What exactly is the christian fear of gay marriage?

[connermt]

This thread is meant for clarification purposes:
As a christian, what do you fear the legalization of gay marriage will do to the country, your faith and yourself personally?
Please provide examples of past issues where something was made legal and created a negative issue with your country, faith and/or yourself.

Of course there are extremes on each side, but the majority of people who are pro-legal gay marriage don't seem to much care what a church says, so long as their legal rights are adhered to just like eveyone else's.

I've looked at many responses to both sides and can honestly not see, other than hate or "being gay is gross", any legitimate reasons that would want one to say "gay people who care about each other and live in a relationship shouldn't have the say legal rights as straight people.

Any elightenment on the subject would be appreciated.

[dianaiad]

I get that, and part of the weirdness of course comes in with the way the American system is set up. The way I see it, what medical treatment I receive should be determined by my doctor.

And so it should be.

However, if your doctor is, say, a neurosurgeon, and if his religious beliefs forbid him from helping someone to get an abortion, should he be forced to provide one?

Or...let's put it this way: do you have the right to go to a Kosher delicatessen and force them to serve you a ham and swiss cheese sandwich?

If you want the ham sandwich, you don't go to a Kosher deli.

If you want contraception and/or an abortion, you don't go to a Catholic doctor.

Seems simple enough to me.


......................................and if you want to work for the Catholic church, then you can't expect them to violate their own doctrine and principles because you don't agree with their religion.

That's what's great about systems like ours, I don't have to worry about the religion of my doctor or my insurance provider.

The idea that my doctor's recommendation can be vetoed by the religious beliefs of my employer is weird.

ER....that's not what's happening. Doctor's aren't being vetoed when they prescribe contraceptives...take that prescription and go to someone who will fill it. No problem; you can probably get it for free, or a greatly reduced price, from non-Catholic sources.

In fact, your position is ironic....since 'vetoing the doctor' is EXACTLY what the government is doing TO the Catholic doctors, forcing them to prescribe contraception when doing so is against their beliefs; forcing them to provide abortion services when according to their beliefs, anybody who does so is instantly excommunicated.

Do you see the difference?

Under your system, if I need expensive surgery, and my insurance is provided by Christian Scientists, I'm out of luck. I prefer a system that avoids such unfortunate potentialities.

If your religion prevents you from doing a job, you probably shouldn't be doing that job.

Actually, that hasn't ever come up. Christian Scientists don't self insure, for that very reason.

But you are right; if you have a problem with Catholics not providing contraception, then you should work for someone else, or else buy it yourself. Most people can come up with $4 a month.

The idea that other people's religious beliefs could determine what healthcare is available to me is weird.

No, it's not determining what health care is available to you. It is simply determining what THEY will offer, and what THEY will pay for. You can go elsewhere. There's no law saying that you MUST get ALL your health care from Catholics, after all.

Yes, you do have other options under your system such as unemployment, I am aware of this. Like I said, having your healthcare options tied up with employment and the religious beliefs of other people makes for a weird system.

Makes for a free one. Fuzzy....I have had two knee replacements. My first one was six years ago, and my second was last winter. At the time of my first replacement, I joined an online support group for people who have had, or need, joint replacement surgery, and several of the members are from Canada.

Two of them are still waiting for their FIRST one, and the other three had to wait two and three years longer than I did for theirs. NONE of the Canadians who needed a second surgery have received one yet.

For the two who are still waiting for their first one?

Their joints have so deteriorated that a replacement now will have zero chance of getting them full range of motion. They are walker and wheelchair bound and will, at most, graduate to canes.

So....no, I think that just maybe yours isn't all THAT wonderful a system.

I'm glad that when I need to make medical decisions, Catholic doctrine never comes into it.

Of course it doesn't. You aren't Catholic, and you are not employed by the Catholic church. As to that, even if you were, you have the right to go get the health care you feel you need. You just don't have the right to make the Catholics pay for things that are that deeply against their beliefs.

Question: you hire a plumber. He shows up with a bible in one hand and a spanner in the other--takes your money and then insists that before he will fix the leak in your kitchen, you MUST accept Jesus into your heart and be 'born again,' right there and then. If you don't, he's leaving WITH your money and without fixing the sink.

Does he have the right to do that?

Or do YOU have the right to determine what goes on in your house?

But if I was a non-Catholic who was employed by the Catholic church, what healthcare options are available to me are determined by Catholic doctrine (and whatever I can afford myself).

Yes.

So? It's not as if they are denying something that will break anybody's bank account...indeed, it's strictly a power struggle here. If it weren't so completely against basic Catholic doctrine, or if birth control were even remotely expensive or difficult to obtain, it might be different-----but as it is, it's an obvious and egregious attempt by the government to coerce religious compliance to a government sanctioned and approved religious idea.

Hence you have a system where other people's religious beliefs can influence what healthcare is available to me.

I'm afraid I am not understanding what your plumber analogy is meant to address.

Simple. if you believe that you have the right to freedom of religion in YOUR home, and that others do not have the right to dictate your religious compliance to their needs, then you need to take the Catholic side of this.

If you don't take the Catholic side of this, then you have no defense against this plumber who insists that you join in the 'born again' experience in order to get your pipes fixed. The only difference between the two examples is that you approve of making Catholics do what you want, and don't approve of others making you do what they want.

In other words, there's NO DIFFERENCE.

I'm also glad that no one else in our healthcare system has their access to medical care limited by other people's religious beliefs.

You have this backward. Nobody is limiting health care; contraception and abortion services are available....it's quite the other way around. Catholics are not forcing women NOT to get contraception/abortion services. They simply don't want to pay for it or provide it themselves.

Now, I have a fondness for oleander; it grows very well here, loves the sun, doesn't need a lot of water, flowers beautifully most of the year. Makes a GREAT privacy hedge/fence. I know better than to idly pick a leaf and chomp on it, though, nor would I make a tea from the flowers. I can think of easier ways to commit suicide. Y'see, oleander is, while being very pretty and growing very well here, is, if not the most poisonous plant in the world, certainly in the running for that dubious honor. Do I have the right to hold a gun to my neighbor's head and force her to pay for the oleander hedge between our yards, in spite of the fact that she has toddlers and animals who just MIGHT try to eat an oleander leaf? One leaf will kill an adult.

From the Catholic POV, that is precisely what the government is trying to do; force them to plant oleander and pay for it.

Now I can go get oleander...it's a common and easily obtained plant. It's inexpensive, too--I guarantee you that you won't be able to walk half a block in my city without seeing at least one oleander bush. Nobody is stopping me from going to a nursery or WalMart or wherever and getting oleander. Nobody is stopping me from planting it. It's cheap, too.

I do not have the right to force my neighbor to pay for it.

It seems to me that if your religious beliefs prevent you from providing healthcare, you should not be in the healthcare providing business. Some forms of contraception may be cheap, but others aren't.

So go with the cheap option.

Surgery is even more expensive, yet you support a system where insurance providers don't have to pay for it if it violates their beliefs. This strikes me as problematic, and I again count myself fortunate to live under a system where healthcare is equally available to all regardless of the religious beliefs of other people.

Except of course that it isn't. See the above story about knee replacements. What's the difference between denying someone contraceptive services because it's against THEIR religion to supply it to anybody, and a system where someone doesn't get joint replacement surgery because some bureaucrat doesn't think that s/he deserves it?

I dunno about you, but I know which system I'd pick. At least with mine, a woman can go to Planned Parenthood and get a prescription for the cost of a checkup, and then pay a whoppin' big $4 per month for birth control pills from Target. Probably cheaper than the prescription co-pay from her work insurance.

I don't have to worry whether my doctor's religion approves of the healthcare I need.

No, you don't. You just have to worry about whether some statistician thinks that your life and health are worth spending the money on--with the decision made on anything BUT medical grounds.

I don't have to worry whether the religious beliefs of my potential employer reflect my healthcare needs. It's just between me and my doctor.

You don't know your own system very well if you think that it's 'just between you and your doctor." It's between you, your doctor, and the province officials...and you probably need to supplement your system with private insurance anyway. In all likelihood, glasses aren't covered, dental isn't covered...elective surgery isn't covered (you know...like knee replacements are considered, in some places?)

the average wait time for a cardiac bypass...which in America is considered to be emergency surgery and is done immediately no matter WHAT insurance you have or don't have, the average wait time in Canada is....six months.

So....just perhaps....you might want to consider that your system isn't all THAT wonderful.

[kayky]

HALF?

Would you care to show me the statistics about how half of all American workers are employed by the Catholic church, in a situation where healthcare is provided directly by the church?

LOL. I was thinking of women in general. I'm well aware that not all women work for Catholic institutions. At the same it does set a bad precedent for women in general.

While you are at it, would you care to show me how those employed by the Catholic church are forbidden to get the healthcare they want from anyone ELSE?

It's the Catholic church that will have to go elsewhere. To get insurance for their employees, that is.

Birth control is simply not that expensive. Shoot, you can get them from Target for $4 per month, and from Wal-Mart for $9.00 per month. That's lower than some insurance company's prescription drug co-pay.

You're talking about the pill. There are a lot of women who cannot take the pill and must resort to more expensive forms of birth control. What about the woman who wants her tubes tied? And-- well, having an abortion ain't cheap.

So puleeze don't give me the 'what if she can't pay for it' song and dance. That's not even slightly an issue. She picks a non-Catholic doctor who will write the prescription, she goes to Target....and she's out a whoppin' $4 per month....or $48 PER YEAR for birth control. Less than 14 cents a day. The poorest women will pay more for that a year in shampoo and hairconditioning--store brand.

Obviously you have not considered the breadth of the issue.

YES THEY ARE! Aren't you paying attention?

I am paying very close attention. Since they are not being asked to pay for these services, it is not an imposition on their faith.

According to canon law, anyone who helps secure an abortion is INSTANTLY excommunicated. The doctor is, the woman is....anybody who helps pay for it is, politicians who vote for it are. By forcing the CAtholics to directly pay for contraception and abortion, you are forcing them to commit a sin that excommunicates them as quickly as if they had attacked the Pope or hit a Bishop.

Please see my response above.

No. You aren't. That is, if you accept government money, you need to accept the rules in place at the time the funds are obtained, but to be forced to abide arbitrarily changed rules?

No. That's NEVER acceptable.

So laws can never be changed? That's just ridiculous. The Catholic church cannot hold the government hostage.

In Illinois, CAtholic Charities was told that if they wanted to continue to get government funds, they had to abide by the government rules regarding gay couples and adoption. Catholic Charities refused...and funding was withdrawn, and Catholic Charities was pretty much disbanded. That's fine, because the money CC got was given for adoption services.

However, the funds Catholic hospitals get are not related to hiring and insurance, the rules were changed mid stream, and there is no 'if you want the money you will do this' choice. The choice being given is 'you do this.' Period. The Catholics are not being told that they can refuse government funding and keep their beliefs. They are being told that it doesn't matter; funds and grants or no funds and grants, they have to directly pay for, and provide, contraception and abortion services to their employees.

This is absolutely untrue.

If the Catholics lose this, they will probably, simply, close their facilities. Gee, I wonder what THAT is going to do for the women who worked for them?

I don't think they will do that, but health workers are in high demand everywhere.

Kayky, I agree with some of the things you post elsewhere, but dang, woman--you aren't paying attention to what's happening. You are swallowing the Kool-aid.

That is NOT the complaint. The complaint is that they do not want to have to directly provide, and pay for, services that are against their religion. Obama's "compromise" only works for those institutions that contract their insurance to third parties, like Kaiser Permanente or Red Cross/Blue Shield. Many of those institutions, however, SELF INSURE. This means that those costs must be paid for, and offered directly by, the Catholic church. Obama wasn't going to make any exceptions for self insured institutions, which rather destroyed the whole 'we aren't going to make you pay for it' thing.

They're simply going to have to switch to third- party insurers. More expensive? Isn't that what this is REALLY about?

But....you've been TOLD this, many times.

Yes. And each time it was just as irrelevant as the last.

There are 12, count 'em, TWELVE Catholic institutions joining in the lawsuit against Obama over this, and their issue is the same; Obama's administration is wrecking the establishment clause by forcing a religion to do something that is fundamentally against it's beliefs and doctrines, because those beliefs and doctrines don't fit with the beliefs and doctrines the government thinks acceptable.

That just isn't what's happening.

I think that if Obama had allowed exceptions for self-insured institutions, it would have been fine, but he didn't.

That would have been blatantly unfair.

......and THAT is the problem, and why this conversation fits with the 'fear of gay marriage' topic begun by the OP. It is so obvious and egregious an example of what the government can and will do in order to force it's opinions regarding what good little religions must think and believe upon everybody that I am amazed that y'all can't SEE it.

