Limits to Freedom of Religion

[McCulloch]

Churches should be allowed to 'discriminate' on their own property and according to their own doctrines. You and I might not agree with those doctrines, but (and I keep repeating this but nobody is paying attention) the first amendment was not written to protect those with whom we agree. It was written to protect those with whose opinions and beliefs we do NOT agree.

For instance: what's the difference between forcing the Methodists to allow gay weddings to occur on their property....and, say, forcing a Catholic priest to allow a divorced Baptist to get married in his chapel? Or forcing the Mormons to allow a couple of atheists to marry in one of their Temples? Or forcing an atheist to allow his neighbors to pray to Mecca on his front lawn?

For that matter... what's the difference between forcing the Methodists to allow a gay wedding on their property, and forcing a kosher deli to sell ham sandwiches, I mean, they sell every OTHER sort of sandwich, right, and isn't the reason they refuse to have ham on the premises religious discrimination?

The first amendment...the FIRST TWO PROVISIONS of the first amendment, provide that the government can't establish a state religion and that it cannot interfere with the right to practice that religion. There isn't anything there about "unless that religion is politically incorrect." Third on the list is 'freedom of speech.'

Forcing a church, or a business, or a person, to violate his or her religious doctrine in order to cater to someone ELSE'S religious opinion is doing exactly that: establishing a state religion AND interfering with the right to practice one's own.

It doesn't matter whether you think the religion involved is nutty.
It doesn't matter whether you are ethically or morally appalled by it's practices and beliefs.
YOUR ability to believe (or not) and practice those beliefs (or not) depends utterly upon THEIR being able to do so, with theirs.

This got me wondering. Can freedom of religion be absolute? What limits (if any) should be placed on the freedom of religion? Who gets to decide what is or is not a religious practice?

If my religion involved temple prostitutes, hallucinogenic drugs, carrying concealed weapons or spitting on the sidewalk, should I be allowed to practice it? Should churches be exempt from human rights legislation and property taxes, but not exempt from the criminal code and building regulations? Why the distinction?

[McCulloch]

Dianaiad, let me see if I understand your position. You wish to allow any and every church and religious group to marry whomever they wish, according to their traditions, doctrine and beliefs. But, churches would not be required to recognize as valid marriages performed by others not in accordance with their own beliefs. Marriage would be a religious rite, like baptism, with no legal significance at all. Therefore, you wish that the governments would avoid the term marriage altogether. Where our governments use the term marriage they should use some other term such as civil union.

And the government can't make a religion that does not accept gay marriage allow gays to live in married housing in wholly church owned schools. The government can't force a church to hire a gay couple for a job that requires a married couple.

When the church runs a business, it must abide by the rules of business. If the rules of business say that discrimination based on race, religious belief or sexual orientation are not allowed, it should not matter if the business is owned by a church or a private individual.

[dusk]

Come on. Mental refers to the fact that Americans have all kinds of funny cases like the infamous hot coffee cup. Don't take it so seriously. You have more lawyers per citizen than any other country by a big margin and therefore lots of cases that would never make it to court in most other countries. The US is quite famous for that.

This means that just because something showed up being debated in a court room in the US doesn't mean there is any need to worry. In most other countries if something actually ends up in a court at all there is more meaning behind that fact alone.

The only recourse anybody should have against discrimination within a religion is to not join, or to leave, it.

Somehow I don't see how that addresses any of my arguments.

Every european country has pretty much the same laws.
German GG which is the same as the constitution.
GG Art 4.
(1) Die Freiheit des Glaubens, des Gewissens und die Freiheit des religiösen und weltanschaulichen Bekenntnisses sind unverletzlich.
(2) Die ungestörte Religionsausübung wird gewährleistet.
(3) Niemand darf gegen sein Gewissen zum Kriegsdienst mit der Waffe gezwungen werden. Das Nähere regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

Say basically religious believes and their exercise are untouchable.
Actually there is a lot more. Then they also added the stuff that they liked about the old 1919 WRV. that say you may not be forced to attend an religious exercise or swear by any religious symbols.
WRV 136 say you may not be forced to attend an religious exercise or swear by any religious symbols
WRV 137 no state church (like Sweden, Britain), every religious church must handle its business independent of gov. within the laws that apply to everyone.
WRV 139 saves the sunday and some other free days in the year.
WRV 141 says that wherever religious activities/ceremonies/counseling/whatever is requested in the army/hospitals/prisons/other public institutions it MUST be permitted while any force to such religious activities (by those who don't want it) HAS to be rejected.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religionsf ... eutschland

These are all laws of constitutional rank.

