Article: Real vs Fake Persecution CC

[KarenNC]

Thanks for saying this.  I've always wondered about this same issue.  The same people who were hysterical over the idea of Sharia law a while back were also pushing for laws that are based on the Bible (DOMA and others).  Not that I would begin to debate with them, but I've always wanted to ask,"If you pass laws based on religion now, what happens if someday you aren't in the majority religion?" 

 

(It seems like this falls vaguely under the golden rule idea.) 

 

I've always found it rather ironic that Baptists (at least Southern, not usually American Baptists) are one of the groups most vocally seeking to make their religious views law, when the Baptists were a large part of the reason we even have separation of church and state---to protect their religious freedoms as a minority from that very thing during the early years of the country.

[SKL]

IOf course the exception to that would be states that require a waiting period between the time you get the license and get married, so that you'd have to go to the courthouse twice.  If this ever came to pass, I think that waiting period should be done away with so you could handle the whole thing in one trip.

 

Yes, it's the waiting period or anything else that would require another trip / more paperwork.  I am not saying this is a horrific burden, but it is an unnecessary extra if you're already doing a license plus a ceremony, and it hurts nobody to allow it to be done by clergy.

 

Like I said, I wonder why anyone would argue about it.  There is obviously some reason why the state went to the trouble of making both options available.  Now that is the status quo, it hurts nobody, it costs nothing, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Pawz4me]

Well, I think the "I do's" in that case would be more along the lines of "Do you certify that you are entering this relationship of your own free will and that you understand the ramifications thereof?" "I do."

 

Exactly.

[SKL]

Wondering about the added inconvenience as well.

 

SKL have you ever been married? As in gone through the needed steps to have a legally binding marriage? 

 

ETA: Not being snarky, it is a sincere question I know you are not married but I do not recall if you have never been married or married divorced or married and widowed. I struggle to keep everyone's story straight. :)

 

No, but I can assure you that I personally know thousands of people who are / have been married and I have a clue about what it entails.

 

Again, not a big deal but why raise a fuss about the status quo?  It seems mean-spirited to insist on taking away something from everyone just because some people can't have it.

 

But since you brought it up, as a happily unmarried person, I'm of the opinion that being married isn't a fundamental human need either.

[HRAAB]

I know I'm slow, but what is being taken away?  Right now to get married you have to get a marriage license from your state.  You can't go to your church and just have the minister marry you without that license issued by your local government.  Instead of taking something away, it's more like the separation between the two is being made clearer.

 

I'm trying to understand the arguments against separating the two, and I'm not seeing them.

[Vera]

If my family support's my son's relationship, his boyfriend's family also does, and their many, many friends approve also, it seems bizarre that there are people who are in no way involved with us who believe they have the right to prevent a wonderful couple from getting married. It is the height of arrogance to believe that your beliefs should be forced on people who do not share those beliefs.

[SKL]

I know I'm slow, but what is being taken away?  Right now to get married you have to get a marriage license from your state.  You can't go to your church and just have the minister marry you without that license issued by your local government.  Instead of taking something away, it's more like the separation between the two is being made clearer.

 

I'm trying to understand the arguments against separating the two, and I'm not seeing them.

 

At the risk of making this seem more important to me than it is,

 

Unless the person providing the marriage license is also a justice of the peace, and unless there is no waiting period so the promises can be made at the same time the marriage license is obtained, then the couple has to make an additional trip somewhere, usually on a different day, to do the wedding vows.

 

If it could all be done in one trip at the county offices, then fine and dandy.  That probably is the case in some places, but not everywhere.

 

Already there are many people who choose to do their legal marriage separate from their religious wedding.  It is not the end of the world.  I just don't see the point of requiring it of everyone when this does not help anyone.  It would just create extra work for the government and for certain individuals.  If we were starting from scratch in Utopia, that would be a different thing.

