Question

[rhartsc]

Yeah, everybody knows that the left in America, especially lately, has been so good about respecting religious conscience. Except for that Catholic church/contraception mandate, that is.

I remain skeptical. Sooner or later (sooner, I think), someone will want a church to perform some kind of SSC and will sue when that church refuses. There's no way anybody can guarantee that it won't happen or that some kook judge won't gleefully use the opportunity to harass the church.

And what about the religious conscience of their employees? Why should they be exempt? If they want to enter the marketplace they have to play by the market place's rules.

 

[ebia]

Yeah, everybody knows that the left in America, especially lately, has been so good about respecting religious conscience. Except for that Catholic church/contraception mandate, that is.

I remain skeptical. Sooner or later (sooner, I think), someone will want a church to perform some kind of SSC and will sue when that church refuses. There's no way anybody can guarantee that it won't happen or that some kook judge won't gleefully use the opportunity to harass the church.

Life doesn't come with guarantees. When the church thinks it can (or even should) avoid risk its lost its way.

 

[thecolorsblend]

And what about the religious conscience of their employees? Why should they be exempt? If they want to enter the marketplace they have to play by the market place's rules.

Would not that argument also apply to SSC's then and churches be forced to perform ceremonies they find morally reprehensive?

Life doesn't come with guarantees. When the church thinks it can (or even should) avoid risk its lost its way.

It's not about "avoiding risk"; it's about a religious institution having (or not having) the right to refuse to participate in activities it finds unconscionable.

 

[ebia]

Would not that argument also apply to SSC's then and churches be forced to perform ceremonies they find morally reprehensive?

It's not about "avoiding risk"; it's about a religious institution having (or not having) the right to refuse to participate in activities it finds unconscionable.

Yeh, there is a risk that might happen in the future. Using that as a reason for taking a particular course of action now is trying to avoid risk.

The future doesn't come with guarantees. Except for one - the final resurrection.

 

[thecolorsblend]

All due respect but that is the least persuasive response I've ever heard.

 

[ebia]

All due respect but that is the least persuasive response I've ever heard.

That the church's job is not risk avoidance?

 

[Albion]

I remain skeptical. Sooner or later (sooner, I think), someone will want a church to perform some kind of SSC and will sue when that church refuses.

Not only is what you describe certain to happen, but it won't be followed only by a lawsuit but by a campaign to divest churches of their tax exemptions. The argument will of course be that they can still exist, just that they shouldn't have government benefits if (or because) they do not serve all the people equally. The professional atheists will be happy to join in, making the effort seem as though it's not confined to a single dissatisfied minority.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That the church's job is not risk avoidance?

The church's job is to be faithful representatives of Our Lord and there is no bizarro world where He would endorse any type of SSM whatsoever, period, end of story. That means the church cannot endorse any type of SSM whatsoever, period, end of story.

Not only is what you describe certain to happen, but it won't be followed only by a lawsuit but by a campaign to divest churches of their tax exemptions. The argument will of course be that they can still exist, just that they shouldn't have government benefits if (or because) they do not serve all the people equally. The professional atheists will be happy to join in, making the effort seem as though it's not confined to a single dissatisfied minority.

Thank you!

That said, revocation of tax exemption has been a boogeyman for a long time. I'm not saying it could never be revoked but I don't get why churches or parishioners live in fear of something that (as far as I know) has never happened to any orthodox church.

 

[ebia]

The church's job is to be faithful representatives of Our Lord and there is no bizarro world where He would endorse any type of SSM whatsoever, period, end of story. That means the church cannot endorse any type of SSM whatsoever, period, end of story

I haven't said it should. But neither should it be in the business of opposing something because of a perceived risk in the future.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I haven't said it should. But neither should it be in the business of opposing something because of a perceived risk in the future.

The only person talking about risk here is you. The Word couldn't be any clearer about the sinfulness of homosexual relations. I don't fear persecution as those who are persecuted will be comforted by Our Lord.

And none of this is to speak of the fact there is no inherent right to marry in the US.

 

[Albion]

Thank you!

