I hate it when it turns out I'm not a paraoid nutjob...

[Don Corleone]

Well, in the past 4 years, gay marriage has been a frequent issue for debate here in the backroom. On the one side are people that believe that marriage should be recognized and allowed for any two consenting adults. Then there are those that believe marriage should be defined as between a a man and a woman.

People that believe marriage should be allowed for gay couples are almost always talking about legal marriage. They claim that the reason gay people have pushed so hard for marriage in the first place is because of the special legal and tax benefits state-endorsed marriage confer upon the couple.

There is a third group in the debate, of which I'm one of the leading proponents. We agree that legally recognized benefits must be available to all adults within a particular legal system and that the state itself cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (discriminate in this sense meaning differentiate, not necessarily treat punitively). But we also hold that marriage in the religious construct should be dictated by the tenets of a particular religion, and we see the insistence on the term 'marriage' itself as indicative of an agenda by gay rights group to force religious bodies to alter their practices and adopt behavior and teachings in line with what the gay advocacy groups dictate the religious groups should want. Call us the Civil Union crew.

"Hogwash", have answered certain naysayers. "You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman :strawman2:". I've heard this quite a bit, but mostly from my good friend Goofball, who thinks I'm intentionally invoking slippery slope arguments that will never come to pass, just to cloud the issue and play semantics games as a backdoor to actual discrimination (I resist using the term marriage, because I want to rub gay people's nose in that they have to settle for civil unions, not because I'm really afraid of infringement on my rights to free practice of religion).

Well, lo and behold, that bastion of the Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, NPR, had a piece on this morning that makes my case far better than I ever could. So I'll simply leave you all with a link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340), and a blatant I TOLD YOU SO!!! :clown:

[HoreTore]

Hmmm... Why shouldn't gay christians be allowed to influence their own faith?



btw, I'm actually quite relieved by this thread, looking at the title I thought it was about you having seen a doctor and found out that there was something wrong with your blood pump...

[Don Corleone]

Hmmm... Why should gay christians be allowed to influence their own faith?

They weren't Methodist. They were Jewish. They just wanted to use the religious facility owned by the Methodists. And talk about Strawmen. Come on, Hore. You're going to have to do better than that...

[Odin]

Well, in the past 4 years, gay marriage has been a frequent issue for debate here in the backroom. On the one side are people that believe that marriage should be recognized and allowed for any two consenting adults. Then there are those that believe marriage should be defined as between a a man and a woman.

People that believe marriage should be allowed for gay couples are almost always talking about legal marriage. They claim that the reason gay people have pushed so hard for marriage in the first place is because of the special legal and tax benefits state-endorsed marriage confer upon the couple.

There is a third group in the debate, of which I'm one of the leading proponents. We agree that legally recognized benefits must be available to all adults within a particular legal system and that the state itself cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (discriminate in this sense meaning differentiate, not necessarily treat punitively). But we also hold that marriage in the religious construct should be dictated by the tenets of a particular religion, and we see the insistence on the term 'marriage' itself as indicative of an agenda by gay rights group to force religious bodies to alter their practices and adopt behavior and teachings in line with what the gay advocacy groups dictate the religious groups should want. Call us the Civil Union crew.

"Hogwash", have answered certain naysayers. "You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman :strawman2:". I've heard this quite a bit, but mostly from my good friend Goofball, who thinks I'm intentionally invoking slippery slope arguments that will never come to pass, just to cloud the issue and play semantics games as a backdoor to actual discrimination (I resist using the term marriage, because I want to rub gay people's nose in that they have to settle for civil unions, not because I'm really afraid of infringement on my rights to free practice of religion).

Well, lo and behold, that bastion of the Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, NPR, had a piece on this morning that makes my case far better than I ever could. So I'll simply leave you all with a link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340), and a blatant I TOLD YOU SO!!! :clown:

I heard that piece this morning as well. My take on it was the inability of religions to tie homosexual union into conflict with the tenets of their religion. Then they would have the freedom of religion argument and they might actually be able to entrench around it. The homosexuals have take a tactical approach to ensuring their adgenda become part of the mainstream acceptance. I give them credit, and dont dispute your interpretation of the piece.

However, the religous have to stop fight along the lines of is it morally okay and ethical, and along the lines of freedom of religion if they want to win (or established an entrenched position that will hold in a court of law). I have been waiting for this tactic to be envoked, but alas to no avail yet, passion sometimes clouds tactical thinking.

[HoreTore]

They weren't Methodist. They were Jewish. They just wanted to use the religious facility owned by the Methodists. And talk about Strawmen. Come on, Hore. You're going to have to do better than that...

Yeah... I was talking more generally ~;)

But for this specific case, I give a big "Meh". And I question the sanity of everyone involved. Including the media.

[Fragony]

Sigh, another example of the mutual respect everyone must have for homosexuals :thumbsdown:

They can't see it, odd condition.

[Lemur]

Here's the "religious facility" which got its tax-exempt status revoked.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/pavillion540.jpg

I think we've got a few religious facilities like that in my town. There's a burned-out shack by the lake that has the same air of religious worship about it ...

No doubt some ambitious people will invoke lawsuits over gay marriage. And I'm terribly sorry the Methodists lost their tax shelter on their falling-down seaside shanty, which they clearly don't have enough time, funding or reverence to slap with a proper coat of paint.

But hey man, this is America. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean they'll win, and it doesn't mean they'll change the nature of religion. If this is the case that signals the legal death of heterosexual religion in the U.S.A., it's coming on small.

[Adrian II]

HoreTore is right that homosexuals may try to change the religious establishments of which they are a part. Don is right that it is questionable whether they should do so in court, instead of through the religious channels. Shouldn't they respect the religious freedom of those establishments?

I haven't studied any of the cases. But if you look closely at some of the examples, they appear not to be clear cut and dried at all.

In the Massachusetss case for example, the Catholic Charities of Boston operate on a license granted by the State of Massachusetts on condition that they respect the law of the land with regard to adoption. If they break the law, out goes the license.

And it's not the Charities that protested either, just a couple of Bishops. In December of 2005 the 42-member board of the Catholic Charities of Boston, having heard the Bishops, voted unanimously in support of continuing to allow gay couples to adopt children. The Bishops lost their case in court, too.

[Don Corleone]

Here's the "religious facility" which got its tax-exempt status revoked.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/pavillion540.jpg

I think we've got a few religious facilities like that in my town. There's a burned-out shack by the lake that has the same air of religious worship about it ...

No doubt some ambitious people will invoke lawsuits over gay marriage. And I'm terribly sorry the Methodists lost their tax shelter on their falling-down seaside shanty, which they clearly don't have enough time, funding or reverence to slap with a proper coat of paint.

But hey man, this is America. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean they'll win, and it doesn't mean they'll change the nature of religion. If this is the case that signals the legal death of heterosexual religion in the U.S.A., it's coming on small.

You don't realize it Lemur, but you're making my case for me. The building didn't lose it's tax exempt status, the religious body that owns it did. And apparently you've never been to the Jersey shore. That's an open pavillion on a boardwalk, not a dilapidated shack. They run for hundreds of thousands of dollars, due to the location.

But hey, if that's the best you can come up with, and you're forced to completely sidestep the issue, I guess I'll just have to repeat:

I TOLD YOU SO!!!

[Don Corleone]

The funny thing is, if the Methodists had refused to marry the Jewish lesbian couple because they were Jewish, not Methodist, everything would have been fine. :laugh4:

[Lemur]

You don't realize it Lemur, but you're making my case for me. The building didn't lose it's tax exempt status, the religious body that owns it did.
ORLY?


The state revoked the organization's tax exemption for the pavilion area.

[Odin]

The funny thing is, if the Methodists had refused to marry the Jewish lesbian couple because they were Jewish, not Methodist, everything would have been fine. :laugh4:

Thats my point Don. The homosexuals have accurately read the mood of the culture and have taken the legal tact of discrimination. The church's need a legal battle plan, not a hoped for outcry of morality.

There are a lot of smart people who participate in organized religion, I have yet to fathom why they havent begun to reshape the argument along these lines.

[Fragony]

HoreTore is right that homosexuals may try to change the religious establishments of which they are a part. Don is right that it is questionable whether they should do so in court, instead of through the religious channels. Shouldn't they respect the religious freedom of those establishments?

Or why not start a church of theirselves, maybe an idea but I don't think that ever crossed their minds, rent a shed of your own and praise the gaylord and see if you get zapped if not bang on. This annoys me to no end, they say they want to be accepted as equal because it's just their sexual preferation, but in the end it always becomes their sexual preferation that defines them and everything should move aside. So very very disrespectful. If these people care for that rundown little shack what's it to them, why keep insisting just because someone said no. Only small children can't take no for an answer, I want it I want it what they want is all that's on their mind at that point.

[Adrian II]

Or why not start a church of theirselves, maybe an idea but I don't think that ever crossed their minds, rent a shed of your own and praise the gaylord and see if you get zapped if not bang on.The usual rant, eh?

Now, did you read what I posted? Did you read up on the cases Don referred to? Did you get the point of what these cases are about? They are borderline cases, issues on the legal borderline where public order and public interest meet personal convictions and private interests. It has always been that way. That line is drawn and redrawn all the time.

And do you really think religious adoption services should operate according to their own principles, without regard for the law? Would you like Scientology to start adopting kids according to their principles? Hm?

Thought so.

[Fragony]

The usual rant, eh?

Now, did you read what I posted? Did you read up on the cases Don referred to? Did you get the point of what these cases are about? They are borderline cases, issues on the legal borderline where public order and public interest meet personal convictions and private interests. It has always been that way. That line is drawn and redrawn all the time.

And do you really think religious adoption services should operate according to their own principles, without regard for the law? Would you like Scientology to start adopting kids according to their principles? Hm?

Thought so.

It's the mentality, they want it, and if they can't have it they want it even more, and that's when we get cases like this because they don't (can't?) accept no. That's the real issue not the juridical particulars.

[Don Corleone]

HoreTore is right that homosexuals may try to change the religious establishments of which they are a part. Don is right that it is questionable whether they should do so in court, instead of through the religious channels. Shouldn't they respect the religious freedom of those establishments?

I haven't studied any of the cases. But if you look closely at some of the examples, they appear not to be clear cut and dried at all.

In the Massachusetss case for example, the Catholic Charities of Boston operate on a license granted by the State of Massachusetts on condition that they respect the law of the land with regard to adoption. If they break the law, out goes the license.

And it's not the Charities that protested either, just a couple of Bishops. In December of 2005 the 42-member board of the Catholic Charities of Boston, having heard the Bishops, voted unanimously in support of continuing to allow gay couples to adopt children. The Bishops lost their case in court, too.

Right, nobody has issued any edicts stating that religions that do not embrace homosexuality will be outlawed. Right now, it's a few fringe cases.

My point was not to ring a gong of alarmism. It wasn't to discuss degree or extent. It wasn't to villify homosexuals at large.

It was simply a retort to those who've called me a paranoid nutjob over the years. There is a small but very vocal, very active minority in the gay community that uses the legal system like a club to force their agenda on all segments of society. For lack of a better term, I call these folks the Lambda crowd (after the Lambda Legal Advocacy crowd). Whenever I've raised concerns that they would use the legalization of gay marriage as a wedge to force religions to practice weddings outside the accords of their religious tenets, I've been ridiculed. And according to a relatively left-leaning source like NPR, it turns out I was spot on.

Now Lemur, you are right, I was wrong, I misread the article. The tax exemption was on the pavillion itself. So your point is that using the courts to force people to alter their religious beliefs is okay as long as the courts restrict themselves to the tax exempt status of the buildings themselves?

[Lemur]

So your point is that using the courts to force people to alter their religious beliefs is okay as long as the courts restrict themselves to the tax exempt status of the buildings themselves?
No, I was headed more or less where Adrian II went, although I was lumbering there in a much more clumsy fashion. I think this is a borderline case, and not indicative of a larger assault on organized religion.

