Atheists or Creationists - who's got more faith?

[oxmixmudd]

Atheists don't use the free exercise clause, they use the preceding no establishment clause.They exist just as much to protect people who do not practice a particular religion from interference with their lack of practicing. Atheism is not a religion, and there is a need for US atheists to protect themselves against those who would mandate their own religion.

You are right about the establishment clause. That does apply. The state can't force any religion upon you if you don't want it. And that is as it should be.

They exist just as much to protect people who do not practice a particular religion from interference with their lack of practicing.

And therein lies the rub. Disregarding for a moment whether freedom to practice a religion implies a freedom not to practice a religion, if my freedom to practice my religion inhibits your freedom not to practice a religion, or conversely, if your right not to practice a religion keeps me from freely practicing my religion - who gets to keep their rights, and who gets their rights taken away? That is where it gets ugly.

I would say that the freedom to practice a religion is guaranteed by the constitution and takes precedence. So, for example, a person is not guaranteed the right never to be in the presence of someone practicing their religion. The guarantee is for those that practice a religion to be able to freely practice it. However, the constitution does guarantee that the State can't pick an official religion, or do anything what would effectively establish a state religion. So, for example, freedom to practice a religion gives one the right to pray over a meal in public, but it does not give someone else the right to demand they stop praying. So if an atheist is offended by a fellow praying over a meal in public, or a Christian is offended by a Muslim praying to Allah, they just has to get over it. My freedom not to pray to Allah, or your freedom not to pray to any God can't be used as a pretext to stop another person from doing just that.

In the general case, it is often a simple truth that rights guaranteed by the constitution can be in conflict. Where the only resolution is to prefer one right over the other. And deciding which right takes precedence is often non-trivial and contentious.

Jim

[Roy]

And therein lies the rub. Disregarding for a moment whether freedom to practice a religion implies a freedom not to practice a religion, if my freedom to practice my religion inhibits your freedom not to practice a religion, or conversely, if your right not to practice a religion keeps me from freely practicing my religion - who gets to keep their rights, and who gets their rights taken away? That is where it gets ugly.

I would say that the freedom to practice a religion is guaranteed by the constitution and takes precedence.

I vehemently disagree. Some people's religion includes the idea that they will take from, harm or even kill others - e.g. mandatory tithing, genital mutation, burning witches.

So, for example, a person is not guaranteed the right never to be in the presence of someone practicing their religion. The guarantee is for those that practice a religion to be able to freely practice it. However, the constitution does guarantee that the State can't pick an official religion, or do anything what would effectively establish a state religion. So, for example, freedom to practice a religion gives one the right to pray over a meal in public, but it does not give someone else the right to demand they stop praying. So if an atheist is offended by a fellow praying over a meal in public, or a Christian is offended by a Muslim praying to Allah, they just has to get over it. My freedom not to pray to Allah, or your freedom not to pray to any God can't be used as a pretext to stop another person from doing just that.

I'm not aware of any case ever where some-one has tried to stop some-one else from engaging in prayer - only of cases where some-one has tried to stop some-one else from demanding that others attend. Far too many people claim they can't pray when they actually mean they can't force others to pray.

[HMS_Beagle]

I vehemently disagree. Some people's religion includes the idea that they will take from, harm or even kill others - e.g. mandatory tithing, genital mutation, burning witches.I'm not aware of any case ever where some-one has tried to stop some-one else from engaging in prayer - only of cases where some-one has tried to stop some-one else from demanding that others attend. Far too many people claim they can't pray when they actually mean they can't force others to pray.

Let's not forget the religious right's strenuous attempts to deny marriage equal rights to same sex couples and to make it illegal for LGBT folks to adopt orphans. All based solely on forcing their religious beliefs onto others.

[rogue06]

Let's not forget the religious right's strenuous attempts to deny marriage equal rights to same sex couples and to make it illegal for LGBT folks to adopt orphans. All based solely on forcing their religious beliefs onto others.

Most of who that I know had no trouble with civil unions that bestowed the same rights and obligation of marriage

[HMS_Beagle]

Most of who that I know had no trouble with civil unions that bestowed the same rights and obligation of marriage

The concept of legal "separate but equal" was found unconstitutional way back in the 1960's. In this country our laws including marriage laws apply to all equally.

[carpedm9587]

You are right about the establishment clause. That does apply. The state can't force any religion upon you if you don't want it. And that is as it should be.

And therein lies the rub. Disregarding for a moment whether freedom to practice a religion implies a freedom not to practice a religion, if my freedom to practice my religion inhibits your freedom not to practice a religion, or conversely, if your right not to practice a religion keeps me from freely practicing my religion - who gets to keep their rights, and who gets their rights taken away? That is where it gets ugly.

I would like to know an example of a place where your right to practice your religion can be impinged by my right NOT to practice a religion.

I would say that the freedom to practice a religion is guaranteed by the constitution and takes precedence. So, for example, a person is not guaranteed the right never to be in the presence of someone practicing their religion. The guarantee is for those that practice a religion to be able to freely practice it. However, the constitution does guarantee that the State can't pick an official religion, or do anything what would effectively establish a state religion. So, for example, freedom to practice a religion gives one the right to pray over a meal in public, but it does not give someone else the right to demand they stop praying. So if an atheist is offended by a fellow praying over a meal in public, or a Christian is offended by a Muslim praying to Allah, they just has to get over it. My freedom not to pray to Allah, or your freedom not to pray to any God can't be used as a pretext to stop another person from doing just that.

In the general case, it is often a simple truth that rights guaranteed by the constitution can be in conflict. Where the only resolution is to prefer one right over the other. And deciding which right takes precedence is often non-trivial and contentious.

Jim

I think what is being lost in all of this is that 1st Amendment does not say anything about what happens between you and I; it speaks to what the government may or may not do. For example, in the issue of the wedding cake and the gay couple, the suit was about discrimination. But the government had to answer the question, "if we deal with the issue of discrimination, will we be imposing a government requirement that runs counter to the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" religious clause 1st Amendment?

[oxmixmudd]

I vehemently disagree. Some people's religion includes the idea that they will take from, harm or even kill others - e.g. mandatory tithing, genital mutation, burning witches.I'm not aware of any case ever where some-one has tried to stop some-one else from engaging in prayer - only of cases where some-one has tried to stop some-one else from demanding that others attend. Far too many people claim they can't pray when they actually mean they can't force others to pray.

I started to address this issue in my post be decided against it. You are right. All religions are not created equal so to speak. The problem I believe is two-fold. In the culture in which the constitution was written, spiritual practices we consider 'religions' today were not considered 'religions' in the sense that is covered by the free exercise clause. It is very hard to truly separate the laws of our country from the Judeo-Christian background of those that created the constitution. Religions that stray far from the core values presented in Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and practices are going to tend to run afoul of the laws themselves and I tend to think attempts to completely divorce them actually tend to undermine the capacity of the constitutional protections to work in concert with each other. Overall, we tend to allow free exercise of religion where that exercise does not directly violate fundamental laws or other fundamental rights of citizens. And that works reasonably well most of the time.

I chose the example of prayer to help maintain the capacity to look at the principles in the abstract rather than get bogged down in issues near and dear to someone's world-view. Most people recognize it is inappropriate to tell someone else they can't pray if they feel like or are obligated to do it by their religion.

Jim

[rogue06]

The concept of legal "separate but equal" was found unconstitutional way back in the 1960's. In this country our laws including marriage laws apply to all equally.

"Separate but equal" wrt races was a joke but FWICT civil unions were working quite well in stark contrast.

Now, like it or not, we've opened the door to all sorts of marriages including between parents and children, siblings, and group marriages of various natures.

[carpedm9587]

"Separate but equal" wrt races was a joke but FWICT civil unions were working quite well in stark contrast.

Now, like it or not, we've opened the door to all sorts of marriages including between parents and children, siblings, and group marriages of various natures.

Such fear-mongering is not very productive, IMO. All that has been said is that marriage should not depend on what is (or isn't) dangling between one's legs. Nothing else has been touched.

