|
Lutha Mahtin posted:yes, it's a travesty that government employees might be forced to marry blacks or queers, and that they won't be allowed to hold hostage the legal benefits of other people based on their own personal religious fundamentalism No there were specifically Scandinavian politicians who were asking whether religious ministers should be included in having to marry any two people because gays, lesbians, etc. are an oppressed class, that's what I was referring to. Edit: Forgive me, I thought my wording made it clear I meant religious ministers as well. 2nd Edit: Dude if you really thought I was like all that stuff you posted down there, I've got an Imam habbi (actually I'm going to go ahead and say brother so you understand our relationship and not respond "my black friend") I fast with and accompany to prayers when we visit during Ramadan that could speak to your, um, jump to conclusions. Thirteen Orphans fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Sep 4, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Spacewolf posted:(Full disclosure: I'm only slightly more liberal, most days, than zonohedron on theology.) considering that the past generation and a half in america has seen a huge shift toward more power for right-wing "christians" to legally discriminate, both in their own organizations and in society at large, i find this kind of constant gulag paranoia disgusting. people who call themselves christians already have the right to effectively deny life-saving healthcare to women, the right to brainwash or shun people whose sexuality doesn't fit into some kind of tab-a-into-slot-b conceptualization of biology, and the right to try and indoctrinate people who are forced to use their organizations' "charity" work because the government contracted with them. my question is, how much is enough? how far must extremists be allowed to  before they are satisfied?edit: I should say, I don't mean to assume that you yourself hold any of these opinions. However, I do believe that the road you propose to go down provides cover for the people who do in fact believe some or all of the things above. Thus, I feel that anyone who supports policies which allow people like this to institute such horrible actions, must bear the responsibility for any actions that are carried out. Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Welcome to the internet, everyone. Enjoy the hyperbole!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
I took this very personally, I shouldn't have done that, I am sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:I don't think it is out-there to worry that society might reach a point where people religious ministers need to marry certain oppressed classes. It would likely never happen in the US, with its religious zeitgeist, but the Scandinavian countries? Maybe within my lifetime. (I'm mid-twenties), though I honestly don't think it'll happen. I do, however, think it's a little out there to think people who believe that same-sex marriage is incompatible with orthodox Catholicism (which I assent to because of my understanding of deference to Magisterial authority) will be persecuted to the point of becoming an actual oppressed class of people, like, say, Jews in Europe. Just to clarify. The Anglican Church of Canada's Commission on the Marriage Canon (established to review issues relating to amending the canon to extend the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony to same-sex couples) included within its consultation a legal review of whether or not a conscience clause would provide any legal protection to priests who refuse to offer the sacrament to same-sex couples because they believe it to be against the will of God. The conclusion of the response was that any such priest, regardless of the what the canon provided for, would be liable to prosecution under Canada's human rights laws. If the matter were to go before the courts, the law would probably find that there are reasonable grounds not to compel a priest to solemnize the civil marriage. Yet were it to go before one of the quasi-judicial human rights tribunals as the legal consultation mentioned, it would be quite possible to see the priest convicted, fined and otherwise sanctioned by the tribunal. Fears of religious persecution in the West really aren't entirely unfounded, they're just made ridiculous by people focusing way more on things like the war on Christmas or whatever other zany persecution seems to be prevalent, and always pale in comparison to the type of religious persecution ongoing in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Just today, the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America reported that one of his colleagues, a bishop in the (Anglican) Church of Nigeria was kidnapped. It's not clear if he's been kidnapped for ransom or if the intention is to execute him. Contrast that with hypotheticals about being fined by a government tribunal and again it all seems rather petty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:I took this very personally, I shouldn't have done that, I am sorry. The christianest thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:The christianest thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:The christianest thread. Come by the Freep thread in D&D. Some [American] people are calling the Lutheran church in the US corrupted by Satan because of the Lutherans' calls for the US to step up its humanitarian efforts with the refugee crisis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
I don't believe Glenn Beck's idea that there will be "thousands" of ministers sent to jail over this issue, but this passage from an article on the Judge surprised me.quote:After hearing both sides inside a federal courtroom in Ashland, Ky., the 49-year-old judge made his decision: The devout Catholic and son of former U.S. senator and Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Bunning became the first U.S. judge to issue a jail sentence to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling that made gay marriage legal across the country. I thought the whole idea of natural law was that it was written in human nature, innate in all. I don't like this line of reasoning for philosophical grounds, before entering into religious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Are you sure he doesn't mean that he doesn't want the idea of natural law; ie, his idea of what natural law is, superseding the law of the US? Because it's obvious that different people have different conceptions of this, and that's narrowing it down to the people who believe in "natural law" at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Are you sure he doesn't mean that he doesn't want the idea of natural law; ie, his idea of what natural law is, superseding the law of the US? Because it's obvious that different people have different conceptions of this, and that's narrowing it down to the people who believe in "natural law" at all. That's what this is boiling down to, legally speaking. It's the "What if a clerk wanted to deny a marriage license to an interracial couple" or "What if a Muslim wanted to refuse issuing a driver's license to a woman" issue. This clerk has been offered every chance to perform the duty expected and required of her by US law, and she has the option to resign if she believes she cannot in good conscience perform the duties expected of her by US law. Instead she's actively trying to become a martyr for the anti-homosexuality cause.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
I understand why this person would be fined and/or fired, but a jail sentence does sound a bit harsh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:I understand why this person would be fined and/or fired, but a jail sentence does sound a bit harsh. Her position is elected - she can't be fired, only impeached by the state legislature that isn't currently meeting. The courts declined to fine her out of reasonable suspicion that right-wing donations to this latest martyr against homosexual tyranny would pay the fines for her. She was jailed due to refusing to perform her duty and contempt of the court with the proviso that she would be released from jail the moment she agreed to perform the duties of her office. She has declined to, and has been proclaiming that subsequent marriage licenses issued by the office by her interim replacement are illegitimate while comparing herself to Martin Luther King Jr. The court decided that she must perform the duties of her office as decided by US law, and she's choosing to make a martyr out of herself rather than obey the law or resign from a position that her conscience and religious beliefs evidently conflict with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Couldn't they have an extraordinary session to impeach her? It's weird to me that a person who is unfit to do their job for whatever reason has to go to jail. I understand she's basically chosen this, but even the possibility of such sentence is puzzling to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Couldn't they have an extraordinary session to impeach her? It's weird to me that a person who is unfit to do their job for whatever reason has to go to jail. I understand she's basically chosen this, but even the possibility of such sentence is puzzling to me. It's not just some abstract job duty that she's shirking. She personally was given a court order to issue those licenses (or else resign her position), and she's refusing to do it, despite even the Supreme Court saying the order is valid and will stand. That's textbook contempt of court, and judges throw people in the slammer for it all the time. (If they couldn't do that, then court orders would have no force behind them at all.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Couldn't they have an extraordinary session to impeach her? It's weird to me that a person who is unfit to do their job for whatever reason has to go to jail. I understand she's basically chosen this, but even the possibility of such sentence is puzzling to me. An extraordinary session of the legislature would cost money and be inconvenient, so it's not being done.  That and the Kentucky courts are trying to get her to let this go of her own will - the American right wing political/media machine wouldn't wait until the extraordinary session had even happened to call it tyranny against a good, God-fearing woman struggling to prevent her county from turning into a modern-day Sodom or Gomorrah.This lady is nothing but a wackadoodle self-appointed martyr for God And The American Way against the homosexual tyranny of the judiciary determined to make as big a deal out of this as she possibly can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Couldn't they have an extraordinary session to impeach her? It's weird to me that a person who is unfit to do their job for whatever reason has to go to jail. I understand she's basically chosen this, but even the possibility of such sentence is puzzling to me. She hasn't been sentenced, in the formal sense of the term; she's been jailed for contempt of court, which is liable to happen to anyone who disobeys a direct court order. Basically, you spend time in jail only until you agree to comply with the order. It's the same if one ignores a subpoena, refuses to comply with a judge's request, etc.. She can leave any time she decides to do her job, but because she's a media star, that's unlikely to be soon. e: Beaten like Saint Polycarp
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Ah, alright, makes more sense now. Thanks for the explanation. I'm still slightly amused by how hard it is to impeach someone over an obvious misconduct, but at least now I know there's system to this madness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:I'm still slightly amused by how hard it is to impeach someone over an obvious misconduct, but at least now I know there's system to this madness. The main issues with the impeachment option are that the state legislature is not currently in session, trying to impeach her would set off a media firestorm, and the judge handling the case keeps trying to give the clerk a graceful out specifically to avoid the media problem. The problem is that the clerk wants this to be a Big Deal in the media. She's actively looking for martyrdom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Although I disagree with her, I might do the same if I were in her place and ordered to do something I thought was against the will of God, in order to draw attention to my cause.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
I also think that the KY legislature would probably award her a medal and a state pension, possibly rename a few office buildings after her, given its current makeup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I also think that the KY legislature would probably award her a medal and a state pension, possibly rename a few office buildings after her, given its current makeup. Can the KY governor pardon someone for contempt of court, or are pardons only for crimes where guilt is determined by a trial? I realize this question is only vaguely on topic, so feel free to rap my knuckles with a ruler or something if its out of line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Can the KY governor pardon someone for contempt of court, or are pardons only for crimes where guilt is determined by a trial? I realize this question is only vaguely on topic, so feel free to rap my knuckles with a ruler or something if its out of line. it's still germane, imo
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Can the KY governor pardon someone for contempt of court, or are pardons only for crimes where guilt is determined by a trial? I realize this question is only vaguely on topic, so feel free to rap my knuckles with a ruler or something if its out of line. It might vary according to the state's constitution, but Presidential Pardons have been issued for contempt of court issues, so yes, probably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:It might vary according to the state's constitution, but Presidential Pardons have been issued for contempt of court issues, so yes, probably. This lady might not take it, though, going by how she's acted so far. She does not want an out. She wants to be a martyr, a modern day Christian persecuted for her faith by the government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
She swore an oath on the Bible to uphold the law and the Constitution when she took office. That sort of thing is supposed to mean something among Christians, and I'm surprised she isn't being called out on it more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Eh, we live in a world where a number of fools running for president can get away with saying that the 14th amendment is unconstitutional. In popular discourse, it's a blank fetish object that says whatever one wants it to say. Except for the 2nd amendment, I guess. That one is holy writ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Come by the Freep thread in D&D. Some [American] people are calling the Lutheran church in the US corrupted by Satan because of the Lutherans' calls for the US to step up its humanitarian efforts with the refugee crisis. you've been going to an ELCA church, yeah? well boy howdy let meh tell yew, that reactionary christians looooove hating on the ELCA. there are websites dedicated to this, and really pathetic provocateurs who perform literal false flag operations and write libel to try and smear the ELCA and organizations related to it Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
General reaction from non-goon SSPXers at Mass today was "The Pope praised us for being Catholic. Cool."
