Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[jwhitlock]

Why not? That's something I've been told to do often enough usually by conservatives (religious or political). This is just the flip side of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. The BSA was perfectly free then to set conditions on its membership, and if you didn't like the policy, well, no one was forcing you to join. And no doubt you would have been perfectly happy to put it that way then. The way I see it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

 

That is my related point. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from criticism. Assuming the activists' goal really is to marginalize religion in the public arena, they are perfectly free to do so, so long as they don't violate anyone's rights thereby. Freedom of religion does not exempt one from the court of public opinion either. And if you are violating someone else's rights, you don't get to use freedom of religion as a shield because your freedom ends where other people's right begin. It really is that simple.

 

You're missing the larger point. The BSA can do anything they want, and if they want to force religious organizations out by eliminating their moral standards and instead cater to gays, then they can do it - even though it would be stupid in the extreme.

 

The marginalization of religions is not just being done through "criticism". It's being done through legal and regulatory means. Freedom of religion is being eliminated where it is perceived to conflict with the new "morality". The situation with the BSA simply indicates that those attacking religious freedom to eliminate it are going to use discrimination as the legal means to force total compliance, including religious belief, with accepting homosexuality.

 

It's not "criticism". It's a full fledged attack aimed at eliminating religious freedom based on our new political correctness. Activists such as those in scouts for equality are not going to stop until they force - through any legal or regulatory means possible - churches to completely accept homosexuality.

 

That SSM supporters dismiss that as not being an attack on religious freedom is troubling.

Edited July 15, 2015 by jwhitlock

[Gray]

When an activist group seeks to co-opt an organization that has had a significant religious basis, and with which religious organizations have had significant involvement for decades, you can't just say "if you don't like it, leave".

 

The activists are just fine with that, because their goal is to marginalize religion in the public arena by doing just that - limiting their options to participate through charges of discrimination.

 

It's also clear from their statements that gay activists consider religious views that don't embrace homosexuality as something that need to be eradicated from American society, by whatever means possible.

 

It's not as simple as you'd like to portray it. Nor does your related point have any pertinence to what I posted.

 

You make it sound like gay people are forcing BSA to do something. BSA is making these changes voluntarily. 

[Gray]

You're missing the larger point. The BSA can do anything they want, and if they want to force religious organizations out by eliminating their moral standards and instead cater to gays, then they can do it - even though it would be stupid in the extreme.

 

The marginalization of religions is not just being done through "criticism". It's being done through legal and regulatory means. Freedom of religion is being eliminated where it is perceived to conflict with the new "morality". The situation with the BSA simply indicates that those attacking religious freedom to eliminate it are going to use discrimination as the legal means to force total compliance, including religious belief, with accepting homosexuality.

 

It's not "criticism". It's a full fledged attack aimed at eliminating religious freedom based on our new political correctness. Activists such as those in scouts for equality are not going to stop until they force - through any legal or regulatory means possible - churches to completely accept homosexuality.

 

That SSM supporters dismiss that as not being an attack on religious freedom is troubling.

 

I have yet to see an example of any religious freedoms being curtailed 

[KevinG]

You make it sound like gay people are forcing BSA to do something. BSA is making these changes voluntarily. 

 

If by BSA you mean Gates and the executive board.  There are many long time units and leaders in my area (Atlanta, Georgia) who have quit or will quit the BSA over being pressured into changing their policies.  Whether you think that political pressure is positive or negative not withstanding.  It is still pressure, and the BSA membership at large has been impacted heavily.  

[jwhitlock]

You make it sound like gay people are forcing BSA to do something. BSA is making these changes voluntarily. 

 

Yes, gay activists are forcing the BSA to change. They're doing it through charges of discrimination, which result in government agencies curtailing BSA activities. You also have, for instance, the California judicial system labeling the BSA as a discriminatory organization and requiring its judges to terminate any ties with the BSA or lose their seats.

 

Your post above is pretty disingenuous. 

[jwhitlock]

I have yet to see an example of any religious freedoms being curtailed 

 

It would be more accurate of you to say you haven't seen any example that you're willing to accept.

 

I recognize that SSM supporters are simply going to deny that any religious freedoms are being abridged. They're simply going to ignore the evidence and shout that there is none, while they continue to make inroads on those freedoms.