I am just as amazed at what you think you see.

As for me, I don't give a good flying fig whether gays get married or not. I would, frankly, like to see them be able to do so--in their OWN faiths, and to get all the civil rights every other married couple has, who are married in the eyes of the government. My 'fear of gay marriage' isn't a fear of gay marriage; they aren't hurting me. My fear is of the government and what it can, and DOES, do to religions and beliefs that aren't politically correct enough.

No minister will be forced to marry anyone. My husband's pastor wouldn't marry us because my husband had been married once before. I didn't feel that my civil rights had been violated. We just got married by someone else. Your paranoia is unwarranted.

Kayke, with all due respect.....this isn't about public money. In fact, it turns out that this mandate from the government isn't tied to public funds. Catholics could refuse to take a single penny---and the government is STILL insisting that they comply. Really....aren't you paying any attention to the facts of this case at all?

That's because it is an institution involved in the public sphere. The restaurants who refused to serve blacks weren't using public funds either.

Not a thing. But it has a great deal to do with religious freedom in the USA.

It simply doesn't.

Easy fix, by the way. Send for a three month's supply of birth control pills from Target. It'll cost you $12 plus shipping. If they charge shipping...I'm not certain that they do for prescriptions.

Yes. Poor people can just use their credit cards to do this, right?

Yes...and when compliance is linked to public funds, as it was with the Illinois adoption problem, you would be right. However...

Taking funds under one set of rules, then changing those rules midstream?

UNFAIR.

Certainly the government doesn't let anybody else do this, and sure as your born, if the Catholics took money earmarked for surgical instruments and just decided to use it for payroll, all hell would have broken loose. That sort of thing is incredibly illegal.

So how come the GOVERNMENT gets to change the rules later?

Um. Because they're the government??

................and then, of course, there's the part about how it wouldn't help the Catholics to stop taking government funds or even to pay back the funds already taken; the government is STILL insisting on this. The only alternative, if they don't win this lawsuit, is to close the facilities down. Hospitals. Universities (like Notre Dame...).

Yep, that will get all those employees the health care they need, won't it?

Now you're just repeating yourself.

Finally, grants given to, say, purchase instruments for an operating room should have rules relating ONLY to the use of those instruments. Using such grants as a way to coerce compliance in areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with those instruments should not be allowed.

I don't see how this would make any difference.

THAT'S not the problem, Kayky. Yes, I think that I'm right and you are wrong. However, unlike you, I don't think I have the right to force you to see it my way, or at least behave as if you see things my way.

This is a debate! I'm simply defending my point of view. I'm not trying to force anything on you. I don't even expect you to change your mind.

Or rather, I think that the Catholics should offer contraception and sterilization services, at least to those who don't belong to the church. My own faith does. I think that their doctrine is incorrect, and that they should change it.

Well, I do too. But it's not my church.

However,, I think that they have a RIGHT to be wrong. It's not my doctrine, it's theirs, and they have the absolute right to abide by it. I do not believe that the government has any right to make them change because *I* don't agree with them.

The government is not asking them to change their beliefs.

See the difference?

How can I even answer that question when you misrepresent the situation?

ANY history. Pick one.

I think I'll stick with the true one.

It didn't backfire when restaurant owners were told they couldn't refuse service based on race.

Not comparable.

They absolutely are comparable. In both cases we have people who think that because it's a private business they can impose whatever restrictions they wish.

How about...when the Catholics told the protestants that they had no right to believe as they wished...and their rule was backed by the governments. Then, when the power changed so that the Protestants had the power, it was the Catholics who were persecuted.

And then America was born...

How about...When England didn't like the way the Puritans believed, they were imprisoned and finally left the country and came over here, where they promptly forbade any religious freedom but their own.

And then they started hanging witches and persecuting Quakers.

Or when the Catholics did the same thing in South America.

or the Baptists did it to the Mormons.

Or the Puritans did it to the Quakers, and everybody did it to the Shakers....

You are using past oppression to justify current oppression?

Your example is a strawman and has nothing at all to do with religious freedom. Remember; those restaurants were discriminating against certain races--but they WERE offering services to others. Catholics don't want to have to pay for contraception for anybody at all. It's not discrimination if you don't offer a service to anybody, no matter WHO is looking.

Religious freedom isnt the only right we have. In all of these cases people thought the government was infringing on their personal liberties. No strawman here.

...........just like....it's not discrimination for a photographer to refuse to photograph an underwater wedding for a black couple, if he doesn't do underwater weddings for anybody else, either.

Strawman? Found one!

It is not discrimination for Catholics to refuse to provide contraception and sterilization services to women, because they don't provide it to anybody; men, either.

That's not even what they're being asked to do.

Try using an example that makes sense.

In Robert DeNiro voice: you talkin to me?

It didn't backfire when it was decided that separate but equal schools were not equal at all.

Another strawman argument.

Tell me; in order for your example to be appropriate, the Catholics would have to be offering contraception/sterilisation services to someone, and only discriminating against SOME.

That's not what's happening though, is it?

There's a whole lot that's not really happening in your scenarios.

A more accurate analogy would be....I teach English. That's it. I don't teach math.

To anybody. I simply do not offer that service. How is that discriminatory?

It isn't. But I don't see how this pertains to the issue.

Catholics offer health care. They simply do not offer contraception/sterilisation. To anybody. Same thing.

Same thing as an English teacher's lack of math skills? Are you serious?

It didn't backfire when private businesses and private schools were told they had to be handicapped accessible.

That, again, is not an applicable analogy. A more accurate one would be: a private business sells hang gliders. It doesn't matter WHO comes in to the store, that business isn't going to sell that customer an Obsidian case with three pre-installed cooling fans...because they don't sell computer cases to ANYBODY.

Wow. You dis a perfectly good anology and the next thing you know we're trying to buy a computer case at the hand glider store? How does that scenario apply to any issue on the planet much less this one?

Kayky:
Need I go on?

No, because you haven't found a single example yet that is applicable to the situation.

No. That's what you wish just happened-- not what actually did happen.

The same arguments you are making now were made then.

No. They were not. Not even close.

The arguments are identical: the government is imposing on my right to do as I please in my private business.

[dianaiad]

HALF?

Would you care to show me the statistics about how half of all American workers are employed by the Catholic church, in a situation where healthcare is provided directly by the church?

LOL. I was thinking of women in general. I'm well aware that not all women work for Catholic institutions. At the same it does set a bad precedent for women in general.