Personally, I think it would have been a better idea to separate government from the "marriage" thing altogether, leaving "marriage" to a religious institution and "civil unions" to the government. Marriages would have no impact on government benefits. A married couple wanting the benefits of a civil union would have to file for them. That would open the door to civil unions between any two people that need them and eliminate the entire question by leaving marriage to churches and getting the government out of the business.

Unfortunately, that was apparently too radical an idea and the government's role in marriages was too deeply entrenched.

[oxmixmudd]

I would like to know an example of a place where your right to practice your religion can be impinged by my right NOT to practice a religion.



I think what is being lost in all of this is that 1st Amendment does not say anything about what happens between you and I; it speaks to what the government may or may not do. For example, in the issue of the wedding cake and the gay couple, the suit was about discrimination. But the government had to answer the question, "if we deal with the issue of discrimination, will we be imposing a government requirement that runs counter to the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" religious clause 1st Amendment?

The cake (like all issues surrounding marriage) run right into the inherent conflicts between freedom to exercise a religion and other concepts such as discrimination or lawfullness.

Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a women in many faiths. It's religious significance is often more important in the religious persons mind than it's civil component. Our society legally recognizes marriage, but even if it didn't, People of religious faith would still seek out marriage and commit themselves to its vows and responsibilities.

The primary religious faiths found in the world also tend to prohibit homosexual behavior. That is just a fact. It is changing in some arenas, but certainly not in Catholicism or Islam.

So right there is the answer to your question. In the cake. For a Christian that sees homosexual behavior as a sin to be forced to make a cake dedicated to the celebration of a union they regard as blasphemous is to force that Christian to violate his religious faith. It is a prohibition again that persons free exercise thereof.

Now it can also be defined in terms of discrimination. And so now the gay couple can't get a cake made by that particular business. Which isn't all that different (from that perspective) from a white owned business refusing to make a cake for a black couple, or a mixed race couple.

But I don't think the solution is as simple in the case of marriage as it is in the case of racial discrimination. The religious component being on aspect. But more fundamentally, marriage itself is not defined historically as a simple commitment between two people. Marriage is a necessary cultural protection for men, women and children in a sexual union that almost always historically produced children. It helps reduce disease associated with promiscuity. It provides incentive for the man and the women to work together combining their inherent strengths and weaknesses to the goal of producing healthy children that can contribute positively to the civilization they are a part of. It provides help to the female during gestation when her capacity to provide for herself is compromised, and after the baby's birth when (in a non-technological culture) she is the infant's primary if not sole source of food and nurture. That is its primary purpose. Our government recognizes those elements and provides protections that are in concert with those needs. And for the vast majority of people, those needs still apply and are still aided by the institution of marriage and the government's provisions that support it. Children are especially vulnerable. Children raised outside of a marriage, even in our culture, tend to grow up at a significant disadvantage relative to those that have them. '


The union of a gay couple, even aside from the religious issues, is simply not primarily constrained by those same needs. It simply is not 'the same' as a heterosexual marriage. No gay union ever has ever directly produced children (though cloning technologies might one day make it possible for two women to produce their own offspring - I'm not talking about surrogate mothers here or a sperm donation). I doubt any of us will ever see a man gestating a baby. Thus a gay couple is never forced to take on the responsibility of raising one or more children through their participation in intimacy. That responsibility can not be minimized. It is a 20 year or more commitment. It's impact financially and socially is immense. Not supporting it would be catastrophic to our culture.

In our society the differences between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are lessened somewhat. We have more people choosing not to have children, or choosing when they do. And we allow same-sex couples to adopt. But the religious and simple basic biological differences make a same-sex union and a heterosexual union different things.

Now there is a lot I've not said. And this is a hot-button issue. I can't provide a fully balanced response to these issues in one post. So those that find fault with my words, lets talk it through rationally and avoid a lot of name calling or insults.



Jim

[carpedm9587]

The cake (like all issues surrounding marriage) run right into the inherent conflicts between freedom to exercise a religion and other concepts such as discrimination or lawfullness.

Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a women in many faiths. It's religious significance is often more important in the religious persons mind than it's civil component. Our society legally recognizes marriage, but even if it didn't, People of religious faith would still seek out marriage and commit themselves to its vows and responsibilities.

The primary religious faiths found in the world also tend to prohibit homosexual behavior. That is just a fact. It is changing in some arenas, but certainly not in Catholicism or Islam.

Not in official Christianity, but the cracks are already beginning to show in the local parishes, and in the statements of the current pontiff. There are also Islamic sects that are increasingly showing openness to homosexuals, at least in more developed countries (though certainly not in theocracies)

So right there is the answer to your question. In the cake. For a Christian that sees homosexual behavior as a sin to be forced to make a cake dedicated to the celebration of a union they regard as blasphemous is to force that Christian to violate his religious faith. It is a prohibition again that persons free exercise thereof.

And yet there is really not. No one is requiring anyone to make wedding cakes. What is being said is, if you make wedding cakes, you have to do so without prejudice. If you cannot make wedding cakes for gay people, simply make other pastries and the problem goes away.

Now it can also be defined in terms of discrimination. And so now the gay couple can't get a cake made by that particular business. Which isn't all that different (from that perspective) from a white owned business refusing to make a cake for a black couple, or a mixed race couple.

Exactly.

But I don't think the solution is as simple in the case of marriage as it is in the case of racial discrimination. The religious component being on aspect. But more fundamentally, marriage itself is not defined historically as a simple commitment between two people. Marriage is a necessary cultural protection for men, women and children in a sexual union that almost always historically produced children. It helps reduce disease associated with promiscuity. It provides incentive for the man and the women to work together combining their inherent strengths and weaknesses to the goal of producing healthy children that can contribute positively to the civilization they are a part of. It provides help to the female during gestation when her capacity to provide for herself is compromised, and after the baby's birth when (in a non-technological culture) she is the infant's primary if not sole source of food and nurture. That is its primary purpose. Our government recognizes those elements and provides protections that are in concert with those needs. And for the vast majority of people, those needs still apply and are still aided by the institution of marriage and the government's provisions that support it. Children are especially vulnerable. Children raised outside of a marriage, even in our culture, tend to grow up at a significant disadvantage relative to those that have them.

First of all, you will not find me a fan of "that's the way we always did it." That argument would have kept us in slavery to this very day, women would not have the vote, and child labor would be commonplace. Sometimes, "the way we always did it" is simply wrong, and we never questioned it. Today, children in a family can arise in many ways (invitro, invivo, adoption, etc.). And "children raised outside of marriage" is not equivalent to "children raised in a same-sex marriage."

The union of a gay couple, even aside from the religious issues, is simply not primarily constrained by those same needs. It simply is not 'the same' as a heterosexual marriage. No gay union ever has ever directly produced children (though cloning technologies might one day make it possible for two women to produce their own offspring - I'm not talking about surrogate mothers here or a sperm donation). I doubt any of us will ever see a man gestating a baby. Thus a gay couple is never forced to take on the responsibility of raising one or more children through their participation in intimacy. That responsibility can not be minimized. It is a 20 year or more commitment. It's impact financially and socially is immense. Not supporting it would be catastrophic to our culture.

You are talking to a man who has raised two adopted children. Your argument is not ringing any bells. Sorry.

In our society the differences between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are lessened somewhat. We have more people choosing not to have children, or choosing when they do. And we allow same-sex couples to adopt. But the religious and simple basic biological differences make a same-sex union and a heterosexual union different things.

Only if you focus on sex as "for making children." That is certainly one of it's functions. But in the human species, sex is also a unitive, intimate, loving act. That is present whatever may be dangling (or not dangling) between the legs of the participants. We seem to continually forget this. Barren couples marry. Elderly couples beyond the age of pregnancy marry. They have fulfilled marriages, and sometimes turn to adoption to create families.

Now there is a lot I've not said. And this is a hot-button issue. I can't provide a fully balanced response to these issues in one post. So those that find fault with my words, lets talk it through rationally and avoid a lot of name calling or insults.