Austria is pretty much identical to Germany. Like L, S, D and everything around it. France might be different.
After the second world war most of those laws were practically co-written by the allied states. Some say that they implemented things they would have liked for their own countries but well tradition was in the way.

Most of us still understand that 'freedom' means that even those with whom we disagree must be free, as well. Freedom of religion means that the Catholics and the Budhists and the Muslims all have the right to their own ways of life, their own beliefs and practices, and OUR freedom depends upon theirs.

And you keep ignoring the ever repeating argument of mine that what you demand is government sanctioned discrimination. Why should those that believe same-sex marriage to be good not be free to hold this notion in the country they life in and why should the government in this instance act as if the way of life for Christians and Muslims must be the only one recognized by secular law.
So let those be free with whom you disagree. I repeat it; the only way they harm you is via you knowing of their existence in such married living conditions and the only thing demanded from you is to tolerate this.
YOU are not tolerating something. Now stop evading and answer why a non denominational church that doesn't consider there to be anything wrong with same-sex marriage must be blocked in marrying a couple in their community?
It is their freedom you intend to infringe on.
Freedom of religion means you can say and believe all the nonsense you want but it doesn't mean you can expect anybody else from it nor does it mean the secular government has to follow one creed. The secular government should create a place in which all believes in the country are respected under the law and can be lived by.

[JoeyKnothead]

Sorry, playing catch-up...

From Post 93:

As for "same sex" being a radical change in the meaning of marriage, I can only say that if I had suddenly discovered that my wife had a penis, I would feel justified in calling that "radical."

I'm just not seeing a lot of reports of folks ending up duped into marriage by members of their own sex.

Are we to now conclude your objection to gay marriage is predicated on the dire circumstance of folks not knowing their spouse's sex before they do get married?

What about we make a law where folks had to get married naked, so's all involved would know a marriage is legitimate?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 94:

I stand by my points as I originally wrote them, and I reject your often exaggerated interpretation of them, although I do appreciate your mastery of dialect.

As for your accusation that I claim sole ownership of a dictionary, I actually own three English-language dictionaries and several in other languages. I don't claim sole ownership of any of them, although I do depend on them to present a consensus of word meaning and usage. I hope I am not alone in this.

A "consensus" does not mean, "and such is bound to all who read these definitions".

That language is fluid, changing, and diverse is a well documented phenomenon.

Incidentally, it took me many years to become comfortable with the change from "queer" to "gay." Surely you don't expect me to make two such "radical" changes in language usage in one lifetime?

I'm not asking you to change your definition, I'm asking you to not impose it onto others, or to at least offer some reasonable means by which we can all think you've got the best'n.

[JohnPaul]

dianaiad wrote:

can't even imagine such a constitutional provision in Germany or, indeed, in any European state. However, it IS the very first item in the Bill of Rights in the USA, and please notice: the framers of the constitution understood that without freedom of religion, all other freedoms become less. Without freedom of speech, other freedoms are illusory.

Diana, before you beat that poor Austrian to death, it might be relevant to mention that the "freedom of religion" clause in the US Constitution was NOT inserted as a reaction against religious persecution in Europe. Instead, it was directed specifically against the home-grown tyranncal Puritan theocracies which had developed in several of the American colonies. Its intent was to PREVENT an over-enthusiastic practice of any one religion.

[dusk]

Are we to now conclude your objection to gay marriage is predicated on the dire circumstance of folks not knowing their spouse's sex before they do get married?

No sex before marriage. We should prohibit virgins from getting married? In my religion that is illegal anyway. It is the best way. Everybody has to do it.

Thanks JohnPaul but do you Americans actually believe freedom of religion is something only you have. You may have been the first but many constitutions have been written and rewritten since then.

[dianaiad]

dianaiad wrote:

can't even imagine such a constitutional provision in Germany or, indeed, in any European state. However, it IS the very first item in the Bill of Rights in the USA, and please notice: the framers of the constitution understood that without freedom of religion, all other freedoms become less. Without freedom of speech, other freedoms are illusory.

