Cite? I thought he was a Christian White Supremacist, different from a fundamentalist (who can be any race).
It’s not always based on religious beliefs, no. Nor is opposition to abortion. There are atheists in both camps.
Julie
From the book American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh And The Oklahoma City Bombing:
“McVeigh is agnostic. He doesn’t believe in God, but he won’t rul out the possibility.”
Lou Michel, co-author
Of course not all people who are opposed to abortion or who support abstinence-only sex ed are religious fanatics, but don’t you think it’s fair to say that most people in these categories are there because of their religious beliefs?
I think that would be true. I’m just saying that for the purposes of debate, if we can limit the discussion to things that are clearly only based on religion, we can come to better conclusions.
So, if there were a law against using God’s name in vain, for example, that would be a clear case of someone making religion law. Or if it were illegal to covet my neighbor’s refrigerator (it has an ice maker and everything!), but when we run up against laws that we suspect have a religious basis but do, in fact, have support from areligious people, we end up not being able to make a clear case.
I can’t say how many of the religious people against abortion would be against abortion if not for their religions, in other words. The existence of anti-abortion advocates with no religious beliefs makes it possible, maybe not likely but at least possible, that religion isn’t as important to the debate as it seems.
Now, your example of contraceptives, which I overlooked before, might be a different case. Can you tell me what you mean by restrictions on access to contraceptives? Some contraceptives are prescription only; is that what you mean? Are there age requirements for buying condoms or other over the counter contraceptives? It wouldn’t surprise me, but I have no information.
Julei
I disagree with this type of analysis. It’s an arbitrary distinction to say that suicide-bombings committed by Arabs is fundamentalist terrorism, but abortion clinic bombings committed by Americans is not. Or that a murder committed by an Osama is somehow more of a murder than one committed by a Jim Jones.
We may not make women wear veils, but we do force schoolchildren to pledge their allegiance to the Christian God, and post religious teachings in public buildings paid for with government money.
In my opinion, all arguments of this type boil down to “well when they do it, it’s different.”
Thank you for fighting and winning against my ignorance.
If you are talking about access to contraceptives as contraceptives being given out in schools without the parents approval/knowledge or abortions being preformed on females under the age of 18 also without parental approval I have a very non-religious a reason for being against both. In the State of Maryland a parent’s signature is required to give a student an aspirin. They have suspended students, in Montgomery, Howard, and P.G. Counties, who have given other students over-the-counter painkillers or decongestants. If they are going to be this strict on parental involvement with their children’s physical health, they should be no less strict on parental involvement in their children’s sexual health.
Several years ago, during the debate about parental notification in Maryland, one of my coworkers said something like “If the school can’t give my daughter an Advil without my ok, I don’t want them giving her a birth control pill or doing a surgical procedure on her without my permission.’ This coworker is a Deist, if she is anything. She had/has no problem with either abortion as a choice or with adults having sex outside of marriage. It is the ‘adults’ part that concerns her when dealing with high school students.
OK, I’ve taken a nap now, so maybe I’ll make more sense…let me clarify a bit. I’m talking about:
- Restricting the distribution of contraceptives (OTC, such as condoms, which do not interact with body chemistry, not prescription drugs which do) on school grounds
-Restricting public school teachers from a full and frank discussion of all varieties of sexuality and contraception, based on religiously oriented community standards
Minors have access to all sorts of information about sex from all directions, much of it negative and/or age-inappropriate. What harm could it do to make sure they have access to that which is helpful and accurate?
Does that make more sense?
-Placing restrictions (forced counseling, waiting periods, etc.) on adults who are considering abortion
And many state laws which apply to older minors seeking information on contraception and abortion creep me out. The mechanisms for judicial oversight in cases where a girl would be in danger of being subjected to violence, etc. if one or both of her parents found out she had sought assistance are very restrictive (and potentially intimidating to a teenager), and take long enough to figure out/work around that by the time she deals with the judicial system, she’s already in the second, or even third, trimester.