 

More disturbing than the small formality discussed here is the attitude that if something is inconvenient or disappointing for one person, everyone else must be inconvenienced / disappointed as well.  The implications of that attitude could be far-reaching if it is accepted as the standard for fairness.

[*Lulu*]

There is a canyon between an inconvenience and an impossibility.

 

The idea that people being put out by the requirements of obtaining a marriage license (which I am not convinced would need be ANY greater than it already is) and people being legally forbidden to marry are of equal magnitude is a little hard to wrap my mind around.

[HRAAB]

At the risk of making this seem more important to me than it is,

 

Unless the person providing the marriage license is also a justice of the peace, and unless there is no waiting period so the promises can be made at the same time the marriage license is obtained, then the couple has to make an additional trip somewhere, usually on a different day, to do the wedding vows.

 

If it could all be done in one trip at the county offices, then fine and dandy.  That probably is the case in some places, but not everywhere.

 

Already there are many people who choose to do their legal marriage separate from their religious wedding.  It is not the end of the world.  I just don't see the point of requiring it of everyone when this does not help anyone.  It would just create extra work for the government and for certain individuals.  If we were starting from scratch in Utopia, that would be a different thing.

 

More disturbing than the small formality discussed here is the attitude that if something is inconvenient or disappointing for one person, everyone else must be inconvenienced / disappointed as well.  The implications of that attitude could be far-reaching if it is accepted as the standard for fairness.

 

I agree that there shouldn't be a waiting period or the need to make a second appointment for the civil union.  As I said in our case, it took two trips: one to the courthouse and then the wedding at church.  I would think any couple being married in a church would have two trips.  That's why I don't see there being an inconvenience - if the waiting period in some states is dispensed.

 

If I really thought it would be that inconvenient or difficult for most people, I wouldn't entertain supporting the idea.  I honestly thought it might be a better procedure for Christian ministers who fear they might be forced into performing marriages that violate their religious beliefs.  The separation would protect them from government intrusion.  I'm looking for a way to make it work for all without any religious beliefs being violated.

[SKL]

There is a canyon between an inconvenience and an impossibility.

 

The idea that people being put out by the requirements of obtaining a marriage license (which I am not convinced would need be ANY greater than it already is) and people being legally forbidden to marry are of equal magnitude is a little hard to wrap my mind around.

 

I didn't think that was what we were talking about in the recent posts.  I thought we were talking about states where same-sex marriage is legal, and the issue was whether clergy should be allowed to decide whether or not to perform same-sex weddings, without losing their right to confer legal marriage status on any couples..

[*Lulu*]

"They do not just teach children to treat everyone nicely, it would be one thing. If they just said there are gay people and you are not to mistreat anyone who is different than you or has different beliefs, that would be okay. However, they go further and teach that it is okay and acceptable to be a homosexual, when that is against many religions. That is an opinion forced upon children... why aren't you up in arms over that? Just because it's your side being taught?"

-Jinnah-

I pulled this out of your post above to answer.

When I was in school they taught that it was okay to have pre-marital sex, and how to be safe. This was 100% against my parents beliefs. They just made sure we talked about it at home.

Maybe they should have stressed that we should be nice to people who do, but it IS NOT OKAY. Then, when the random teen pregnancy happened we could be nice to the girl's face.....but she would know we were disapproving.

And that would serve what purpose?

Shall we tell gay children or children with gay parents that we must treat them nicely.....but there is something WRONG with them?

How is that creating an environment of equality? Of acceptance?

And, still, how is it one whit different from not affirming the beliefs of the Pentecostal girls who wear skirts only or the Muslim girls who wear Hijab?

Hi, BLA5.

 

Well, is teen pregnancy okay? I'm sure most teens that are pregnant know that people don't think it's the best thing in the world. Heck, I was married at 18, pregnant at 19, and people still were concerned, and yeah ,that is crazy, but should we tell unwed, teenaged girls that it is okay to be pregnant? Is that the best advice? Of course not.

 

 

Honestly, does it need to be referenced specifically? Couldn't they just say everyone is different and we should treat all persons with kindness/respect no matter what?

 

Just wanted to add, again... hurried response... please don't mistake as rude! I feel rude, but I am making so many responses that I have to hurry! :P

I wanted to come back to this, because you never answered my question.

 

How is saying that homosexuality is okay more intrusive of religious rights than saying that it is okay for women to not cover their heads or to wear pants, or for adults to drink or get tattoos? (All four of these are things that certain religions/denominations hold as sinful, inappropriate behaviors.)

[PeacefulChaos]

Yes, it's the waiting period or anything else that would require another trip / more paperwork.  I am not saying this is a horrific burden, but it is an unnecessary extra if you're already doing a license plus a ceremony, and it hurts nobody to allow it to be done by clergy.

 

Like I said, I wonder why anyone would argue about it.  There is obviously some reason why the state went to the trouble of making both options available.  Now that is the status quo, it hurts nobody, it costs nothing, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

This.  I don't know why it's a big deal.  

 

There is a canyon between an inconvenience and an impossibility.

 

The idea that people being put out by the requirements of obtaining a marriage license (which I am not convinced would need be ANY greater than it already is) and people being legally forbidden to marry are of equal magnitude is a little hard to wrap my mind around.

I don't think anyone has been comparing the two.  :confused:  Debate about whether or not it would be less efficient, yes.  But I haven't seen anyone equate any sort of inconvenience it could cause with not being able to get married.  

 

As I said before, I don't really think it would be a big deal.  I don't know why we're going back and forth about it so much.  

[SKL]

I agree that there shouldn't be a waiting period or the need to make a second appointment for the civil union.  As I said in our case, it took two trips: one to the courthouse and then the wedding at church.  I would think any couple being married in a church would have two trips.  That's why I don't see there being an inconvenience - if the waiting period in some states is dispensed.

 

If I really thought it would be that inconvenient or difficult for most people, I wouldn't entertain supporting the idea.  I honestly thought it might be a better procedure for Christian ministers who fear they might be forced into performing marriages that violate their religious beliefs.  The separation would protect them from government intrusion.  I'm looking for a way to make it work for all without any religious beliefs being violated.

 

But under the procedure in some states at least, there would have to be a third trip to complete the legal wedding (if a church wedding was chosen and the clergy couldn't make it legal).  If they changed the law so only one official county appointment were needed, that would still be a burden on the state because they would have to go through the process of changing the laws, procedures, retraining people, informing the public, etc.  All for what?  Who is going to come out happier?  Only those who do not want an "I do" ceremony at all.

 

There is a way to make it work without any religious beliefs being violated.  The way it works now.  Clergy can decide what kinds of weddings they will officiate.  Couples have a range of legal options even if conservative clergy say no.

[KarenNC]

I didn't think that was what we were talking about in the recent posts.  I thought we were talking about states where same-sex marriage is legal, and the issue was whether clergy should be allowed to decide whether or not to perform same-sex weddings, without losing their right to confer legal marriage status on any couples..

 

"Should be allowed" makes it sound like they currently are not.  To the best of my knowledge, that is not and has not been the case, with no compelling reason to assume they would lose the ability to perform legal ceremonies as they choose. Currently they are not required to perform marriages for any number of couples who can legally be married.

 

Are there any reliably reported instances in the United States where ministers have actually been forced by the state to perform a religious wedding ceremony for *anyone* against the minister's will?

[Χά�ων]

But under the procedure in some states at least, there would have to be a third trip to complete the legal wedding (if a church wedding was chosen and the clergy couldn't make it legal).  If they changed the law so only one official county appointment were needed, that would still be a burden on the state because they would have to go through the process of changing the laws, procedures, retraining people, informing the public, etc.  All for what?  Who is going to come out happier?  Only those who do not want an "I do" ceremony at all.

 

There is a way to make it work without any religious beliefs being violated.  The way it works now.  Clergy can decide what kinds of weddings they will officiate.  Couples have a range of legal options even if conservative clergy say no.

