Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is all completely irrelevant. They have a right to whatever moral reasoning they choose. The bottom line is that the innkeeper's alleged moral inconsistency is not a legitimate reason for the state to demand cooperation with acts that violate their religious beliefs.
They have a right to whatever moral reasoning they choose??
No, they don't. Their rights don't supercede your rights. Your rights don't supercede my rights. Freedom isn't a chaotic free-for-all. Freedom is a balancing act. To maximize everyone's freedom, each of us has to accept limits on our freedoms. If I belong to a religion that tells me that Catholics are heretics and all going to hell, that doesn't mean that personally I can justify cheating and stealing from Catholics. And I've been to a church where the Pentecostal minister said that all Catholics are heretics and are all going to hell. So please don't tell me that no one believes that. I've heard Baptist preachers say that being black is the mark of Satan, and that black people are the spawn of Satan. I can't stop some Baptists from believing that, but I'm glad my government says that even if those Baptists believe that, it doesn't mean that they can refuse to sell gas to black people, or they can refuse to hook up cable to their homes, or they can refuse to sell them groceries. You are free to believe whatever you want, and you are free to practice your religion up to a point, but there are boundaries in your behavior that are set by the government, the government that is not separate from us, the government that is of, for and by the people. The people of Vermont voted in those legislators who said that it was unlawful for an innkeeper, hotelier, restaurant, or other business of accommodation to deny accommodation to people based on their sexual preferences. The people of Vermont. They set the boundaries. You're all the time saying people can move if they don't like moral restrictions. So you should be saying that the innkeepers should move to another state. That would be consistent.
It's best for any school to have a common religious purpose and worldview. If I were, say, one of a small number of Catholic parents in a majority Baptist school, I would not ask that they include Catholic devotions, but would either tolerate their Protestantism, find another school, or homeschool. It would be a better school that way, because interjecting my Catholicism in that context would weaken its religious commitment and in the long run would be a secularizing force. Nor would I want them to leave off all prayers in order to make me more comfortable, because that would deprive everyone else of the religious culture that inspires and motivates them.
No it is best for parents to teach their own children spirituality, and for schools to teach facts. Public school is not responsible for teaching religion, that is why there are churches, and religious schools.
I don't know the answer and am just asking the question at this point. While the First Amendment once protected the rights of Christians in the United States, today it seems to be chasing Christianity back into the catacombs.
How is it possible to be "neutral" towards the Creator of the universe and the Lord of all nations? It isn't. Every man, and every nation, has to choose: whom shall you serve?
They have a right to whatever moral reasoning they choose??
No, they don't. Their rights don't supercede your rights. Your rights don't supercede my rights. Freedom isn't a chaotic free-for-all. Freedom is a balancing act. To maximize everyone's freedom, each of us has to accept limits on our freedoms. If I belong to a religion that tells me that Catholics are heretics and all going to hell, that doesn't mean that personally I can justify cheating and stealing from Catholics. And I've been to a church where the Pentecostal minister said that all Catholics are heretics and are all going to hell. So please don't tell me that no one believes that. I've heard Baptist preachers say that being black is the mark of Satan, and that black people are the spawn of Satan. I can't stop some Baptists from believing that, but I'm glad my government says that even if those Baptists believe that, it doesn't mean that they can refuse to sell gas to black people, or they can refuse to hook up cable to their homes, or they can refuse to sell them groceries. You are free to believe whatever you want, and you are free to practice your religion up to a point, but there are boundaries in your behavior that are set by the government, the government that is not separate from us, the government that is of, for and by the people. The people of Vermont voted in those legislators who said that it was unlawful for an innkeeper, hotelier, restaurant, or other business of accommodation to deny accommodation to people based on their sexual preferences. The people of Vermont. They set the boundaries. You're all the time saying people can move if they don't like moral restrictions. So you should be saying that the innkeepers should move to another state. That would be consistent.
You're mixing lots of apples, oranges and bananas here. I don't have time to unpack this now ... maybe later. Cheers.
