Matthew 25, "deeply Held Religious Beliefs", And Discrimination

[USU78]

sss, 3DOP, buys into the sociologically useful but grossly unscientific taxonomy of "race" as well as the functional, political equivalence of "race," which arguably has a genetic and therefore inborn and immutable aspect to it, and same sex attraction, which is neither genetic, inborn nor immutable.

 

Once one understands this, everything else falls into place.

 

sss is the hammer and everything that looks to him like 1963 is a nail.

 

He doesn't get that compulsory participation in a public rite with religious overtones like SSM is, to the religious-minded person, the functional equivalent of sacrificing a pig in the 2nd Temple's debir.

Edited August 22, 2014 by USU78

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am bewildered at why you would conclude that anybody here is in favor of laws restricting trade between persons of different race. Freedom isn't when government gets involved in our economic activity either to prevent or to force people into making deals with each other. You like one and dislike the other?  

 

I am against the use of force to prevent economic activity between persons disposed to trade. I am against the use of force to prompt economic activity between persons indisposed to trade.

 

I guess you think we must choose either government restricting economic activity, or government enforcing economic activity. I choose neither.

Amen brother. I am for freedom not the restriction of such. When government gets involved less freedom is always the result.

[thesometimesaint]

I am bewildered at why you would conclude that anybody here is in favor of laws restricting trade between persons of different race. Freedom isn't when government gets involved in our economic activity either to prevent or to force people into making deals with each other. You like one and dislike the other?  

 

I am against the use of force to prevent economic activity between persons disposed to trade. I am against the use of force to prompt economic activity between persons indisposed to trade.

 

I guess you think we must choose either government restricting economic activity, or government enforcing economic activity. I choose neither.

 

That is the point. Those were deeply held religious beliefs with the force of law. There has never been a time when governments weren't involved in economic activity. They coin money. Tell me that when some crook cheats you out of your money.

 

Then don't engage in trade.

 

That is the classic Laissez Faire argument used by the Robber Barons of a century ago.

[thesometimesaint]

sss, 3DOP, buys into the sociologically useful but grossly unscientific taxonomy of "race" as well as the functional, political equivalence of "race," which arguably has a genetic and therefore inborn and immutable aspect to it, and same sex attraction, which is neither genetic, inborn nor immutable.

 

Once one understands this, everything else falls into place.

 

sss is the hammer and everything that looks to him like 1963 is a nail.

 

He doesn't get that compulsory participation in a public rite with religious overtones like SSM is, to the religious-minded person, the functional equivalent of sacrificing a pig in the 2nd Temple's debir.

 

Race is a useful sociological term. IE; What is happening in Ferguson; Missouri.

 

Sexual attraction is determined by the age of 5. The exact cause(s) are not known. Probably a combination of genetic and social components. 

 

JFK was murdered in 1963. I was 12 at the time. The next year our family moved to Alabama. I saw first hand how sociological distinctions of race worked.

 

 You obviously don't get that compulsory non-participation in a public rite with economic overtones like race is, to the religious-minded person, the functional equivalent of sacrificing a pig in the 2nd Temple's  inner-most part of the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple.

[thesometimesaint]

Amen brother. I am for freedom not the restriction of such. When government gets involved less freedom is always the result.

 

All animals are created equal. Some are just more equal than others.

Animal Farm

[USU78]

All animals are created equal. Some are just more equal than others.

Animal Farm

 

Which is how a numerically relatively insignificant minority, by clever machinations, can end up ordering others around.

 

USU "Makes cakes for no man" 78

[thesometimesaint]

Which is how a numerically relatively insignificant minority, by clever machinations, can end up ordering others around.

 

USU "Makes cakes for no man" 78

 

HMM So in your mind if it is a numerically relatively insignificant minority discrimination is OK. So much for "Equal Justice Under Law".

[USU78]

HMM So in your mind if it is a numerically relatively insignificant minority discrimination is OK. So much for "Equal Justice Under Law".

 

You understand so little about me.

 

No.

 

I don't like bullies of any stripe.

 

If you make me make you a cake when to do so breaks my heart, you are a bully whether you're white, black, purple or asexual.

[thesometimesaint]

You understand so little about me.

 

No.

 

I don't like bullies of any stripe.

 

If you make me make you a cake when to do so breaks my heart, you are a bully whether you're white, black, purple or asexual.