Eva Luna, in my admittedly limited experience I’d say that yes, most of the people who believe in placing these sorts of restrictions are doing so for religious reasons.
Or, to be more accurate, they are giving religious reasons. Now, the reason I wanted to clarify that is that I think many people use their religions as tools to defend their positions, rather than getting the positions from the religions, but that’s a different debate, I think.
So, I will agree that these things definitely appear, to my eyes, to be very heavily influenced by religion. To what extent, I can’t even guess.
Julie
Well, some people here seem to understand where I come from with my comments that the openly referring to God and the fact that an election campaign can be founded an won on a religious issue is in clear contradiction with the idea of secularism in a country.
Only one person seems to undersdtand how strange all this mentioning God everywhre by people in civil servance comes across.
Fromg those who debate with me about the subsidizing system in Belgium for the religions who furfill the conditions to ask for such: They have no insight in how this system works and based on their experience in their own country, they are convinced that this necessary has to lead to influencing relgions by the state and influencing the state by religions.
Well: it is not since Belgium is not the USA.
And it isn’t also no question of not being “permitted to practice” for religions who don’t furfill the conditions to apply for financial support by the State.
One person mentioned as example of the “persecution” the Jehova Witnesses. Well I have no details on every religion that is practiced in Belgium so I assume they don’t furfill the conditions to apply for support or they didn’t ask for it. It is not an obligation to ask it.
Nevertheless you see Jehova Witnessses all around. They have their prayer places, they go from door to door like everywhere in the world, they do collections especialy around Christmas like everywhere in the world, they have their charity circles and places where they prepare meals and where people can recieve clothing or buy it for a few cents. Just like the Jehova Witnesses do everywhere in the world.
And for your information: the Catholic relatives from my mother’s side give a lot to a charity organisation of the Jehova Witnesses in Antwerp.
Your rude assumptions that religions who don’t furfill the conditions to get the title of official State Religion in Belgium and thus also can’t claim the subsidizing are some sort of outlaws would make me laugh if it wouldn’t be so outraging denegrating insulting arrogant.
You must be wether very prejudiced or extremely naive to reason like that. And you must be convinced that where you live is the Mecca of enlighted freedom and all the rest of the globe is one big pool of prejudice, hate persecution and oppression.
Someone asked if it was against the law for politicians, for the king of for anybody in civil service to refer to his religion or non religion while in official function making public speeches.
I can only answer on that with what I said before: People would declare such a person ready for the madhouse and the protesting against such incredible breach with the principle of absolute separation of state and church would be deafening, leading to the persons resign/dismissal of office or function and to the end of his political carreer.
You find a system of subsidizing recognized religions in clear contradiction with the support given by the tax payers to religions.
What needs to be understood here is that subsidizing goes also to secular groups and that applying for a form of subsidizing is in general is a common practice in Beglium on every level of society and for every sort of event.There is a budget for this and you only need to furfill the conditions.
Some of the comments here sound as if, because there is a form of subsidizing, this then makes it an obligation for the State to give financial support to no matter who or what without the State setting up conditions to be furfilled in order to be able to claim the right on these funds.
Sorry, that isn’t how an organized state works. Then I can form tomorrow some little Muslim sect with no other member then myself and ask for a piece of the cake in order to fill my bank account. Nice thought but don’t think it’s going to work. In the opinion of some of the comments here I find the reasoning that this should be possible or that no subsidizing to no matter who or what should be available. If you are ready to influence the Beligan State to change its policy in this direction, please let me know. I’ll start organizing my personal sect immediately.
I think however that the Belgian State shall ask you if you are crazy.
Salaam. A.
There is no interaction? If there is money flowing, there is plenty of interaction. As for no political interaction, you mean priests never tell their parishioners how to vote? Is there legal abortion in Belgium? Did Catholics, at least, stop it or try to stop it?