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Pope said today that every parish, monastery and sanctuary in Europe should take in one refugee family. Let's hope this works. In Germany alone this would mean up to 50,000 people hosted by catholic communities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
While I am sure this is well intentioned, I have a feeling it could turn ugly very quickly when some of those refugees end up converting. Hopefully this will lead to more financial support to specialized charities that help the refugees, rather than each parish actually "adopting" a family and assimilating them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:While I am sure this is well intentioned, I have a feeling it could turn ugly very quickly when some of those refugees end up converting. Hopefully this will lead to more financial support to specialized charities that help the refugees, rather than each parish actually "adopting" a family and assimilating them. churches have a long history of providing shelter to refugees and migrants. sometimes this means housing the people inside the church buildings themselves, which forces a hostile government to decide to either (a) not be able to deport/arrest some "illegal" migrants, or (b) deal with the PR fallout of storming a church for an immigration violation with their guns drawn
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:churches have a long history of providing shelter to refugees and migrants. sometimes this means housing the people inside the church buildings themselves, which forces a hostile government to decide to either (a) not be able to deport/arrest some "illegal" migrants, or (b) deal with the PR fallout of storming a church for an immigration violation with their guns drawn In fact, the Theodosian Code has a section on rights afforded to people who take shelter in churches so it's at least 1600 years old
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
except for his opinion on the ancient liturgy, this pope owns so hard.Lutha Mahtin posted:churches have a long history of providing shelter to refugees and migrants. sometimes this means housing the people inside the church buildings themselves, which forces a hostile government to decide to either (a) not be able to deport/arrest some "illegal" migrants, or (b) deal with the PR fallout of storming a church for an immigration violation with their guns drawn
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:except for his opinion on the ancient liturgy, this pope owns so hard. In Finland, no. However, something like a decade ago, it was revived on the church side as a principle that if anyone would seek refuge, they would be given it and they would receive all the help it is legal to give. While this does not change anything, in practice those few who have sought refuge have gotten the help they wanted. Some deportation decicions have been overturned and at least one teenager's custody case got a satisfactory solution. Media attention helps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Do any countries still have Right Of Sanctuary in their legal codes? It's theoretically possible in Germany to stay in the country under whats called Kirchenasyl, but in reality it depends on the goodwill of the authorities and the government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:In fact, the Theodosian Code has a section on rights afforded to people who take shelter in churches so it's at least 1600 years old It's older than Christianity, even. Classical Greek pagans could flee to their temples if they were being pursued. The ethos of "no fuckery in sacred spaces" was something that Christianity inherited from wider classical culture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Could a Catholic priest get away with refusing to marry a same sex couple on the grounds that they wouldn't be 'open to life', and that this rule equally applies to opposite sex couples who are impotent or use contraception?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
spiderbot posted:Could a Catholic priest get away with refusing to marry a same sex couple on the grounds that they wouldn't be 'open to life', and that this rule equally applies to opposite sex couples who are impotent or use contraception? Under one interpretation of American law it's possible that a priest would have to choose between being permitted to conduct marriages on behalf of the state, or refusing on religious grounds and not being permitted to conduct civil marriages at all. He would still have that choice, though, and the law doesn't and in fact probably can't say anything about marriage as a religious sacrament.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Can ministers decline their ability (right?) to perform civil ceremonies? I have several friends who are ordained, and at least one of them has raised the possibility that he could be in legal trouble for refusing to conduct a same-sex ceremony. Their denomination will not allow SSM, and their personal interpretations of Scripture forbid it. If they are able, it'd probably be a good idea. (Disclaimer: I am not actually concerned that one of my friends is going to go to jail. Having the option might help with their peace of mind, though.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 19:03
|
|