That said, revocation of tax exemption has been a boogeyman for a long time. I'm not saying it could never be revoked but I don't get why churches or parishioners live in fear of something that (as far as I know) has never happened to any orthodox church.

Well, we're only guessing at the future...and I have the feeling that the opposition to religion all round is gathering strength. If we think of all the ways that God has been removed from public--and even private--life recently, this particular guess at future events is more realistic than it might have a generation or two ago.

 

[Drudgeon]

I think the only "bizarro" world is the black and white one of those who perceive their inability to regulate others' rights as being persecuted.

 

[thecolorsblend]

^ As I said, it isn't a right.

 

[Drudgeon]

^ As I said, it isn't a right.

Ipse dixit?

Edited to add: I think we may be about to engage in a semantic argument. If you're using "right" to mean what's already in the constitution, and I'm using "right" to mean what seems to me to be just under moral law, there's not any real use in hashing this out. I contend that Americans had a right to free speech before it was ever codified in the Bill of Rights, and that slaves had a right to be free when they were considered 3/5 of a person for voting purposes and property for all others.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Edited to add: I think we may be about to engage in a semantic argument. If you're using "right" to mean what's already in the constitution, and I'm using "right" to mean what seems to me to be just under moral law, there's not any real use in hashing this out. I contend that Americans had a right to free speech before it was ever codified in the Bill of Rights, and that slaves had a right to be free when they were considered 3/5 of a person for voting purposes and property for all others.

Oy, what happened to this world...

Okay, a "right" can be exercised without hindrance or let from the government. If the government can permit you or stop you from doing something, it isn't a right. Take political speech, for example. If I want to criticize President John Doe, by and large I have the legal right to do so. In the main, the government can't give me permission to do it nor can it stop me from doing it. I can say basically anything I want about President John Doe and his policies and the government has no legal authority to stop me.

However, a "right" must not impose a burden upon others. To continue the political speech analogy, sure, I can criticize President John Doe and his policies as much as I like but nobody else is under any obligation to agree with me. They can agree with me if they want, they can disagree with me, they can ignore me altogether, whatever. Exercising my right to criticize the government does not burden anybody else.

Gay marriage fails both tests. In order to be legally married, one must obtain a license. If you have to obtain a Mother May I from the government, you can call what you're doing anything you like but it isn't a right.

Secondly, gay marriage could easily impose burdens upon others. It's no stretch to think that religious institutions (not just houses of worship but other religiously-affiliated institutions) will be legally required to recognize the marriage even though they find it religiously loathsome. And this is not to speak of the probability that they will face legal consequences if they choose not to perform same-sex ceremonies.

It is not a right. Yes yes yes, "but it's not FAIR". No, it isn't. But it's also not a right. SCOTUS can hand down any decision it likes, popular sentiment can turn any direction, the President can "evolve" at any time. Guess what? It's still not a right. Never will be.

EDIT- I've said my bit. I'm done with this thread now.

 

[Drudgeon]

Oy, what happened to this world...

Okay, a "right" can be exercised without hindrance or let from the government. If the government can permit you or stop you from doing something, it isn't a right. Take political speech, for example. If I want to criticize President John Doe, by and large I have the legal right to do so. In the main, the government can't give me permission to do it nor can it stop me from doing it. I can say basically anything I want about President John Doe and his policies and the government has no legal authority to stop me.

However, a "right" must not impose a burden upon others. To continue the political speech analogy, sure, I can criticize President John Doe and his policies as much as I like but nobody else is under any obligation to agree with me. They can agree with me if they want, they can disagree with me, they can ignore me altogether, whatever. Exercising my right to criticize the government does not burden anybody else.

Gay marriage fails both tests. In order to be legally married, one must obtain a license. If you have to obtain a Mother May I from the government, you can call what you're doing anything you like but it isn't a right.

Secondly, gay marriage could easily impose burdens upon others. It's no stretch to think that religious institutions (not just houses of worship but other religiously-affiliated institutions) will be legally required to recognize the marriage even though they find it religiously loathsome. And this is not to speak of the probability that they will face legal consequences if they choose not to perform same-sex ceremonies.