And I agree with you that there is an activist fringe within the gay community that wants to sue everyone into applauding their lifestyle. I happen to think they are nuts and that they will get crushed like bugs in the courts.

[Fragony]

There is a small but very vocal, very active minority in the gay community that uses the legal system like a club to force their agenda on all segments of society.

This. Why should I respect someone who doesn't respect anything? Same with blitzbeards.

ps, not so small a minority I think.

[Lemur]

Is it safe to ask what exactly a "blitzbeard" is? If the answer is very rude, just PM me.

[Don Corleone]

And I agree with you that there is an activist fringe within the gay community that wants to sue everyone into applauding their lifestyle. I happen to think they are nuts and that they will get crushed like bugs in the courts.

Did we read the same article? Every single case they cited, the court found for the plaintiffs and forced somebody to adapt their religious principles to accept the homosexual lifestyle.

And attorney Marc Stern said:


Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.

You say it's a few outlying cases. I say it's a vanguard. I'm not trying to pin this on the gay community at large, but trust me, until two gay men are being married in St. Patrick's cathedral in New York, this is far from over.

[Fragony]

Is it safe to ask what exactly a "blitzbeard" is? If the answer is very rude, just PM me.

Well it's one of the many fruits that dropped of my tree. Muslims with surface to sole homing toes, just can't help stepping on them because they want to be offended. Just as these gays are commited to get no for an answer, they want to be discriminated.

[Adrian II]

Don, I got your point the first time round, no mistake there. :bow:


There is a small but very vocal, very active minority in the gay community that uses the legal system like a club to force their agenda on all segments of society.Don't we all have such minorities? Blacks, Jews, feminists, Catholics, Protestants, leftwing and rightwing extremists, Army veterans, all have vocal minorities that push their agenda on behalf of the so-called 'majority' they claim to represent. It's lobbying business as usual.

The funniest thing is not that the ladies would have had no complaints if they had been refused on the ground that they were Jewish. The funniest thing is in that case they might have had the JDL, B'nai Brith and Alan Dershowitz backing them...

[Rhyfelwyr]

They blatantly go against what they claim are their religious beliefs, and yet they still demand the church accepts them. Or at least that their religious counterparts accept them. Why can't they just leave religion out of it?

[woad&fangs]

Whenever I've raised concerns that they would use the legalization of gay marriage as a wedge to force religions to practice weddings outside the accords of their religious tenets, I've been ridiculed. And according to a relatively left-leaning source like NPR, it turns out I was spot on.

I'm not yet entirely sure of how to react to the article. On one side, I believe your "I told you so" is a bit premature as no ministers are being forced to perform the actual wedding ceremony. On the other hand, the couple is pretty clearly violating the first amendment rights of the church. Also, complaining that a Christian group doesn't accept you as a homosexual is stupid and pathetic. So, upon further thought, I believe the courts were wrong in this case. They should have sided with the Methodists.

[Don Corleone]

Don, I got your point the first time round, no mistake there. :bow:

Don't we all have such minorities? Blacks, Jews, feminists, Catholics, Protestants, leftwing and rightwing extremists, Army veterans, all have vocal minorities that push their agenda on behalf of the so-called 'majority' they claim to represent. It's lobbying business as usual.

The funniest thing is not that the ladies would have had no complaints if they had been refused on the ground that they were Jewish. The funniest thing is in that case they might have had the JDL, B'nai Brith and Alan Dershowitz backing them...

I don't think even Alan Dershowitz would make the point that Father Paul McMillan has to perform a wedding service for an orthodox Jewish couple in St. Patrick's. The right to restrict one's rites and rituals to members of the organization is a fundamental tenet of free association.

Where you might actually see Alan and everyone else getting fired up is if instead of a Methodist pavilion, the couple had wanted to use a pavilion owned by the local orthodox synagogue.

[Samurai Waki]

Who cares?!? I didn't think that many orgahs liked being told what to do anyways, I always get this funny of image of god from Monty Python and the Holy Grail when Americans start talking about religion.

[Kralizec]

If it makes you feel better, I still think you're a paranoid nutjob...

Seriously though, I agree with you on this one. But as Lemur said, the fact that a few people decide to sue another doesn't mean anything by itself.

[Don Corleone]

If it makes you feel better, I still think you're a paranoid nutjob...

Seriously though, I agree with you on this one. But as Lemur said, the fact that a few people decide to sue another doesn't mean anything by itself.

Hee hee, I thought of that one myself.

It's not just a couple of fringe lawsuits. It's a coordinated effort, and it extends to a wide range of endeavors. And the courts are pretty much always siding with the Lambda crowd. Read the sidebar at the end of the article.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hee hee, I thought of that one myself.

It's not just a couple of fringe lawsuits. It's a coordinated effort, and it extends to a wide range of endeavors. And the courts are pretty much always siding with the Lambda crowd. Read the sidebar at the end of the article.

You arn't crazy.

[Fragony]

It's not just a couple of fringe lawsuits. It's a coordinated effort, and it extends to a wide range of endeavors. And the courts are pretty much always siding with the Lambda crowd. Read the sidebar at the end of the article.

I blame the incredible dullness of being in a pretty much established society. All these ideals, and nobody to fight for. Within an hour's distance. If you want to feel good and can be home for dinner as an idealist with moral hunger, well gay marriage, somebody could be starving in africa but at least it's something to sink the teeth in.

[Xiahou]

I don't think even Alan Dershowitz would make the point that Father Paul McMillan has to perform a wedding service for an orthodox Jewish couple in St. Patrick's. The right to restrict one's rites and rituals to members of the organization is a fundamental tenet of free association.

Where you might actually see Alan and everyone else getting fired up is if instead of a Methodist pavilion, the couple had wanted to use a pavilion owned by the local orthodox synagogue.
What if they had decided they wanted to hold their ceremony in the Methodist church itself instead of a pavilion? Wouldn't the same argument apply there as well? This is an unfortunate precedent.

[Devastatin Dave]

Nothing's is sacred to the anal lube crowd. Until the homosexuals are permited to dry hump in the pews, they're not going to be happy (or shall I say, gay!!!) giggle... with any religious group. I'll give the muslims this, they don't put up the with homo agenda crap.:2thumbsup:

[Odin]

Nothing's is sacred to the anal lube crowd. Until the homosexuals are permited to dry hump in the pews, they're not going to be happy (or shall I say, gay!!!) giggle... with any religious group. I'll give the muslims this, they don't put up the with homo agenda crap.:2thumbsup:

No nothing is sacred but there certainly smart enough to use the system to further their adgenda's. I still havent figured out whats taken the christians so long to employ the same tactic :inquisitive: The whole freedom of religion thing is the only way I can see stopping the influx of infidels upon their shrines.

In a way it brings me a certain amount of glee (dare I say it makes me feel gay?) to see the churches taking it up the rear with no lube at all. Particularly gratifying is a heathen like me can see clearly their avenue to combat the erosion of their temples.

I just cant see the christians arguing from a moral point of view gaining any kind of traction legally, they pretty much squandered their moral authority card a few years back with the whole pedophile business.

[HoreTore]

Nothing's is sacred to the anal lube crowd.

Anal lube? We're talking about lesbians here ~;)

[Devastatin Dave]

Anal lube? We're talking about lesbians here ~;)

Oops sorry, Snapper Lappers!!!:laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

I just cant see the christians arguing from a moral point of view gaining any kind of traction legally, they pretty much squandered their moral authority card a few years back with the whole pedophile business.


You do know the methodist and catholic chruchers are two very diffrenet things. So not only are you judging an entire religon based on a few crimnal instances you are now lumping diffrent denomonations together. But whatever makes you happy I guess.

[Tribesman]

You do know the methodist and catholic chruchers are two very diffrenet things. So not only are you judging an entire religon based on a few crimnal instances you are now lumping diffrent denomonations together
I do hope you are not trying to say that methodist churches don't have child abusers among thier clergy . And I certainly hope you would not attempt to make that claim about your own denomination either .

[Strike For The South]

I do hope you are not trying to say that methodist churches don't have child abusers among thier clergy . And I certainly hope you would not attempt to make that claim about your own denomination either .

There are crminals everywhere and Im rather sure he was refering to the catholic scandles as no others have cuased as much commtioin. but saying the Christian church cant not claim moral authority is simply not true. There are 2.1 billion christians on the earth and many of them are decent hardworking souls. Odin seems to take utter glee in the fact that the church is under attack simply becuase he views organized religon as some nasty thing

What denomonation am I Tribsey?

[Tribesman]

What denomonation am I Tribsey?

I thought you was Southern Baptist

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Marriage isn't inherently religious. I find it really odd that gay people want to get married by a real priest instead of someone who's just pretending.

[Odin]

There are crminals everywhere and Im rather sure he was refering to the catholic scandles as no others have cuased as much commtioin. but saying the Christian church cant not claim moral authority is simply not true. There are 2.1 billion christians on the earth and many of them are decent hardworking souls. Odin seems to take utter glee in the fact that the church is under attack simply becuase he views organized religon as some nasty thing


I wont take the thread off topic (well not to far). Yes Strike I concede there are millions and millions of Chrisitans who are great hard working people. Sadly each one of them is a criminal for allowing themselves to be associated with this criminal enterprise called christianity. I've made this argument before, and out of respect for Don and his thread I wont go on and on about it.

Should the opportunity arise again in another thread somewhat related I will be happy to go over it again.

Also, this is the first time in years someone has associated me with glee.

[Beirut]

There are 2.1 billion christians on the earth and many of them are decent hardworking souls.

But keep in mind that that number encompasses all Christian denominations, and some of them think the other "so-called Christians" are naught but the Devil's Fools and Satan's Tools.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm going to be working at Ocean Grove in July for a Christian concert, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies. :D

I'm in DC's corner, but I'm a bomb-throwing extremist and I think the owner of any private property should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason. If you disapprove, just don't go there.

The issue is made more murky by the tax-exempt status of the pavillion, but would could a Muslim-owned pavillion get away with deny a customer who wished to celebrate his favorite hog's birthday? Certainly. (That's tongue-in-cheek, just so yanno).

[Divinus Arma]

Frankly, I think we ought to eliminate the term "marriage" from law. This is nothing more than a contract between individuals to share assets and liabilities while gaining tax benefits.


The religious aspect of the union is completely seperate. Marriage is a covenant between individuals and the Lord. Anybody can be married spiritually and religiously, but not legally. Similarly, anybody can be joined in a union legally, but not spiritually or religiously. The fact that the government is involved in marraige at all is violation of the seperation between church and state.


The only way to solve this once and for all is to eliminate "marriage" as a legal term. The government should only offer civil unions, and should do so for anyone that seeks them: gay, straight, and polygamist.

[Strike For The South]

The only way to solve this once and for all is to eliminate "marriage" as a legal term. The government should only offer civil unions, and should do so for anyone that seeks them: gay, straight, and polygamist.

I would give you money if my state hadnt of used it all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Frankly, I think we ought to eliminate the term "marriage" from law. This is nothing more than a contract between individuals to share assets and liabilities while gaining tax benefits.


The religious aspect of the union is completely seperate. Marriage is a covenant between individuals and the Lord. Anybody can be married spiritually and religiously, but not legally. Similarly, anybody can be joined in a union legally, but not spiritually or religiously. The fact that the government is involved in marraige at all is violation of the seperation between church and state.


The only way to solve this once and for all is to eliminate "marriage" as a legal term. The government should only offer civil unions, and should do so for anyone that seeks them: gay, straight, and polygamist.


The issue with this is that people were fine with marriage as a legal term for years and years. The government changing it's terminology is just an official proclamation of 'we don't like gay people'.

[Andres]

I couldn't care less about what would be the legal term for marriage. As far as I'm concerned they can replace the word "marriage" with "orange juice".

