Religion in public politics
 

I was thinking of calling this thread "Dear America, WTF are you doing?!".

Two news articles on the same day.

I recall the fuss about the "one nation, under god" clause. Now this:

Also a violation of the universal declaration of human rights, freedom of belief clause. But that's a UN thing. :right:

Then there was this article which, in terms of the are you out of your #^&%ing minds? factor, is the clear winner.

"God hates fags! You're going to burn in hell, fag!" appears to be allowed. If there is a shortage of fags, substitute Jew, witch, harlot, or wearer of garments made of two kinds of thread, as available.

Dear Americans, those of you I know seem quite intelligent, reasonable and humane (well, mostly). Please take better care of your country. On the global scale it is actually quite important. Good luck.

Z, your remarks are right on. Sometimes things get a little crazy.

This has been a problem every since Great Britain allowed various fanatical religious outfits who had been kicked out of Europe to immigrate to the 13 Colonies. GB should have sent them to Australia instead. Ha!

So, here we are in the present day, and we're saddled with fundamentalists and weird cults that call themselves Christians but are really just re-incarnations of the Jim Jones crazies and the David Koresh Branch Davidians in Wacko, Texas.

"One nation under God" is annoying, but the news from Michigan is disturbing.

I really don't know what can be done about it other than hope the Rapture will arrive soon and rid us of these people.

The expression "In god we trust" says religions like this should be honored? Unfortunately, they also represent the same god.

Ooooh. From that site:

I can only imagine how the parents of said children might feel about this.

Duplicate!

Grateful.

Parents with faith (of any kind) can say, "This is what wacko extremists are like, babba. These ones call themselves Christians, but when you see and hear hate like this you will know them by their actions and not by their chosen names. And this will be the same across other religions."

And atheist parents can say, "See what happens when you believe in magic books instead of decency?"

And all the children can hold their bellies and laugh at the silly people who waste their lives hating other people, hoping there is another one to come where they will sit at the feet of a vengeful and hating God.

Shit, homegirl, you're on fire today!

Is that site for reals? I haven't seen such hatred and ignorance spewed out in a while - at least not since Radar's last visit.

And did you catch the clicker on the left side of the text that counts the number of people god has sent to hell while you were visiting the site? I got up to 136 people in flames. I hope they were all members of Westboro Baptist Church. :evil3:

After reading what your representatives and senators are doing to your country along with those insane guys, I came to a very sad conclusion.

The Land of the Free is doomed to become the next Nazi Germany. Very, very far from the Founders vision.

Great minds think alike--that's exactly what I've titled the theme of my never leaving the house.

Or relabel the thread "Religion in public parks". Because that is what we will be dicussing in a few months. Some stores started playing Christmas music two weeks ago.

BTW, Happy Holidays (and watch that expression make religious extremists upset).

At least you guys get thanksgiving as a buffer to keep Christmas at bay. We've had the tinsel and cheezy carols since late sodding october. And the fake snow painted on windowsills. :facepalm:

What I thought was funny were the halloween displays right next to the christmas displays. A bit at odds really.

yeah. In our shops this past couple of weeks we've had Halloween displays, jostling for position with the Guy Fawlkes Night fireworks and bonfire toffee and Christmas goodies.

The Nightmare Before Christmas! :skull:

Jack Skellington is the dying (then dead) King

Santa Claus is the King re-born!

Oak King and Holly King.

See? It all makes perfect sense.


This message brought to you by a graduate of a Catholic School. :D

Halloween. The great Australian tradition of closing your blinds at sunset and ignoring those three kids who watch so much TV they think we have it over here.

It's pretty big in my little town Zen. I had 40 little bags of lollies prepared and I had to make more, and it was only one bag per kid. We carved a pumpkin, and I made up a big tub of jelly baff and put the lollies in there so the kids had to get gooey if they wanted a treat. The big boys prepared a whole bucket full of water bombs which they distributed liberally to (on) all the teenage trick or treaters. All in all, it was pretty fun although it's better when it's on the weekend. It was much bigger the last two years.

Wait.

What?

Halloween is a pretend holiday in Oz?

O.

M.

G.

Now I"m glad I didn't emigrate back in '88.

We wouldn't call it a holiday here anyway. It's just another day with some hijinx at the end of it.

We definitely don't get a day off for it.

Yeah, Americans don't get a day off for it either. It's just an evening thing.

Over here we don't call days like that a 'holiday'. You guys call Valentines day a holiday too right?

We might refer to Christmas as 'The Christmas Holidays' or Easter as 'Easter Holidays' or official days off work we'd call a public holiday (such as Anzac Day, Australia Day etc), but we wouldn't just call it a holiday. We do call the breaks in the school year holidays though, even if you don't go anywhere. We don't use the word vacation to describe a trip somewhere. We say we're 'going on holiday', which might be during the school holidays or could be during term time, in which case, you get time off to take a holiday. :)

Yes. How would you refer to Valentine's Day?

