Defining Religious Liberty Down

[roo_ster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/douthat-defining-religious-liberty-down.html?_r=2

It may seem strange that anyone could look around the pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued West and see a society menaced by a repressive puritanism. But it’s clear that this perspective is widely and sincerely held.

It would be refreshing, though, if it were expressed honestly, without the “of course we respect religious freedom” facade.

If you want to fine Catholic hospitals for following Catholic teaching, or prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons, or ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, then don’t tell religious people that you respect our freedoms. Say what you really think: that the exercise of our religion threatens all that’s good and decent, and that you’re going to use the levers of power to bend us to your will.

There, didn’t that feel better? Now we can get on with the fight.

Do read the whole thing.

[MrsSmith]

Funny how the ones who cry "Diversity" the loudest are the first ones to shun the beliefs of others.

[grampster]

Ahh, Mrs. Smith, those crying diversity the loudest have an abridged dictionary that is their handbook.

[Jamie B]

The writer is a legend in his own mind.

[Doggy Daddy]

The writer is a legend in his own mind.

I'm not familiar with the columnist, but if this is an example of his clarity of thought then I'd like to read more of him.

[lee n. field]

Funny how the ones who cry "Diversity" the loudest are the first ones to shun the beliefs of others.

Yup.

(There's a (slight) possibility in the near future of moving into a new job.  Different employer.  One with a "Human Resources" department.  "Diversity training" is the thing I am most dreading.  And explaining to them how most that use the word "hate" don't know the meaning of it.

Probably won't happen, anyway. )

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not familiar with the columnist, but if this is an example of his clarity of thought then I'd like to read more of him.

I believe he was just recently published.

 http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1439178305

[lee n. field]

I'm not familiar with the columnist, but if this is an example of his clarity of thought then I'd like to read more of him.

Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics.  Looks interesting, but I'll probably never get to it.

[Balog]

He's a decent writer, although my mind always wants to pronounce his name "Douchehat" so it's somewhat distracting when I see his byline.

[MicroBalrog]

A lot of the modern puritanism is sponsored by progressive "feminists".

[Nick1911]

So, we agree that say, forced marriage or honor killings are universally immoral in America, reguardless of what the christian bible says about it; but genital mutilation of minors should be protected religious freedom?  (Of males, that is.  Female genital mutilation is also obviously bad.  But it's cool for males.)

[Balog]

So, we agree that say, forced marriage or honor killings are universally immoral in America, reguardless of what the christian bible says about it; but genital mutilation of minors should be protected religious freedom?  (Of males, that is.  Female genital mutilation is also obviously bad.  But it's cool for males.)

Comparing circumcision and female genital mutilation just demonstrates that you don't really understand what either one is. It's rather like comparing foot binding and piercing a kid's ears.

[MicroBalrog]

Comparing circumcision and female genital mutilation just demonstrates that you don't really understand what either one is. It's rather like comparing foot binding and piercing a kid's ears.

FGM is a range of procedures ranging from the completely disabling to the only slightly so - all are illegal.

(So is tattooing your child's genitals, I would assume).

[Ron]

So, we agree that say, forced marriage or honor killings are universally immoral in America, reguardless of what the christian bible says about it; but genital mutilation of minors should be protected religious freedom?  (Of males, that is.  Female genital mutilation is also obviously bad.  But it's cool for males.)

Quoting Bible versus out of context just shows a lack of biblical knowledge and your lack of understanding regarding theology. Not to mention the history of Judaism and Christianity. Quoting versus as if it is a text book versus a historical narrative is usually a mistake made by fundamentalists as well as unbelievers.

For the record, by the time of Christ, one woman one man was the traditional understanding of marriage in Jewish culture as well as the nascent Christian church and the Roman Empire.

While I don't see the point behind circumcision myself, comparing it to the genital mutilation of young girls does not do justice to the horror of that procedure. If the Jews/most of the western world practiced the neutering of their male babies maybe it would be an apt comparison.

As a circumcised male I can assure you I am more than capable of not only having intercourse but enjoying it immensely. The victims of genital mutilation have that most basic of human joys stolen from them without their consent.  

[Nick1911]

Quoting Bible versus out of context just shows a lack of biblical knowledge and your lack of understanding regarding theology. Not to mention the history of Judaism and Christianity. Quoting versus as if it is a text book versus a historical narrative is usually a mistake made by fundamentalists as well as unbelievers.

It's there in black and white.  You yourself are quick to point out that words have specific, defined meaning. [Marriage]  Figurative meaning beyond the literal what-it-actually-says meaning is subjective - it's filtered through social, cultural, and congnative biases; one can twist that mean almost anything one wants it to.  I am refering to what is actually printed in the book.  I would expect that would be an acceptable source of truth reguarding a particular religion.

