tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560483615460834385.post149189114308146277..comments2024-03-22T05:53:17.342-04:00Comments on On This Rock: Rebutting Rabbi SassoFather John Hollowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12850864104003705536noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560483615460834385.post-37010584513258570772015-03-24T19:32:24.037-04:002015-03-24T19:32:24.037-04:001) how dare you say that polygamy is inequitable t...1) how dare you say that polygamy is inequitable to women and children - are you saying a dad and three mom's can't raise a kid as well as two dad's?<br /><br />2) This is not ambiguous - everything under the sun is "religious" according to some wacko religion or another so of course the state has always decided what are authentic religious expressions and which ones aren't<br /><br />6,7) Exactly...they are illegal even though some religions want to do them. Those religions want to be protected from the law in their regard but the state has said no<br /><br />9) terminating pregnancies has been an acknowledged side effect of the pill from the beginning although it is hushed up now because the pro-life movement has called attention to it. The pill has a third mechanism - preventing implantation. Since life begins at conception, the pill causes abortions by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting. Father John Hollowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12850864104003705536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560483615460834385.post-67069998430427123662015-03-22T18:04:11.686-04:002015-03-22T18:04:11.686-04:001. RFRA bills are for allowing exceptions to what...1. RFRA bills are for allowing exceptions to what's illegal, that's the whole point! If public discrimination were legal we wouldn't be having this discussion. RFRA laws were initially (I believe wrongfully) enacted because someone was fired for taking an illegal drug during a religious ceremony. Polygamy is illegal, but not because it was deemed an "inauthentic" religious practices, but because it violates our belief of equality and human rights. Marriage between 2 people is upheld because it is egalitarian, and same sex marriage follows this. Marriage between 3 or more people has been shown to be inequitable especially to women and children with disastrous results of arranged marriages, child rape, ect. That has been shown over and over again in history. That being said it is ironic that you bring this up because a very ambiguous RFRA law would increase the chance of polygamy to be legalized in some areas because they could then force the religious issue. <br />2. Your continued ambiguity is very disconcerting.<br />5. Bizarre statement that opens the door to a host of issues... That aside, baking a cake is not participating in a wedding . I wasn't married by my florist, get real. I have to say that your expectation of extreme religious tolerance to the point of freedom of discrimination without subjecting yourself to that same standard of tolerance is very hypocritical. Many religions have examined for decades now the issue of homosexuality and same sex marriage and have come to the opposite conclusion of the Catholic belief. Your silence on their religious freedom and strongle held belief about marriage is deafening.<br />6,7. The issues you listed are not illegal because of illegitimate religious beliefs, but because they violate human rights, animal rights, ect. Providing legal loopholes for religions are great ways to limit human rights. Your again making the same mistake that because an activity is illegal it will automatically be exempt from RFRA, it isn't. That's the whole point. It makes illegal things vulnerable to exemption with no clear description of limitations. <br />9. No, it just doesn't. That video is completely incorrect. Here is a generous interpretation (overly generous if you ask me) of research of birth control pills done by Christian doctors: http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/<br /> <br />If you prefer youtube videos here is a good one that explains emergency contraception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vozr9vHeMoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560483615460834385.post-47338469755518885032015-03-22T07:22:09.259-04:002015-03-22T07:22:09.259-04:001) I can't marry four women (yet) even if my r...1) I can't marry four women (yet) even if my religion is for it. Why? Law decided I can't<br /><br />2) a discussion we have been having as a country and need to continue to have<br /><br />5) The immorality of same sex sex isn't why the Church works for the protection of marriage, but the immorality of same sex sex (and thus calling it a marriage) is a very legitimate reason for a person not to participate in an event that they don't want to.<br /><br />6,7) It already happens! Can I sacrifice people as part of a religious service? Can I sacrifice a dog as part of a religious service? Can I marry 4 women because my religion says so? The courts and legislatures will continue to be where these issues are hashed out - what is valid religious expression and what is not. You can say you don't like it that way, but it has been going on for decades, if not for hundreds of years in the USA<br /><br />9) Oh yes it does. It was listed, for many years, as a side effect of the pill. It is conveniently covered up by most today, but preventing implantation continues to be a side effect of the pill - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeEFather John Hollowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12850864104003705536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560483615460834385.post-26665825809708517852015-03-21T22:05:22.494-04:002015-03-21T22:05:22.494-04:001) Courts do not decide what is an “authentic” re...1) Courts do not decide what is an “authentic” religion or not, nor does society in general. Any church can apply for tax exempt status without having to pass an “authenticity” test. Again, these are ambiguous standards. Of course a business can be anti-Semitic if using RFRA protections. Remember, most Jewish people in America support same sex marriage. A Jewish gay couple could be having a Jewish wedding based on their strongly held religious beliefs and be denied. You might believe that it is only because they are gay, but the wedding is not only an expression of their love but also of their religious commitment. The issue is a bit deeper than your portraying. I’m also having issues with your “authenticity” standards, where are you getting that? <br />2) Okay, really… Please explain in any state RFRA bill that outlines these “authenticity” standards. What are the limitations? What is an “authentic” Church, or an “authentic” religious belief? Honestly your appeal to authority on this is absolutely shredding the 1st Amendment. Stop wasting taxpayer’s money on something that is based on unconstitutional standards.