The Rest of the Story...

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

These past few postings have highlighted to me some of the problems.

Crimes are often not treated the same if it was within a religious group. I think that needs to change. I am all for freedom of religion, but I am also for having the laws and rules apply to everyone!

Second, the issue of choice. If I can be shown that the FLDS have choice, then I have no issue with who they marry etc. The whole basis of our country is Freedom and to deny someone that basic freedom goes against everything the US stands for. We may be able to accept it in other countries, but here in the US, everyone should have the right to have choice in who they marry. That is why vows often ask if you of your own free will marry...

 

[Ciara]

I think you are very articulate and more importantly, you know how to post with intelligence and kindness...............hmm..........maybe thats why you seem so articulate?



I am "female" and everyone here knows that. That was all asked and answered back in April here on the threads. Its being brought up again to stir the pot or muddy the water, whichever saying you prefer.




I agree with you on this 100%. Excellent post.

Thanks Glow. I had just assumed by the way you wrote that you were female.
After reading what you wrote about Deb's question "Should a Religion be allowed to break The Laws of The Land", I am going to take back my "No" answer as I have thought about it some more and I dont think its quite as simple as that
I am Catholic(as you probably know from various posts I make on WS) and I was thinking if certain things were made law that I truly disagreed with how would I then feel about The Law of the Land?
I am not a strict Catholic and dont follow everything it teaches but am still a Catholic so certain things I like to stand by.
Its an interesting question and not an easy one to answer. I dont believe in breaking the law but I also have my own sense of whats right and wrong because of my Faith so where would I stand in a situation like that?

I dont know.
I hope that post made SOME sense

 

[Native New Yorker]

Though being rude seems your preference .

No, if you check the other threads I post on, I am never rude, and that most certainly is not my preference.

I simply am expressing my frustration that this case discussion has been dominated by one poster, leaving me unwilling to join the fray. The discussions have really become philosophical hair-splitting, hence my "what is reality " comment.

The other forum which I mentioned is run by the newspaper the Tallahassee Democrat, and there was one poster who was hijacking every discussion, so the newspaper/forum put in a button that said "ignore this poster" . This just occurred last week. I am not being rude to mention that info....
but I think it is unfair when people such as me feel discouraged from posting!

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

Glow,

What do you mean by your last post? I didn't think anything in the Catholic church went against the law of the land, so I am a bit confused. Are you saying your belief would trump the law of the land if you lived in another country that didn't let you practice your religion? Or are you saying that certain laws should be changed? Or are you saying that religious crimes are ok?

I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean and where you draw the line before it gets to honor killings etc. Please explain further. Do you have examples?

 

[Glow]

Thanks Glow. I had just assumed by the way you wrote that you were female.
After reading what you wrote about Deb's question "Should a Religion be allowed to break The Laws of The Land", I am going to take back my "No" answer as I have thought about it some more and I dont think its quite as simple as that
I am Catholic(as you probably know from various posts I make on WS) and I was thinking if certain things were made law that I truly disagreed with how would I then feel about The Law of the Land?
I am not a strict Catholic and dont follow everything it teaches but am still a Catholic so certain things I like to stand by.
Its an interesting question and not an easy one to answer. I dont believe in breaking the law but I also have my own sense of whats right and wrong because of my Faith so where would I stand in a situation like that?

I dont know.
I hope that post made SOME sense

You made perfect sense. It is a really deep question. That is why people have struggled over the ages with that question.

Take William Tydale for one. He was a Protestant who thought that the Bible should be available in common English so that everyone that wanted to could read it for themselves. He was viewed as a blasphemous heretic and eventually put to death by the government.

While labeling him as a heretic made good sense to everyone of that time, today he is viewed as a Christian martyr.

Governments tend to change and sway in the wind. That is one reason I would never put them in charge of my faith.

Obviously though, we cannot have people doing willy nilly in the "name" of religion either. Therein lies the rub. Balance is the hardest thing in the world to achieve. The Constitution has done a pretty good job so far - when its followed.

 

[Ciara]

Balance is definately the right word as Religious Crimes are just not acceptable by ANY Religion and I certainly wouldnt want to break the law either.

 

[Glow]

No, if you check the other threads I post on, I am never rude, and that most certainly is not my preference.

I simply am expressing my frustration that this case discussion has been dominated by one poster, leaving me unwilling to join the fray. The discussions have really become philosophical hair-splitting, hence my "what is reality " comment.