Anyway, why are the media even paying attention to this? Is this stuff really newsworthy? :wall:

I don't understand these people. You are a [insert term for member of a certain religion] and you want to marry your gay friend. [insert said religion] doesn't allow gay marriage. You have two options: a) accept and don't marry your gay friend; b) leave [insert said religion] in disgust. Nobody prevents you from starting your own religion which allows gay marriage. You can even call it "The Correct [insert said religion]", as far as I'm concerned.

[Adrian II]

Some members are confusing issues again.

1. Don is not complaining that gays want to change their religion of choice. He is complaining that gays are attempting to change religions from the outside, through the courts. Whether that is actually happening, and whether it is good thing or not, is debatable.

2. Marriage is not a private contract. Under the law, marriage is a privileged status (legal, fiscal, etcetera) granted by the state to couples with an eye to conceiving and raising children in a safe atmosphere. The mot important privilege is not fiscal, but legal: spouses automatically become next of kin which is an essential prerequisite to the continuity of their childrens' education. So marriage is a contract between two people and the state (acting on behalf of the community) and the couple must meet certain conditions that vary from country to country, in return for wich the state undertakes said obligations which also vary from country to country. But the principle is the same everywhere. The whole issue of gay marriage hinges on the question of whether gays can and should raise children.

3. Religious marriage is private business.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't think i have understood this issue fullly before but here is an attempt....

The main point of contention for gays getting married is not that religion grants marriage, no religion controls it, the goverment controls marriage, so people don't want the goverment to allow gay marriage, but this just seems discriminatory to me, we have laws against incest and polygamy so thats why they can't get married but as we have no laws against being gay why isn't gay marriage allowed ?

Of course no religion or church should be forced to marry them, but if they can find someone and somewhere where thier welcome whats everyone else's problem that thier union has the same name as yours..... it can't be half as insulting to the institution of marriage as some of the stuff straight couples do

[Lemur]

Actually, this particular case has to do with a Jewish couple that wanted to get married in a Methodist pavilion on the New Jersey boardwalk, but the Methodists said no, and somehow this violated some New Jersey statute or another, and I guess the Methodists were doign something state-related to get their tax break on the pavilion, and somehow the Jewish lesbians sued for the pavilion to lose its tax-exempt status and they won. So now the lesbians are married, I guess, and the Methodist church has lost its tax shelter on a falling-down little structure for no obvious reason.

I don't see why anyone finds this confusing.

[Don Corleone]

It's simpler than that. From now on, regardless of what your religion teaches, you will marry homosexuals , or you will lose your tax-exempt status. Should that fail to work, further 're-education' strategies will be initiated.

[HoreTore]

It's simpler than that. From now on, regardless of what your religion teaches, you will marry homosexuals , or you will lose your tax-exempt status. Should that fail to work, further 're-education' strategies will be initiated.

Uhm... This is about using a building, not marrying a couple, isn't it?

[Don Corleone]

Uhm... This is about using a building, not marrying a couple, isn't it?

This is about using a building, for a wedding.
This is about performing in-vitro fertilization (when the doctor referred the lesbian couple to another doctor in HIS OWN PRACTICE!).
This is about photographers not wanting to photograph a homosexual union.
This is about barring the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexual scoutmasters.
This is about forcing the termination of a marriage counselor that didn't want to counsel a gay couple.
This is about forcing religious schools to allow open homosexual relationships.
This is about forcing religious universities to provide married-couple housing for same-sex unions.
This is about a religious adoption service being forced to place children with homosexual couples or being barred from practice.

It's about a homosexual lobby out there forcing everyone to acknowledge and accept them through misuse of the courts.

And it's about forcing religions to adopt the creed of 'diversity'.

In short, it's about barring religion. Whenever religion takes a stand on a behavior, the behaviorists turn to the courts and the courts force the religion to abandon their teachings.

And at the end of the day, the joke is on the homosexuals. Because it's really about the evolution of an aristocracy, and the tyranny of a legal system most Americans have no ability with which to interact or affect policy.

[HoreTore]

Still, I really don't see what the big deal is for these christians. I mean come on, screw the gay thing, this is about two people loving each other, right?

Why on earth they seem intent on ruining someone's special day is beyond me. You don't want gay marriage? Fine, but I don't understand why anyone can let such feelings grow so strong as to completely blind them. Like the guy in Holy Grail says; "This is a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who..."



But at the same time of course, I don't understand why the couple pushes this thing. I know I wouldn't want to be somewhere I'm not wanted on the happiest day of my life.

[Adrian II]

Still, I really don't see what the big deal is for these christians. I mean come on, screw the gay thing, this is about two people loving each other, right?Christians may define themselves any way they want, that's not for you or anyone else to judge.

If religious establishments use public funds, occupy public spaces or exert public functions (such as in adoption charities) they should be held accountable by the public under the law.

But I am with Don when it comes to their right to define their own religious boundaries and have them respected.

A statement mentioned in the article which Don quotes is interesting. The lawyer says that the issue of the Methodist pavilion is no different from that of a restaurant that refuses to serve blacks. If the restaurant owner's God tells him that blacks are inferior and should not be fed, is he within his rights?

Chew on that, guys. I'd like to hear from Americans in particular because they have had this sort of debate in many shapes and guises for the past fifty years and their thinking on it is usually tested and well developed.

[woad&fangs]

This is about using a building, for a wedding.
Church should have won
This is about performing in-vitro fertilization (when the doctor referred the lesbian couple to another doctor in HIS OWN PRACTICE!).
I haven't read this one yet
This is about photographers not wanting to photograph a homosexual union.
The homosexual couple were correct in winning. This is on par with southern business owners not selling to blacks.
This is about barring the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexual scoutmasters.
As much as I think it is rediculous, the Boy Scouts should have won this because they are a private organization with religious affiliations.
This is about forcing the termination of a marriage counselor that didn't want to counsel a gay couple.
The gay couple were correct. See the photographers.
This is about forcing religious schools to allow open homosexual relationships.
This is about forcing religious universities to provide married-couple housing for same-sex unions.
The schools should have won. Why the :daisy: are homosexuals even attending these schools.
This is about a religious adoption service being forced to place children with homosexual couples or being barred from practice.
The homosexuals were correct in this case.

[Don Corleone]

A statement mentioned in the article which Don quotes is interesting. The lawyer says that the issue of the Methodist pavilion is no different from that of a restaurant that refuses to serve blacks. If the restaurant owner's God tells him that blacks are inferior and should not be fed, is he within his rights?

Chew on that, guys. I'd like to hear from Americans in particular because they have had this sort of debate in many shapes and guises for the past fifty years and their thinking on it is usually tested and well developed.

Actually, based on the answers coming back from the Legalist Taliban we have running the show over here, just being foolish enough to mention God means you'd probably lose your case, regardless of its merits. :laugh4:

All kidding aside, there is a fundamental difference between race and sexual choice. And if you're not sure what it is, call up a black church and ask them if they think gays should be allowed to join their civil rights movement.

[HoreTore]

Christians may define themselves any way they want, that's not for you or anyone else to judge.

Bah, I haven't signed up for anything that says "thou shalt not judge" ~;)

[HoreTore]

The schools should have won. Why the :daisy: are homosexuals even attending these schools..

Because they're christians and the school is good perhaps?

[Don Corleone]

This is about performing in-vitro fertilization (when the doctor referred the lesbian couple to another doctor in HIS OWN PRACTICE!).
I haven't read this one yet They're all from the sidebar at the end of the link.


This is about photographers not wanting to photograph a homosexual union.
The homosexual couple were correct in winning. This is on par with southern business owners not selling to blacks.
So if somebody chooses to exercise their freedom of speech in my store, and uses ethnically derogatory terms, again, a lifestyle choice that causes no physical harm to anyone, I'm still legally required to serve them? And if somebody practices extremely poor hygiene... I'm required to seat them in my 4-star restaurant?

[Adrian II]

All kidding aside, there is a fundamental difference between race and sexual choice.Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.

[Don Corleone]

Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.

While I personally think the hardline biblical prohibitions on homosexuality are questionable, they are there, right after the purification rituals (so be sure to stone your neighbor for serving meat AND cheese on the same pizza). I can't quite remember the citation at the moment, but the passage "You shall not lay down with another man as though one of you were a woman, for that would be an abomination." I missed the line where Jehovah told the Levites to enforce a strict policy of "not being black".

I'm not saying were I to design my own church, I wouldn't allow for the open practice of homosexuality. I might, I might not. Jury is still out. But that's just it, I haven't. And I don't know where I or anyone else gets off ordering religious groups to adopt the newest and latest fad. What's next, not mentioning God's name during services, because it might offend atheists that want to attend, for the social aspects, but really take offense to mention of the Almighty? Damn, now I'm give HoreTore & Little Grizzly ideas. :wall:

[Lemur]

I can't quite remember the citation at the moment, but the passage "You shall not lay down with another man as though one of you were a woman, for that would be an abomination."
It's Leviticus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus). It's always Leviticus.

[woad&fangs]

Thank you Don. It is actually quiet refreshing when I have to look at my beliefs on a certain subject and decide whether they still are valid or if I should rethink my position. :bow:

I was going to change the comparison to a Nazi refusing to give service to a Jew but that would be discrimination based on religion which would only be valid if there is a gay religion(Admit it, the irony of a homosexual using the "freedom of religion" defense would be hilarious).

So right now I'm not sure whether I am correct or whether DC is. ~:yin-yang:

[HoreTore]

I'm not saying were I to design my own church, I wouldn't allow for the open practice of homosexuality. I might, I might not. Jury is still out. But that's just it, I haven't. And I don't know where I or anyone else gets off ordering religious groups to adopt the newest and latest fad. What's next, not mentioning God's name during services, because it might offend atheists that want to attend, for the social aspects, but really take offense to mention of the Almighty? Damn, now I'm give HoreTore & Little Grizzly ideas. :wall:

Hehe, I was forced to go to a church service in the army once... And I didn't complain about the mentioning of God, but I did remain seated when the priest told us to "stand up and profess our belief", and boy that sparked a reaction :laugh4:

[Goofball]

Well, in the past 4 years, gay marriage has been a frequent issue for debate here in the backroom. On the one side are people that believe that marriage should be recognized and allowed for any two consenting adults. Then there are those that believe marriage should be defined as between a a man and a woman.

People that believe marriage should be allowed for gay couples are almost always talking about legal marriage. They claim that the reason gay people have pushed so hard for marriage in the first place is because of the special legal and tax benefits state-endorsed marriage confer upon the couple.

There is a third group in the debate, of which I'm one of the leading proponents. We agree that legally recognized benefits must be available to all adults within a particular legal system and that the state itself cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (discriminate in this sense meaning differentiate, not necessarily treat punitively). But we also hold that marriage in the religious construct should be dictated by the tenets of a particular religion, and we see the insistence on the term 'marriage' itself as indicative of an agenda by gay rights group to force religious bodies to alter their practices and adopt behavior and teachings in line with what the gay advocacy groups dictate the religious groups should want. Call us the Civil Union crew.

"Hogwash", have answered certain naysayers. "You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman :strawman2:". I've heard this quite a bit, but mostly from my good friend Goofball, who thinks I'm intentionally invoking slippery slope arguments that will never come to pass, just to cloud the issue and play semantics games as a backdoor to actual discrimination (I resist using the term marriage, because I want to rub gay people's nose in that they have to settle for civil unions, not because I'm really afraid of infringement on my rights to free practice of religion).

Well, lo and behold, that bastion of the Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, NPR, had a piece on this morning that makes my case far better than I ever could. So I'll simply leave you all with a link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340), and a blatant I TOLD YOU SO!!! :clown:

I haven't read the rest of the thread, so what I am about to say has probably already been said by those smarter than I, because it's so blatantly obvious that I am, quite frankly Don, surprised you even had the balls to start this thread:

This is clearly not an example of a gay couple trying to force a church to marry them, which is the matter that you and I have argued many times in the past.