While you are at it, would you care to show me how those employed by the Catholic church are forbidden to get the healthcare they want from anyone ELSE?

It's the Catholic church that will have to go elsewhere. To get insurance for their employees, that is.

Question:

What's the difference, ethically, between actually committing the murder and buying he gun and ammunition, and paying the assassin?

Answer:

None, according to law and modern cultural opinion.

So.............what's the difference between forcing Catholics to supply abortions directly, and forcing them to pay someone else to do it?

None...and your solution, that is, make the Catholics 'go elsewhere' for their insurance' is the same thing. If they ALREADY contract their insurance requirements out, and that insurance company is required to offer a 'side benefit' to women for their contraception needs (oh, and required not to raise Catholic insurance rates to do so) that's one thing.. However, when the Catholics are self insured, requiring them to buy their insurance elsewhere (which will be more expensive for them anyway) so that THIS third party insurance company can offer contraception--that is requiring them to 'buy the gun and pay the assassin.'

And to the Catholics--and you should remember this--this analogy is very apt. It's not a 'let's oppress women' issue. It's a 'lives are at stake' issue. You are suggesting that they be compelled, quite literally, to commit, or fund, murder. That's certainly how THEY look at this.

Birth control is simply not that expensive. Shoot, you can get them from Target for $4 per month, and from Wal-Mart for $9.00 per month. That's lower than some insurance company's prescription drug co-pay.

You're talking about the pill. There are a lot of women who cannot take the pill and must resort to more expensive forms of birth control. What about the woman who wants her tubes tied? And-- well, having an abortion ain't cheap.

you are suggesting that you have the right to force Catholics to either provide, or pay for, abortions? When getting an abortion is one of the few things (other than attacking the Pope, hitting a Bishop and out right heresy) that gets one INSTANTLY excommunicated? They even have a special name for this type of excommunication: Latae Sententae, (excommunication by the fact).

Getting or procuring an abortion is, according to the Catholic cannon law (in terms of abortion) more serious than murder. You are asking them to SHRED one of their deepest beliefs.

................for something these women can get elsewhere very easily.

So puleeze don't give me the 'what if she can't pay for it' song and dance. That's not even slightly an issue. She picks a non-Catholic doctor who will write the prescription, she goes to Target....and she's out a whoppin' $4 per month....or $48 PER YEAR for birth control. Less than 14 cents a day. The poorest women will pay more for that a year in shampoo and hairconditioning--store brand.

Obviously you have not considered the breadth of the issue.

And you have not considered the depth of it, or the seriousness of what you are requiring of Catholic institutions.

Quite literally, it's like requiring Quakers to be snipers, ethical atheists to participate in human sacrifice to Baal, JW's to give and receive blood products, or YOU to kill your children.

.............and no, I'm not exaggerating. It IS that serious to Catholics. But you figure that your right to save $48 bucks a year (and the 'other forms' of birth control simply aren't that much MORE expensive............including abortion, which would have been avoided had the woman bothered to spend that $48 per year and USE birth control in the first place.

YES THEY ARE! Aren't you paying attention?

I am paying very close attention. Since they are not being asked to pay for these services, it is not an imposition on their faith.

but they ARE being asked to pay for it. You admitted that yourself, above, when your solution was 'let them get their insurance elsewhere.'

Obama certainly is asking them to pay for it. That's what 'self-insured' MEANS.

According to canon law, anyone who helps secure an abortion is INSTANTLY excommunicated. The doctor is, the woman is....anybody who helps pay for it is, politicians who vote for it are. By forcing the CAtholics to directly pay for contraception and abortion, you are forcing them to commit a sin that excommunicates them as quickly as if they had attacked the Pope or hit a Bishop.

Please see my response above.

All you can see is what you wish to see, Kayky. All you can see is that your opinion is the correct one, and everybody should (of course) agree with you and go along with it; that your idea of what life should be is the only one possible.

It is the same attitude that Great Britain had during the colonial period, and that Europeans had during the move to the Americas, this self righteous 'my way is the right way, and if nobody else can see that, it's because they are stupid, evil or venal, so I'll simply impose my ideas upon them by force until they see the light.'

If someone doesn't do it your way, then passing a law to force them to do so is just fine, in your eyes, and in the view of those who think as you do.


But it isn't.

The framers of the Constitution saw that tendency...and even as they shared it, in many ways, they also saw the danger in it. That's why they wrote it in the first place. YES, women who work directly for the Catholic church are going to have problems getting the church to pay for their contraception and abortions.

The church doesn't have the right to tell women that they cannot use contraception if they want to work there, but they DO have the right to tell those women that the church isn't going to pay for it, and the women don't have the right to require it. They have the right to go elsewhere, or work elsewhere, but they don't have the right to force a religion to change its doctrine because THEY want to engage in actions that directly contradict the rules of that religion.

No. You aren't. That is, if you accept government money, you need to accept the rules in place at the time the funds are obtained, but to be forced to abide arbitrarily changed rules?

No. That's NEVER acceptable.

So laws can never be changed? That's just ridiculous. The Catholic church cannot hold the government hostage.

It's not the church that is holding the government hostage, It's the other way around.

Yes...laws can be changed.

But CONTRACTS cannot be arbitrarily changed by one party without the consent of the other. Changing laws requires the consent of the governed, too.

In Illinois, CAtholic Charities was told that if they wanted to continue to get government funds, they had to abide by the government rules regarding gay couples and adoption. Catholic Charities refused...and funding was withdrawn, and Catholic Charities was pretty much disbanded. That's fine, because the money CC got was given for adoption services.

However, the funds Catholic hospitals get are not related to hiring and insurance, the rules were changed mid stream, and there is no 'if you want the money you will do this' choice. The choice being given is 'you do this.' Period. The Catholics are not being told that they can refuse government funding and keep their beliefs. They are being told that it doesn't matter; funds and grants or no funds and grants, they have to directly pay for, and provide, contraception and abortion services to their employees.

This is absolutely untrue.

This is, unfortunately, absolutely true. There is no exemption for non-profit organizations that do not accept government funds. None.

If the Catholics lose this, they will probably, simply, close their facilities. Gee, I wonder what THAT is going to do for the women who worked for them?

I don't think they will do that, but health workers are in high demand everywhere.

Not if there is no 'where' to work, they aren't.

Kayky, I agree with some of the things you post elsewhere, but dang, woman--you aren't paying attention to what's happening. You are swallowing the Kool-aid.