What are you talking about? People are suggesting that they just do the state vows when they pick up the documentation that they are already required to pick up. 

[SKL]

What are you talking about? People are suggesting that they just do the state vows when they pick up the documentation that they are already required to pick up. 

 

That is not legal in some states.  As mentioned, states would have to change laws, procedures, etc. in order for that proposal to be implemented.  Also, we are acting like there is no reason behind the waiting periods etc., but those states obviously believe there should be a waiting period, so let's not presume that is easy to change just like that.

 

I personally love the idea of making things simple.  A one-stop-shop sounds great to me.  But then, I am not a person who puts a lot of stock in the whole marriage thing in the first place.  And some people would say, thank goodness SKL isn't making the laws in our state, marriage is too weighty a thing to be rushed through.

[HRAAB]

I'm also fine with the way it is if there is marriage equality for civil unions, and religious officials - of any religion - are free to refuse marriage.  I do not believe religious officials are going to be legally forced to marry gay people, however, there are people here who fear that very thing might happen.  I just thought a clearer separation between civil and religious marriage might be to their benefit

[justasque]

In Pennsylvania, IIRC, if you choose the self-uniting form, you get the license at the courthouse, then you must wait three days. After the three days, you can do whatever you wish, ceremony-wise, religious or not, with or without someone officiating, with or without making any promises to each other, with or without saying any form of "I do", so long as you have two witnesses. Then you get your two witnesses to sign the bottom of the license, you tear off that part (it's perforated), and you pop it in the mail back to the courthouse so the court folks can record your marriage. Easy-peasy.

[Truscifi]

I'm also fine with the way it is if there is marriage equality for civil unions, and religious officials - of any religion - are free to refuse marriage.  I do not believe religious officials are going to be legally forced to marry gay people, however, there are people here who fear that very thing might happen.  I just thought a clearer separation between civil and religious marriage might be to their benefit

 

This. I don't have a problem with the way it is done now as long as all consenting adults have the right to marry as they choose. I just agreed with the idea that a clearer separation would provide an added layer of protection for those who fear their minister might be forced to abide by public accommodation laws. I don't think that is going to happen, but I do understand where some posters are coming from with the argument that if ministers are also performing legally binding unions they are acting as agents of the state. So then the solution seems simple to me: have them stop acting as agents of the state. It would in fact require changing some laws/statutes/etc, as SKL pointed out, to streamline the process of getting the civil union through the state, and to be honest I don't see the necessity of it, but I don't see the harm of it either. I definitely don't understand how it would be stripping away rights from religious officials.

[kiana]

I'm also fine with the way it is if there is marriage equality for civil unions, and religious officials - of any religion - are free to refuse marriage.  I do not believe religious officials are going to be legally forced to marry gay people, however, there are people here who fear that very thing might happen.  I just thought a clearer separation between civil and religious marriage might be to their benefit

Yeah, I really, really don't see that going through the Supreme Court any time soon.

 

Just because people on the internet advocate it doesn't mean that it's going to happen OR that it's going to be found constitutional if it's attempted.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yeah, I really, really don't see that going through the Supreme Court any time soon.

 

Just because people on the internet advocate it doesn't mean that it's going to happen OR that it's going to be found constitutional if it's attempted.

Correct. In addition churches have specific exemptions from discrimination laws in relation to any activity that is directly related to church or religious functions.

[Χά�ων]

That is not legal in some states.  As mentioned, states would have to change laws, procedures, etc. in order for that proposal to be implemented.  Also, we are acting like there is no reason behind the waiting periods etc., but those states obviously believe there should be a waiting period, so let's not presume that is easy to change just like that.

 

I personally love the idea of making things simple.  A one-stop-shop sounds great to me.  But then, I am not a person who puts a lot of stock in the whole marriage thing in the first place.  And some people would say, thank goodness SKL isn't making the laws in our state, marriage is too weighty a thing to be rushed through.

Which states? This has been the case in every state that I have personally been involved with a wedding. 

[marbel]

Which states? This has been the case in every state that I have personally been involved with a wedding. 

Most states don't have a waiting period, but here is an about.com page with the states and theirs if they have one.  (I am not sure if about.com is a reliable source though.  It's correct for PA, anyway.)

[Χά�ων]

Most are under 3 day with a few longer. So prewedding the couple goes by and picks up the papers.

 

The horror?

[marbel]

Most are under 3 day with a few longer. So prewedding the couple goes by and picks up the papers.

 

The horror?

 

I don't think there's any horror.  But it can be a burden of time.  A big-city courthouse can be crowded with long waits and no appointments.  I've had to wait hours to get previously-ordered copies of death certificates, just to get to the front of the line and ask for them.  In my experience the offices are open only typical business hours which can mean taking extra time from work.  As SKL (I think, or maybe someone else) stated it can also add a burden to the county employees who have to deal with more people (well, the same people but at 2 different times.)   If only judges/justices of the peace are able to finalize the marriage, there can be long waits till they are available. 

 

In the big picture of life it's not that big a deal.  But there's no reason to add it if it's not necessary. 

 

[Χά�ων]

I don't think there's any horror.  But it can be a burden of time.  A big-city courthouse can be crowded with long waits and no appointments.  I've had to wait hours to get previously-ordered copies of death certificates, just to get to the front of the line and ask for them.  In my experience the offices are open only typical business hours which can mean taking extra time from work.  As SKL (I think, or maybe someone else) stated it can also add a burden to the county employees who have to deal with more people (well, the same people but at 2 different times.)   If only judges/justices of the peace are able to finalize the marriage, there can be long waits till they are available. 

 

In the big picture of life it's not that big a deal.  But there's no reason to add it if it's not necessary. 

 

 

 

Let me get this straight. Gay marriage could cause more paperwork for all couples in some states. Gay marriage could cause more paperwork for employees of some states. There could be long waits to finalize the marriage. 

 

 And that is another reason gay marriage is bad? 

 

Got it.

[SKL]

Let me get this straight. Gay marriage could cause more paperwork for all couples in some states. Gay marriage could cause more paperwork for employees of some states. There could be long waits to finalize the marriage. 

 

 And that is another reason gay marriage is bad? 

 

Got it.

 

No, you don't get it.  We're talking about not needing to change procedures (in states where gay marriage is legal) just because some churches don't want to do ceremonies for gay unions.  Gay and straight people can still get married at the justice of the peace (or at a less conservative church).

 

The fact that some clergy do not want to perform gay weddings does not have anything to do with whether gays are able to get married legally.

[poppy]

Bleh, this whole argument is a distraction and nothing more. Clergy being forced to perform marriages they do not wish to is not a possibility on the table. No one in politics or advocacy is  arguing that point.  If some random internet people are, or someone you once met, or some provocateur........ so what. 

 

[*Lulu*]

For those wondering what the complaints of persecution by Christians in the US sound like. MOST* of them come off sounding like this:

 

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/06/25/kkk-william-walters-tacony-town-watch-philadelphia/

 

*please note the word MOST. There are some legitimate complaints out there. We could argue if those rise to the level of true persecution, but that is not the point here.

[PeacefulChaos]

Let me get this straight. Gay marriage could cause more paperwork for all couples in some states. Gay marriage could cause more paperwork for employees of some states. There could be long waits to finalize the marriage. 

 

 And that is another reason gay marriage is bad? 

 

Got it.

What?  

 

 

Why does it keep coming back to gay marriage?  What the heck does that have to do with anything?

 

Sigh.  This thread derailed pages ago, the first time it came up.  It's ridiculous.  

[Χά�ων]

  What the heck does that have to do with anything?

 

 

That was the basis for my comment.

[*Lulu*]

What?

 

 

Why does it keep coming back to gay marriage? What the heck does that have to do with anything?