Galileo achieved what he achieved because of his Catholic education, as did all of the other scientists on the list. "Most of the scientists" - as if you knew even a drop in the bucket - are revered by the Church, even Galileo.
HUGE difference between "are" and "were" revered by the Church. You can thank JPII for releasing Galileo from house arrest. (Which is where the church put him when he was alive.)
It's getting harder and harder to even read your threads because I honestly don't think you know Church history. Or else you want to deny it. Up until JP the Great as far as the Church was concerned he still needed to abjure, curse and detest his findings.
BTW: He fathered three children out of wedlock. So much for that Catholic education, eh? And let us not get started on WHY he had a Catholic education because there you go being disingenuous again.
No it is best for parents to teach their own children spirituality, and for schools to teach facts. Public school is not responsible for teaching religion, that is why there are churches, and religious schools.
This, exactly. We had Christian and other religious groups at my school and they met before and after school to do group prayers. Nobody cared because they didn't force us to participate.
I just don't get why religious folks (or rather, Christians because I rarely see this with any other religion) have to make it publicly known that they believe in their religion. It's almost as if they do it just to **** everyone off and cause problems. So, maybe religious folks are just attention wh**res??
You don't understand the meaning of voluntary, then.
I guess not.
Maybe someday I'll realize that those Vermont innkeepers "voluntarily" closed their wedding business, while the students of a public school, who are freely allowed not to participate, are being "forced" to pray just because a teacher leads the prayer.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,494,998 times
Reputation: 6671
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
You asked for examples, I gave you some. The report is 140 pages long. If you're truly skeptical, maybe give it a read.
Besides, you get examples from me all the time. Recall the innkeepers in Vermont who were fined $30K and forced to stop services for simply practicing the tenets of their Christian faith. Stay tuned for more.
The thing that secularists have a hard time with is that Christianity is not just a private "me and Jesus" religion - it demands action in the world, it's communal, it's social, it's evangelical. To practice Christianity is to bring it with you everywhere. That's the nature of the faith. If Christians aren't even permitted to mention God at "taxpayer supported meetings" - nevermind the fact that they are also taxpayers! - their religion is being driven, metaphorically, back into the catacombs.
Understood how religion by its very nature should be all-embracing, and that does pose a difficult dilemma in a secular world (taxpayer-supported or otherwise). But isn't this similar to the problems the EU is facing with the conflicts between certain muslim religious practices and contemporary western culture, and what do you suggest we do about all that?
Besides, if non-believers are expected to tolerate the occasional inclusion of religious practices in their secular life, isn't it only reasonable to expect religious folks to tolerate some occasional polite "secularism" in return? And no disrespect intended, but in the larger scheme of things, simply omitting religious references in mixed company, doesn't sound like too much to ask now and then. And many of us would certainly appreciate the "courtesy".
It's getting harder and harder to even read your threads because I honestly don't think you know Church history. Or else you want to deny it. Up until JP the Great as far as the Church was concerned he still needed to abjure, curse and detest his findings.
This is almost a comedy. You tell me I don't know Church history and then proceed to make this ridiculously false statement about Church history. From wiki (with sources):
"The Inquisition's ban on reprinting Galileo's works was lifted in 1718 when permission was granted to publish an edition of his works (excluding the condemned Dialogue) in Florence.[136] In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorised the publication of an edition of Galileo's complete scientific works[137] which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue.[138] In 1758 the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of prohibited books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus remained.[139] All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the church disappeared in 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.[140]
In 1939 Pope Pius XII, in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, within a few months of his election to the papacy, described Galileo as being among the 'most audacious heroes of research... not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments'"
By the way, you and another poster have said that "many" of the scientists listed in the previous links were persecuted by the Church or some such nonsense. Apart from Galileo, whose "persecution" was a walk in the park, who are the others? How many is "many"? Work from the list, please. I'm calling your bluff.
You don't seem to understand (or care) how the Church works. Christendom established a framework for free scientific inquiry and debate. That structure made scientific progress possible at the same time it imposed certain limits, not all of them unreasonable. Much of that framework is taken for granted today - a gift of the Church to a scientific community that is largely indifferent to its own underpinnings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
