You can check here for some info.
My opinion is that some who practice Islamic jurisprudence are checking things out first and then deciding the issue instead of reaching a conclusion first and then searching for things in the hadith to support their conclusion. I’m also glad that the new trend is growing.
I think though I’m not 100% sure that the Sabians is also another name for the Mandaeans.
I feel a bit dumb not being able to say for sure because I used to be somewhat friend with Charles Haberl of Rutgers who’s arguably the world’s leading academic on the Mandaeans.
The “service” they offer is a Catholic wedding, which comes with specific requirements for who can be a party to it. If the proposed union doesn’t meet those requirements, it’s not a Catholic wedding. You’re not saying that Catholic churches should offer their services to everyone, you’re saying that the Catholic church should change its fundamental definition of what a marriage is to suit your tastes, and you’re basically advocating that the government take an official religious standpoint by telling the church that its theological opinion on the matter is invalid.
Steophan, we have to distinguish between public services, which do need to be offered to all, and services offered by private clubs to their members.
Now you are certainly free to decide that a private club discriminating is wrong, but it is not illegal and attempts to make it illegal would violate the 1st amendment: both religious freedom and freedom of association.
Anti-discrimination laws are exceptions to freedom of association and apply only to entities that are open to the public. If we extend anti-discrimination laws to more private situations, then freedom of association doesn’t exist anymore. And when the federal government is deciding what religious beliefs are valid and which are not, then freedom of religion has gone away as well.
Yes, exactly. If their religion is bigoted, it is wrong. If they won’t marry gays, or blacks, or the disabled, or Jews, they are in the wrong. Just as a florist can’t refuse to sell flowers to someone who’s gay, a church shouldn’t be allowed to deny them services on those grounds.
I’m not talking about private acts, such as choosing who to date. I’m talking about services offered to the public, or ones offered in exchange for money. Both are legitimately the governments concern, and it should ensure that they are offered equally.
It’s not public though, it’s a private club. And no, there is no compelling government interest in making churches carry out government policy since there is no economic issue at stake. The government derives its powers to regulate business from its power to regulate commerce. It has no power to regulate religious practice. In fact, it is specifically forbidden that power in the 1st amendment.
And now you’ve placed the government in the business of deciding what is morally or religiously true. If a church believes that God has defined marriage to mean a certain thing, it’s not the government’s place to say “Nuh-uh”, or to command a church to commit what it considers to be blasphemy. We kind of had a couple hundred years of sectarian warfare in our history that settled that point.
Weddings are provide for free? I’ve learnt something then…
Also, the first amendment wouldn’t apply, as I’m not suggesting the government either establish a religion or prohibit one. But, just as one can’t use Rastafarianism as an excuse to illegally smoke weed*, one shouldn’t be allowed to use (for example) Catholicism as an excuse to discriminate.
It does continue to amaze me how many people on this board - that usually leans significantly to the left of me - are so supportive of bigotry.
*This isn’t a great example, as weed should be legal and is certainly not immoral, but it should at least make the point that the government is quite capable of restricting what people are allowed to do in the name of religion. Maybe snake handling would be a better example.
In order to place restrictions on religion, the government must be pursuing a compelling interest.
But what you’re asking is not even for a restriction. You want the government to MAKE religious institutions do something they find objectionable. That’s something that’s going to be much harder to pull off. The only other example I can think of where government has attempted such a thing is with the contraception mandate, and the way SCOTUS reacted to the administration’s arguments, it doesn’t look like that one will stand. A requirement to marry gay couples would be even less likely to stand.
Sure - the ones who weren’t lying were telling the truth.
Regards,
Shodan
So anyway, as I politely asked earlier.
Could you please give me your definitions of and explain the difference between a Catholic wedding, a Muslim wedding, an Orthodox Jewish wedding, and a Reform Jewish wedding.
Also, do you really think a female softball team that refuses to let me be a member because I’m a man are bigots?
I ask because you seem to believe that and to me such an idea is utterly moronic but perhaps you could explain your reasoning.
Are you accusing other posters of lying in GD? Or are you just threadshitting?
Either way, knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
In other news, everyone can congratulate me for my upcoming trip to space. You see, I’m going to head to Kazakhstan and demand that I be put on the next trip to the ISS, because not accepting someone who isn’t an astronaut is government-sponsored bigotry.
What are you claiming as a “public act”?
If you are saying that a couple with a valid marriage license knocks on the door of a priest, minister, rabbi, or imam who has been authorized by his or her state to officiate at weddings and asks that that religious person function in the manner of a JP to officiate at their wedding, I don’t see a problem with that. (In real life, the lack of pre-marital preparation would present an obstacle to the marriage separate from theological concerns, but I will grant your hypothetical case for the sake of discussion.)
If the couple seeking marriage wishes to be married with the rites and trappings of the religious group against the doctrines of that religious group, then their request is out of line and any state effort to compel that action would be a violation of the First Amendment.
(In the unlikely event–with 50 states, a district, and a handful of territories, I am not about to claim that it cannot be so, somewhere–that the state authorized the religious leader to officiate at weddings only when acting within the scope of his or her religious duties, then compelling that person to officiate against the discipline of their religion would, again, violate the First Amendment.)
And that has not generated in you even the slightest twinge of doubt that maybe it is YOU who is not getting it?
No, and I’ll confidently predict that in 50 years or so anyone who disagrees with my view will be seen as we now see those who think black people should be separate but “equal”. At least in civilised countries.
People are, for whatever reason, continuing to defend bigotry on religious grounds. It’s coming close to proving to me that religion is fundamentally bigoted, and cannot survive if expected to treat everyone equally. If so, they need to go the same way as institutions based on racism, homophobia, or any other bigotry should go - into the dustbin of history.
In 50 years? Hell, in ***30 ***years people across the land may be wondering why opposition to marriage equality was even a thing to argue.
But inside the Roman Catholic churches, LDS temples and Chabad Lubavitch Orthodox Jewish congregations, they will still be offering religious matrimonial ritual ceremonies only to those who meet the religious precepts. And a majority of the population will still say *“So? Not MY problem.” *
This is why I have always favored the system that is used in a number of countries, where the legal marriage HAS to happen before a notary or municipal/county clerk and is the ONLY legal marriage, and then you can hold any religious ceremony you may so wish and the state does not care a whit if you did so.
Summary of the last several pages;
If you believe that your God defines in a certain way who is and isn’t eligible to receive certain religious rites, you are a bigot.
It is not, however, bigoted for the state to declare that a given religious belief is factually untrue, or to demand that religious organizations commit acts that they consider blasphemous.
So how about a church that decides black people are not allowed to get married in their church? Are they allowed to discriminate on the basis of race? I am guessing they’re not, but this is a tricky distinction then.
It stinks…but it’s legal. It’s a First Amendment exception, covered under the Free Association clause.
Same for a private club that excludes women…or Jews. As long as it’s strictly private, and not a business or profession, and no business gets done there, then it’s every bit as private as your kid’s birthday party. You can invite…and exclude…anybody you want.