Well, that actually doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I was discussing legality and constitutionality, not morality. For better our worse our society is framed by the Constitution. I'm sure I can find a thread where you have railed against judicial activism so I assume you agree with me. If you want to discuss morality, though, I'd be happy to. Yes, many of the values taught by every major religion for thousands of years are discriminatory bigoted nonsense. For example, slavery was endorsed by all three major monotheistic religions over most of their history. Slavery is scripture. Yet, over the last 200 years or so, liberal thought has rejected slavery. I'm sure you'll agree that history has judged the liberal viewpoint to be correct. This wasn't an attack on religion; it was an attack on slavery. Religion was not defeated; religion adapted, as it has over the course of history. Religion is not under attack in America, any more than it was during the Civil War. If religion chooses to identify itself with discriminatory and bigoted positions, it will find itself on the wrong side of history, as it has many times before. But I believe that, as usual, wiser heads will prevail, scripture will be reinterpreted or reprioritized, and religion will adapt and change along with the rest of society. Martin
Sounds like the extremists will have to ban science too! As a WASP I really don't like these hardliner fundmentalists.
"Yet, over the last 200 years or so, liberal thought has rejected slavery. I'm sure you'll agree that history has judged the liberal viewpoint to be correct" realizing that said definition of "liberal" has exactly zero correlation with the current definition the "classic liberal" of above note has most in common with the libertarian type philosophy of today, which is all but absent among those who claim to be liberal, but are the same people who install 1) censorious speech codes 2) racial preferences 3) identity politix, etc. fwiw, on the subject of religion and slavery, iirc the buddha is widely regarded as the first leader of any major religion to condemn slavery (not that india has a particularly excellent human rights history but i digress) i know some jewish scholars believe that, among other reasons, the fact that jesus never repudiated slavery is evidence to them that he was not the messiah to be more correct, there is no official record that he did so. maybe he did, but it was left out of the gospel we will never know. regardless, buddhism is rightly nearly alone in the regards it had against slavery also noted that buddha believed that human life began at conception, and this is well stated, although the majority of american buddhists are pro-choice - which is interesting
<i>realizing that said definition of "liberal" has exactly zero correlation with the current definition</i> Well, it probably has zero correlation with the definition that conservatives use. Liberalism is difficult to pin down. Still, I like what I found in the dictionary: "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority." I'm not going to argue about whether this reflects current "progressive" or "Democratic" thought, since I am neither a progressive nor a rank and file Democrat. I do consider myself a liberal in exactly this tradition. I do not consider myself a libertarian though I am sympathetic to libertarian views. Anyway, this thread isn't about me or about Democrats, it's about religion and tolerance of homosexuals. By the above definition, I believe that civil rights for homosexuals is definitely in the liberal tradition, for exactly the same reasons that abolition of slavery is in the liberal tradition. Your points about Buddhism are well taken; thanks. Martin
i consider myself a liberal, in the classic hume/hayek/burke'an definition no political party closely embodies this ideal imo. i usually end up voting repub, but they are suboptimal obviously i would never call myself a liberal without the above specifics, lest i be confused with the muddle headed kerry'esque ilk
whister. I think you are going round in circles .You were given an example of hate speech and you labeled it incitement , not I. You seem to do so because you would not directly deal with the fact that there are lines drawn in case law against what I consider you wrongly describe as the right to free speech. Trying to assist your argument with a false claim of incitement , in my view is no better than the student subject of this thread, who is apparently trying to shield her position behind an argument for freedom of religious expression.. - In reality that is not the position, as it is clear there could be a supportable case under law for sanction by the college within its rules and values. You have decided to dodge that. Fine. It appears you would rather wave a stick around with constitution and free speech written on it, hit yourself and everyone else around the head with it and disguise the issue under freedom of (christian) religious expression, in the same way the student does. I presumed all your rhetoric about every citizens right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution would sound questionable when in reality , indirect consequences of that so called free speech, caused an indefensible situation, and without falling foul of any incitement to act law And sure enough, it appears I was right. You failed to understand what was being described , so you called my example incitement to wiggle out or because you can't think past demanding something you have named "free speech", only then going onto assume the patronizing tone of one who doesn't like to be found incorrect, try to give a teach lesson on what is and isn't incitement. I find you shout an over simplistic idea and are not giving a rats ass about much so long as you can grandstand on the basis of load mouthing rights to this and that, where in reality there is a consequential price to pay outside your favored group you demand rights for. It may be your particular version of what free speech is, but I don't believe it is the Law's or the Constitutions. And I don't think you will be able to brush that fact away by falsely using the word incitement , or the other scapegoat you chose, as the student does, freedom of religious expression.
As I say jem, you are too emotional. I did not even suggest the Trinity Case did not make law or precedent. The Trinity Case Opinion did not make Law or Statute. . Because it was part of the Case does not make or turn the Case into Law, If the Trinity Case opinion were never there, the Trinity Case would still be Law. When you can acknowledge what is actually being said, and reply to that , not something you read incorrectly, you may start to clear your views a little better. Look again. Your cherry picking was done in the Trinity Opinion orchard which is not on Trinity Case Statute territory. The Jusdtics opinion provides no rule of law, and so it is hard to see just how it provides precedent. The Trinity Case itself was nothing whatsoever to do with an issue of religion anyway. So it is hard to see how it can provide precedent for anything in connection to religion Like for instance there is no precedence in Statute for "this is a christian nation". No Supreme Court has ever made one then or since. It is in my opinion, and I feel I am being generous, an ardent prayer from a Court Judge in the form of an opinion. But when you actually read his opinion he makes clear, it is others who profess that claim "we are a christian nation " and not the Court. f'kn read it jem , read the opinion carefully without your rosery tinted glasses on for once.
If if you understood jurisprudence and the importance of Supreme Court rationale you might understand why you are the joke. But your ignorance could be forgiven. However, when I give you the quote of 3 Supreme Court justices in 1989 who tell you what the central support for the ultimate conclusion was - I realize you must be a little crazy to keep denying the facts. So Stu enjoy your little bizzaro world where you believe you can interpret Supreme court law better than the entire legal community and 3 Supreme Court justices. All this delusion to maintain your incorrect world view about secularism.
You like to hurl insult but offer nothing in the way of reasonable argument. Stop waffling jem and face facts. Rationale is not Statute, jurisprudence is not Statute, opinion is not Statute. Important as they may be, they are not Statute. In any event I repeat , the Court states and the Justice says it is others who profess that claim "we are a christian nation " and not the Court. Face up to things just for once.
stu, i am not going in circles. it's this simple the constitution in the usa prohibits the govt. from censoring OPINION in fact, it tasks the govt. with protecting the rights of ALL, no matter how unpopular their views, to state their opinions in a public forum. it makes no guarantees as to private fora. that is up to the owners. obviously, the owner of a bookstore, for example, can choose not to carry book X. the fed govt. has no say in that. incitement has rightly been determined by the scotus as having a much greater action component than speech component if you say "all white people suck, are subhuman, and deserve to die" , pretty much a farrakhan'esque or sister soujah'esque opinion, that is constitutionally protected (in the USA). if you say "let's go kill some white people", to a crowd, that can be construed as incitement. see also : criminal conspiracy in the USA, you can legally 1) deny the holocaust existed 2) vilify any and all religious groups 3) claim that any race (or all races) are subhuman, lesser evolved, etc. 4) march in public in full nazi regalia etc. these are exercises of the constitutional right to free speech i am not aware of any nation on earth that protects all of the above we do