<br />5) Religions embracing same sex marriage is hardly a belief on the fringe. Lutherans, Episcopalians, UCC, Presbyterians, most Jewish denominations, Quakers, and I have to say Methodists and many Evangelicals are not far behind. I wouldn't play the popularity card here, poor form. Also, let’s not forget that the “natural law” argument has been thoroughly vetted as an anti-marriage equality argument and repeatedly dismissed. It is the height of anti-intellectual nonsense to base marriage on procreation when procreation is always a choice in marriage.<br />6, 7) No No No! More ambiguous morality tests. Honestly, do you really what the “authenticity” of your religion to be left to a judge? You might as well be posting a selfie of yourself burning the Constitution. <br />9) Umm, okay quick biology lesson. Birth control doesn't cause abortions. Even emergency contraception doesn't cause abortions. Talk about sophomoric attempts to demonize your opponents, sheesh. To the point, people do not want ambiguous morality standards applied to their healthcare. Although I love that you doubled down on this, great for my argument. Please carry on.<br /><br />Despite my snarky tone I appreciate the debate. Thanks<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560483615460834385.post-33854052543887963982015-03-21T20:08:00.771-04:002015-03-21T20:08:00.771-04:001) The fact that the courts of law will weigh deci...1) The fact that the courts of law will weigh decide that no authentic religious expression would ever involve anti-semitism<br /><br />2) Our courts will ultimately have to decide what is authentic religious freedom and what is not...this law simply states the obvious in that regard. Can I be anti-semitic because of my religion? Can I discriminate based on race because of my religion? Can I refuse to sell pills that kill children in the womb because of my religion? Can I be compelled to provide a service for something that my faith teaches to be inherently wrong? We'll see.<br /><br />3) <br /><br />4) <br /><br />5) In the thought of the Church, same sex marriage is contradictory to nature in the mind of most Christians, and is a different level of offense against God beyond a man and a woman remarrying <br /><br />6) Nope. It isn't one or the other. The courts and legislatures will either choose to recognize some expressions of religious freedom as valid and others as invalid, or the identity of this country will change dramatically<br /><br />7) Do we not already decided, as a society, that some claims to religious freedom are valid while others are not? We currently say polygamy is invalid, but we say it is okay (currently, in some places) to exempt oneself from making a wedding cake for a gay wedding.<br /><br />8) same as 7<br /><br />9) Yes. I shouldn't have to dispense a pill that kills children if I don't want to.<br /><br />10) Thanks for making the point - there is no real debate in this argument at the civil level - one side wants to discuss the issue and the other says "be quiet, anyone with common sense knows we're right." That is the kind of civil discourse this country was founded on (not really)<br /><br />11) OkayFather John Hollowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12850864104003705536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560483615460834385.post-12774174975405367902015-03-20T21:50:24.566-04:002015-03-20T21:50:24.566-04:00Excellent Excellent Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09593297551501777136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560483615460834385.post-9185725777197628692015-03-20T14:48:44.445-04:002015-03-20T14:48:44.445-04:00I also, like Rabbi Sasso, find these new RFRA bill...I also, like Rabbi Sasso, find these new RFRA bills as seriously problematic in many ways. Maybe going through your list of issues might highlight them better.<br />1. The metaphor is about escaping persecution obviously. As gays are escaping systemic legal abuse, RFRA laws are trying to build a loophole to continue discrimination. While I think that you are being a little hysterical in your reaction, it does make me think why not the Jews? What in this law prevents anti-semitism in public business from occurring again? <br />2. Again, unless you can explain why it’s a “great idea!” for public businesses to refuse to perform interracial, interfaith, or heck even build separate lunch counters on the basis of religious beliefs again then supporting these laws is completely incorrect. <br />3. A) Most people have a 6th grade reading level. They aren’t stupid of course, but not everyone has had access to good education. I advise patience and generosity, many articles also try to explain issues while arguing for one side or another. <br />B) Discrimination lawsuits that have recently been in the news have been about public business breaking public accommodation laws (or tax laws) that have existed for decades. None of them have involved an actual non-profit church. Your spin on this is completely incorrect invention.<br />4. If you see that as offensive to your side I guess that’s a fair criticism. Many religions are proud to be known as “fundamentalists” or “strict interpreters” of the bible. I could have made the same mistake not knowing it was offensive.<br />5. Okay, here is another big issue of mine. Those who say that they cannot participate in same sex weddings (as if selling flowers or baking a cake is really “participating”, good grief!) have no morality clauses with other weddings. They sell to Joe Whoever on his 5th marriage with no issue. Nope, it’s only about the gays. The animus is truly revealed, and no law should be (legally cannot be) based on animus. Oh, and the Prophet Muhammad images are everywhere in America. In Islam Jesus was a prophet, his image is EVERYWHERE! I’ve never heard a complaint and I live in an area with a large Muslim population. I don’t get this conflation.<br />6. Yes, public business owners have religious beliefs, but their business in IN THE PUBLIC. It’s basic civics to know that we are a diverse country, and a long held American value is that we should be welcoming. Unfortunately abuses occurred, most famously during the Civil Rights movement, that highlighted how wrong it is to single one group out just on the basis that they are in that group. Again, unless you can justify repealing ALL anti-discrimination laws your argument fails.<br />7. Yes, but HOW? Judges don’t arbitrarily make decisions, they are based on law. Leaving such things entirely ambiguous means it can be interpreted in many ways, which bring us to…<br />8. Why not?!? The extreme example highlights the fact that just because you feel this is ridiculous that it could never happen. Yet you cannot point out any limitations preventing such issues. That’s the problem with this laws ambiguity, it can mean anything. In fact, that’s the point!<br />9. Really? It’s okay to refuse to dispense legal medications with a doctor’s prescription? Maybe it’s also okay to deny children medical treatment because their parents are gay? You really think the public wants such laws that could limit basic care and treatment? You made my argument for me.<br />10. Yes, this bill defies common sense. See above.<br />11. Sigh…I'll just let that one goAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com