Jim

I'm going to assume you have not followed my posts. I find the name calling and ridiculing emojis largely childish and pointless. I know many enjoy engaging in them, and justify them in many ways. I do not. I would prefer to engage with people the way I would engage with them if they were sitting at my dining room table sharing a meal with me. Those who do enjoy that style of discussion, I tend to mostly ignore the ridicule and try to focus on the subject at hand (though I may call it out now and then). If it gets bad enough, I'll just stop responding and move on to another discussion.

My impression of you is that you are very civil in your exchanges, even when you disagree, so I look forward to the discussion.

[oxmixmudd]

Not in official Christianity, but the cracks are already beginning to show in the local parishes, and in the statements of the current pontiff. There are also Islamic sects that are increasingly showing openness to homosexuals, at least in more developed countries (though certainly not in theocracies)



And yet there is really not. No one is requiring anyone to make wedding cakes. What is being said is, if you make wedding cakes, you have to do so without prejudice. If you cannot make wedding cakes for gay people, simply make other pastries and the problem goes away.

Hard to do for someone whose lifelong passion and all their training and business equipment investments target the making of wedding cakes. Again, you are punishing people for living according to their religions dictates and according to their conscience. A wedding is not who you are, it is something you do. The person who won't make the cake is not saying they wont make any cakes for homosexual people. They are saying they can't make a cake that celebrates and act they believe is wrong. Would it be wrong to ask a person to make a cake that celebrates hedonism? Should a fellow be required to make a cake decorated with figurines acting out an orgy in celebration of the vernal equinox? This is where it gets really stupid. If I am an artist, no one has any right to dictate what I create. Suppose a gay couple walks into a portrait studio and demands the artist create a painting of them engaging in a sexual act? Does he have to do that? Even if he painted a heterosexual couple in a sexual act?

As I see it, this is much more about the creative freedom of the artisan than discrimination against homosexuality. If this was a pastry shop and the baker refused to sell a gay couple an eclair just because they were gay, then you'd have a discrimination case.

Exactly.



First of all, you will not find me a fan of "that's the way we always did it." That argument would have kept us in slavery to this very day, women would not have the vote, and child labor would be commonplace. Sometimes, "the way we always did it" is simply wrong, and we never questioned it. Today, children in a family can arise in many ways (invitro, invivo, adoption, etc.). And "children raised outside of marriage" is not equivalent to "children raised in a same-sex marriage."

I am not advocating 'that's the way it always was". I am saying there are very natural reasons for marriage. It exists in almost all cultures, and it exists between men and women. And the reasons are very practical. To properly raise children, that sort of a construct is needed. And raising children is not just about sex, and it is not just about the immediate needs of the parents. It is about the needs of the civilization and the culture. We are one generation away from anarchy at any given time.

You are talking to a man who has raised two adopted children. Your argument is not ringing any bells. Sorry.

A case can be made for giving marriage or marriage like protections to gay couples who adopt. But I am speaking in the larger sense. A man and a women get married. They are going to eventually have kids. This is the true, even today, of a significant majority of the cases.

Only if you focus on sex as "for making children." That is certainly one of it's functions. But in the human species, sex is also a unitive, intimate, loving act. That is present whatever may be dangling (or not dangling) between the legs of the participants. We seem to continually forget this. Barren couples marry. Elderly couples beyond the age of pregnancy marry. They have fulfilled marriages, and sometimes turn to adoption to create families.

But marriage doesn't primarily exist for the two people. It exists for the purpose of creating family, of making children, of providing a construct withing the society that is conducive to creating the next generation of that civilization. And that is naturally going to be part of a heterosexual marriage in most cases (but certainly not all). It could easily be argued that the entire element of an intimate loving act evolved to give us what we needed to make children in spite of all the difficulties, and to keep us together through the long task of raising those same children. marriage naturally then between a man and a women. That is what it is. same-sex unions can appropriate part of that, but it will always be something different, and I seriously doubt that a homogeneous same-sex society would be driven to develop such a construct. Whereas in a homogeneous heterosexual society it is almost universally part of the society. The civilization needs it or something very close to it to survive.