Also, how do you support a religion without supporting a religious organization?
I see there is some debate going on about abortion laws.
Now this makes me think of a very good example to give you insight in how the separation religion/state works in Belgium.
During the reign of the former King Boudewijn a law permitting abortion - limited to the first weeks of pregnancy - was approved.
The problem came when the King who needs to give every new law the green light to be published by signing it, couldn’t bring this approval of ending new life in alignement with his religious convictions (the royal family is practicing Catholic and Baudoin was known to be a very devoted practicing Catholic).
This resulted in a mini-crisis because the law couldn’t be published and thus brought into practice without that signature, which the king couldn’t put under it because his conscience and religion didn’t permit him to do this.
The result of this personal dilemma of the king and the absolute need of the State to function without interference of any sort of religious influence by no matter who or what, was that the government needed absolutely to find a legal solution. More then one juridical expert and all the members of the government got a few headaches.
To keep it short: it created the juridical precedent that the King was declared unable to practice his function as Head of State for one day. Which made him also unable to sign that law. Which made the government able to have it approved and published.
Of course elements opposed to the stateform tried to use this to delcare a kingdom outdated. But as the Belgians, divided by language and cultures in their federal state, and and still see the king ( and Baudoin especially was always very popular) as the uniting factor par excellence, those who called for the beginning of a republic didn’t were crying in the desert.
If the members here who are so absolutely convinced that subsidizing religions has to lead to interfering of religions with the functioning of the state, don’t understand now how it works in Belgium, then I don’t understand how they reason.
SalaamA.
vyager,
See above.
And the religions support their own organisations.
Salaam. A
His “region”? He is Chief Justice of the State of Alabama, not some rural justice of the peace. Believe it or not, there are Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists, in Alabama.
My, how tolerant and open-minded. Am I just imagining this, or do I sniff the implication among the Belgian intelligentsia that any expression of religious belief = religious fanaticism, and that persons with religious faith belong in a madhouse?
(Je suis un wallon d’amerique)
Before I weigh into this, (and I will), the purpose of blue laws has traditionally been to put a buffer between Saturday and Monday. It may have a “holier than though” air to because it falls on Sunday but that is the day before Monday. And blue laws exist by way of ballot, not edict. A Judge can’t just wish it on someone.
So with that said, I’m off in search of a blues band.
Huh? There’s no question that “blue laws” were originally intended to reflect (and at their inception to enforce) Sunday’s special status as a Christian day of worship.
Wallon,
If you are familiar with Belgium as you indicate, you know about your own exaggeration in your last post.
So you declare to find it strange that separation of church and state is what it means to be: namely complete separation of religion and state = no person in public function tears any sort of religion into public speaches and doesn’t tear any sort of religious refernces into discussions. This leading to the wished result thatf these discussions, also those in parliament leading to laws and to governing decissions don’t have any influence of members starting to talk out of place about there religious or non religious convictions.
You seem to have a strange opinion on the term:
SEPARATION of chuch and state
indicating that this separation doesn’t need to mean separation at all in your eyes.
I said: Public servants who speak while in function = while in their official function as state employees, refrain from mentioning religion in public speaches.
You make of it: people in public service are perceived as lunatics when they have a religion.
Are you willingly dishonest and willingly so called misunderstanding the difference between :
while in offcial function
and
while in private life?
Or do you think there is no difference and that this should be like that.
Salaam. A
Salaam. A. Please allow me to flatter you. Your command of the English language is less than the articulation of your distinguishing mind.
I hope.
I agree. Laws forbidding abortion, laws forbidding contraception (for everyone, even married couples)*, laws forbidding RU-486 (the French abortion pill), the failure to provide sex education (in the past), laws mandating “abstinence-only” sex ed (right now, today) – all of this is religion-based.
*In Connecticut, contraception was illegal for everyone, even married couples, as recently as the early sixties.