This is an example of a gay couple who wanted to use a facility (not even a church, at that) to perform their civil union, and they were discriminated against because the owners of the facility in question happen to disagree with gay marriage. Quite funny, since the couple in question are not even asking to be "married" in the facility in question.

So Don, to use your words, not mine: "Hogwash. You're just being paranoid and a nutjob. Gay people aren't interested in changing religious practices, and you're invoking a strawman. :strawman2:"

Have a nice day.

:oops:

[Craterus]

All kidding aside, there is a fundamental difference between race and sexual choice. And if you're not sure what it is, call up a black church and ask them if they think gays should be allowed to join their civil rights movement.

Hmm. Why are there black churches? Sounds like a result of some of Christianity's older prejudices. Maybe one day we'll be able to move past all of this.

[Goofball]

The funny thing is, if the Methodists had refused to marry the Jewish lesbian couple because they were Jewish, not Methodist, everything would have been fine. :laugh4:

Sorry, I must have missed that part of the article. Where in there did it say that a lesbian couple asked the methodist church to marry them?

[Goofball]

No, I was headed more or less where Adrian II went, although I was lumbering there in a much more clumsy fashion. I think this is a borderline case, and not indicative of a larger assault on organized religion.

And I agree with you that there is an activist fringe within the gay community that wants to sue everyone into applauding their lifestyle. I happen to think they are nuts and that they will get crushed like bugs in the courts.

That sums up very nicely my feelings on this issue.

[Xiahou]

Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.
Is the restaurant owner claiming his establishment is the property of his new religion? Or that by forcing this religious facility to serve blacks he'd be forced to implicitly condone their "black" behavior? I think the comparison fails on several levels....

Regardless, yes. I think an restaurant owner should be able to refuse service to any person for any reason. It's their business- it's not even a religious issue. If someone says they'll refuse to server any blacks because of their race, I would refuse to patronize their establishment and would expect many others to do the same.

[Goofball]

Regardless, yes. I think an restaurant owner should be able to refuse service to any person for any reason. It's their business- it's not even a religious issue. If someone says they'll refuse to server any blacks because of their race, I would refuse to patronize their establishment and would expect many others to do the same.

I'm of two mind on that issue. Part of me agrees with you. But then a part of me asks, what about businesses other than restaurants? How about grocery stores? Or doctors? What if there was only one grocery store or doctor within 100 miles, and they both refused to serve a family because they were black? Or gay?

How about this: In my job, I do a lot of business with First Nations. One of the things that some of them have been involved with lately is building their own power generation plants in order to become independent and also generate a bit of profit selling excess power back to the general population of Canada. What if an independent, on reserve power generation plant refused to supply electricity to a house on the reserve because the owner of the house was married to a whitey?

[Don Corleone]

You're talking about essential services, there Goofy. Surely you're not claiming the mental crutch that is modern religion is essential for anyone? I was under the impression you were doing some hoping and praying of a different sort for the day when otherwise sane and reasonable people, like your wife and I, would have the scales lifted from their eyes. Wouldn't shutting gay people out of active church membership in fact be doing them a service from your perspective? :clown:

[Goofball]

You're talking about essential services, there Goofy. Surely you're not claiming the mental crutch that is modern religion is essential for anyone? I was under the impression you were doing some hoping and praying of a different sort for the day when otherwise sane and reasonable people, like your wife and I, would have the scales lifted from their eyes. Wouldn't shutting gay people out of active church membership in fact be doing them a service from your perspective? :clown:

Sorry Don, I was actually going slightly off topic there and following Xiahou's "businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason" line, not apropos of the original thread topic whatsoever. And the essential services I used in my post were private businesses, who, in Xiahou's world, should be able to refuse service to anybody they want. But let's limit it just to restaurants if you want. Picture this: A nice, middle class black family is driving accross the country for a family holiday. They stop for a bite to eat at a rustic looking cafe somewhere in middle America, mom, dad, 10 year old daughter and twelve year old son. Upon entering, the owner of the restaurant, standing behind the bar polishing glasses and joking with his cronies, catches sight of the black family. He then says loudly, so that everybody in the restaurant can hear it: "Get your black asses outa here. We don't serve niggers." It that his right as a business owner?

I don't care if churches ban gays, or blacks, or women from being members of their churches. They can do that all day long if they want. They are religious organizations. Religious organizations have been involved in indefensable, silly, and downright mean practices for thousands of years. Who am I to try to stop them?
:beam:

[Strike For The South]

Not in the eyes of the restaurant owner's God.

And the restaurant's owner has the right to decide who eats there. Right? Or doesn't he? Remember, it's his religion talking.

Take it from there.

He can do as he whishes but no one will eat there and he will be foreclosed on :smile:

[Strike For The South]

Hmm. Why are there black churches? Sounds like a result of some of Christianity's older prejudices. Maybe one day we'll be able to move past all of this.

Maybe one day you will do some reasearch about Americas chruches move past your self richeousnes and we can have a disscussion. Maybe one day.

[Viking]

Hehe, I was forced to go to a church service in the army once... And I didn't complain about the mentioning of God, but I did remain seated when the priest told us to "stand up and profess our belief", and boy that sparked a reaction :laugh4:

As someone who is at great risk of ending up in the army in the upcoming years thanks to our fascist constitution, please elaborate on how it ended. :clown:

[PanzerJaeger]

I have a hard time feeling bad for the church.

While I think they are justified in refusing to "serve" whoever they like, I can't really fault the gays for going after them in court.

The majority of Christian churches have been demonizing gay people for a long, long time, despite the teachings of Jesus.

When you make enemies and burn bridges, don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the...

If the laws allow this kind of thing to happen, change them. Don't expect the gay community to have any more mercy or understanding than the Christian one has had, though.

I also agree with Sasaki. Why these people want to be married in a religion that hates them is beyond me...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I also agree with Sasaki. Why these people want to be married in a religion that hates them is beyond me...

I don't hate them at all. However, it's still the church's right to decide to marry them or not. That's why we have seperation of Church and State.

[Craterus]

Maybe one day you will do some reasearch about Americas chruches move past your self richeousnes and we can have a disscussion. Maybe one day.

Yeah, you're right. Keep your unfounded prejudices. Just goes to show the church's detrimental effects on society. Their dislike of certain groups (based on whatever BS logic from years gone by) gets passed on to the congregations and the middle-classes then have their enemy to hate and breed intolerance, regardless of how stupid the entire situation is - (you realise people don't choose to be gay, so how can you persecute them?)

Nice other thread by the way, your question seems to have been answered quite competently by other people with common sense so I don't feel the need to contribute.

[Adrian II]

I missed the line where Jehovah told the Levites to enforce a strict policy of "not being black".That's not the point. I didn't say the restaurant owner is a Christian. Could be any religion.

Premiss: The restaurant owner's God and religious teachings forbid him to serve blacks.

Question: Is he within his right to refuse them as clients or not?

[Don Corleone]

That's not the point. I didn't say the restaurant owner is a Christian. Could be any religion.

Premiss: The restaurant owner's God and religious teachings forbid him to serve blacks.

Question: Is he within his right to refuse them as clients or not?

Aaah, I see your point. I honestly read your comment in a different light. If after careful soul searching and prayerful consideration, not just following what some fiery preacher, priest or witch doctor told him, the fellow really honestly believed that he should exclude a certain class of people, then he'd sort of have to follow his conscience.

Isn't this how the Hasidim treat the rest of us? Does it really bother you all that much?

[rotorgun]

As for anyone interested in exactly what God's views are on the subject of a society given over to such sexual practices, I recommend a reading of Genesis, Chapter 18 and 19. Start about verse 20 in Chapter 18 and work your way to the end of Chapter 19. It gives a pretty good idea of just how patient God was with the Sodomites and the Gomorrah-lites that he would be willing to spare the cities for the "sake of even ten righteous men."

Leviticus 19, vs 17: Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.

Leviticus 20, vs 13: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands.

Romans Chapter 1, vs 24-29: Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (Like the two recent lesbians mentioned) In the same way the men abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Aids?)

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what not to be done. (Such as try to change the ways that even Churches ought to accept them through manipulation of the civil laws) They are filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.

Then again, Jesus said that he came not for the righteous, but to bring sinners to repentance. As he said in Matthew Chapter 9, vs 12: " It is not the healthy who need a doctor,....."

My view is that Gays will try to use the very fabric of our country-its laws and court systems-to force change, or at least silence within the mainstream religions. As I have shown above, God even kind of predicts this behavior. He has shown his patience by sending Christ to pay for sins, even this one, and would like to see all come to reason with him. I feel a moral obligation to warn my Gay brothers and sisters that they should reconsider. Even though I cannot agree with their "choice" I also cannot condemn them for anything; responsibility is a personal matter, and I have enough on my plate to be responsible for.

[Lemur]

As for anyone interested in exactly what God's views are on the subject of a society given over to such sexual practices, I recommend a reading of Genesis, Chapter 18 and 19. Start about verse 20 in Chapter 18 and work your way to the end of Chapter 19. It gives a pretty good idea of just how patient God was with the Sodomites and the Gomorrah-lites that he would be willing to spare the cities for the "sake of even ten righteous men."
You're asserting that you know what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was? This is big news. Up until today, all biblical scholars have said that it's unclear, not spelled out, not even clearly implied.

"And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;" Gen 18:20

And that is it in terms of explanation. We see later that the S&Gs are hostile to strangers, don't respect the guest/host relationship, and want to gang-rape the angels. Take your pick if any of those are the "very great" sin.

[rotorgun]

You're asserting that you know what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was? This is big news. Up until today, all biblical scholars have said that it's unclear, not spelled out, not even clearly implied.

"And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;" Gen 18:20

And that is it in terms of explanation. We see later that the S&Gs are hostile to strangers, don't respect the guest/host relationship, and want to gang-rape the angels. Take your pick if any of those are the "very great" sin.

A good point, although I disagree that the "sin" is not implied. I quote the following from Chapter 19, vs 5-6:
They called to Lot "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may have sex (go into) them."
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. (He clearly identifies the main crime here) Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. (What father in his right mind, unless he were somewhat depraved himself, would do such a thing) But don't do anything to these men, for they are under the protection of my roof." (I interpret this as another nail in the coffin of these men who have become so sinful that they have also forgotten the law of basic civility).

Knowing what we do from the other points I have made from the Bible so far, it is a logical deduction that the main sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were wanton sexual depravity-in itself against God's laws of nature. While this is likely a rhetorical story, the main theme is clear IMHO.

[Lemur]

A fair interpretation, Rotorgun, although I could argue that the violation of the guest/host relationship is the real sin. And what's with your modern English biblical citations? Real men roll with the King James, baby. Kick it old-skool with my main Bible, yo.

[rotorgun]

A fair interpretation, Rotorgun, although I could argue that the violation of the guest/host relationship is the real sin. And what's with your modern English biblical citations? Real men roll with the King James, baby. Kick it old-skool with my main Bible, yo.

Yes, this argument is familiar to me from many discussions about these passages. Many scholars point to this as God's main grievance. I feel that these words point to Sodom and Gomorrah as communities that had become very self oriented - not unlike what many feel towards our modern society. "Do your own thing" and "Whatever" have become the watchwords of a very "it's my world" attitude today. Whatever had taken place there to make it so in Sodom, sexual deviance had become a prominent behavior. As Fragony has inferred in his earlier posts, these people had lost respect for themselves, let alone anyone else - a byproduct of giving oneself over to what one knows is wrong. :juggle2:

Oh yeah, the King James version! I love that version with its wonderful 17th century prose. I just happened to have a New International Version Handy at the time. :study:

Well...see you guys tomorrow, I gotta get up at 4 AM! :thumbsdown:

PS: Great thread. I think it's a good thing to discuss such things. I tend to agree with Don Corleone here. He has really told us this before....and he wasn't the only one. :yes::beam:

[Lemur]

Never be without the King James (http://king_james_bible.publicdomaindb.org/) again. Come on, "Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe." How can any modern translation match up with that?

[Xiahou]

Real men roll with the King James, baby. Kick it old-skool with my main Bible, yo.Go NAB (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM) or go home. :beam:

Edit: While we're on the Bible, I haven't seen anyone bring up Corinthians (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZB.HTM) 9-10.
Really, I think Rotorgun nails it in the end of post 82. The "Christian" way should not be about condemning others. We should disapprove of homosexual behavior, but not hate homosexuals.

[PBI]

Interesting new study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm) alleges that brain scans of gay people show difference in brain structure from straight people of the same sex.

Raises the question of whether homosexuality can really be described as a "choice", since it appears to be preprogrammed from birth. It makes the analogy between refusing services to gay people and black people rather more compelling.

[Adrian II]

If after careful soul searching and prayerful consideration, not just following what some fiery preacher, priest or witch doctor told him, the fellow really honestly believed that he should exclude a certain class of people, then he'd sort of have to follow his conscience.Fair answer.

Now suppose the restaurant owner is not religious at all. He's an atheist. He refuses to serve blacks because he doesn't like them and maintains he has good reason not to like them.

Is he still within his rights?

[Fragony]

They could just shrug it of and go to another bar because it's opvious they aren't wanted.

[HoreTore]

They could just shrug it of and go to another bar because it's opvious they aren't wanted.

That's a nice way to start a de-facto apartheid society.

[Fragony]

That's a nice way to start a de-facto apartheid society.

We would get along much better if we had one.

[HoreTore]

We would get along much better if we had one.

Yeah.... Last I heard, neither the african americans, south africans or rhodesians enjoyed it very much...

[Fragony]

Yeah.... Last I heard, neither the african americans, south africans or rhodesians enjoyed it very much...

Not apartheid in that way that's full out racism, just no forced integration. But don't want to derail even though the thought behind i applies here as well. Just back of when you are tresspassing.

[Husar]

Hmmm... Why shouldn't gay christians be allowed to influence their own faith?

Because their faith states that God doesn't accept gays and that God never instated a democracy that would allow his followers to change the rules. May sound like rubbish to you but that's because you do not believe it.

[Don Corleone]

Fair answer.

Now suppose the restaurant owner is not religious at all. He's an atheist. He refuses to serve blacks because he doesn't like them and maintains he has good reason not to like them.

Is he still within his rights?

No, of course not. And I know where this is going, that what is the objective standard by which a court of law could determine the intent, and therefore cuplability, of said discriminator.

I don't have an answer for that one, I'm afraid. But before you get too gleeful, I'd like you to answer my question about where does the line for enforcing policial correctness unto religions end. Let's suppose a Lutheran church has a great beer night. It's the talk of the town, and everyone likes to come to it. But at the beginning of the festivities, the minister leads a benediction and asks for God to embrace all his children, calling for the eventual conversion of non-Christians to Christianity.

Well, what if some Buddhists and atheists in the audience took offense. Would they have the right to sue to force the minister to stop the benediction at the beginning of the party?

[rotorgun]

Good Morning all! Finally got to work were I could take a few minutes to check on my Org. buddies before work starts. I just had to get back to this compelling thread.

To go along with Fragony in a sense, I agree that we (the heterosexuals) shouldn't be compelled to have to accept the unwanted company of them (the homosexuals/lesbians) if we don't desire it. I have a live and let live mentality to all this......just "don't fence me in" as the singing cowboy once sung. Not to sound too hypocritical though, I do have freinds that are admitted Gays. I guess I accept them as people, just don't approve of their lifestyle "choice", although that was an interesting study that Poor Bloody Infantry came up with. I am willing to accept that there might be something to the idea, but this one study by itself is not definative. I should like to see some genetic evidence as well. It would be interesting to see if there were DNA findings showing a tendency to be Gay.

Well, gotta get to work.....I'll check ya'll out later.

[Adrian II]

No, of course not.Is the restaurant owner not within his rights in this particular case because he is not religious? In other words: are religious considerations inherently superior to non-religous considerations?

The restaurant owner could claim that consorting with blacks runs against his cultural identity. Is it the court's job to decide whether a man's idea of his cultural identity is legitimate, but not whether a man's religious feelings are legitimate?
But before you get too gleeful, I'd like you to answer my question about where does the line for enforcing policial correctness unto religions end.I don't have a readymade answer to your question either. I'm racking my brain about it (always a sign of a good thread when people find it so compelling). I'm trying to find out, just like others.

But I do know that religion should not be privileged over other types of convictions in matters like these.

[HoreTore]

Because their faith states that God doesn't accept gays and that God never instated a democracy that would allow his followers to change the rules. May sound like rubbish to you but that's because you do not believe it.

I'm pretty sure that gay christians don't believe that their god says that. Kinda like Luther didn't believe god wanted a pope. Christianity is changing every day, unless you haven't noticed it. So why exactly shouldn't they be allowed to preach their beliefs and try to convince others that their interpretation is the right one, like every other christian does?

[Louis VI the Fat]

This is about using a building, for a wedding.
This is about performing in-vitro fertilization (when the doctor referred the lesbian couple to another doctor in HIS OWN PRACTICE!).
This is about photographers not wanting to photograph a homosexual union.
This is about barring the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexual scoutmasters.
This is about forcing the termination of a marriage counselor that didn't want to counsel a gay couple.
This is about forcing religious schools to allow open homosexual relationships.
This is about forcing religious universities to provide married-couple housing for same-sex unions.
This is about a religious adoption service being forced to place children with homosexual couples or being barred from practice.

It's about a homosexual lobby out there forcing everyone to acknowledge and accept them through misuse of the courts.

And it's about forcing religions to adopt the creed of 'diversity'.Excellent! :2thumbsup:

It's about time the priviliged position of religious institutions is brought to an end! They are not above the law.
Likewise, it is about time freedom of religion is scrapped from the lawbooks in the first place. There's freedom of gathering and expression. That suffices. All that freedom of religion does on top of that is to grant priviliged status to opinion based on superstition above opinion based on anything else.

Companies can not discriminate against blacks, religions can not discriminate against people in wheelchairs and sports teams can not discriminate against gays. Any allowable discrimination should be limited to essential qualities: sports teams can refuse the handicapped, companies can refuse unqualified workers, and churches can refuse those of different denomination.

Companies, bars, restaurants, schools are not at liberty to discriminate persons. I see no reason why religious institutions should be above the law in this respect. Not even, when they are entirely privately funded and receive no tax-exemption benefits whatsoever.
Freedom in our societies is defined as individual freedom. People must be accepted as individuals, not as members of a group.

[PBI]

I should like to see some genetic evidence as well. It would be interesting to see if there were DNA findings showing a tendency to be Gay.


IIRC there was actually a study a few months ago which claimed to show something to that effect. I believe they found a gene which corresponded to an increased chance of being gay among male carriers, but also increased the fertility of female carriers, which was suggested as the reason why a gene which would presumably discourage male members of the family from having children would not naturally disappear; the children they didn't have would be made up for by the extra children on the female side.

I don't expect you to simply take my word for it though, especially since my recollection of the exact findings is so poor. I'll try and find a link, if I can ever figure out how to get the damn search function on the BBC website to work properly. I suppose they are isolated studies so not the be-all and end-all, but still interesting and consistent with what a lot of gay people will tell you when you tell them their sexuality is a "choice", in my experience.

Edit: Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4215427.stm) is a story from a few years ago about a supposed link, I think the study I'm thinking of is more recent though.

[Don Corleone]

First of all, many establishments can and do discriminate and refuse service to people. If you're not an Elk, you're not getting a beer at the Elks lodge, no matter how hard you try.

Secondly, I find it rather surprising to see Louis that you're so thoroughly 'modern', you've evolved to a position of compelling belief in others. I guess "live and let live" just doesn't cut it anymore, eh?

[rotorgun]

I don't expect you to simply take my word for it though, especially since my recollection of the exact findings is so poor. I'll try and find a link, if I can ever figure out how to get the damn search function on the BBC website to work properly. I suppose they are isolated studies so not the be-all and end-all, but still interesting and consistent with what a lot of gay people will tell you when you tell them their sexuality is a "choice", in my experience.

Edit: Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4215427.stm) is a story from a few years ago about a supposed link, I think the study I'm thinking of is more recent though.

I appreciate your humble attitude, and I am of an equal feeling that there is something more to it than a concious choice by people to live a Gay life. I found your link to be fascinating, and was struck by the aptness of the last paragraph to our thread discussion:


"Regardless of whether sexual orientation is determined by nature or nurture or both, the most important thing is that lesbians and gay men are treated equally and are allowed to live their life without discrimination."

Despite my misgivings about homosexuality and Lesbianism, I cannot find it in my heart to hate them. It's just so difficult to accept for someone so schooled in the old ways.

[Adrian II]

Companies, bars, restaurants, schools are not at liberty to discriminate persons.Why exactly? And why exactly do you support this state of affairs?

You say people should be accepted as individuals. At the same time you condone the fact that people, institutions and companies discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics.

You say that, for instance, a Christian church is rightfully allowed to refuse Muslims. Then why can't a Christian church be rightfully allowed to refuse gays?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's pretty smart of the christians to make a big fuss over "you can't make us accept gays" while ignoring the real question which is "why shouldn't christians accept gays?".

[Goofball]

Why exactly? And why exactly do you support this state of affairs?

You say people should be accepted as individuals. At the same time you condone the fact that people, institutions and companies discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics.

You say that, for instance, a Christian church is rightfully allowed to refuse Muslims. Then why can't a Christian church be rightfully allowed to refuse gays?

Ah, but if you read more closely into Louis' post, he actually allows a loophole for Christian Churches to refuse gays:


...and churches can refuse those of different denomination.

If you are a practicing homosexual, and one of the tenets of a particular church is that homosexuality is an abomination, then you are obviously not an adherent of that particular church's beliefs, and by definition, are not of that denomination and can be barred from or not allowed to join that church.

Nothing wrong with that.

Again, I would ask that everobody go back and read the article upon which this thread was based, because people seem to have lost the original theme somewhat. This was not a case of a gay couple trying to force a Christian Church to marry them in a religious service. This was a case of a gay couple not being allowed to use a piece of property for a civil union ceremony, because the owners of that property were Christians and discriminated against them on that basis.

A very important distinction.

[Strike For The South]

Yeah, you're right. Keep your unfounded prejudices. Just goes to show the church's detrimental effects on society. Their dislike of certain groups (based on whatever BS logic from years gone by) gets passed on to the congregations and the middle-classes then have their enemy to hate and breed intolerance, regardless of how stupid the entire situation is - (you realise people don't choose to be gay, so how can you persecute them?)

Nice other thread by the way, your question seems to have been answered quite competently by other people with common sense so I don't feel the need to contribute.

I dont hate gays nor do I prescute them I really dont care. You think becuase there are black churches in America that means there is some underlying racial current which isnt at all true. Not to mention it has already been mentioned, this isnt about perscuting gays to begin with however since you live in England you know all about the American chruch and how we keep black people out of our chruches and burn gays in our spare time. I am truly sorry for insulting you I should've known better thant. You are the biggest problem you realize this? You immaditely see gays and a church and label the chruch as a backwards institution as all the people inside it. Instead of trying to find out what the real issue is you make a blank genrlazation. Whatever have fun with enlightned princples.

[woad&fangs]

This was not a case of a gay couple trying to force a Christian Church to marry them in a religious service. This was a case of a gay couple not being allowed to use a piece of property for a civil union ceremony, because the owners of that property were Christians and discriminated against them on that basis.

A very important distinction.