While I don't see the point behind circumcision myself, comparing it to the genital mutilation of young girls does not do justice to the horror of that procedure. If the Jews/most of the western world practiced the neutering of their male babies maybe it would be an apt comparison.

As a circumcised male I can assure you I am more than capable of not only having intercourse but enjoying it immensely. The victims of genital mutilation have that most basic of human joys stolen from them without their consent.  

I bring it up is to point out that we as a culture clearly denounce some things that are in most, if not all religious texts; and almost everyone agrees that is fine and proper. [FMG's and Honor killings, for instance]  Yet government intervention of other practices [homosexual marriage, circumcision] is deemed trampling on religious freedom.  The cultural standards have changed over time; or we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Where do you draw this line?  I would expect freedom oriented gun owners to say "your rights end where mine begin"; but that is not the case here.  [Two homosexuals marrying does not personally impact you.  Circumcision is body modification done to an individual without their consent.]

[Ron]

It's there in black and white.  You yourself are quick to point out that words have specific, defined meaning. [Marriage]  Figurative meaning beyond the literal what-it-actually-says meaning is subjective - it's filtered through social, cultural, and cognitive biases; one can twist that mean almost anything one wants it to.  I am referring to what is actually printed in the book.  I would expect that would be an acceptable source of truth regarding a particular religion.

Heh, heh, all you did there was restate your position showing your lack of understanding of both historical context as well as theology.

As far as circumcision is concerned I have no dog in that fight. It seems to be common practice in the USA, regardless of religious affiliation.

My point was that comparing it to FGM is something akin almost to a category error. The permanent damaging physical effects of FGM shouldn't be diminished by comparing it to circumcision.  

The ramifications of letting our government in Orwellian fashion change the meaning of a word that has centuries of history as well as jurisprudence are not fully known. There have been threads where links have been posted regarding lawsuits against churches by gay groups here and abroad as soon as legal status was obtained, and here government is already demanding religious institutions violate their conscience and/or doctrine.

I wish this was really just the benign desire to have equal benefits bestowed upon them by the state. For many I'm sure that is really the case. Unfortunately the issue seems to me to be a Trojan Horse designed to weaken and damage religious institutions in the USA.

  

[longeyes]

Religious values further the survival of the tribe, of the nation (strictly defined).  Or they don't.  It can take a while--a few existential conflicts--to determine the viability of practices.  Until then it is just self-comforting theory.  History is littered with proud faiths that failed to meet the test of adaptation to major crisis.

[Nick1911]

Heh, heh, all you did there was restate your position showing your lack of understanding of both historical context as well as theology.

You are correct in that I don't have much of a backgroud in theology.  Care to elaborate for me? 

[Perd Hapley]

You are correct in that I don't have much of a backgroud in theology.  Care to elaborate for me? 

The Bible verses you're quoting are a legal code for ancient Israel. They were valid for Israel because God delivered them in person, confirming His revelation with miracles visible to the nation. The New Testament expanded the worship of the Jewish God to all people, but not all the laws and practices of the Old Testament Jews.

Islamic teachings are quite different, stemming as they do from one guy who simply said a lot of stuff that some people happened to agree with for whatever reason.

[roo_ster]

To be fair to Islam, I don't recall any of their holy books calling for FGM.

You are correct in that I don't have much of a backgroud in theology.  Care to elaborate for me? 

Pro tip:
The author of The Song of Solomon ain't writing about deer hunting, no matter how many times he mentions the critters.

[Nick1911]

The Bible verses you're quoting are a legal code for ancient Israel. They were valid for Israel because God delivered them in person, confirming His revelation with miracles visible to the nation. The New Testament expanded the worship of the Jewish God to all people, but not all the laws and practices of the Old Testament Jews.

Gotcha.  So this would be why the prohibition of bacon in Leviticus is not followed by Christians, but is by the Jewish?

[lee n. field]

Pro tip:
The author of The Song of Solomon ain't writing about deer hunting, no matter how many times he mentions the critters.

"What like towers?"

[Perd Hapley]

Gotcha.  So this would be why the prohibition of bacon in Leviticus is not followed by Christians, but is by the Jewish?

Purr-cisely. I think this webpage does a passable job of explaining the issues.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/kosher.html

As Paul states in Romans 14:14, foods are not unclean in and of themselves. While God has given rules concerning food in the past, they were laws intended to serve a particular purpose at a particular time, not moral absolutes. The laws given to the Israelites concerning food were in force during the time of the Old Covenant, not before and not after.

[Nick1911]

Thanks fistful. 

[Perd Hapley]

I'm sorry if I, or my fellow Christians, get prickly about that. It's something so basic to understanding Christianity, but so ill-understood. It's easy for us to forget that people really don't know how all that works.

And then there are the Christians who should know better, but appeal to Old Testament law to condemn tattoos, and such.