Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Freedom to associate with whom you will has to include the inverse of not associating with whom you will. But as I said, it takes quite a bit to rise to the level of an imposition. In practice, I can't say that right has been infringed for me just because, say, I see a church on many street corners or because someone occasionally says they'll pray for some need I might have. Not everyone here agrees with me on that, but I think a lot of unbelievers take other people's beliefs in stride for the most part, provided they are not unctuous, impertinent, or in some other way obnoxious about it.
The problem of course is that "obnoxious" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, plus it's somewhat situational. For some unbelievers, theism is a real quality of life issue. I can imagine how it must be to live in some smallish southern town where everyone is an ardent fundamentalist and you can't have a civil conversation without someone maneuvering you into some litmus test about your beliefs. I recently moved from a conservative town to a more liberal one and rightly or not I felt like the range of "safe" topics where I would not run afoul of any "taboos" is much broader now. I didn't fully realize how confining that was until I'd been away from it for awhile. I can only imagine how much more oppressive it would have been if the area I used to live in had been more given to Bible-thumping as well.
This isn't a religious liberty issue in my view, it's a common courtesy issue. Religion is no excuse to be a rectal sphincter, and it's certainly no excuse for intolerance. And this is a position I'm sure many Christians, at least more liberal ones, would heartily agree with.
"Freedom to associate with whom you will has to include the inverse of not associating with whom you will."
Why?
If you're a man married to a woman, you don't have the option of not associating with perverts who marry their own sex.
Married is married and the courts have overruled the people who have made clear they don't want to have an association with "married" homosexuals forced on them.
Of course the real purpose of same-sex marriage is to force an association with heterosexuals in which the state makes no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality thereby implying effective sameness.
"Freedom to associate with whom you will has to include the inverse of not associating with whom you will." Why?
If you're a man married to a woman, you don't have the option of not associating with perverts who marry their own sex.
Married is married and the courts have overruled the people who have made clear they don't want to have an association with "married" homosexuals forced on them.
I am certain I will regret asking . . . but just exactly HOW is this being "forced" on you??? Are you being told to associate with married homosexuals or be arrested????
"Freedom to associate with whom you will has to include the inverse of not associating with whom you will."
Why?
If you're a man married to a woman, you don't have the option of not associating with perverts who marry their own sex.
Married is married and the courts have overruled the people who have made clear they don't want to have an association with "married" homosexuals forced on them.
Of course the real purpose of same-sex marriage is to force an association with heterosexuals in which the state makes no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality thereby implying effective sameness.
I bet you consider yourself a fine, upstanding Christian.
"Freedom to associate with whom you will has to include the inverse of not associating with whom you will."
Why?
If you're a man married to a woman, you don't have the option of not associating with perverts who marry their own sex.
Let me just stop you there... The idea of freedom of association is that you are allowed to choose who you hang out with, and as an individual who you work for and do business with.
It has nothing to do with not wanting to share words like "marriage" with people you don't consider savory.
"Freedom to associate with whom you will has to include the inverse of not associating with whom you will."
Why?
If you're a man married to a woman, you don't have the option of not associating with perverts who marry their own sex.
Married is married and the courts have overruled the people who have made clear they don't want to have an association with "married" homosexuals forced on them.
Of course the real purpose of same-sex marriage is to force an association with heterosexuals in which the state makes no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality thereby implying effective sameness.
What about my right to not have to associate with bigots? Huh? Hmm? Riddle me that, Batman.
I'll wait right here while you hastily attempt to rationalize why your rights should trump mine.
"Freedom to associate with whom you will has to include the inverse of not associating with whom you will."
Why?
Because freedom of association includes the freedom to associate with on one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
If you're a man married to a woman, you don't have the option of not associating with perverts who marry their own sex.
I read this five times and it still makes no sense to me. Who doesn't have the option to associate or not with homosexuals, and how is that in any way influenced by you being or not being in a heterosexual relationship?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Married is married and the courts have overruled the people who have made clear they don't want to have an association with "married" homosexuals forced on them.
Please cite a court ruling where someone is forced to ... oh, wait. You are objecting to homosexuals calling their relationship "marriage"? You claim ownership of that word? That is such a ridiculous claim that I don't even know how to comment on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Of course the real purpose of same-sex marriage is to force an association with heterosexuals in which the state makes no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality thereby implying effective sameness.
The only "sameness" is equal treatment under the law. No one is claiming that there isn't a difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals; it's the whole basis of this conversation, after all.
There is no rational reason to think that the "real purpose" of same-sex marriage is anything other than it actually is, which is to treat publicly committed relationships between pair-bonded couples the same regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. [shrug]. I'm in a heterosexual marriage and I don't see how homosexuals being married does anything at all to the sanctity and dignity of my relationship with my wife, which is based on the two of us and our commitment to each other, not on other people.
I assume you are theist, and if your belief system is such that you consider homosexuality, much less homosexual marriage, to be a sin, then your church is free to refuse to condone or conduct marriage ceremonies for homosexuals. Nothing in the law or in proposed laws prohibits that. Perhaps you simply don't like that the actual authority to solemnize marriage resides with the state and not with the church generally or your church specifically. But it has always been that way. Your church can't even marry heterosexuals without first obtaining a license from the state.
There sure is!! I see you are from the U.S. Here is a repost (with a couple modifications) of a post I put up just a couple months after I joined the board 4 years ago:
I think this illustrates the main problem...especially in places like the United States. To try to separate people from Religion is to try to separate most of the population from their culture...and that will be nearly impossible to do.
Just look around...there's a church on every other corner...and they are exempt from paying taxes.
Since the Europeans took the country from the native people (NOT cool!) it was from that point on, FOUNDED on Religious Principles...read The Constitution, and The Declaration of Independence...they've got "CREATOR" & "GOD" right in them. Most of our laws are based on religious ethics. In every government building, and on every piece of our currency...EVERY coin and EVERY bill...is written "In God We Trust"...TRILLIONS of pieces of currency. It's such a part of this country, it wouldn't even be this country without it. And beyond that the WORLD is influenced by it...why do you think it's "2014"? It's our "way of life", our history, and our culture...that's just the way it IS.
Please don't take this as an insult, because there is no insult intended---This country is not going to be a very comfortable place for one wanting "freedom FROM religion"...MOF they will be constantly aggravated (I know from experience).
People that have an aversion to the heat would avoid or leave Central America...People that have an aversion to the cold would avoid or leave Iceland...And you wouldn't see many Jews sticking around or going to Iran. Some places are just a "better fit".
You are NEVER going to change the base culture of this country to much of a degree. You'll change a law here or there, but you'll still have to look at lots of buildings with crosses & stars on them that you pick up the tax burden they don't...see the title GOD (and the proclamation that WE trust in Him) written on most things relative to our government and even carry it on your person with your money...listen to "God Bless America" belted out at public events, and the Pledge of Allegiance (one nation under GOD) being recited...and though we typically only do the 1st verse, check out the last verse of our National Anthem (The Star Spangled Banner). I could go on and on...But the point is...it is not just the general population, but it's the country itself, including the government, that is intrinsically religious. And I don't think that, short of a big asteroid, that will change much over the next few hundred years, if ever. If a person is going to stick around the U.S.A. they better learn to not let religion bother them, or they will be just about constantly aggravated...and trying to change it will be a lesson in futility and a complete and total waste of their time & effort.
I have learned to accept that the govt will claim to have a neutral position...while their deeds belie their words. How much more of an indirect promotion of ANYTHING could there be than to make it EXEMPT FROM TAXES?!
If you insist on "freedom FROM religion"...you will have to live elsewhere than the U.S...or live in the wilderness and never go into any settled area. Not a snark...just the way it is.
If you insist on "freedom FROM religion"...you will have to live elsewhere than the U.S...or live in the wilderness and never go into any settled area. Not a snark...just the way it is.
Um, no. You can live just fine and even prosper in the United States without having any religion or religious belief in your life. The fact that other people around you believe in some form of religion has nothing to do with your "freedom from religion."
Especially in liberal areas of this country, religion may rarely even be a topic of conversation.
Especially in liberal areas of this country, religion may rarely even be a topic of conversation.
Exactly. I have lived in liberal and conservative areas and I have relatives in both types of areas and the tenor of public discourse is noticeably different between the two. In liberal areas the topic rarely comes up. In conservative areas it sometimes does, in certain areas, a LOT, particularly in the South. In practice, having lived in the midwest, NE and SW parts of the US, I can't say that religion has unduly intruded on my life or even been a particular irritant.
Some people here do complain of it being terribly vexing, but they either live in rabid Bible Belt environments and/or are personally extra sensitive about it.
I do believe that the arrogance of the religious right, in whose perfect world they would like to impose their beliefs and taboos on society generally, represent a practical threat to democracy and freedom of thought; this is the only "freedom from religion" that matters to me. Even there, I believe that this struggle is all over but the shouting; fundamentalism is losing what hegemony it had in this country. It has been going on for a couple of generations now.
Um, no. You can live just fine and even prosper in the United States without having any religion or religious belief in your life. The fact that other people around you believe in some form of religion has nothing to do with your "freedom from religion."
Especially in liberal areas of this country, religion may rarely even be a topic of conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Exactly. I have lived in liberal and conservative areas and I have relatives in both types of areas and the tenor of public discourse is noticeably different between the two. In liberal areas the topic rarely comes up. In conservative areas it sometimes does, in certain areas, a LOT, particularly in the South. In practice, having lived in the midwest, NE and SW parts of the US, I can't say that religion has unduly intruded on my life or even been a particular irritant.
Some people here do complain of it being terribly vexing, but they either live in rabid Bible Belt environments and/or are personally extra sensitive about it.
I do believe that the arrogance of the religious right, in whose perfect world they would like to impose their beliefs and taboos on society generally, represent a practical threat to democracy and freedom of thought; this is the only "freedom from religion" that matters to me. Even there, I believe that this struggle is all over but the shouting; fundamentalism is losing what hegemony it had in this country. It has been going on for a couple of generations now.
Um...guess you guys missed the OP...it asked: "Is there tension between" Freedom OF and Freedom FROM religion:
Let me hip you to sumthin'--There IS tension between the two...LOTS of it! That either of YOU...or I...have managed to exist without "tension" as non-religious in a country/world that is saturated with religion not withstanding.
My post addressed an aspect of the issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