 

No one is making you bake a cake. When you embark in a state recognized business you agree to abide by the rules(laws) of the state. The state allows you a business license. The rules(laws) of the state require that you sell to all comers regardless of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex and increasingly sexual orientation. It is you that is the bully in claiming your religion mandates that you can discriminate against other citizens in your state issued license to do business.

[USU78]

No one is making you bake a cake. When you embark in a state recognized business you agree to abide by the rules(laws) of the state. The state allows you a business license. The rules(laws) of the state require that you sell to all comers regardless of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex and increasingly sexual orientation. It is you that is the bully in claiming your religion mandates that you can discriminate against other citizens in your state issued license to do business.

 

You're a cruel git, aren't you?

 

Making cakes are my passion; G-d is my Master.

 

In order to follow my passion as a calling, I must disappoint my Master . . . In order to serve my Master, I must forgo my passion in my calling and find another way to make a living . . . all because of cruel bullies.

 

Plenty of other people make cakes and plenty of other people rent out their barns for weddings without making me do what is abhorrent to me.

[sethpayne]

No, I don't believe the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, properly interpreted, direct its members, generally, to, e.g., not provide housing to gays and lesbians.

 

 

Do you consider yourself a Christian?  Because this is the worst kind of bigotry.

 

If Jesus can eat with publicans and sinners, I can rent a condo to a gay man.

 

Good grief.

 

ETA:  Ignore what I said above.  I completely misread Ken.  My apologies.  I'm a moron.

Edited August 23, 2014 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

 

Plenty of other people make cakes and plenty of other people rent out their barns for weddings without making me do what is abhorrent to me.

 

If you found blacks or hispanics "abhorrent", would you not rent your barn to them?

[Calm]

Do you consider yourself a Christian?  Because this is the worst kind of bigotry.

 

If Jesus can eat with publicans and sinners, I can rent a condo to a gay man.

 

Good grief.

I think you may have misread Ken, missed one of his "nots".

[sethpayne]

I think you may have misread Ken, missed one of his "nots".

 

 

I'm an idiot.

 

Sorry, Ken.

[Kenngo1969]

Do you consider yourself a Christian?  Because this is the worst kind of bigotry.

 

If Jesus can eat with publicans and sinners, I can rent a condo to a gay man.

 

Good grief.

 

ETA:  Ignore what I said above.  I completely misread Ken.  My apologies.  I'm a moron.

 

 

I think you may have misread Ken, missed one of his "nots".

 

 

I'm an idiot.

 

Sorry, Ken.

Don't worry.  I'm very forgiving. As penance, I'll only require that you flagellate yourself publicly for another few hundred posts or so, at most.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[USU78]

If you found blacks or hispanics "abhorrent", would you not rent your barn to them?

It is a permissible discrimination based upon the recipient's bad behavior, not his genetics or language or where he was born.

[thesometimesaint]

You're a cruel git, aren't you?

 

Making cakes are my passion; G-d is my Master.

 

In order to follow my passion as a calling, I must disappoint my Master . . . In order to serve my Master, I must forgo my passion in my calling and find another way to make a living . . . all because of cruel bullies.

 

Plenty of other people make cakes and plenty of other people rent out their barns for weddings without making me do what is abhorrent to me.

 

Nope; I'm not "smart" enough to call you names.

 

So what? Reading books is my passion. God is my master, but I alone am still responsible for what I do.

 

My master doesn't require me to illegally discriminate against his other children. Bake all the cakes you want. Hope you make a good living making and selling those cakes. What you can not legally do is decide who can buy those cakes because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex and increasingly sexual orientation.

 

No one is prohibiting you from making all the cakes you want. No one is prohibiting you from selling those cakes for what ever you want. What you can not legally do is decide who can buy those cakes because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex and increasingly sexual orientation. If that makes me a bully tough Twinkies.

[3DOP]

That is the point. Those were deeply held religious beliefs with the force of law. There has never been a time when governments weren't involved in economic activity. They coin money. Tell me that when some crook cheats you out of your money.

 

Then don't engage in trade.

 

That is the classic Laissez Faire argument used by the Robber Barons of a century ago.

Hi tss.

 

I haven't made any argument. I have only pointed out that I don't think that the jim crow laws, that you inexplicably cited, are compatible with the Catholic faith as it relates to private property.

 

Tell you that there has never been a time when government hasn't been involved in economic activity when some crook cheats me out of my money? I either miss your point, or you misunderstand my position. I believe in government. I am not an anarchist. I take the position from Catholic Tradition that civil government is ordained of God and is necessary to defend common interests, among which is private property. Of course the state needs money. I do not begrudge the government taking my taxes to support peace at home and abroad. If you are suggesting that because I oppose compulsory intervention of the state into private economic matters, I am against government activity on any other range of legitimate operations, including the prevention of someone stealing my money, or government oversight of coining currency and minting a paper exchange, you are wrong. I do not believe and I have not said that the government should refrain from every and any connection with money.       

 

But let us suppose I did make this "argument" you say I made. What in the world does the source of our currency have to do with whether "the classic Laissez Faire argument used by the Robber Barons of a century ago" is compatible with jim crow laws? To coin money is not to compel someone to trade that money against their will. To coin money is not to restrict someone from trading that money against their will. You are thrashing around all over the place tss, and completely misunderstanding my position, which I believe springs from Catholic Tradition, my own "deeply held religious convictions", on this. I am in favor of private property. Nobody should be restricted from trading their private property with whosoever they would like as the jim crow laws did. I don't know why you would bring jim crow laws in to the conversation when there is no correlation with my position at all. I am as distant from a supporter of jim crow laws as it could be possible.

 

On the other hand, respectfully, and without accusing you of racism, I point out that you have a significant, and equally disturbing similarity to the jim crow racists. Like them you are in favor of using force to make people do with their private property what you think is best.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

[thesometimesaint]

Hi tss.

 

I haven't made any argument. I have only pointed out that I don't think that the jim crow laws, that you inexplicably cited, are compatible with the Catholic faith as it relates to private property.

 

Tell you that there has never been a time when government hasn't been involved in economic activity when some crook cheats me out of my money? I either miss your point, or you misunderstand my position. I believe in government. I am not an anarchist. I take the position from Catholic Tradition that civil government is ordained of God and is necessary to defend common interests, among which is private property. Of course the state needs money. I do not begrudge the government taking my taxes to support peace at home and abroad. If you are suggesting that because I oppose compulsory intervention of the state into private economic matters, I am against government activity on any other range of legitimate operations, including the prevention of someone stealing my money, or government oversight of coining currency and minting a paper exchange, you are wrong. I do not believe and I have not said that the government should refrain from every and any connection with money.       

 

But let us suppose I did make this "argument" you say I made. What in the world does the source of our currency have to do with whether "the classic Laissez Faire argument used by the Robber Barons of a century ago" is compatible with jim crow laws? To coin money is not to compel someone to trade that money against their will. To coin money is not to restrict someone from trading that money against their will. You are thrashing around all over the place tss, and completely misunderstanding my position, which I believe springs from Catholic Tradition, my own "deeply held religious convictions", on this. I am in favor of private property. Nobody should be restricted from trading their private property with whosoever they would like as the jim crow laws did. I don't know why you would bring jim crow laws in to the conversation when there is no correlation with my position at all. I am as distant from a supporter of jim crow laws as it could be possible.

 

On the other hand, respectfully, and without accusing you of racism, I point out that you have a significant, and equally disturbing similarity to the jim crow racists. Like them you are in favor of using force to make people do with their private property what you think is best.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

 

While I do admire many things about the Catholics and their church. It definitely had in the past no problem with acquiring the personal property of others through the "religious" equivalent of Jim Crow.

 

Go print your own money and try to trade it as American currency. The Secret Service will have a not so nice long talk with you. 

 

I too believe governments are a good thing. I even believe God inspired the good men to establish our Constitution. But the US government is not based on what God says but on what "We The People" say.

 

ALL trade is a private matter, but not only a private matter. In the USA we reserve the right to make limitations on the type, extent, means of production, sale, use and final disposition of private property all the time. We fought a bloody Civil War over if black people could be held as private property.

 

Laissez Faire capitalism is the believe that government can't interfere with the "Free Market" flow of goods(including people), and services. Jim Crow codified the belief that it only applied to certain rich white people. Enforced by the same Jim Crow laws that precluded blacks, and some times Jews, and Catholics from voting.

It goes back to the old adage that if money is speech then poverty is silence.

 

Believe me I have no problem with deeply held religious beliefs. I have more than a few of my own. What I don't believe, and can find no support for is the belief that this person's deeply held religious beliefs somehow trump that person's deeply held religious beliefs as law.

 

Not disrespect intended, but that is a false equivalence argument.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy where there appears to be a logical equivalence between two opposing arguments, but when in fact there is none. In false equivalence, someone will state that the opposing arguments have a passing similarity in support, when, on close examination, there is large difference between the quality of evidence

[3DOP]

Hi again tss.