 

I also am not going to let such denials go unchallenged.

[Gray]

Yes, gay activists are forcing the BSA to change. They're doing it through charges of discrimination, which result in government agencies curtailing BSA activities. You also have, for instance, the California judicial system labeling the BSA as a discriminatory organization and requiring its judges to terminate any ties with the BSA or lose their seats.

 

Your post above is pretty disingenuous. 

 

So when a bishop takes someone's temple recommend away for WOW issues, are they being forced to obey the WOW? Has something improper gone on there?

 

There is much more pressure in that situation than the BSA is facing. They are free to continue discriminating if they wish - no one has the power to shut them down for that. 

 

Are there social consequences for discriminating? Of course. That doesn't destroy agency, though. 

[Gray]

It would be more accurate of you to say you haven't seen any example that you're willing to accept.

 

I recognize that SSM supporters are simply going to deny that any religious freedoms are being abridged. They're simply going to ignore the evidence and shout that there is none, while they continue to make inroads on those freedoms.

 

I also am not going to let such denials go unchallenged.

 

Great, then show me a concrete example of religious freedoms being abridged. 

[jwhitlock]

Great, then show me a concrete example of religious freedoms being abridged. 

 

Read the thread.

[jwhitlock]

So when a bishop takes someone's temple recommend away for WOW issues, are they being forced to obey the WOW? Has something improper gone on there?

 

There is much more pressure in that situation than the BSA is facing. They are free to continue discriminating if they wish - no one has the power to shut them down for that. 

 

Are there social consequences for discriminating? Of course. That doesn't destroy agency, though. 

 

There you go parroting the "discrimination" rationalization. In the case of what scouts for equality is doing, the word is being misapplied as justification to try to force religious groups to embrace homosexuality,

 

The fact is that the BSA policy change is an attempt at compromise. But that's not what gay activists want. They don't want compromise.

 

That's the whole point about what's interesting with the BSA situation. It is a clear indication that gay activists are not willing to live with any compromise at all, and are going to push "discrimination" as superseding religious freedom.

 

And they're going to define what "discrimination" means and then try to get the courts and government to enforce their definition.

 

That's also the main lesson with what happened in the SCOTUS decision.

[stemelbow]

In related news (and I won't discuss it in detail, since there are other threads on it) I found this interesting quote from scoutsforequality.org about the BSA decision and how it affects religious organizations:

 

 

A few observations about this:

 

- There is no acknowledgment by these particular gay rights activists of the need to balance religious freedom with all of this.

- Religious belief that views homosexual behavior and SSM as wrong is going to be labeled and attacked - both legally and in the press - as discrimination.

- The goal with gay activists and the BSA is not compromise; it's forcing any chartering religious organization to adjust their beliefs, doctrines, and policies about homosexuality in order to charter a scout troop. Religious freedom is not a consideration.

- They will be continuing to work towards that goal. Compromise is not acceptable.

 

Claims of discrimination are going to be used to force churches to comply. Along with the other clear challenges to religious freedom that have been specified on this thread, this can be added to it.

So fi the BSA decides that chartering orgs including religions have to allow gay people to lead troops that is the gay agenda people trampling on religious freedom?

So any rules an org makes going forward as it listens to the homosexual voice, if you will, will be nothing short of the gay agenda trampling on religious freedom?

All they want is respect, my man. Gay people should be able to participate in scouts as much as the next, if you ask me. A Mormon gay Scoutmaster isn't only going to do good for the Scoutmaster, but perhaps for the boys and all involved.

[stemelbow]

There you go parroting the "discrimination" rationalization. In the case of what scouts for equality is doing, the word is being misapplied as justification to try to force religious groups to embrace homosexuality,

 

The fact is that the BSA policy change is an attempt at compromise. But that's not what gay activists want. They don't want compromise.

 

That's the whole point about what's interesting with the BSA situation. It is a clear indication that gay activists are not willing to live with any compromise at all, and are going to push "discrimination" as superseding religious freedom.

 

And they're going to define what "discrimination" means and then try to get the courts and government to enforce their definition.

