Another sad story of the perversion of the struggle for gay civil equality and social inclusion into something draconian and ugly, this time from Britain.
Of course, there are real cases of outright anti-gay intolerance, and some of them aren’t even faked. That doesn’t justify this kind of persecution against people of faith — and please, spare us all the comments about how their faith is wrong so this is perfectly ok and anyway, serves ’em right. Or that fealty to the state must trump personal religious conscience, as if that were the American way instead of its opposite.
My hope is that the U.S. Supreme Court does not make the same appalling decision when it hears a similar case.
More. As the case of a Colorado cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, who refused to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple, heads to court in Denver, the Washington Times reports that:
Denver talk-show host Peter Boyles of KNUS-AM is championing Mr. Phillips‘ cause…even though Mr. Boyles says he’s in favor of same-sex marriage.
“I’m a huge supporter of gay rights, gay weddings, gay marriage, adoption rights, but these guys are wrong and the Masterpiece Cakeshop is right,” said Mr. Boyles on Monday’s broadcast.
Mr. Phillips “doesn’t say, ‘You can’t come in here and buy’; he says, ‘I’m not going to make you a cake of two men getting married,’” said Mr. Boyles. “As much as I support two men getting married, I support his right to say no.”
There are issues on which libertarians and left-liberal progressives are allied—such as support for marriage equality on the part of the state—and issues on which advocates of liberty and advocates of statism are firmly opposed. Forcing self-employed individuals to engage in expressive activities that violate their religious beliefs is one of the latter.
48 Comments for “Blessed Are the Persecuted”
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t like this situation because it’s being played in the right-wing media to fuel the persecution complex of anti-gay bigots among the religious right. Of course no one would be defending them if they had refused service to a mixed race couple, but in America we have a major political party still endorsing bigotry against gay people so for at least part of the country that’s a popular form of discrimination.
Here’s the compromise I propose: if your business wants to discriminate against some customers, that policy needs to be displayed prominently and in large enough print to be readable. (none of this 8 point type BS like we find in credit card agreements). I must assume that unmarried couples can’t share a room either since that’s also a no-no in their religion. (If they are selectively enforcing their religious beliefs then they have no leg to stand on, in my opinion.) Getting to the inn and finding out that you aren’t allowed to stay there is unacceptable. (Finding other accommodations is often impossible.) Everyone staying in this hotel should know that they discriminate and if people are fine with that then they can stay there. Personally I wouldn’t want to give these bigots my money so I have no interest in forcing them to take it.
As for the server who appears to have created a media storm by writing on a receipt and making it look like customers stiffed her for homophobic reasons, it should be noted that every blogger I know who reported on that has also printed the later stories showing that it is probably a hoax. If only all such false information were so quickly retracted by the people who used it for their own purposes. (Like the many members of Congress who used the now retracted Benghazi story from 60 Minutes. I’m still waiting for them to admit they were misled and apologize.)
posted by AG on
“If they are selectively enforcing their religious beliefs then they have no leg to stand on, in my opinion.”
And who is the one to judge whether they are consistent in their religious beliefs? These people have no reason to subscribe to your (obviously hostile) interpretation of their religion. You want to force people to act against their will, to make them do your bidding because you disagree with their arguments. It’s a very totalitarian way of thinking, though, admittedly, very popular in the modern society. As an atheist I don’t want the religious protections to be shrunk, instead I want to extend the right of free association to everyone regardless of their religion or lack of it.
Now, I can see a point why innkeepers and hoteliers, unlike many other business owners, should have much less leeway in the question with whom they can refuse to do business. Indeed it can be terrible to find yourself without shelter at night. But I have no sympathy whatsoever to gay couples who sued bakers or photographers.
Also, don’t trivialize Jim Crow. African-Americans didn’t fight for their civil rights because one photographer refused to take a picture of a black or mixed-race couple when countless other photographers were happy to perform the service.
posted by JohnInCA on
What about *my* religious freedom of association? They want to be able to fire me/refuse me service/whatever because their holy book is full of bigotry. But what about my right to fire them/refuse them service/whatever because their holy book is full of bigotry?
The protections they want are one sided and unbalanced. And frankly, if “my holy book of bigotry tells me so” is good enough reason for someone to ignore anti-discrimination laws when it comes to gay people, why not when it comes to, I don’t know, all those pagans and blasphemers? Why do they need their special carve-outs for gay people and only gay people?
posted by AG on
I’m fully in favor of abolishing anti-discrimination laws that prohibit religious discrimination. As a gay man and an atheist I wouldn’t hire someone who converted to Islam, which I consider a violent totalitarian ideology determined to spread hatred toward people like me.
posted by JohnInCA on
Cool, so you’re another “arbitrary line in the sand” guy.