Upon rereading the article I feel it is important to point out that the property they wanted to use was a church and the owners were a religious organization.

I personally don't like the implications of a gay couple being able to demand the use of a church and threaten the church's owners with the loss of tax exemption if they don't get what they want.

If we still want to believe the fairy tale that the First Amendment still matters, this can not be allowed to happen.

[Lemur]

... the property they wanted to use was a church.
For sure? 'Cause it looks like a seaside shack. And there's no pew, no crucifix, no nothing. How do you conclude it's a church? From the article:


The pavilion in question is an open-air building with long benches looking out to the Atlantic Ocean. It is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

"A building very similar to this has been on this site since the late 1800s," says the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the group's administrator.

During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.

Does not sound like a church to me. Doesn't look like one, either.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/pavillion540.jpg

[woad&fangs]

During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.

That sure sounds like a church to me. Also, I don't know why you are so concerned with how it looks.

[Xiahou]

Does not sound like a church to me. Doesn't look like one, either.
It's owned by the church, and they perform church services there. What more do you want? There's no cosmetic standard for churches that I'm aware of.


In other words: are religious considerations inherently superior to non-religous considerations?I think so, yes. Our constitution makes special allowances for the free practice of religion. Regardless, I would support the right of a restaurant owner to make any stupid decision that they want. It's their property, it's their business, it's their labor.

[Craterus]

I dont hate gays nor do I prescute them I really dont care. You think becuase there are black churches in America that means there is some underlying racial current which isnt at all true. Not to mention it has already been mentioned, this isnt about perscuting gays to begin with however since you live in England you know all about the American chruch and how we keep black people out of our chruches and burn gays in our spare time. I am truly sorry for insulting you I should've known better thant. You are the biggest problem you realize this? You immaditely see gays and a church and label the chruch as a backwards institution as all the people inside it. Instead of trying to find out what the real issue is you make a blank genrlazation. Whatever have fun with enlightned princples.

Made quite a few assumptions there yourself but this isn't going anywhere so have a nice day. ~:)

[Lemur]

It's owned by the church, and they perform church services there. What more do you want?
Actually, doing a little more reading, it seems the situation is rather more complicated than the NPR article let on. Apparently the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association owns the entire boardwalk (http://blog.nj.com/steveadubato/2007/09/ocean_grove_wants_it_both_ways.html) in the town, as well as much of the town itself, as well as 1,000 feet of ocean (whatever that means). So the bulk of the town is owned by the church's holding company.


For the past two decades, everything that matters in Ocean Grove, specifically the beach, boardwalk and ocean front road, have been declared tax exempt. This was done because the Methodist leaders in Ocean Grove went to the State Department of Environmental Protection and asked the government to step in to get them off the tax rolls. That saves about $500,000 a year that otherwise Ocean Grove residents would have to pony up.

Further, according to U.S. Representative Frank Pallone (D-Monmouth), whose constituents include those in Ocean Grove, the Camp Meeting Association has been lobbying him for years--quite successfully I might add--for federal and state funds (when he was a state senator) that have gone directly into the community. When the Great Auditorium in Ocean Grove needed a new roof, Pallone helped get the Camp Meeting Association $250,000 from the state. Later, those same Methodist leaders would go to Pallone and ask for federal dollars to fix the Ocean Grove boardwalk, which was damaged in a 1992 storm.

So let me get this straight. The Methodist leaders in Ocean Grove say they are a private religious entity that has every right to prohibit civil unions from taking place in the community's pavilion, but at the same time they want to make sure they get as much PUBLIC money as possible to keep taxes down and keep the community resources intact--using tax dollars from citizens outside of Ocean Grove. Talk about wanting it both ways. The Camp Meeting Association doesn't have a leg to stand on in their suit against the state saying that their first amendment rights are being violated because civil unions go against the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline.

So you've got a holding company which owns the entire sea coast of the town, takes all the state and federal dollars it can lay its greasy mitts on, declares the coast to be "public" when it suits them for grants and tax breaks, but declares it to be private and religious when a couple of Jewish lesbians want to have a marriage ceremony.

No, I think there's a lot more to this case than I'm In UR Churches Gayzoring Teh Lawsuits.

-edit-

A little more detail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey#The_Ocean_Grove_Camp_Meeting_Association):


The beach and Boardwalk Pavilion are open to the public and the Camp Meeting Association has accepted public funds for their maintenance and repairs. They also cite the Association's application to the State of New Jersey for monies under the state's "Green Acres Program", which encourages the use of private property for public recreation and provides a $500,000 annual property tax exemption. In their application for these funds, the Camp Meeting Association reportedly stated that the disputed areas were open to the public. U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (Democrat), in whose Congressional district Ocean Grove is located, stated "they've taken state, federal and local funds by representing that they are open to the public."

And just to be clear: Nobody said that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association had to allow the lesbians to marry anywhere. All the courts said was that land declared "public" for reasons of tax avoidance and grant-getting are subject to open access. If the church suddenly remembers that it wants to treat that self-declared "public" area as a private religious area, they're going to lose their public tax break.

[Goofball]

Ouch! teh pWned!

Good digging Lemur.

I have so far been trying to be gentle with the particular religious organization in question here, because it did appear at first that they were being asked to compromise quite a bit.

But Lemur's research shows that I was wrong in that assumption, so the gloves are off. These particular Bible thumping bigots now no longer have a leg to stand on. They want their taxpayer pork, and to eat it too, preferably without any fags around to bother them while they get fat on public $$.

Absolutely disgusting.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You say that, for instance, a Christian church is rightfully allowed to refuse Muslims. Then why can't a Christian church be rightfully allowed to refuse gays? My answer is along Goofball's explanation. It has to do with essential quality. A Catholic priest can refuse to marry Jews, atheists or Protestants. But he can not refuse wheelchair-bound, black, terminally ill or gay Catholics. Likewise, a modelling company can not refuse a black applicant for their accounting department, but they can do so for their model department if they are looking for extras for a remake of Braveheart.

I find it rather surprising to see Louis that you're so thoroughly 'modern', you've evolved to a position of compelling belief in others. I guess "live and let live" just doesn't cut it anymore, eh? Not today it doesn't cut it. Today is for hangovers and resentment and bitter strife with the entire world. ~;)

(some soccer tournament)

Neither in America nor in Europe is it allowed to put up a windowsign in a privately owned bar that says 'No Italians served'. If you do not disagree with this being illegal, what then, gives religious institutions more rights than privately owned firms? We're a free society and not a theocracy, aren't we?

Now there are times indeed when I dream of a city full of 'No Italians served' signs. Times when I agree with Xiahou: "I would support the right of a restaurant owner to make any stupid decision that they want. It's their property, it's their business, it's their labor". But a pluralistic society can't function like this.

Let's say that it is somebody's - let's call him Ynogarf - firm belief and deep inner conviction that he should not have to share a workplace with Arabs. Is he allowed to not hire Arabs? I mean...surely employing somebody and being stuck with him for forty hours a week is a deeper infringment of Ynogarf's personal life than spending twenty minutes marrying two people whom you'll never see again? Not to mention, that it is (hypothetically) Ynogarf's own private firm. What of his freedoms?
Now say that Ynogarf finds some ancient dusty texts that say something to the effect of 'And on the twentieth day the burning bush had sayeth "the dade and the palm doth not share the same oasis". And then whispers this line over and over again while burning incense during full moon. Does this mean that now, all of a sudden, he'll be allowed to discriminate against Arabs at his workplace whereas above he was not, what with his freedom of religion and all that?


Our constitution makes special allowances for the free practice of religion.So it does indeed. This freedom of religion did not establish freedom of religion at all. The 'freedom' of it is deceitful language, for what it establishes is un-freedom. It creates a hierarchy in freedoms of thought and gathering, thereby undermining them. It says that some thoughts are better than others, and proceeds to grant them priviliges. Christianity is to the American constitution what aristocracy was in Europe - something which enjoys an inherently priviliged status.

[woad&fangs]

Ouch! teh pWned!

Good digging Lemur.

I have so far been trying to be gentle with the particular religious organization in question here, because it did appear at first that they were being asked to compromise quite a bit.

But Lemur's research shows that I was wrong in that assumption, so the gloves are off. These particular Bible thumping bigots now no longer have a leg to stand on. They want their taxpayer pork, and to eat it too, preferably without any fags around to bother them while they get fat on public $$.

Absolutely disgusting.

QFT

Good digging Lemur. :bow:

[Adrian II]

The Methodist leaders in Ocean Grove say they are a private religious entity that has every right to prohibit civil unions from taking place in the community's pavilion, but at the same time they want to make sure they get as much PUBLIC money as possible to keep taxes down and keep the community resources intact--using tax dollars from citizens outside of Ocean Grove.Axe the Methodists, I say. Bunch of hipporcrytes.

Good work there, Lemur, my fellow hack. After digging a bit into the Massachusetts charity case (see above) I came up with a similar surprise. That charity operates on a government license and is shocked and surprised when it has to abide by government rules. Bunch of hyppacrites.

Next!

[Xiahou]

Private organizations getting public money is nothing new- it happens all the time. However, if they actually argued that the property, including the pavilion, was a public place they really set themselves up for this to happen in their greed for government largess.

[Ronin]

Private organizations getting public money is nothing new- it happens all the time. However, if they actually argued that the property, including the pavilion, was a public place they really set themselves up for this to happen in their greed for government largess.

it is not a public place per se but it is surely publicly funded...if it is publicly funded it can´t turn away members of the society that funds it....seems logical.

Religious organizations should receive no public funding anyway....then they can act like a private club and reject people as they see fit.

[rotorgun]

Ouch! teh pWned!

Good digging Lemur.

I have so far been trying to be gentle with the particular religious organization in question here, because it did appear at first that they were being asked to compromise quite a bit.

But Lemur's research shows that I was wrong in that assumption, so the gloves are off. These particular Bible thumping bigots now no longer have a leg to stand on. They want their taxpayer pork, and to eat it too, preferably without any fags around to bother them while they get fat on public $$.

Absolutely disgusting.

....for the love of money is the root of all evil. (Proverbs I think) I believe that Lemur has gotten to the absolute bottom of things on this one. That still leaves the main question though. Is this an example of Gay activists trying to use secular law to force a change of Religous priviledge for churches, or is it just another bunch of people (Pecuniary Gays) trying to screw some money out of another group of people (Law breaking Greedy Hypocritical Methodists), who are screwing another group of people (The Tax Payers) out of public funds, with everyone involved proclaiming doing it under the auspices of a worthy cause? (Whew...had to take a breath there!)

Wretched indeed!

[Adrian II]

....for the love of money is the root of all evil. (Proverbs I think) I believe that Lemur has gotten to the absolute bottom of things on this one. That still leaves the main question though. Is this an example of Gay activists trying to use secular law to force a change of Religous priviledge for churches, or is it just another bunch of people (Pecuniary Gays) trying to screw some money out of another group of people (Law breaking Greedy Hypocritical Methodists), who are screwing another group of people (The Tax Payers) out of public funds, with everyone involved proclaiming doing it under the auspices of a worthy cause? (Whew...had to take a breath there!)

Wretched indeed!You mean as a taxpayer you are forced to pay for all the pwnage, screwage and ownage that's going on? Well, I guess that serves you right if you allow your goverment to subsidize religion.

But hey, I feel your pain. :laugh3:

[ICantSpellDawg]

You mean as a taxpayer you are forced to pay for all the pwnage, screwage and ownage that's going on? Well, I guess that serves you right if you allow your goverment to subsidize religion.

But hey, I feel your pain. :laugh3:

The United States "subsidizes religion?" In what way? Through tax credit "vouchers"? Through licensing adoption agencies who do state work? Through creating tax exemptions for churches and charities?

You understand that there is a difference between "subsidizing" not interfering, Adrian.