 

Somewhere along the line the wires are getting crossed. You attribute beliefs to me that I don't accept. As for the Catholic Church and jim crow laws, I don't know what you are talking about, but assuredly she hasn't always abided by her own precepts. My apologies. 

 

For the record, the Catholic Church teaches the faithful that her members sometimes disobey her teachings. We are instructed that it is the teachings that are reliable, and that the actions of the members are not imitable when they disobey. Not knowing what you are talking about, I assume the veracity of your accusation, and I am sorry about the "jim crow Catholics" you have in mind, but it doesn't have any effect on the traditions to which I adhere.

 

God bless,

 

Rory 

[thesometimesaint]

Hi again tss.

 

Somewhere along the line the wires are getting crossed. You attribute beliefs to me that I don't accept. As for the Catholic Church and jim crow laws, I don't know what you are talking about, but assuredly she hasn't always abided by her own precepts. My apologies. 

 

For the record, the Catholic Church teaches the faithful that her members sometimes disobey her teachings. We are instructed that it is the teachings that are reliable, and that the actions of the members are not imitable when they disobey. Not knowing what you are talking about, I assume the veracity of your accusation, and I am sorry about the "jim crow Catholics" you have in mind, but it doesn't have any effect on the traditions to which I adhere.

 

God bless,

 

Rory 

 

We do do that sometimes. My apologies that I came across as Anti-Catholic. I'm not, I actually have a great deal of respect and admiration for the many good Catholics it has been my pleasure to know, play, work, and study with. I even attended a Catholic HS in my younger years. The Mormons have traditions and teachings very similar to that of the Catholic church, and like them we have our own "Black Sheep".

 

More often than not it was the Catholics that were among the victims of Jim Crow, and other such vile "traditions".

[USU78]

Nope; I'm not "smart" enough to call you names.

 

So what? Reading books is my passion. God is my master, but I alone am still responsible for what I do.

 

My master doesn't require me to illegally discriminate against his other children. Bake all the cakes you want. Hope you make a good living making and selling those cakes. What you can not legally do is decide who can buy those cakes because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex and increasingly sexual orientation.

 

No one is prohibiting you from making all the cakes you want. No one is prohibiting you from selling those cakes for what ever you want. What you can not legally do is decide who can buy those cakes because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex and increasingly sexual orientation. If that makes me a bully tough Twinkies.

 

A non sequitur, I'm afraid.

 

If I, because of my relationship with G-d, determine that He requires me not to participate in any way in a mockery of the sacred, he who would compel me to participate nevertheless is a heartless git.

 

If I, for the same reason, am compelled to stop my participation in commerce because the State has determined that my participation in commerce while acting according to my beliefs is worthy of fine or jail or both, then the State is a heartless git.

 

Cruelty, whether imposed by state action or the machinations of heartless busybodies, is cruelty and is wrong.  It is a tautology to claim cruelty ain't cruelty because it's the State making cruel demands of me.

[USU78]

Please stay on topic or refrain from participation. This is a discussion about whether or not LDS beliefs justify discrimination in such innocuous things like housing. This discussion is not about your personal discontent with a segment of society.

What deeply held religious beliefs (as taught and instructed by the LDS Church) justify discrimination in housing?

 

Are you OK with how others responded to this, or do you require further response from me?

[thesometimesaint]

A non sequitur, I'm afraid.

 

If I, because of my relationship with G-d, determine that He requires me not to participate in any way in a mockery of the sacred, he who would compel me to participate nevertheless is a heartless git.

 

If I, for the same reason, am compelled to stop my participation in commerce because the State has determined that my participation in commerce while acting according to my beliefs is worthy of fine or jail or both, then the State is a heartless git.

 

Cruelty, whether imposed by state action or the machinations of heartless busybodies, is cruelty and is wrong.  It is a tautology to claim cruelty ain't cruelty because it's the State making cruel demands of me.

 

No it is an admission of being not "smart" enough to respond in like manner

 

Your God given right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Maybe I'm so much of a git I don't understand what that simple injunction means.

 

OH CRUEL WORLD. Cry me a river. The cruel state says I must follow the rules of the state when in business in the state.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

OH CRUEL WORLD. Cry me a river. The cruel state says I must follow the rules of the state when in business in the state.

Something tells me you would be comfortable living in a certain country in the 30's. Because after all it was the state doing it.