I was going to write a post about the Alabama legislator proposing a law cutting public funding for any books that “promote homosexuality”, which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters, and public school textbooks couldn’t present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn’t offer books with gay or bisexual characters… but Neil Gaiman has already done the work. Go.
• 
“And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing?
Maybe I missed it, where are the groups that are trying to tell everyone that murder, waging war, lying, and stealing are acceptable?
I don’t think it is so much picking on homosexuality, but defending societal morals.”
Um as the original context of this discussion was about a proposed “law cutting public funding for any books that “promote homosexuality”, which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters” then I fail completely to see where you’re coming from – except by misinterpreting the scope of my comment completely.
As I have yet to see any reports of proposed legislation to ban, or otherwise restrict, all books in which there are characters who lie, steal, murder or wage war, I can only assume that homosexuality must be considered far worse than all those for it to gain that much intention.
Claiming that homosexuality isn’t being singled is simply wrong.
And I’m nowhere near being an advocate for gay rights issues, but even I can recognise the plain hypocrisy (not to mention stupidity) that lies behind this particular plan.
Jim in Iowa, there’s several things you mention that make me think…
It seems that your motivation to preserve a “traditional” marriage of one man and one woman really stems from the basis that the purpose of marriage is to produce children. If your starting point is that a father/mother couple is the ideal environment to raise a child (more on that later), then it seems that what you’re really concerned with is that by allowing any 2 people to marry, and then have *legitimate* children (natural-born, adopted, etc.), we’ll be allowing that arrangements other than father/mother parents are just as effective at raising a child in an ideal case.
So, it seems that your main impetus to define marriage as one man and one woman is to endorse the nuclear family as the paradigm the government should support.
Now I’ll ask: why? Research has shown that this pair *can* result in an ideal environment to raise a child. That’s no guarantee that it *will* have that result. What about the family where the biological father abuses the children? Or the mother? The family with the father who stumbles home drunk every Friday and beats his son? Or sense those are criminal acts, what about the father who’s just plain mean to his kids? Do we supervise his marriage and intervene if he fails to uphold the traditional image of an upright dad who supports and encourages his children, rather than the guy who berats, belittles, and verbally abuses his kids?
Additionally, as others have pointed out, today’s *traditional* marriage is really nothing of the sort. Our culture, and it’s predacessors, have a longer tradition of marriage for convienence or money, or for political reasons, very rarely for love. We also have a *tradition* of one man, multiple wives (at the same time). Which tradition do we legislate.
Finally, of course there are going to be idiots that are going to try and force some church or religion to change. This has been true since before there was a word for religion. Consider this: perhaps, if gay marriage were accepted as a civil matter, maybe those people who took criminal action against the church might not have.
Or maybe churches need to have blatant disclosures on their application forms, stating that they view homosexuality as contrary to their religios beliefs, and won’t hire anyone who practices homosexuality.
But your concern that allowing civil gay marriages will force any church to perform a gay marriage is really unfounded. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Any act by congress or the courts that forces any religious body to act in a certain way (other than administratively for tax purposes) would violate the First Amendment. There’s absolutely no way any church could lose it’s tax exempt status because they fail to perform a gay marriage.
If such were the case, no churches would already have lost such status. Many churches require you to be a practicing member of the religion before they’ll allow you to marry. It’s discriminitory, but not only tolerated, it’s encouraged.
And that’s maybe the main reason why we have both religious and civil marriages. You need a civil marriage to get the legal rights that attach to marriage, regarding property, taxes, inheritance, health care rights, etc. A religious marriage absent a civil marriage license is just a spiritual union that doesn’t have those legal rights attached.
Any government act to legislate the definition of marriage in any sense violates the First Amendment. Since marriage is both a civil and a religious convention, it would only take even one church, recognized as such by the government, blessing a gay marriage to make any such government action unconstitutional.
Not it isn’t. The idea of marriage meaning one man-one woman is realitivly new in human history. (The idea of marrying for love is even newer).
No, its not., although ‘ll grant you the marriage for love point. Multiple partner marriages though has almost always been restricted to either the very wealthy, or where it is rather impractical, such as populations where women outnumber the men or where men out number the women. However, even among populations where there were multiple wives or husbands, the FIRST wife or husband was always considered the LEGITIMATE mate.
Oh, and in some cases, such as the Egyptian Pharaohs, even sisters, aunts, cousins and mothers became part of the Pharoahs harem. Of course it’s also important to remember that a Pharoah was not necessarily related by blood to all of his mothers, sisters, and cousins.
3) The idea of kids being raised in a loving eviorment is really, really new. Probably only about 125 years old. Prior to that kids were just seen as an extra hand to have around in the family bussiness, (if they were boys), or a body to be married off as early as possible, (if they were girls).
Kids were expected to pitch in and help from a certain age on, true. This does not mean that they weren’t loved and cared for. And girls were expected to work just as hard as the boys when there weren’t any boys around. Milkmaids are often not the dainty little things you see when when you sing about “eight maids a miliking”. That activity alone tends to build up some upper body strength.
(Female children being useful only to be married off).
Depends mainly on the culture I think, but in many cultures, the potential husbands had to PAY for their brides, so a many with several daugthers stood to profit quite handily while a man with several sons was expected to give a portion of his land and property to his son for purchasing a wife.
Prior to that kids were just seen as an extra hand to have around in the family bussiness, (if they were boys), or a body to be married off as early as possible, (if they were girls).
