Right-wing Christianity teaches bigotry: The ugly roots of Indiana’s new anti-gay law (NSFC)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 12:58 AM GMT
    Good, truth, stuff here, (NSFC) Not Safe For Christians icon_cool.gif



    Like the segregationists of the 1960s, advocates of the RFRA truly believe they're honoring their religious faith
    http://www.salon.com/2015/04/04/right_wing_christianity_teaches_bigotry_the_ugly_roots_of_indianas_new_anti_gay_law_partner/


    Not Just About Bigotry and Homophobia

    In recent years, religious believers have sought and largely won a cascading array of rights, privileges and exemptions from laws and duties that otherwise apply to all Americans.
    •The right to discriminate in public accommodations and hiring practices.
    •The right to interfere with a religious outsider’s family formation, sexual intimacy, and childbearing decisions.
    •The right to interfere in a religious outsider’s dying process.
    •The right to exemption from humane animal slaughter regulations.
    •The right to use public funds and other assets to propagate the values and priorities of the religion.
    •The right to freeload on shared infrastructure without contributing to it.
    •The right to refuse medical care to women and children.
    •The right to engage in religiously motivated child abuse (psychological abuse, physical abuse, neglect or medical neglect) with impunity.
    •The right to exemption from labor practice standards.

    But today, for the most part Americans have an almost unprecedented levels of freedom to believe and worship as we see fit. An American citizen or resident can hold a spiritual worldview that is shared by a community or deeply idiosyncratic. We are free to adhere to all manner of wild and wacky superstitions, and we do. Alternately, we can use a dozen or more labels to identify ourselves as non-religious. We are free legally to renounce our childhood religion and try a new one. We can teach our beliefs to our children and recruit converts on street corners. We can do all of this without fear of being imprisoned, lashed, tortured, stoned, drowned, beheaded, or burned at the stake.

    In contrast to people living in Christian Europe during past centuries, Americans take these rights for granted, so much so that we forget that these freedoms were precious and new to many who immigrated here to escape religious persecution.

    By contrast with enduring protections for religious belief and assembly; religiously motivated behavior historically has been constrained by U.S. law for compelling reasons including the following:
    1.To establish civil society. To create a civil society, one that can in any measure live up to the words that have been America’s motto since 1795, E Pluribus Unum, the rule of law must trump the rule of religion. The Supreme Court long defended this position. Law trumping religion is not just the only way to build a functioning pluralistic society, it is the only way to create a government that can protect the religious freedom of citizens.
    2.To promote the general welfare. American civic agreements when functioning as intended, aim topromote the general welfare and avert harms. To this end our civil and criminal codes set limits on religiously motivated behavior and establish civic duties and responsibilities that apply to citizens regardless of religious status.
    3.To prevent dictatorial theocracy. To prevent theocracy akin to that which many early immigrants fled in Europe, religious institutions and practitioners are blocked from leveraging the apparatus of the state to fund and promote religion itself.

    It is these restrictions that are now being challenged by religious adherents, and the second of these makes it clear why so many religious freedom claims seek the freedom for a religious individual or organization to cause harm with impunity.

    By definition, since civic agreements are an attempt to promote the general welfare, the exemptions sought by religious individuals and institutions generally do the opposite, meaning they allow those who are exempted to violate legal agreements intended to promote broad wellbeing. Secondarily, those claiming religious freedom often seek to coopt the power of the state for religious ends so that civic agreements can be modified to reflect religious theology. One might say that the goal is to use the tool of government to promote the general religion rather than promote the general welfare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2015 12:30 AM GMT
    Liberal, here's the correct version of history:

    The segregationists of the 1960's were Democrats.

    RFRA's were first started by Liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer of NY and signed into law by Bill Clinton. State Senator Obama voted for the Illinois RFRA law.

    Indiana's original RFRA law also would have protected a gay printer from being forced to print signs for the Westboro Baptist Church that display "God Hates Fags".
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 07, 2015 12:51 AM GMT
    mx5guynj saidLiberal, here's the correct version of history:

    The segregationists of the 1960's were Democrats.

    RFRA's were first started by Liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer of NY and signed into law by Bill Clinton. State Senator Obama voted for the Illinois RFRA law.

    Indiana's original RFRA law also would have protected a gay printer from being forced to print signs for the Westboro Baptist Church that display "God Hates Fags".


    The Dixie-crats of the 60s are the Republicans of today. The parties have flipped in terminology/ideology no less than 3 times in U.S. history.

    Please educate yourself, you're embarrassing yourself. If you want a good rule of thumb, that is transcendent of party names, just look at the South versus the coasts. Whatever the Southern areas call themselves, that's the conservative side. Whatever the coasts call themselves, that's the liberal side. That's GOP and DEM under current party name, respectively.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Apr 07, 2015 10:21 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    mx5guynj saidLiberal, here's the correct version of history:

    The segregationists of the 1960's were Democrats.

    RFRA's were first started by Liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer of NY and signed into law by Bill Clinton. State Senator Obama voted for the Illinois RFRA law.

    Indiana's original RFRA law also would have protected a gay printer from being forced to print signs for the Westboro Baptist Church that display "God Hates Fags".


    The Dixie-crats of the 60s are the Republicans of today. The parties have flipped in terminology/ideology no less than 3 times in U.S. history.

    Please educate yourself, you're embarrassing yourself. If you want a good rule of thumb, that is transcendent of party names, just look at the South versus the coasts. Whatever the Southern areas call themselves, that's the conservative side. Whatever the coasts call themselves, that's the liberal side. That's GOP and DEM under current party name, respectively.
    Hey blind sycophant of the democratic blue, it was your democrats who signed these religious freedom bills into laws. It was the donkey dorks who tried to maintain segregation in the south and even in other parts of the U.S. it was the donkey dorks who ruined most older northern cities with their 50+ years of monolithic rule in urban governance. You evidently have a lot to learn bunky
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2015 10:35 PM GMT
    Hahaha roadbikerob is the man.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 07, 2015 11:45 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    Svnw688 said
    mx5guynj saidLiberal, here's the correct version of history:

    The segregationists of the 1960's were Democrats.

    RFRA's were first started by Liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer of NY and signed into law by Bill Clinton. State Senator Obama voted for the Illinois RFRA law.

    Indiana's original RFRA law also would have protected a gay printer from being forced to print signs for the Westboro Baptist Church that display "God Hates Fags".


    The Dixie-crats of the 60s are the Republicans of today. The parties have flipped in terminology/ideology no less than 3 times in U.S. history.

    Please educate yourself, you're embarrassing yourself. If you want a good rule of thumb, that is transcendent of party names, just look at the South versus the coasts. Whatever the Southern areas call themselves, that's the conservative side. Whatever the coasts call themselves, that's the liberal side. That's GOP and DEM under current party name, respectively.
    Hey blind sycophant of the democratic blue, it was your democrats who signed these religious freedom bills into laws. It was the donkey dorks who tried to maintain segregation in the south and even in other parts of the U.S. it was the donkey dorks who ruined most older northern cities with their 50+ years of monolithic rule in urban governance. You evidently have a lot to learn bunky



    If you must pigeon hole me, please do so properly. I identify first as progressive, then liberal, then populist, than Democrat.

    Stop foaming at the mouth and try to keep it straight.
  • musclpa

    Posts: 97

    Apr 09, 2015 6:31 AM GMT
    Tired of the gay and black in your face stuff going on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 09, 2015 12:55 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    Svnw688 said
    The Dixie-crats of the 60s are the Republicans of today. The parties have flipped in terminology/ideology no less than 3 times in U.S. history.

    Please educate yourself, you're embarrassing yourself. If you want a good rule of thumb, that is transcendent of party names, just look at the South versus the coasts. Whatever the Southern areas call themselves, that's the conservative side. Whatever the coasts call themselves, that's the liberal side. That's GOP and DEM under current party name, respectively.

    Hey blind sycophant of the democratic blue, it was your democrats who signed these religious freedom bills into laws. It was the donkey dorks who tried to maintain segregation in the south and even in other parts of the U.S. it was the donkey dorks who ruined most older northern cities with their 50+ years of monolithic rule in urban governance. You evidently have a lot to learn bunky

    Interesting. One guy above gives the correct history of the party flip-flop that occurred in the US South, where the conservative, segregationist Democratic "Dixiecrats" became the Republicans of today. Rebelling (Southerners are good at that) in great part because of Democrats in the rest of the country pushing for Black civil & voting rights, and moving the US in a more liberal direction. And also aided by Republican President Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to win Dixiecrats to his Party.

    So that the majority of Democrats were indeed against segregation even back then. It was only the Dixiecrats of the South, today's Republicans, who supported segregation, and Jim Crow laws that limited voting by Blacks. Gee, does that sound familiar in Republican statehouses today? Now done under the guise of eliminating non-existent voter fraud, but with the same result.

    Whereas this other guy above makes a foaming-at-the-mouth attack on Democrats, which ignores those facts, even after they were accurately outlined before him. Making one guy believable, the other unbelievable (in more ways than one).
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Apr 11, 2015 3:37 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    roadbikeRob said
    Svnw688 said
    The Dixie-crats of the 60s are the Republicans of today. The parties have flipped in terminology/ideology no less than 3 times in U.S. history.

    Please educate yourself, you're embarrassing yourself. If you want a good rule of thumb, that is transcendent of party names, just look at the South versus the coasts. Whatever the Southern areas call themselves, that's the conservative side. Whatever the coasts call themselves, that's the liberal side. That's GOP and DEM under current party name, respectively.

    Hey blind sycophant of the democratic blue, it was your democrats who signed these religious freedom bills into laws. It was the donkey dorks who tried to maintain segregation in the south and even in other parts of the U.S. it was the donkey dorks who ruined most older northern cities with their 50+ years of monolithic rule in urban governance. You evidently have a lot to learn bunky

    Interesting. One guy above gives the correct history of the party flip-flop that occurred in the US South, where the conservative, segregationist Democratic "Dixiecrats" became the Republicans of today. Rebelling (Southerners are good at that) in great part because of Democrats in the rest of the country pushing for Black civil & voting rights, and moving the US in a more liberal direction. And also aided by Republican President Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to win Dixiecrats to his Party.

    So that the majority of Democrats were indeed against segregation even back then. It was only the Dixiecrats of the South, today's Republicans, who supported segregation, and Jim Crow laws that limited voting by Blacks. Gee, does that sound familiar in Republican statehouses today? Now done under the guise of eliminating non-existent voter fraud, but with the same result.


    Whereas this other guy above makes a foaming-at-the-mouth attack on Democrats, which ignores those facts, even after they were accurately outlined before him. Making one guy believable, the other unbelievable (in more ways than one).
    That is all hyperbole Art because when they tried to desegregate public schools in cities like Boston, urban democrats where bitterly opposed along with most parents. The northern democrats talked a good game about equality and inclusion back than but when those very things came home to roost in their northern locales, all hell broke loose and it had nothing to do with the GOP. You definitely need to end the blind sycophancy to the democratic blue and cut back on those happy hours bunky.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Apr 11, 2015 3:42 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    roadbikeRob said
    Svnw688 said
    mx5guynj saidLiberal, here's the correct version of history:

    The segregationists of the 1960's were Democrats.

    RFRA's were first started by Liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer of NY and signed into law by Bill Clinton. State Senator Obama voted for the Illinois RFRA law.

    Indiana's original RFRA law also would have protected a gay printer from being forced to print signs for the Westboro Baptist Church that display "God Hates Fags".


    The Dixie-crats of the 60s are the Republicans of today. The parties have flipped in terminology/ideology no less than 3 times in U.S. history.

    Please educate yourself, you're embarrassing yourself. If you want a good rule of thumb, that is transcendent of party names, just look at the South versus the coasts. Whatever the Southern areas call themselves, that's the conservative side. Whatever the coasts call themselves, that's the liberal side. That's GOP and DEM under current party name, respectively.
    Hey blind sycophant of the democratic blue, it was your democrats who signed these religious freedom bills into laws. It was the
    donkey dorks who tried to maintain segregation in the south and even in other parts of the U.S. it was the donkey dorks who ruined most older northern
    cities with their 50+ years of monolithic rule in urban governance. You evidently have a lot to learn bunky





    If you must pigeon hole me, please do so properly. I identify first as progressive, then liberal, then populist, than Democrat.

    Stop foaming at the mouth and try to keep it straight.
    I am not foaming at the mouth you dimwitted dipstick and I am not straight. I am gay and independent and I am damn proud of it. Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2015 3:51 PM GMT



    LOL, what a mess.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/04/09/south_carolina_we_can_discriminate_against_women_so_why_not_gays.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2015 3:56 PM GMT
    The easiest way to avoid discrimination is don't become a member, join, or work for a group or organization who has beliefs that you don't agree with. I wouldn't want anyone to force me to do something I don't
    believe in, so I don't force anyone else to do things, they don't believe in. We just need to be more tolerant of others and peacefully coexist by not working, participating, or doing business with people you don't agree with. Otherwise we are going to be involved in even more culture wars then we already are and it creates misery for everyone. Live and let live and don't worry about what the next guy wants to do or what he doesn't want to do because he doesn't want to or doesn't like it for whatever reason anyone has. I don't even owe anyone a reason for what I will do and what I won't do. That's real freedom!
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Apr 11, 2015 3:59 PM GMT
    michael61 saidThe easiest way to avoid discrimination is don't become a member, join, or work for a group or organization who has religious beliefs that you don't agree with. I wouldn't want anyone to force me to do something I don
    believe in, so don't force anyone else to do things, they don't believe in. We just need to be more tolerant of others and peacefully coexist by not working, participting, or doing business with people you don't agree with. Otherwise we are going to be involved in even more culture wars then we already are and it creates misery for everyone. Live and let live and don't worry about what the next guy wants to do or what he doesn't want to do because he doesn't believe in it or like it.
    Good, valid points. +200,000.