Just for starters: When fundamentalist Mormons assert that plural marriage was a holy doctrine promulgated by Joseph Smith himself, and that the subsequent wholesale abandonment of polygamy by the mainstream LDS church was nothing more than a surrender to the US government that compromised church dogma for political expediency, they are essentially correct.
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
If your religion tells you that nonbelievers should not have fundamental rights—as both the Quran and the Bible explicitly say—why should this not matter?
Deuteronomy 13:6—anyone who tries to get you to believe in another religion must be killed "without mercy."
If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or* your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.
Leviticus 25:45—slavery is explicitly allowed, and non-Hebrew slaves are property to be passed down to your children.
As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.
Slavery is also commanded, in Dt. 20:10, as the rules of warfare for conquering unbeliever cities—that is, cities that are not in the promised land. In those cities, you're supposed to commit genocide.
When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labour. 12If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. 16But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.
The Quran is less harsh in its treatment of unbelievers than the Bible. But it still mandates they "submit" to Muslim rulership—at most this includes all unbelievers, and at least this only includes "People of the book" (Jews and Christians), relegating polytheists and atheists to who knows what. Surah 9:29:
ight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Unsurprisingly, the policies of Christians and Muslims towards unbelievers have reflected these laws throughout almost all of their history. The reason so many Christians in America see their religious scriptures as somehow amenable to "freedom" is because most Christians are wholly ignorant of both the content and history of their religion and have been lied to about the source of their enlightenment moral values.
If your religion tells you that nonbelievers should not have fundamental rights—as both the Quran and the Bible explicitly say—why should this not matter?
The Bible and Quran say lots of nice things, too. Especially the New Testament. Again, it's more profitable to discuss the religion as it is actually practiced, which you admit is much different than its scriptural demands.
Firstly, the only thing I saw that would pertain to Catholics is in the Gay Marriage article, and that leads into the discussion on whether "being allowed to marry whoever you want" is even a right. Which is a side track.
The second one just says their excommunicating him for getting married to another guy. Is that a problem? Belonging to the LDS church is definitely not a right. They can say who's in and who's out all they want.
It shouldn't matter because a person's spiritual beliefs only matter insofar as they shape his policies. What we should care about, then, are the policies themselves.
I disagree. There are issues which may come up in a president's administration for which he has declared no position or policy. A reliable way to predict how a president might deal with such issues is to look at the ideology which underlies his policies.
Also: there is the issue of intelligence and rationality. Someone who not only claims to believe in, but has dedicated a substantial portion of his life and money to, a fictional mythology is not as fit to run a country. Unfortunately, belief in fictional mythologies seems to be required by voters—but at the least, I'd like a president whose beliefs are only be surface-deep. (Though this brings up other issues)
The Retarded Political Debate Dance is slightly less painful to me then the Retarded Religion Debate Dance. As such I shall only be talking about that segment of the thread.
Pata on
Episode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited December 2007
@Pata: Just to be clear, I didn't mean that as an attack. I really am honestly curious how modern Mormons distinguish between revelations that are valid and revelations that are false. I imagine it's an important issue in a religion that focuses so intensely on a close, personal dialog with God.
I'm not going to reply to you, or anyone else, attacking my beliefs because I don't feel like dancing the retarded religion debate dance.
Romney doesn't want to do the dance either, and I personally think that he shouldn't have to. In this case he had to do something to assauage the fears of the Christian conservatives while not alienating himself to people who think that church and state should be separated. This is an impossible task, and I doubt JFK himself could do that in the climate we have today.
Malkor on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited December 2007
I went to high school with a lot of Mormons. I'd say that on average they were probably more moral and all-around more trustworthy people than the non-Mormons I knew. It was unnerving how straight-arrow a lot of those kids were considering most of us were more or less fuck-ups at age 16. The religion itself might be 30% wackier than vanilla protestant Christianity, but that doesn't particularly bother me.
The Mormon church does seem more controlling than most others, and I understand that the organization is fabulously wealthy and powerful as a result of regular semi-enforced tithes and official and unofficial corporate ties. This might or might be a problem for a Mormon president, but I don't think it's too much more insidious than, say, strong ties to the Southern Baptist Convention.
