Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
[LGBT]: Bigots can go eat a bag of [Chick-Fil-A]
Posts
After the Proposition 8 debacle, this should have happened to the LDS church.
Anywho, I thought it was the job of a church to spiritually lead their flock. Not, you know, everyone else's flocks.
You aren't reading the cases then. Yoder is an example of the court requiring a special carve out from compulsory education for Amish children. Barnette is a carve out for religious people (particularly jehovah's witnesses) from having to recite the pledge of allegiance. Same goes for the NH license plate cases. Of course the prayer in school cases are another example of recognizing that individuals are allowed to practice whatever religious freedoms they want without being forced to recite a school prayer (Abbington or Lee v. Weisman). This applies equally to minority religious views and majority religious views like in the football prayer case Santa Fe v. Doe (There a mormon and a catholic)
Free exercise is the epitome of recognizing that religious practice deserves special protection. I guess you could also look to Title VII which grants a specific exception to hiring practices for religious institutions (which makes sense, can't require that catholic churches hire a Mormon bishop, whereas you CAN require private companies to do so as a matter of anti-discrimination).
Yes, they're supposed to give legislators a pass on this. Because who the state recognizes as "married" is a state issue, not a religious one. This is Caesar's due, not God's.
If instead of a legislator acting in the name of the state, it was a rogue priest who was performing gay marriages in the name of the Church, then it would be a religious issue for which Eucharist-denial or excommunication would be appropriate.
Consider - the Church does not recognize divorce, while the state does. "What God has joined, let no man put asunder" and all that - the Church lacks the authority to undo a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.
The Church also does not recognize post-divorce re-marriage (without a Decree of Nullity), while the state does.
So where is all the talk of excommunication for all persons who have had 2nd marriages recognized by the state? I haven't heard much, if any. Where the politicians who voted for the state to recognize 2nd marriages excommunicated?
Now, the Church will definitely consider sexual relations within the 2nd marriage to be adultery, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the 2nd marriage is recognized by the state. The Church would also consider it adultery if sexual relations (with someone other than a Church-recognized spouse) took place outside of the state-recognized 2nd marriage.
Alternatively, start your own church! It worked for Henry VIII.
I'm not arguing the Catholic Church doesn't have the right to excommunicate members on similar grounds; the See can do what it wants regardless of rationality, and has for eons with precedence.
But a politician isn't a church representative, regardless of the Church's claim or desire. If the Church wishes to act outside the state (or State, in this case), they cannot pass judgment on State-oriented activity that doesn't have any bearing on the constitution of the Church, which this decision absolutely does not.
In a way, it's a microcosm of much of the argument between civil rights and moral appeals. New York's ruling on gay marriage not only isn't anti-Catholic, practicing Catholics can still vote in favor of the law and maintain their faith without a stain on their conscience.
The Bible (and similarly, the Vatican) has some stated (and interpreted) opposition to many, many different things to the point at which many seemingly-innocuous legislative decisions could be argued to be blasphemous. Like I said earlier, hate-crime legislation that particularly protects non-Christians or non-Catholics could easily be argued to be in opposition to the Vatican's directives; why doesn't the See come out strongly against these measures as well?
OP is wrong. Mormons are not a Christ-denying sect. The actual name of their organization is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They are as Christian as they come.
But as far as the topic goes, churches are private organizations. They can excommunicate/kick out members for whatever reasons they like, right? Intentions and reasons don't matter I thought when dealing with private clubs/groups/organizations.
Hunh. I was under the impression that I wasn't required to recite anything in school regardless.
Still I take your point about there being special exemptions for religious practice. The reason I'm not a fan of framing free exercise as being about the positive requirement for government to make exemptions for religious institutions is because it tends to lead to religious institutions demanding to have their rights supersede mine. For instance, demanding that marriage be modified to suit them, rather than simply being allowed to practice.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
The problem with this logic is that the 501(c)3 law makes it clear that the political statement has to be used to influence the election of a candidate running for office. A churches general denouncement of a candidate may or may not cross this line when it talks about the candidates electoral possibility. BUT any church is free, and as a matter of other first amendment principles should be free, to state that legislation (not a candidate for office) or a legislators actions (without referencing an election) violates the church's tenants.
For similar reasons, the prop 8 argument is more wrong. There is no candidate for election, thus no violation of 501(c)3.
I also have a hard time seeing why this position is acceptable. For churches to exercise their freedoms they get to talk about political issues just like any other group does that gets tax exempt status. For example, PETA, a 501(c)3 is tax exempt and gets to talk about meat being murder, begs the public to regulate mcdonalds and all manner of other things. Why should PETA be allowed to engage in this kind of discourse and not churches? So long as the church and any other tax exempt entity does not contribute to a candidate directly, or endorse a candidate for election (and I think that should be broadened to "political party) then the actions of the church shouldn't get the church removed from the exempt status.
On the other hand I've seen plenty of occasions where local churches in Utah over stepped their boundaries and flat out said you can't be a democrat and be mormon, or that XYZ candidate (at a religious function) was better than another candidate. And this should be investigated by the IRS (and my understanding is that the IRS is trying to crack down on this kind of behavior)
I dunno. Cathedrals tend to be bitching. And if there's a picture of the pope somewhere you could totally high five in front of it.
Sure, but it certainly makes being not-catholic a valid test for voting someone into public office. Because the church is willing to directly meddle with its members on issues down to the single vote level. It basically give credence to the whole 'pawn of the pope' view of catholic politicians.
And then when people didn't burst into flames, maybe some other people would finally get the right idea, and start excommunicating themselves.
Into MMA, pro wrestling, fitness, health, drinking coffee and reading.
Height: 5' 11" Weight: 217 Goal: 200
You'll get no quarrel with me if you argue that the Church isn't uniformly applying the standard. That isn't the same thing as arguing they're wrong in the application. They certainly do have a duty to deny communion to any Catholic who remarried without an annulment if they also do so for supporting gay marriage against the wishes of the Church.
Aso, I think removing tax exempt status for excommunicating a legislator would be prohibiting free exercise. It's much easier to argue that's a financial punishment for exercising their beliefs than it would be to argue that excommunicating a legislator is an attempt to influence his behavior in violation of the 501c3 exempt status.
Depends. If they excommunicate him after the fact, that's one thing. But if he's informed by the church ahead of time "Do X and you're excommunicated." Then that's another.
Really, Benedict? Gay marriage is going to be your American political Waterloo?
But yeah I guess specific weird and technically illegal religious practices are also protected so long as they're not straight murdering or something. I didn't know about the Amish school thing, though I think it's kind of horrible. Poor fucking kids.
Also, why would churches specifically need hiring protections? I was under the impression it operated like the Boy Scouts or country clubs or something, where they could choose who to admit due to being a private organization but not a business?
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
Eventually, someone will definitely do this. It's the next clear step, if your intent is to pursue an anti-religious agenda, rather than a civil rights one. Certainly its not controversial to point out that some gay Americans are anti-religious, for various reasons.
Pre-Cana (aka couples classes) is pretty standard. I'm pretty sure it's basically required across the board.
As for total control of the ceremony, ultimately it's their house, their rules. It's a shame they won't let your groomsmen where cat-ears, bro.
#FreeScheck
#FreeSKFM
. . . . uh . . .hmmmm.
Most Christians don't believe the Bible had a sequel involving Native Americans and magic dinnerware.
Mormons are Christians the same way that Terrance Howard fans like Iron Man II.
Personally, I'm speaking more from a regard for logic and consistency, which may be pointless in a religious discussion, but I'd like to hope not.
A diocese shouldn't accuse a pro-gay politician of being anti-Catholic, unless they're also in the habit of accusing divorced politicians or pro-welfare politicians or politicians who suffer the existence of people of other faiths of being the same.
The church would tell them to go fuck themselves. About a dozen mouth breathers will take this as proof that the radical homo-queer agenda is totes real. Another dozen hippies will scream that this is the worst oppression since Auchwitz.
#FreeScheck
#FreeSKFM
For instance, if I were a vegan (ha!) on moral grounds, people who campaign to get meat to more places and to be more prevalent in the world would upset me, as their ideals are in direct opposition to my own. If I was running a Vegan club and I discovered that one of the members was also a spokesperson for a chicken farm, I'd probably kick him out of the Vegan club.
I dunno. Is the threat of damnation in the next life enough to be considered an attempt to influence? I think you're ascribing to the Church a power that belongs to God. Let me explain:
If someone tells you that legislation mandating everyone climb a tree in a thunderstorm, wearing plate mail and waving a sword, is likely to get your struck down by God, is that a attempt to influence your behavior in violation of the statute? I don't think it is. If the Pope tells you that supporting gay rights in legislative votes is likely to get you damned to hell because they can't give you the Sacraments anymore, is that any different?
See that bolded part? That's different than being a fringe Christian group. That's claiming that Mormons don't believe in Christ. Reality is that Mormons believe that Christ died for their sins, was resurrected, and is/was the Son of God. Again, basic Christianity there.
Yes they have a Book of Mormon. Yes they have prophets and stuff. But none of those things are anywhere near Christ-denying.
Just saying, your terminology is off in your OP. And this being D&D, its kind of important to get your facts straight in the first post.
In that case, then list EVERY OTHER religious group there is in that list. In fact, don't have a list. Just say every other religion. Because all different Christian churches believe different things about Christ. That's why they aren't the same church.
So, if you kick that person out of helping with the homeless shelter because he's interfering with your (supposedly) insignificant efforts at running a vegan club on the side, you really shouldn't have 501(c)3 status.
If I were torturing this analogy any more, the Hague would have hauled me off.
I do not understand your homeless shelter bit, could you elaborate?
When God makes a personal statement on the matter then we can take his opinions into account.
Until then, administration of sacrements or lack therof to individuals in order to influence secular policy is an action of the church as an entity and must be treated as such.
Fair enough. There is a lot of gray-area in that discussion. I just noticed something in the OP and thought you would want it fixed.
Sorry for derailing the thread.
This is important, because according to Federal regulations, a 501(c)3 organization "may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."
So, if they're a vegan club, then they need to register as a lobbying organization, in which case they lose their government subsidy. If they're a homeless shelter that only runs an incidental, small vegan club on the side, then they're okay.
Yeah there's nothing wrong with the catholic church requiring certain things in order to be married by the catholic church.
not judging it at all. Just saying these kinds of restrictions and arbitrary standards to get a ceremony performed already exist and nobody complains about them. Gay marriages are going to be exactly the same.
It's okay, I'm not upset or anything.
I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around an institution enjoying the First Amendment freedoms granted by the very progressive Western nation hosting it, yet also at the same time thinking they enjoy some kind of authority beyond the powers of said nation and should encourage members who politically represent that nation to act against the very provisions that allow them to exist.
TL;DR - "Hey, thank God we have a diocese in a country that protects our viewpoints and teachings at a Constitutional level. Now let's go and fuck people over."
Since when was RENT about gay people? O_o
Legalize Love: Ban Marriage.
Secret Satans! Post | D&D Wishlist | General Wishlist