Diana, before you beat that poor Austrian to death, it might be relevant to mention that the "freedom of religion" clause in the US Constitution was NOT inserted as a reaction against religious persecution in Europe. Instead, it was directed specifically against the home-grown tyranncal Puritan theocracies which had developed in several of the American colonies. Its intent was to PREVENT an over-enthusiastic practice of any one religion.

I realize that. the point is, the clause WAS inserted...and done so by people who understood the problem. As for 'beating that poor Austrian to death.." I'm sorry, but I'm just a wee bit tired of everybody who lives outside the US borders deciding that everybody INSIDE them is....(insert any insult you wish, as long is the upshot is 'they aren't as good as us'). Oh, yes, I've heard the 'ugly American' stories, and I'll freely admit that we deserve a LOT of 'em. I wonder, though, how many of them are about people who are reacting to the unconscious...and very conscious...and constant put downs of everything American by everybody who isn't.

The feeling, I think, seems to be 'hand over the money, but use the tradesman's entrance."

[JohnPaul]

Sorry, playing catch-up...

From Post 93:

As for "same sex" being a radical change in the meaning of marriage, I can only say that if I had suddenly discovered that my wife had a penis, I would feel justified in calling that "radical."

I'm just not seeing a lot of reports of folks ending up duped into marriage by members of their own sex.

Are we to now conclude your objection to gay marriage is predicated on the dire circumstance of folks not knowing their spouse's sex before they do get married?

What about we make a law where folks had to get married naked, so's all involved would know a marriage is legitimate?

Maybe not duped into marriage, but they might be duped into picking them up in a bar. You don't get out much, do you?

If you can use exaggeration and dialect, then I can use sarcasm.

[JohnPaul]

dianaiad wrote:

can't even imagine such a constitutional provision in Germany or, indeed, in any European state. However, it IS the very first item in the Bill of Rights in the USA, and please notice: the framers of the constitution understood that without freedom of religion, all other freedoms become less. Without freedom of speech, other freedoms are illusory.

Diana, before you beat that poor Austrian to death, it might be relevant to mention that the "freedom of religion" clause in the US Constitution was NOT inserted as a reaction against religious persecution in Europe. Instead, it was directed specifically against the home-grown tyranncal Puritan theocracies which had developed in several of the American colonies. Its intent was to PREVENT an over-enthusiastic practice of any one religion.

I realize that. the point is, the clause WAS inserted...and done so by people who understood the problem. As for 'beating that poor Austrian to death.." I'm sorry, but I'm just a wee bit tired of everybody who lives outside the US borders deciding that everybody INSIDE them is....(insert any insult you wish, as long is the upshot is 'they aren't as good as us'). Oh, yes, I've heard the 'ugly American' stories, and I'll freely admit that we deserve a LOT of 'em. I wonder, though, how many of them are about people who are reacting to the unconscious...and very conscious...and constant put downs of everything American by everybody who isn't.

The feeling, I think, seems to be 'hand over the money, but use the tradesman's entrance."

OK, let's take a few gratuitous slams back at them. I don't know much about Austria, but I will admit that Dusk may be a bit too liberal for my taste. Germany today is governed by a gaggle of squabbling welfare-state liberals, has an aging and declining population supported by hordes of imported non-German-speaking workers who treat German culture with contempt, and its Bundeswehr (army) is a part-time joke.

[dusk]

I realize that. the point is, the clause WAS inserted...and done so by people who understood the problem. .....The feeling, I think, seems to be 'hand over the money, but use the tradesman's entrance."

Just saying. I didn't feel beaten down at all. I really don't see where in your post I was "beaten down" at all. I wonder if you can put down an actual response. Freedom of religion isn't new to me but your interpretation seems slightly off as well as your knowledge of the similarity in laws of most western countries.
US is more case law based which is why necessarily more stuff makes it to court. We wouldn't even have the judges to handle it here. I call Austrians mental too just less in this and more in other departments. In the legal system there is a big difference (still) and that is a system not a people.

Maybe not duped into marriage, but they might be duped into picking them up in a bar. You don't get out much, do you?

Imagine the chances that you end up among the not so many transsexuals there are with one that looks so feminine you cannot tell. You fall in love and want to marry and at the wedding night you find out. rofl
Better chance to win the lottery though.
I have heard something else though. The opposite where somebody first married and later one of them changed sex.
As for just getting picked up by one that you are too drunk to tell, what has that to do with legalizing same-sex marriage. That is something you might encounter regardless. I think you are still way better of than a women in an indian city alone at night.