Interesting article

[blacknblue]

I disagree with everything these two men are doing, but I will defend to my death (or at least to my serious discomfort) their right to do it.

[Elessar]

For the record--- No bovine I have ever killed has ever ended up on a store shelf. An trust me you dont want that beef on the store shelf. Eating sick dieing cows, Not such a good Idea.


pookha Im pretty sure that Rigil stated that the reason he dosnt support the goverment legalisin Gay marriage, is cause Marriage is a Religous institution, AN the Government has no bussiness telling any Relious group who they can an cant allow to marry.

I think thats what he ment anyway.

An I agree with him. Marriage is, an has been a Religous Thing, Long before any governments got mixxed up in it. An thuse the Government IMO also has no frakkin bussiness Legalising Gay marriage. Its ultimatly up to each an every single Religon. Not to Big brother. Seperation of Church an State, An Marriage is squarely in the Church's domain. Not the Governments. even though teh Government seems to think it is within their right.


Ok its just part of the reason I dont support Homosexual marriage.

That argument doesn't track -- the institution of marriage has one foot in Religion and one in Government, because it has a legal status attached to it. Your tax status, your social security status, benefits as a Federal employee or military serviceman - all of these government programs and structures are effected by the recognition of marriage, therefore marriage is incontriveribly within the government's purview. Not by argument, but by pre-existing facts of how things just are.

Government is in no way dictating terms to religious organizations by allowing same-sex unions -- they are simply granting the already-existing religious groups who WISH to perform same-sex unions the ability to have those unions recognized by government.

I didn't intend to go off on this tangent about gay marriage, but I had to argue against this because it's simply not true. There is absolutely no dictation from government to the existing, and no-gay-marriage-wanting current religious establishments like the Catholic church. To allow gay marriage is not to FORCE anything on the Church. To ban them is to withhold the same rights to other Americans on religious grounds, and thereby not only violating the basic tenant of separation of Church and State, but in fact violating the first amendment's conditions of freedom of religion by allowing a particular religion to grant preferential status to its own belief system. We're either a free society or a theocratic society, but we cannot be both.

If a person chooses to believe gay marriage should not be allowed because it is Wrong, that much is fine. However, to hold such a position is to inherently imply that it is ok for the government to legislate for or against lifestyle choices not inherently dangerous to others. So you can't believe the government should outlaw gay marriage because it is wrong yet simultaneously believe in freedom of religion or disagree with the government's interference with other lifestyle choices, like eating red meat, pork, cheese, milk, listening to loud music, having premarital sex, or masturbation -- all things that effect no one but you.

[evcake]

Separation of Church and State is essential to a free society. Otherwise, next thing you know you're in the middle of The Handmaid's Tale, or sweltering under a burka.

[enterprikayak]

i randomly picked up the handmaid's tale today out of my bookshelf (4 no reason, I thought)and started reading it. and i suddenly realised my subconscious must have picked it out cause we were all jabbering away over here about rights and big brother and all, and I go to get some peace and quiet in my book and it's all about big brother and the takeover. and then YOU start talking about the handmaid's tale.


weeeeird.

[evcake]

Me Mum calls that a synchronicity. I thank whatever gods may be on a daily basis that I was born when and where I was. There are few places even now where a woman can live her own life as she sees fit.

[Elessar]

Me Mum calls that a synchronicity. I thank whatever gods may be on a daily basis that I was born when and where I was. There are few places even now where a woman can live her own life as she sees fit.

I don't know if I'd say "few", but I get your meaning, definitely. Still, I'm an advocate against actions like those the Dutch government want to take in BANNING burkas or other head coverings. I think if they want to wear it, they should be allowed to, but the friggin Dutch claim that it's a national security threat because you can't see their faces so they could be wanted terrorists in hiding. Gimme a break. It's not exactly an arguing point, but when was the last time anybody gave a damn about the Dutch?



Terrorist 1: Let's go bomb Amsterdam!
Terrorist 2: Why?
Terrorist 1: ...Good point.

When I told a friend of mine this, who is an Indian muslim and used to wear a hijab, she vehemently disagreed with me. She thinks it's good that some countries are outlawing or restricting the wearing of burkas and hijabs because they're oppressive to many women being forced to wear them that don't want to wear them. Which may be true, but it's kind of a blanket action to ban them completely, because while liberating women who don't want to wear them, you're oppressing women who DO want to wear them, without any real concept of just what the relative numbers of those two groups are. Not as if it matters, there are other, more precise ways to try and pressure religion to modernize without trying to legislate it. Hell, IMO, it will happen eventually, just like it did with the Judeo-Christian world. You just can't force it... even if it's something as hellishly wrong as female castration. I mean I think it should be illegal HERE, but it's difficult to try and export that value to a country with an Islamic theocracy for a government. And by "difficult", of course, I mean "causes war", heh.

[evcake]

This is what I think: Just because something's been done since the beginning of time doesn't make it right. The oppression of women is Not.Right. Not for religious or any other reasons.
How's that for politically incorrect.
I agree with your Indian Muslim friend. And one might smuggle just about anything under a burka. A terrorist. Two terrorists.
Not trolling or anything like that. No argument could ever convince me otherwise. Core belief. Solid wall.

[CoffeeCat]

I've come to the conclusion that I really don't give a frell if gay people in America marry. I think it should be up to the church if they want to marry gay people or not. But I also think it's not the governments place to tell people "no" for Rigil's same argument against gay marriage. The government should be able to say, "this is between you and your religion, here's the license if you need it."

(I have a religious opinion on this as well, but I'll only share it with other Christians)

I think the debate is one big fat distraction to the real issues like: has anyone seen my constitutional rights?

[JadziaKathryn]

I'm staying out of the gay marriage debate. I've learned that lesson. What I have to say is in regards to outlawing burkas. There are some jobs where it isn't safe, and it drives me crazy when people cry "religious discrimination!" If you're going to be working around machines that could catch flowing clothing, it's not allowed no matter what type of clothing, religious or not. This is good for you because you don't want to get caught in a machine. It's also good for the company you work for which does not want to get sued. So it's not about the federal government outlawing burkas, but companies saying, "Our policy states you can't wear flowing, loose clothing." (We had some issues with that when Somalian refugees came in a few years ago and cried discrimination. I thought, give me a break.)

[CX]

I would secularize the institution of marriage so that all of them are "civil unions" as far as the government is concerned. The process and the benefits would be the same, but gay couples would be able to get them if they so desired. Couples can still have a religous ceremony if they want, but the government would only recognize the civil aspect of it.

[Elessar]

I've come to the conclusion that I really don't give a frell if gay people in America marry. I think it should be up to the church if they want to marry gay people or not. But I also think it's not the governments place to tell people "no" for Rigil's same argument against gay marriage. The government should be able to say, "this is between you and your religion, here's the license if you need it."

(I have a religious opinion on this as well, but I'll only share it with other Christians)

I think the debate is one big fat distraction to the real issues like: has anyone seen my constitutional rights?

Good point.

I would secularize the institution of marriage so that all of them are "civil unions" as far as the government is concerned. The process and the benefits would be the same, but gay couples would be able to get them if they so desired. Couples can still have a religous ceremony if they want, but the government would only recognize the civil aspect of it.

That's exactly the way it is now minus the government recognizing same-sex unions.

I'm staying out of the gay marriage debate. I've learned that lesson. What I have to say is in regards to outlawing burkas. There are some jobs where it isn't safe, and it drives me crazy when people cry "religious discrimination!" If you're going to be working around machines that could catch flowing clothing, it's not allowed no matter what type of clothing, religious or not. This is good for you because you don't want to get caught in a machine. It's also good for the company you work for which does not want to get sued. So it's not about the federal government outlawing burkas, but companies saying, "Our policy states you can't wear flowing, loose clothing." (We had some issues with that when Somalian refugees came in a few years ago and cried discrimination. I thought, give me a break.)

You're absolutely right, but that's not the same thing, that's a work-related hazard. They would say the same thing to a 20 something, blonde-haired blue eyed intern who walked in wearing a Prom dress, would they not? I think that's a clear cut case of a work related hazard. The fact of it to me is that they're saying you can't wear big flowing clothing, not, you can't wear religious or cultural or ceremonial clothing.

Just don't confuse that kind of thing with what the Dutch want to do. If I want to I should be able to walk around campus with a black sheet over my entire body with two holes cut for eyes. I'd look like a goofy bastard...well maybe I wouldn't, nobody'd see me , but there's nothing wrong with it.

I mean here's the real point of this argument. You can walk around campus or public streets wherever, in perfectly normal looking clothes -- jean pants, white t-shirt with a button up shirt over it -- and still be concealing like 3 or 4 handguns. The only thing you might be able to get away with carrying under a burka is a shotgun or an assault rifle on your back but it's gonna stick out, and it's gonna be visible if you start carrying it, etc, I mean it's a joke. I mean what if I want to walk around in a Holloween constume all year round. Should that be illegal? Why? Just because?


That's my problem with this, in addition to the fact that outlawing them in general public places IS religious descrimination. It's not as if these things just popped up in the last 5 years to irritate the West and conceal their secret, devious, plans. I'm sorry if I'm stepping on feelings, but I seriously wonder how many self righteous Americans would feel the same if they were suddenly being told by a Hindu theocracy that they weren't allowed to eat pork because it's wrong, and if that Hindu theocracy had the military and political strength to enforce that exportation of values, what would you think then? What would be your argument if you had a say against it? That it's not right to force their beliefs on us? Hmf.

[pookha]

elessar is correct that no church would be compelled to marry gays.
in a way it would be like the situation with people of mixed faiths now.
some churches, temples ect will perform mixed faith ceremonies and others will not.

a new synagogue was created in an area near me because the rabi at the original one stopped conducting mixed faith ceremonies.

as for buka's ect a company can stipulate if certain type of clothing is a danger while performing certain tasks though the employee can be allowed to wear the clothing on breaks ect..
some places were you work with machinery demand all jewelery off the hands including the wedding band.

but there has been a theory floating around that because the usa hasnt tried to forbid the wearing of the burka ect that people more rapidly start to change.. ie perhaps going to a veil and long simple dress.
that what has happened to a degree in europe is that certain moslems see the issues as trying to legislate them out of existence and all of sudden the clothing becomes an issue of cultural identity and pride.

[Elessar]

I tend to agree with the last part, about it threatening cultural identity. I guess I have a certain bias because I find them absolutely gorgeous. If nobody's ever seen one in person, they're beautiful. There's this girl in the Physics department that I have a secret crush on that wears a full body dress every day and she has a veil type thing coming up from the back of her head, but her face/neck are showing, so it's not a burka.

Actually I doubt that there will be a big surge of burka wearing. Burkas are actually the most covering type of head dress and it's that not that common, I think the report I read said they think only a few hundred people wear them in all of the Netherlands. In the US I've never seen one in person, but I have seen quite a few hijabs (those are the more standard looking head dress) and I don't think there's anything wrong with them. Do people get offended if priests walk around town in their black cloaks and white collars, or if Rabis walk around in their robes, or do people get offended by all the innumerable Jews that wear hamulkes everywhere? Even for the clergy, though these muslims may not be clergy, it is no less a valid comparison. It's religious clothing, plain and simple. I think it just puts people on edge psychologically because it's different. They'd just prefer the status quo where all you saw 50 years ago was t shirt and jeans in the youth and jackets and slacks for the men. Sorry folks... time's a changin' . EMBRACE diversity! (Do I sound like an orientation video at a new job?)

[JadziaKathryn]

Ah, but here's the rub. We have laws against the state messing in religion. But do they in the Netherlands? That'd make a big difference.

[Bether6074]

It is a hot bed topic. My personal opinion...I just don't think that it's right to tell people how to love. I just don't think that it's right for someone to feel they are "less of a person" because of who they love. Pookha, the story you told is very sad and tragic. I would think that anyone on this earth deserves the chance to be happy and in a commited relationship with whomever they choose. Again, only my opinion and I respect everyone else's. No offense intended. I guess I don't make a very good Catholic, but that's the way I've always felt.