Actually, if I made any such claim I would of probably said:
A Muslim can not forbid a Jew from wearing a Yarmulke at work but they can not also require an employee to pray five times a day…
Leaving aside the fact that Muslims don’t believe that Jews need to pray five times a day any more than Jews believe Christians need to form Minyans or keep kosher, your above statement is correct.
My point was that while you may wish the US law didn’t take into account religious beliefs and texts it does.
Obviously that hardly means that businesses should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws due to their religious beliefs any more than people who believe that their religion allows them to beat their wives are exempt from laws against domestic violence.
so what exactly are we debating then???
what “Separation of Church and State” means.
well here is the definition of Separate:
forming or viewed as a unit apart or by itself.
we can’t tell you what to do in your church
you can’t tell us what to do with our government
So you’re claiming that Martin Luther King was breaking acting illegally when he, as head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference told “us what to do with our government”?
nm
EDIT: If he relied solely upon biblical support for his position then yes, he was taking the wrong approach. If however he was simply stating an opinion in general, he can say whatever he wants.
“Technically legal” is really the only standard we can apply on a formal basis. That’s what the law is for; how might one actually stop someone from doing something that’s “technically” legal?
Boycott.
You guys have a perfectly good (actually, slightly stupid) separate thread for that.
I’m sorry but this makes little sense and is highly inconsistent with your earlier claim.
You earlier rather foolishly insisted that Church leaders couldn’t “tell us what to do with our government”.
I pointed to Martin Luther King who repeatedly used religious justifications and injunctions to sway the US government as well as the governments of several US states.
How exactly do you square this or do you concede that your argument was wrong or do you decide to take the politically unpopular decision and claim that the US government should have somehow sanctioned the US government for violating “the separation of Church and State”?
For that matter, weren’t you disgusted and outraged that Joseph Rummel the Archbishop of New Orleans, who in the 1960s threatened various Southern public figures who opposed desegregation with “immediate excommunication”?
Archbishop Rummel is widely regarded as a hero among the African-Americans of New Orleans both Catholic and non-Catholic. I assume you disagree and believe he should be condemned for “telling us what to do with our government”?
If not, please explain your reasoning.
I’m saying, for example… if a famous TV evangelist wanted to start an anti alcohol crusade, fine, behind the pulpit let him do that. But if a staunchly religious mayor or governor wanted to outlaw alcohol in their territory due to their religious beliefs, they should not do that, they should be mature/respectful enough to govern from reason and common sense and not from religious bias.
Well, that seems to be even more dramatic goal post shifting which makes your claim that you’d have objected to Martin Luther King use “only” Biblical injunctions look even more ill thought out.
I notice you dodged the question as to what you thought of the Uppitty ArchBishop who dared to threaten segregationist politicians with “immediate excommunication”.
That said, I’ll concede that I never imagined your support for the impeachment of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, all of whom are very religious and all of whom have said their religious beliefs influenced their political thinking.
Or are we going to see goal posts being shifted yet again.
You think I am trying to dodge your questions but I am not. I’m not even really sure why we are talking about MLK. If you want to ask me something, go ahead, but if it’s some loaded question (I am not trying to be rude) about some historical figure… well, why not just try asking, Robert, what do you think of ABC and how it relates to 1234 instead of asking a more complicated question.
If you don’t understand his question then you may not be ready for this level of debate. Or any level. You and I are generally aligned politically but I really hope you stop talking now, because you’re making our side look awful.
I am fairly sure Ibn Warraq is also more sympathetic to our side than the other, and he feels obligated to point out your errors for the same reason.
That’s a bit simplistic and not entirely accurate.
Separation of church and state really means:
Government can’t make any law that singles out or specifically excludes your church or religion.
Government can’t make any law that prevents the free exercise of your religion (taking allowances on a case by case basis where the exercise of your religion conflicts with the neutral application of law).
In practice, there are a lot of grey areas. If you live in a particularly religious part of the country, chances are candidates will tend to share the religious values of their constituents and will tend to propose legislation that reflects those values.
Ok, can you clarify about the free exercise of religion part. That’s:
1- The part I understand the least
2- The part I am most hostile against since I don’t like religion (very much don’t like it)
Usually, I let comments like this pass. Better to ignore your detractors and frustrate them that way than respond to them and give them what they want, etc, but… I’m not going to do that. Seriously, who the Sam Hill (If we were in the Pit I’d use a different word) do you think you are. Who appointed YOU as my dialogue coach? I may very well be an idiot. But since the internet is full of idiots, please, do me a favor, don’t pretend we have any pretend solidarity* if all you really want to do is just be a jerk. Because, yes, I am an idiot, and I am sarcastic, and I am gruff or blunt with people but I generally don’t actually insult ANYONE unless they go way way far over the line.
*“You and I are generally aligned politically”, quoting you
Let’s say that I am an Episcopalian womanwho attends church regularly and considers myself to be a devout Christian. I wish to marry the woman I am in love with and I very much want to partake in the marriage sacrament with her.
My church is perfectly willing to extend the sacrament of marriage to me and my same sex partner. They do, however, require a marriage license in order to make the ceremony legally binding.
I go to the state licensing bureau to get this piece of paper and the clerk - who is acting as an agent of the government- refuses to give it to me because she practices a different religion. This action blocks me from partaking in the religious ceremony. How does this NOT constitute the state infringing upon MY religious beliefs??
Thanks and you’re correct about where my sympathies lie and FWIW most people on our sided do a much better job of presenting their arguments than he’s been doing.
The last part of the sentence is correct and FWIW I often feel more obligated to correct the errors of those who’s side I’m on.