Yeah, like kaylasdad99, I see what you are doing there. Commit indeed. You didn’t do it, and you won’t have to answer for it in Heaven. I promise.
Why do you care? Let the gays and lesbians get married and be miserable like the rest of us. They have that right.
Again, you won’t be held accountable for that on Judgement Day. The best way to counteract ugliness is to create beauty.
Oh really? I guess that is why theocracies have populations that are always so religiously diverse.
The most foolish part of a really foolish post.
An overtly religious government would not allow more freedom to practice religion. An overtly religious government would require everyone to practice the one religion the government approves of. The freedom to practice any other religion would disappear. The freedom to not practice a religion would disappear.
If you don’t believe me, move to Saudi Arabia. They’ve got an overtly religious government. Then let me know how much freedom to practice religion you have.
I do believe you are (and that’s not a bad thing). Sorry I just noticed this thread. It certainly does appear to be a GD type discussion. I’m going to move it and hope more who will want to discuss it see the topic.
I want to take away your freedom to pull such transparent rhetorical tricks. Leave it to others: You’re not good enough at it, and make a hash out of what could have been something subtle.
You know what isn’t an actual marriage? A marriage the government doesn’t recognize. As far as the tax laws and most of society is concerned, a marriage is legal or it’s nothing, so don’t pretend that destroying marriage equality wouldn’t have any effect.
Unless you would be OK with us destroying Christian marriages in the eyes of the law.
Sorry, we don’t use public funds to turn art museums into safe space. If you want one, you can set one up yourself.
You have freedom to practice religion. You don’t have the freedom to impose it on others.
Equality doesn’t mean “I’m more equal than you” unless you have aspirations to being an Ayatollah, which reminds me: That ax you’re holding cuts both ways, Eugene. If religion is influencing government, well, government has a sovereign right to turn religion into whatever it needs it to be in order to maintain power. I think that might be contrary to some tenets of honest faith, but maybe you want your religion to turn into a branch of the Federal government.
That isn’t what this country is, and it never has been. As per Jefferson, who was there, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”. (Treaty of Tripoli) Anyone who says anything else is lying outright.
Saudi Arabia isn’t typical of governments which list Islam as the state religion, it’s not even typical of conservative Islamic governments. It’s a unique country which is really typical of nothing other than itself.
Malaysia might be a more typical case of an Islamic conservative party in power, and while I wouldn’t want to live there, it certainly isn’t Saudi Arabia, it’s a high functioning country, and it’s certainly legal to practice other religions, or none. (I don’t think it’s legal for Muslims to convert to other religions though).
It is astounding how people don’t stop to consider this simple aspect. A change in civil marriage rules does nothing to diminish someone’s sacramental marriage.
But which country has more religious freedom? One which allows people to convert religions whenever they want or one which has some restrictions on religious conversions?
Which supports my main point; overtly religious governments, by definition, restrict religious freedom. By showing favoritism to one religion, they are restricting every other religion, along with non-religion.
And this is one case where there is an equivalency between atheism and religion. An overtly atheist government also restricts religious freedom by showing favoritism to non-religion.
The only governments that offer real religious freedom are those that maintain strict neutrality on religion.
As I have pointed out to fanatical Christians on many occasions, the Taliban believes in a lot of the same things they do: no abortions, no gay marriage, government supposed religion. So go live there.
On second glance it looks like it’s actually a matter of long-standing legal debate whether Malaysian Muslims have the right to leave Islam, and there’s no very clear answer.
Of course they didn’t. The show made it quite clear the character was not actually gay, and was only donnong dresses in an attempt to be discharged early. IIRC, when given the chance for receiving a discharge provided he admitted to being a “deviate”, Klinger refused to take the gag that far. I think that’s when he stopped wearing women’s clothing.
What about the UK?
A prime example of the thing swinging in the other direction: The religion is a branch of the government, purely ceremonial and of no more force than the government wants it to have.
Sure took them long enough to get there, though, the silly buggers.
I’d say the only possible answer is “yes”, and after that it just a question of how oppresive the Malaysian government is willing to be.
Last I heard, the Church of Englad had representation in Parliament. That’s quite a way from “purely ceremonial”.
When’s the last time it overrode the will of the people on moral grounds?
well with morons like this representing the religious far right who needs friends http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=835920
In my opinion, the United Kingdom is less free than the United States on religious issues.
That’s irrelevant. My point is that certain leaders of a particular religion, by virtue (sorry) of tbeir position in that religion are granted voting position in one house of parliament. That is not “purely ceremonial”. The earlier question was to indicate that a poster’s assertion was incorrect.
I was clearly speaking as a legal matter not “what would my personal preference be”.
General point is that although Malaysia is run by a conservative Islamic (though not Islamist) party, and although you couldn’t pay me enough to live there, it’s not objectively a bad country to live in or a backwater, and many people (including the 30%+ of non-Muslims) seem to like it fine enough. Religious minorities actually enjoy more personal freedoms there than Muslims do, is my general understanding.
The most recent test case is gay rights and that’s a battle the church of England seems to be losing.