I oppose Romney because he's a douche, not because he's a Mormon.
edit: I do thik it's retarded that Romney is all about pushing his "deep faith" that "informs his decisions in office" as a qualification for office but gets all indignant when someone asks him to specify his faith. I also draw some joy at seeing Republican religious intolerance eating one of their own for a change.
Most American Christians, as I argued, derive their morals from the enlightenment and are ignorant of the laws of their religion. But some Christians are not. Dominionist Christians in Idaho, for example, are actively working for the enforcement of Old Testament laws, including (presumably) the ones I cited.
Firstly, the only thing I saw that would pertain to Catholics is in the Gay Marriage article, and that leads into the discussion on whether "being allowed to marry whoever you want" is even a right. Which is a side track.
The second one just says their excommunicating him for getting married to another guy. Is that a problem? Belonging to the LDS church is definitely not a right. They can say who's in and who's out all they want.
I see... so, you want a picture or perhaps a video of the American Morman church executing a gay man? My, what a narrow definition of rights you have.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Firstly, the only thing I saw that would pertain to Catholics is in the Gay Marriage article, and that leads into the discussion on whether "being allowed to marry whoever you want" is even a right. Which is a side track.
The second one just says their excommunicating him for getting married to another guy. Is that a problem? Belonging to the LDS church is definitely not a right. They can say who's in and who's out all they want.
I see... so, you want a picture or perhaps a video of the American Morman church executing a gay man? My, what a narrow definition of rights you have.
Hey, your only point so far has been that some churches don't think gays are allowed to get married. So unless you believe "being allowed to marry whomever you choose, regardless of sex" is a right, you've yet to show any evidence of a religion denying anyone fundamental rights within the US in recent history.
If your gonna make blanket statements, let's see some fucking citations.
And Qingu, we already covered the whole "Let's not elect someone from Saudi Arabia" thing. How about some people that'll actually effect us here in North America?
Most American Christians, as I argued, derive their morals from the enlightenment and are ignorant of the laws of their religion. But some Christians are not. Dominionist Christians in Idaho, for example, are actively working for the enforcement of Old Testament laws, including (presumably) the ones I cited.
edit: I do thik it's retarded that Romney is all about pushing his "deep faith" that "informs his decisions in office" as a qualification for office but gets all indignant when someone asks him to specify his faith. I also draw some joy at seeing Republican religious intolerance eating one of their own for a change.
Good points here. Did you see him in the last TV debate when they asked him if he took the Bible completely literally? He froze up and had this glorious deer-in-the-headlights look. It looked an awful lot like he wanted to say "no" but he ended up just stammering that the Bible is the Word of God like it was self-explanatory.
Firstly, the only thing I saw that would pertain to Catholics is in the Gay Marriage article, and that leads into the discussion on whether "being allowed to marry whoever you want" is even a right. Which is a side track.
The second one just says their excommunicating him for getting married to another guy. Is that a problem? Belonging to the LDS church is definitely not a right. They can say who's in and who's out all they want.
I see... so, you want a picture or perhaps a video of the American Morman church executing a gay man? My, what a narrow definition of rights you have.
Hey, your only point so far has been that some churches don't think gays are allowed to get married. So unless you believe "being allowed to marry whomever you choose, regardless of sex" is a right, you've yet to show any evidence of a religion denying anyone fundamental rights within the US in recent history.
If your gonna make blanket statements, let's see some fucking citations.
And Qingu, we already covered the whole "Let's not elect someone from Saudi Arabia" thing. How about some people that'll actually effect us here in North America?
Most American Christians, as I argued, derive their morals from the enlightenment and are ignorant of the laws of their religion. But some Christians are not. Dominionist Christians in Idaho, for example, are actively working for the enforcement of Old Testament laws, including (presumably) the ones I cited.
Goddamnit... I said that religious leaders have a long history of warping and twisting text to subjugate and deny rights to people... I did not say American religions, I did not say Mitt Romney. I provided you plenty of examples of religion doing this, which was the entire fucking point. YOU were the one who limited it to America, which has that lovely little thing called Democracy and that whole Bill of Rights to prevent that shit. So, you know what, I'm done.
And yes, I do think marriage is a right.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
The Bible and Quran say lots of nice things, too. Especially the New Testament.
Every mythology says nice things. Are you saying the nice things somehow mitigate the explicit intolerance and lack of freedom towards unbelievers commanded elsewhere in the Bible and the Quran?
Again, it's more profitable to discuss the religion as it is actually practiced, which you admit is much different than its scriptural demands.
I was talking about Romney's asinine claim that religion requires freedom. I also fail to see why anyone who claims to support freedom/religious liberty would choose to associate themselves with such a book.
Qingu on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
The Bible and Quran say lots of nice things, too. Especially the New Testament.
Every mythology says nice things. Are you saying the nice things somehow mitigate the explicit intolerance and lack of freedom towards unbelievers commanded elsewhere in the Bible and the Quran?
Again, it's more profitable to discuss the religion as it is actually practiced, which you admit is much different than its scriptural demands.
I was talking about Romney's asinine claim that religion requires freedom. I also fail to see why anyone who claims to support freedom/religious liberty would choose to associate themselves with such a book.
Religion does require freedom in the sense that you can't practice the religion of your choice unless you are not currently being oppressed by a person of another religion. I agree that "freedom requires religion" is an asinine thing to say. And again, the text of a religious book is almost always drastically different from the actual beliefs held by the faithful.
Hachface on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edit: I do thik it's retarded that Romney is all about pushing his "deep faith" that "informs his decisions in office" as a qualification for office but gets all indignant when someone asks him to specify his faith. I also draw some joy at seeing Republican religious intolerance eating one of their own for a change.
Good points here. Did you see him in the last TV debate when they asked him if he took the Bible completely literally? He froze up and had this glorious deer-in-the-headlights look. It looked an awful lot like he wanted to say "no" but he ended up just stammering that the Bible is the Word of God like it was self-explanatory.
He did the same thing in an NPR interview asking him about his response there, only it was indignant stammering.
Firstly, the only thing I saw that would pertain to Catholics is in the Gay Marriage article, and that leads into the discussion on whether "being allowed to marry whoever you want" is even a right. Which is a side track.
The second one just says their excommunicating him for getting married to another guy. Is that a problem? Belonging to the LDS church is definitely not a right. They can say who's in and who's out all they want.
I see... so, you want a picture or perhaps a video of the American Morman church executing a gay man? My, what a narrow definition of rights you have.
Hey, your only point so far has been that some churches don't think gays are allowed to get married. So unless you believe "being allowed to marry whomever you choose, regardless of sex" is a right, you've yet to show any evidence of a religion denying anyone fundamental rights within the US in recent history.
If your gonna make blanket statements, let's see some fucking citations.
And Qingu, we already covered the whole "Let's not elect someone from Saudi Arabia" thing. How about some people that'll actually effect us here in North America?
Most American Christians, as I argued, derive their morals from the enlightenment and are ignorant of the laws of their religion. But some Christians are not. Dominionist Christians in Idaho, for example, are actively working for the enforcement of Old Testament laws, including (presumably) the ones I cited.
Goddamnit... I said that religious leaders have a long history of warping and twisting text to subjugate and deny rights to people... I did not say American religions, I did not say Mitt Romney. I provided you plenty of examples of religion doing this, which was the entire fucking point. YOU were the one who limited it to America, which has that lovely little thing called Democracy and that whole Bill of Rights to prevent that shit. So, you know what, I'm done.
And yes, I do think marriage is a right.
Alot of people don't.
And we're here talking about whether the religious beliefs of a candidate should effect their policy/chances at winning/whatever.
The initial comment was:
If your religion tells you that nonbelievers should not have fundamental rights—as both the Quran and the Bible explicitly say—why should this not matter?
If you (or Qingu) wants to make the argument that this actually effects us here, today, in the US, you need to show evidence of a religion denying people fundamental rights HERE and NOW. Who gives a shit what the Saudi's are up to, or what people 500 years ago were doing in this case. I wanna see evidence that it happens now if your going to make the argument that this should be a problem now.
Goddamnit... I said that religious leaders have a long history of warping and twisting text to subjugate and deny rights to people...
I don't think they are "warping and twisting the text" to subjugate and oppress people. I think that is exactly what the texts say and they are honestly interpreting them.
Which is the whole point. If someone chooses to strongly associate themselves with a religion which is grounded in such texts, then what are we supposed to conclude about his or her beliefs? Huckabee says the Bible is the word of God, every bit of it—to me this means he is at minimum against rights for homosexuals and more generally against basic rights for unbelievers.
Romney, in his speech, has chosen to define himself in terms of his faith, and has associated himself with other people of strong faith in their religious texts. I admit I am not well-versed in Mormon theology and scriptures, but if this is the type of crowd Romney is trying to identify himself with, what are we supposed to conclude? I'd like to conclude that he's just taking these idiots for a ride and doesn't give two shits about the Bible or the Book of Mormon himself. But he was a pastor.
If you (or Qingu) wants to make the argument that this actually effects us here, today, in the US, you need to show evidence of a religion denying people fundamental rights HERE and NOW.
Gay rights is the blindingly obvious example.
Stem cell research and abortion, also—though I would argue the religious justification for opposing these things is tenuous at best.
While I have no doubt that the LDS church officially stays out of politics, a simple look at some of the laws in Utah would suggest that this doesn't always work out so well. Alcohol-related laws are a good example, while other states have some retarded laws as well (often due to influence from other religions) Utah's, when taken as a whole, are quite a bit more restrictive than anywhere else.
But I'm certain that has nothing to do with LDS influence in local politics.
Like I said, having seen the kinds of policies that are enacted and the ways policies are enforced in both a high school setting and a military setting when the leadership is Mormon, I'm not so confident that Romney will keep his personal beliefs and professional actions separate. The LDS church may stay out of politics, but that doesn't mean that LDS members don't bring their religion into the office once elected.
Not that this isn't an issue with any other religious denominations; it's just that with Mormons it's more likely to occur to a greater extent, at least from what I'm seen.
If you (or Qingu) wants to make the argument that this actually effects us here, today, in the US, you need to show evidence of a religion denying people fundamental rights HERE and NOW.
Gay rights is the blindingly obvious example.
Stem cell research and abortion, also—though I would argue the religious justification for opposing these things is tenuous at best.
Which gay rights? If we're back to "Gay Marriage" I'll just cut and paste the old "You have to show that you have a fundamental right to marry another person of the same sex".
Is there a fundamental right to research stem cells?
Abortion I can get behind you there, since as far as I'm aware it IS a right in the US.
If you (or Qingu) wants to make the argument that this actually effects us here, today, in the US, you need to show evidence of a religion denying people fundamental rights HERE and NOW.
Gay rights is the blindingly obvious example.
Stem cell research and abortion, also—though I would argue the religious justification for opposing these things is tenuous at best.
Which gay rights? If we're back to "Gay Marriage" I'll just cut and paste the old "You have to show that you have a fundamental right to marry another person of the same sex".
Is there a fundamental right to research stem cells?
Abortion I can get behind you there, since as far as I'm aware it IS a right in the US.
Well, for starters sodomy is illegal in some areas in the south. And I'd say it's as fundamental a right to marry another person of the same sex as it is to marry a person of the opposite sex.
If you (or Qingu) wants to make the argument that this actually effects us here, today, in the US, you need to show evidence of a religion denying people fundamental rights HERE and NOW.
Gay rights is the blindingly obvious example.
Stem cell research and abortion, also—though I would argue the religious justification for opposing these things is tenuous at best.
Which gay rights? If we're back to "Gay Marriage" I'll just cut and paste the old "You have to show that you have a fundamental right to marry another person of the same sex".
Is there a fundamental right to research stem cells?
Abortion I can get behind you there, since as far as I'm aware it IS a right in the US.
Is there a fundamental right to Miscengenation?
Oh hey wait maybe it's silly to look for a specific "list of fundamental rights" and more important to not be giant assholes and then pretend you're really not oppressing anyone at all!
If you (or Qingu) wants to make the argument that this actually effects us here, today, in the US, you need to show evidence of a religion denying people fundamental rights HERE and NOW.
Gay rights is the blindingly obvious example.
Stem cell research and abortion, also—though I would argue the religious justification for opposing these things is tenuous at best.
Which gay rights? If we're back to "Gay Marriage" I'll just cut and paste the old "You have to show that you have a fundamental right to marry another person of the same sex".
Is there a fundamental right to research stem cells?
Abortion I can get behind you there, since as far as I'm aware it IS a right in the US.
Well, for starters sodomy is illegal in some areas in the south. And I'd say it's as fundamental a right to marry another person of the same sex as it is to marry a person of the opposite sex.
I'm not aware that you actually have a RIGHT to get married to anyone.
Well, sodomy is one of those things floating around the books for ages that we all ignore. You can have sex at like 16 here in Canada, but no sodomy till 18. It's just old, stupid laws that aren't worth the time/money to get rid of.
If you (or Qingu) wants to make the argument that this actually effects us here, today, in the US, you need to show evidence of a religion denying people fundamental rights HERE and NOW.
Gay rights is the blindingly obvious example.
Stem cell research and abortion, also—though I would argue the religious justification for opposing these things is tenuous at best.
Which gay rights? If we're back to "Gay Marriage" I'll just cut and paste the old "You have to show that you have a fundamental right to marry another person of the same sex".
Is there a fundamental right to research stem cells?
Abortion I can get behind you there, since as far as I'm aware it IS a right in the US.
Well. Sodomy laws were only repealed on a federal level in ... what, 2002?
Also, your argument borders on tautological, since you appear to be saying that the right to marry itself only applies to heterosex couples because that is how marraige is defined. I hope I don't need to remind you of the various legal and economic benefits afforded to heterosex "married" couples but denied to homosexual couples. On what basis are these people denied such benefits, other than a huge constituency believes that their behavior is an abomination before Yahweh?
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
mcdermott on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
If you (or Qingu) wants to make the argument that this actually effects us here, today, in the US, you need to show evidence of a religion denying people fundamental rights HERE and NOW.
Gay rights is the blindingly obvious example.
Stem cell research and abortion, also—though I would argue the religious justification for opposing these things is tenuous at best.
Which gay rights? If we're back to "Gay Marriage" I'll just cut and paste the old "You have to show that you have a fundamental right to marry another person of the same sex".
Is there a fundamental right to research stem cells?
Abortion I can get behind you there, since as far as I'm aware it IS a right in the US.
Is there a fundamental right to Miscengenation?
Oh hey wait maybe it's silly to look for a specific "list of fundamental rights" and more important to not be giant assholes and then pretend you're really not oppressing anyone at all!
If you (or Qingu) wants to make the argument that this actually effects us here, today, in the US, you need to show evidence of a religion denying people fundamental rights HERE and NOW.
Gay rights is the blindingly obvious example.
Stem cell research and abortion, also—though I would argue the religious justification for opposing these things is tenuous at best.
Which gay rights? If we're back to "Gay Marriage" I'll just cut and paste the old "You have to show that you have a fundamental right to marry another person of the same sex".
Is there a fundamental right to research stem cells?
Abortion I can get behind you there, since as far as I'm aware it IS a right in the US.
Well. Sodomy laws were only repealed on a federal level in ... what, 2002?
Also, your argument borders on tautological, since you appear to be saying that the right to marry itself only applies to heterosex couples because that is how marraige is defined. I hope I don't need to remind you of the various legal and economic benefits afforded to heterosex "married" couples but denied to homosexual couples. On what basis are these people denied such benefits, other than a huge constituency believes that their behavior is an abomination before Yahweh?
No, my argument is that no one has the right to get married. It's simply a "service" offered by the government. At the moment it's defined (or people argue that it is defined) as only available to people of the opposite sex. I don't see that definition as denying anyone fundamental rights. It's just denying them access to a service based on said services definition. The same way you can't collect social insurance if your 12.
I don't care if you want to explicitely extend the definition of government marriage to include people of the same sex btw. I just don't think it's a violation of anyones rights that it currently doesn't say that.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Cool. Didn't know that. Thank you mcdermott for actually providing evidence.
Cool. Didn't know that. Thank you mcdermott for actually providing evidence.
Well, others may have been assuming that anybody who would try to talk about rights and marriage would be familiar with it. It's one of those "big" Supreme Court decisions.
Note, however, that the first little bit there keeps it from obviously applying to same-sex couples, since it seems to imply that the reason marriage is such a "fundamental right" is due to procreation ("existence and survival"). If not for that, I'd say gay marriage would already be legal nationwide under the decision.
The rest is still a pretty strong argument for a 14th amendment protection of gay marriage, however.
If you (or Qingu) wants to make the argument that this actually effects us here, today, in the US, you need to show evidence of a religion denying people fundamental rights HERE and NOW.
Gay rights is the blindingly obvious example.
Stem cell research and abortion, also—though I would argue the religious justification for opposing these things is tenuous at best.
Which gay rights? If we're back to "Gay Marriage" I'll just cut and paste the old "You have to show that you have a fundamental right to marry another person of the same sex".
Is there a fundamental right to research stem cells?
Abortion I can get behind you there, since as far as I'm aware it IS a right in the US.
Well. Sodomy laws were only repealed on a federal level in ... what, 2002?
Also, your argument borders on tautological, since you appear to be saying that the right to marry itself only applies to heterosex couples because that is how marraige is defined. I hope I don't need to remind you of the various legal and economic benefits afforded to heterosex "married" couples but denied to homosexual couples. On what basis are these people denied such benefits, other than a huge constituency believes that their behavior is an abomination before Yahweh?
No, my argument is that no one has the right to get married. It's simply a "service" offered by the government. At the moment it's defined (or people argue that it is defined) as only available to people of the opposite sex. I don't see that definition as denying anyone fundamental rights. It's just denying them access to a service based on said services definition. The same way you can't collect social insurance if your 12.
I don't care if you want to explicitely extend the definition of government marriage to include people of the same sex btw. I just don't think it's a violation of anyones rights that it currently doesn't say that.
A service provided by the government?!?! You are aware that people have been getting married for thousands of years before english was even spoken, much less before America became a country and decided to deny gays the right to be married?
IloroKamou on
"There are some that only employ words for the purpose of disguising their thoughts."
While this will probably get split off to our brand new Gay Marriage Thread(TM), marriage (in this context) is more of a legal status granted by the government (rather than a "service"). And one that is being denied to one class of people because of, depending how you look at it, either sexual orientation or merely gender (because they are of the wrong gender to marry the person of their choosing, where anybody of the opposite could).
Regardless, the beauty of the 14th amendment is that it doesn't specify any conditions like race, gender, whatever...it just states that every person shall have equal protection under the law.
At which point if Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is an equal protection issue, then there's really no reason that gay marriage isn't protected under the 14th. The only reason I can think of that this hasn't already happened is due to religious influence in society in general which leads to religious influence in government.
Posts
You have some 'splaining to do.
Just for starters: When fundamentalist Mormons assert that plural marriage was a holy doctrine promulgated by Joseph Smith himself, and that the subsequent wholesale abandonment of polygamy by the mainstream LDS church was nothing more than a surrender to the US government that compromised church dogma for political expediency, they are essentially correct.
How do you feel about that?
Excellent. Good to know we shouldn't be electing people from Saudi Arabia or any North African or Middle East country.
Yeah, good to know American religions exist in a vaccum... I'll inform the Catholic church right away.
Oh, and this is for you too... http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/03/15/4
and this... http://www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm
Deuteronomy 13:6—anyone who tries to get you to believe in another religion must be killed "without mercy."
Leviticus 25:45—slavery is explicitly allowed, and non-Hebrew slaves are property to be passed down to your children.
Slavery is also commanded, in Dt. 20:10, as the rules of warfare for conquering unbeliever cities—that is, cities that are not in the promised land. In those cities, you're supposed to commit genocide.
The Quran is less harsh in its treatment of unbelievers than the Bible. But it still mandates they "submit" to Muslim rulership—at most this includes all unbelievers, and at least this only includes "People of the book" (Jews and Christians), relegating polytheists and atheists to who knows what. Surah 9:29:
Unsurprisingly, the policies of Christians and Muslims towards unbelievers have reflected these laws throughout almost all of their history. The reason so many Christians in America see their religious scriptures as somehow amenable to "freedom" is because most Christians are wholly ignorant of both the content and history of their religion and have been lied to about the source of their enlightenment moral values.
What does this have to do with Mitt Romney.
Nothing.
I'm not going to reply to you, or anyone else, attacking my beliefs because I don't feel like dancing the retarded religion debate dance.
The OP is not exclusively about Mitt Romney.
Anyways, when I think of Mormon I think Julie Stoffer. I loved her virgin hotness 8-)
This is a post I think we can all can get behind.
The Bible and Quran say lots of nice things, too. Especially the New Testament. Again, it's more profitable to discuss the religion as it is actually practiced, which you admit is much different than its scriptural demands.
Firstly, the only thing I saw that would pertain to Catholics is in the Gay Marriage article, and that leads into the discussion on whether "being allowed to marry whoever you want" is even a right. Which is a side track.
The second one just says their excommunicating him for getting married to another guy. Is that a problem? Belonging to the LDS church is definitely not a right. They can say who's in and who's out all they want.
Also: there is the issue of intelligence and rationality. Someone who not only claims to believe in, but has dedicated a substantial portion of his life and money to, a fictional mythology is not as fit to run a country. Unfortunately, belief in fictional mythologies seems to be required by voters—but at the least, I'd like a president whose beliefs are only be surface-deep. (Though this brings up other issues)
Let me rephrase that.
I am only talking about Mitt Romney.
The Retarded Political Debate Dance is slightly less painful to me then the Retarded Religion Debate Dance. As such I shall only be talking about that segment of the thread.
Romney doesn't want to do the dance either, and I personally think that he shouldn't have to. In this case he had to do something to assauage the fears of the Christian conservatives while not alienating himself to people who think that church and state should be separated. This is an impossible task, and I doubt JFK himself could do that in the climate we have today.
The Mormon church does seem more controlling than most others, and I understand that the organization is fabulously wealthy and powerful as a result of regular semi-enforced tithes and official and unofficial corporate ties. This might or might be a problem for a Mormon president, but I don't think it's too much more insidious than, say, strong ties to the Southern Baptist Convention.
I oppose Romney because he's a douche, not because he's a Mormon.
edit: I do thik it's retarded that Romney is all about pushing his "deep faith" that "informs his decisions in office" as a qualification for office but gets all indignant when someone asks him to specify his faith. I also draw some joy at seeing Republican religious intolerance eating one of their own for a change.
http://www.jeansasson.com/law_and_government.htm
Most American Christians, as I argued, derive their morals from the enlightenment and are ignorant of the laws of their religion. But some Christians are not. Dominionist Christians in Idaho, for example, are actively working for the enforcement of Old Testament laws, including (presumably) the ones I cited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
I see... so, you want a picture or perhaps a video of the American Morman church executing a gay man? My, what a narrow definition of rights you have.
Hey, your only point so far has been that some churches don't think gays are allowed to get married. So unless you believe "being allowed to marry whomever you choose, regardless of sex" is a right, you've yet to show any evidence of a religion denying anyone fundamental rights within the US in recent history.
If your gonna make blanket statements, let's see some fucking citations.
And Qingu, we already covered the whole "Let's not elect someone from Saudi Arabia" thing. How about some people that'll actually effect us here in North America?
That's better. Let's avoid those people.
Good points here. Did you see him in the last TV debate when they asked him if he took the Bible completely literally? He froze up and had this glorious deer-in-the-headlights look. It looked an awful lot like he wanted to say "no" but he ended up just stammering that the Bible is the Word of God like it was self-explanatory.
Goddamnit... I said that religious leaders have a long history of warping and twisting text to subjugate and deny rights to people... I did not say American religions, I did not say Mitt Romney. I provided you plenty of examples of religion doing this, which was the entire fucking point. YOU were the one who limited it to America, which has that lovely little thing called Democracy and that whole Bill of Rights to prevent that shit. So, you know what, I'm done.
And yes, I do think marriage is a right.
I was talking about Romney's asinine claim that religion requires freedom. I also fail to see why anyone who claims to support freedom/religious liberty would choose to associate themselves with such a book.
Religion does require freedom in the sense that you can't practice the religion of your choice unless you are not currently being oppressed by a person of another religion. I agree that "freedom requires religion" is an asinine thing to say. And again, the text of a religious book is almost always drastically different from the actual beliefs held by the faithful.
He did the same thing in an NPR interview asking him about his response there, only it was indignant stammering.
Alot of people don't.
And we're here talking about whether the religious beliefs of a candidate should effect their policy/chances at winning/whatever.
The initial comment was:
If you (or Qingu) wants to make the argument that this actually effects us here, today, in the US, you need to show evidence of a religion denying people fundamental rights HERE and NOW. Who gives a shit what the Saudi's are up to, or what people 500 years ago were doing in this case. I wanna see evidence that it happens now if your going to make the argument that this should be a problem now.
Which is the whole point. If someone chooses to strongly associate themselves with a religion which is grounded in such texts, then what are we supposed to conclude about his or her beliefs? Huckabee says the Bible is the word of God, every bit of it—to me this means he is at minimum against rights for homosexuals and more generally against basic rights for unbelievers.
Romney, in his speech, has chosen to define himself in terms of his faith, and has associated himself with other people of strong faith in their religious texts. I admit I am not well-versed in Mormon theology and scriptures, but if this is the type of crowd Romney is trying to identify himself with, what are we supposed to conclude? I'd like to conclude that he's just taking these idiots for a ride and doesn't give two shits about the Bible or the Book of Mormon himself. But he was a pastor.
Stem cell research and abortion, also—though I would argue the religious justification for opposing these things is tenuous at best.
But I'm certain that has nothing to do with LDS influence in local politics.
Like I said, having seen the kinds of policies that are enacted and the ways policies are enforced in both a high school setting and a military setting when the leadership is Mormon, I'm not so confident that Romney will keep his personal beliefs and professional actions separate. The LDS church may stay out of politics, but that doesn't mean that LDS members don't bring their religion into the office once elected.
Not that this isn't an issue with any other religious denominations; it's just that with Mormons it's more likely to occur to a greater extent, at least from what I'm seen.
Which gay rights? If we're back to "Gay Marriage" I'll just cut and paste the old "You have to show that you have a fundamental right to marry another person of the same sex".
Is there a fundamental right to research stem cells?
Abortion I can get behind you there, since as far as I'm aware it IS a right in the US.
I can agree with that.
Well, for starters sodomy is illegal in some areas in the south. And I'd say it's as fundamental a right to marry another person of the same sex as it is to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Is there a fundamental right to Miscengenation?
Oh hey wait maybe it's silly to look for a specific "list of fundamental rights" and more important to not be giant assholes and then pretend you're really not oppressing anyone at all!
I'm not aware that you actually have a RIGHT to get married to anyone.
Well, sodomy is one of those things floating around the books for ages that we all ignore. You can have sex at like 16 here in Canada, but no sodomy till 18. It's just old, stupid laws that aren't worth the time/money to get rid of.
Also, your argument borders on tautological, since you appear to be saying that the right to marry itself only applies to heterosex couples because that is how marraige is defined. I hope I don't need to remind you of the various legal and economic benefits afforded to heterosex "married" couples but denied to homosexual couples. On what basis are these people denied such benefits, other than a huge constituency believes that their behavior is an abomination before Yahweh?
Loving v. Virginia. Look it up.
Hell, I'll help you:
No, my argument is that no one has the right to get married. It's simply a "service" offered by the government. At the moment it's defined (or people argue that it is defined) as only available to people of the opposite sex. I don't see that definition as denying anyone fundamental rights. It's just denying them access to a service based on said services definition. The same way you can't collect social insurance if your 12.
I don't care if you want to explicitely extend the definition of government marriage to include people of the same sex btw. I just don't think it's a violation of anyones rights that it currently doesn't say that.
Cool. Didn't know that. Thank you mcdermott for actually providing evidence.
Well, others may have been assuming that anybody who would try to talk about rights and marriage would be familiar with it. It's one of those "big" Supreme Court decisions.
Note, however, that the first little bit there keeps it from obviously applying to same-sex couples, since it seems to imply that the reason marriage is such a "fundamental right" is due to procreation ("existence and survival"). If not for that, I'd say gay marriage would already be legal nationwide under the decision.
The rest is still a pretty strong argument for a 14th amendment protection of gay marriage, however.
A service provided by the government?!?! You are aware that people have been getting married for thousands of years before english was even spoken, much less before America became a country and decided to deny gays the right to be married?
Regardless, the beauty of the 14th amendment is that it doesn't specify any conditions like race, gender, whatever...it just states that every person shall have equal protection under the law.
At which point if Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is an equal protection issue, then there's really no reason that gay marriage isn't protected under the 14th. The only reason I can think of that this hasn't already happened is due to religious influence in society in general which leads to religious influence in government.