SCOTUS on religious liberty [relevant to recent decision on same-sex marriage]

[pureinheart]

Many folks have a deep faith and yet also see the importance of having the choice to sin where than sin does not impact GOVERNMENT interests. ?

 

Oh trust me love, it does impact the government...

[UpwardForward]

SCOTUS' job is NOT to protect any church from demise, or support any church. Quite the contrary. Please re-read the establishment clause.

 

My post was regarding the Episcopal Church - and others who would compromise against righteousness and truth

Edited July 3, 2015 by UpwardForward

[RoseVille]

It also wasn't designed to make laws- laws of the land.

 

You need to re-read the Constituion.

[RoseVille]

Oh trust me love, it does impact the government...

 

How is the GOVERNMENT affected negatively by same sex marriage?

[writergal]

SCOTUS' job is NOT to protect any church from demise, or support any church. Quite the contrary. Please re-read the establishment clause.

 

Exactly! It's not SCOTUS' job to protect ANY church or support ANY church.

 

 

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment restricts Congress with regards to public practice of religion.

The text of the clause reads:

 

 

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ”

As a result of this clause, enacted into the Constitution in 1791, Congress may not establish an official state religion, nor give political preference to one religion over another. The original prohibition has been expanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to include not just Congress, but government organizations at the state and local levels. It does not apply in any way to private organizations, such as private schools; however, many states have enacted more restrictive measures, called collectively Blaine amendments, to prohibit State funding of sectarian schools.

 

The Establishment Clause is also complemented by the Free Exercise Clause which continues "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In addition to being restricted from favoring one religion over another, the government may not unduly restrict one religion over another or the practice of religion.

 

The establishment clause creates the basis for separation of church and state. Its intention and meaning remains a subject of great controversy and political dispute. Under the Establishment Clause, courts have justified rulings against school prayer and public displays of the Ten Commandments.

 

Establishment clause - Conservapedia

 

The Establishment Clause has accomplished the separation of church and state on the national and state levels of government.

[writergal]

It also wasn't designed to make laws- laws of the land. Biblically speaking, same-sex marriages are different from interracial marriages.

 

Biblically speaking? That's the point with SCOTUS. The Bible has no say in the same-sex ruling. Your Christianity has no power over civil law and it never will. Moral law is humans pitted against humans. God has nothing to do with humans' free will, who choose to oppose same-sex or interracial marriage.

 

Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage are both minority groups that were discriminated against by the social conservative.

 

SCOTUS is an extension of the Constitution dear. It makes sure religious folk don't get to make Biblical law the law of the lands. The 14th Amendment has made sure that every citizen, regardless of their religious belief system receives the same civil rights. And now gays are legally allowed to marry.

[writergal]

My post was regarding the Episcopal Church - and others who would compromise against righteousness and truth

 

Righteousness and Truth are an individual choice, not a universal one. Your righteousness and your truth oppose same-sex marriage, but that's definitely not the majority's view towards same-sex marriage. The majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. It's here to stay.

 

The moral degradation of society comes from people who try to undermine others' civil rights, to support their own religious (not moral) agendas; the way that social conservatives do with same-sex marriage, abortion, and inter-racial couples.

[UpwardForward]

Righteousness and Truth are an individual choice, not a universal one. Your righteousness and your truth oppose same-sex marriage, but that's definitely not the majority's view towards same-sex marriage. The majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. It's here to stay.

 

The moral degradation of society comes from people who try to undermine others' civil rights, to support their own religious (not moral) agendas; the way that social conservatives do with same-sex marriage, abortion, and inter-racial couples.

 

Oh No it doesn't.

 

Moral degradation of society/civilization is a result of going against God's Word.

 

This could include Abortion, Homosexuality, Thievery, Poor Stewardship, Adultery, etc.

[writergal]

Oh No it doesn't.

 

Moral degradation of society/civilization is a result of going against God's Word.

 

This could include Abortion, Homosexuality, Thievery, Poor Stewardship, Adultery, etc.

 

Ah, but God's word is up for interpretation because:

 

1. Not everyone is a theist. Some people are Atheists, Agnostics, Secular, or Nonreligious. If you group them together, the number is 1.1 billion people.

 

2. There are 34,000 different Christian Faith Structures that's divided into 270 large religious groups, and 19 total Christian religions.

 

3. Then there are the Eastern religions like Hinduism. There are nearly 1 billion Hindus in the world today. Hindus worship multiple deities.

 

4. Then there is Buddhism. Buddhists add up to be about 1.6 billion people. Buddhism follows the 4 Noble Truths.

 

5. All of the other non-Christian religions add up to about 5.5 to 6 billion people on earth.

 

So again, it's your opinion that homosexuality is wrong because you believe it goes against your own religious belief system. I would disagree with you that all of society agrees with that opinion. Sure, the social conservatives (the majority of them anyway) are homophobic and will try in the coming months and the next election to get same-sex marriage wiped off the law books. But that's never going to happen. Society has evolved and legalized same-sex marriage is proof.

