Dealing with Fundamentalism: Secular alternative, or take back the church?

[Arrian]

Yes they are. When you have the archbishop of Vancouver's house stoned, you are interfering with freedom of religion.

When you force all the marriage registrars to either compromise their faith or resign their position, then you are interfering with their religious practice.

This one deserves its own response.

What in the sam hell are you talking about? Why do you equate my donation to a political organization specifically devoted to fighting the political agenda of the Christian Coalition to the stoning of a Bishop's house in Vancover?

Oh, I know why! Because what I did has nothing to do with persecuting Christians, so you had to create a strawman!

edit: ah, I see "no one" was the problem. Hows about this: no one with any sort of power or sanction from those in power. Hoodlums stone a guy's house. So what, that **** happens all the time, to all sorts of people. It's wrong, period.

That's a different story altogether from a coordinated political movement (of which Falwell is a part) designed specifically to force a set of beliefs on the rest of us via government. If you cannot see the distinction, you're even more blind than I thought.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

no one with any sort of power or sanction from those in power. Hoodlums stone a guy's house. So what, that **** happens all the time, to all sorts of people. It's wrong, period.

That's a different story altogether from a coordinated political movement (of which Falwell is a part) designed specifically to force a set of beliefs on the rest of us via government. If you cannot see the distinction, you're even more blind than I thought.

I have seen a coordinated political movement up here, spraypaint the Catholic church on campus. They are called Catholics for a Free Choice, and are a well-funded anti-Catholic organisation up here that sponsors such tactics.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I have seen a coordinated political movement up here, spraypaint the Catholic church on campus. They are called Catholics for a Free Choice, and are a well-funded anti-Catholic organisation up here that sponsors such tactics.

good for them

[Ben Kenobi]

Benifits to married heteros come out of their pockets, and they are then denied the same rights. You having to pay for them would only even the field. It's the current situation that is unjust.

I am denying them nothing. They have just as much right to have a say on marriage as I do, for the same reason, that they contribute to the state.

Just because one has a say, does not mean one is entitled to the benefits. I am single. I do not believe, that even though I have a say on marriage benefits, that I should be a beneficiary of them.

So would you or would you not support a law that would ban gay people from adopting, and furthermore what is your position on gay couples who already have adopted? Sounds like a dodge to me.

I don't support a law barring gay adoption, since there will be some children who find it hard to have a home. I do believe that a married couple, of a man and a woman should get preference over all other arrangements, when considering the placement for the child.

I do not ask that people in government renounce their faith, Ben. I *DO* demand that they respect the idea that there are a multitude of beliefs (and non beliefs) and have respect for those who do not share theirs.

Such understanding is implied, when speaking of a collaboration between protestants and Catholics.

Re: marriage registrars. First off, it's they who are bigotted. However, if they cannot marry people because their holy book tells them it's wrong, fine. There are others who will.

True, but why should they be fired from the job that they have held for 10 years just because of a judicial coup? Why should they be forced to choose between their livelihood and their faith?

The very fact that they are being forced to make this decision is a violation of their freedom of conscience. If they choose to leave, they should be well compensated with severance pay.

For instance, do you remember the issue of pharmacists refusing to fill perscriptions for birth control & morning after pills? We had a big thread on it. Well, as it turns out, the official policy of the national organization of pharmacists (don't recall the name) struck a pretty good balance:

If a pharmacist objected to filling a certain type of perscription, fine, but they must direct the person to another pharmacy and cannot obstruct the person from going there. The reason I know that is because there was a story recently about a pharmacist who took the perscription and not only refused to fill it, but also refused to give it back to the woman.

So why can't a marriage registrar do the same?

The same could easily be done for marriage registrars, especially since there is no time pressure, like there is with drugs. Don't want to marry gays? Fine, someone else will.

Wonderful. I have no problem with the pharmacist, offering a location to another pharmacy.

The forces are darkness, to me, are the forces arrayed against modernity - and that includes both OBL and Falwell. I certainly grant that OBL is darker since he not only condones killing people to achieve his goals, but he actively seeks to kill as many as he can in the most spectaular fashion he can. Just because OBL is a bad man, doesn't make Falwell a good man. Get it?

I apologise for that argument.

However, your reasons for fearing Falwell make no sense to me. Sure, you disagree with him, but that is no reason to call him arrayed with the forces of darkness.

[Ben Kenobi]

good for them

/me passes Sava's address onto them.