Well, it’s also important to remember that people didn’t live as long then as they do now. For a woman childbirth was easier when they were in their teens to mid-twenties. Survival for mothers during childbirth dropped drastically after the age of twenty-five. It wasn’t until Louis Pastuer came up with the idea of washing your hands before dealing with each new patient to reduce infections did the mortality rate start to drop and people started living longer.
Bottom line is that you’re looking at the wrong end of the glass. You’re making the assumption that what marriarge and a family is today was what it always was, and that is just simply not true. The idea of the Mom and Dad who loved each other, and raised thier children in a loving nurturing enviorment practically didn’t exist as little as 200 years ago.
Doesn’t really matter, Hude, Some places consider eating rats a delicacy. Here, we’re likely to arrest someone if they tried to feed you that. Its the idea as they perceive it that counts. If we look at marriage through your historical veiwpoint, riddled with inaccuracies as it was, why would ANYONE in their right mind, gay, straight, or bi, want to marry?
Doesn’t really matter, Hude, Some places consider eating rats a delicacy. Here, we’re likely to arrest someone if they tried to feed you that.
No, here we just call it “Reality TV.”
“If we look at marriage through your historical veiwpoint, riddled with inaccuracies as it was, why would ANYONE in their right mind, gay, straight, or bi, want to marry?”
I’m sure there are plenty of married people out there who ask themselves this very question every day….
As I have yet to see any reports of proposed legislation to ban, or otherwise restrict, all books in which there are characters who lie, steal, murder or wage war, I can only assume that homosexuality must be considered far worse than all those for it to gain that much intention.
The big difference is that in 90% of the books with lying, stealing, and murder, it is shown as being wrong and having consequences. I would wager less than 1% of books depicting the homosexual lifestyle do that.
Again, not so much ‘picking on’ as defending.
eclark: I think if you’re sitting around predicting outcomes instead of observing outcomes, you’ve left the world of science and are working for the “psychic friends network”.
Luigi Novi: Which shows that you obviously do not understand what science is. Of course you observe outcomes. But you do so after hypothesizing what they
Ken posted:
“The big difference is that in 90% of the books with lying, stealing, and murder, it is shown as being wrong and having consequences. I would wager less than 1% of books depicting the homosexual lifestyle do that.
Again, not so much ‘picking on’ as defending.”
That’s bûllšhìŧ, Ken. What “consequences” are there for being gay? You *are* picking on gays simply by suggesting that. For the better part of the past century, Hollywood’s depictions of gays and lesbians was filled with “consequences” (when not some outrageous stereotype) and it hasn’t been until the last couple of decades that being gay or lesbian was presented in a sympathetic manner (though, such a character generally had no on-screen sex life); however, the largest portion of those sympathetic portrayals also tended to be portraits of AIDS sufferers (Philadelphia, Jeffrey) or frequently had some sort of AIDS connection. For most gay men and lesbians, they don’t suffer any “consequences” simply because of their sexuality. Sexuality is, for most of the GLBT community, merely part of their overall existence (just as most straight people would say about their own sexuality) just as their skin or hair color is or their religious practices or even their political persuasion.
In short, the reality is that being gay is nowhere nearly as horrible as lying, stealing or murder, except to homophobes.
The big difference is that in 90% of the books with lying, stealing, and murder, it is shown as being wrong and having consequences. I would wager less than 1% of books depicting the homosexual lifestyle do that.
The difference is, people who lie, steal or murder hurt other people. People living as homosexuals have not effect whatsoever on anyone other than themselves.
The big difference is that in 90% of the books with lying, stealing, and murder, it is shown as being wrong and having consequences. I would wager less than 1% of books depicting the homosexual lifestyle do that.
Ken, I’m not going to argue about whether that statement is true. Joseph W. is already doing that a few posts up and I don’t have any statistics. I’ll only point out that under the law in question, ANY fiction book that with gay or bisexual characters is considered just as bad regardless of how sympatheticly those characters are presented. If you got your wish list of books that presented homosexual characters dealing with some sort of negative consequences of their sexuality, it would still be out because it those characters in it. It’s a stupid, evil bill and if it’s passed it will be a stupid evil law.
Look, the question and the subsequent follow-up was about why homosexuality is being ‘picked on’ rather than ‘picking on’ murder, lying and stealing. I answered that by pointing out that there aren’t in-your-face (or really any) organizations that are promoting lying, stealing, and murder as acceptable.
If there were these organizations, the same people would defend against them.
When it was brought up that this was unfairly targeting books that promote the homosexual life over books that promote lying, stealing, and murder, the truth is that it boils down to glamourizing it.
And to say that there are no consequences in a sexual lifestyle, be it homosexual or adulterous or care-free, is ignorant.
Also, no where have I said that this was an acceptable bill. I was just responding to the suggestion that homosexuals are targeted unfairly.
The bill is bad, but mainly because it wasn’t thought out very well, and the writing of it is very naive.
Actually, just to tie the “lying, stealing, and murder” discussion to my own comments from yesterday, I would venture that the current corporate system encourages both lying and stealing. Murder might be a stretch, though.
When it was brought up that this was unfairly targeting books that promote the homosexual life over books that promote lying, stealing, and murder, the truth is that it boils down to glamourizing it.
Anyone remember the days when “freedom of speech” meant all speech, not what sort of activity it was “glamorizing?”
I miss those days.
Ugh. That should have read “No matter what sort of activity.”
Gotta proof read better.
