Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[jwhitlock]

Whose rights should prevail in cases at law? I tend to think that the 14th Amendment is just as binding as the first 10.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the 14th amendment has probably been the most abused by the courts. The amendment is written vaguely enough that judges have felt free to be as broad as they want in their interpretations. Given a specific case, it's possible to get very different applications of the law depending on who the judge is.

 

If it could be claimed that there is consistency in interpretation of the law, then perhaps a case might be made on whose rights should prevail. But there is no consistency, hence when a ruling is made, there's not much confidence in how solid it really is.

 

What the "law" is is what is being ruled on at the current time. That can change significantly in any direction over time. We have an arbitrary legal system, not a true system of justice.

[rockpond]

If you consider the majority of chartered units sponsored by religious groups terminating their affiliation with the BSA as not significant, then your statement makes sense.

 

In reality, it does make a big difference.

 

You think that lifting the ban against gay leaders while allowing individual units to select leaders by their own standards is going to cause the majority of units chartered by religious organizations to terminate their affiliation?

[rockpond]

Do I need to spell it out for you? The stock answer on this thread for any conflict between religious rights and gay rights has been that religious rights always discriminate in such situations, and therefore are wrong.

 

Get it now?

 

Sorry, I'm not seeing it.

[rockpond]

Then read what I actually said. I was specific in talking about policies they may make beyond what they voted on the other day - not what they've already made.

 

Oh... so you are talking about some hypothetical policy change that is undefined by may infringe on religious liberty?  Okay, in such a hypothetical situation, you may be correct.

[jwhitlock]

You think that lifting the ban against gay leaders while allowing individual units to select leaders by their own standards is going to cause the majority of units chartered by religious organizations to terminate their affiliation?

 

More misrepresentation on your part.

[jwhitlock]

Oh... so you are talking about some hypothetical policy change that is undefined by may infringe on religious liberty?  Okay, in such a hypothetical situation, you may be correct.

 

No, I'm talking about the fact that gay groups such as Scouts for Equality have stated publicly that the exemptions for religious chartered troops should be eliminated and that all units should be required to accept openly practicing gay adults.

 

Since the BSA has caved so far to pressure to change it's policies, it's more than reasonable to expect that the removal of that exemption would be a real possibility.

 

Are you finished misrepresenting what I've said? 

[Gray]

Since rockpond misrepresented what I said, I guess I have to state it again.

 

The next step in potential BSA policy evolution is to require religious organizations to accept gay adults in their troops. The policy they just voted on doesn't have that requirement and specifically exempts it, but gay activists are demanding that the exemption be removed and ALL chartered organizations be required to admit gay adults, including religiously oriented ones.

 

That is what would send a clear message that religious belief is no longer welcome in the BSA unless it passes the gay rights litmus test.

 

If BSA decides to do that, isn't it their right to do so? They're a private organization, they can set their own rules. 

[Gray]

Except where they come into conflict, and then claimed gay rights must always take precedence.

 

That is, of course, where all this is headed.

 

No, not at all. I think both should have equal rights. Neither has the right to infringe on the other's rights. 

[rockpond]

No, I'm talking about the fact that gay groups such as Scouts for Equality have stated publicly that the exemptions for religious chartered troops should be eliminated and that all units should be required to accept openly practicing gay adults.

 

Since the BSA has caved so far to pressure to change it's policies, it's more than reasonable to expect that the removal of that exemption would be a real possibility.

 

Are you finished misrepresenting what I've said? 

 

I was not intentionally misrepresenting what you said though I admit that I may have misunderstood.  I tried to re-state it very clearly in post #293 and you responded to that without correcting my misunderstanding.

 

I'm not sure how you would force religious organizations to put openly gay adults into leadership positions.  But, I think that if the BSA was to force units to register leaders who violate that organization's religious beliefs, that would definitely be a step too far for the BSA to make such a move.

[Gray]

Are any of the following items a religious right?

 

The right to not allow black people into your restaurant if you have religious beliefs about that

The right not to be criticized by people who disagree with your religious views

The right for your church to get funding from private donors who don't want to give it to you based on your beliefs

The right to forbid Americans from marrying based on your religious beliefs

The right to forbid other independent religions or private groups from making rules you disagree with

 

ETA: Or how about the right to be exempt from lawsuits, be they legitimate or frivolous? 

Edited July 16, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

I was not intentionally misrepresenting what you said though I admit that I may have misunderstood.  I tried to re-state it very clearly in post #293 and you responded to that without correcting my misunderstanding.

 

I'm not sure how you would force religious organizations to put openly gay adults into leadership positions.  But, I think that if the BSA was to force units to register leaders who violate that organization's religious beliefs, that would definitely be a step too far for the BSA to make such a move.

Just as BSA was pressured and coerced into the most recent policy changes by the threat of onerous litigation, it could be further coerced into making unacceptable demands on its chartering organizations. The quote provided by jwhitlock hints that this is the long- range intent of gay pressure groups. I believe it is for that reason the Church has drawn a line in the sand -- to show there will also be a cost associated with knuckling under to the juggernaut.

[rockpond]

Just as BSA was pressured and coerced into the most recent policy changes by the threat of onerous litigation, it could be further coerced into making unacceptable demands on its chartering organizations. The quote provided by jwhitlock hints that this is the long- range intent of gay pressure groups. I believe it is for that reason the Church has drawn a line in the sand -- to show there will also be a cost associated with knuckling under to the juggernaut.

 

Good for the church for drawing a line in the sand!  Was there a published statement somewhere that I missed?

 

What threat of litigation do you think coerced the most recent vote?

[Scott Lloyd]

Good for the church for drawing a line in the sand! Was there a published statement somewhere that I missed?

What threat of litigation do you think coerced the most recent vote?

The Church made a statement in the wake of this most recent BSA action. I'm on my iPod so I can't readily link to it. It said it "must" be allowed to run its chartered units according to its own principles.

The Scout executive, in calling for this recent action made referene to the threat of litigation.

When I get to my laptop or desktop, I'll provide links.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

The Church made a statement in the wake of this most recent BSA action. I'm on my iPod so I can't readily link to it. It said it "must" be allowed to run its chartered units according to its own principles.

The Scout executive, in calling for this recent action made referene to the threat of litigation.

When I get to my laptop or desktop, I'll provide links.

 

Oh yeah, I remember that church statement now.

 

I read a couple articles wherein Gates refers broadly to "legal challenges" but the only specific issue that I saw was that one of the BSA's own councils defied the ban in hiring the first openly gay eagle scout as a summer camp director.  So that challenge is coming from within.

[Analytics]

Since rockpond misrepresented what I said, I guess I have to state it again.

 

The next step in potential BSA policy evolution is to require religious organizations to accept gay adults in their troops. The policy they just voted on doesn't have that requirement and specifically exempts it, but gay activists are demanding that the exemption be removed and ALL chartered organizations be required to admit gay adults, including religiously oriented ones.

 

That is what would send a clear message that religious belief is no longer welcome in the BSA unless it passes the gay rights litmus test.

 

That isn't what they say they want, and it isn't the way scouting works.  The way the program works is that the sponsoring organization chooses who will be the adult leaders. Adults can volunteer to help with scouting, but they can't force a troop to make a spot for them.

 

It's a subtle point, but what these activists say they want is a broad policy statement that says the scouting program does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  This wouldn't force troops to accept any adult (gay or otherwise) into the troop. 

[jwhitlock]

That isn't what they say they want, and it isn't the way scouting works.  The way the program works is that the sponsoring organization chooses who will be the adult leaders. Adults can volunteer to help with scouting, but they can't force a troop to make a spot for them.

 

It's a subtle point, but what these activists say they want is a broad policy statement that says the scouting program does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  This wouldn't force troops to accept any adult (gay or otherwise) into the troop. 

 

Please re-read what I posted from Scouts for Equality. Take a look at their site. They clearly want the BSA to specify that all chartered troops, including those sponsored by religious organizations, be required to accept gays as leaders with no strings attached. Nothing subtle about it at all.

[Scott Lloyd]

That isn't what they say they want, and it isn't the way scouting works.  The way the program works is that the sponsoring organization chooses who will be the adult leaders. Adults can volunteer to help with scouting, but they can't force a troop to make a spot for them.

 

It's a subtle point, but what these activists say they want is a broad policy statement that says the scouting program does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  This wouldn't force troops to accept any adult (gay or otherwise) into the troop.

The statement jwhitlock quoted says the policy change is "not perfect." What would make it perfect in their view? For religious organizations to be required to function to suit them and their demands. True to form, they will keep pushing until BSA totally caves in and gives them what they want.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The statement jwhitlock quoted says the policy change is "not perfect." What would make it perfect in their view? For religious organizations to be required to function to suit them and their demands. True to form, they will keep pushing until BSA totally caves in and gives them what they want.

It is time for the church to cut ties. Just preempt this whole thing.

[Analytics]

Please re-read what I posted from Scouts for Equality. Take a look at their site. They clearly want the BSA to specify that all chartered troops, including those sponsored by religious organizations, be required to accept gays as leaders with no strings attached. Nothing subtle about it at all.

 

 

The statement jwhitlock quoted says the policy change is "not perfect." What would make it perfect in their view? For religious organizations to be required to function to suit them and their demands. True to form, they will keep pushing until BSA totally caves in and gives them what they want.

 

What they say they want is to end discrimination. 

