Interesting piece on living in a 'post-christian" america
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2015, 09:12 AM
Interesting piece on living in a 'post-christian" america
Link

A lot of crying about how terrible the recent supreme court decision is. Somehow the author fails to mention any actual impact to orthodox christians but who needs that when you have a cause and a pulpit?

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 09:25 AM
RE: Interesting piece on living in a 'post-christian" america
a wise old Jedi's words can be a source of enlightenment in many worlds, like in ours Bowing

   

   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ace's post
29-06-2015, 09:26 AM
RE: Interesting piece on living in a 'post-christian" america
(29-06-2015 09:12 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Link

A lot of crying about how terrible the recent supreme court decision is. Somehow the author fails to mention any actual impact to orthodox christians but who needs that when you have a cause and a pulpit?

So the proposed plan is for Christians to remove themselves from society and go into isolated hermitages to pray for centuries before coming back?

I FULLY ENDORSE THIS. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Reltzik's post
29-06-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: Interesting piece on living in a 'post-christian" america
Well, if I may be frank, that was a load of bullshit.

The author goes on and on about that the Obergefell decision will have chilling consequences, but I could only see once where he spelled out what they were:

"The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8."

None of those immediately follow from Obergefell. I'm not going to comment on whether or not religious institutions should have their tax-exempt status removed (although, I will agree, if they keep their 503© status, that they are treated like any other non-profit), Obergefell doesn't set a precedent anywhere for any judicial ruling. I honestly don't have the slightest clue what "[t]he more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society" even means. To me it comes across as some vague threat that someone Christians will have to live with the fact that their opinions, no matter how founded on religion, don't get any innate respect, as if someone they should have that respect? I could be misinterpreting what they're saying. And if a CEO gets chased out of a company for his views, that doesn't sound like it had the force of law anywhere behind it so I don't see how Obergefell affects company's public perception at all.

There is one other point were they discuss polygamy, but to me, that's a trickier issue. That Obergefell does open up polygamy by asserting marriage is a fundamental right is certainly a possibility, albeit, probably a remote one. However, I don't think there's a push for polygamy and states do have a rational basis that amounts to that the laws were set up to have two people, so the entire marital system would have to be reworked to accommodate polygamy (to be more concrete, if in a hypothetical polygamy marriage one spouse of a marriage of three were to go under a coma, which of the remaining two spouses would make a medical decision?).

With all the talk in the article about persecution, all I can take away from the article is something along the lines of "no duh" at the response that if society doesn't agree with your actions, they're going to call you out on it and religion isn't a sudden immunity card to hide behind beliefs people call you out on. Obergefell has nothing to do with it; it just represents a change of the zeitgeist of the times, so to speak. Obergefell, at best, is an effect--not a cause--of that changing zeitgesist.

That's my thoughts on it anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ZoraPrime's post
29-06-2015, 09:34 AM
RE: Interesting piece on living in a 'post-christian" america
Pathetic whinning. But what else one can expect from someone who is willing to limit freedom of others in name of religious delusion?

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
29-06-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: Interesting piece on living in a 'post-christian" america
(29-06-2015 09:28 AM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  There is one other point were they discuss polygamy, but to me, that's a trickier issue.

I don't for the life of me see why a legal agreement between consenting adults has to be limited to just two...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
29-06-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Interesting piece on living in a 'post-christian" america
(29-06-2015 09:46 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 09:28 AM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  There is one other point were they discuss polygamy, but to me, that's a trickier issue.

I don't for the life of me see why a legal agreement between consenting adults has to be limited to just two...

I agree in the moral principle, but in practice extending legal marriage to multiple partners is difficult.

To name just one issue, which remaining spouse has default next of kin status for making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse? What if they disagree? Whose decision do the doctors go with?

With gay marriage, marriage essentially remains the same legally. One arbitrary restriction (heterosexual-only) is removed, but the rest of the laws surrounding marriage aren't really affected. It's just a quick trim and you're done. But with polygamy, you'd have to revamp and revise dozens of interlocking laws surrounding marriage to make it a workable legal arrangement.

The result is that a court can't just strike down a law and produce a working model for gay marriage. You'd need a majority of the legislature on board and working hard and proactively for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 10:00 PM
RE: Interesting piece on living in a 'post-christian" america
(29-06-2015 09:46 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 09:28 AM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  There is one other point were they discuss polygamy, but to me, that's a trickier issue.

I don't for the life of me see why a legal agreement between consenting adults has to be limited to just two...

My point isn't whether or not polygamy should be legal; rather, polygamy is the only thing mentioned in the article that Obergefell could reasonably effect.

Whether or not Obergefell actually does affect polygamy, now that marriage is affirmed as a fundamental right, and whether or not the legal argument exists are separate matters. The legal argument would likely consist of presenting logistical issues of having a marriage between three or more people (e.g. who decides medical decisions if one spouse is in a coma). I'm honestly not sure how good of an argument it is; fundamental rights can only be denied if the law denying it is specifically tailored towards some compelling state interest. While logistical issues certainly exists, they aren't narrowly tailored towards precluding polygamy either. That's what's tricky here, and it's not something I'm in the mood to discuss to be frank.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ZoraPrime's post
29-06-2015, 11:58 PM
RE: Interesting piece on living in a 'post-christian" america
I wish this decision created a post-christian America. That would be nice.

Sadly, it did not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Geopum's post
30-06-2015, 06:42 AM
RE: Interesting piece on living in a 'post-christian" america
Whiny article Wrote:But when a Supreme Court majority is willing to invent rights out of nothing, it is impossible to have faith that the First Amendment will offer any but the barest protection to religious dissenters from gay rights orthodoxy.

What the fuck is the "gay rights orthodoxy"? I didn't realize they had some ancient tradition to which they could zealously cling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: