Left views religious freedom fight as the "coming theocratic hell"

[GFR7]

This piece from Salon.com is very interesting, both in it's revelation of the thinking of liberals on the subject of religious freedom, and in its indication of a resurgence of fourth turning principles in the US:

Our coming theocratic hell: Look out, the right’s “religious freedom” push is just the beginning

Draw the line from Hobby Lobby to Indiana: Religion has dangerously infected our legal system. It's getting worse

By now, it’s clear that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act was crafted to empower piously bigoted entrepreneurs and companies desirous of freelancing with their own “Jim Crow for gays” restrictions, and to let them cite as legal justification for doing so their precious religious sensibilities. The RFRA, said the original text, sought to give judicial succor to those who found that their “exercise of religion . . . has been substantially burdened,” or was just “likely to be substantially burdened” by performing services for people their faith’s sacred credos enjoin them to abhor (gays, in this case). The ensuing uproar in the media and business circles compelled Indiana’s state Senate to amend the legislation to prevent its deployment against the LBGT community, but state Democrats are still calling for its repeal.

The danger, however, has by no means passed. RFRAs already exist in 21 other states (in three of which, bills are pending to fortify them), and three more are considering adopting similar measures. The RFRA just passed last week in Arkansas may allow faith-based discrimination; we now await a test case.

Yet the real menace to our priceless heritage of secular governance comes from the Supreme Court, which a year ago (in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby) ruled that corporations, on the basis of their religious convictions (yes, the Court decided corporations have those), can exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act’s relevant articles and refuse to pay for contraceptives in their employee health plans. (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, warned that this was a “decision of startling breadth,” and she was right.) If a case involving a new manifestation of such legislation (say, the Arkansan RFRA) ever lands before the nine-member Roberts Court, its five conservative justices will no doubt adjudicate in favor of the faithful – and against rationalists who hold that religion, in no shape or form, should be allowed to infect our legal system. What is really needed is a federal LGBT shield law, but none exists.

[. . . ]

These days, sadly, with the godly on the legislative march, and the Roberts Court sitting in Washington ready to back them up, we find ourselves facing an unprecedented threat to what remains of our democracy.

Would religious folk, if they succeed in passing laws that empower them to use their faith as a bludgeon, prove restrained in invoking them? After all, Indiana’s governor had his state’s RFRA amended.

Maybe, but don’t count on it.

 

[Granite]

It was a solid article and right on the money.

 

[GFR7]

It was a solid article and right on the money.

I think so, too. :think:

 

[Sitamun]

The article is right. The right to practice your religion is not and never has been in jeopardy, however the desire to force your (general your) religiously held beliefs on others is gaining dangerous ground that it ought not.

 

[GFR7]

The article is right. The right to practice your religion is not and never has been in jeopardy, however the desire to force your (general your) religiously held beliefs on others is gaining dangerous ground that it ought not.

It is the inevitable backlash caused by the secular cultures excesses - and the excesses have been extreme. They should have applied the brake a bit. A showdown is now imminent.

 

[TracerBullet]

It is the inevitable backlash caused by the secular cultures excesses - and the excesses have been extreme. They should have applied the brake a bit. A showdown is now imminent.

no one should have to suffer being a second class citizen just because some bigots might throw a temper tantrum.

You are right about one thing though - there is a backlash but it a backlash directed at those trying to legislate hate and discrimination.

 

[GFR7]

no one should have to suffer being a second class citizen just because some bigots might throw a temper tantrum.

You are right about one thing though - there is a backlash but it a backlash directed at those trying to legislate hate and discrimination.

I think some of it goes beyond that sphere (doesn't involve gays ).... :think:

 

[PureX]

We have no real democracy anymore, anyway. It's just a question of how long it will take the American people to realize that they have completely lost control of their own government, to corporate oligarchs, who couldn't care less about our personal freedoms because all they care about is making money.

 

[GFR7]

We have no real democracy anymore, anyway. It's just a question of how long it will take the American people to realize that they have completely lost control of their own government, to corporate oligarchs, who couldn't care less about our personal freedoms because all they care about is making money.

I suppose that's true..... :think:

 

[Town Heretic]

It is the inevitable backlash caused by the secular cultures excesses - and the excesses have been extreme. They should have applied the brake a bit. A showdown is now imminent.

It's a sputtering sort of ultimately doomed thing as backlashes go. The battle has already been won in the court of public opinion, which as I noted in another thread citing a recent Reuters polling (question/percentages):

"Businesses should have the right to refuse services to certain people or groups based on religious beliefs."

53.9% disagreed
27.5 agreed
18.6 unsure


"Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate (by refusing services or a job) because of their religious beliefs."

60.3% agree
23.2 disagree
16.5 unsure


"Businesses should have the right not to hire certain people or groups based on the employer’s religious beliefs."

56.2% disagreed
26.5 agreed
17.3% unsure


Appears to get even stronger inside the millenials (18-34) where support for laws combating discrimination along orientation lines is as strong as 65%.

 

[GFR7]

It's a sputtering sort of ultimately doomed thing as backlashes go. The battle has already been won in the court of public opinion, which as I noted in another thread citing a recent Reuters polling (question/percentages):

Alrighty....... :think:

 

[Town Heretic]

Alrighty....... :think:

......then? lain:

I'm saying that the attempt is out of step with the larger part of American thinking, that when you look at it, excepting enclaves, that battle is over. The rest is only how long it takes the law to match up.

 

[GFR7]

......then? lain:

I'm saying that the attempt is out of step with the larger part of American thinking, that when you look at it, excepting enclaves, that battle is over. The rest is only how long it takes the law to match up.

Well, if this is the case, so be it, then. Religion will be separate from the general culture.......

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

It's a sputtering sort of ultimately doomed thing as backlashes go. The battle has already been won in the court of public opinion, which as I noted in another thread citing a recent Reuters polling (question/percentages):

Polls like this are very deceptive. The way the questions are asked assumes discrimination is taking place. The media is manipulating the less informed. Attempts to manipulate us will continue as long as people fall for deceptive use of the English language. We are a nation of sheep, illiterate sheep.

 

[GFR7]

Polls like this are very deceptive. The way the questions are asked assumes discrimination is taking place. The media is manipulating the less informed. Attempts to manipulate us will continue as long as people fall for deceptive use of the English language. We are a nation of sheep, illiterate sheep.

Good point. Polls can be deceptive and misleading, and are often designed to be so.....

 

[Town Heretic]

Polls like this are very deceptive. The way the questions are asked assumes discrimination is taking place.

They can be, certainly, but Reuters doesn't have that reputation and I included the actual questions prior to setting out the answers.

The media is manipulating the less informed.

Or people just don't agree with those advancing discriminatory conduct on the issue. I'll tend to credit people with knowing their own mind, whether or not I agree with them on what that is.

Attempts to manipulate us will continue as long as people fall for deceptive use of the English language. We are a nation of sheep, illiterate sheep.

I think that's one approach, but a cynical one. I don't see it that way. We're a nation almost evenly divided on any number of important contextual distinctions and by party. That smacks more of an engaged and active electorate than a mono thinking block of farm animals.

There was only one question of the three where I had an issue with the framing, the middle beginning with, "Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate..." Discrimination has a negative connotation and I thought it would have been better to have phrased it along the lines of the other two questions.

 

[PureX]

Polls like this are very deceptive. The way the questions are asked assumes discrimination is taking place. The media is manipulating the less informed. Attempts to manipulate us will continue as long as people fall for deceptive use of the English language. We are a nation of sheep, illiterate sheep.

Yeah, the polls are always deceptive when they disagree with our presuppositions. And yet they are dead on when they tell us what we already believed. :chuckle:

It's true that polls can be deceptive, and are sometimes designed to be. But so is our own ego. We happily deceive ourselves so long as doing so makes us right in our own eyes. So the only real solution is to take each poll individually, and pay special attention to every detail of how it was conducted. How many were polled? How were they chosen? Were the questions leading? Are there other possible reasons for the data being produced? Are there other possible explanations for the conclusions being drawn? Have they been taken into account? And so on.

Polls are an excellent tool for understanding complex social dynamics, when they're taken properly. But human bias is ever-present. Including yours and mine. So even the best the polls don't do us much good unless we're willing to face our own bias and set it aside.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

If you're starting a business, like Zondervans or some Christian bookstore, you should not have the right as an employee of said company of undermining its corporate image. This is the point I'm trying to make while Reuters completely ignores this aspect of hiring. All three questions you list show an agenda. Christians are a hated minority now.

I worked 10 years for an electronics manufacturing company. There were a number of lesbian employees working there. One, in particular, liked to "goose" the maintenance men walking by. It always got a laugh from both parties. She always acted differently around me because I guess she could tell I was different. I always treated her and the others with respect. One time, I went out of my way to fix a different ladies machine, and she responded by given me a kiss on the cheek in her supervisor's office. I probably blushed a bit but I didn't miss a beat while I was talking about the change I made to her supervisor.

It's a shame activists have turned this into a confrontation. It didn't need to be. But that's what the politicians want. It gives them purpose.

 

[Town Heretic]

If you're starting a business, like Zondervans or some Christian bookstore, you should not have the right as an employee of said company of undermining its corporate image. This is the point I'm trying to make while Reuters completely ignores this aspect of hiring. All three questions you list show an agenda. Christians are a hated minority now.

Where I'd answer that with the exception of the question that read in discrimination I think you'd be hard pressed to frame the inquiry any more objectively. And according to Pew Christians comprise just over seventy percent of those with a declared religious view here and only just under seventeen percent (EDIT: seventy-eight and change) stand outside of any declared faith.

So that's a majority in any sense, even if it's one under attack by the super minority of anti theists.

It's a shame activists have turned this into a confrontation.

I think that's something we agree on.

It didn't need to be.

Not sure it was avoidable, regrettable as it was...all you need is one person who won't hire or serve "that sort of person" or someone determined to make the law an instrument to "show those stuck up so and sos" and the rest is the sound of paperwork being filed.

But that's what the politicians want. It gives them purpose.

Divide and conquer with a twist.

 

[Granite]

If you're starting a business, like Zondervans or some Christian bookstore, you should not have the right as an employee of said company of undermining its corporate image. This is the point I'm trying to make while Reuters completely ignores this aspect of hiring. All three questions you list show an agenda. Christians are a hated minority now.

I worked 10 years for an electronics manufacturing company. There were a number of lesbian employees working there. One, in particular, liked to "goose" the maintenance men walking by. It always got a laugh from both parties. She always acted differently around me because I guess she could tell I was different. I always treated her and the others with respect. One time, I went out of my way to fix a different ladies machine, and she responded by given me a kiss on the cheek in her supervisor's office. I probably blushed a bit but I didn't miss a beat while I was talking about the change I made to her supervisor.

It's a shame activists have turned this into a confrontation. It didn't need to be. But that's what the politicians want. It gives them purpose.

I am sick to death of hearing this asinine malarkey about Christians being both a minority and persecuted. You guys are neither, and it's insulting to actual persecuted Christians the world over and to my intelligence to hear this masochistic wish-fulfillment idiocy repeated again and again.