Today I did my usual check on the NOM blog, which for the last few days has been more the Chick-fil-A blog. But today, they put up a segment from a NY Times opinion piece on religious freedom. Since NOM likes to shorten it to what they feel was important, I read the entire Times piece online and several of the comments. I wanted to comment but apparently, they have only a short window for comments and it was already closed. Then I read the comments left on the NOM blog and decided to post a section of the article here, the link to it (so you can read the entire piece), and the 5 comments that are listed as of 1pm EDT today, Friday August 3, 2012.
From the article:
I cannot improve upon the way the first lady of the United States
explained this issue, speaking recently to a conference of the African
Methodist Episcopal Church. “Our faith journey
isn’t just about showing up on Sunday,” Michelle Obama said. “It’s
about what we do Monday through Saturday as well ... Jesus didn’t limit
his ministry to the four walls of the church. He was out there fighting
injustice and speaking truth to power every single day.”
But Mrs. Obama’s words notwithstanding, there seems to be a great deal
of confusion about this point in the Western leadership class today.
The article is, to me, a bit disjointed because it doesn't focus solely on religious freedom in the United States. Nevertheless, it is a good article for the most part.
Now, for the NOM blog comments. Since I can't post comments there, I'm posting them here and in a different color font, so that anyone can tell they're MY comments.
JC wrote:
Let's also be honest enough to admit that your desire to block other
groups of citizens from the benefits of civil marriage just because they
don't live according to the dictates of YOUR religion has anything at
all to do with freedom of religion. Just admit that you don't like
people living their lives in ways that conflict with your religious
beliefs and you are willing to any and everything in your power to bend
them to your will.
OvercameSSA wrote:
JC -
Only a man and a woman can create a child; despite what homosexuals
would like to believe, that's a fact and it is a big deal worthy of
special attention by the government and society.
Sure, there are those who believe this is purely a religious issue,
but there is a secular purpose that true marriage serves that so-called
same-sex "marriage" cannot: the union of a mom and a dad with their
offspring.
In fact, every same-sex couple who adopts a child, adopts a child who
was taken away from one or both if his/her parents: the very opposite
of what marriage is designed to encourage!
And no matter what anyone keeps saying, having a child is not a requirement in order to get married. If marriage is solely about having children, then make it a requirement and stand by it. Otherwise, stop bringing it up. People who aren't married have children every day. Not being married doesn't stop that. And same-sex couples don't steal children or take them away from their parents. The government does that when a parent isn't fit to be a parent. Should that child have to be without adoptive parents just because the biological parents couldn't act like adults and provide a real home?
From Cameron:
While
sounding nice, unfortunately, Ross is incorrect about exercising
religion being a convenient carte blanche to behave as your conscience
dictates.
The borders of discrimination and religious freedom are blurred. Who is
to say where one's rights ends and another begins? It's easy to say that
the religious texts have far-reaching implications so anything that
offends those texts is fair game for discrimination. If someone's
religion says that they can't dispense marriage licenses to
mixed-religion couples, whose religious liberty is being infringed upon?
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) subjects federal policies
to strict scrutiny if they substantially burden a person’s exercise of
religion. So to be the tie-breaker, the law states that for something to
infringe on religious freedom, that part of your job must actually be
part of your religion. Under existing case law, the provision of health
care or chicken sandwiches or dispensing of marriage licenses is
arguably not the exercise of religion.
So while Ross' article is passionately written, it doesn't make much of an argument for religious discrimination.
That said, I'm not sure what laws Chick-fil-A would be breaking in
Boston for the mayor to say that they couldn't set up business there.
But if he's saying it for reasons that the law doesn't support, I think
that's despicable. Everyone needs to follow the law, regardless of
religious affiliation. That is religious liberty.
The mayor of Boston never said they couldn't set up business there. He said they might want to think again before setting up business there, not quite the same thing. The mayor of Chicago said he would support an Alderman's announcement to block the company. He didn't say he'd ban them. And finally, the mayor of San Francisco said he would strongly recommend that the business not come closer to San Francisco than they already were. Can they be interpreted as threats to use their power to keep them out? Yep. But in the end, they're still doing the same thing Mr. Cathy did, exercising their first amendment right to free speech. You don't like it, fine. Protest. But at least don't lie about what they said.
From GoodNews:
“the pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued West"
Say it again New York Times – and it will feel even better! Say it a
thousand times, and it might start to be heard. Say it a million times,
and it might motivate a nation. And bring health to a people! (And
bring a little healthy challange to the easy money economy lovers as
well).
Find a way to make pornography totally illegal. Find a way to make women and men more fertile. Find a way to stop families from breaking down. That would be wonderful. But quit blaming all of this on religion or a lack thereof. Men in general are the majority of pornography purchasers. How are you going to stop them from buying it? Religion can't make humans produce babies, only sex can. And some people just don't belong together but got together anyway. Can you stop that from happening? Last of all, if money is to be made from doing something, there is always going to be someone willing to do that something.
And finally, from TC Matthews:
JC in all the hundreds of years that this country has been around, no
one has done anything like what you're describing. Don't you think it's
a little odd to bring it up now as a cover for the hissy fit you're
pulling because people disagree with you?
32 states have written into their constitutions, via popular vote, that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. If you look at the breakdown of the voters who voted for that definition, more than 90% did it because of their religion. Look at the groups that are out there now trying to use that definition and only that definition in 5 states this November. Every one of them are religious in nature. Every one of them uses nothing more than a religious viewpoint for why marriage is man and woman. It is their religious beliefs they are trying to (and in 32 states, succeeding) pass as law. And you're going to say it hasn't happened? Disagreement is one thing. Telling people they aren't human, that God hates them, that AIDS is their punishment for being gay, is quite a bit more than disagreement.
The bottom line to all of this is your right to religious belief or non-belief is granted by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. But that doesn't mean you have the right to force someone else to believe the same way. Stop being surprised when people fight back against your beliefs.