 

That's also the main lesson with what happened in the SCOTUS decision.

of course no one wants just compromise for the sake of compromise. They want free rights just like you and I have. As long as orgs are set up to discriminate against them because they are gay, some will, no doubt feel forced to point out the discrimination. You act as though they are trying to take over the world in some Nazi-like campaign. You will always have the right to say, "I dont' like gay people" or "they sin too bad for my tastes" if ya like.

[Gray]

Read the thread.

 

I have, and have yet to see a concrete example. 

[KevinG]

Great, then show me a concrete example of religious freedoms being abridged. 

 

Boy Scouts being denied access to public facilities in California due to their stance on sexuality and religious belief. For starters...  Let's not pretend that in this clash of cultures and beliefs the gay community vs. the religious community is purely a victim/victimizer relationship.  There has been coercive behavior used on both sides of the debate.

[Gray]

There you go parroting the "discrimination" rationalization. In the case of what scouts for equality is doing, the word is being misapplied as justification to try to force religious groups to embrace homosexuality,

 

I'm not misusing the word. It means what it means. Why not own it? How does saying the "D" word force religions to change their beliefs? 

 

The fact is that the BSA policy change is an attempt at compromise. But that's not what gay activists want. They don't want compromise.

 

I'm not sure you're equipped to speak for them. 

 

That's the whole point about what's interesting with the BSA situation. It is a clear indication that gay activists are not willing to live with any compromise at all, and are going to push "discrimination" as superseding religious freedom.

 

I don't think it does us any good to pretend that there is a monolithic group of gay activists out there pushing for what you're claiming. 

 

And they're going to define what "discrimination" means and then try to get the courts and government to enforce their definition.

 

The definition of discrimination was not invented by "gay activists" 

 

That's also the main lesson with what happened in the SCOTUS decision.

 

[ERayR]

So fi the BSA decides that chartering orgs including religions have to allow gay people to lead troops that is the gay agenda people trampling on religious freedom?

So any rules an org makes going forward as it listens to the homosexual voice, if you will, will be nothing short of the gay agenda trampling on religious freedom?

All they want is respect, my man. Gay people should be able to participate in scouts as much as the next, if you ask me. A Mormon gay Scoutmaster isn't only going to do good for the Scoutmaster, but perhaps for the boys and all involved.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=grieving+man+picture&biw=1600&bih=766&tbm=isch&imgil=kvMiSu9wCmFUqM%253A%253BqKUsJX9w6rwQTM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fholykaw.alltop.com%25252Ftime-to-redefine-the-stages-of-grief&source=iu&pf=m&fir=kvMiSu9wCmFUqM%253A%252CqKUsJX9w6rwQTM%252C_&usg=__xpbA9bUPwZPQNXz7e_M28kBCehQ%3D&ved=0CDcQyjdqFQoTCICsn5Pl3cYCFVGliAodMqcAFA&ei=qqmmVYCvJtHKogSyzoKgAQ#imgrc=kvMiSu9wCmFUqM%3A&usg=__xpbA9bUPwZPQNXz7e_M28kBCehQ%3D

[Gray]

Boy Scouts being denied access to public facilities in California due to their stance on sexuality and religious belief. For starters...  Let's not pretend that in this clash of cultures and beliefs the gay community vs. the religious community is purely a victim/victimizer relationship.  There has been coercive behavior used on both sides of the debate.

 

The Boy Scouts are not a religion. Do you have any other examples?

[jwhitlock]

So fi the BSA decides that chartering orgs including religions have to allow gay people to lead troops that is the gay agenda people trampling on religious freedom?

So any rules an org makes going forward as it listens to the homosexual voice, if you will, will be nothing short of the gay agenda trampling on religious freedom?

All they want is respect, my man. Gay people should be able to participate in scouts as much as the next, if you ask me. A Mormon gay Scoutmaster isn't only going to do good for the Scoutmaster, but perhaps for the boys and all involved.

 

Gates himself indicated that the BSA was changing because if increasing legal and regulatory pressure.

 

Characterizing this as if the BSA "just decided to change" is misrepresenting the situation. It's about pressure that gay activist groups like Scouts for Equality are exerting and that pressure uses "discrimination" as its cry, with all the legal and regulatory support that they can muster. They are indeed forcing change, and it's not just about "respect". If it was, I wouldn't (and don't) have a problem - because there would be mutual respect.