It is not a right. Yes yes yes, "but it's not FAIR". No, it isn't. But it's also not a right. SCOTUS can hand down any decision it likes, popular sentiment can turn any direction, the President can "evolve" at any time. Guess what? It's still not a right. Never will be.

EDIT- I've said my bit. I'm done with this thread now.

No one's crying, friend (at least nobody on the side of the issue I take. I can't say the same for the right). The world seems to be doing just fine, so I'm not sure what you mean. What has the world come to when people don't agree with you? Prepare to be very disappointed with the rest of your life.

As for the government enforcing rules about how churches are to practice their religion, see the First Amendment. I don't know what you mean about churches being required to "recognize" the marriage. If you think that it means that those churches who don't approve theologically of homosexual marriage won't be allowed to decide who becomes a member of their congregation, you're living in a fantasy land. I also disagree with your test of licensing as to whether or not something is a right. I see marriage as similar to laws such as copyright. Though initially established to restrict printing, it now provides the holder with certain protections and benefits. Before Loving v. Virginia, it was not considered unconstitutional to deny marriage to those of two different races. I hope we can both agree that that is morally repugnant. It is simply the next logical step to allow consenting adults of any gender the same rights, as we do not live in a theocracy.

To be clear, I personally believe that religions should be free to marry whomever they please without interference from the government. In fact, I've often wondered why groups like the Unitarian Universalists don't perform a wedding ceremony in states where homosexual marriage is illegal and then sue the government for not respecting their religious rights by not allowing it. This would pressure the state to allow such unions without imposing that will on other churches. In short, people and denominations should be allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. You don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Or isn't this America? As far as tax exemptions, I believe it should be an all-or-nothing deal. Either every church gets a tax exemption regardless of their beliefs, or, as I believe, none of them should.

As for your belief that anything the government can hinder is not a right, see Schenck v. United States and let me know if you still think speech is a freedom since you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I contend that it is, but by your definition it isn't.

It's too bad you're done with this thread! It looks like you still had much to explain.

 

[MKJ]

Ironically, it seems that the American approach of complete separation of Church and State, in order to protect the right to adhere to ones conscience in matters of religion, has not been the most successful in actually achieving that goal.

In a lot of other places in the West, the idea that religion has to be totally private, a la Soviet bloc, is rather alien.

 

[Albion]

Ironically, it seems that the American approach of complete separation of Church and State, in order to protect the right to adhere to ones conscience in matters of religion, has not been the most successful in actually achieving that goal.

But it has allowed all religions to exist on equal terms. Even Canada can't really say that, so I think it has worked well until recently.

 

[ebia]

The only person talking about risk here is you.

You talked about risk, you just didnt use the word.

 

[ebia]

Oy, what happened to this world...

Okay, a "right" can be exercised without hindrance or let from the government. If the government can permit you or stop you from doing something, it isn't a right. Take political speech, for example. If I want to criticize President John Doe, by and large I have the legal right to do so. In the main, the government can't give me permission to do it nor can it stop me from doing it. I can say basically anything I want about President John Doe and his policies and the government has no legal authority to stop me.

However, a "right" must not impose a burden upon others. To continue the political speech analogy, sure, I can criticize President John Doe and his policies as much as I like but nobody else is under any obligation to agree with me. They can agree with me if they want, they can disagree with me, they can ignore me altogether, whatever. Exercising my right to criticize the government does not burden anybody else.

Gay marriage fails both tests. In order to be legally married, one must obtain a license. If you have to obtain a Mother May I from the government, you can call what you're doing anything you like but it isn't a right.

Secondly, gay marriage could easily impose burdens upon others. It's no stretch to think that religious institutions (not just houses of worship but other religiously-affiliated institutions) will be legally required to recognize the marriage even though they find it religiously loathsome. And this is not to speak of the probability that they will face legal consequences if they choose not to perform same-sex ceremonies.

It is not a right. Yes yes yes, "but it's not FAIR". No, it isn't. But it's also not a right. SCOTUS can hand down any decision it likes, popular sentiment can turn any direction, the President can "evolve" at any time. Guess what? It's still not a right. Never will be.

EDIT- I've said my bit. I'm done with this thread now.

You seem to have a different definition of "rights".