That’s such a relief.
posted by Doug on
You can believe anything you want but if you are a public business you must treat all customers equally and not discriminate. This is just another example of right wing christians wanting special treatment.
posted by Houndentenor on
Exactly. They want special rights. Unless they want to repeal all nondiscrimination laws. If that’s their argument they should make it, but I only rarely hear it, and never in the form of a serious proposal to repeal the existing laws.
posted by JohnInCA on
If your religion means you get away with refusing me service/employment/housing/whatever, then your religion should mean I can get away with refusing your service/employment/housing/whatever.
I won’t hold my breath waiting though. I guess instead of being equally vulnerable I’ll settle for being equally protected.
posted by Mark on
Yet again the argument that public accommodations laws (but only public accommodations laws applying to sexual orientation) should not apply to people of faith (but only conservative Christians).
I have some sympathy with a libertarian idea that all public accommodations laws should be repealed because they impose on freedom. But granting exemption only to anti-gay types who claim they’re basing their prejudice on religion?
posted by Jim Michaud on
One thing that’s really aggravating to me about these situations is that we only hear about the same cases. It’s the baker in Oregon. It’s the photographer in New Mexico. It’s those lodge owners in Vermont. Aaaand…that’s it. We constantly hear the same cases over and over again. Riddle me this: if discrimination against Christians by those eeeevil homosexshuls is so widespread, how come it’s the same old stories? Shouldn’t we be hearing about them by the dozens? Or is it that soc cons want to use these handful of cases to undo all the gains LGBT people have made? Nah, that CAN’T be it. (Wink, wink)
posted by Houndentenor on
It should also be noted that in most states it would be perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people. Since ENDA seems to be going nowhere in the House I just thought I’d point that out. Sorry if I can’t have a pity party for the very people who want to enforce their bigotry on us but expect “special rights” so they get to discriminate against others.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I have done quite a few things I didn’t care for ethically or morally because my job required it. I don’t have a lot of pity for the folks who turn into big crybabies because they have to do something they don’t like. Boo hoo I had to take pictures of LESBIANS. Yeah, well I had to type up legal documents that made me want to puke but I did it. Go cry to the other bigots. Unfortunately we have a right wing noise machine that makes a huge deal out of a handful of these cases to make it sound like hoards of militant homosexuals are going to overrun their towns and force them to take their money for doing what they do all the time anyway. This really is absurd. Let the bigots run their little all-heterosexual bed and breakfast. Just put up a sign and tell everyone that only married heterosexual couples are allowed to stay there. (Do they turn away unmarried straight people or people who have been divorced and then remarried? Or are they picking and choosing among the “sins” they won’t allow under their roof. Seriously, let everyone know what bigots they are and they’ll go under. I do think the libertarian/anarchist approach is best in these situations. I suspect most people running B&Bs will be happy to take our tainted homosexual pounds, dollars and euros.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Stephen may want to be spared comments that fealty to the state must trump religious conscience, but I’m afraid that’s the way it is whenever religious conscience is trying to trump secular obligations. Offering sleeping accommodations or photographs or cakes or flowers or party favors for sale to the general public are not acts of religious devotion. If the purveyors of such services feel that their personal religious beliefs prohibit such services for selective suspect classes of the public, then they should find other lines of work. Spare me arguments that try to repaint oppressors as victims.
Lawyers defend their clients, and doctors care for their patients, regardless of whether the clients or patients are sinners or not. It’s not too much to expect someone who changes bed linens and bakes muffins in the morning to follow the same ethical standards.
posted by Don on
I understand and agree with the distaste regarding the harassment the British couple has received. And I don’t think they “deserve” that harassment. But, just like the doubters of the restaurant receipt story, I have to cry “what?” when they claim they had a dead rabbit nailed to their fence. The hacking of their website to be replaced by porn, that I could see. But are we supposed to believe that an avid gay/lesbian hunter killed a rabbit and nailed it on their fence? I can’t think of a single gay activist that would have ever proposed such a thing. It just smells really funny.