 

Sigh. This thread derailed pages ago, the first time it came up. It's ridiculous.

 

I don't think it is a real derail.

 

It is an area where conservative Christians fear persecution.

 

Considering there is debate about what persecution actually looks like, it is, IMHO, a conversation that is worth having.

[PeacefulChaos]

I don't fear persecution in that area.  I didn't ever see any Christians say that they did.

 

Granted, I don't fear persecution at all...

 

 

I felt like it was a derail because it went from 'Christians aren't really persecuted' to talking about them persecuting homosexuals because they vote against gay marriage... which just felt totally out of the blue for me.  

 

But granted, I have been on various meds all week for a kidney stone and right now I am slightly more irritable than usual.  So that could just be me.   :o

[HRAAB]

Well, I know there is a feeling out there among some Christians that gay marriage is yet another attack on their values, beliefs, God's laws.  There could be those who feel this is persecution or, at least, could be leading to persecution.  I think that's why gay marriage in particular came up in this thread.  I'm not saying many Christians feel this way, but I do think there are some.  I've definitely got that feeling from listening to family members and some friends I have.

[ktgrok]

LOL, I think that thread might be interesting, but would probably spiral out of control and many people would be "moderated" and possibly banned.   :p

 

Okay, if the Muslim religion became majority and laws passed in their favor... and they were the correct religion... than what can I say?  If they were incorrect, it would be a disaster.  I see the point that everyone thinks they are right in this way.  I cannot, however, vote for a law that is against what I feel is the correct way.  Can you at least understand that?  Can you answer the questions in my scenario?

 

Right, you think that if Muslims voted to pass laws in their favor it would be a disaster. Other's think laws basically forcing Christian beliefs on others is a disaster. The ONLY solution is to NOT pass laws based just on religion. 

 

Jews feel pork is forbidden. Would you think it was ok for them to vote to forbid everyone from eating bacon? The Muslims would agree. They could work together with the vegetarians. Should they be able to do that? Or wouldn't it make more sense for those that believe it is wrong to avoid eating it, and those that think it is ok to continue eating it? Christians should never force feed anyone bacon, but they can eat it themselves. Gay marriage is the SAME argument. It makes the most sense for people that believe it wrong to not do it, and those that think it is ok to do it, and no one for force anyone to do it. 

 

We always need to make sure we aren't setting a precedent that can be used against us. If I don't want my kids teacher leading a pagan prayer I shouldn't ask to have them read a Christian one. If I don't want divorce and remarriage outlawed I shouldn't pass a law against gay marriage. 

[SadieMarie]

What?

 

 

Why does it keep coming back to gay marriage? What the heck does that have to do with anything?

 

Sigh. This thread derailed pages ago, the first time it came up. It's ridiculous.

It is because of the cake persecution.

[marbel]

Let me get this straight. Gay marriage could cause more paperwork for all couples in some states. Gay marriage could cause more paperwork for employees of some states. There could be long waits to finalize the marriage. 

 

 And that is another reason gay marriage is bad? 

 

Got it.

 

I didn't say gay marriage is bad nor that that's the reason it's bad.  I was talking about the proposal someone made that religious officiants should not be involved in the legal aspect of a marriage if they were not willing to perform marriages for anyone who walked in their door seeking to get married.  That is all.

[Elfknitter.#]

For those wondering what the complaints of persecution by Christians in the US sound like. MOST* of them come off sounding like this:

 

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/06/25/kkk-william-walters-tacony-town-watch-philadelphia/

 

*please note the word MOST. There are some legitimate complaints out there. We could argue if those rise to the level of true persecution, but that is not the point here.

From the article:

 

But, naturally, Walters maintains that he doesn't hate anyone or have a lick of prejudice in his body. The KKK isn't a hate group, he says.

 

"I know we have a bad name, but it's not that way no more," he insists. "When was the last time a black or Hispanic got hung on a tree?"

Wow. Just... Wow.

