Religious Liberty

[Legacy]

Starting this one out:

History as farce at the Alabama supreme court

When Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore ordered his state's probate judges in January to ignore a Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage, he put himself in jeopardy of losing his job - for the second time. Now Alabama's Judicial Inquiry Commission has filed formal charges against him for his defiance.

Moore should lose his job. But as he's shown before, that's a setback he can overcome. Last time he was removed from office, he ran for governor before settling for re-election as chief justice. Who knows? This time he might even win the governorship.

Moore's shenanigans go back to 2003, when, in his first term as elected chief justice, he commissioned a granite statue of the Ten Commandments to be placed in front of the Alabama Judicial Building where the state Supreme Court is housed. The monument violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, a federal district court held. But when the court ordered Moore to have the statue removed, he refused.

Liberals trying to 'purge godly men' like Roy Moore, Rep. Will Ainsworth says

Alabama drag queen is Roy Moore nemesis

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Religious Liberty

 

[NDgradstudent]

Starting this one out:

History as farce at the Alabama supreme court

Liberals trying to 'purge godly men' like Roy Moore, Rep. Will Ainsworth says

Alabama drag queen is Roy Moore nemesis

States should just stop licensing marriage entirely. Then there is no problem.

Looking over the history of the 20th century, I have to say I fear more from the state than from the church.

 

[dales5050]

Looking over the history of the 20th century, I have to say I fear more from the state than from the church.

And looking at the 21st Century the church is trying to make up for lost time.

 

[dublinirish]

Looking over the history of the 20th century, I have to say I fear more from the state than from the church.

you obviously didn't grew up in a non secular country :/

 

[GoldenDome]

If all religions evolve with the times, then religion would be dandy. Unfortunately, many want to live in the past. It would be like using a cookbook from that era to find a technique to cook a nice wagyu steak.

 

[NDgradstudent]

you obviously didn't grew up in a non secular country :/

What do you mean by secular? America was highly religious and remains religious relative to other Western countries. It's a pretty nice place to live.

If you're talking about Ireland, nothing the Church ever did in Ireland approaches the the millions killed by Communist states, and the Nazi state, etc. I didn't say that churches were perfect during the 20th century.

 

[Rack Em]

If all religions evolve with the times, then religion would be dandy. Unfortunately, many want to live in the past. It would be like using a cookbook from that era to find a technique to cook a nice wagyu steak.

Religion is what bridges past, present, and future. If religions "evolve with the times" they wouldn't be "dandy" they would be mirrors of contemporary thinking. Religion isn't supposed to sanction society's whims and thoughts; by its nature, it is designed to challenge and inform deep thought and action. It connects followers (and hopefully those who do not believe) to an unchanging morality that we may not fully understand yet as humans.

Just because the Western progressives and European welfare states have now sanctioned a complete sexual revolution, doesn't mean religion should sanction it.

Popularity of an idea doesn't guarantee it is correct, it just makes groupthink far more likely. Hence, the need for protection of religious liberty. It's pretty hard to progress as a society when there is no countervailing force to challenge contemporary ideologies.

The world would be "dandy" if everybody thought like me. Fortunately, I'm not 5 years old anymore and I recognize how detrimental that attitude is for my own development.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If all religions evolve with the times, then religion would be dandy. Unfortunately, many want to live in the past. It would be like using a cookbook from that era to find a technique to cook a nice wagyu steak.

That's like suggesting that the Theory of General Relativity should be discarded because Einstein proposed it over 100 years ago. The laws of physics don't change with the passage of time, and neither does the moral law.

 

[Rack Em]

It connects followers (and hopefully those who do not believe) to an unchanging morality that we may not fully understand yet as humans.

That's like suggesting that the Theory of General Relativity should be discarded because Einstein proposed it over 100 years ago. The laws of physics don't change with the passage of time, and neither does the moral law.

It's almost like I said the same thing before you.

Rack - 1
Whiskey - 0

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

That's like suggesting that the Theory of General Relativity should be discarded because Einstein proposed it over 100 years ago. The laws of physics don't change with the passage of time, and neither does the moral law.