As for their “persecution” I can see their point but I don’t think they have a good one. I never have. How is making discrimination illegal? On what page of Christianity are they compelled to refuse to have anything to do with something they condemn? It must be that part about the Good Samaritan. What with going to extreme lengths to help your sworn, mortal enemy and all. That must be the part they are turning to. Because I just don’t get it.
I don’t worry about them too much, though. They will land on their feet mostly because they have become Christian martyrs. Although it is sad to lose their business, they will surely find another way to make a living with the aid of like minded people.
Or, as they live in an actual socialist country, they can just go on the dole.
posted by Jorge on
Here’s the compromise I propose: if your business wants to discriminate against some customers, that policy needs to be displayed prominently and in large enough print to be readable. (none of this 8 point type BS like we find in credit card agreements).
What’s wrong with 8-point credit card BS? But maybe it’s a compromise worth choosing.
Riddle me this: if discrimination against Christians by those eeeevil homosexshuls is so widespread, how come it’s the same old stories? Shouldn’t we be hearing about them by the dozens?
I have a hard time understanding your question.
Almost every story reported so far has been about discrimination against Christians by those eeeevil homosexhuls. There’s one I know of by an eeeevil governor.
If homosexuals are rare, then eeeevil homosexhuls are rare even among the rare. But they exist. A mere 5% of 5% of the United States population would be 7500 people; whatever math you do from there, there’s room for a couple of nuts in every state. Gay marriage hasn’t been legal for that long. There will be plenty of time for them to come out of the woodwork.
You ask where are all the other examples? Look to such things the lawsuit that banned prayer in public schools, the lawsuit that sought to have “under God” removed from the pledge of allegience, the suits and protests that have sought to bar government-sponsored nativity scenes or otherwise warp them beyond recognition. There is a well-established pattern in this country of infrequent but regular lawsuits of this type. It is not a conspiracy against Christians. It is rather an action taken by a small class of people who choose to say MY NEEDS! MY NEEDS! MY NEEDS! MY NEEDS! in response to slights that most of their peers do not retaliate against, and which most of their community thinks can be healed in a day, small price to pray for the greater needs of the many. But with the lawsuit filed and decided, the law passed or set in stone, major changes can occur as a result of one slight.
It’s not simply a mental or moral illness on the plaintiffs’ part. There’s a social assumption that one slight is related and relevant to a history of discrimination of harassment borne by oneself and by strangers, and that by retaliating, one fights against social injustice. I think much that is wrong in this country is the result of people being overeager to make that connection to a history of injustice rather than a connection to their fellow person.
Anyway, since I side with the right wing persecution complex on this one, I’m happier this occurs in Great Britain now rather than later.
But, just like the doubters of the restaurant receipt story, I have to cry “what?” when they claim they had a dead rabbit nailed to their fence…. But are we supposed to believe that an avid gay/lesbian hunter killed a rabbit and nailed it on their fence?
I’ve heard and read quite a few stories of people leaving dead animals on people’s property as a means of harassment. It’s not hard for me to believe.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, Jorge, putting important information in type that is too small for most people to read or hiding it so that most people won’t see it unless they specifically go looking for it is BS. I can’t believe you are even arguing that point.
Also, if someone hacked their website or committed acts of vandalism, made death threats, etc. then those should be reported and if possible prosecuted. Those are crimes and people who do such things should be treated as criminals. I think that like the restaurant receipt, some of those alleged threats are made up. I don’t believe someone who claims harassment but doesn’t file a police report.
posted by Jorge on
Yes, Jorge, putting important information in type that is too small for most people to read or hiding it so that most people won’t see it unless they specifically go looking for it is BS. I can’t believe you are even arguing that point.
I’m not.
And if you’re serious about proposing “compromise” you’ll let it remain that way.
Jorge, if you couldn’t understand my question, there’s little I can do for you, bud. It was quite straightforward.
Did I get it right, dear? Your premise (“we constantly hear the same cases over and over again”) is a little arcane.
Your link is wrong.
“Life, safety, civil liberties and right to worship” appear intended to be an exhaustive list of things that can be persecuted.
Even if that were true under some definitions, it fails to capture the real harms of changes to quality of life–things like money, what happens when you go outside, and social/cultural norms.
This is a democracy. When such things change significantly for the worse without one’s voice in the matter being considered (e.g., taxation without representation), and as an exercise in power by one group over another, it is perfectly appropriate to call it persecution.
If you do not agree, then I think you should consider half-agreeing.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Jorge, if you couldn’t understand my question, there’s little I can do for you, bud. It was quite straightforward. Oh, and here’s a handy flowchart for you:http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/holidays-persecuted
posted by Mike in Houston on
Just a bit of historical footnotes… while there have been several recent lawsuits about the Pledge of Allegiance and prayers in schools, the original Supreme Court ruling was more than 60 years ago. Original lawsuit was brought by a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses (about as fundamentalist Christian as you can get in some circles)… their complaint was that a compulsory pledge to an inanimate object was a violation of their religious liberty and the equivalent of idolatry. The Supreme Court first ruled against them saying that the state could, in fact, make the pledge mandatory and that all they needed to do was to get the policy changed “democratically”… The Court reversed itself three years later in Barnette on 1st amendment grounds.
Oddly enough, in his dissent, Justice Frankfurter wrote that freedom of religion did not allow individuals to break laws simply because of religious conscience. Frankfurter argued that, “Otherwise each individual could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously deemed for the public good by those whose business it is to make laws.”
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
First, I’m a little perplexed that Stephen chose the site that he did for his link re: the British case. The link is to “Lifesitenews.com” – a web site that conflates abortion, euthenasia and homosexuality in one big attack against Christian morality. There’s been quite a bit of coverage of this issue in the British press. Funny that Mr. Miller chose to link to a most decidedly anti-gay site to support his claim.
Second, the Brits do not share the US Constitution. And while I do not feel comfortable with the scope of their laws re: ‘free press’, liability, etc… – I do recognize that the Brits have a long, legal history that reflects their own culture/society’s values.
Third – and this point gets stressed by several comments here, but never responded to by Stephen: as the British Supreme Court stated, the couple’s faith was not discriminated against. There are public accommodations laws (for lack of a term) in Britain. The couple not only chose to ignore those laws, they chose to appeal their case to a series of courts. Losing each time. And in so doing, the legal fees increased (the couple was required to pay the legal fees for the gay couple as well).
Stephen’s choice of linked site – the Lifesitenews.com – stresses the difference between racial discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. Sexual orientation discrimination is different from racial discrimination due to the fact that people can’t change their racial profile. While obviously anyone can choose to be gay, or straight, or whatever. (I’m only referencing the site’s archived articles, comments, etc…)
This is the site that Miller wants to link us to? Does Miller agree? Does he see race as an immutable characteristic, while sexual orientation is a chosen trait? That’s the foundation for lifesitenews.com’s perspective.
An archive of articles and comments on lifesitenews.com argues that this distinction (between race and sexual orientation) is why public accommodation laws re: race are different than those against sexual orientation. And why it would be wrong to discriminate against an interracial couple, but not a gay one.
Otherwise, as so many have noted – but Miller refuses to engage – why is it ok to ban discrimination based on race in public accommodation laws, but not against sexual orientation?
Until Mr. Miller addresses that question, I would sincerely request he drop this meme…
(To be clear – I can accept a critique of public accommodation laws that rejects all such legal restrictions – including race, gender, etc… – but parsing out only gays/lesbians/bisexuals/trans for discrimination is faulty, and sadly uninformed as to the purpose and reason for such laws.)
posted by Houndentenor on
It does give us a picture of where Stephen gets his news that this is the sort of site he would link to for this story. For someone whose website claims to want to find a “gay mainstream” he sure does seem to empathize with the far right.
posted by Don on
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it a tad disconcerting to see so many people here justifying bad religious actors or at least siding with their “plight” with little or no regard for the gay and lesbian people those people hurt through shame, degradation, and state-sponsored discrimination.
I don’t think that is at all a “conservative” position in any academic definition of the word.
But it sure seems that way a lot.
posted by Jorge on
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it a tad disconcerting to see so many people here justifying bad religious actors or at least siding with their “plight” with little or no regard for the gay and lesbian people those people hurt through shame, degradation, and state-sponsored discrimination.
I don’t think that is at all a “conservative” position in any academic definition of the word.
Minimizing the impact of “shame” and “degradation” is not a conservative position??? That *is* the conservative position in modern-day racial/diversity controversies–that such alleged “shame” and “degradation” is overplayed and should not be used to justify changing the norms. Speaking to the indignity of such harms is a progressive position.
I’ve stated my concerns. My default assumption is that conflicts with merchants are not relevant to any cause or social need. Give me a reason to reconsider based on the individual circumstances of the case (or to put it cynically, tell me a real good sob story), and maybe I’ll change my opinion of what the general rule should be.
And as for state-sponsored discrimination, the repeal of DOMA was by a liberal-moderate coalition. That is the general pattern in gay rights legislation.
posted by J. Bruce Wilcox on
At lifesitenews you’ll presently find 167 responses- I read through many of them- and they do and say exactly what religionists everywhere do and say against ME. That’s right- hatred spewed by religionists against ME. Sorry to have to personalize it for you. And I’m truly sorry that after 60 years of direct discrimination experienced BY ME from primarily ‘christians’ that the tide is turning against ‘christians’ and against their not/rights to discriminate against me.
They’re so pathetic that they think they can play the persecution card against an entire group they’ve been persecuting for hundreds and hundreds of years- and that we’ll just sit quietly by in our shame and self-hatred and let them continue to persecute. No more. And not ever again.
And let’s ask you all if you still do- because I quit celebrating christmas decades ago because I could no longer support its religious roots and the fact that it usurped a pagan holiday in its attempt to subvert an entire cultural experience that already existed.
posted by Jorge on
…and they do and say exactly what religionists everywhere do and say against ME. That’s right- hatred spewed by religionists against ME…
mmm-hmm…
I’ll respond to the last part of your post.
I do celebrate Christmas, in the Santa Claus sense. Do not shed tears for the memory of paganism.
In my adulthood I have come to realise that Santa Claus is a holy force–some say a saint–that is a manifestation of a great will. And one who comes during the beginning of a rather brutal season–actually it bothers me that his power only appears during a limited time of year. I believe it is likely that Santa Claus is a force borne and reborn again from the fears and hopes of humanity. It’s also quite possible he is an old force from the same origin, maybe even one that pre-dates the resurrection. It seems logical that God would allow an old order or cause to return at a new time of need. The prominence of such a vassal during a time of decreasing religious faith may be no accident.
posted by Doug on
I do not think Santa Clause has any real religious significance, not is Santa Clause mentioned in the bible to my knowledge.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
It ain’t necessarily so, just because it’s in the bible. Equally so, it ain’t necessarily not so just because it’s not in the bible. If you look at most of it as metaphor, then an enlightened person can make some sense of some of it. Two thousand year old metaphors hold up a lot better than two thousand year old fables.
posted by Doug on
So basically you are saying religion is a free for all. Believe whatever you want and find it by ‘enlightenment’ in or out of the bible, make it up as you go along. Pretty hard to have any consistency and if there is something you don’t like, well I’m ‘enlightened’ and found a metaphor that justifies my position.
posted by Don on
As my husband, a religion major in college, likes to remind me: the New Testament was written 200 years after Jesus. So it probably is somewhat of a free-for-all anyway. Hanging on the texts for literal meanings and historical accounts is a bit nutty once you accept that fact. (cue religious debate)
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, pretty much. Is that news?
posted by Jorge on
Like I said, do not shed tears for the memory of paganism.
The reason Santa Claus is not mentioned in the Bible is because he was born in the third century, or so I’ve heard. They say Mother Theresa is about to become a saint, but she’s nowhere in the good book, either.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why a human bottom sits in the chair of St. Peter instead of a book.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
One need only count the plethora of squabbling, mutually hostile organized religions to see that it’s a free for all, but for them, not me. The bible is rife with factual errors and contradictions that fundamentalists and literalists rationalize away with aplomb. That being the case, should I, as an intelligent, sentient being, just reject it all out of hand, or should I search for metaphorical truths that can survive the process of evolution? The principle of transubstantiation in the mass is biblically based but unimportant to me, whereas the mass as metaphor for sacrifice and redemption through love is spiritually inspiring and enlightening to me. I don’t just “make it up as (I) go along.” I continually try to understand as I go along.
posted by Mike in Houston on
This debate is core to the bi-polar nature of American democracy: Liberty vs. Law — and best shown in Constitutional context in two landmark Supreme Court cases… namely, Minersville School District v. Gobbits and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The findings and dissents in each show — as current Supreme Court Justice Bryer is fond of saying, “the boundaries past which we (as a society) should not go”.
In Minersville, a religious minority objected to compulsory pledging allegiance as an abrogation of their 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The Court held that the state, could, in fact, require students to recite the pledge — regardless of their religious beliefs :
“Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.”
The lone dissenting judge wrote, in response:
“The guarantees of civil liberty are but guarantees of freedom of the human mind and spirit and of reasonable freedom and opportunity to express them…The very essence of the liberty which they guarantee is the freedom of the individual from compulsion as to what he shall think and what he shall say…”
The Court reversed itself in sweeping fashion a mere three years (and several judicial changes) later in Barnette, finding that the 1st Amendment did, indeed, protect against coercive government action:
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
The dissenting Justices noted that:
“The constitutional protection of religious freedom terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges. It gave religious equality, not civil immunity. Its essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma. Religious loyalties may be exercised without hindrance from the state, not the state may not exercise that which except by leave of religious loyalties is within the domain of temporal power. Otherwise each individual could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously deemed for the public good by those whose business it is to make laws…
…It would be too easy to cite numerous prohibitions and injunctions to which laws run counter if the variant interpretations of the Bible were made the tests of obedience to law. The validity of secular laws cannot be measured by their conformity to religious doctrines. It is only in a theocratic state that ecclesiastical doctrines measure legal right or wrong.”
Just thought I’d provide something to chew on… and BTW, you can find all these quotes via FindLaw.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—-Forcing self-employed individuals to engage in expressive activities that violate their religious beliefs is one of the latter.
Actually, I suspect that a fair number of progressive people are certainly supportive of this idea or open to doing so. Assuming, we are talking about small businesses, providing non-essential services and it would have to be a general ‘religious or political belief’ exemption to providing goods/services.
A gay or straight couple being told — up front — that they need to shop elsewhere (because the owner has a religious or political objection) for a cake may be a hassle and they should certainly make sure their friends, family and the press are away of it (First Amendment works both ways).
It is a far cry from discrimination that occurs with more essential services or from a larger private entity. The problem with the rightwing-AynRand-libertarians — if they are fact of that particular bent — is that they fail to see the difference.
Members of the Libertarian-Right want to abolish ALL private sector civil rights and labor rights laws. Members of the religious right only want religious freedom for themselves. I am sorry but these two positions are lame.
posted by Mike in Houston on
“First Amendment works both ways.” — except that this is not what these cake bakers, florists and the rest believe.
Even without the public accomodation laws, the folks screaming about “religious liberty” also claim persecution if they’re called on their bull.
What they really want is the ability to freely discriminate, ahem exercise their religious liberty — across the board — without any social cost whatsoever.
posted by Doug on
They also want their prayers rammed down my kids throats in schools.
posted by Lori Heine on
Use of a term like “members,” without any qualifier such as “many” or “most,” is obviously intended to connote “all.”
You are lying, and I think you know it.
Kindly cite your proof that ALL libertarian conservatives believe what you say. And provide working links. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
You have some sort of emotional/psychological issue with libertarians. I’d suggest psychotherapy.
posted by Lori Heine on
I was responding, in the above, to TJ III, not to Doug. As one never knows where one’s reply is going to be stuck in this system, I should have made that clear in the original reply.
posted by Don on
A plural noun merely indicates two or more, not “all.” Careful with the nitpicking. It can cut both ways. Plus you’ve started to venture again into the acerbic. I’ve gone there a few times here. And it just poisons the well. For that, I have decided to be less aggressive. I think Tom smacked me around on it a couple of times. It got my attention.
Although his suggestion that I had “unresolved issues” went too far himself.
Please take this as a well-meaning request for more collegial dialogue. You have very interesting things to say, but the angry “not all libertarians think . . . ” stuff is getting a tad old.
It is fair to generalize about a group of people who share a common definition. Because people who are defined as liberal or conservative do share common belief systems, but not all beliefs. To insist otherwise is to render the words meaningless.
i.e. both a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua are dogs. And yet, they share very little in common. must we purge the word “dog” from the lexicon because its understood definition is too broad and somehow offends the wolfhound?
posted by Lori Heine on
Fair enough, Don, but I would like to point out that the tactic I challenged is very commonly employed here. There are, in fact, far more angry leftists commenting on this site than there are angry libertarians.
More people are now coming into the libertarian fold (more small-L than capital). They don’t all fit the standard description of what libertarians have been in the past. I speak to many people who are moving in this direction, and virtually none of them (myself included) feel compelled to study Atlas Shrugged as if it were the Bible, or adhere to exactly the same ideas as libertarians who’ve been in the movement for years.
posted by Don on
What’s not helping the libertarian case is much of the incendiary rhetoric that gets so much attention. Whether it is Ayn’s writings, Rand Paul calling health insurance slavery, or Glenn Beck’s FEMA Trailer/Gold Standard conspiracy theories, many of the public faces of the ideas have distorted them to no end. I wouldn’t call Beck a libertarian, but he does utilize views such as gold standard and a pretty across-the-board get government out message. He’s a huckster selling gold.
I would be irritated as hell myself if these guys were the primary sources of my worldview. They aren’t. But they are in public. And they say the things in ways that grab headlines. I’m libertarian in many fiscal and almost all social issues. But cannot endorse what those whackjobs say.
Liberals get stuck with labels that they believe W. let the World Trade Center happen, corporations are turning us into slaves, and want to steal your money to give it to lazy people. Conservatives get stuck with nutty religious theories they themselves don’t believe. and Libertarians would starve the poor and start a race war.
pick your social group and they’ll try and stick a nasty label on you.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—Look to such things the lawsuit that banned prayer in public schools,
I call BS on this one. Their is NO Constitutional law in America that bans students from praying in school — assuming the content of the speech is within the realm of protected free speech. This is a total, outright lie (which I see repeated time and time again).
The challenge is that their CANNOT be a religious test for enrollment in a public school. So, what religious freedom you give to say, Christians, you have to be prepared to give it to the other faiths. Also — as a practical matter — we cannot have students fighting or killing each other other religious disagreements.
However, as long as their are school dances and sports games, their will be prayer in school. If a school has student clubs, it cannot ban faith-based ones. The rules are generally similar to students making political statements in public schools. Speech or expression that is libel, slander, fighting words, obscene or national security secrets is not protected, but most religious expressions would be protected.
So, if a public school were to ban Bibles on school ground it would have to have a reason, or else it would be laughed out of the court rule for violating the First Amendment.
–the lawsuit that sought to have “under God” removed from the pledge of allegience,
Again, if you are going to force kids in a public school to recite it…you cannot impose a religious test for enrollment in a public school (or for citizenship or voting). Please can — and do — say the pledge with or without “under God”.
—the suits and protests that have sought to bar government-sponsored nativity scenes or otherwise warp them beyond recognition.
If the city has public land given out to one religion, then it cannot discriminate against the other religions. Again, you cannot have a religious test for citizenship in America.
So, when other religions — i.e. Muslim and Jewish — have their holidays around the same time as Thanksgiving-Christmas-Black Friday, you cannot have a policy that religious freedom only applies to one faith or sect.
Does this mean that you cannot have a nativity scene on public land? No. However, it does mean that you cannot create a religious test for citizenship. What liberty you give to one faith, must be given to all.
posted by Doug on
Based on the title of this post “Blessed Are the Persecuted”, Stephen apparently believes that the LGBT community has not been persecuted and should not be blessed. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
posted by Jorge on
I call BS on this one. Their is NO Constitutional law in America that bans students from praying in school — assuming the content of the speech is within the realm of protected free speech. This is a total, outright lie (which I see repeated time and time again).
Conceded. And you knew exactly what I was talking about, didn’t you? There is no mistaking it, the jagged, raw, scorched flesh of those that scream out that “total, outright lie”, over and over again.
Mike in Houston has already pointed out that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is not compulsory.
If the city has public land given out to one religion, then it cannot discriminate against the other religions. Again, you cannot have a religious test for citizenship in America.
We are not talking about a religious test for citizenship.
We are talking about a religious test for 1st class citizenship :-1
To that extent, what a lot of 1st class citizens smell is that these kind of lawsuits is envy. 1st class citizenship in this country means that every day in school, the government tells you via the Pledge of Allegiance, Papagod loves you. Now isn’t that a nice little sweet thing? But the other student’s father says, “Your teacher said WHAT? My daughter doesn’t have anyone telling her Papagod loves her in school. Oh no they don’t” And he goes waving the finger in the air and busting out into the street in tight clothes to raise hell. And even though he is quite capable of telling her every time she gets home, Papapopo loves you, he files a lawsuit trying to take Papagod away from everyone else.
You speak of liberty. Liberty does not guarantee success, only opportunity. These lawsuits are about privilege, things given to people without them taking opportunity… my goodness, this argument is starting to convince me the other way. If you change privilege to liberty, the people who have the most will suffer losses to the competition. You do not speak of impact to people as individuals.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
–Conceded. And you knew exactly what I was talking about, didn’t you?
Well, I am not a mind reader, but I just responded to the outright lie you said about public schools and prayer (which I heard many times among conservatives).
Public school students do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they walk on campus. So, this applies to their religious and political viewpoints. Yes, some restrictions do apply (that would not in other situations) because of their age and some effort at squeezing out kids that can read, write and do some math.
So…(again) if a public school has student clubs then students generally have a right to create clubs tied to a religion or a political party.
If a student is expressing a religious or political viewpoint verbally or through something like a t-shirt and the like, the school has to come up with a pretty good reason why it wants to censor it.
The courts tend to get VERY nervous when students are seen as ‘advocating’ illegal drugs, so that pro-pot club or lower drinking age viewpoint might not win under the First Amendment.
Schools can insist that viewpoints are expressed within a modicum of civility (i.e. profanity, obscene language or gestures and the like may not win under the First Amendment).
Maybe, you can come up with actual, real life situations and we can talk about them….
—Pledge of Allegiance is not compulsory.
Well, the high court ruled that students cannot be forced to recite it, although public schools do try now and again. I had zero problem saying it in public schools.
–We are not talking about a religious test for citizenship.
Um yes you are. If the First Amendment is a right of citizenship, then it cannot apply it differently to citizens of one faith versus another.
This means that if a city lets one religious group rent or use a parcel of public land, then it has to make the same option open to every other faith in similar circumstances.
This generally give the city two options — if what its to allow groups to express their viewpoints on public land. neither option tends to please everything. Now getting back to the pledge….
Technically, public schools can not compel students to recite it. It is not just an atheist thing — not everyone believes in one God (Buddhists, Hindus come to mind) and some people that do have moral objections to pledge (I think the Jehovah Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventist or some sect).
Historically — from what I hear — Jewish kids often suffered under the pledge because “under God” was taken by the Christian majority as meaning their ‘true god’ or something to that effect.
However, every now and again someone in a public school admin or school board decides to try and force kids to recite the pledge. This tends to be why it gets brought up in the news now and again.
Students can still recite the pledge — in its original or post-1950s version.
–You speak of liberty. Liberty does not guarantee success, only opportunity.
I was not talking about how popular or unpopular a particular faith or sect is or isn’t. I am not sure what you mean in terms of ‘success’ (when we are talking about religious freedom and public expressions)
However, the government cannot not give liberty to one faith, that it does not give to another.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Also — my boyfriend is Jewish. It is very improper in the Jewish faith to actually say (or write) ‘God’. You can — generally — do ‘G-d’ or the All Mighty, but saying “under God” is not something that a Jewish student should do.
posted by ShadowChaser on
Is it me or what … but with the economy being what it is, can any small business afford to turn away any business?
A friend of mine is a practicing Catholic and a self-employed tax accountant/laywer. He has worked with clients, many of whom are not Christian, on Chrismas Eve, Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, etc. If he doesn’t work, he and his family don’t eat, the mortgage as well as utility bills and college tuitions won’t get paid.
Be careful what you ask for … you may get it
posted by J. Bruce Wilcox on
Sorry to leap back to santa!
“Historically, there was a Saint Nicholas, born in Asia Minor. He became known for his holiness, miracles, and zeal. He was also imprisoned for his Christian faith. Part of his life’s purpose was to convert sinners, (Christians certainly believe that I’m a sinner so that would be me) share his wealth with the poor, (I’m a working artist so that would be me) and increase charity among the populace. Eventually, he came down to us as the patron of storm-ravaged sailors, prisoners, and children. Because of his generosity, children began giving gifts at Christmastime, and his name was metamorphosed into Santa Klaes and Santa Claus by the Dutch.”
Quoted from the handbook to the Inner Child Tarot regarding the Guide of Crystals- St. Nicholas.
The Pagan winter solstice holiday celebrated the shortest day/longest night, as the other solstice/equinox’s celebrated mathematically calculated points regarding this planet’s passage through time/space. This reality has nothing to do with anybody’s religion.
Unfortunately- a Christian perspective was used to usurp the math and render a religious application/recognition.
And then our mass-marketing monster took over and made gift-giving at one time of the year their sales staple for the whole year-causing the ridiculous situation we now have with the ‘Christmas’ season. It should be beyond offensive to anyone with a brain- but we humans are still inextricably tied to the social and religious programming we had ‘rammed down our throats’ growing up. We can’t even question it.
Until all persecution stops- not/heterosexual persecution still being very much alive- humans remain ignorant morons.
posted by J. Bruce Wilcox on
Inner Child Tarot by Isha Lerner and Mark Lerner, illustrated by Christopher Guilfoil, available from Bear & Co Publishing, Santa Fe, New Mexico, copyright 1992…