# SSM debate and separation of church and state **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2015, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187 "2015-07-15T00:15:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/221 "2015-07-16T19:08:30Z")
So let’s take a step back to look the history of the religious freedom act at the Federal level. We’ll start with an[interview](http://religionandpolitics.org/2015/04/01/why-law-professor-douglas-laycock-supports-same-sex-marriage-and-indianas-religious-freedom-law/) of an actual legal scholar (:eek:). Professor Laycock was involved in the writing of the Federal RFRA and focuses on relgious freedom issues. While there’s bias possible in any single view he also supports SSM so his support of religious freedom isn’t just spin to discriminate on that issue. Robert, I really encourage you to read his entire take on religious freedoms. ISTR an interesting letter to Gov Pence from a group of law professors at Indiana universities (more legal scholars :eek:) opposed to the Indiana RFRA. Part of their argument was that most of the protections sought were already provided by precedent related to current the current Indiana law and constitution. That was also interesting reading but I’ll leave the google work to you if you want to hunt it up. They weren’t opposed to religious freedoms just the new law. Some interesting quotes from the Laycock interview with some bolding added: > [@](#): > > A right to believe your religion, with no right to practice it, is meaningless. It is no more reasonable to expect religious believers not to act on their understanding of God’s will than to expect all gays and lesbians to remain celibate. > > The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment protects your right to believe a religion, but **it provides limited, ambiguous, and highly contested protection for your right to practice a religion**. > > Congress passed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), unanimously in the House and 97-3 in the Senate, to restore legal protection for religious practice. Bill Clinton enthusiastically signed it. > > **The Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby was actually very narrow.** The case was decided on the ground that the government had another way to provide free contraception to all female employees without making the employer pay for it. Until recent attempts to apply RFRA in partisan friction point issues, the protections enjoyed broad, overwhelming, and bipartisan support. It was viewed as primarily protecting minority religious beliefs against encroachment by the majority which in the US is Christian. The Hobby Lobby case was decided based on that law not the supporting constitutional issues which offer vague and limited protections. Are the protections offered by the Federal RFRA (and in 31 states by similar language in either law or state constituion) absolute? They aren’t. Those laws sought to reinstitute the [Sherbert Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner#The_Sherbert_Test) that the courts had been using, but was restricted by later court decisions. That test is three pronged. First the government has to have actually burdened the free practice of religion. The meat of deciding whether that burden is acceptable is the other two tests. To limit that free practice the government has to demonstrate compelling interest. If there’s compelling interest, there’s not a more narrow way to achieve the end that doesn’t infringe or infringes less. With compelling interest and narrow tailoring to achieve that interest, the government can override religious beliefs. Burwell vs Hobby Lobby was decided based on the last of those tests. The government did have a compelling interest that would allow it to infringe on religious beliefs. The decision basically told the government they way they were trying to meet that interest created too large of a burden. “Don’t do it that way” is not the same as “You can’t do that.” Let me just end with being clear that the implication that religious freedoms are absolute behind the OP is patently false. Current law implements some balancing between religious freedoms and other governmental interest. There might need to be some work on where the appropriate balance point is. I think that either absolute (no religious freedoms or unassailable religious freedoms) would be worse than the status quo. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/222 "2015-07-16T19:11:48Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > An agnostic is an atheist who makes a special exception for politeness towards the thing he doesn’t believe in. > > We _know_ there isn’t an invisible unicorn in the room right now, or a teapot orbiting on the other side of the sun, or an army of zombies secretly running the government of Guyana…but for this one thing we “can’t know,” for some reason. Nonsense. Agnosticism is a perfectly legitimate position. Perhaps the most honest and self-aware position. Especially since the theories that go to explaining the cause of the Big Bang and the creation of the universe are at least as hard to fathom as the existing of a Creator God of some flavor. (For the purposes of this point lets assume every _religion_ known to man is incorrect.) ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/223 "2015-07-16T19:14:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think the hierarchy of disbelief is thus: > > A) Strong Atheist: There is no God/god/gods. > > B) Weak Atheist: I don’t believe in the existence of God/god/gods. > > C) Agnostic: I do not, and cannot know if there is such thing as God/god/gods. > > Sounds like you’re one of these with a good helping of disliking religion thrown in. That aside, do you feel closer to A, B or C? Somewhere between B and C > [@Haberdash](#): > > An agnostic is an atheist who makes a special exception for politeness towards the thing he doesn’t believe in. > > We _know_ there isn’t an invisible unicorn in the room right now, or a teapot orbiting on the other side of the sun, or an army of zombies secretly running the government of Guyana…but for this one thing we “can’t know,” for some reason. Well… except… we can’t know for certain that god didn’t “cause” the big bang. That is generally a debate that is not worth having, but to be most technical and most correct, we can’t know that he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/224 "2015-07-16T19:18:18Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > So let’s take a step back to look the history of the religious freedom act at the Federal level. We’ll start with an[interview](http://religionandpolitics.org/2015/04/01/why-law-professor-douglas-laycock-supports-same-sex-marriage-and-indianas-religious-freedom-law/) of an actual legal scholar (:eek:). Professor Laycock was involved in the writing of the Federal RFRA and focuses on relgious freedom issues. While there’s bias possible in any single view he also supports SSM so his support of religious freedom isn’t just spin to discriminate on that issue. > > Robert, I really encourage you to read his entire take on religious freedoms. ISTR an interesting letter to Gov Pence from a group of law professors at Indiana universities (more legal scholars :eek:) opposed to the Indiana RFRA. Part of their argument was that most of the protections sought were already provided by precedent related to current the current Indiana law and constitution. That was also interesting reading but I’ll leave the google work to you if you want to hunt it up. They weren’t opposed to religious freedoms just the new law. Some interesting quotes from the Laycock interview with some bolding added: > > Until recent attempts to apply RFRA in partisan friction point issues, the protections enjoyed broad, overwhelming, and bipartisan support. It was viewed as primarily protecting minority religious beliefs against encroachment by the majority which in the US is Christian. The Hobby Lobby case was decided based on that law not the supporting constitutional issues which offer vague and limited protections. > > Are the protections offered by the Federal RFRA (and in 31 states by similar language in either law or state constituion) absolute? They aren’t. Those laws sought to reinstitute the [Sherbert Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner#The_Sherbert_Test) that the courts had been using, but was restricted by later court decisions. That test is three pronged. First the government has to have actually burdened the free practice of religion. The meat of deciding whether that burden is acceptable is the other two tests. To limit that free practice the government has to demonstrate compelling interest. If there’s compelling interest, there’s not a more narrow way to achieve the end that doesn’t infringe or infringes less. With compelling interest and narrow tailoring to achieve that interest, the government can override religious beliefs. > > Burwell vs Hobby Lobby was decided based on the last of those tests. The government did have a compelling interest that would allow it to infringe on religious beliefs. The decision basically told the government they way they were trying to meet that interest created too large of a burden. “Don’t do it that way” is not the same as “You can’t do that.” > > Let me just end with being clear that the implication that religious freedoms are absolute behind the OP is patently false. Current law implements some balancing between religious freedoms and other governmental interest. There might need to be some work on where the appropriate balance point is. I think that either absolute (no religious freedoms or unassailable religious freedoms) would be worse than the status quo. Thank you, I actually am interested in reading up on that, I really am, but with the tiny amount of sleep that I have had I’m going to have to look at it later. I am mainly saying that to simply say: thank you for the link and the time you put into writing your response, I am interested in looking at it, please don’t think you wrote all of that out just for me to ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/225 "2015-07-16T21:21:33Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > And the phrase doesn’t come from the Constitution. Well, it is widely associated with the establishment clause. And I don’t see anything going on where the government is establishing a state religion in the Hobby Lobby decisions. The principles of the decision can be applied to Judaism, Budhhism Hinduism, etc. What is also clearly is the constitution is the free exercise clause. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/226 "2015-07-16T21:23:43Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > But, in 2015, to say that god/the bible says homosexuality is wrong, when you’ve never met or talked to god/jesus… I have no patience for such outdated thinking. Now you only need to get 2/3rds of heach house of congress and 3/4ths of the states to agree with you ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/227 "2015-07-16T21:27:32Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Both Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion and Justice Wiley Rutledge’s dissenting opinion defined the First Amendment religious clause in terms of a **“wall of separation between church and state”** I don’t think there was ever any question that a sole proprietorship would have to provide contraception insurance if it was against their religion. I believe that the question was whether a closely held corporation that was wholly owned by people who had religious objection to the contraception could also escape that part of the law. I thought that it was unfair to give the corporate form both the advantages of being a separate legal entity for all purposes that benefits the shareholders and then letting it be disregarded as a separate legal entity if THAT was to the benefit of the shareholders. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/228 "2015-07-16T21:35:45Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Concept A: My individual religious beliefs allow me to wear type of clothing or practice type of custom _that effect no one but myself_, due to separation of church and state, the state can not dictate that I am not allowed to do … as long as no one else is effected. > > Concept B: I believe in religious custom [Y] which would lead to discrimination against other people, and due to separation of church and state, the state has dictated that I am not allowed to discriminate according to religious doctrine [Y]. > Both are established under a wall of separation of church and state Cite that concept B is established under separation of church and state? I am almost fucking positive that the catholic church doesn’t have to perform gay marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2015, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/229 "2015-07-16T23:19:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Cite that concept B is established under separation of church and state? I am almost fucking positive that the catholic church doesn’t have to perform gay marriages. Look, you made several responses to my responses, I don’t want to Ignore them but this thread has kind of drawn on a bit long… if you have any specific question you’d like to ask me, ask, or comment to make, and I’ll respond… ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/230 "2015-07-17T03:03:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Cite that concept B is established under separation of church and state? I am almost fucking positive that the catholic church doesn’t have to perform gay marriages. You’re correct. I’m not aware of a single Church or religious affiliation that His claim is completely full of shit and he’s provided no evidence to back it up. . > [@](#): > > **Robert163** > Concept B: I believe in religious custom [Y] which would lead to discrimination against other people, and due to separation of church and state, the state has dictated that I am not allowed to discriminate according to religious doctrine [Y]. He has claimed that “most legal scholars” support his contention but when asked has refused to produce a single cite to back up his statement. Let’s use logic to debunk his absurd assertion. If the US Constitution really mandated “Concept B” then in addition to the example you brought up: A) If two divorced people wanted to get married in a Catholic church, the government would force the Church to allow this. B) If two Jewish people just liked the way the AME Churches in Harlem looked insisted they be allowed to have their wedding performed in one, the Church would have to allow this. C) If Jewish women or Muslim women insisted they want to pray with the men during prayer services at an Orthodox Synagogue or Mosque the government would force the Synagogue or Mosque to allow this. D) If a Muslim girl and a Christian boy wanted to get married at a Mosque, the Mosque would have to allow this to happen. Of course none of this is true. If of course I’m wrong it should be comically easy for him produce a single example of the government forcing a Church to do something like this. Also, if of course he can’t produce a cite for the government sanctioning a Church/Synagogue/Mosque for any of example A,B,C, or D, then it should be rather obvious that his claim was wrong and is argument is absurd. Let’s see if he produces any cites. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/231 "2015-07-17T03:05:07Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Look, you made several responses to my responses, I don’t want to Ignore them but this thread has kind of drawn on a bit long… if you have any specific question you’d like to ask me, ask, or comment to make, and I’ll respond… Er… did you not read his post? He asked a very specific question. Did you not understand it? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/232 "2015-07-17T03:11:47Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Er… did you not read his post? > > He asked a very specific question. > Did you not understand it? Well actually, he made 4 separate posts, some of which had more than one question or comment. I don’t feel like going over each one point by point. I’m growing tired of this thread. But if he, or you, or anyone has any single specific question or comment, I will respond. PS- Why do you think you need to step in and comment on me not commenting? When I said I would gladly respond to any question/comment. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/233 "2015-07-17T03:24:57Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You’re correct. I’m not aware of a single Church or religious affiliation that > > His claim is completely full of shit and he’s provided no evidence to back it up. . > > He has claimed that “most legal scholars” support his contention but when asked has refused to produce a single cite to back up his statement. > > Let’s use logic to debunk his absurd assertion. > > If the US Constitution really mandated “Concept B” then in addition to the example you brought up: > > A) If two divorced people wanted to get married in a Catholic church, the government would force the Church to allow this. > > B) If two Jewish people just liked the way the AME Churches in Harlem looked insisted they be allowed to have their wedding performed in one, the Church would have to allow this. > > C) If Jewish women or Muslim women insisted they want to pray with the men during prayer services at an Orthodox Synagogue or Mosque the government would force the Synagogue or Mosque to allow this. > > D) If a Muslim girl and a Christian boy wanted to get married at a Mosque, the Mosque would have to allow this to happen. > > Of course none of this is true. > > If of course I’m wrong it should be comically easy for him produce a single example of the government forcing a Church to do something like this. > > Also, if of course he can’t produce a cite for the government sanctioning a Church/Synagogue/Mosque for any of example A,B,C, or D, then it should be rather obvious that his claim was wrong and is argument is absurd. > > Let’s see if he produces any cites. LOL, What I claimed was there