Jim in Iowa wrote:
So what is the threat to churches? How would making gay marriage legal be a threat to my church? It comes on a few levels. The most obvious is employment. Currently, a church is allowed to “discriminate” in a few areas based on their moral convictions. If gay marriage was legal, I guarantee that there will be lawsuits demanding that churches hire a gay minister or secretary, etc. This has already happened in California over 20 years ago, even without gay marriage being legal. A friend of my family was a pastor of a Presbyterian Church just outside of San Francisco. They hired a guy as the church organist. About 6 months later, they found out that he was actively gay. They fired him because they considered his position as being part of their worship on Sunday (their position on this matter was in writing, so he essentially lied when he applied for the job). To make a long story short, he sued. Worse than that, the pastor’s house was firebombed (fortunately his kids were with their grandparents at the time), and 20 years later, they are still receiving death threats from members of the gay community even though the guy died of AIDS 15 years ago. The church basically went bankrupt simply fighting to maintain their right to practice IN THEIR WORSHIP SERVICES what they believed. They were not picketing against gay rights, they were not trying to get gay people fired from their “secular” jobs. They were just practicing a very clearly held belief.
There may very well be lawsuits and argument, but isn’t that the way our system is supposed to work? I note that this part of your message does not state the court’s decision. Did the organist win? I’ll bet he didn’t. That church’s decision is, IMO, completely justified because of the nature of the organization. Religious organizations may discriminate against those who do not follow their beliefs, and I encourage their ability to do so. I’m pretty sure the law does, as well.
Gay marriage (or civil unions for all) will not change that. In the same way that gay marriage does not really change incest, polygamy, or bëšŧìálìŧÿ laws, gay marriage would not take a single thing away from churches. Churches right now are free to refuse anyone’s request to be married, and they will be free to do so when gay marriage is recoginized.
(BTW, the firebombing stuff is terrible, and I am very glad the children–or anyone, for that matter–were not hurt. However, the actions of some clearly radical and disturbed people should not scare us away from doing what is right. We might disagree on the definition of “right” in this case, but surely the threat of private violence should not determine the opinion of the court in a matter such as this!)
Another threat: Tax exempt status. Some gay activists have already said that once gay marriage becomes legal, they will begin suing churches who refuse to marry a gay couple to strip them of their tax exempt status. (You may not agree with churches having a tax exempt status in the first place, but that is beside the point. It is wrong to strip them of it simply because of a moral conviction that they hold. That is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.)
I, and many folks here, I’m sure, completely agree with you that churches should not be stripped of their TE status because of how they treat gay marriage. But again I ask, why would this happen? What causes you to think that this would actually come to pass? People might sue over it, sure, but people sue over anything these days. Again, the legal idiocy of the few is no justification to limit the freedom of the many.
Further clarification on your points would be greatly appreciated.
Eric
That first paragraph above should be bolded, as well. Sorry.
Eric
The idea that gay couples could sue to force a church to marry them is ludicrous. I am not Catholic, but my wife was raised Catholic and in order for us to get married in a Catholic Church, I had to promise to raised any kids we might have Catholic. If I said no, they would have refused to marry us and there was nothing we could’ve done about it.
Might people try to sue? Probably, but courts have consistantly ruled that religious organizations have the right to require conformity of belief for membership and I don’t see legal recognition of gay marriage changing that.
There may very well be lawsuits and argument, but isn’t that the way our system is supposed to work? I note that this part of your message does not state the court’s decision. Did the organist win? I’ll bet he didn’t. That church’s decision is, IMO, completely justified because of the nature of the organization. Religious organizations may discriminate against those who do not follow their beliefs, and I encourage their ability to do so. I’m pretty sure the law does, as well.
Actually, the courts went back and forth. One court ruled for one side, it was appealed, and it went the other way. (Remember, this is California. I love the state, but the judges can make some off the wall rulings.) Ultimately, the church won. But it literally took over a million dollars. That is wrong. A church should never have had to have spent over a million dollars on what was clearly a frivolous lawsuit. It was money that was not used for the many charitable works of the church, as well as for the day to day operation of the church. It does not matter whether you win or lose if the other side can keep appealing. I agree that one radical faction of the gay community is not typical of all of them, but that radical faction can be very destructive and harmful. And these radical factions are getting a lot of money from somewhere to be able to pursue a lawsuit such as this. The organist did not pay for it himself.
I, and many folks here, I’m sure, completely agree with you that churches should not be stripped of their TE status because of how they treat gay marriage. But again I ask, why would this happen? What causes you to think that this would actually come to pass? People might sue over it, sure, but people sue over anything these days. Again, the legal idiocy of the few is no justification to limit the freedom of the many.
If you look through the first 150 years of American history, churches were allowed to be quite vocal in their political beliefs. Churches in the Revolution backed the revolution. Many churches in the 1800’s opposed slavery and led the charge against it. Up until the 1950’s, a church could even talk about specific candidates. If a given candidate supported views contrary to the religious beliefs of the church, the church was free to say so.
Then a little line was added to a bill (I believe it was around 1954). A congressman ran for office and didn’t like that a number of churches were critical of his positions and his moral actions. He managed to be elected. He added a line to a bill that basically said if a church endorsed or denounced a candidate, they would lose their tax exempt status because they were crossing the line of “church and state.” Who was that congressman? Lyndon B. Johnson. Over 150 years of freedom of speech was suddenly denied to religious institutions.
It may seem unlikely that a church would have its tax exempt status removed. But I don’t think so. Let me put it this way. There is, at least, a very strong radical wing of homosexual activists who do not like that some Christians say homosexuality is morally wrong. They want to silence that religious objection. Threatening a church’s tax exempt status is one way of doing so.