The other forum which I mentioned is run by the newspaper the Tallahassee Democrat, and there was one poster who was hijacking every discussion, so the newspaper/forum put in a button that said "ignore this poster" . This just occurred last week. I am not being rude to mention that info....
but I think it is unfair when people such as me feel discouraged from posting!

Hi Native New Yorker,

I for one am sorry that you feel frustrated. I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this matter as I'm sure everyone else would.

I dont find this thread very philosophical, I find it varies from poster to poster according to what each one brings to the table as their best thoughts on what matters to them.

That is why the thread is entitled The REST of the Story. As in not the more common part of the story.

If by saying this thread is dominated by one poster and you dont like that - then post!

If you post then................. voila.............

no more one dominant poster!

 

[Ciara]

No, if you check the other threads I post on, I am never rude, and that most certainly is not my preference.

I simply am expressing my frustration that this case discussion has been dominated by one poster, leaving me unwilling to join the fray. The discussions have really become philosophical hair-splitting, hence my "what is reality " comment.

The other forum which I mentioned is run by the newspaper the Tallahassee Democrat, and there was one poster who was hijacking every discussion, so the newspaper/forum put in a button that said "ignore this poster" . This just occurred last week. I am not being rude to mention that info....
but I think it is unfair when people such as me feel discouraged from posting!

I for one, hope you will keep posting Native. I like to hear what everyone has to say, it helps me to think of things I would not have thought of.
Please carry on posting, I would like to hear your opinions on this:blowkiss:

 

[Glow]

Glow,

What do you mean by your last post? I didn't think anything in the Catholic church went against the law of the land, so I am a bit confused. Are you saying your belief would trump the law of the land if you lived in another country that didn't let you practice your religion? Or are you saying that certain laws should be changed? Or are you saying that religious crimes are ok?

I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean and where you draw the line before it gets to honor killings etc. Please explain further. Do you have examples?

I'm not sure but I think maybe you mean Ciara's post? She posted about being Catholic.

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

I'm not sure but I think maybe you mean Ciara's post? She posted about being Catholic.

You are correct. Ciara, can you please explain more?

 

[Ciara]

Yes it was me that brought up the Catholic thing Rainbow, not Glow.
I was thinking of extreme examples though like say The Government said after two babies that women had to have abortions if they got pregnant a third time because of over population or something and it was made law.
I personally dont agree with abortion for me plus it is against my Faith so would I then break the law by refusing to have one if I got pregnant?

I would break that law because I am the one who has to live with my conscience and face God not the Government.

Actually thats probably a stupid example of the point I am trying to make as it would never happen but I have not had time to digest this question properly yet to come up with better examples.:bang::bang::bang:

 

[Ciara]

Rainbow....I know what I mean in my head...I just cant get it down properly in words
I am just glad my Religion abides by the law of the land basically

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

Yes it was me that brought up the Catholic thing Rainbow, not Glow.
I was thinking of extreme examples though like say The Government said after two babies that women had to have abortions if they got pregnant a third time because of over population or something and it was made law.
I personally dont agree with abortion for me plus it is against my Faith so would I then break the law by refusing to have one if I got pregnant?

I would break that law because I am the one who has to live with my conscience and face God not the Government.

Actually thats probably a stupid example of the point I am trying to make as it would never happen but I have not had time to digest this question properly yet to come up with better examples.:bang::bang::bang:

I understand that concept. I had to chuckle because I was thinking of all of those emails that go around...if the world ends and you are surrounded by zombies what would you do? If the US government got taken over by China and.... I'm being lighthearted and silly. Sorry if it comes across as a bit rude or snide. I do appreciate your insight.

I would like to know from everyone if there are any rules/laws in the US that you think people should receive waivers from based on religion. I agree with religous waivers for immunizations, but I can't think of anything else where I think religion should trump the rules/ law in the US.

 

[Glow]

Yes it was me that brought up the Catholic thing Rainbow, not Glow.
I was thinking of extreme examples though like say The Government said after two babies that women had to have abortions if they got pregnant a third time because of over population or something and it was made law.
I personally dont agree with abortion for me plus it is against my Faith so would I then break the law by refusing to have one if I got pregnant?

I would break that law because I am the one who has to live with my conscience and face God not the Government.

Actually thats probably a stupid example of the point I am trying to make as it would never happen but I have not had time to digest this question properly yet to come up with better examples.:bang::bang::bang:

Religious persecution has existed forever. Most of the early comers to America were fleeing that. That is why still today as a country we are so careful to preserve religious freedoms.

I dont find your example to be one that could never happen...
Take Hitler and the Jews. Who ever thought that could happen in this modern world, but it did.

Your example is actually quite good because it goes straight to the heart of the matter. When people believe things that (to them) are from God, what man, or group of men (which is what a government is) should come between them and God?

 

[Ciara]

Then again Rainbow....I wouldnt break that law I used an example in my post because I wouldnt get pregnant to begin with and put myself in that situation.
I used a stupid example lol

As to your question....I cant think of any rules or laws that should be trumped by Religion. Not yet anyway:crazy:

Just kidding!

I think:waitasec:

 

[Ciara]

Religious persecution has existed forever. Most of the early comers to America were fleeing that. That is why still today as a country we are so careful to preserve religious freedoms.

I dont find your example to be one that could never happen...
Take Hitler and the Jews. Who ever thought that could happen in this modern world, but it did.

Your example is actually quite good because it goes straight to the heart of the matter. When people believe things that (to them) are from God, what man, or group of men (which is what a government is) should come between them and God?

Well Catholics were persecuted in Ireland for a long time.
It was the Civil Rights Movement in America that spurred The One Man One Vote for Catholics in Northern Ireland so I understand that side of it.

For me, its about being God fearing....so say for example like I said with the issue of Abortion. I would be afraid to face God after doing that and my heart and my conscience would never allow me to do it. There are just certain lines that I personally could not and would not cross and if that meant breaking the law...then so be it.
But they would probably have to be extreme examples

Maybe I explained it better that time:waitasec:

 

[Glow]

I would like to know from everyone if there are any rules/laws in the US that you think people should receive waivers from based on religion. I agree with religous waivers for immunizations, but I can't think of anything else where I think religion should trump the rules/ law in the US.

Here are a few that are already fought and won:


Dietary
Forcing Jews to eat non kosher food

Political
Forcing the Amish and the Seventh Day Adventists to go to war

Medical
Forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to take blood transfusions

Free Speech
Forcing the Mormons to stop calling at homes

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

Here are a few that are already fought and won:


Dietary
Forcing Jews to eat non kosher food

Political
Forcing the Amish and the Seventh Day Adventists to go to war

Medical
Forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to take blood transfusions

Free Speech
Forcing the Mormons to stop calling at homes

Those seem like good examples, but I am not sure of the history behind what you are referring to. My guess is that the war issue must have been during a draft. I am guessing the blood transfusion issue must have been a criminal trial of parents not taking care of a child's needs and the child died? I am guessing your comments about the Mormons is that the missionaries are allowed to go door to door? I can't think of what law that would be breaking. The dietary issue, I wasn't aware of a time when we made jews non kosher food. Can you please explain more on these topics on what was fought/won/why/when...what ever details you can recall?

 

[Glow]

Those seem like good examples, but I am not sure of the history behind what you are referring to. My guess is that the war issue must have been during a draft. I am guessing the blood transfusion issue must have been a criminal trial of parents not taking care of a child's needs and the child died? I am guessing your comments about the Mormons is that the missionaries are allowed to go door to door? I can't think of what law that would be breaking. The dietary issue, I wasn't aware of a time when we made jews non kosher food. Can you please explain more on these topics on what was fought/won/why/when...what ever details you can recall?

I probably should go look up things but just briefly, the one about kosher food had to do with a school cafeteria forcing children to eat things they were taught at home not to.

I think the war thing would have most certainly been in a draft.

The medical one started out as adults being forced into medical treatments they didn't want - now it is only children where the courts step in, but I would have to research that.

The Mormons as well as other evangelicals are constantly fighting for the right to go out in public and from door to door.

It keeps being challenged and the Supreme Court keeps ruling in their favor...for now. I think we will see that change here very shortly.

Here is a link to some of the decisions broken down into categories

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/

 

[Ciara]

Here are a few that are already fought and won:


Dietary
Forcing Jews to eat non kosher food

Political
Forcing the Amish and the Seventh Day Adventists to go to war

Medical
Forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to take blood transfusions

Free Speech
Forcing the Mormons to stop calling at homes

I am glad you put up these examples.

The third example...the Medical one is an issue to me.
Are the Jehovah's breaking the law by refusing in that case in America or is that covered by Religious Freedom?

I find this one hard to get my head around as refusing a blood transfusion is to let someone die.....I am for saving life where possible so I find it hard to accept this as being part of anyone's Religion and would want the Government to step in.

I think there are some things that just cannot be accepted under the guise of Religion anotherwords.

Its a fascinating complex subject!!