That is NOT the complaint. The complaint is that they do not want to have to directly provide, and pay for, services that are against their religion. Obama's "compromise" only works for those institutions that contract their insurance to third parties, like Kaiser Permanente or Red Cross/Blue Shield. Many of those institutions, however, SELF INSURE. This means that those costs must be paid for, and offered directly by, the Catholic church. Obama wasn't going to make any exceptions for self insured institutions, which rather destroyed the whole 'we aren't going to make you pay for it' thing.

They're simply going to have to switch to third- party insurers. More expensive? Isn't that what this is REALLY about?

See above for the problem with 'switching to third -party insurers.' but no, this is NOT about expense. Birth control isn't all that expensive; if it's not expensive for the women, then it sure as heck isn't expensive for the providers!

It's about religious freedom.

Now, if I were 20 something, and worked for a Catholic hospital, I would get my birth control subscription elsewhere, and I would buy it elsewhere, because I have the right to decide what to do about my own health---but NOT the right to force someone who is deeply, religiously, against contraception to PAY for it. Since I would have been VERY aware of this before I accepted the job, it would be entirely my choice.

If, as you mention above, that it wouldn't be difficult for the people who worked for Catholic hospitals to find jobs elsewhere, then it's not as if there were any pressure on me to take a job working for Catholics, is there?

You can't have this both ways, Kayky.

But....you've been TOLD this, many times.

Yes. And each time it was just as irrelevant as the last.

I see...it's irrelevant because what other people believe means absolutely nothing compared to what you do.

Got it.

There are 12, count 'em, TWELVE Catholic institutions joining in the lawsuit against Obama over this, and their issue is the same; Obama's administration is wrecking the establishment clause by forcing a religion to do something that is fundamentally against it's beliefs and doctrines, because those beliefs and doctrines don't fit with the beliefs and doctrines the government thinks acceptable.

That just isn't what's happening.

Uh huh, and the sky outside my window is really puce with purple stripes.

Kayky, don't you see anybody else's pov but your own, or understand that someone else has the right to their own beliefs?

I think that if Obama had allowed exceptions for self-insured institutions, it would have been fine, but he didn't.

That would have been blatantly unfair.

Thank you for confirming my point, above, that it's not about taking funds from the government. You think that it is 'unfair' for Obama to give exceptions for this to people who DON'T take such funds?

So does he. ...

Of course, this rather destroys your claim that only those who accept government funds have to abide by the rules.

.................and yes, making these institutions get third party insurance providers (which will be government subsidized) is a rather nasty catch 22 here, don't you think? In other words....you don't take government funds? Fine. We'll REQUIRE you to take those funds, and THEN you have to follow the rules.

......and THAT is the problem, and why this conversation fits with the 'fear of gay marriage' topic begun by the OP. It is so obvious and egregious an example of what the government can and will do in order to force it's opinions regarding what good little religions must think and believe upon everybody that I am amazed that y'all can't SEE it.

I am just as amazed at what you think you see.

Facts. I see facts and I see history repeating itself....and at least I have read the text of the policy. It's obvious that you haven't.

As for me, I don't give a good flying fig whether gays get married or not. I would, frankly, like to see them be able to do so--in their OWN faiths, and to get all the civil rights every other married couple has, who are married in the eyes of the government. My 'fear of gay marriage' isn't a fear of gay marriage; they aren't hurting me. My fear is of the government and what it can, and DOES, do to religions and beliefs that aren't politically correct enough.

No minister will be forced to marry anyone.

Strawman. You think this is about the fear that we might be forced to officiate at the weddings? Haven't you been reading ANYTHING? I have never once mentioned that.

You guys do, all the time, though.


..................because it's a strawman.

My husband's pastor wouldn't marry us because my husband had been married once before. I didn't feel that my civil rights had been violated. We just got married by someone else. Your paranoia is unwarranted.

If that was what my concern was about, you'd be right. However...I've never worried about that.

It's not about having to MARRY gay people. It's about having to recognize those marriages as being marriages in the eyes of God (and our doctrine) within our own faith and belief systems, and having to give gay married couples the same religious access as is given heterosexual married people who belong to the faith.

It's about living in married housing at church owned universities.
It's about being forced to materially support the idea of gay marriage WITHIN THE FAITH.

It's NOT about being able to keep gays from eating at my restaurant, OK?

Kayke, with all due respect.....this isn't about public money. In fact, it turns out that this mandate from the government isn't tied to public funds. Catholics could refuse to take a single penny---and the government is STILL insisting that they comply. Really....aren't you paying any attention to the facts of this case at all?

That's because it is an institution involved in the public sphere. The restaurants who refused to serve blacks weren't using public funds either.

It's not the same thing. At all...and you are quite aware of that. You are pulling the race card in a particularly 'red herring' sort of way here.

A far closer analogy would be to a restaurant that refused to serve sushi to blacks...or anybody else--because they simply don't serve sushi.

(snip remainder)

Look, I don't understand you. I do not understand the mindset of anybody who thinks that her own POV is so correct, so right, and so all fired better than everybody elses that she has the right to legally force everybody else to go along with it.

I especially don't understand the mindset of those who fit the above description--and then have the gall to accuse those they are coercing of being the bigots.

Here's the thing, Kayky....you have the right to your opinion. I have the right to mine. You have the right to believe, or not believe, to worship, or not, according to the dictates of your own conscience. So do I. I do not have the right to legally force you to abide by my beliefs...........................and you don't have the right to force me, OR the Catholics, OR the JW's, OR anybody else, to abide by yours.

No matter how wrong you think they are.

[Jax Agnesson]

It seems you consider the right to refuse to do something is the point at issue.

Not quite, but I suppose that is part of it.

So: suppose a car-driver runs over a child, and then refuses to pay, either directly or through insurance, for surgical procedures that are 'against my religion'. Would that be legal? Should it be?

Your example of the JW's was slightly off. This is WAY off.

This objection might be fair if you thought I was trying to use these examples to argue a case against you. But that is not my intention, and I suspect you know that is not my intention. I was using various situation-examples as questions, with the hope of getting a clearer idea of where you think the line should be drawn, with regard to the degree to which the duties of a citizen towards another can be over-ridden by a claim to 'religious belief'.
Clearly, my lack of knowledge re the US legal system is causing difficulties in this conversation, so I'll try a more direct line of questioning, if that's ok with you?
To specify some separate, but inter-related questions:
Do you believe that the rights of the citizen should not be diminshed on account of their race, creed or sexual orientation?
Do you believe this entitlement to equal rights should include homosexual couples having the same civil-marriage rights as heterosexuals?
Do you believe that all citizens should have the same obligation to abide by the law, irrespective of whether that law conflicts with their personal conscience or religious beliefs?
If certain civil rights are recognised and protected by law, should religious groups be entitled to claim exemption from the duty to comply with such rights?

Or how about refusing to pay that proportion of taxes that is used for military forces? Or refusing to answer a draft?

We all pay a proportion of our taxes to things we don't approve of. That's why we have elections.

Quakers, and others, have gone to jail, and even been executed, for refusing to take part in wars. This is the deal; (and this is the ideal, for people of both religious and political principle:) you stand by your faith, you recognise that your faith is in conflict with the law as it stands, you contest the law as far as you can, and meanwhile you take the consequences of defiance.

Yes....so...contesting the law is a bad thing? That's what the Catholics (and I) are doing.

Contesting laws by means of public protest, or even by civil disobedience, is certainly a 'good thing' in my book! (I've even done it myself, a few times!)

That seems to me, at least, the honest and principled approach; and it takes courage. To claim 'I should be allowed to disregard the law because it's against my religion' would be unreasonable.

The law is unreasonable BECAUSE it attacks, quite directly, religious freedom.

You and I might well agree that the law is unreasonable in some way. We would then have the right to oppose it. I don't think we differ on that point.

No it doesn't attack mine, because (though abortion for anything but major health/life and death issues is considered to be a Very Bad Thing, using contraception is in no way the serious matter it is for Catholics) Mormons wouldn't have a problem complying with the law. Well, we'd have a problem, but not for THAT reason.

But if the government is allowed to do this to one religion, then what's going to keep it from doing this to everybody else, too?

I think this is the point on which you and I would be in complete agreement.
I suspect you will also agree with me that this religious immunity from civil laws must have some limits, though?
(eg, suppose my religion demands human sacrifice, on pain of an eternity in the icy cold of my god's disdain..., .... Ok that's an extreme example, but there must be a line to be drawn somewhere?)

And although I am far from expert in the American Constitution, I am a long-time admirer; I'm sure the constitution upholds both your right to protest a law, and the state's right to arrest you for breaking that law. Am I right about that?

Yep..I don't quite understand where you are going with this, though. Are you suggesting that the law is a good thing, and so is the protesting of it, but we shouldn't actually complain about it BECAUSE we have the right to complain about it?

Not at all. I'm entirely in favour of active citizenship. I've been arrested on enough anti-war demo's, and bruised in enough anti-racist street-fights, to know the vital importance of political engagement. (And to be aware of the limits of its effectiveness )

To apply all of this to the OP:
What is it that the legalisation of gay marriage will force you and your co-religionists to do, (as opposed to 'not do') that is against your faith; and how (do you suppose) would this enforcement be carried out in practice?

Ah.

I can think of a couple of things that could....and would (because I know a few gay rights groups that are simply waiting; the lawsuits are written already) take us to court instantly. We would be sued for not allowing gay married couples to live in BYU married housing. We would be sued for not allowing gay married couples who have fulfilled all the requirements for a Temple Recommend to actually get one. We will be sued for not hiring gay married couples for positions requiring married couples.

People are already being sued for not wishing to participate in gay wedding ceremonies.

In fact, in any position in which 'married' is a requirement (when 'married' has always been defined as man/woman, and the beliefs are that same sex relationships CANNOT BE marriage BECAUSE they are not male/female), the lawsuits and penalties will fly thick and fast.

This isn't about whether gays should have the right to call themselves married...and even be married...according to THEIR beliefs. IT's not about civil rights that the government can assign, it's not about going to restaurants, or catering birthday parties. It's about what the religions deeply believe that marriage is, and who is, and who is not, married in the eyes of God according to THEIR beliefs.

And do you think you would lose these cases? Why? Because your practises are discriminatory?

It's like....

OK, I'm a Mormon. Neither the Catholics nor may Protestant groups think that we are Christians. I believe that I am.

I'm also a teacher who needs a job. There are several Christian schools in the area which are hiring; schools owned by the churches, run by them, held in adjoining buildings. They won't hire me because, well, they only hire Christians.

Now, if I were to take the same position that gays are taking, I would take these guys to court for hiring discrimination----and y'know what?

I'd lose. In fact, the suit would be thrown out before it got to a judge...and RIGHTLY SO. It doesn't matter what I think I am; it's their religion, it's their school, it's their belief system, and if they don't think I'm a Christian, then I'm not qualified to teach in their school.

What befuddles me more than anything else is this: the gay activists who agree that these schools have every right to refuse to hire someone they don't think is a Christian, but DO think that they have the right to force religions to recognize their marriages as marriages in the eyes of God.

This is a bit of an eye-opener for me, D. I hadn't realised that discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation is still legal in the US. And you seem to agree with it? Why?

Our first amendment was not written to protect those who agree with us, or those whose opinions and beliefs we approve. It was written to protect those with whom we disagree, and those of whom we disapprove, so that when THEY come to power, they cannot then oppress us in turn.


At least, that's the idea.

I can see that if homosexuals are granted the same rights as heterosexuals in the matter of civil marriage, there might be some gay rights activists who use that development to further challenge the homophobia that exists (as they might see it) in certain religions, including yours. But that's another struggle, for another day, isn't it?
Are you seriously going to deny a whole group of citizens equal rights because you predict that some of them might then go on to demand further rights, some of which may conflict with some of the rights you already enjoy? (Like the right to discriminate against homosexuals in areas like housing, education, employment?)
The slippery-slope argument? Is that your strongest objection?

[kayky]

What's the difference, ethically, between actually committing the murder and buying he gun and ammunition, and paying the assassin?

Answer:

None, according to law and modern cultural opinion.

So.............what's the difference between forcing Catholics to supply abortions directly, and forcing them to pay someone else to do it?

None...and your solution, that is, make the Catholics 'go elsewhere' for their insurance' is the same thing. If they ALREADY contract their insurance requirements out, and that insurance company is required to offer a 'side benefit' to women for their contraception needs (oh, and required not to raise Catholic insurance rates to do so) that's one thing.. However, when the Catholics are self insured, requiring them to buy their insurance elsewhere (which will be more expensive for them anyway) so that THIS third party insurance company can offer contraception--that is requiring them to 'buy the gun and pay the assassin.'

How can that be if they are not the ones paying for it?

And to the Catholics--and you should remember this--this analogy is very apt. It's not a 'let's oppress women' issue. It's a 'lives are at stake' issue. You are suggesting that they be compelled, quite literally, to commit, or fund, murder. That's certainly how THEY look at this.

Then they are simply looking at it wrongly.

you are suggesting that you have the right to force Catholics to either provide, or pay for, abortions? When getting an abortion is one of the few things (other than attacking the Pope, hitting a Bishop and out right heresy) that gets one INSTANTLY excommunicated? They even have a special name for this type of excommunication: Latae Sententae, (excommunication by the fact).

Getting or procuring an abortion is, according to the Catholic cannon law (in terms of abortion) more serious than murder. You are asking them to SHRED one of their deepest beliefs.

................for something these women can get elsewhere very easily.

You just don't get it, Dianaiad. They are NOT being asked to pay for or provide abortions. This is a nonissue.

And you have not considered the depth of it, or the seriousness of what you are requiring of Catholic institutions.

You obviously are totally unaware of what Catholics are being asked to do.

Quite literally, it's like requiring Quakers to be snipers, ethical atheists to participate in human sacrifice to Baal, JW's to give and receive blood products, or YOU to kill your children.

You can't be serious.

.............and no, I'm not exaggerating. It IS that serious to Catholics. But you figure that your right to save $48 bucks a year (and the 'other forms' of birth control simply aren't that much MORE expensive............including abortion, which would have been avoided had the woman bothered to spend that $48 per year and USE birth control in the first place.

You are ranting about something that isn't even happening.

but they ARE being asked to pay for it. You admitted that yourself, above, when your solution was 'let them get their insurance elsewhere.'

No. They are not being asked to pay for these particular services. The insurance companies will pay for these services out of their own pocket. They're the ones that should be complaining.

Obama certainly is asking them to pay for it. That's what 'self-insured' MEANS.

They will simply have to stop being self-insured.

All you can see is what you wish to see, Kayky. All you can see is that your opinion is the correct one, and everybody should (of course) agree with you and go along with it; that your idea of what life should be is the only one possible.

This is ridiculous. I am not even asking YOU to agree with me. This is a debate.

It is the same attitude that Great Britain had during the colonial period, and that Europeans had during the move to the Americas, this self righteous 'my way is the right way, and if nobody else can see that, it's because they are stupid, evil or venal, so I'll simply impose my ideas upon them by force until they see the light.'

If someone doesn't do it your way, then passing a law to force them to do so is just fine, in your eyes, and in the view of those who think as you do.

Is this some sort of temper tantrum? This is meaningless ranting.

The framers of the Constitution saw that tendency...and even as they shared it, in many ways, they also saw the danger in it. That's why they wrote it in the first place. YES, women who work directly for the Catholic church are going to have problems getting the church to pay for their contraception and abortions.

The church doesn't have the right to tell women that they cannot use contraception if they want to work there, but they DO have the right to tell those women that the church isn't going to pay for it, and the women don't have the right to require it. They have the right to go elsewhere, or work elsewhere, but they don't have the right to force a religion to change its doctrine because THEY want to engage in actions that directly contradict the rules of that religion.

You can repeat as many times as you want to that the Catholic church is being asked to pay for or provide these services. That won't make it true.

It's not the church that is holding the government hostage, It's the other way around.

Yes...laws can be changed.

But CONTRACTS cannot be arbitrarily changed by one party without the consent of the other. Changing laws requires the consent of the governed, too.

What is this "contract" you speak of? There is no such animal. The governed give their consent at the voting booth.

This is, unfortunately, absolutely true. There is no exemption for non-profit organizations that do not accept government funds. None.

And there shouldn't be if they are providing services to the public.

I see...it's irrelevant because what other people believe means absolutely nothing compared to what you do.

Got it.

No. You don't get it. It's irrelevant because you are making up scenarios that don't exist.

Uh huh, and the sky outside my window is really puce with purple stripes.

Wow. Sounds serious.

Kayky, don't you see anybody else's pov but your own, or understand that someone else has the right to their own beliefs?

Of course everyone has a right to his or her beliefs. It seems to upset you that I am committed to mine.

Thank you for confirming my point, above, that it's not about taking funds from the government. You think that it is 'unfair' for Obama to give exceptions for this to people who DON'T take such funds?

So does he. ...

Yes. If they provide services to the public.

Of course, this rather destroys your claim that only those who accept government funds have to abide by the rules.

That is only part of the issue.

.................and yes, making these institutions get third party insurance providers (which will be government subsidized) is a rather nasty catch 22 here, don't you think? In other words....you don't take government funds? Fine. We'll REQUIRE you to take those funds, and THEN you have to follow the rules.

What private insurance company is subsidized by the government? Only Medicare and Medicaid provide government funded healthcare, and even they are not allowed to pay for abortions.

Facts. I see facts and I see history repeating itself....and at least I have read the text of the policy. It's obvious that you haven't.

You are simply making up the facts. You obviously did not understand what you read.

It's not about having to MARRY gay people. It's about having to recognize those marriages as being marriages in the eyes of God (and our doctrine) within our own faith and belief systems, and having to give gay married couples the same religious access as is given heterosexual married people who belong to the faith.

No one has to recognize anything they don't want to recognize. They can pout for the rest of their lives if they want. And no church will be forced to accept gay couples into their congregation. Churches are protected by the First Amendment.

It's about living in married housing at church owned universities.

Private universities whose students do not accept government aid would not be forced to do so.

It's about being forced to materially support the idea of gay marriage WITHIN THE FAITH.

This is paranoia. This simply isn't happening.

It's NOT about being able to keep gays from eating at my restaurant, OK?

Okay.

It's not the same thing. At all...and you are quite aware of that. You are pulling the race card in a particularly 'red herring' sort of way here.

A far closer analogy would be to a restaurant that refused to serve sushi to blacks...or anybody else--because they simply don't serve sushi.

Just because my analogy involved race doesn't mean I'm playing any kind of card. The point of comparison is that in both cases the complaint was that government was infringing on personal rights. Your analogy makes no sense at all. What is the point of comparison?

(snip remainder)

Look, I don't understand you. I do not understand the mindset of anybody who thinks that her own POV is so correct, so right, and so all fired better than everybody elses that she has the right to legally force everybody else to go along with it.

I'm not involved in law-making in any way. You must be confusing me with somebody else.