The KKK burned crosses in my town (suburban Long Island) in the name of protecting their pure protestant country against treacherous Catholics. Good thing we have the same moral law today.

 

[GoldenDome]

That's like suggesting that the Theory of General Relativity should be discarded because Einstein proposed it over 100 years ago. The laws of physics don't change with the passage of time, and neither does the moral law.

Define universal moral law and there are actually very few that are seen across time and space. Eskimos used to abandon their elderly because they were a burden to survival. With technological advances, I think you would agree that that moral have evolved.

In human nature, the only universal moral law I can think of, that is innate in MOST humans and is seen cross culturally is that they care for their offspring.

If you can name some universal moral laws that apply cross culturally and over time and space, list them now. When I say universally, that is implied that all religions/cultures practice a specific moral.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The KKK burned crosses in my town (suburban Long Island) in the name of protecting their pure protestant country against treacherous Catholics. Good thing we have the same moral law today.

And doctors used to leech their patients to get rid of "bad blood". Fortunately, medical science has made significant progress in our understanding of the human body since then. Christian ecumenism has made similar progress, so we (at least from the Catholic side) see most other denominations as our separated brethren in Christ, and not as dangerous heretics that need to be suppressed.

That's the development of doctrine; an increase in our understanding of an unchanging moral law. Just like Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was a development of and improvement upon Newtonian physics. Truth is objective and unchanging. We struggle to discover and understand it better in both its physical and moral forms.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Define universal moral law and there are actually very few that are seen across time and space. Eskimos used to abandon their elderly because they were a burden to survival. With technological advances, I think you would agree that that moral have evolved.

In human nature, the only universal moral law I can think of, that is innate in MOST humans and is seen cross culturally is that they care for their offspring.

If you can name some universal moral laws that apply cross culturally and over time and space, list them now. When I say universally, that is implied that all religions/cultures practice a specific moral.

This is nonsensical. The ancients had no concept of microbiology, but disease still existed. It doesn't follow that because early humans had less information about the moral law that it therefore doesn't exist.

But to answer your question, CS Lewis addressed this in the The Abolition of Man with his concept of "the Tao". There are certain moral truths that disparate peoples and cultures seem to have discovered separately:

"Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked."

 

[Legacy]

Defying church ban, dozens of Methodist clergy come out as gay and lesbian

How the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling could destroy the United Methodist Church

 

[NDgradstudent]

Rod Dreher's blog calls attention to a Wyoming judge facing removal for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. She has not actually been asked to perform any such marriage, nor is there any reason to believe that a same-sex couple could find another person to perform it, but dissent itself is objectionable.

As I have mentioned before, this is what life is like in an authoritarian regime. Everyone must participate in the fantasy and utter the untruth, and even though everyone knows it is an untruth, the fact that you are saying it anyway makes it clear who controls you. A terrible shame that this is happening in America.

 

[GoldenDome]

This is nonsensical. The ancients had no concept of microbiology, but disease still existed. It doesn't follow that because early humans had less information about the moral law that it therefore doesn't exist.

But to answer your question, CS Lewis addressed this in the The Abolition of Man with his concept of "the Tao". There are certain moral truths that disparate peoples and cultures seem to have discovered separately:

I would argue the very idea of morality is manmade. If you took an individual who was not socialized, that person's morals would be totally different than a socialized person's.

Context matters, whether time, space, technological advances, etc.. A clan of 3 living in the harsh conditions of ice and snow would have much different morals than a modern society with accessible food and shelter. I would also argue the main function of religion is to deal with the harsh realities of life.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Defying church ban, dozens of Methodist clergy come out as gay and lesbian

How the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling could destroy the United Methodist Church

Nobody can deny that liberal Protestant churches are adept at latching onto cultural fads. It's striking that these gimmicks don't bring more people into the pews.

 

[EddytoNow]

Rod Dreher's blog calls attention to a Wyoming judge facing removal for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. She has not actually been asked to perform any such marriage, nor is there any reason to believe that a same-sex couple could find another person to perform it, but dissent itself is objectionable.

