Message
Anonymous wrote:This arguement has nothing to do with contraception.. Its a religious rights issue. If you want free BC dont work for a catholic organization. Done


If you're a black man married to a white woman, don't check into a racist hotel. Religious rights, people.
Anonymous wrote:
RantingAtheist wrote:Okay, back up for a second. I'm not sure I know what you mean by "the new york bill specifically spelled out that religious institutions did not have to recognize married gay couples."

You realize that churches are not currently required to "marry" heterosexual couples right now, today, right? You can test this out: take some random opposite-sex person you're acquainted with and take them to your local Catholic church, Jewish synagogue, or Islamic mosque, and tell them you want to get married.

Or am I just not following you?


im basically saying that institutions in new york arent forced to apply the law in some form or fashion. not sure of all the details but recall that was the hang up. if you looked at the NY bill and the MD bill last year, it was a college term paper versus a third grade book report.

and your last point is something ive already "tested" out. my church wouldnt marry my wife and i (she isnt catholic) until we went through some one on one's and only at that time did the priest "bless" our union. thats the most he did since we didnt marry in the church. thats besides the point on me.

im trying to say that you a right a church or other place doesnt just up and marry you without going through something and if im not mistaken, they wouldnt need to "accept" a homosexual couple unless you can correct me. im not here to say im 100% right here


No, that's my understanding as well. That's why the claim that churches are afraid "the state will force us to gay marry against our will" seems so strained. Churches pretty much get to decide who they're going to perform ceremonies for.
Anonymous wrote:
RantingAtheist wrote:
removing the bigots and homophobes, the gay marriage issue is this. religious institutions a) do not want to be told to "recognize" a gay marriage, whether by acknowledgement or performing a ceromny b)some also dont want gay couples marrying to be seen as an actually marriage so they are really caught up in terminology.


Rereading, this looks like three separate concerns:

a) churches don't want to perform a ceremony
b) churches don't want to "recognize" a marriage
c) churches don't want a same-sex marriage--performed by a different church/creed/sect--to be seen as legitimate.

Now of those three, a) sounds reasonable, and one can make a religious liberty case for it.

I'm not sure what b) would entail. Could you elaborate?

To c), I think the appropriate response in a pluralistic country is "tough shit."



b entails "sure you guys can say you married according to law but in our eyes (of the lord) you guys/gals are just together" or something like that. in extreme cases the couple is sinning



Sure, but I'm trying to imagine some possible scenario in which the state can compel a religious institution to concede that a same-sex couple is not sinning, or that they're "really married". I don't mean that in a "it's unconstitutional" sense, but in a "it's nonsensical" sense. Granted there could be edge-cases, say where one partner in a same-sex couple works for a religious institution, and the institution is required to pay for the partner's health care. But it seems a stretch to couch that as a religious freedom issue.
removing the bigots and homophobes, the gay marriage issue is this. religious institutions a) do not want to be told to "recognize" a gay marriage, whether by acknowledgement or performing a ceromny b)some also dont want gay couples marrying to be seen as an actually marriage so they are really caught up in terminology.


Rereading, this looks like three separate concerns:

a) churches don't want to perform a ceremony
b) churches don't want to "recognize" a marriage
c) churches don't want a same-sex marriage--performed by a different church/creed/sect--to be seen as legitimate.

Now of those three, a) sounds reasonable, and one can make a religious liberty case for it.

I'm not sure what b) would entail. Could you elaborate?

To c), I think the appropriate response in a pluralistic country is "tough shit."
Okay, back up for a second. I'm not sure I know what you mean by "the new york bill specifically spelled out that religious institutions did not have to recognize married gay couples."

You realize that churches are not currently required to "marry" heterosexual couples right now, today, right? You can test this out: take some random opposite-sex person you're acquainted with and take them to your local Catholic church, Jewish synagogue, or Islamic mosque, and tell them you want to get married.

Or am I just not following you?
Anonymous wrote:
RantingAtheist wrote:
Anonymous wrote:15:23 I agree it hasnt yet.

However, I would say that in the last 10 years where I have off and on attended church, enough to make this statement, I have never heard the priests spend so many sermons talking about political issues. When I was younger, youd get something every blue moon but its more common now as if the church is threatened by whatever government may impose on them.

From abortion, contraceptives, to gay marriage, the church to me seems worried that they will have to "support" the laws of the land on these issues and I can see their side of their argument.