I'm going to assume you have not followed my posts. I find the name calling and ridiculing emojis largely childish and pointless. I know many enjoy engaging in them, and justify them in many ways. I do not. I would prefer to engage with people the way I would engage with them if they were sitting at my dining room table sharing a meal with me. Those who do enjoy that style of discussion, I tend to mostly ignore the ridicule and try to focus on the subject at hand (though I may call it out now and then). If it gets bad enough, I'll just stop responding and move on to another discussion.

Actually, I was anticipating participants other than yourself that may or may not be able to maintain civility even if they find an idea difficult or offensive.

My impression of you is that you are very civil in your exchanges, even when you disagree, so I look forward to the discussion.

I do try :) This is a difficult area for me. I understand perhaps better than most (due to my own involvement in the arts) the difficulties homosexuals face. And I do have a good bit of internal conflict over what I understand my faith to teach on the issue and what my humanity tells me about the issue.


Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

The union of a gay couple, even aside from the religious issues, is simply not primarily constrained by those same needs. It simply is not 'the same' as a heterosexual marriage. No gay union ever has ever directly produced children (though cloning technologies might one day make it possible for two women to produce their own offspring - I'm not talking about surrogate mothers here or a sperm donation). I doubt any of us will ever see a man gestating a baby. Thus a gay couple is never forced to take on the responsibility of raising one or more children through their participation in intimacy. That responsibility can not be minimized. It is a 20 year or more commitment. It's impact financially and socially is immense. Not supporting it would be catastrophic to our culture.

Jim

Let's make one slight change.

"The union of an infertile hetero couple, even aside from the religious issues, is simply not primarily constrained by those same needs. It simply is not 'the same' as a fertile heterosexual marriage. No infertile hetero union ever has ever directly produced children (though cloning technologies might one day make it possible for two infertile heteros to produce their own offspring - I'm not talking about surrogate mothers here or a sperm donation). I doubt any of us will ever see an infertile person gestating a baby. Thus an infertile hetero couple is never forced to take on the responsibility of raising one or more children through their participation in intimacy. That responsibility can not be minimized. It is a 20 year or more commitment. It's impact financially and socially is immense. Not supporting it would be catastrophic to our culture"

There you have it. Jim says couples who can't have natural babies (i.e infertile men, post menopausal women) should be denied marriage. Adopting infants for infertile couples (hetero or same sex) is out too because it doesn't involve intimacy.

You really didn't think that one through at all, did you Jim?

[HMS_Beagle]

But marriage doesn't primarily exist for the two people. It exists for the purpose of creating family, of making children, of providing a construct withing the society that is conducive to creating the next generation of that civilization. And that is naturally going to be part of a heterosexual marriage in most cases (but certainly not all). It could easily be argued that the entire element of an intimate loving act evolved to give us what we needed to make children in spite of all the difficulties, and to keep us together through the long task of raising those same children. marriage naturally then between a man and a women. That is what it is. same-sex unions can appropriate part of that, but it will always be something different, and I seriously doubt that a homogeneous same-sex society would be driven to develop such a construct. Whereas in a homogeneous heterosexual society it is almost universally part of the society. The civilization needs it or something very close to it to survive.

Wow. So now giving marriage rights to same-sex couples is going to destroy hetero marriages first, then society??

What possible reasons can you give for thinking such ridiculous over-the-top scenarios? How is giving marriage rights to same-sex couples going to negatively impact hetero marriages AT ALL, except for possibly making reception halls harder to book?

[oxmixmudd]

Wow. So now giving marriage rights to same-sex couples is going to destroy hetero marriages first, then society??

What possible reasons can you give for thinking such ridiculous over-the-top scenarios? How is giving marriage rights to same-sex couples going to negatively impact hetero marriages AT ALL, except for possibly making reception halls harder to book?

Well - first and foremost, that is not what I said or implied. Read again.

But to help you out - remember that to say a -> b does not mean that b -> a.

Jim