Guilty Husband/Boyfriend/Paramour Suck Up Day, isn't it?

Religion in public schools
 

Hopefully, this Christmas, priests will not pray on students. We should ban prayer from schools.

We just call it valentines day. Same as St Patricks day is just St Pat's Day. It only gets called a holiday if you get a day off, or an acknowledged day off anyway.

...and leave it to the football coaches eh? That's a state school down there, they shouldn't be praying on kids.

Sorry to undrift a thread (I must be coming down with something), but we got this email from the school district superintendant this morning:

You have written a letter, right? I hope EVERYONE in Michigan writes a letter. Hell, I'd write one myself except that I don't count.

Just for kicks, I checked on the WBC site to see what they're up to. For one thing, God is stepping up the number of people he's sending to hell. 311 this visit as compared to a mere 136 on my last visit. Go god, go! :headshake

WBC is targeting the Charlie Daniels Band next for singing (what else?) "The Devil Went Down to Georgia." I wish the devil would come up to Colorado and rid us of these people.

If this shit is for real, then call me mindblown.

However, if it is real and passes, it wont end up surviving. Im keeping the faith on that one.

God's teeth, talk about a retrograde step.

Did any of them actually listen to the story that's told in that song? The Devil gets his musical tail owned. It was fairly obvious before, but now I'm sure these people have no clue.

So that 'bill' is going to make it ok for a Muslim student and a Jewish student to bully each other, as long as it's in the context of religion?

Hmmm...I hope they don't forget and just call each other faggots by mistake. I'd hate to see them get into trouble for being shitheads.

They could probably justify 'faggot' on the grounds that homosexuality offends their faith.

OK, fuckhead then.

The "Westboro Baptist Bully" law.

That is the purpose of the change to the law.

I'm inclined to agree.

I suppose that killing those religious morons while screaming that Allah doesn't see eye to eye with them would land anyone in jail as a terrorist.

So when are we going to put "Happy Holidays" back in Christmas?

So the local word now is that the outrage is finally big enough that it won't pass. As per usual with American Politics, the problem was that most were in favor of the original bill, the "wording change" (=total intent change) was slipped in after the general feeling was "yes" and then actively hushed.

sigh

Kooks on the loose in the Motor City.

"Our concern is that we are literally being demonized by the organizers of this group," said Dawud Walid, executive director of Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan chapter, which last week urged local mosques and Islamic schools to increase security. "And given the recent history of other groups that have come into Michigan ... we're concerned about this prayer vigil stoking up the flames of divisiveness in the community."

TheCall is the latest and largest of several groups or individuals to come to the Detroit area with a message that stirred up many of its estimated 150,000 to 200,000 Muslims. Recent visitors have included Florida pastor Terry Jones; members of the Westboro Baptist Church; and the Acts 17 Apologetics, missionaries who were arrested for disorderly conduct last year at Dearborn's Arab International Festival but were later acquitted.

Update: The anti-bullying bill will become law today, the wording to allow bullying on religious grounds has been removed.

Thank God.

Civil Rights vs Religious Freedom ? ... Of individuals vs organizations ?

The situations in this article present a timely debate of the
changing priorities and rights of individuals and organizations,
which I see as a direct consequence of the repeal of DADT.

NY Times
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: December 28, 2011

Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion

There is an easy common sense fix for this kind of thing. The church, based on it's religious beliefs does not support same sex marriage. So what? They still should be able to carry on their work in areas that they always have. There are many other agencies who will work with same sex marriages for foster and adoptive issues. When we make this an all or nothing event we hurt more then just the church.

The issue is that the Roman Catholic Church should not discriminate against homosexuals if they want to receive taxpayer money. I agree that churches should be able to preach whatever they want, marry whoever they please, and allow whoever to adopt from their charities, assuming their funding is completely independent from the state. Although, once churches start getting taxpayer money, they should abide by different rules.

The same issues are apparent in housing:

freerepublic.com
March 25, 2011

USCCB Urges HUD Not to Include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Granted, religious organizations have, indeed, played major roles in community support
and development. (e.g., hospitals, summer camps, homeless shelters, etc.)

But are such "traditional activities" of an organization sufficient or genuine arguments
for exemption when it comes to housing, employment, or health care, or other venues of civil rights ?

I have a very hard time trying to justify such arguments.
Instead, I would propose that if an organization elected to move away from such services,
and therefore forgo the government funding, that other organizations
would step in to cover the gaps in needed services.
.

You get what you pay for. If the government wants to save money by using a religious service provider, then they need to take the bad with the good. If they can't put up with the beliefs of the religion, then they need to be prepared to pay more to bring in a provider that doesn't run on a lot of volunteer labor.