If I understand your last point, you seem to be saying that it is stupid to deny gay marriage because a few will use it to attack a church. I agree. My point was more on the lines that this issue is not *just* about gay marriage. This is about who gets to say what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral. There is a clear agenda at work that goes beyond simply making gay marriage legal. My opposition against gay marriage is because I believe it is an attack on marriage itself.
Jim in Iowa
The idea that gay couples could sue to force a church to marry them is ludicrous. I am not Catholic, but my wife was raised Catholic and in order for us to get married in a Catholic Church, I had to promise to raised any kids we might have Catholic. If I said no, they would have refused to marry us and there was nothing we could’ve done about it.
I suggest it is not as ludicrous as you think. I agree that most of the population would vote against such an idea. But 50 years ago it would have been ludicrous to think that a man marrying a man would have been a legal option. Fifty years ago it would have been ludicrous to think a church would not have the freedom of speech it had for 150 years to speak about specific candidates.
I don’t think this change would happen the next day. But I do believe it is clearly the next step. And recent court decisions don’t give me much confidence in this matter.
It is a school, not a court matter, but surely you have heard what is happening in California. A teacher is suing the school district because he has been prohibited from even mentioning the word “God” or “Almighty,” etc., in history class when teaching things like the Declaration of Independence or when using speeches written by George Washington. This is not a ridiculous bill suggested by one legislator in Alabama. This has been actual censorship mandated by a school district, preventing a teacher from simply talking about the historical fact that the founding fathers dared to mention “god” in their writings.
Censorship is alive and well. It is happening in ways this post has not even touched.
Jim in Iowa
It seems that your motivation to preserve a “traditional” marriage of one man and one woman really stems from the basis that the purpose of marriage is to produce children.
Let me put it this way: You can have a healthy marriage without children. But to raise healthy children, the best environment is a healthy marriage.
Let me put it another way: If sex did not create children, I don’t think marriage would be necessary. The sexual revolution of the 60’s came about, in part, because we reached a place where it was reasonably possible to have lots of sex without the fear of pregnancy. That is not to say some would not want to create a “life together” and end up living together. But marriage, not just the legal standing but the actual commitment to stay together, comes from not only a love or commitment to the other person but also from a desire to raise the children.
If your starting point is that a father/mother couple is the ideal environment to raise a child (more on that later), then it seems that what you’re really concerned with is that by allowing any 2 people to marry, and then have *legitimate* children (natural-born, adopted, etc.), we’ll be allowing that arrangements other than father/mother parents are just as effective at raising a child in an ideal case.
So, it seems that your main impetus to define marriage as one man and one woman is to endorse the nuclear family as the paradigm the government should support.
Yes, that would be true. I am suggesting the nuclear family be at the hub, though clearly an extended family can also play a crucial role.
Now I’ll ask: why? Research has shown that this pair *can* result in an ideal environment to raise a child. That’s no guarantee that it *will* have that result. What about the family where the biological father abuses the children? Or the mother? The family with the father who stumbles home drunk every Friday and beats his son? Or sense those are criminal acts, what about the father who’s just plain mean to his kids? Do we supervise his marriage and intervene if he fails to uphold the traditional image of an upright dad who supports and encourages his children, rather than the guy who berats, belittles, and verbally abuses his kids?
Umm, actually we already do intervene when abuse reaches a certain point. Just because some biological fathers and mothers are less than ideal does not mean the pattern/model is wrong. Let me put it this way. Your example can be true of a single parent, of two parents of the same gender, or in a “traditional” marriage. The parenting arrangement alone does not guarantee that the parents will raise the child with love and respect. On the otherhand, I do suggest that does not mean we should not strive for what is clearly best for the child, which is a loving mother AND father raising a child. Other arrangements may be necessary when this fails, but I think it is wrong and harmful to a child to not acknowledge that if it is at all possible, a “traditional” marriage is better for a child.
Jim in Iowa
A few problems with this statement. 1) The concept of monogmy, realitvly new in human history. For most of human history a family was one guy, multiple wives. Oh and females, (children and wives) were considered property. And of course there’s still large chunks of the world where that’s still the case.
I would disagree. The concept of monogamy has been around for a long time. It has been practiced for quite a while. The fact that some also had multiple wives does not mean there were not also some with just one wife. Most could not afford multiple wives.
But this argument also misses the point. At its core, this is still a marriage between one man and one woman. The man does not marry the women as a team. His union is with each one individually. I don’t think having multiple wives is a healthy arrangement. There is no doubt it leads to a lot of other problems, including favoritism among the wives and the kids. But the concept of marriage, even in polygamy, was still the union between a man and a woman.
2) The idea of marriying for love even newer, only about a 150 to 200 years old. For most of human history marriages were arranged or done as a social oblication with the sole objective being to produce a male heir. (Female children being useful only to be married off). And of course there is a sizable chunk of the world where that’s still the case today.
I would agree with your point, but don’t see how it contradicts what I have said. These marriages were done to produce an heir. In other words, it was done for the sake of having a kid. It is true that this did not mean the kid necessarily had a “loving” environment in which to be raised, but the goal of marriage was not just a declaration of love between two people. At its core, they understood that marriage was the “legitimate” way to have a kid, and by this union, join two different families / bloodlines together.
3) The idea of kids being raised in a loving eviorment is really, really new.