[fraidycat]

From the article:

 

Wow. Just... Wow.

Yeah, there really are no adequate words...

 

Disgusting is really too tame here.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes. One person might say, "All paths lead to God." Another person, in response, might quote Jesus' words: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6) or Peter's: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved†(Acts 4:12).

 

Both people's statements cannot be objectively true.

 

Christian Universalists would disagree with you. They might say both statements can be true. They might say that all paths lead to God through Christ's sacrifice, whether some people believe/realize it or not.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think there's any horror. But it can be a burden of time. A big-city courthouse can be crowded with long waits and no appointments. I've had to wait hours to get previously-ordered copies of death certificates, just to get to the front of the line and ask for them. In my experience the offices are open only typical business hours which can mean taking extra time from work. As SKL (I think, or maybe someone else) stated it can also add a burden to the county employees who have to deal with more people (well, the same people but at 2 different times.) If only judges/justices of the peace are able to finalize the marriage, there can be long waits till they are available.

 

In the big picture of life it's not that big a deal. But there's no reason to add it if it's not necessary.

 

In most of Europe you must go get a civil marriage at the court house. That is the "legal" marriage. Some people then choose to have a religious ceremony. The whole bridal party sometimes drives from one to the other together in a floral festooned car caravan (like a caravan of camels, not to be confused with an RV).

 

Personally, I think that is the best way to take the religious piece out of the debate. Religious ceremonies shouldn't be mixed up with civil laws, IMO.

 

If lines at the courthouse/JootP are long and annoying, then it might be a good reason to hire more people.

 

ETA: When we got married (more than 20 years ago, I admit), we had to go apply for a marriage license, have blood taken, take those results to the courthouse, we had the religious ceremony, then had to turn the certificate back into the courthouse. That was *3* trips. Making just one trip to do the civil ceremony at the courthouse would have been more efficient.

[poppy]

What?

 

 

Why does it keep coming back to gay marriage? What the heck does that have to do with anything?

 

Sigh. This thread derailed pages ago, the first time it came up. It's ridiculous.

There have been many comments on this thread about how Christians (a subset of Christians) feel censored or unable to speak about their values without being labelled a bigot. I have assumed that all those posts were related to the changing national conversation about gay marriage. If there is some other issue that is unspoken but being implied, I would be curious to hear what it is.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

If lines at the courthouse/JootP are long and annoying, then it might be a good reason to hire more people.

 

<snip>

 

LOL.  I'm sure the workers at the courthouse would agree with that! 

[chiguirre]

The civil wedding separate from the religious wedding is the norm in Latin America too. Because, why have one party when you can have two? On a more serious note, the separation of the civil register from the parish roll came about in order to remove the Catholic church from the legal marriage process. In this way, the government can have civil divorce separate from cannon law annulment proceedings. It makes life much easier for everyone, Catholic and not.

 

If the US marriage license was relabeled the marriage contract and was legally binding, we wouldn't have to worry about infringing on religious liberties regarding marriage ceremonies. If states really want a waiting period they could follow the Pennsylvania example and have a form to sign with witnesses to mail in. Easy peasy and the same for everyone, whether or not they have a church wedding, just a big party or nothing at all.

[chiguirre]

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/06/25/kkk-william-walters-tacony-town-watch-philadelphia/

Wow! I think there's a case to be made that this doofus is persecuting Christians by labeling himself as one. Since when is the KKK a "Christian group"?!? That's just nutty and very derogatory to everyone else who identifies as a Christian!

[*Lulu*]

Wow! I think there's a case to be made that this doofus is persecuting Christians by labeling himself as one. Since when is the KKK a "Christian group"?!? That's just nutty and very derogatory to everyone else who identifies as a Christian!

I know, right!?!?

 

When I came across it today I immediately thought of this discussion.

 

I cannot imagine anyone supporting his assertion that the KKK is Christian anymore than anyone wants to toss their lot in with Westboro. Even though both parties may use scripture to back themselves up, they don't represent all of Christianity.

 

Many of the incidents that have some crying persecution have a root in what a group of Christians holds as biblical mandate. Those groups no more represent all of christiandom than Westboro or the grand mukyty muck nutto in the article. To say people attacking the tactics of the KKK are persecuting Christians is as ridiculous as saying stores using happy holidays instead of merry Christmas is a persecution of Christians.

 

Some people are jerks.

 

If someone is being a jerk and gets called out for it that doesn't mean whatever subgroup they identify with is being persecuted.

 

Unless jerks have formed a subgroup recently.

 

I would totally be down for persecuting some jerks.

 

And people who use the middle turn lane as a passing lane.

 

Wait. Those two groups intersect.

 

Venn diagram. We need a Venn diagram over here!

[kiana]

Some people are jerks.

 

If someone is being a jerk and gets called out for it that doesn't mean whatever subgroup they identify with is being persecuted.

 

Unless jerks have formed a subgroup recently.

 

I would totally be down for persecuting some jerks.

 

And people who use the middle turn lane as a passing lane.

 

Wait. Those two groups intersect.

 

Venn diagram. We need a Venn diagram over here!

 

1) I can't help you with a Venn diagram but here's a van diagram! http://www.daniellight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/van.jpg

 

2) Your comments about jerks are making me think of the "here's your sign" from Bill Engvall. Wouldn't it be nice if we could somehow identify jerks easily? :P

 

[obsidian]

I know, right!?!?

 

When I came across it today I immediately thought of this discussion.

 

I cannot imagine anyone supporting his assertion that the KKK is Christian anymore than anyone wants to toss their lot in with Westboro. Even though both parties may use scripture to back themselves up, they don't represent all of Christianity.

 

Many of the incidents that have some crying persecution have a root in what a group of Christians holds as biblical mandate. Those groups no more represent all of christiandom than Westboro or the grand mukyty muck nutto in the article. To say people attacking the tactics of the KKK are persecuting Christians is as ridiculous as saying stores using happy holidays instead of merry Christmas is a persecution of Christians.

 

Some people are jerks.

 

If someone is being a jerk and gets called out for it that doesn't mean whatever subgroup they identify with is being persecuted.

 

Unless jerks have formed a subgroup recently.

 

I would totally be down for persecuting some jerks.

 

And people who use the middle turn lane as a passing lane.

 

Wait. Those two groups intersect.

 

Venn diagram. We need a Venn diagram over here!

 

Let's see if this works.  (Edited because the Venn diagram was incorrect...) Now it is not incorrect -- there must be some legitimate reasons to use the turn lane as a passing lane, so some non-jerks must do it, right? :p

[idnib]

Interesting. I would have assumed the imam would be the officiant, but then I've never been to a Muslim wedding. 

 

 

Islam is a very austere religion.

 

A marriage is between the parties and requires 2 witnesses but no officiant. The two parties can be the bridegroom and the bride or in some schools of thought, the bridegroom and the bride's male representative. The each say one sentence and it's done. The only other requirement is a dowry, which can be very small (even a date pit, according to one story!) and belongs to the bride. The marriage is not considered sacred, made in heaven, etc. It's a legal contract into which people can add terms verbally or on paper. Divorce is allowed. 

 

Sunni Imams are not nearly as official as leaders in other religions. An Imam is considered a religious leader but an Imam can even be a someone who shows up for prayers and decides to lead the prayer at the masjid (mosque) or give the Friday sermon on a topic.

 

I've noticed a shift in the use of the term "Imam" since Islam started becoming more mainstream. We used to just pick an Imam from whoever was there but it seems we fit in better with American society if we designate some kind of leader and they are considered "The Imam" of a masjid.

[Dana]

Let's see if this works.  (Edited because the Venn diagram was incorrect...) Now it is not incorrect -- there must be some legitimate reasons to use the turn lane as a passing lane, so some non-jerks must do it, right? :p

 

Accident closing off other lanes?