I especially don't understand the mindset of those who fit the above description--and then have the gall to accuse those they are coercing of being the bigots.

I have never said that you are a bigot. I'm not the kind to resort to name-calling. This is a false accusation.

Here's the thing, Kayky....you have the right to your opinion. I have the right to mine. You have the right to believe, or not believe, to worship, or not, according to the dictates of your own conscience. So do I. I do not have the right to legally force you to abide by my beliefs...........................and you don't have the right to force me, OR the Catholics, OR the JW's, OR anybody else, to abide by yours.

No matter how wrong you think they are.

I have no argument with this.

[Autodidact]

99:

It appears that the writers of the Constitution disagree with your position:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Not one word about "But if . . ."

Your interpretation of the establishment clause is incorrect. Giving government funding to a religious institution is a violation of that clause.

How?

Suppose there are several organizations competing for a government grant; the money will be used for, oh....geology lab equipment, or cancer research.

Should the government refuse to consider a religious organization that is qualified on every OTHER count, simply because it is religious?

No. However, they must agree to abide by laws that apply to all grant recipients, including prohibitions against discrimination.

And if it does, how is THAT not a violation of the establishment clause? Isn't that, then, doing precisely what the establishment clause was written to prevent: establishing an official government position regarding all things religious?

Yes, that's why it's not allowed.

We already know that the courts have found that, absent all other things, religions, as non profit organizations, have exactly as much right to government grants and money as any other non-profit organization. One case, involving a school which allowed community clubs to meet in classrooms after school, was settled when the courts told the school that yes, the local Christian youth club, had as much right to use after school classrooms as the local gay rights group, the local American Atheist's group, and the local video gaming club.

Exactly. That is our system, and it is the best solution.

..........and a government grant to researchers at a Catholic hospital is no more a violation of the establishment clause than the same grant to researchers at the UCLA hospital; a grant to fund a geology field trip is a grant to fund a geology field trip, whether the group that gets it is religious or not, and NOT a violation of the establishment clause.

Exactly, as long as the Catholic hospital is willing to abide by all applicable grant conditions and laws, just like any other recipient.

What they cannot, and should not, be able to do, is accept the government money, and insist on their right to discriminate against gay people.

However, excluding religions from any possibility of getting those funds simply and only BECAUSE they are religions?

That is.

It would be, if it happened. It doesn't.

Everything has a price, though. If the grant comes with a price in rules and dictates about how the money is spent, then it behooves the recipient to look at those rules very carefully. If they require something that is against the beliefs of the religion...................

Then that religion should not accept the funds.

Exactly.

I can think of a situation where, upon seeing the rules, the church might want to protest, but ultimately the thing is as it is; if you take the money, you abide by the rules. Best know what they are before you agree.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, some Catholic institutions are trying to have it both ways, accept government funding, and use it to discriminate against gay families. That's not o.k.

[His Name Is John]

The clear message to me in Jesus' teachings was that 'heaven on earth' can only be attained when we learn to devote all our attention altruistically toward each other, rather than to selfishly fawn over and bicker as to any particular God concept or perform worship rituals in hope of personal gain or heavenly reward.

That view is only partially correct.

Imagine how the world would be if instead of so many of us going to church and performing rituals we all went to our needy 'neighbor' instead?

Yeah because Jesus didn't follow the religious rituals and follow the rules did he?

Imagine how much revenue and human resource could be freed up and put to better use if instead of supporting our church we supported our neighbors. Religion divides us at the very tipping point of what should be bringing us together in commonality.

Do we not have more important matters at hand than the prevention of same gender human beings from expressing their love for one another; based upon nothing more than verse based scripturalism?

Of course we do. But both are important.

I am giving money to the poor, arguing about gay marriage is not stopping me from doing this. Why should I not try to do both things I think is right, why should it be one or the other?

Jesus' message IMO was....judge not....live altruistically...treat well your neighbors....love your enemies, and realize that when you help someone in need you are loving God at the same time...none of that appears to have anything to do with the focused selfishness of Christianity and Islam, which, it seems to me, will never help us achieve 'heaven on earth' as Jesus had hoped.

You are free to think that.

[dianaiad]

What's the difference, ethically, between actually committing the murder and buying he gun and ammunition, and paying the assassin?

Answer:

None, according to law and modern cultural opinion.

So.............what's the difference between forcing Catholics to supply abortions directly, and forcing them to pay someone else to do it?

None...and your solution, that is, make the Catholics 'go elsewhere' for their insurance' is the same thing. If they ALREADY contract their insurance requirements out, and that insurance company is required to offer a 'side benefit' to women for their contraception needs (oh, and required not to raise Catholic insurance rates to do so) that's one thing.. However, when the Catholics are self insured, requiring them to buy their insurance elsewhere (which will be more expensive for them anyway) so that THIS third party insurance company can offer contraception--that is requiring them to 'buy the gun and pay the assassin.'

How can that be if they are not the ones paying for it?

But they ARE.

What's the difference between being told that if you don't want to provide the guns for snipers, you have to contract your hunting business to someone who will--and oh, by the way, you get to pay them to do it?

There is a term for what the government is requiring the Catholics to do here. "Money Laundering." It's illegal.

And to the Catholics--and you should remember this--this analogy is very apt. It's not a 'let's oppress women' issue. It's a 'lives are at stake' issue. You are suggesting that they be compelled, quite literally, to commit, or fund, murder. That's certainly how THEY look at this.

Then they are simply looking at it wrongly.

I see.

..............and of course your religious opinion in this matter, being correct, trumps theirs, since you think they are not correct, and thus you have the right to force them to change theirs, or at least, behave as if yours is the correct one and theirs isn't?

Here's a hint. It doesn't matter whether you think that they are right or wrong. It doesn't matter what I think. It matters, in so far as what THEY do, what THEY think. That's what the first amendment is about.

You know, the one that goes "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Are you going to tell me that sitting there saying 'then they are looking at it wrongly' and advocating government force to make them do something THAT against their faith is NOT making a law 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"

Again...that amendment was not written to protect the politically correct, or those with whom you agree, or the people you approve of. It was written to protect the INCORRECT, those who think differently from you, and those of whom the majority disapprove.

Indeed, I have seldom seen such an egregious violation of the first amendment than this one. Everyone has so concentrated upon how it keeps religions out of the government, that they are forgetting that the first and most important aspect of the First Amendment was to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF RELIGION.


YOu can say 'you just don't get it' all you want to, Kayky...but the problem is, I do get it.

And it's WRONG.