Our obsession with it may be new, but the concept has been around for a long time. Go read ancient literature. Greek tragedies were written to illustrate what happened when this did not take place. The Bible is filled with stories that illustrate both the good and the bad in child raising. The commands in the Old and New Testament were very much about how to properly love ones children.
I agree that in many ways our culture has gone too far in its obsession about kids. But it is historically inaccurate to say that families throughout history did not try to raise their kids with love, etc.
Jim in Iowa
bzzzt! wrong answer, Jim.
you say “It is a school, not a court matter, but surely you have heard what is happening in California. A teacher is suing the school district because he has been prohibited from even mentioning the word “God” or “Almighty,” etc., in history class when teaching things like the Declaration of Independence or when using speeches written by George Washington. This is not a ridiculous bill suggested by one legislator in Alabama. This has been actual censorship mandated by a school district, preventing a teacher from simply talking about the historical fact that the founding fathers dared to mention “god” in their writings.”
actuality says:
these articles copyright their respective writers and websites.
excerpted here for your edification
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=446
Declaration Of Independence banned!
The seemingly preposterous headline made major waves on the conservative Drudge Report and Fox News network Wednesday, joining Reuters and the Associated Press, in a misleading story that exhibited serious reportorial negligence, RAW STORY has learned.
The story, which reports that a California teacher has been banned from giving students documents from American history that refer to God, including the Declaration of Independence, is said a product of right-wing spin.
In fact, Cupertino public school principal Patricia Vidmar banned documents relating to God because the teacher had been forcing students to listen to what some felt was Christian propaganda, a media watchdog site reports. According to the site, the school had told him to stop but he did not comply, at which point the principal required that he submit his lesson plans to her in advance.
…
None of the major news agencies reporting on the story included quotations from the school or the principal, stating that a spokesman had referred them to a staff attorney. The articles suggest they did little research beyond the statements provided by William
Sorry, #2 above should have been bolded to show it was a quote.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa
You make your point more clear here: “My point was more on the lines that this issue is not *just* about gay marriage.”
And you’re right. Science and economics are real good at looking at things in vacuums, but we all know life doesn’t occur in one. Actions often have unforseen and unpredictable repurcussions. It’s one of the main reasons our Founders made a general Constitution, so that we would have a living document that could adapt and adopt to changing times.
As to a church (or any fiscally challenged entity) needing to spend itself into bankruptcy to defend against a frivolous lawsuit isn’t the fault of our laws. Responsibilty for that lies with our judges and individuals filing suit. That suit should never have gone on as long as it did. Judges (afraid of publicity, taking a stand, whatever) can and do fail to issue a strong determination to dismiss a suit. I’m not famliar wit CA courts much, but, if like many state judges, the bench is elected, this would be even more common. Don’t want to lose that cushy bench seat job with a controversial ruling.
What’s important here is that you recognize where the failing is: Not in someone trying to push his or her beliefs onto a religion (which the Constitution expliciity prohibits), but in the court system for failing to protec the church from such actions.
As to LBJ’s bill or rider or whatever prohibiting churches from participating in the political arena, there’s 2 sides to that. As we’ve seen in this most recent election, religion can and does play a large role in politics. That law not only protects the candidates, but it also, to a certain extent, protects the voters. A church endorsement is a powerful tool. And if that tool were to be co-opted through means of corruption, mistake, etc., that could heavily influence an election.
Besides which, churches still can express their political opinions, just have to be careful of hot endorsing a particular candidate. Just today I was shown a phamphlet that all but screamed “VOTE FOR BUSH” on it.
Further still, would it really be all that bad if churches lost TE status? Just like a business would pass cost increases on to customers, they could always turn to the congregation for support.
This is the BIG STORY today, on Rush, and Drudge, and the rest of the Usual Suspects. And it is a carefully planned and carefully timed lie.
The story is timed for this afternoon so that it cannot be refuted until Monday.
This type of attack ignores the issues involved. It makes an assumption that cannot be proved (regarding the timing of the filing of the lawsuit). Either way, it is the facts that matter. The reality is that neither side has proven its case. You do not have evidence that the teacher lied. So your story is at least as biased as the first.
As your final paragraph mentions, the specifics given were that he could not give a handout because it mentions the founding fathers talking about religion. If new information were to show he was doing more than this, then I would re-evalutate. But I would want to know specifically how they think he was trying to prosyletize.
In fact, Cupertino public school principal Patricia Vidmar banned documents relating to God because the teacher had been forcing students to listen to what some felt was Christian propaganda, a media watchdog site reports. According to the site, the school had told him to stop but he did not comply, at which point the principal required that he submit his lesson plans to her in advance.
Statments like this can be just as loaded as the ones that said they were “banning” the Declaration of Independence. There are not clear examples given to refute his claim, just allegations that he was forcing kids to listen to Christian propoganda. In the week since the story came out, there has not been any evidence that this was the case beyond the fact that he was using documents that mentioned God.
If the evidence shows he did something wrong, then I agree it was not censorship. But the details given still suggest that it was censorhip.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa,
Coming from a *broken home*, I grew up wishing I had a “normal” family. I would have really liked to have been able to come home to a mother AND a father.
In reality, if my parents had stayed together, I would have come home to house filled with unhappy people resenting each other (and quite possibly me), filled not with love, but with loathing and hate. Instead, I had a home filled by a struggling single mother, who loved her children and gave them everything she could. And also had a father who, while not living in the home, still supported and loved his children, and provided for them best he could.
We didn’t fit the paradigm. And maybe, in spite of the *odds*, my brother and I turned out pretty decent. I know that we had home environments better than some of the *traditional* nuclear families around us.
