All of the states where same-sex marriage, and civil unions are illegal have far more conservative Christians per capita than other states do.

I stated an opinion, regarding that which I perceive to be projected (as a Christian).

Why are you wasting your time responding to my post "since there are lots of unreasonable people on both sides"?

 

[Agnostic75]

I stated an opinion, regarding that which I perceive to be projected (as a Christian).

Why are you wasting your time responding to my post "since there are lots of unreasonable people on both sides"?

I replied to your complaint about the abuse of religious people when they have had a big advantage ever since the U.S. was founded.

In a thread at another forum, you said that a proposed law in Arizona was not needed, but you also said that the law would provide protection for religious people. Why would religious people need protection that they already have?

 

[dawny0826]

I replied to your complaint about the abuse of religious people when they have had a big advantage ever since the U.S. was founded.

You chose one section out of all that I've posted on this thread to comment on which, I do find perplexing.

Again, I stated an opinion regarding that which I perceive. My perception, which could be right or wrong, is that people aren't, in context of this bill, considering the possibility that the government has discriminated against the religious too.

There's nothing more for me to say. If I'm wrong, that' s fine. It's not worth discussing in greater detail with you. I also stated that my views are in flex as it pertains to this bill and I will adjust based upon what I see pan out, as necessary.

In a thread at another forum, you said that a proposed law in Arizona was not needed, but you also said that the law would provide protection for religious people. Why would religious people need protection that they already have?

I did. This isn't the AZ bill, is it? They do read differently.

 

[Drolefille]

I am not aware of anyone in this thread who has said that Christians are always unrelenting bigots.

Why are you wasting your time since there are lots of unreasonable people on both sides? That will always be the case, and that is human nature.

Generally, Christians have always had a big advantage since the founding of the U.S. The rights of non-Christians have improved, but all of the U.S. Supreme Court justices are Christians, and the vast majority of U.S. Senators, and Congressmen, are Christians. All of the states where same-sex marriage, and civil unions are illegal have far more conservative Christians per capita than other states do.

Regarding the bold: Wrong! Six members of the Supreme Court are Roman Catholic and three are Jewish.

Wiki has an interesting bit on the shift of the court.

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christians do have "privilege" in the US, some of it still codified into laws that people forget about - blue laws in particular- but getting the facts right is important.

 

[Agnostic75]

Regarding the bold: Wrong! Six members of the Supreme Court are Roman Catholic and three are Jewish.

Wiki has an interesting bit on the shift of the court.

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christians do have "privilege" in the US, some of it still codified into laws that people forget about - blue laws in particular- but getting the facts right is important.

Thanks for the correction.

Christians, and Jews, still have a lot of privilege in the U.S., and they have it regardless of blue laws since the vast majority of lawmakers in the federal government, and in state governments, are Christians, or Jews.

There have been eight Jewish U.S. Supreme Court Justices. I assume that most of, or all of the rest have been Christians.

 

[Drolefille]

Thanks for the correction.

Christians, and Jews, still have a lot of privilege in the U.S., and they have it regardless of blue laws since the vast majority of lawmakers in the federal government, and in state governments, are Christians, or Jews.

There have been eight U.S. Supreme Court Justices. I assume that most of, or all of the rest have been Christians.

Most Supreme Court justices have been from various Protestant denominations, and these have included 33 Episcopalians, 18 Presbyterians, nine Unitarians, five Methodists, three Baptists, and lone representatives of various other denominations.[67] William Rehnquist was the Court's only Lutheran; Noah Swayne was a Quaker. Some 15 Protestant justices did not adhere to a particular denomination. Notably, the Baptist church and other evangelical churches have been underrepresented on the Court, relative to the population of the United States. So-called mainline Protestant churches have been overrepresented.

Following John Paul Stevens's retirement in June 2010, the Court had an entirely non-Protestant composition for the first time in its history

Jewish justices[edit]


Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish Justice.
In 1853, President Millard Fillmore offered to appoint Louisiana Senator Judah P. Benjamin to be the first Jewish Justice, and the New York Times reported (on February 15, 1853) that "if the President nominates Benjamin, the Democrats are determined to confirm him". However, Benjamin declined the offer, and ultimately became Secretary of State for the Confederacy during the Civil War. The first Jewish nominee, Louis Brandeis, was appointed in 1916, after a tumultuous hearing process. The 1932 appointment of Benjamin Cardozo raised mild controversy for placing two Jewish justices on the Court at the same time, although the appointment was widely lauded based on Cardozo's qualifications, and the Senate was unanimous in confirming Cardozo.[80]

Brandeis was succeeded by Protestant William O. Douglas, but Cardozo was succeeded by another Jewish Justice, Felix Frankfurter. Negative reaction to the appointment of the early Jewish justices did not exclusively come from outside the Court. Justice James Clark McReynolds, a blatant anti-semite, refused to speak to Brandeis for three years following the latter's appointment and when Brandeis retired in 1939, did not sign the customary dedicatory letter sent to Court members on their retirement. During Benjamin Cardozo's swearing in ceremony McReynolds pointedly read a newspaper muttering "another one" and did not attend that of Felix Frankfurter, exclaiming "My God, another Jew on the Court!"[81]

Frankfurter was followed by Arthur Goldberg and Abe Fortas, each of whom filled what became known as the "Jewish Seat". After Fortas resigned in 1969, he was replaced by Protestant Harry Blackmun. No Jewish justices were nominated thereafter until Ronald Reagan nominated Douglas H. Ginsburg in 1987, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis F. Powell; however, this nomination was withdrawn, and the Court remained without any Jewish justices until 1993, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg (unrelated to Douglas Ginsburg) was appointed to replace Byron White. Ginsburg was followed in relatively quick succession by the appointment of Stephen Breyer, also Jewish, in 1994 to replace Harry Blackmun. In 2010, the confirmation of President Barack Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Court ensured that three Jewish justices would serve simultaneously.

Religions that have never been represented[edit]
A number of sizable religious groups have had no justices appointed from their group. These include Orthodox Christians, Mormons, Pentecostals, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs. George Sutherland has been described as a "lapsed Mormon"[84] because he was raised in the LDS Church, his parents having immigrated to the United States during Sutherland's infancy to join that church.[85] Sutherland's parents soon left the LDS Church and moved to Montana.[85] Sutherland himself also disaffiliated with the faith, but remained in Utah and graduated from Brigham Young Academy in 1881, the only non-Mormon in his class.[86] In 1975, Attorney General Edward H. Levi had listed Dallin H. Oaks, a Mormon who had clerked for Earl Warren and was then president of Brigham Young University, as a potential nominee for Gerald Ford. Ford "crossed Oaks's name off the list early on, noting in the margin that a member of the LDS Church might bring a 'confirmation fight'".[87]

Nor has a person publicly known to be an atheist ever been appointed to the Court, although some justices have been noted as declining to engage in any manner of religious activity. As an adult, Benjamin Cardozo no longer practiced his faith and identified himself as an agnostic, though he remained proud of his Jewish heritage.[88]

I personally find the whole thing fascinating. All the above quotes are from the same wiki article.

 

[Mycroft]

Saw this. Thought some should pay attention to it.

The Bible also says 'Do to others as you would have them do to you.' as well as 'Do not judge so that you will not be judged.'

So perhaps, if we are to take the Bible into account, if Christians wish to segregate LGBT people, then Christians themselves would like to be segregated?


Let me share a long lost gospel with you:

The Book of Quatermass Chapter 1, verse 1:
Jesus took his disciples to a lonely hillock whereupon he gathered them around closely and said unto them: 'Here is my idea. Love everyone as I have loved you. Make sure that you take care of them and that you do not cast judgment upon them.'
[2]Thereafter this speech the disciple Mark raised his meaty paw and said unto Jesus: 'But Lord. What if they are homosexual? Or what if they worship other Gods?' Jesus looked upon Mark, blinked with slight surprise and said unto him: 'Did I just stutter or something?'

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You chose one section out of all that I've posted on this thread to comment on which, I do find perplexing.

Again, I stated an opinion regarding that which I perceive. My perception, which could be right or wrong, is that people aren't, in context of this bill, considering the possibility that the government has discriminated against the religious too.

There's nothing more for me to say. If I'm wrong, that' s fine. It's not worth discussing in greater detail with you. I also stated that my views are in flex as it pertains to this bill and I will adjust based upon what I see pan out, as necessary.



I did. This isn't the AZ bill, is it? They do read differently.

We'll in terms of public interest the government can discriminate again individual rights.

 

[sojourner]

If it's the same as what AZ tried to pass then I'm glad it was passed. The only reason AZ vetoed was because of the NFL. Note I am assuming it is a similar bill, but the US is not a place to play favorites. If we are a free country how can we possibly be against a right to discriminate? We can frown upon discrimination but not the right to practice it. I've noticed the most people who've been fighting or equal rights all of a sudden freak out with bills like this that say those that disagree with them should have lesser rights. Again, assuming the bills are similar (they seem it), the OP may be happier somewhere in the Mid East?

Discrimination is the willful curtailing of equality to the minority by the majority. No one has the right to curtail anyone's equality in this country. Especially based upon so-called "Christian principles."