As I have mentioned before, this is what life is like in an authoritarian regime. Everyone must participate in the fantasy and utter the untruth, and even though everyone knows it is an untruth, the fact that you are saying it anyway makes it clear who controls you. A terrible shame that this is happening in America.

As a public official the judge must perform her job and follow the civil law. If she cannot follow the law due to her religious beliefs she should find a job that she can perform without conflict with her faith. By refusing the ceremony she is imposing her religious beliefs upon others. A public official has no justification for forcing their own religious beliefs upon others.

A religious minister, on the other hand, is an employee and servant of the church, not an employee of the state, and is obligated to follow the teachings of that particular faith. If you want to be a member of that faith then follow its doctrine. In this case, the couple wants to violate the doctrine of the church, and impose their personal beliefs above those of the church. Their solution is simple. Have the ceremony performed in a different, more accepting church, or have the ceremony performed by a judge. If you can't follow the doctrine of the church, you shouldn't be a member of that church. Go somewhere else where the congregation will accept you. Don't ask for a religious ceremony when you are in direct contradiction to the church's teachings.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I would argue the very idea of morality is manmade. If you took an individual who was not socialized, that person's morals would be totally different than a socialized person's.

And if you took a person who was completely uneducated, how much would they understand about science? Not sure why you think knowledge of moral law must be innate, but not knowledge of the laws of physics. The truth of both is completely independent of human understanding.

Context matters, whether time, space, technological advances, etc.. A clan of 3 living in the harsh conditions of ice and snow would have much different morals than a modern society with accessible food and shelter.

Certainly. That small group of embattled humans is very unlikely to care about something like freedom of association, just as they are very unlikely to launch a manned mission to Mars. More advanced aspects of both moral and physical law are simply inaccessible until a certain level of material security has been obtained.

But you wouldn't argue that nuclear physics is untrue simply because it's inaccessible to humans living in abject poverty. So why do you think that's a compelling argument against moral law?

I would also argue the main function of religion is to deal with the harsh realities of life.

You could make the same argument about science, which clearly isn't true. Knowledge of the laws governing the physical world allowed for technological advancement which has freed billions from those harsh realities. Similarly, knowledge of the moral law has drastically improved our ability to cooperate within human societies, without which that technological advancement could never have occurred. They're inextricably linked.

 

[NDgradstudent]

As a public official the judge must perform her job and follow the civil law. If she cannot follow the law due to her religious beliefs she should find a job that she can perform without conflict with her faith. By refusing the ceremony she is imposing her religious beliefs upon others. A public official has no justification for forcing their own religious beliefs upon others.

So if a judge says she won't do any weddings anymore (judges are not required to perform them, merely competent to do so) then that would be okay? Because otherwise the Chief Justice of the United States would be in trouble; I don't think he would perform a same-sex wedding.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

As a public official the judge must perform her job and follow the civil law. If she cannot follow the law due to her religious beliefs she should find a job that she can perform without conflict with her faith. By refusing the ceremony she is imposing her religious beliefs upon others. A public official has no justification for forcing their own religious beliefs upon others.

A religious minister, on the other hand, is an employee and servant of the church, not an employee of the state, and is obligated to follow the teachings of that particular faith. If you want to be a member of that faith then follow its doctrine. In this case, the couple wants to violate the doctrine of the church, and impose their personal beliefs above those of the church. Their solution is simple. Have the ceremony performed in a different, more accepting church, or have the ceremony performed by a judge. If you can't follow the doctrine of the church, you shouldn't be a member of that church. Go somewhere else where the congregation will accept you. Don't ask for a religious ceremony when you are in direct contradiction to the church's teachings.