And some of those were just fine.
Point being, I don’t think it matters so much what the arrangement is…what matters are the people invovled in the arrangement.
And here’s the flip side to legislating marriage, based on the idea that husband/wife teams present the ideal child-rearing setting:
It’s a step toward a time where having children can be legislated. If we proceed from the viewpoint that man/woman pairs are the ideal environment for child rearing, we’re just a short hop away from ONLY allowing that arrangement to raise a child. Which means that a widowed father could lose his children if he doesn’t marry soon enough after his wife’s death.
It sounds far fetched, but this is the role of the responsible legislator. To try and see where legislation *may* take society. If it could be used for an end not intended by it’s writers, then the law needs to be better written.
As to LBJ’s bill or rider or whatever prohibiting churches from participating in the political arena, there’s 2 sides to that. As we’ve seen in this most recent election, religion can and does play a large role in politics. That law not only protects the candidates, but it also, to a certain extent, protects the voters. A church endorsement is a powerful tool. And if that tool were to be co-opted through means of corruption, mistake, etc., that could heavily influence an election.
Besides which, churches still can express their political opinions, just have to be careful of hot endorsing a particular candidate. Just today I was shown a phamphlet that all but screamed “VOTE FOR BUSH” on it.
So you are saying that in some cases, censorship is permissible? That if you are religious organization, you have to limit your free speech in a way that others do not? If your point is true, then Labor Organizations and Unions should not endorse candidates. There is a far greater reason to fear corruption than with churches since there is a far more direct financial tie.
You see, that is the problem with the argument. It is solely based on a denial of the right to free speech for a religious group.
Further still, would it really be all that bad if churches lost TE status? Just like a business would pass cost increases on to customers, they could always turn to the congregation for support.
It would have an enormous impact. Would the church survive? Yes. But it would have an enormous impact on the many charitable works done by churches. The Salvation Army is more than just a charitable organization. It is a church. It is also, consistently recognized as being one of the most dependable organizations to actually send a high percentage of donations to the needy rather than just paying high salaries to leaders. It has a high degree of respect because it is very careful with the money given, a faithfulness that is based greatly in its religious convictions.
The list could go on. Churches play a vital role in society. And they do so in a way that does not produce a tangible product as do other businesses. Removing the tax exempt status would have a large impact on more than just the Christian church, it would impact synagogues, mosques, temples, and other places of worship. The state is not subsidizing churches to keep them open, but by not taxing them, they allow religious organizations to be use the maximum of what is given to provide services to the community.
Removing the tax exempt status from a church would ultimately hurt society because it would remove a lot of the infrastructure that exists. My church alone gives thousands of dollars a month to help those in our community who cannot pay rent or medical or electric bills. Who is going to cover those costs? For the vast majority of religious organizations, they are doing more than just meeting to worship. They are having a positive impact on the community. To remove the tax exempt status would be a very bad idea.
Jim in Iowa
We didn’t fit the paradigm. And maybe, in spite of the *odds*, my brother and I turned out pretty decent. I know that we had home environments better than some of the *traditional* nuclear families around us.
I agree with your basic point. Which is why I would not want to go to the other extreme and legislate everything about a family. While divorce always does some harm, it can also be the lesser of two evils.
Point being, I don’t think it matters so much what the arrangement is…what matters are the people invovled in the arrangement.
I would disagree on one level. IF you could choose between being raised by TWO parents who DO love each other and love you, would you not agree that is a better arrangement than being raised by your mom and with only a distant support from your dad? Most churches, such as mine, that opposes most divorces, also offer counseling and other means to help the family be a healthy place for the kids. And in many cases it does work. So a better alternative does exist, at least for some, than just getting divorced.
And here’s the flip side to legislating marriage, based on the idea that husband/wife teams present the ideal child-rearing setting:
It’s a step toward a time where having children can be legislated. If we proceed from the viewpoint that man/woman pairs are the ideal environment for child rearing, we’re just a short hop away from ONLY allowing that arrangement to raise a child. Which means that a widowed father could lose his children if he doesn’t marry soon enough after his wife’s death.
I understand your point but disagree that it is a threat. There is over 3,000 years of recorded history where a widowed father has raised his kids. There is absolutely no desire on the part of conservatives to take the kids away from a single parent. But there is a desire to push for, wherever is healthy and possible, that a child be raised by a father and a mother. You can raise up an ideal while allowing for reality and understanding there can be exceptions.
Jim in Iowa
thats why i directed you to read the whole websites.
from the San Mateo County Times:
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~2556644,00.html
The lawsuit alleges the school’s principal Patricia Vidmar required Williams to submit his lesson plans and the supplemental handouts he planned to use in his classroom for review.
She then prevented Williams from giving students several handouts including:
– Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence with references to “God,” “Creator,” and “Supreme Judge.”
– “George Washington’s Prayer Journal.”
– “The Rights of the Colonists,” by Samuel Adams, which includes passages excluding Roman Catholics from religious tolerance because of their “doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.”
– George W. Bush’s presidential 2004 Day of Prayer proclamation, with a supplemental handout on the history of the National Day of Prayer.
– Several excerpts from John Adam’s diary, including the July 26, 1796 passage, “Cloudy … The Christian religion is above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the black guard Paine say what he will; it is resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man.”
Williams’ attorney, Terry Thompson of the Alliance Defense Fund, said the principal’s policy is a violation of the teacher’s First Amendment rights and is blatant censorship of the writings of great men because they mention God or Christianity.
It is a matter of history that the founders were “men of deep religious faith,” Thompson said. “To hide this fact from young fifth grade students is shameful and outrageous. We’re not founded by the Boston agnostic club.”
The Alliance Defense Fund includes more than 700 attorneys across the country and focus on legal issues supporting religious freedom, anti-abortion efforts and marriage between a man and woman only.
District officials would not comment on the lawsuit, saying only they received it and referred it to their attorneys.
Speaking from his home Wednesday, a school holiday, Williams said the problems started last year after he responded to a student who asked why the Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase, “under God.”
from the blue lemur: Steve Williams needed to have his lesson plans approved because he was passing out materials about George Bush
I suggest it is not as ludicrous as you think. I agree that most of the population would vote against such an idea. But 50 years ago it would have been ludicrous to think that a man marrying a man would have been a legal option.
50 years ago we had the first amendment guaranteeing religious freedom. We have it today. We’ll have it 50 years from now.
Fifty years ago it would have been ludicrous to think a church would not have the freedom of speech it had for 150 years to speak about specific candidates.
This past election we had bishops telling their flock that it was a sin to vote for Kerry. Some were even stating that he should be refused communion. What freedom t speak about specific candidates are you claiming that they have lost?
Jim, I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. IF I had been given a choice, I surely would have chosen to have my parents stay in love and together. As not-first choices go, I think I did pretty well having 2 parents, separated, who loved and supported me. Better off than the kids who had drunken dads sleeping around on their wives and beating their kids.
Was I better off than the kids who had 2 loving parents? I dunno…they always seemed to have more toys than me…
“There is absolutely no desire on the part of conservatives to take the kids away from a single parent.”
I’b be willing to say that this is true…today. And there’s the biggest problem with proceeding with legislation in this direction. Because, as with most laws, it’s not how that law is applied *today* that worries me. It’s how it’s going to evolve and be used in 20 or 30 years that worries me. Tomorrow’s conservates (heck, or liberals) might take such a law and go the next step.
As to censorship in some cases being ok? I agree. I’d say that businesses, newspapers, corporations, unions, anything that is not a *person* shouldn’t be allowed to make political endorsements. The potential for abuse I described in a church is, just as you suggest, even more present in non-religious organizations. Individuals have a hard enough time deciding which candidate to support. How can any organization, which represents hundreds or thousands of indivudals, distill all those opinions into a single endorsement?
This past election we had bishops telling their flock that it was a sin to vote for Kerry. Some were even stating that he should be refused communion. What freedom t speak about specific candidates are you claiming that they have lost?
And there were bishop talking about refusing communion to anyone what voted for any canidate that didn’t say they were against abortion. That’s more than an endorsement. That’s outright strongarm tactics. “Do this or I’ll personally make sure that you’re dámņëd.”
This past election we had bishops telling their flock that it was a sin to vote for Kerry. Some were even stating that he should be refused communion. What freedom t speak about specific candidates are you claiming that they have lost?
You must not be aware that a church in 1992 that said voting for Clinton was a sin has lost its tax exempt status. It is appealing that ruling. Granted, this has not happened often. But it has happened.
Most churches know of this law and so they may hand out literature stating where the candidate stands on given issues, but they cannot say “vote for Bush” or “vote for Kerry.”
Jim in Iowa
And there were bishop talking about refusing communion to anyone what voted for any canidate that didn’t say they were against abortion. That’s more than an endorsement. That’s outright strongarm tactics. “Do this or I’ll personally make sure that you’re dámņëd.”
Exactly. When bishops are telling their flocks that they will need to go to confession if they vote for a certain candidate, I find it hard to believe that they don’t have the freedom to speak about specific candidates.
Here are a few examples of censorship of free speech by churches both in Canada and in America:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39971
Jim in Iowa
Exactly. When bishops are telling their flocks that they will need to go to confession if they vote for a certain candidate, I find it hard to believe that they don’t have the freedom to speak about specific candidates.
The fact that some defy the ban does not mean it does not exist.
Jim in Iowa
I’b be willing to say that this is true…today. And there’s the biggest problem with proceeding with legislation in this direction. Because, as with most laws, it’s not how that law is applied *today* that worries me. It’s how it’s going to evolve and be used in 20 or 30 years that worries me. Tomorrow’s conservates (heck, or liberals) might take such a law and go the next step.
Ok, I understand your point. What is ironic, though, is that when I use a similar type of argument about the future effect of a law legalizing gay marriage, I am told I don’t know what I am talking about. 🙂
Jim in Iowa
Here is a link to info on the restrictions on churches. I only skimmed it, but it seemed to not be biased in its explanation of the rules. What it does make clear is there is currently a prohibition on churches from endorsing or opposing a given candidate. This is clearly a restriction on the free speech of a church.
http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2004/804/infocus/p20.htm
Jim in Iowa
“Ok, I understand your point. What is ironic, though, is that when I use a similar type of argument about the future effect of a law legalizing gay marriage, I am told I don’t know what I am talking about. :-)”
Oh, my, I hope that wasn’t me.
One difference that I can think of is that the protections for religion are contained within the Constitution. There’d have to be a lawsuit/law trying to force a church to perform a gay marriage, or accept gay members. The Constitution *should* be an absolute protection against things like that. *Should*, but as you’ve demonstrated, failings in the legal system have and will allow such challenges to proceed.
Sexual preference is currently not a protected status under the anti-discrimination clauses of the Bill of Rights, so it currently lacks any Constitutional protection (last I checked, leastways).
