One of THOSE topics

[packsaddle]

The Donald: Mr. Contractor, Im going to pay you to provide services to areas or groups that I would find harder to reach. You will be evaluated on and receive money solely on the basis of how effectively you deliver those services.

Contractor: I will accept your money but I will NOT provide some of those services because it is MY opinion that some of those services should not be provided to areas or groups that you find harder to reach.

 

The Donald: If you dont provide the services stated in the contractYoure fired.

 

Contractor: You cant do that! By not allowing me to deny those services to areas or groups that you find harder to reach, you are imposing your beliefs on me.

 

The Donald: "Huh???" "Are you telling me that if you are forced to fulfill the contract, not allowing you to impose YOUR beliefs on someone else, denying them those services, that constitutes ME imposing MY beliefs on YOU?"

 

Contractor: "Yes"

 

The Donald: "Wanna see me get creepy?"

 

[moosetracker]

My husband is contracted by a company. That company has him do all sorts of weird things, that you would think would be my husbands choice for being in buisness for himself. But, no.. If you want the contract you do it our way..

 

In otherwords.. What Packsaddle said.

[packsaddle]

Moosetracker,

You and I and Scoutfish and others may be looking at this the wrong way. The thinking that Beavah and JoeBob have joined on may be correct.

 

To understand this, we need to refresh our memories on American history. If you refresh your memory, you'll remember that when the early colonists fled England and other places, when the Pilgrims landed, when all those various forms of Protestants and others founded the original colonies, risking everything, undergoing hardship, and many times paying with their lives, their motives were understood and embraced by our Founding Fathers. And the Founding Fathers were faithful to those goals of liberty and freedom of religion when they wrote The Constitution.

 

What you and I and Scoutfish may be missing is that what our fore-fathers, Protestants, others fleeing religious persecution... REALLY sought was a NEW form of government which would protect the Catholic Church, or any church, subsidize it even, and protect its RIGHT to FREELY force ITS beliefs on non-believers.

 

Is it possible that's what our fore-fathers really sought, the true meaning of 'Freedom of Religion'?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Tampa Turtle]

The pilgrims were seeking religious freedom from the Church of England not the Catholic Church.

 

Of course the Mayflower colony sought to impose all sorts of restrictions at the new colony but once a lot of secular sailors joined them it didn't stick. One of the first battles was over the secular custom playing of games at Christmas day instead of staying inside and praying. The battle over Christmas began early!

 

Some colonies imposed taxes to support one favored church or enforced restrictions on who could erect church buildings; it was a bit of a mess. Other colonies imposed taxes on everyone NOT in their church. Baptists in particular were considered a threat and persecuted. Papists were unpopular.

 

I was reading "Original Meanings" recently and I believe it was Washington who thought it was a bad idea for public taxes dollars to support one denomination over another. I think he was pretty smart--once you start doing that there are always strings.

 

Moosie I think you brought up a good topic though I wished you bashed our protestant brothers and sisters with as much fervor as the Catholics. Like the Lutheran Ladies Guild--how much baking is insane!

[JoeBob]

'Freedom OF Religion' means you get to pick your own deity and belief system, and 'None of the above" is a valid choice.

 

'Freedom FROM Religion' means that you want to live your life without having to be bothered by those small minded people whose basic insecurity demands that they believe in some science fictional higher power. And you don't want to be bothered by religious people's life choices if their practice of their religion inconvenieces you in any way whatsoever. In fact you want to take their money to pay for your birthcontrol and Viagra so that you can flount your disrespect of their belief system. That damned incessant chanting!

 

One of the founding tennants of America is Freedom OF Religion. 'OF', not 'FROM'.

 

 

Pack, Moose, and Fish:

Your contract analogy is accurate as far as it goes.

Since 1973 the contract has contained an exemption for contraception and abortion (The Church Amendment).

Now Obama is trying to change the terms of the contract. Religious institutions are saying "NO!"

This is a contract negotiation.

If the Fed and the Catholics can't come to terms, I can see the Catholics withdrawing from accepting Govt money, and downscaling their services.

Since the healthcare system is already about to bust, may I laugh while watching the Fed try to replace 15% of the nations hospital beds?

If the populace doesn't like what their elected officials are doing, they vote to change the government. It's in the contract.

If voters decide that keeping those hospital beds and indigent sevices in the system is more important than arm-twisting good religious people into breaking with their faith... Well.

 

Most religious people rank their allegiances in the order of God, Family, and Country.

Country is two spots below God on the list.

[moosetracker]

packsaddle - and protect its RIGHT to FREELY force ITS beliefs on non-believers.

 

Well I understood what you were saying.. (though not quite agreeing.) until this statement.. This to me means you are proposing religious beliefs allows you the freedom to do what you want to whomever.. Like blowing yourself up in a crowded market because you believe your God wanted you to do so, for force your beliefs on non-believers.

 

Religious persecution is what the protestants faced when leaving England, true.. Or what the Jews endored. Or what the Muslims suffered after 9/11, with individuals harrassing, vandalizism, and negitive profiling and sterotyping.

 

A line item on an insurance form, that was not made in a "We hate Catholics" fashion.. But, simply the fact that this is a popular health item these days. Nor the inability to pass a bill giving (any conservative religion, not just Catholics) the right to discriminate against a group of people in an openly hostile manner. Is not what I would call persecution..

 

Maybe not abortion. But contraception has really become a necessary health item, as the world is over populated. Contraceptions is much better then someday having to pass a law like China's "one child" policy. Or make an "open hunting" season on humans as we do with deer and other critters that need their population controled. Besides, as stated before, contraceptions have other roles to play. The condem in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, and the pill for other female problems.

 

And religions being called to task to by either their own congragation or other outside influences can be beneficial if the religion is open to listen and change. Catholics are slowly loosing their large membership, simply because fewer members are as observant as they use to be, and few young people want to take up that vocation. Sometimes you have to change with the times, by picking and choosing your battles, or die out with the dinasours. And Catholics have been known to change in past history. Their sermons are not all in Latin any more.. The directive about "no meat on Friday".. There are some churches that hold more modern masses rather then the stiff & stern ones. From what I understand the confessionals are not so important, some on the part of the church members not attending, some on the part of the Church shorting up the hours they are open to receive confession, thus making it more inconvient for people to go, so few go, so the church shortens the hours even more.

[Scoutfish]

"Most religious people rank their allegiances in the order of God, Family, and Country.

 

I can say the same as well. But I do not insist on demanding that everybody submit to my version of what I think God wants , and using government money to do it.

 

Freedom of religion means just that/ FReedom on the part of the citizens. It does not nore has it ever ment that religion is free to act like it's own government.

 

The government is here to make sure all citizens have equal rigts. No, it sure ain't perfect, and government ( which is only as good as those elected to be in it) sure can screw things up in a very efficient manner.

But the job of the goverment is to make sure that groups like Westboro do not set policy, or that the Southern Baptist Convention does not have US laws that regulate all US citizens.

 

Blue laws are a great example: Why should all people have to do without based on some people's religious choices?

 

If you own the store and what to close on Sunday..that's awesome and a right I fully support. But to say that I HAVE to because of some peole religious beliefs is completely agaist what the founding father envisioned.

 

They personally experienced what it was like to have all people subject to the rule of others beliefs.

 

The US goverment is simply saying that you can believe what ever you want, whorship whoever you want, and (mostly) however you want - but you cannot cause others to be constrained to of live under those beliefs.

 

And looking at immigration and how cultures change, ebb and flow, the thing all people better watch for is this: One day, Christianity just might not be the majority religion in the US.

 

So whenever that other religion ( whatever it may be) is the guiding force of our Nations majority - you had better pray that they do not start enacting federal laws that are based on their religious beliefs.

 

Christmas may not be considered a valid reason to take a day off from work, or maybe they enact birthing laws like Asia - mandatory abortions due to only two children per household.

 

And the thing is, if we start going about to get the laws to be based on our religions, it's only time before we become another facist state.

 

People getting persecuted for being the "wrong" religion.

 

And do not forget, it wasn't that long ago that people were persecuted against based on sex, race or beliefs...and it was legal and backed up by the bible too.

[Scoutfish]

What is a real shame is trhis:

 

All the varying religions see themselves as shining example of high moral and social standards. Every one of them thinks they set the bar in compassion, caring and love. Each one thinks they sre supoerior in doing the rigfht thing....as long as you do it their way.

 

Its a shame the government has to make them play nioe and behave around each other.

 

I myself, I am very spiritual and I do believe in God. I have a very strong faith and it is above having to validate it to other people or just ify it to them.

 

But make no mistake: religions - which may have started our great - have succumbed to man. Man had twisted, warped and modified religion to suit his needs. Religions are over run with politics, corruption, and people picking and choosing their interpretations to suit only their own needs and ignoring others.

 

I am spiritual and have very deep rooted faith in God. But I do not prescribe to any one religion.

 

[moosetracker]

TempaTurtle - Moosie I think you brought up a good topic though I wished you bashed our protestant brothers and sisters with as much fervor as the Catholics. Like the Lutheran Ladies Guild--how much baking is insane!

 

Which topic was that? We have shifted so much. If the protestants need bashing I will do so gladly I guess I grew up in such a modern, progressive chuch, and protestants can range from very conservative to very modern.. Like Beavah's veiws on homosexuals (which I assume is a religious view) would not be from the church I grew up in. I would imagine the church I grew up in and the one I joined early in my marriage, would be very comfortable with presiding over homosexual marriages. Anyway, if we have some conservative Protestant beliefs out there I will be happy to set them straight.

 

Now, my father (who was a protestant minister, but I wasn't raised by him) was more of a conservative type, with older more conservative churches. Those churches would probably be siding with Beavah.. So although I have seen both types, I more grew up and enjoyed the open modern views.. And I have a hard time pointing to anything and calling it protestant.

 

[Tampa Turtle]

Yeah, I lost track of the point too...

 

Catholics also range from very conservative to very liberal--it is so big that it is not very monolithic despite what the "home office" attempts to make the rule. My mom was a charismatic Catholic and had more in common with Pentecostals than the more orthodox rank and file. Methodists same way--a big tent with different wings threatening to tear it apart.

 

I find the diversity in Christianity endlessly fascinating. There is so much common ground but everyone concentrates on the differences. I don't think one should beat up organized religion on that one--it is true of hicks vs. townies, gown vs. town, blue vs. red, Gators vs Seminole, men vs, women, cats vs. dogs. What is it in out nature that makes us divide? (Hey maybe that Tower of Babel story is on to something)

[moosetracker]

Like I said, I know that Catholics can hold very structured old world masses, or very modern ones..

 

But, when something is supposably against the catholics beliefs due to the doctorine, then at least the way they talk it is a united front and all believe. Although many individually do not. So many will tell me they believe in these parts, but not those parts.. Well I always thought that was individualist.. If their are whole denominations though that pick & choose what parts of the Catholic docterines they would like to follow, you have surprised me with that packsaddle.. Although I do think I have visited a Catholic church that did not have the kneel pads.

 

Except for what make a Christian a Christian, Protestants have really no united front, in what we believe in it is just a fractured hodge-podge of very individualist denominations.. Protestants can range from Episcopalian like to almost Unitarian like (almost because Unitarian incorporate non-Christian faiths and Protestants are definately Christian in faith).

[JoeBob]

Fish,

 

I'm with you on the blue laws, and any law based on religion. If a law is based on Christian belief, doesn't that mean that Hindus, Jews, etc. can be exempt from that law? Blue laws are an example of religious excuses being used to PROHIBIT an activity by force of law.

 

But the current debate is about law being used to REQUIRE an activity of a religious group.

Catholics aren't trying to ban the sale of contraceptives. They just don't want to be forced to pay for them!

[Tampa Turtle]

I think Catholics are real touchy about doctrine IMHO because there is more catholic-bashing going on these days. 10 years ago folks were more polite about but not anymore. So they circle the wagons quicker. Contrast with how polite folks are being about Mormonism now because of Romney.

[packsaddle]

The OP was about gay marriage. The California ban was just struck down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html?_r=1&hp

[Beavah]

And religions being called to task to by either their own congragation or other outside influences can be beneficial if the religion is open to listen and change. Catholics are slowly loosing their large membership, simply because fewer members are as observant as they use to be, and few young people want to take up that vocation.

 

There it is. Right there.

 

Thanks for admitting it, moosetracker.

 

Yeh want the government to change the doctrinal beliefs of a religion, because you think it will be better for them to believe what you believe.

 

That is the very definition of governmental tyranny that the framers of the Bill of Rights aimed to prevent.

 

We'll leave off da fact that the Catholic population in the U.S. has been quite stable, while the population in more liberal Protestant denominations has declined substantially.

 

B