This isn't an equal protection issue, Eddy. From the linked blog post:

Pinedale is a tiny Wyoming town (pop. 2,030) that Judge Neely has served for over 20 years. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Judge Neely:

Ignoring the pleas of LGBT citizens in the small town of Pinedale, Wyoming, a state agency is demanding that – after over 20 years of sterling service – Judge Ruth Neely be banned for life from the judiciary and pay up to $40,000 in fines merely for stating that her faith prevents her from personally performing same-sex weddings. Even though small-town magistrates like Judge Neely aren’t required or even paid by the state to perform weddings, the state agency concluded that Judge Neely “manifested a bias” and is therefore permanently unfit to serve as a judge. This would be the first time in the country that a judge was removed from office because of her religious beliefs about marriage.

Let’s be clear: in her role as a municipal judge, Neely cannot solemnize weddings because she lacks the legal authority. Her court handles things like traffic fines and public drunkenness. Though her role as a part-time magistrate — separate from her municipal judge job — can include performing marriages, Wyoming law does not require her or any other magistrate to do so.

Nobody has asked Judge Neely to perform a same-sex marriage. So how did the state judicial commission come to know of her beliefs? In late 2014, after a state judge in Wyoming legalized gay marriage there, Judge Neely was contacted by a reporter from the Sublette Examiner asking her if she would perform them.

...

The brief also quotes several gay citizens of the town, going on the record defending Judge Neely and her fairness:

The fundamental principle that no judge should be expelled from office because of her core convictions unites a diverse group of Wyoming’s citizens, including members of the LGBT community who have expressed dismay at the Commission’s actions here. Most notably, Kathryn Anderson of Pinedale said that “it would be obscene and offensive to discipline Judge Neely for her statement . . . about her religious beliefs regarding marriage.” Anderson Aff. ¶ 5 (C.R. 901-02). Judge Neely asks this Court to heed Ms. Anderson’s words, reject the Commission’s recommendation to expel her from her profession, and allow her to continue serving her community with excellence as she has done for more than two decades.

 

[Rhode Irish]

That's like suggesting that the Theory of General Relativity should be discarded because Einstein proposed it over 100 years ago. The laws of physics don't change with the passage of time, and neither does the moral law.

First of all, morality and religion are not one in the same. There is a whole world of morality that exists outside of religious constructs, and because that world of morality is not constrained by the prevailing moral wisdom of ancient times and it is free to incorporate new information and evolve, it tends to be a more ethically and logically appealing brand of morality than religious morality.

Second of all, concepts of morality do evolve over time as more information becomes available and human knowledge expands. That certain religious sect's positions on moral issues remain rigid over time occasionally puts them at odds with the prevailing moral and ethical wisdom of the day.

I've never really understood the presumption of religious people that non-religious people are not moral or less moral than they are. It's always struck me as odd. Most of the sensible religious morality (don't kill, don't steal, be kind, etc.) should be intuitive to any person living in a non-primitive society. The only parts of religious morality that don't seem intuitive are those parts which seem to be related to religious people's obsession with sex. Not only does that part of religious "morality" not feel particularly moral, it also undermines the basic assumption of religion since it seems that it is clearly the product of primitive human minds than of an omniscient ruler of the universe.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I've never really understood the presumption of religious people that non-religious people are not moral or less moral than they are. It's always struck me as odd. Most of the sensible religious morality (don't kill, don't steal, be kind, etc.) should be intuitive to any person living in a non-primitive society. The only parts of religious morality that don't seem intuitive are those parts which seem to be related to religious people's obsession with sex. Not only does that part of religious "morality" not seem particularly moral, it also seems to undermine the basic assumption of religion since it seems that it is clearly the product of primitive human minds than of an omniscient ruler of the universe.

LOL--whether they really say that or are right, I think you answered your own question. You discount a whole area that they DO think is moral and then declare them to be obsessed simpletons for disagreeing with you.

If a person in the 19th century didn't think slavery was a moral issue, and you did, it shouldn't surprise him to find out that you thought he was immoral in that area. That doesn't mean you think he is a monster.

And there are obvious moral consequences to sex: think abortion, the consequences to children born into unstable family situations or without fathers, the blurry lines around consent (alcohol, age), the huge psychological impacts of sexual encounters, etc., etc. Some morality is about limiting good things within proper boundaries to keep it from doing harm (e.g., eating with nutrition generally in mind vs. eating for pleasure without any limitations).

To say that adults should just be able to make their own minds up and do what they want is a moral statement with real consequences for society and individuals. In this case, you happen to think the consequences are within tolerable limits. Traditional religions beg to differ and say that real limits on sex are necessary for true human flourishing.

 

[Rhode Irish]

LOL--whether they really say that or are right, I think you answered your own question. You discount a whole area that they DO think is moral and then declare them to be obsessed simpletons for disagreeing with you.

If a person in the 19th century didn't think slavery was a moral issue, and you did, it shouldn't surprise him to find out that you thought he was immoral. That doesn't mean you think he is a monster.

And there are obvious moral consequences to sex: think abortion, the consequences to children born into unstable family situations or without fahters, the blurry lines around consent (alcohol, age), the huge psychological impacts of sexual encounters, etc., etc. Some morality is about limiting good things within proper boundaries to keep it from doing harm (e.g., eating with nutrition generally in mind vs. eating for pleasure without any limitations).

To say that adults should just be able to make their own minds up and do what they want is a moral statement with real consequences for society and individuals. In this case, you happen to think the consequences are within tolerable limits. Traditional religions beg to differ and say that real limits on sex are necessary for true human flourishing.

I think this is evidence of my point: you're assuming because a person does not have a specific set of moral beliefs on a certain topic, that they don't have ANY moral beliefs on that topic and instead believe people should just be able to do whatever they want. I don't think you need to subscribe to religious morality to, for example, identify moral problems with abortion or adultery. I think it is obviously reasonable to say that a thing can be OK in moderation or under certain circumstances but harmful if overindulged or in a different set of circumstances, but outright proscriptions on things like premarital sex and masturbation do not seem to serve any moral purpose at all.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I think this is evidence of my point: you're assuming because a person does not have a specific set of moral beliefs on a certain topic, that they don't have ANY moral beliefs on that topic and instead believe people should just be able to do whatever they want. I don't think you need to subscribe to religious morality to, for example, identify moral problems with abortion or adultery. I think it is obviously reasonable to say that a thing can be OK in moderation or under certain circumstances but harmful if overindulged or in a different set of circumstances, but outright proscriptions on things like premarital sex and masturbation do not seem to serve any moral purpose at all.

No. Maybe that's how I came off, but I'm assuming that if:

(1) a religious people believes some action to be immoral (because of a religious tenet, a philosophical worldview, a rule, etc.), and

(2) you disagree with that belief and are willing to do or condone the action as acceptable, then

(3) they have a logical basis for considering you to be immoral.

Who is right or wrong? Well that depends on the moral code! And they certainly do differ.

For example, what about racism? Lots of non-religious people consider racism immoral and set a very high bar in that area. If a person said its "obviously reasonable to say that a thing can be OK in moderation or under certain circumstances but harmful if overindulged or in a different set of circumstances, but outright proscriptions on things like racial profiling and discrimination do not seem to serve any moral purpose at all." I bet lots of people would disagree, and consider that person immoral. You may disagree, but that doesn't make them wrong or their moral code necessarily irrational.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

First of all, morality and religion are not one in the same. There is a whole world of morality that exists outside of religious constructs, and because that world of morality is not constrained by the prevailing moral wisdom of ancient times and it is free to incorporate new information and evolve, it tends to be a more ethically and logically appealing brand of morality than religious morality.

Second of all, concepts of morality do evolve over time as more information becomes available and human knowledge expands. That certain religious sect's positions on moral issues remain rigid over time occasionally puts them at odds with the prevailing moral and ethical wisdom of the day.

I've never really understood the presumption of religious people that non-religious people are not moral or less moral than they are. It's always struck me as odd. Most of the sensible religious morality (don't kill, don't steal, be kind, etc.) should be intuitive to any person living in a non-primitive society. The only parts of religious morality that don't seem intuitive are those parts which seem to be related to religious people's obsession with sex. Not only does that part of religious "morality" not feel particularly moral, it also undermines the basic assumption of religion since it seems that it is clearly the product of primitive human minds than of an omniscient ruler of the universe.