was a separation of Church and State in this country and the SCOTUS backed that up in 1947, specifically there was a - WALL - of separation. So what we are debating is the application of this principle, which I am glad to admit I was arguing points for which I was overzealous or mistaken. My point is/was/will be that if a person truly has respect for the separation of church and state then they will not bring their religious bias into the market place or the statehouse, they will leave it at the pulpit and at home, not, in the market place or statehouse. Of course, you are going to claim that calling Homosexuality an Abomination or an Abortion is a sin, you are going to call that “religious freedom of expression” and not, I do not think, call it a religious Bias. As to the example of the Catholic church marrying gays, well part of me says they should have to, just for spite, to punish them for their bigotry, but, as I have learned over the past 2 days, they are protected from that under the freedom of expression clause. Fine, let them be protected, let them hate gays all they want (even though they claim not to, but, how can you not hate something that is an ABOMINATION???) ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/234 "2015-07-17T03:30:09Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > PS- Why do you think you need to step in and comment on me not commenting? When I said I would gladly respond to any question/comment. Ok, I’ll ask two. First, why do you enjoy the idea of outlawing Judaism? Second, since you so foolishly the Constitution mandates “concept B” then please list some cites where the government has sanctioned Churches/Synagogues/ Mosques for doing any of the examples from my other post? Here are the examples: > [@](#): > > If the US Constitution really mandated “Concept B” then in addition to the example you brought up: > > A) If two divorced people wanted to get married in a Catholic church, the government would force the Church to allow this. > > B) If two Jewish people just liked the way the AME Churches in Harlem looked insisted they be allowed to have their wedding performed in one, the Church would have to allow this. > > C) If Jewish women or Muslim women insisted they want to pray with the men during prayer services at an Orthodox Synagogue or Mosque the government would force the Synagogue or Mosque to allow this. > > D) If a Muslim girl and a Christian boy wanted to get married at a Mosque, the Mosque would have to allow this to happen. And just a refresher. Here is the “Concept B” that you claimed was mandated by the US Constitution. > [@](#): > > Concept B: I believe in religious custom [Y] which would lead to discrimination against other people, and due to separation of church and state, the state has dictated that I am not allowed to discriminate according to religious doctrine [Y]. If you’re going to insist that you’ll only answer one question, then answer the second one though both should be pathetically easy to answer unless of course your assertion the US Constitution mandates the US Constitution requires Synagogues allow women to pray alongside men is complete bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/235 "2015-07-17T03:42:11Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > LOL, > > What I claimed was there was a separation of Church and State in this country and the SCOTUS backed that up in 1947, specifically there was a - WALL - of separation. So what we are debating is the application of this principle, which I am glad to admit I was arguing points for which I was overzealous or mistaken. > > My point is/was/will be that if a person truly has respect for the separation of church and state then they will not bring their religious bias into the market place or the statehouse, they will leave it at the pulpit and at home, not, in the market place or statehouse. Of course, you are going to claim that calling Homosexuality an Abomination or an Abortion is a sin, you are going to call that “religious freedom of expression” and not, I do not think, call it a religious Bias. > > As to the example of the Catholic church marrying gays, well part of me says they should have to, just for spite, to punish them for their bigotry, but, as I have learned over the past 2 days, they are protected from that under the freedom of expression clause. Fine, let them be protected, let them hate gays all they want (even though they claim not to, but, how can you not hate something that is an ABOMINATION???) Thank you for admitting you made extremely stupid comments about something you knew very little about. I mean that sincerely. That was extremely big of you. Now, why is it you were joyful about the idea of outlawing Judaism? You’ve described yourself as a white, middle class male which means you’ve had a relatively privileged life so what would make you so thrilled about outlawing a minority religion like that? Do you enjoy the thought of exercising power over millions of people who’ve done nothing to you? Had a nasty experience with Judaism or some other religion? Some other reason? None of those questions by the way is meant as an insult. We all have our own motivations and we’re all human. Thank you in advance for what I’m sure will be a well-written, extremely well-thought out post. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/236 "2015-07-17T03:42:32Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Ok, I’ll ask two. > > First, why do you enjoy the idea of outlawing Judaism? I don’t want to outlaw Judaism. Perhaps you are thinking I do because of my dislike for religion or because I wanted to outlaw circumcision. > [@](#): > > Second, since you so foolishly the Constitution mandates “concept B” then please list some cites where the government has sanctioned Churches/Synagogues/ Mosques for doing any of the examples from my other post? > > If you’re going to insist that you’ll only answer one question, then answer the second one though both should be pathetically easy to answer unless of course your assertion the US Constitution mandates the US Constitution requires Synagogues allow women to pray alongside men is complete bullshit. I am aware of this. Muslim services have a similar practice, certain churches in the USA 100 years ago had a similar practice. Maybe a very small few of them still do today. They can do what they like in their own worship service. Remember when I said, practice ABC1234 is fine as long as the confine it to the pulpit… ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/237 "2015-07-17T03:48:40Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > IThey can do what they like in their own worship service. This is utterly asinine and completely at odds with your earlier claim that the Constitution mandated that religious groups were not allowed to discriminate at all. From just a few posts above > [@](#): > > **Robert163** > Concept B: I believe in religious custom [Y] which would lead to discrimination against other people, and due to separation of church and state, the state has dictated that I am not allowed to discriminate according to religious doctrine [Y]. BTW, you also foolishly proclaimed that “most legal scholars” would agree with your rather foolish interpretation of the concept of Church and State. Please, provide the name of a single legal scholar and an appropriate cite proving this? Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/238 "2015-07-17T03:51:49Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > As to the example of the Catholic church marrying gays, well part of me says they should have to, just for spite, to punish them You have yourself said in your posts of late, you get too worked up over it. Just read yourself, you did not even say for the sake of justice or out of a sense of fair play, you said _“just for spite”_. You know who acted just for spite? All those who in the 00’s introduced laws and amendments saying that not only would the state not recognize SSM, but forbidding the giving of civil unions any rights equivalent to those in marriage. THAT was spiteful. “Not only are we barring this particular legal status, we’re barring you from even doing anything that remotely looks like it.” That eventually this came back to bite them and resulted in _ **nationwide marriage equality** _ is sweet, just desserts. You have pointed to how your view is shaped by your experiences but the same principle that allows the Catholic or Southern Baptist clergy to continue to NOT marry gays and to preach that they are sinful, is something that \*\*\*also \*\*_permits someone from a_ non-mainstream \*religion to preach their teachings and perform their rituals and permits a nonbeliever to say they’d rather not participate in public rites. You cannot have the one without the other. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/239 "2015-07-17T03:53:43Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Thank you for admitting you made extremely stupid comments about something you knew very little about. > > I mean that sincerely. That was extremely big of you. > > Now, why is it you were joyful about the idea of outlawing Judaism? > > You’ve described yourself as a white, middle class male which means you’ve had a relatively privileged life so what would make you so thrilled about outlawing a minority religion like that? > > Do you enjoy the thought of exercising power over millions of people who’ve done nothing to you? > > Had a nasty experience with Judaism or some other religion? > > Some other reason? > > None of those questions by the way is meant as an insult. We all have our own motivations and we’re all human. > > Thank you in advance for what I’m sure will be a well-written, extremely well-thought out post. Actually, my problem with Judaism is not what you would think. I have issues with Hasidic Judaism because I think that is a very difficult way to ask someone to live, not only the religious duties but also the social conformity and clannish nature of that, for a lack of a better word, culture/society. In honesty, I respect their devotion but stories I have heard from people who used to be Hasidic and quit being Hasidic make it sound like the social pressure and stress they felt trying to be Hasidic when they didn’t want to be Hasidic, was extreme, as was the stress and backlash they felt when they left the faith. I am not trying to start an attack on Hasidim. I do realize that for for 2000+ years the were a nation/tribe without a physical country to live in and the clannish insular nature of their society was necessary to keep them unified as a people. And the “mildly religious” Jewish people I have met I liked, pretty much all of them. None of them ever told me I was going to hell, none of them ever told me that my desire to have sex with Tom (I’m not actually gay) was a sin or an abomination. None of them ever handed me a pamphlet with some stupid religious concept I had already heard 37 times as if they were telling me something brand new for my consideration. If I can go a step further and run the risk of making a stereotype, the stereotype of the “Urban Liberal Jew” as being cynical but warm and jovial (or whatever the stereotype is supposed to be) I found to be to a large part true and I pretty much liked any/all Jews I’ve ever met, even the Hasidic ones. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187/240 "2015-07-17T03:57:58Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > You know who acted just for spite? All those who in the 00’s introduced laws and amendments saying that not only would the state not recognize SSM, but forbidding the giving of civil unions any rights equivalent to those in marriage. THAT was spiteful. “Not only are we barring this particular legal status, we’re barring you from even doing anything that remotely looks like it.” That eventually this came back to bite them and resulted in _ **nationwide marriage equality** _ is sweet, just desserts. It sounds almost like you want me to thank someone for slapping me in the face. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-debate-and-separation-of-church-and-state/725187.md?page=13)