I'm not sure this is such a new thing. One of the core components of social conservatives is that they feel like they're under assault by the larger culture. It's what motivates them. A hundred years ago it was women wanting to vote. Then legalizing contraception. Then the government wanting to force churches to let black people marry white people. And now, as you say, we're at the point where the government wants to force churches to marry same-sex couples. Granted, there's no evidence of this, but what are you going to do? Reactionaries are going to be frightened of social change. It always was, and always will be. Obviously, this is a sub-set of "the church" given that the majority of Catholics disagree with the explicitly political stances that the far-right subset of the Catholic "leadership".

Anyway, the politicization of some subset of catholic churches is just an echo of the politicization of some protestant churches that happened in the 70s and 80s.


No one is trying to force churches to marry same-sex couples. If a particular church doesn't want to perform the ceremony, that's fine. The couple can go to a justice of the peace or find a different church. Let's not start a fight over something that isn't so.


Right, but we're not talking about reality. We're talking about "what churches fear", as PP said. Or more precisely, the unfounded fears that certain clergymen are ginning up.
Sorry, short correction. I wrote "Egan" but meant "Dolan". Dolan is the head of the bishops' PAC. Egan was the guy who apologized for the child-rape scandal 10 years ago, and just recently recanted saying “I never should have said that,” and added, “I don’t think we did anything wrong.”

Two totally different guys.
Anonymous wrote:I think whole issue is bs being driven by the obama admin after they saw what happened with the fallout from susan g Komen. Pandering to weak minded women. And I support pro choice and easy access to BC. This is silly, political campaign posturing. Think it will back fire on them. My party keeps sending me moronic emails that are the hyperbolic bs they accuse the other side of engaging in. Contemptible.


Actually, you've got it exactly backwards. Egan and the bishops have been looking for any excuse to go on the offensive for months now. They had hoped it would be about same-sex marriage, but ended up settling for contraception. Pure election year politics from "A Republican TBD"'s SuperPAC: the Conference of Catholic Bishops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/us/bishops-planned-battle-on-birth-control-coverage-rule.html?pagewanted=all
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The larger issue is that Republicans don't want ANY EMPLOYER to be forced to provide insurance that covers birth control, period. They're just dressing it up as a matter of religious freedom when it is anything but. They don't want to pay for things they don't like. Fair enough. But let's not pretend that the government is persecuting Catholics. No one is forcing Catholics to take birth control.



RantingAtheist, I am a non-ranting atheist and I do not think religious employers should be forced to provide birth control through their insurance plan. This is not just the fringe issue you think it is.


Sure, there are libertarian arguments (what is the scope of government, etc...) But the real engine behind the contraception debate, as far as real politics goes, is the religious critique. It's also an indicator of the special pleading that religious believers are permitted that, say, libertarian atheists aren't.

Religious person: "I shouldn't be forced to provide health insurance plans that cover contraception because Jesus doesn't like contraception."
Societal Response: "Hmmm. Yes, this is a thorny issue. How can we resolve this while protecting individual conscience???"

Atheist Libertarian: "The government should not be in the business of micromanaging who has what health insurance plan because I think that's not the role of government."
Societal Response: "Tough crap. Run for office."
Anonymous wrote:15:23 I agree it hasnt yet.

However, I would say that in the last 10 years where I have off and on attended church, enough to make this statement, I have never heard the priests spend so many sermons talking about political issues. When I was younger, youd get something every blue moon but its more common now as if the church is threatened by whatever government may impose on them.

From abortion, contraceptives, to gay marriage, the church to me seems worried that they will have to "support" the laws of the land on these issues and I can see their side of their argument.


I'm not sure this is such a new thing. One of the core components of social conservatives is that they feel like they're under assault by the larger culture. It's what motivates them. A hundred years ago it was women wanting to vote. Then legalizing contraception. Then the government wanting to force churches to let black people marry white people. And now, as you say, we're at the point where the government wants to force churches to marry same-sex couples. Granted, there's no evidence of this, but what are you going to do? Reactionaries are going to be frightened of social change. It always was, and always will be. Obviously, this is a sub-set of "the church" given that the majority of Catholics disagree with the explicitly political stances that the far-right subset of the Catholic "leadership".

Anyway, the politicization of some subset of catholic churches is just an echo of the politicization of some protestant churches that happened in the 70s and 80s.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I love birth control and use it all the time.

However, I do not think that religious employers should be forced to pay for it, through insurance or not.

And I take as genuine some people's belief that life begins at conception. That makes some forms of birth control a difficult call for them. It doesn't have to be about hatred toward women or the desire to control them.


Not every person working for a Catholic institution is Catholic. Should we penalize them for having different beliefs?


are they being FORCED to work for a religious group? you want to make orthodox jews serve non-kosher food? come on, that is silly.


This actually a good analogy. It's my understanding that, while an orthodox Jew cannot cook meat and dairy, serving non-kosher food is perfectly acceptable. Obviously in the case of Catholic employers, they're not even forced to "serve" contraception. And now with the Obama compromise, Catholic employers are not even required to pay for health plans that cover contraception, but rather the health insurers themselves cover it.

So the whole tempest is essentially one group of very, very far-right wing, and extremely politically active group of Catholics (specifically the US Conference of Catholic Bishops), searching frantically for a wedge issue so they can cynically insert it into the upcoming presidential election.
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This notion that one side is more intolerant than another, proves the point that intolerance exists on both sides. BOTH sides have members that want to force their beliefs on others. The only tolerant group are the people who can see that both sides are entitled to their opinions and don't throw around judgmental statements classifying an entire group as having the exact same character flaws.



I'm shocked that you would determine that the only tolerant group is the group that thinks exactly like you. In a similar vein, I find that the only well-dressed people are those who dress exactly like me.


Good to see that, in addition to some of the more mainstream religions here on DCUM, we have folks like PP here representing some of the smaller denominations like High Broderism.
Anonymous wrote:
RantingAtheist wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Do liberals not understand they are trying to force their views and their morality on conservatives just as much as conservatives are pushing their views. The only difference is whether or not you agree with the position taken.


And liberals act like because they are basing their opinions not from religion that it is somehow better or correct.


Since liberals base their opinions on reason--rather than received moral instruction from a leader, or an arbitrary book--then yes, in a pluralist society founded on secular Enlightenment values the process (if not the outcome) is better, and likely to be more correct. That's not to say that conservatives, working backwards from their desired conclusion, can't induct some rational argument. And when they're successful at reverse-engineering a rational argument, that's likely to be respected, even if we don't agree.

But, no, "Pastor Bob says so" or "it's right here in this book" is no way to run a railroad.


What do you base your morality on, CNN or MSNBC? Granted religion isn't perfect it does lay a solid moral backing to raise a family.


I forget who it was that said (to paraphrase) there's no moral act that a religious person could perform that a non-believer could not. But there are countless numbers of morally abominable acts that a religious person happily performs that a non-religious person never would.

Volunteer at a soup kitchen? Build schools in Africa? Love thy neighbor? Have a faithful loving marriage? All things we all agree on.

Remove a young girls' clitoris? Cut off a newborn infant's foreskin sans anesthesia? Non-theist says, "WTF???"

So there's at least some evidence that religious folk are no more, nor less, moral than non-believers. They just have an added layer of dogma and customs that potentially interfere with living a moral life.
RantingAtheist wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
RantingAtheist wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Once again, please explain for us how Mother Theresa, who had a little doubt, is an atheist. If you can't explain this, your fairy analogy falls apart.


Could you flesh this out a bit? Because it doesn't seem to follow.


No, because I've explained it several times already. If you don't want to engage, just say so. Or better, stop posting about fairies already, until you're able to defend the analogy.

"You can't make a man understand what he does not want to understand." (or something like that)
-- Sinclair


Perhaps someone else can explain what PP is talking about.

"If you can't explain how Mother Theresa (who twinges of doubt) is an atheist, then "belief in gods" is saner than "belief in faries"?

Can anyone else follow this argument? Thanks.


No one at all? Whew! I was afraid I was the only one.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Do liberals not understand they are trying to force their views and their morality on conservatives just as much as conservatives are pushing their views. The only difference is whether or not you agree with the position taken.


And liberals act like because they are basing their opinions not from religion that it is somehow better or correct.


Since liberals base their opinions on reason--rather than received moral instruction from a leader, or an arbitrary book--then yes, in a pluralist society founded on secular Enlightenment values the process (if not the outcome) is better, and likely to be more correct. That's not to say that conservatives, working backwards from their desired conclusion, can't induct some rational argument. And when they're successful at reverse-engineering a rational argument, that's likely to be respected, even if we don't agree.

But, no, "Pastor Bob says so" or "it's right here in this book" is no way to run a railroad.
Go to: