Does religion improve behavior?

[Zzyzx]

.

Being religious does not make you better behaved, researchers have found.

A new study found 'no significant difference' in the number or quality of moral and immoral deeds made by religious and non-religious participants. 

The researchers found only one difference - Religious people responded with more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds.

To learn how people experience morality and immorality in everyday life, the researchers surveyed more than 1,200 adults, aged 18 to 68, via smartphone. 
For three days, the demographically diverse group of U.S. and Canadian citizens received five signals daily, prompting them to deliver short answers to a questionnaire about any moral or immoral act they had committed, received, witnessed or heard about within the last hour. 

In addition to the religion variable, the researchers also looked at moral experience and political orientation, as well as the effect moral and immoral occurrences have on an individual's happiness and sense of purpose. 

The study found that religious and nonreligious people differed in only one way: How moral and immoral deeds made them feel

Religious people responded with stronger emotions – more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds. 

The study also found little evidence for a morality divide between political conservatives and liberals. 

'Our findings are important because they reveal that even though there are some small differences in the degree to which liberals and conservatives emphasize different moral priorities, the moral priorities they have are more similar than different,' Skitka said. Both groups are very concerned about issues such as harm/care, fairness/unfairness, authority/subversion and honesty/dishonesty, she said. 

'By studying how people themselves describe their moral and immoral experiences, instead of examining reactions to artificial examples in a lab, we have gained a much richer and more nuanced understanding of what makes up the moral fabric of everyday experience,' Skitka said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... uilty.html

Do you agree or disagree with the bold items above? Why?

[KenRU]

Indeed, that's the biggest reason that the Mormons are fighting so hard to keep the government from redefining marriage. When it does, Mormons get it in the neck. I mean, the last time the government decided to do this, families were ripped apart, children taken from their mothers, church property was confiscated, people imprisoned because of who they married...or did not marry.

And that was six years ago.

To what are you referring here?

To the FLDS compound raid...the one orchestrated by the Texas Child Protective Services. The one that the courts found was prompted only by religious prejudice,

Not true. According to an article interviewing Texas Ranger Captain Brooks Long: The call later turned out to be a hoax, but Long said that after seeing a 33-page report on interactions with the hotline worker, there was probable cause to investigate.

The EXCUSE used was a fraudulent phone call which claimed to be a woman inside the compound being mistreated. That call turned out to be a fake from a woman several hundred miles away...and it turns out that the authorities knew that the call was a fake before they went in.

Misleading. There was other evidence as well. See link below.

Turns out that the incidence of child abuse within the compound was a LOT less than that found outside the compound, and more of those children were physically hurt (broken legs, for instance) while they were in 'protective custody' than while they were with their parents.

Wholly untrue. From the article, I learned the following:

“… ultimately, investigators were forced to hire a safe cracker, who spent 22 hours cracking one vault, Long said. Investigators had to use a jackhammer to get into the second vault. Inside, he said, they found audio tapes of Jeffs allegedly sexually assaulting the 12-year-old girl, just a fraction of the staggering amount of evidence seized at the ranch that led to the 55-year-old Jeffs' swift conviction.�

“Among the 984 boxes of physical evidence and another 6 terabytes of digital files carted away were wedding photos of Jeffs open-mouth kissing his teenage "celestial wives." In thousands of pages of personal journals, Jeffs wrote in 2005, "If the world knew what I was doing, they would hang me from the highest tree."�

And from Wikipedia, we learn:

-On November 10, 2009, Raymond Jessop was sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined $8,000[41] for sexually assaulting a 16 year old girl on or about Nov. 19, 2004.[42] On December 18, 2009, Allan Keate was sentenced to 33 years in prison. He fathered a child with a 15-year old girl.

-On January 22, 2010, Michael George Emack pled no contest to sexual assault charges and was sentenced to seven years in prison. He married a 16-year-old girl at YFZ Ranch on August 5, 2004. She gave birth to a son less than a year later. On April 14, 2010, Emack also pled no contest on a bigamy charge and received a seven-year sentence that will run concurrently with the sentence he received for sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl.[43]

-On March 19, 2010, Merril Leroy Jessop was sentenced to 75 years in prison for one count of sexual assault of a child. Jessop was convicted of illegally marrying and then fathering a child with a 15 year old female.[51]

-On April 15, 2010, Lehi Barlow Jeffs pleaded no contest to bigamy and sexual assault of a child, avoiding a trial that had been set for April 26. He was sentenced to eight years in prison.[43]

-On June 22, 2010, Abram Harker Jeffs was found guilty of sexual assault of a child.[52]

-On August 9, 2011, leader Warren Steed Jeffs was found guilty of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of sexual assault of a child and sentenced to life in prison plus 20 years to be served consecutively.[53]

This hardly seems like a safe environment. Do you disagree?

The reason, as the courts found, was that the neighbors did not like the FLDS, and the government was forcing the FLDS to abide by its definition of what marriage is.

And yet, the above were convicted of various sex crimes perpetrated against minors.

You don’t see a problem with what was going on there?

Whenever I point out what the government did to the Mormons in Utah 'back in the day,' in the late nineteenth century, where the US government sent half its armed forces after the Mormons, confiscated church and personal property...I get told that no, this can't happen NOW.

Everything I’ve read thus far regarding this raid leads me to believe that the authorities acted with good intentions. They believed (rightly so) that minors were being abused. While there were missteps along the way (families unnecessarily separated for long periods) the environment can hardly have been called a safe one. Plus, should we really let parents keep their children if they intend to continue abusing them? The compound was, after all, clearly run and inhabited by sexual predators.

And, how can anyone not consider child weddings abusive or immoral?

How is that even debatable?

Article from Deseret News with a Texas Ranger involved in the case:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7001 ... tml?pg=all


So, in your view, this compound should have been left alone by our government? This is your best example of government infringing on religious freedom?

-all the best,

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 138 by dianaiad]

Er...do you have any lawsuits regarding people who charge gays more for the same services offered to others?

I'd be interested in knowing about that.

Now now. that wasn't the question asked so let's not try to avoid it. Here's the question for you to answer AGAIN:
I can assume you'd be OK with the same or similar discrimination against Mormons? Should Mormons be charged more for doing whatever because they are Mormons?

Don't look now, but (whisper this) THEY ARE.

But why? Why were they banned? A direct question that needs a direct answer now a glancing blow

You are correct. It isn't.

what IS my business is what I am forced to do as a result.

You are forced to participate in gay weddings are you? I'd like to see proof of that please

We 'allow gay people in it.'

Now now that's not what I said. I said FORCED not ALLOW. Your temple isn't being forced to allow gay people into it, yes or no?

We simply do not allow 'practicing' gay people in it for the same reason we don't allow heterosexual folks who have sex outside marriage bonds in it.

Well at least your discrimination is consistent I'll give ya' that. But, from personal experience, I KNOW straight (and gay) couples are in your temples. And I KNOW, again from personal experience, that many 'over look' the straight couples - even when they're living together because (I guess?) they take their word that they aren't having sex if they're not married Lies in the temple..

Then you haven't been paying attention to American history.

You, as a straight Mormon can worship anything you want. Your people SCREAM if something happens they don't like (I remember Mormons freakin' out in Utah when Brokeback Mountain came to their local theaters - OMG how terrible!) yet I don't remember seeing anyone freak out like that when The Passion came to the theaters
You, as a practicing religious person, can't be discriminated against because you believe in a God as well as being a woman, or being old. Though, in many states, there's no laws prohibiting discrimination against liking the same gender.
You, as a straight woman, have the legal right to marry the individual male you want. Gay people don't.
So please excuse me if I dont' share your 'woo is me' thinking here

I, personally, have been refused jobs because of my religion. ....and I absolutely agree with the folks who refused me the job.

Hm... considering how bad you think you're treated, I call bullpie on this. I suspect there are many other reasons to discriminate against you - perhaps qualifications.
Besides that, because YOU agree you were discriminated against, and it's right and now we should discriminate against others means nothing. We live in a SOCIETY, not a one woman world.

[Danmark]

While religion may enoble some, it can have the opposite effect as well. The sad truth is that religion, along with other belief systems, has been used to justify evil.