Any direct subsidies to religious institutions using government money should be questioned and terminated just like any subsidies that havn't been legititimately authorized.

The U.S. doesn't pay money to build Mosques or Churches like our French and Canadian allies.

[Don Corleone]

What Rotorgun and Tuff are failing to grasp is the Orwelian approach to tax-exempt status the left uses. To the left, tax-exempt status, a recognition by the government that they hold no levee power over you, is rephrased as a subsidy to a group by the government. So, by receiving tax exempt status on the beach pavilion, according to this theory, the State of New Jersey is actually 'giving' the tax payment they should receive to the church.

It all stems from where you believe the root of all authority lies. If you believe it lies with the individual, taxation is a levee imposed by a necessary evil, the government. But if you view the government itself as the ultimate authority, and the individuals within it are inherently subordinate, then in fact, taxes are the natural state, and exemptions are gifts. And by the way, you didn't earn a salary last week, the government GAVE you the 55% they didn't take out in taxes.

[Adrian II]

The United States "subsidizes religion?" In what way?McGruff, my friend, you are not a man of many words, so I am going to be blunt with you. Can you read? If so, read the thread.

[ICantSpellDawg]

McGruff, my friend, you are not a man of many words, so I am going to be blunt with you. Can you read? If so, read the thread.

It is about the fear of the religious institutions being stomped on by a climate of "tolerance at the expense of all". You are suggesting that the U.S. subsidizes religion. There is a substantial difference between a tax break and a subsidy. There is also a big difference between an outside institution doing a paid job for the government and a subsidy.

I've read the first 2 pages of the thread.

[Sigurd]

And by the way, you didn't earn a salary last week, the government GAVE you the 55% they didn't take out in taxes.
100% - 55% = 45% ... :disappointed:
Ouch!! is that from one paycheck?
Any other taxes? (e.g. goods and service, road, fuel, fortune, water & sewer etc.) :brood:

[Adrian II]

It is about the fear of the religious institutions being stomped on by a climate of "tolerance at the expense of all". You are suggesting that the U.S. subsidizes religion.

I've read the first 2 pages of the thread.The Methodist case is revealing. A Church claims its domain is public territory in order to haul in taxpayer pork, then claims it is religious territory in order to sustain its religious precepts.

I disagree with Don that government is a foreign body that extracts taxes from the population. The government, that's you. It represents the community of all inhabitants of a territory. The minnunity taxes itself in order to provide services to itself.

In the case of the Methodist Church land, government provides the public roads that lead to it, the policing that makes those roads and the land itseld safe, the Fire Department that will attempt to save its inhabitants and possessions in case of fire or accidents, etcetera.

Does the tax exemption of the Methodist Church imply that the Church wil not avail itself of these public roads, the police or the Fire Department? No, it doesn't.

Its free pork for a religious establishment. That's what it is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The Methodist case is revealing. A Church claims its domain is public territory in order to haul in taxpayer pork, then claims it is religious territory in order to sustain its religious precepts.

I disagree with Don that government is a foreign body that extracts taxes from the population. The government, that's you. It represents the community of all inhabitants of a territory. The minnunity taxes itself in order to provide services to itself.

In the case of the Methodist Church land, government provides the public roads that lead to it, the policing that makes those roads and the land itseld safe, the Fire Department that will attempt to save its inhabitants and possessions in case of fire or accidents, etcetera.

Does the tax exemption of the Methodist Church imply that the Church wil not avail itself of these public roads, the police or the Fire Department? No, it doesn't.

Its free pork for a religious establishment. That's what it is.

I read the Methodist case 2 days ago and it wasn't cut and dry.
There are always loopholes. They will be used innapropriately and people will get away with it - other times they will not.

You made the statment that the U.S. government subsidizes religion when it is not fair to do so. Many other governments DO subsidize religious institutions: ie the United Kingdom, Spain, France, etc. You and I DO have very different understandings of taxation and I'm sure that you take pride in your opinions because of that.

[Don Corleone]

100% - 55% = 45% ... :disappointed:
Ouch!! is that from one paycheck?
Any other taxes? (e.g. goods and service, road, fuel, fortune, water & sewer etc.) :brood:

No. The federal income tax is about 30%. The total combined tax burden (state income tax, municipal income tax, sales tax, gas tax, FCC taxes, etcetera) for the middle class is roughly 45%. You get roughly 55% to 60% of your gross income as disposable income. My point is, to a true lefty like Idaho or Jag, God love 'em, in reality, that 55% to 60% is the gift of a benevolent government, as they are entitled to take 100%.

And Tuff, don't argue, just understand that's where they're coming from. As I said, it all comes down to where you view the ultimate source of authority. Some people view the organized society (aka the government) itself as the 'atomic element' and individuals are beholden to the group. Some view the individual as the atomic element, and the group is a construct into which we enter concourse of our own free will.

So, Adrian says tomahto, I say tomayto. I don't fault him for it, it's one of the differences in our core frame of reference.

Adrian, to your claim that the individual assails themselves of government services, this is only because the government mandates a monopoly in these areas. In many rural areas of the United States, people DO in fact maintain private or publicly held roads, water departments, etcetera that are not run by the local government.

But if the government declares a monpolistic right to build roads within a township, they cannot then claim that it's a freely chosen service they provide.

[Lemur]

[...] tax-exempt status, a recognition by the government that they hold no levee power over you, is rephrased as a subsidy to a group by the government. So, by receiving tax exempt status on the beach pavilion, according to this theory, the State of New Jersey is actually 'giving' the tax payment they should receive to the church.
And what you are failing to mention is that the holding company has a huge number of tax-exempt properties, including a church, a meeting house, a boardwalk, a pavilion, a road, and 1,000 feet of fishing rights on the coast. And the holding company has sought not just tax breaks but direct subsidies -- and they've gotten them.

Are you really suggesting that any property owned by a church's holding company ought to be tax-exempt? If that's the case, I see a future in which every company with an office park declares itself to be a religion ...

Also, again, please note that the holding company declared the boardwalk and pavilion to be open to the public without reservation when they were looking for tax breaks and grants. [edit -- note also that they got a substantial grant for the boardwalk and pavilion to repair storm damage.] They only decided the pavilion was not open to the public when the Jewish lesbians asked to get married there.

Has their church been taken from them? No. Has the tax-exempt status of their church been questioned? No. Has the tax-exempt status of their meeting hall been questioned? No. Have their grants and subsidies been called on the carpet? No. Is the state of New Jersey asking them to change their religious beliefs? No.

I really don't understand what you're holding onto with this case, but please, explicate and help me understand.

[Ronin]

What Rotorgun and Tuff are failing to grasp is the Orwelian approach to tax-exempt status the left uses. To the left, tax-exempt status, a recognition by the government that they hold no levee power over you, is rephrased as a subsidy to a group by the government. So, by receiving tax exempt status on the beach pavilion, according to this theory, the State of New Jersey is actually 'giving' the tax payment they should receive to the church.

It all stems from where you believe the root of all authority lies. If you believe it lies with the individual, taxation is a levee imposed by a necessary evil, the government. But if you view the government itself as the ultimate authority, and the individuals within it are inherently subordinate, then in fact, taxes are the natural state, and exemptions are gifts. And by the way, you didn't earn a salary last week, the government GAVE you the 55% they didn't take out in taxes.

Nice straw man argument you´re trying to build there Don.

The state is neither above the citizens "controlling" them or under them and "dominated" by them.....the citizens ARE the state.

The truth is that tax exemptions and over-taxation are used by the state to reflect a moralistic view of certain activities...churches are supposedly "good" so they get a break and things like alchool are over-taxed because they are supposedly "bad"......well I don´t have to necessarily agree with those considerations...so why should I have to pay for them?

The state should just treat everything the same...and then people donate money to their church (or to their local strip-club or whatever you want :laugh4:) if they want to....

[Don Corleone]

And what you are failing to mention is that the holding company has a huge number of tax-exempt properties, including a church, a meeting house, a boardwalk, a pavilion, a road, and 1,000 feet of fishing rights on the coast. And the holding company has sought not just tax breaks but direct subsidies -- and they've gotten them.
Now that is a horse of another color. I failed to mention it because I failed to recognize it. If what you say is true, that the organization isn't just receiving tax-breaks (the subsidies I thought you meant), but they're actually taking grants from the state (not payments for services rendered), then you are 110% correct, and the Church organization doesn't have a leg to stand on. They would in fact place themselves under the jurisdiction and regulation of the government and all of its mandates by receiving grants.


Are you really suggesting that any property owned by a church's holding company ought to be tax-exempt? If that's the case, I see a future in which every company with an office park declares itself to be a religion ... Don't you think people have been trying that for hundreds of years? There's a LOT of case work on this sort of thing and exactly what constitutes tax-exempt status requirements to be met by a seeker. It's not easy, but for starters, it's not enough to be not-for-profit, you can't show a profit, period.


Also, again, please note that the holding company declared the boardwalk and pavilion to be open to the public without reservation when they were looking for tax breaks and grants. [edit -- note also that they got a substantial grant for the boardwalk and pavilion to repair storm damage.] They only decided the pavilion was not open to the public when the Jewish lesbians asked to get married there. If they publicly declared the pavilion to be open to the general public, without any qualifying statements, then again, you have the advantage, sir. :bow:


I really don't understand what you're holding onto with this case, but please, explicate and help me understand.

It's a foot in the door. It's the intrusion of the state into the religious practices of recognized religions, in an attempt to enforce their view. And I didn't come up with this crackpot theory, NPR did. I just happen to agree with them, the writing is on the wall. If as you say, the local Methodist church was too clever by half, and tried to claim themselves to be a public good open to all in an effort to get subsidies, then turned around and claimed special exemption, this may not be the most stellar example. But you and I both know that when you read all 8 of those cases in a row, you see a pattern evolving.

I mean, Adrian's point about the Catholic adoption group is ridiculous. They're not allowed to run an adoption group WITHOUT state recognition and licensing. Is it your point that the orphans of Massachusetts are better off not being placed at all then being placed into exclusively heterosexual homes? Because that was the point the State of Massachusetts made.

[Tribesman]

The U.S. doesn't pay money to build Mosques or Churches like our French and Canadian allies. :dizzy2:
Yes it does

[Don Corleone]

Nice straw man argument you´re trying to build there Don. Look, I'm the king of strawmen arguments, I freely admit it. This isn't one of them. I really and truly view it in these terms.


The state is neither above the citizens "controlling" them or under them and "dominated" by them.....the citizens ARE the state. In your view. In mine, the individual is beholden to nobody. He only enters into compact with his fellow citizens by choice of his own free will, and may choose to remove himself from the relationship when he sees fit. I do not view citizens as properrty of the state.


The truth is that tax exemptions and over-taxation are used by the state to reflect a moralistic view of certain activities...churches are supposedly "good" so they get a break and things like alchool are over-taxed because they are supposedly "bad"......well I don´t have to necessarily agree with those considerations. Here we agree more than you could imagine. I believe tax policy is a poor choice for means of control, as the law of unintended consequences is invariably at work, and you wind up with behaviors you never intended (just visit the U.S.A.'s so-called "War on Poverty" in the 60's to see what I mean", or rent-controlled housing in NYC in the 70's).


The state should just treat everything the same...and then people donate money to their church (or to their local strip-club or whatever you want :laugh4:) if they want to.... Agreed. It is not the function of the state to ordain behavior as moral or desirable, only legal (i.e. tolerated) or illegal.

[ICantSpellDawg]

:dizzy2:
Yes it does

Where?

I agree with Don. I'm not defending the Methodists in question. They were skirting the line and attempting to write their own govt policy. Government spending through grants should be kept tightly under control. They have every right to say "which is it?"

The fact is that they did because the reality was their status was questionable. Where do you see subsidy of religion that isn't being reviewed and ended? The things you might mention are services rendered and tax breaks which are not subsidies.