Dear .joe

I agree with pierce here. I don't object to the church doing the church's thing, but when they're acting as an agent of the state by taking money from the state in exchange for services rendered, it is incumbent upon them to abide by the state's rules. A starker (perhaps so stark it seems absurd) example is: What if the Catholic Church decided not to consider Protestant or Jewish or Muslim couples as candidates as adoptive parents *because of a religious objection*? That is plain to imagine. I mean, come on, the Catholic Church must certainly disagree with the religious conclusions followers of those other faiths have come to, and yet, there's no mention that differences such as these are obstacles for the Catholic Church.

And this argument:

is also bogus. You're a soldier. What if I joined your outfit but refused some of your orders claiming a religious exemption? "I'll do all that other stuff, but I won't kill anyone." How is that acceptable? I'm guessing here, but I imagine the answer is "Then the Army has no further need of your services." And the Army and I would part company. I'd get to keep my non-killer status and the Army would get to keep its money.

I want to add that you are completely correct when you say that there is considerable collateral damage when this becomes an all or nothing conflict. We don't agree on where that hurt occurs or the extent of the damage. "Hurt the church"? How? Economically? Who's "hurting" the church? I think you're implying that the children who would not be served by the now-closed Church adoption office would be hurt, and that's so, but they're likely to be served by some other office that abides by the state's rules. For that matter, let the Church keep their office open, but refuse the state contract along with refusing the state rules. Now, that's fair, is it not?

What?!

Howzzat?

Leaving out the religious service provider aspect for a moment (we'll return to it), you're saying that the government ought to just accept discrimination like this? What if some non religious outfit was doing the same work for the same pay but put a big ass sign on the door "HOUSING PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE HERE --NO FUCKING FAGGOTS OR SINNERS NEED APPLY"? And then in the fine print they said, we're just not gonna work with you, we don't want to. This is ... this is taking the bad with the good? How in the world could this be imaginable, I mean how can you imagine this is acceptable? I can not.

Now, for the religious among us. What if the same sign were posted on the door of the church affiliated office for housing placement assistance? That's "OK" because of a religious objection? It is not.

The same happened over here re Catholic funded children's homes and child services.
Because they refused to comply with the law of the land they lost their charity status. Without that they were unable to operate.

My parents, who had a little green charity box for Catholic Children's Homes in the kitchen for as long as I remember - saw it as a direct attack on faith. Teh Gubment trying to tell people what to believe in. I think it actually strengthened their beliefs.

I saw it as the Church cutting off its nose to spite its face.
How many gay couples would apply to a Catholic children's home?
How many more adoptions and foster homes (to loving, normal, STRAIGHT couples) have they now denied children?

WWJD?
Smack up the whole lot of them.
"Suffer the children" wasn't meant as an instruction.

It comes down to this for me.

"My God says you are wrong. And I am going to use the power of the state to punish you for your wrongness."

THIS is why we separate church and state. I will never, ever be a citizen where religious beliefs carry the force of law.

Did you see the second sentence I wrote?

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that if you're going to use a service, then you are using that service. If you don't like that service, then you should not use it. Don't expect that service to change for you, especially if the area of disagreement is important to them.

(not "you" but the government.)

The government is using religious services because they are cheap.

Yes, glatt, I did see the second sentence you wrote. I quoted and bolded it too. As a clarification, the "you" whose using the service, I read this "you" as my government. I think we are in agreement here.

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is if I'm paying for a service I expect that service to be delivered. In this case, cheapness or religious objections are not an acceptable excuse for the non delivery of the service.

This could be applied to every organization that takes MY/YOUR/OUR Government money. Why is it ok to claim a religious objection to ... do some doggone thing, but still cash the check?

DMV clerk: We don't serve your kind here.

School teacher: Johnny, stand in the corner because your parents aren't married.

Fireman: Let'em burn, it's a foregone conclusion. Why postpone the inevitable?

We would never accept this kind of discrimination by our public servants. It is against the law. Why would we permit this kind of behavior by an office that provides housing placement assistance? Because that office/school/firehouse believes that sexual orientation is a valid criteria for deciding whether or not to provide a public service?

Please, please explain.

Sorry. I meant my second point, which is the next sentence after the one you quoted. The third sentence. But it doesn't matter. I know you saw it.

I think we are in agreement. The next step, if the service isn't being supplied, is to take your business elsewhere.

The religion is the religion. It's not going to adapt to the modern times. It's a constant. It's not going to change.

The government is saving a buck by outsourcing some services to a cheap service provider. The provider is not providing the services the government wants the way it wants them. The service provider isn't going to change. The government has 2 choices. Continue with the provider anyway, or stop using the provider. If they stop using the provider, the costs will go up.

I dunno. The Church of England has proved pretty adaptable.
Women vicars, gay clergy etc.