 

Just as when society evolved to give women the right to vote and get an education and work outside the home; and when society evolved via the Civil Rights Movement to put an end to racial segregation between Black people and White people; and society evolved to allow gay priests in the Catholic Church, in the military and in schools as teachers.

 

Society continually is evolving and that always is reflected by the social change that arrives, which causes waves by those who oppose social change, because they want to cling to their traditional belief system forever.

 

My own grandparents were racist, as kind as they were, because that is the belief system they were raised with. They were against minority groups that included Black people and gay people and were socially conservative and very, very religious. I don't know how my dad and my uncle survived that environment, but my uncle became a social conservative and my dad became a liberal.

 

So, I understand that you want to hold on to your traditional societal and religious beliefs. But society constantly evolves, and the law has to reflect those social changes because it is bound by the Constitution to do so, so that everyone has equal rights regardless of their moral views or religious views, whether you're accepting of that or not.

[writergal]

We keep going in circles because, whenever someone appeals to logic and reason over gay marriage, the immediate response from the other side is "well, the Bible says this, and I am the correct one interpreting it." End of discussion. So it becomes extremely difficult to speak to someone who flat out refuses to use critical thinking on the issue. It's useless and pointless. I can't have a discussion with a person who actually believes that there are not different interpretations of any given text. It's astounding to me that people do not realize how our life experiences color what we read and how we interpret it.

 

Believing the Bible to be literal is really no more than an attempt to control what is uncontrollable. It's an attempt to have some stability in a life that can never guarantee such. That's why you will actually see people who believe that Earth is 5000 years old. They are so scared that they will refute science. Doing anything to control the narrative gives them a false sense of security. Somehow, deciding that gay people are wrong gives them a sense of security.

 

+1 great post BC1980! I agree with you 100%! It's like trying to reason with a brick wall, talking to people with religious beliefs, who believe homosexuality is an illicit lifestyle because of their personal bias (which is their own homophobia) and their religious ideology (Christianity).

 

Religious liberty is a flaw in the system of society in my humble opinion. While I agree that the government is limited to what it can regulate here in the U.S., I really think that states should not be allowed ANY kind of political freedom to use their own bigotry to pass laws or try to amend clauses in the constitution like they did with that stupid policy "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" which kept gays out of the military until the Obama Administration stepped in and ended that policy.

 

That's why I find religious people to be *the* most intolerant group of people there is. They destroy cultures in the name of God, pretending to be missionaries, when really they're just colonists in disguise. They are bigoted against minority groups like people of other races or other sexual lifestyles (transgender, gay, lesbian), and then cry "persecution!" when they are called out on their bigotry and discrimination. It's impossible to reason with them. Impossible.

[RoseVille]

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the Bible says, what any religious work says, what any denomination or faith says. The Bible isn't the binding document on this country! The Constitution is! And it was written with the intent of *avoiding* any Biblical involvement in our government.

 

You don't use your car's owner's manual to help you understand how your new washer/dryer works. This is really no different.

[RoseVille]

That's why I find religious people to be *the* most intolerant group of people there is. They destroy cultures in the name of God, pretending to be missionaries, when really they're just colonists in disguise. They are bigoted against minority groups like people of other races or other sexual lifestyles (transgender, gay, lesbian), and then cry "persecution!" when they are called out on their bigotry and discrimination. It's impossible to reason with them. Impossible.

 

No, this is alarmist and over-generalizing. It's like calling Muslims violent. Not true. There are lame, doctrine-twisting extremists in every group, including liberal atheists.

 

I am a woman of a very strong faith, and what you've described is not me, or my extended family and friends, at all.

[writergal]

No, this is alarmist and over-generalizing. It's like calling Muslims violent. Not true. There are lame, doctrine-twisting extremists in every group, including liberal atheists.

 

I am a woman of a very strong faith, and what you've described is not me, or my extended family and friends, at all.

 

We can agree to disagree ok? What I described, is what I believe based on my own personal experiences with social conservative Christians throughout my life and here on LoveShack. The only people I find to be extremely intolerant are social conservative Christians.

 

Calling me alarmist, is just what I said all Christians do when someone attacks their religion; they cry "persecution!" And I am not persecuting you RoseVille.

 

I merely expressed my belief based on the people I've met in real life and interacted with here on LoveShack. And I am an Atheist (former Catholic). So, as an Atheist, I don't follow a religious doctrine anymore so I don't believe it. And you just made an overgeneralization about liberal Atheists being lame. So you think my Atheist ideology is lame. See? You're not exempt from judgment because you judged me, a liberal Atheist.