 

There isn't that mutual respect with Scouts for Equality and other groups looking to force not only the BSA, but their chartered religious organizations to change.

[jwhitlock]

The Boy Scouts are not a religion. Do you have any other examples?

 

What don't you understand about religious chartered BSA organizations also being affected by being denied public access?

[jwhitlock]

of course no one wants just compromise for the sake of compromise. They want free rights just like you and I have. As long as orgs are set up to discriminate against them because they are gay, some will, no doubt feel forced to point out the discrimination. You act as though they are trying to take over the world in some Nazi-like campaign. You will always have the right to say, "I dont' like gay people" or "they sin too bad for my tastes" if ya like.

 

So compromise is bad, of course. And it's bad because the gay activist groups are labeling any compromise as "continued discrimination".

 

I find your last sentence with your characterization of my "rights" to be offensive and a blatant misrepresentation of the attitudes of those who have concerns with SSM. I understand that it's SOP for SSM supporters to demonize their opponents in any way they can, but I'm not going to put up with it.

[jwhitlock]

I have, and have yet to see a concrete example. 

 

Again, it's because you don't want to acknowledge any.

[jwhitlock]

There you go parroting the "discrimination" rationalization. In the case of what scouts for equality is doing, the word is being misapplied as justification to try to force religious groups to embrace homosexuality,

I'm not misusing the word. It means what it means. Why not own it? How does saying the "D" word force religions to change their beliefs? 

The fact is that the BSA policy change is an attempt at compromise. But that's not what gay activists want. They don't want compromise.

I'm not sure you're equipped to speak for them. 

That's the whole point about what's interesting with the BSA situation. It is a clear indication that gay activists are not willing to live with any compromise at all, and are going to push "discrimination" as superseding religious freedom.

I don't think it does us any good to pretend that there is a monolithic group of gay activists out there pushing for what you're claiming. 

And they're going to define what "discrimination" means and then try to get the courts and government to enforce their definition.

The definition of discrimination was not invented by "gay activists" 

That's also the main lesson with what happened in the SCOTUS decision.

 

 

Any accusation of "discrimination" against any organization, including churches, is now used to bring the force of judicial and regulatory review of that organization. It doesn't matter if there's no real evidence of discrimination; it becomes their job to find something and punish the accused.

 

I didn't claim I spoke for gay groups. However, I do quote what they've said. Perhaps it would behoove you to go back and read how Scouts for Equality views religious organizations as "discriminatory".

 

No one said there was a "monolithic" group of gay activists out there. That's just a red herring on your part.

 

The definition of "discrimination" has been changed by gay activists to mean anyone or any group or any church that won't embrace homosexuality and SSM with open arms. That's a dishonest definition that, unfortunately, is being used to infringe upon religious freedom.

[rockpond]

Gates himself indicated that the BSA was changing because if increasing legal and regulatory pressure.

 

Characterizing this as if the BSA "just decided to change" is misrepresenting the situation. It's about pressure that gay activist groups like Scouts for Equality are exerting and that pressure uses "discrimination" as its cry, with all the legal and regulatory support that they can muster. They are indeed forcing change, and it's not just about "respect". If it was, I wouldn't (and don't) have a problem - because there would be mutual respect.

 

There isn't that mutual respect with Scouts for Equality and other groups looking to force not only the BSA, but their chartered religious organizations to change.

 

The BSA took its case all the way to the Supreme Court.  And won.  You think that Scouts for Equality is behind this latest vote?  Give me a break.

 

This is about money and the decreasing willingness of corporate sponsors to give money to an organization that prohibits gay people from participating.

[jwhitlock]

The BSA took its case all the way to the Supreme Court.  And won.  You think that Scouts for Equality is behind this latest vote?  Give me a break.

 

This is about money and the decreasing willingness of corporate sponsors to give money to an organization that prohibits gay people from participating.

 

I quoted Scouts for Equality as an -->example<-- of the pressure put on the BSA from a gay activist standpoint. Your statement of what I think is nothing more than your overactive imagination at work.

[SmileyMcGee]

Again, it's because you don't want to acknowledge any.

It's probably more a result of varying perspectives on what is religious freedom and its limits. I imagine religious freedom will be better defined through the courts in the next few decades.

Edited July 15, 2015 by SmileyMcGee