The statement is kind of like saying the government subsidizes "murder" when a teacher is discovered to be a murderer. The murder wasn't the intent of the salary and the situation will be sorted out legally. Maybe a bad analogy, but I just came up with it.

[Tribesman]

Where?

All over the States churches are eligible for exactly the same building grants as are available in other countries . Though you do have certain church and non-church groups uniting in protest against those grants which they see as a violation of the constitution.
Would you like some links or are you able to do a simple search on building grants for churches in the US :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

All over the States churches are eligible for exactly the same building grants as are available in other countries . Though you do have certain church and non-church groups uniting in protest against those grants which they see as a violation of the constitution.
Would you like some links or are you able to do a simple search on building grants for churches in the US :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


You are right!

This link describes some reasons for and against such practices.
http://www.nacba.net/Article/federalgrant.htm

I'm not sure how I feel about that. The Hebrew day school example was pretty good, but obviously the acceptance of government money puts a church into a bizzarre limbo which it shouldn't be in for its own sake. This is a subsidy outright, though most churches don't take the government up on the offer. I don't support the government giving building grants in general.

[Don Corleone]

I'm 100% against it. The day you take money from the government, you are a slave to the government.

[Adrian II]

I'm 100% against it. The day you take money from the government, you are a slave to the government.Like I said earlier, all American churches do.

The Supreme Court in Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington (1983) ruled that tax exemption and deduction are 'form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system'.

Exemption is even better than subsidy, because recipients of the first are not accountable to the government for they way they spend the money, whereas recipients of the second are.

[Don Corleone]

Exemption is even better than subsidy, because recipients of the first are not accountable to the government for they way they spend the money, whereas recipients of the second are.

You say that like I'm ceding the point that an exemption is a gift from the government. I'm not.

[Xiahou]

The Supreme Court in Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington (1983) ruled that tax exemption and deduction are 'form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system'.I don't know about you, but I think that's a pretty astonishing statement. They're saying that the government not taking your money by force is no different than the government giving you money. :dizzy2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I don't know about you, but I think that's a pretty astonishing statement. They're saying that the government not taking your money by force is no different than the government giving you money. :dizzy2:

I doubt if either Don or you would argue that society would exist without government - the last true anarchist to post here was Aenlic. My understanding from both of you is that said government should be as small as possible.

Having said that, it could be argued that goverments allow citizens to puruse activities profitable to the indivudual and society through the regulation of that society. Without such regulation, most citizens would not be able to function, much less make a living.

Thus, in a sense, all monies earned under the protection of a government are "given" - or more accurately, allowed to be kept by the earners. Government takes a greater or lesser share to implement the regulations necessary for such society to work.

If you think government takes your money by force, you ought to try anarchist warlords.

[Adrian II]

Xiahou and Don, the tax-exempt churches take a free ride on society like I demonstrated in earlier posts: they benefit from public services without paying for them like everyone else, which means that everyone else pays their share for them. That's state subsidy of religion, no matter how you twist it.

And before anyone goes 'nya nya' about my own country again (as if I own The Neds and make all the laws here), let me tell you I hate state subsidizing of religion in my own country just as well, with all the nasty side-effects, the infighting over money, the waste of public funds and the corruption of religion.

That's why I wrote earlier that I could feel that other pax-taxpayer's pain.

[Geoffrey S]

I doubt if either Don or you would argue that society would exist without government - the last true anarchist to post here was Aenlic. My understanding from both of you is that said government should be as small as possible.
Aenlic. There's a guy I miss. :bow:

[rotorgun]

I thought I might post a few words here about just what seperation of church and state is supposed to mean in the United States. I am no great scholar, so please don't mind that I got these from Wikipedia.

From Thomas Jefferson in a letter written to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 referencing the first amendment. It is known as the establishment clause.:


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [8]

From President Madison's Virginia Statute on Religous Freedom


... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. [12]

Once again, the establishment clause by itself:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

A fair summation:


The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

I think that the above serve as fair guidlines to continue this discussion. Furthermore, I state that in view of this, the "Methodists" we are discussing are categorically wrong to want it both ways. I also believe that for Gays to use secular law to try to change religous beliefs or practices in order to gain acceptance is unconstitutional in this case.

[rotorgun]

I had to add a bit here about the Tax exempt status for churches. Here is the exemtion code straight from the IRS:


Exemption Requirements

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Nothing in there about refusing to allow any person or group of persons to use its facilities for a marriage or civil union celebration. I think that it would be barking up the wrong tree. Probably it would be much better to persue a strategy of violation of one's civil rights, as was successfully carried out by Martin Luther King and company.

[Tribesman]

Rotor , with your post there doen't that mean that all the Bush faith based initiatives and programs are entirely unconstitutional .

[Kralizec]

I doubt if either Don or you would argue that society would exist without government - the last true anarchist to post here was Aenlic. My understanding from both of you is that said government should be as small as possible.

Having said that, it could be argued that goverments allow citizens to puruse activities profitable to the indivudual and society through the regulation of that society. Without such regulation, most citizens would not be able to function, much less make a living.

Thus, in a sense, all monies earned under the protection of a government are "given" - or more accurately, allowed to be kept by the earners. Government takes a greater or lesser share to implement the regulations necessary for such society to work.

If you think government takes your money by force, you ought to try anarchist warlords.

A sensible point. Montesquieu already argued that freedom is something to be conquered from nature, that it exists only within a body of laws. So-called negative freedoms (from interference; usually from the government) only have meaning and value when the conditions have been created to take advantage of them (wich is usually understood as "positive freedom", that wich is realised by government help or meddling). In this case, having the "property" of something depends on a government making and enforcing property laws.
I wouldn't say that raising taxes amounts to stealing, but I'd still say that just because the existence of governance is a prerequisite for any economic activity doesn't mean that any wealth thus created belongs in the first place to the government.

I'm more inclined to view government-citizen relations in the line of Locke than of Rousseau (unlike Adrian and presumably Ronin). Even when a government is doing a relatively good job, it's still a seperate organisation with its own internal parts wich have their own interests.
Taxes can't be justified by the simple statement that all wealth is theirs to begin with, nor by the simple statement that the government equals the people.

I agree though that tax exemptions are for all intents and purposes equal to subsidies.

[Adrian II]

I wouldn't say that raising taxes amounts to stealing, but I'd still say that just because the existence of governance is a prerequisite for any economic activity doesn't mean that any wealth thus created belongs in the first place to the government.I don't believe anyone here said that.

I'm in the line of Montesquieu when I say the first task of government is to provide safety for a people. This comes at a price which the people will have to pay through taxation. If the people also control the government, taxation is not inherently theft or extortion or whatever you want to call it. Nor does it imply that the government has a title to all property in the land.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I don't believe anyone here said that.

I'm in the line of Montesquieu when I say the first task of government is to provide safety for a people. This comes at a price which the people will have to pay through taxation. If the people also control the government, taxation is not inherently theft or extortion or whatever you want to call it. Nor does it imply that the government has a title to all property in the land.

My view exactly. The critical element is that the government of the people is also by the people, for the people.

I recall someone saying that first....:book2:

[Kralizec]

I don't believe anyone here said that.

I'm in the line of Montesquieu when I say the first task of government is to provide safety for a people. This comes at a price which the people will have to pay through taxation. If the people also control the government, taxation is not inherently theft or extortion or whatever you want to call it. Nor does it imply that the government has a title to all property in the land.

Of course there should be taxation. That little conclusion is inevitable once you recognise there has to be some sort of government. The questions are how much the government should get, and for what purpose.


Banquo's GhostMy view exactly. The critical element is that the government of the people is also by the people, for the people.
[/quote]

While Lincoln made one hell of a speech that day and though that is a catchy slogan, it also paints an overly romantic picture of so-called representative democracy. As an ideal, nice. But in this day and age it would be offensive to many people to persist that the state is actually doing what they tell them to do.

At best, you could describe "representative democracies" as institutions where you can swap one batch of oligarchs for another, so that they can compete for the favour of the voters. To suggest that the will of the government is the will of the people only gives them a legitimacy they don't deserve and shouldn't be trusted with.

[Don Corleone]

I have to side with my friend Mr. Fenrig here. I would say a quick study of popular opinion versus government policy during the Iraq War would be proof positive that our governments are not strictly speaking, representational. Or do you believe a majority of the citizens in the UK have in fact supported the UK's mission in Iraq for the past 5 years?

As for Adrian's point about exemption=subsidy, I respectfully disagree. Again, an enforced monopoly does not equal a free choice to consume goods and services provided by the municipality.

That being said, I think you might be right about tax exempt status in the first place. Any means by which the government gains control or oversight of a religious institution ought to be disavowed in the first place (and is, according to the first ammendment to our Constitution). So if paying property tax means the government loses the right to pour over the local Episcopalian church's books, then I'm 100% behind it. It's extortion, sure, but then taxes always are. I agree they are a necessary extortion, but they are extortion, none the same.

[rotorgun]

Rotor , with your post there doen't that mean that all the Bush faith based initiatives and programs are entirely unconstitutional .

Hmm.....interesting question Tribesman. Here is a quote from the following:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_faithbased


Americans in need of social services, such as welfare support, job training, emergency shelter and food/clothing supplies, should be able to get the help they need without being pressured to take part in religious activities. “Faith-based” initiatives, which propose turning the provision of social services over to religious groups, threaten individual rights and could lead to taxpayer support of religious ministries. In those cases where religious groups want to take tax aid to provide relief, they should first agree to run secular programs and drop all forms of religiously based discrimination from their hiring policies.

Here is the White House Presidential link from which I got the next quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/grants-catalog-index.html


If you are in the business of caring for people in need, you need money to do your job. Chances are that if you had a little more money, you’d be able to help more people and do your work better. That’s where Federal grants come into play. If you run an organization to help those in need, you may be eligible to receive Federal money through grant programs.

This booklet provides some basic information about the Federal grants process. It also lists over 170 programs that may interest your organization. Grants programs are organized into general categories ranging from programs for elders and the homeless to those that serve at-risk youth and people making the transition from welfare to work.
HOW FEDERAL AGENCIES USE GRANT MONEY

The Federal government uses two kinds of grants:

1. Grants awarded by an agency of the Federal government (also known as ‘discretionary’ grants)—for instance, a homeless assistance grant given out by the Department of Health and Human Services to a homeless shelter.
2. Grants that put Federal money in the hands of States, cities, or counties for them to distribute to charities and other social service providers, usually under their own rules and regulations (also known as ‘formula’ or ‘block’ grants). Therefore, you can apply directly to the Federal government or you can apply for funds to an entity that distributes money it receives from the Federal government.

Here is an interesting place to explore the ins and outs of your query.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm

In my view, I think that President Bush is on the precipice of unconstitutionality with his Faith Based Initiatives, if not actually over the line. It seems as if it's just another way of funneling welfare taxes while making it seem that you are not in direct support of a government social programs agenda-very sly indeed. It does appear to be in violation of the establishment clause in spirit, if not actually in the letter of the law. Check it out and tell us what you glean from this information. Really it is a good question, even if it is off our topic a bit. It does tie in with the overall premise though.

[rotorgun]

What does everyone think of this statement concerning our discussion?


The Civil Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, poses a problem to faith base charities receiving tax-payer dollars, for it bans discrimination in employment on the basis of race, gender, or religion. But religious charities receiving faith based dollars don't want to be forced to hire people of other religions, and especially don't want to hire gays or lesbians. The President doesn't let the Civil Rights Act deter him from giving money to charities that discriminate in hiring.

It makes it clear, whether we agree or not, that perhaps a gay couple may have a point in insisting that some churches should be considered to have violated their civil rights, if they are also receiving federal or state taxes to subsidize their charitable work, by not accepting them. The only question I have is, are a gay couple defined in the same way as a race, sex, or religious group? This is the bone of contention in why there is such an argument over constitutional amendments defining marriage.