I'll address your points in reverse order:

1. I have never argued that secular people are less moral than religious people. But I do tend to role my eyes when someone insists that "secular" morality is somehow different from the religious sort. It isn't, at all. When you state that, "A man ought to do this, but he ought not do that," you are advancing an ethical argument, which must be grounded in some sense of morality. And moral judgment always entails ideas about what a human being is, and what its proper ends are. So we're all addressing the same issues here, regardless of whether you go to church on Sunday or not. Rather than assert that religious people are more moral than secular people, I'd argue that secular people are much more religious than they're willing to admit.
2. Catholic doctrine has developed over time, just as our knowledge of the physical world has advanced. But as with the empirical method, developments must be congruent with what is already known. So the Christian doctrine of spiritual equality before God and the dignity inherent to the human person led the Church to condemn slavery and abortion, because neither practice is congruent with human dignity.
3. See above. The Catholic Church does incorporate new information and "evolve"; but it does so in a way that ensures new developments are congruent with what has come before. Which protects the Church from being carried away by the zeitgeist in favor of some evil fad.

I think it is obviously reasonable to say that a thing can be OK in moderation or under certain circumstances but harmful if overindulged or in a different set of circumstances, but outright proscriptions on things like premarital sex and masturbation do not seem to serve any moral purpose at all.

I posted this in the BYU thread:

There's a fast-growing scientific consensus that pornography is grave public health hazard. The overall American illegitimacy rate is ~40%, while it's over 50% for Hispanics and over 70% for African-Americans. The American divorce rate hovers around 50%. The native fertility rate of virtually every Western nation is significantly lower than replacement levels, and is continuing to drop. In short, there is a mountain of sociological evidence regarding the horrific toll the Sexual Revolution continues to exact on our societies, and yet it remains a sacred cow that Progressives defend with religious fervor.

From a purely sociological perspective, Christian sexual ethics are concerned with channeling sex drives into stable relationships that strengthen society. One doesn't have to look hard to find ample evidence that liberal sexual mores--including the normalization of masturbation and pre-marital sex-- have been disasterous for the West.

 

[woolybug25]

A world without porn is a world I simply do not want to live in...

 

[Domina Nostra]

From a purely sociological perspective, Christian sexual ethics are concerned with channeling sex drives into stable relationships that strengthen society. One doesn't have to look hard to find ample evidence that liberal sexual mores--including the normalization of masturbation and pre-marital sex-- have been disasterous for the West.

Right. From the Catholic perspective morality springs from two sources, divine law (because God said so) and natural law (because that's the way things work).

God says something directly sometimes (OT, NT, tradition of Jesus' teaching's handed down through the apostles), especially when he wants to make clear that there is only one right answer. For example, thou shalt not murder. That is a commanment and you are required to obey.

However, Catholicism has also always taught that God's nature is consistent and not arbitrary. The result is that you can study his commandments if you are interested in understanding why he commanded something, and you will discover that they are reasonable and in line with human flourishing.

Where he doesn't say something directly, Catholics will draw inferences from his other commandments and natural law. So, for example, while the bible doesn't talk about harvesting organs for transplants, it follows from prohibitions on murder, on stealing, on the dignity of the body, as well as centuries of contemplation on just and orderly societies, medical ethics, etc., that certain boundaries must be drawn. Depending on how closely and solidly these all tie together, some prohibitions--like the prohibition on abortion--have the same level of authority as other divine commandments. Others are less clear cut.

So a Catholic can argue why sexual ethics make sense from a sociological perspective, and his intellect can rest in those conclusions, but some beliefs are ultimately rooted in God's law.

 

[Irish YJ]

A world without porn is a world I simply do not want to live in...

I have to agree with Wooly.

Question Wooly - if you had to make a choice, Trump as president with porn, or Hilldog without porn, who would you vote for?