 

The statement in full is as follows:

 

Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout and the Executive Director of Scouts for Equality, issued the following statement:

 

“Today’s announcement hopefully marks the beginning of the end of the Boy Scouts of America’s decades-old ban on gay leaders and parents like my two moms. In two weeks, the BSA’s national executive board will vote to ratify a resolution that has already been unanimously adopted by their executive committee.

 

“For decades, the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay adults has stood as a towering example of explicit, institutional homophobia in one of America’s most important and recognizable civic organizations. While this policy change is not perfect—BSA’s religious chartering partners will be allowed to continue to discriminate against gay adults—it is difficult to overstate the importance of today’s announcement.

 

“The BSA has explicitly cited the work of Scouts for Equality members Pascal Tessier, an openly gay Eagle Scout working at a Boy Scouts summer camp in New York state, Yasmin Cassini, a lesbian woman from Colorado who was denied employment on the basis of her sexual orientation, and Brian Peffly, an openly gay Eagle Scout who until recently served as an assistant Scoutmaster in central Ohio. I could not be more proud of, or grateful for, the courage, strength, and dedication to the values of Scouting as demonstrated by Pascal, Yasmin, and Brian.”

 

"Ending discrimination" in this context simply means that there would be a BSA-wide policy that says sponsoring organizations must agree that they won't discriminate against gays when choosing leaders.  However, they would still retain their right to choose the leaders they want. 

 

Asking an organization not to discriminate against gays is different than asking the organization to "be required to accept gays as leaders with no strings attached."

[sethpayne]

It is time for the church to cut ties. Just preempt this whole thing.

 

I agree.  The Church could run a great "scouting" program of its own.  Sure, they wouldn't have access to the BSA ranches etc.... but IIRC, as a young scouter our wards never used those things anyway.  We did go to a couple of regional campouts .... but that's it.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

Because we're repeatedly getting challenges on this board now to show "specific, concrete examples" of how religious freedom is being threatened or trampled upon 

 

 

How about "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance?

Is that a threat to the religious freedom of Hindus? They believe in Brahma.

 

How about "in God we trust"?

Is that a threat to the religious freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses? It is their religious belief to specify the name Jehovah.

 

What about a Christian Flag in a police station? Is that a threat to the religious freedom of the Jews?

What about the Ten commandment in Oklahoma? Is that a threat to the religious freedom for Buddhists to not work on the Sabbath? 

 

Edited July 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Scott Lloyd]

What they say they want is to end discrimination. 

 

The statement in full is as follows:

 

 

"Ending discrimination" in this context simply means that there would be a BSA-wide policy that says sponsoring organizations must agree that they won't discriminate against gays when choosing leaders.  However, they would still retain their right to choose the leaders they want. 

 

Asking an organization not to discriminate against gays is different than asking the organization to "be required to accept gays as leaders with no strings attached."

How is it different?

[TheSkepticChristian]

How is it different?

 

Please do not ignore my questions in post 321

[CV75]

How about "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance? No, no one is compelled to say it.

Is that a threat to the religious freedom of Hindus? They believe in Brahma.

 

How about "in God we trust"? No, no one is compelled to adopt God as their Deity, and everyone uses money printed and minted by the government.

Is that a threat to the religious freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses? It is their religious belief to specify the name Jehovah.

 

What about a Christian Flag in a police station? Is that a threat to the religious freedom of the Jews? No, no one is compelled to salut such a flag.

What about the Ten commandment in Oklahoma? Is that a threat to the religious freedom for Buddhists to not work on the Sabbath? No, no one is compelled to not work on the sabbath.

But whether the threat and trampling of religious freedom is realized or not, it starts in the mind for both the perpetrators and the victims: “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.” (James 1: 14-18). Jacob 2:35 is related to this, in that victims can be so pressured in their minds by the plans and actions of the perpetrators so as to "die" within their hearts and give up on their exercise of that which brings them happiness.

 

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: “For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.Ye call upon my name for revelations, and I give them unto you; and inasmuch as ye keep not my sayings, which I give unto you, ye become transgressors; and justice and judgment are the penalty which is affixed unto my law. Therefore, what I say unto one I say unto all: Watch, for the adversary spreadeth his dominions, and darkness reigneth…” (D&C 82:3-5)

[TheSkepticChristian]

But whether the threat and trampling of religious freedom is realized or not, it starts in the mind for both the perpetrators and the victims: “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.” (James 1: 14-18). Jacob 2:35 is related to this, in that victims can be so pressured in their minds by the plans and actions of the perpetrators so as to "die" within their hearts and give up on their exercise of that which brings them happiness.

 

"No, no one is compelled to say it."

 

What if it changed to "under Brahma" or "under Satan"? How would most Christians react? and how would they react if you tell them "no one is compelled to say it"

 

"No, no one is compelled to adopt God as their Deity, and everyone uses money printed and minted by the government."

 

but if that phrase is removed, that somehow becomes an attack on religion  

 

Edited July 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian