dagblog - Comments for "The Romney Paradox (and the Crybaby Bishops)"

Methodism, Presbyterianism,

James Townsend — Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:01:32 +0000

In reply to The Romney Paradox (and the Crybaby Bishops)

Methodism, Presbyterianism, Mormonism and several other denominations were all spread from Massachusetts.The leaders of the early Mormon church have very deep roots in Puritan Massaschusetts. The Bible Belt is so religious in large part due to the Great Awakenings, a movement led by Puritans. Now that the times call for a different take on religion, the northeast can't tame the monster it created. Or was it a set-up for conflict and dueling mind-control all along. Massachusetts elite cannot be trusted.

Good points, all. A lot of

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 23:17:31 +0000

In reply to I hate to tell you but there

Good points, all. A lot of people don't know how the government works and has worked forever.

And, in fact, some things DO change when the baton is passed from Democrats to Republicans and back again. That's why elections are important.

More generally, we've moved to this place--for some time now--where you're discriminating if you "discriminate" against discriminators.

This, I think, could turn into an infinite regression, no?

Weren't Jim Crow southerners being discriminated against when they were forced--at gun point--to admit black students to their schools? Well, yes, in a way they were.

This is a little bit Ron Paul's point about allowing private institutions, like restaurants, to serve whomever they wish and turn away others. Or at least not forcing them to serve everyone. He would say it's wrong to force anyone to do anything or not do anything with his private property.

At bottom, it's a phony argument that ignores the social reality to play semantic games. The same thing is true of so-called "reverse discrimination."

The truth is, when you lose an election, a lot of your views are NOT represented by your government and some of them are contravened by practice. We used to be able to suck it up or reserve judgement or even say, "maybe they know something I don't." But no more...

Just to clear up a

Verified Atheist — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:11:20 +0000

In reply to I hate to tell you but there

Just to clear up a misunderstanding that I myself had earlier, this particular case is for Illinois state adoption agencies, not federal ones. All of your points stand, of course.

I hate to tell you but there

Elusive Trope — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:00:25 +0000

In reply to But nobody's talking about

I hate to tell you but there are a zillion decisions made by governmental bureaucracies impacting such things as who gets what funding that are not subject to democratic decision making. This is just one case which is making the news.

This really comes down to whether one believes it is okay for a religious organization should have equal access to funds in order to provide services even if they turn around and deny access to those services to others based on sexual orientation.

But you may not be aware (obviously you haven't applied for a federal grant or work for a government-funded nonprofit) but within the world of the federal government discrimination based on sexual orientation has been a serious no-no for quite awhile. It has been the standard practice of the federal government. Just as a federal government human resource department cannot not hire someone who gay because they are gay, an agency who receives federal funds cannot likewise discriminate. In this particular case the federal agency involved expanded this long-standing perspective to those who attempt to access adoption services.

Ultimately it is about the belief - homosexuals are equal under law and should have equal access to federally funded services like education, food banks, and adoption - and anyone who does discriminate will not receive the funds. Whether the motivation or basis of that discrimination is religious or not is irrelevant.

OK, there's a valid point

Verified Atheist — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:46:08 +0000

In reply to But nobody's talking about

OK, there's a valid point hiding in what you wrote, and you've brought it up before, but then (similar to what you criticize the Doc as doing) you bury it with that religious stuff.

You wrote:

These defined standards were created based on democratic decision making - with all of the public rulemaking procedures that are involved with this.

Am I to take from this, that you'd be fine with the regulation if it had been a result of a law passed by Congress rather than by (state) agency guideline? If so, that's more nuanced than I was giving you credit for.

I do, however, have to point out that many (most?) of the rules that adoption agencies follow (which you presumably have little complaint about) are not the explicit result of Congressional laws.

The freedom from having one's

kyle flynn — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:40:09 +0000

In reply to But nobody's talking about

The freedom from having one's religious beliefs used as a metric by which the full benefit of access to government resources is removed, limited or curtailed... is THE ENTIRE PURPOSE of the religious freedom clauses in the constitution.

Not following that, kgb999. Not only do I doubt it's THE ENTIRE PURPOSE, I don't think it's as much as an after thought.

equally-licensed entities

This is the point, I think. They stop being equally licensed when they demonstrate their unwillingness to operate under the same rules.

But nobody's talking about

kgb999 — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:26:35 +0000

In reply to Actually insofar as churches

But nobody's talking about acting with complete impunity. An adoption agency isn't an unregulated and unmonitored entity. There is a defined set of standards which they must meet to be in operation. Obviously, if these are not met ... the adoption agency would be shut down.

Now, this is the important part. These defined standards were created based on democratic decision making - with all of the public rulemaking procedures that are involved with this. I propose that, absent a similar democratic process conducted by the federal legislature creating a more concrete national definition, the definitions set by democracy within state jurisdictions are the standards which the federal government should be using to assess distribution of funds without *ANY* consideration of the religious beliefs of those who run an organization that meets the definition of standards required to operate.

The freedom from having one's religious beliefs used as a metric by which the full benefit of access to government resources is removed, limited or curtailed... is THE ENTIRE PURPOSE of the religious freedom clauses in the constitution.

You've bastardized this ideal to carry out a political agenda of cutting off equally-licensed entities from federal funds on the basis of the beliefs underlying the people running the entities. To me, it doesn't matter what reason you're doing it for - it sucks.

I am not sure whether you

Elusive Trope — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:16:09 +0000

In reply to Well, once you really take

I am not sure whether you saying that I am personally somehow extending that romper room exercise in such a way (which I am not and not what I was referring to), but the question "why bad things happen to good people" is one with which humans have struggled ever since they had some inkling there was a director or directors behind the scene. Some would posit we created these metaphysical forces in order to answer that question. Seeking an answer to the question "why do some prosper and some do not" has unfolded in a similar fashion. Even today there are those who see their material success as a sign that they are blessed and the chosen ones (there are a good number of them in my community), which is a way of saying that whatever happens on this material plane is manifestation of the spiritual plane, in other words the material world is a mere reflection, a shadow.

Well, once you really take

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:36:22 +0000

In reply to That has been the general

Well, once you really take into account an "all powerful God", there aren't many messages that can't be steamrollered with "why's he messing with us, he could just snap his fingers and arrange whatever the hell he wants". It's one thing to talk about suffering as important in learning lessons, it's another to extend that children's romper room exercise to the brutal killing fields of Cambodia or decade of atrocities in the Congo.

It's not like there's only 1

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:32:56 +0000

In reply to Have you ever seen the

It's not like there's only 1 aspect to the story - certainly there's the meme of the downtrodden who tries harder than those in better circumstances, as well as the railing of the rich priests abusing the poor, and several other motifs. Easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven? Doesn't seem like he's saying the widow should be upping her giving, but that it's more the attitude behind the giving and not the $ amount.