For some horrible examples of 'Christian' Racism:
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm

In particular you may want to note the page from Dake's Annotated Reference Bible [1963].

30 Reasons for Segregation of Races

by Finis Dake

Acts 17:26

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; (KJV)

God wills all races to be as He made them. Any violation of God’s original purpose manifests insubordination to Him(Acts 17:26; Romans 9:19-24)
God made everything to reproduce “After his own kind� (Genesis 1:11-12, 21-25; 6:20; 7:14). Kind means type and color or He would have kept them all alike to begin with.
God originally determined the bounds of the habitations of nations(Acts 17:26; Genesis 10:5, 32; 11:8; Deuteronomy 32:8)
Miscegenation means the mixture of races, especially the black and white races, or those of outstanding type or color. The Bible even goes farther than opposing this. It is against different branches of the same stock intermarrying such as Jews marrying other descendants of Abraham(Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 9-13; Jeremiah 50:37; Ezekiel 30:5).
Abraham forbad Eliezer to take a wife for Isaac of Canaanites (Genesis 24:1-4). God was so pleased with this that He directed whom to get (Genesis 24:7, 12-27).
Isaac forbad Jacob to take a wife of the Canaanites (Genesis 27:46-28:7).
Abraham sent all his sons of the concubines, and even of his second wife, far away from Isaac so their descendants would not mix (Genesis 25:1-6)
Esau disobeying this law brought the final break between him and his father after lifelong companionship with him(Genesis 25:28; 26:34-35, 27:46; 28:8-9).
The two branches of Isaac remained segregated forever (Genesis 30; 46:8-26).
Ishmael and Isaac’s descendants remained segregated forever (Genesis 25:12-23; 1 Chronicles 1:29)
Jacob’s sons destroyed a whole city to maintain segregation (Genesis 34)
God forbad intermarriage between Israel and all other nations (Exodus 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:5-6)
Joshua forbad the same thing on sentence of death (Joshua 22:12-13)
God cursed angels for leaving their own “first estate� and “their own habitation� to marry the daughters of men (Genesis 6:1-4; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6-7)
Miscegenation caused Israel to be cursed (Judges 3:6-7; Numbers 25:1-8)
This was Solomon’s sin (I Kings 11)
This was the sin of Jews returning from Babylon (Ezra 9:1-10:2,10-18,44; 13:1-30)
God commanded Israel to be segregated (Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 23:9; 1 Kings 8:53)
Jews recognized as a separate people in all ages because of Gods choice and command (Matthew 10:6; John 1:11). Equal rights in the gospel gives no right to break this eternal law.
Segregation between Jews and all other nations to remain in all eternity (Isaiah 2:2-4; Ezekiel 37; 47:13-48,55; Zechariah 14:16-21; Matthew 19:28; Luke 1:32-33; Revelation 7:1-8; 14:1-5)
All nations will remain segregated from one another in their own parts of the earth forever (Acts 17:26; Genesis 10:5,32; 11:8-9; Deuteronomy 32:8; Daniel 7:13-14; Zechariah 14; Revelation 11:15; 21:24)
Certain people in Israel were not even to worship with others (Deuteronomy 23:1-5; Ezra 10:8; Nehemiah 9:2 10:28; 13:3)
Even in heaven certain groups will not be allowed to worship together (Revelation 7:7-17; 14:1-5; 15:2-5)
Segregation was so strong in the O.T. that an ox and an ass could not work together (Deuteronomy 22:10).
Miscegenation caused disunity among God’s people (Numbers 12).
Stock was forbidden to be bred with other kinds (Leviticus 19:19).
Sowing mixed seed in the same field was unlawful (Leviticus 19:19)
Different seeds were forbidden to be planted in vineyards (Deuteronomy 22:9)
Wearing garments of mixed fabrics forbidden (Deuteronomy 22:11; Leviticus 19:19)
Christians and certain other people of a like race are to be segregated (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 6:15; 2 Corinthians 6:14-15; Ephesians 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-16; 1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:5).

Dakes Publishing continues to publish this book and defends it:
http://www.dake.com/dake/position.html

[dianaiad]

You read one article...perhaps two, both from the POV of the folks who did the raid and who were attempting to justify it.

The problem here is that you are talking to a woman who was taking a class in communication at the time of the events. It was a grad class, and when this happened, I petitioned to have my final project changed to following, and examining, how the communications of this event was handled. I dug into it, watched all the court cases, got all the public records...

What I wrote, finally, was a paper on how the Texas authorities completely and totally blew the public relations aspect of the case. In doing that, of course, I also saw how they blew the legal aspects...

And I noticed how you completely ignored my reference to Jeffers, and how he had been IN PRISON for years before the raid? If it was Jeffers...then they should have raided the place a whole lot earlier.

Yes, the child services and rangers would say 'there were other reasons...' but those reasons, by themselves, did not, evidently, rise to the level of prompting a raid. It took that fraudulent phone call that, I repeat, the authorities knew was fraudulent before they went in.

So...if those 'other reasons' (including Jeffers, who was already in prisno) weren't sufficient, why would a fake phone call suddenly MAKE them sufficient?

In point of fact, they did not, as the courts eventually found. The COURTS ruled that the raid was illegal, and prompted only by religious discrimination. The COURTS found that the Child Protective services of Texas had absolutely no grounds to have raided the place, broken up the families, taken the children and imprisoned the women. None.

And yes, putting the women in fenced facilities that they were not allowed to leave, with their restroom facilities at the back of the parking lot in full view of the public, is 'imprisonment...' unless you prefer 'concentration camp.'

Those court decisions were constantly appealed, the children kept from their mothers...

Some of the appeals about this continue to this day...mostly, I think, to keep the FLDS people from suing the assets off of the state of Texas.

I mentioned one rather unbelievable objection from the child protection agency to the court telling it to let the children go back to their mothers and let their mothers go home; It was, basically, 'You can't DO that, because if you make us do that, we'll have to give the kids back to their mothers and let their mothers go home, and if they do that, they might leave Texas and we won't be able to keep them under our thumbs any more!"

Fact:

The reason on the warrant to raid was the phone call. It was fraudulent and they KNEW that.

Fact:

The children from that compound were a lot safer with their parents than they were, later, in foster care.

Fact:

There was NO evidence of child abuse within the compound. None.

Fact:

The courts found that there was no reason for the raid, that it was prompted only by religious discrimination, and that the children and the women should be set free.

Fact: in spite of the ruling, the child protective services kept the kids, claiming that they had the right to do so until all THEIR appeals were settled.

Perhaps...they shouldn't have used the Baptist buses to haul the women away?

Don't try to educate me about this incident. I'm not FLDS. I'm not a polygamist, and the FLDS is a huge embarrassment to the CoJCoLDS, to which I belong. People keep confusing us for them...and we are about like them as the Roman Catholics are like the Westboro Baptists. Frankly, if the whole thing had been justified, if indeed everything they were accused of doing and being were real, WE would be in better shape.

I'm actually, in a way, 'defending the enemy,' here when I talk about the FLDS.

But I've had to get to know the case very well indeed, and frankly?

There is no excuse for it....and the courts, eventually, agreed with me. The problem is, the government of the state of Texas in the form of the child protective services didn't, and they had a lot more power than, evidently, the courts did.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 138 by dianaiad]

Er...do you have any lawsuits regarding people who charge gays more for the same services offered to others?

I'd be interested in knowing about that.

Now now. that wasn't the question asked so let's not try to avoid it.

I didn't bring it up. You did.

Here's the question for you to answer AGAIN:
I can assume you'd be OK with the same or similar discrimination against Mormons? Should Mormons be charged more for doing whatever because they are Mormons?

No, I wouldn't...but I don't know of anybody that charges gays more for a service because they are gay. That's why I asked. If they aren't, what is your purpose for using this as an example?

Don't look now, but (whisper this) THEY ARE.

But why? Why were they banned? A direct question that needs a direct answer now a glancing blow

What, you think that banning polygamy because one simply doesn't like it is permissible, do you? Or that destroying lives because of a religious perception of marriage as it applies to the religion is permissible?

You are correct. It isn't.

what IS my business is what I am forced to do as a result.

You are forced to participate in gay weddings are you? I'd like to see proof of that please

If I were a wedding photographer, I would be forced to shoot a gay wedding. If I were a baker, I would be forced to bake the cake and participate in that wedding. I'm sure you are aware of the cases involved here.

Now ME, personally, I would not have to be forced, I have no problem participating in a gay wedding. I HAVE baked a cake for one, I HAVE helped my daughter 'shoot' one.

But others find that participating in a gay wedding ceremony violates their religious principles, and they absolutely should not be forced to do so.

We 'allow gay people in it.'

Now now that's not what I said. I said FORCED not ALLOW. Your temple isn't being forced to allow gay people into it, yes or no?

Not yet. That is the fear...and given the relationship between the government and us, it's not an unreasonable fear.

We simply do not allow 'practicing' gay people in it for the same reason we don't allow heterosexual folks who have sex outside marriage bonds in it.

Well at least your discrimination is consistent I'll give ya' that. But, from personal experience, I KNOW straight (and gay) couples are in your temples. And I KNOW, again from personal experience, that many 'over look' the straight couples - even when they're living together because (I guess?) they take their word that they aren't having sex if they're not married Lies in the temple..

So you KNOW that people will lie in order to get Temple Recommends?

Wow. Big revelation, that.

Then you haven't been paying attention to American history.

You, as a straight Mormon can worship anything you want. Your people SCREAM if something happens they don't like (I remember Mormons freakin' out in Utah when Brokeback Mountain came to their local theaters - OMG how terrible!) yet I don't remember seeing anyone freak out like that when The Passion came to the theaters
You, as a practicing religious person, can't be discriminated against because you believe in a God as well as being a woman, or being old. Though, in many states, there's no laws prohibiting discrimination against liking the same gender.
You, as a straight woman, have the legal right to marry the individual male you want. Gay people don't.

...and if you had any experience with me, You would know that I'm all for gay couples getting exactly the same civil rights that the government grants 'married' people. Indeed, I think that everybody, straight or gay, should get 'civil unions' from the government in order to get the rights, and then everybody, straight or gay, should go to the religious (or other) system to be married. Everybody gets the rights. Everybody gets married.

......and the government can't dictate religious practices one way or the other to anybody.

So please excuse me if I dont' share your 'woo is me' thinking here

I, personally, have been refused jobs because of my religion. ....and I absolutely agree with the folks who refused me the job.

Hm... considering how bad you think you're treated, I call bullpie on this. I suspect there are many other reasons to discriminate against you - perhaps qualifications.

Wow.

You are free to think as you wish, but the insult is a bit much. You have no reason to think that, because I claim that I was refused a job because of my religion, that the problem was qualifications.

It's not a logical conclusion

Are you asking me for my resume', or just throwing out the insults for kicks and giggles?

Besides that, because YOU agree you were discriminated against, and it's right and now we should discriminate against others means nothing. We live in a SOCIETY, not a one woman world.

Yes. A society, in the USA, that puts the constitution at a basic level, including the First amendment, which mentions freedom of religion first...and twice. Freedom of speech comes third.

BTW, all societies are made up of 'one's: one woman here, one man there, a bunch of other individuals over there. If we don't take care of the individuals, the group suffers greatly.

[Danmark]

If I were a wedding photographer, I would be forced to shoot a gay wedding. If I were a baker, I would be forced to bake the cake and participate in that wedding. I'm sure you are aware of the cases involved here.

How does recording an event amount to 'participation in it?'
If I photograph a woman that does not make me one.
How does baking a cake involve my participation in an event where it is eaten?
When a baker bakes a birthday cake that does not make him part of the birthday celebration.

I'm glad to know you would not personally object to the baking and the photographing we're talking about. For someone who did object, that seems to be the most hypersensitive excuse for discrimination I can imagine. Turning words on their heads to justify bad behavior is hypocrisy or worse.

[KenRU]

You read one article...perhaps two, both from the POV of the folks who did the raid and who were attempting to justify it.

Were any of the facts that I posted inaccurate?

And I noticed how you completely ignored my reference to Jeffers, and how he had been IN PRISON for years before the raid? If it was Jeffers...then they should have raided the place a whole lot earlier.

What difference does it make whether he was there or not? His followers allowed this go on. It doesn’t diminish what went on in the compound.

Yes, the child services and rangers would say 'there were other reasons...' but those reasons, by themselves, did not, evidently, rise to the level of prompting a raid. It took that fraudulent phone call that, I repeat, the authorities knew was fraudulent before they went in.

I’m not sure your point here. So what if it was fraudulent? They had probably cause according to the local news article (dated 2011) I linked to in my previous post. If they didn’t use the faked call as probable cause, they could have used the 33 page report form the hotline worker who visited the compound.

So...if those 'other reasons' (including Jeffers, who was already in prisno) weren't sufficient, why would a fake phone call suddenly MAKE them sufficient?

So, because they waited too long to investigate it becomes religious persecution? Or, maybe you are arguing that they didn’t know that they were FLDS?

Once again, I’m failing to see how this is helping your cause.

In point of fact, they did not, as the courts eventually found. The COURTS ruled that the raid was illegal, and prompted only by religious discrimination.

Evidence please.

If this is true, and I seriously doubt it is, then how are the men I previously posted about still in jail? How were they ever convicted? Is the Texas Child Protective Services that powerful? Seriously?

The COURTS found that the Child Protective services of Texas had absolutely no grounds to have raided the place, broken up the families, taken the children and imprisoned the women. None.

Citation please. And yet, multiple convictions of sexual abuse were a direct result of this raid. How do you account for that?

Those court decisions were constantly appealed, the children kept from their mothers...

They should have been sent back to families who put the children in harm’s way?

Fact:
The reason on the warrant to raid was the phone call. It was fraudulent and they KNEW that.

Also a fact: the police had a 33 page document from a hotline worker who visited the compound, which would also have sufficed as probably cause.
Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7001 ... tml?pg=all

Fact:
The children from that compound were a lot safer with their parents than they were, later, in foster care.

Patently false. See post 141. Multiple people were found guilty of assaulting children, having sex with minors, and sexual abuse.

Not to mention a constant state of fear the environment fostered.

Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... tml?pg=all

How can you make this claim?

Fact:
There was NO evidence of child abuse within the compound. None.

Also false: “Nine members of the FLDS church, including Jeffs, have been convicted of sexually assaulting children at the ranch where Jeffs gathered elite members of his sect.�

Link here for verification: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ranch.html

Fact:
The courts found that there was no reason for the raid, that it was prompted only by religious discrimination, and that the children and the women should be set free.

False, sort of. The courts found there was no reason to separate the children from their mothers. The raid was not deemed illegal.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/us/fundam ... ast-facts/

If true, there would not have been any convictions. It would simply not be possible. All evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible. If your assertion were true, how could anyone explain the convictions?

Fact: in spite of the ruling, the child protective services kept the kids, claiming that they had the right to do so until all THEIR appeals were settled.

Also a fact, this has been resolved – entirely.

From the Observer: http://www.texasobserver.org/no-refuge/

“When it was over, all children were returned to the sect, and no parents lost custody of their kids. State officials claimed victory, saying they improved the sect’s culture by ensuring that members no longer would sexually abuse girls through underage “spiritual� marriage. But as we approach the five-year anniversary of the raid, two questions linger: Did the state really protect the children, or leave victims in the care of abusers? And does anyone know where those children are now and if they are safe?�

It would be a much better decision to return these children to the home/compound of child predators, right?

Don't try to educate me about this incident.

Don’t get defensive, Dianaiad. What I’m learning about this incident, I’m getting from online news sites. Please show me where any of my comments are wrong. Not by saying, “You’re wrong, I know. You don’t.�

I’m providing links. You’re just saying I’m wrong.

Frankly, if the whole thing had been justified, if indeed everything they were accused of doing and being were real, WE would be in better shape.

I’ve now showed you (through my last two posts) multiple links from different news sites and quotes from Wikipedia that show there indeed were sexual predators on the compound perpetrating these acts.

Please show me where the articles I’ve read and posted were incorrect. Show me evidence, and I will change my opinion immediately and offer a mea culpa. I’m going by what I read from news sites. If they got it wrong and you are right, then I will tip my hat and offer you the props you so justly would deserve. Otherwise, this case is more evidence of religion causing people to behave immorally (per the OP) and less an example of religious persecution.

-sincerely,

Ken

[dianaiad]

If I were a wedding photographer, I would be forced to shoot a gay wedding. If I were a baker, I would be forced to bake the cake and participate in that wedding. I'm sure you are aware of the cases involved here.

How does recording an event amount to 'participation in it?'
If I photograph a woman that does not make me one.
How does baking a cake involve my participation in an event where it is eaten?
When a baker bakes a birthday cake that does not make him part of the birthday celebration.

I'm glad to know you would not personally object to the baking and the photographing we're talking about. For someone who did object, that seems to be the most hypersensitive excuse for discrimination I can imagine. Turning words on their heads to justify bad behavior is hypocrisy or worse.

It's not about what you think, or what I think. It's about what THEY think, Freedom of religion isn't about allowing people to believe what we approve of, or to act in ways we like. It's about protecting the rights of people to be, from our perspective, idiots.

It is, in my opinion, EXACTLY the same as the prayer in school thing. The reason mandatory prayer was outlawed is because it forces students who may not believe in either that type of prayer, or prayer at all, from having to participate in it.

The arguments were that 'well, how is a student who just stands there 'participating?' He's just standing there."

That argument didn't work then, either.

How is forcing someone to participate in a gay wedding who believes, sincerely and honestly, that a gay wedding is against his religious principles and beliefs, any different from forcing a kid to participate...even by just standing there in silence...in a school prayer?

I say it's worse. The kid doesn't have to pretend to support prayer; he just has to stand there in silence and obvious disapproval. But the wedding photographer not only has to participate (and believe me, photographing a wedding is participation in a big way; just ask any wedding planner/photographer; weddings are planned around the pictures) and pretend to support and approve of the event.

In fact, the only way you can say that the photographer doesn't participate is if you so narrowly define 'participation' that it applies only to the bride, the groom (or bride and bride/groom and groom) and the officiator.

I think that the rest of the wedding party would object to that narrow of a definition.

As for 'recording' isn't participating...well, that might be true if the photographer showed up before the event, planted cameras all over the place, turned 'em all on and just let 'em run.

But wedding photographers are considerably more involved than that. Now, true, my own wedding was forty years ago, and very light on the budget, but I do remember that I spent a LOT more time being ordered around by the photographer than I ever did actually getting married. That's "participation.'

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 148 by dianaiad]

I just don't buy the bit about 'My religion justifies whatever I want.
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm
One of the tamer images from that site:

[Danmark]

It is, in my opinion, EXACTLY the same as the prayer in school thing. The reason mandatory prayer was outlawed is because it forces students who may not believe in either that type of prayer, or prayer at all, from having to participate in it.

The arguments were that 'well, how is a student who just stands there 'participating?' He's just standing there."
....
But wedding photographers are considerably more involved than that. Now, true, my own wedding was forty years ago, and very light on the budget, but I do remember that I spent a LOT more time being ordered around by the photographer than I ever did actually getting married. That's "participation.'

I disagree on both counts. A school child is not participating in the prayer, it is the fact that the prayer is sanctioned by government's imprimatur that is the problem. The child is held captive and made to feel ostracised.

When a photographer poses people for photos she is not participating in the ceremony. And she is not the State imposing its religious preferences.

She is not putting her imprimatur on the wedding. If asked to photograph a 'gay' wedding, the company or the photographer can simply be candid and say that for religious or other reasons they feel uncomfortable and might not be at their 'artistic best' and that they won't "participate" in the ceremony; they'll just take photos.

The photographer poses the wedding party for artistic reasons, not for religious ones.

There may indeed be a scenario where the photographer would in some way be called upon to actually participate in the ceremony. IF that were truly the case, I'd defend her right to refuse. What I have contempt for is the phony baloney excuse making that uses 'my religion' as the reason. I would think most religious people would share my contempt in that case because at its heart it is disingenuous.