So there *is* a slight difference in the positions, although it’s more a matter of legal perception, and less a matter of common sense. You’d have to have more than the layman’s understanding of precedent and legal evolotion to be able to see some of the distinctions.
But your point is well made. In the legal arena, anything, given enough time, is possible.
thats why i directed you to read the whole websites.
I did. I am interested to see what facts are actually proven to be true in this case to see whether or not it was censorship. For example, if he was trying to promote Easter, then I can see how that crossed the line. None of the other things mentioned would automatically do so. It all depends on how he is portrayed as presenting the given material.
My wife, my sister, and my sister-in-law have all taught in school. I don’t take what the principal (or the teacher) says at face value until there is more documentation. Since the teacher is the one who initiated the lawsuit, that would suggest he thinks he has the documentation to prove his case. We will see.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
I read both your articles and if they are believed, the bans are essentially meaningless since even if a church cannot endorse a specific candidate, nothing restricts individual members of the clergy from speaking out for or against certain candidates, even when they are speaking in their official capacity.
The worldnet article even states that no church has ever lost its tax exempt status over these regulations, despite the that fact that numerous clergy are active in politics on both sides of the aisle.
Like the “school bans the Declaration of Indenpendence,” all the hysteria over this issue looks like much ado about nothing.
Sexual preference is currently not a protected status under the anti-discrimination clauses of the Bill of Rights, so it currently lacks any Constitutional protection (last I checked, leastways).
I think you are write in regards to the Bill of Rights, but in practice, I thought this was now law (or federal code, executive order, whatever) that you could not discriminate in hiring practices based on sexual preference. So it has reached a place of protected status.
I don’t have a problem with that, per se, in the workforce. But I do have a problem when it comes to forcing organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, to admit homosexual leaders, and of course for churches to hire someone who is actively gay. There should be some room for religious and similar organizations to determine criteria for their memebership. Currently, churches are protected. Groups like the Boy Scouts are another matter.
Jim in Iowa
I think you are write in regards to the Bill of Rights, but in practice, I thought this was now law (or federal code, executive order, whatever) that you could not discriminate in hiring practices based on sexual preference. So it has reached a place of protected status.
It is only in terms of hiring federal employees. There is no federal law or regulations banning descrimination by private employers based on sexual preference.
There should be some room for religious and similar organizations to determine criteria for their memebership. Currently, churches are protected. Groups like the Boy Scouts are another matter.
They are. The Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts can exclude gays from being scout leaders. That was four years ago.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.gay.boyscouts/
I read both your articles and if they are believed, the bans are essentially meaningless since even if a church cannot endorse a specific candidate, nothing restricts individual members of the clergy from speaking out for or against certain candidates, even when they are speaking in their official capacity.
The worldnet article even states that no church has ever lost its tax exempt status over these regulations, despite the that fact that numerous clergy are active in politics on both sides of the aisle.
What about the church who lost their status in 1992? I agree that it has been rare (2 cases), so far, but it has happened. That is a documented fact. Not sure why the article would say otherwise.
The CPA website says the following: “IRS regulations are clear that, while churches and parachurch organizations are restricted from endorsing or opposing a particular political candidate, they may educate about candidates
Churches should ALL lose Tax-Exempt status, they’re so deeply involved in politics anyway.
The taxes on the catholic church alone would probably end up covering a lot of the budget holes…
They are. The Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts can exclude gays from being scout leaders. That was four years ago.
True. My point was that they are not protected by their being a church or religious organization. As I recall, the vote was 5-4. In other words, it is one vote away from being changed.
I did not know that it was only federal employees that could not be discriminated against. I know many companies put this into their policy (which is their right). So you are saying if a small business knows that an applicant is gay, they can legally discriminate and not give him (or her) a job?
Jim in Iowa
Churches should ALL lose Tax-Exempt status, they’re so deeply involved in politics anyway.
The taxes on the catholic church alone would probably end up covering a lot of the budget holes…
Over 85% of the churches in America are less than 75 people in their actual attendance on a given Sunday. Most do not have the “big pockets” of the Catholic church. You would be causing a great hardship on the overwhelming majority of churches that exist in America.
I am not Catholic. But it is short sighted to not realize the large amount of good they have done over the history of this country. They have founded hospitals, cared for the needy, and been a source of help in times of emergencies.
Churches are not perfect, but they have often been the leaders in social reform in this country. Dr. Martin Luther King, and other black preachers, played a major role in the civil rights movement. Pastors of the 1800’s led the revolt against slavery.
Whether you agree with religion or not, religious organizations from a variety of faiths have done much throughout our history.
Jim in Iowa
True. My point was that they are not protected by their being a church or religious organization. As I recall, the vote was 5-4. In other words, it is one vote away from being changed.
Given the current political trend in America and the kinds of justices the Bush is likely to appoint, I’d say Roe v. Wade is more likely to be overturned first.
I did not know that it was only federal employees that could not be discriminated against. I know many companies put this into their policy (which is their right). So you are saying if a small business knows that an applicant is gay, they can legally discriminate and not give him (or her) a job?
Yes. In fact that is exactly what happened in my city a few years ago. An accountant was fired from his firm after his employer learned that he had attended a pride rally.
eclark: I think if you’re sitting around predicting outcomes instead of observing outcomes, you’ve left the world of science and are working for the “psychic friends network”.
Luigi Novi: Which shows that you obviously do not understand what science is. Of course you observe outcomes. But you do so after hypothesizing what they