 

John 8:7 "Let He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Edited July 4, 2015 by writergal

[RoseVille]

We can agree to disagree ok? What I described, is what I believe based on my own personal experiences with social conservative Christians throughout my life and here on LoveShack. The only people I find to be extremely intolerant are social conservative Christians.

 

Calling me alarmist, is just what I said all Christians do someone attacks their religion; they cry "persecution!" And I am not persecuting you RoseVille.

 

I merely expressed my belief based on the people I've met in real life and interacted with here on LoveShack. And I am an Atheist (former Catholic). So, as an Atheist, I don't follow a religious doctrine anymore so I don't believe it.

 

No, we can't just agree to disagree.

 

You're actually being really hypocritical in saying that the only people who are intolerant are conservative Christians. You've shown some pretty obvious intolerance yourself, and are doing some of your arguments (which I obviously agree with) a huge disservice. IME, the most intolerant folks I've met are often atheists.

[RoseVille]

John 8:7 "Let He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

 

You edited to include that.

 

All I can say is: Precisely. So have a long hard look in the mirror. Although, I can understand why one would become an atheist, when they don't like their reflection.

[johan]

I think the message from the Supreme Court is if social conservatives are so concerned about people living contrary to the word of God, then it's their job to convince those people to change. It isn't the responsibility of government.

 

God never said it would be easy to be a Christian or that the job of helping others find Jesus could be shirked off onto the police. There's nothing in the Bible about the US being a Christian country, and what Christian would argue that the Bible doesn't trump the Constitution?

 

I also think any county clerk whose personal belief system makes it impossible to do required aspects of their job just needs to find another job. I know that's what my boss would tell me if I showed up and announced that I was morally opposed to performing certain responsibilities that are in my job description.

 

It's clear to me that religious freedom also means freedom from the religion of others. I prefer to choose to be Christian and I prefer to have the free will to live according to God's word as well as I can. When the police start showing up monitoring my sins, that will just make my own choices irrelevant. In my view, social conservatives want a society where religion and morality are cheap and easy. I say hit the streets. Go start convincing people why God's way is better.

[RoseVille]

I think the message from the Supreme Court is if social conservatives are so concerned about people living contrary to the word of God, then it's their job to convince those people to change. It isn't the responsibility of government.

 

God never said it would be easy to be a Christian or that the job of helping others find Jesus could be shirked off onto the police. There's nothing in the Bible about the US being a Christian country, and what Christian would argue that the Bible doesn't trump the Constitution?

 

I also think any county clerk whose personal belief system makes it impossible to do required aspects of their job just needs to find another job. I know that's what my boss would tell me if I showed up and announced that I was morally opposed to performing certain responsibilities that are in my job description.

 

It's clear to me that religious freedom also means freedom from the religion of others. I prefer to choose to be Christian and I prefer to have the free will to live according to God's word as well as I can. When the police start showing up monitoring my sins, that will just make my own choices irrelevant. In my view, social conservatives want a society where religion and morality are cheap and easy. I say hit the streets. Go start convincing people why God's way is better.

 

I love every word of this post. This explains my faith and thoughts exactly.

[autumnnight]

I think the message from the Supreme Court is if social conservatives are so concerned about people living contrary to the word of God, then it's their job to convince those people to change. It isn't the responsibility of government.

 

God never said it would be easy to be a Christian or that the job of helping others find Jesus could be shirked off onto the police. There's nothing in the Bible about the US being a Christian country, and what Christian would argue that the Bible doesn't trump the Constitution?

 

I also think any county clerk whose personal belief system makes it impossible to do required aspects of their job just needs to find another job. I know that's what my boss would tell me if I showed up and announced that I was morally opposed to performing certain responsibilities that are in my job description.

 

It's clear to me that religious freedom also means freedom from the religion of others. I prefer to choose to be Christian and I prefer to have the free will to live according to God's word as well as I can. When the police start showing up monitoring my sins, that will just make my own choices irrelevant. In my view, social conservatives want a society where religion and morality are cheap and easy. I say hit the streets. Go start convincing people why God's way is better.

 

You are my new hero. I think a bunch of people have forgotten what people like Paul went through, people like Peter and Stephen. So they whine we a secular government doesn't do their Christianity for them.

[autumnnight]

Bottom line, this is not really about the SCOTUS ruling anymore, and I am starting to see that.

 

There is a core of people who just...HATE religion (specifically Christian religion; these same people will defend Islam all day long). I don't think the ruling in and of itself is about destroying religious freedom because gay marriage being legal doesn't prohibit religious freedom.

 

BUT there are people who have become bitingly vocal about how they HOPE religious people will suffer, how they HOPE churches will be sued and bankrupt, how they HOPE this will spell the beginning of the end of the church.

 

Because for all of their so-called "tolerance," they cannot tolerate anything they disagree with, because they are hateful, histrionic, ranting, hypocrites.

[pureinheart]

Righteousness and Truth are an individual choice, not a universal one. Your righteousness and your truth oppose same-sex marriage, but that's definitely not the majority's view towards same-sex marriage. The majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. It's here to stay.

 

The moral degradation of society comes from people who try to undermine others' civil rights, to support their own religious (not moral) agendas; the way that social conservatives do with same-sex marriage, abortion, and inter-racial couples.

 

No, society ceases to exist when perversion and violence take over.

[autumnnight]

No, society ceases to exist when perversion and violence take over.

 

If I didn't have kids, honestly, my take would be (on our country in general): I wash my hands. I step back. I am going to buy some popcorn and watch all those people who hate the idea of restraint or God or right and wrong live in the country they deserve.

[pureinheart]

Biblically speaking? That's the point with SCOTUS. The Bible has no say in the same-sex ruling. Your Christianity has no power over civil law and it never will. Moral law is humans pitted against humans. God has nothing to do with humans' free will, who choose to oppose same-sex or interracial marriage.

 

Again, you took my words and their meaning out of context.

[writergal]

You claim the religious right are the intolerant ones, yet you call allowing them their religious freedom to be a "flaw in the system," and then go on to call their beliefs bigoted. From where I sit, as an Agnostic, you seem to be trying to do the same thing you condemn them for doing; trying to limit the freedoms of those you disagree with.

 

 

 

Many cultures seek to spread their culture, the religious culture is no different. The Liberal culture is being painstakingly spread through Hollywood movies, and Liberal financed media, and the public education system. The religious culture is currently being destroyed in the USA, for better or for worse, just to be replaced by a more Liberal culture.

 

Fact is, I agree with a lot of Liberal ideas. However, I also agree with a lot of the morals the religious side claims to uphold. From where I sit, I see very little difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Both are trying to limit the freedoms of those they disagree with. I suppose that is the narcissistic nature of our society at play, everyone thinks they know how other people should live their lives.

 

At least the Liberal culture isn't destroying other countries the way that religions destroy other countries infrastructure. Liberals aren't missionaries the same way that Christians or social conservatives are, when they get on a plane and go to another country where they build their churches in the name of God and thus destroy that culture's infrastructure. That, I have a serious problem with. Movies and media isn't the same thing at all.

[johan]

At least the Liberal culture isn't destroying other countries the way that religions destroy other countries infrastructure. Liberals aren't missionaries the same way that Christians or social conservatives are, when they get on a plane and go to another country where they build their churches in the name of God and thus destroy that culture's infrastructure. That, I have a serious problem with. Movies and media isn't the same thing at all.

 

Aside from the things that have been done in the name of religion, I think it's worth addressing the idea that liberal messages are being forced into our heads through movies and other kinds of media. How is it that there are no conservative messages available, but lots of liberal ones?

 

It doesn't make sense to me that there is some kind of propaganda machine at work dictating what we all hear.

 

For one thing, however little credit the average person wants to give the average person for having any intelligence whatsoever, still the average person would claim to be a free thinker and able to decide what messages are appealing and which aren't. We're all consumers on the open market of information, free to tune in to almost any outlet in the world. And these media outlets are providing that information, and it's in their best interest to provide the most appealing information. Just from the perspective of profits, they really must. Consumers free to choose, and providers free to choose, and yet the liberal message is said to dominate.

 

What must be explained is why the conservative message is losing market share in an open, free information market. The conservative message has little appeal. That's the explanation. There is no propaganda machine. There is no control center, no entity controlling the market. It's a free market, and the fact is that the conservative message is poorly packaged and generally delivered by people with terrible personalities.

[autumnnight]

It is obvious lots of people here do not know how mission work works. Part of a missionary's goal (in addition, yes, to sharing Christ's love) is to better the community. I'm having a hard time seeing how building a church disrupts an entire economy (probably because it doesn't and that was just more ranting drivel). A missionary often has a secular job or works o serve the community in some way along with sharing their faith on their own time. For those who are pastors, they are almost always involved with helping the poor, the sick, organizing work with organizations like Doctors without Borders.

 

Hate religion all you want to, but get your facts straight.

 

People can wish all they want, but the SCOTUS ruling is not going to stop people from sharing their faith or being Christians in places besides the church. Because Christians have a right to do that.

 

I see a lot of hypocrisy on this thread, but i have ceased to be surprised at it. People who scream about tolerance are usually the most intolerant of anyone who doesn't think like they do, and they rarely have the emotional intelligence or capacity to see it.