this week in god.... (Maddow blog)

[AlbertCat]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/week-god-6615?cid=sm_fb_maddow


First up from the God Machine this week is an alarming concern raised separately by several Republican presidential candidates: the imaginary prospect of Christianity being “criminalized” in the United States.

Right Wing Watch reported this week, for example, on Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee’s latest warnings, this time issued to Billy Graham’s Decision magazine.
In an interview with Decision, Huckabee repeated his warning that marriage equality will lead to the “criminalization of Christianity,” saying, “When you elevate a lifestyle to the status of a civil right, I don’t think a lot of believers fully understand or comprehend that once it’s risen to that level and our government accepts it, then anyone who disagrees with it could be at least civilly liable, but more than likely would be criminally liable.”

He warned that if marriage equality is legalized nationwide, it will become a “criminal act” for a pastor to preach against gay marriage.
It’d be easier to ignore such nonsense if it weren’t increasingly common. Also this week, for example, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) argued that liberals are trying “to essentially outlaw firmly held religious beliefs that they do not agree with.”

And even Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), ostensibly a more mainstream candidate, said last week, “We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech…. That’s a real and present danger.”

(continued at link)

[AlbertCat]

1. When you elevate a lifestyle to the status of a civil right,

A "life style" like living as a Christian?....enabling you to ignore laws?

[mountain grammy]

2. Elevate a lifestyle to a civil right..

defines Huckleberry's lifestyle. He chooses to be a giant asshole and he can get married.

Being gay isn't a lifestyle, it's just life, and I thought Huckleberry was pro life???

[truebrit71]

3. Bill Maher addressed this last night in his new rules....

.... calling all of the hypocrites out on their bullshit persecution complex... basically 'how can you be persecuted when 70% of the population considers themselves to be christian? '...

[skepticscott]

6. Not a very good argument, unfortunately

Majorities have been persecuted and discriminated against in many countries, including, for example, Iraq and South Africa.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Hate speech is in fact hate speech, even

when uttered with a bible in one hand and a flag on your fucking lapel.

What hate speech isn't is criminal.

[skepticscott]

5. It may seem that way

by comparison to religious moonbats like Cruz and Huckabee, but Rubio isn't remotely a "mainstream" candidate. There are no moderates among Republicans running for president, nobody who isn't fellating the tea party and the Koch brothers.

[RussBLib]

7. hopefully, it's another sign of the death-throes of religion

...but probably just a false alarm, not unlike all the unfullfilled pronouncements of the End of the World, yearned for just as earnestly on both sides.

[Yorktown]

9. That is I think one reason behind the radicalization of Islam

The imams are not dumb, they can see the 'religion death throes' writing on the wall:
should they release their grip on society, religion would fade as it does in the West.

Their solution is reactionary. See Turkey being re-islamised. Or Pakistan becoming extreme.
I fear this spells violent convulsions to come.

[Yorktown]

8. GOP dilemma: ditch the Evangelical line or stay unelectable

Political pundits often claim the GOP has an uphill battle against demographics.

Those pundits do not dare to say an uncomfortable truth: Religion is the doom of Republicans.

Presenting a Sarah Palin as a VP candidate? Denying evolution in debates? Seriously?

[Stevepol]

10. A very simple solution that would be acceptable I believe to both sides.

The government no longer is in the business of defining "marriage."

Instead, when a couple wants to get married they will get a license from the government sanctioning a "civil union" with all that entails for any level of government: tax obligations, visitation rights etc.

Then the couple receiving that license can go to anybody they wish to perform the ceremony they choose.

This way the term "marriage" is defined by social and cultural groups and not by the government. This should satisfy all religions who do not want to recognize gay marriage since they will be free to express any idea they want. At the same time, those who are married in whatever ceremony will be given the same political rights of civil union. This should be all the government should want or demand from people who should be free to come into whatever relationships they wish to as long as the relationship is mutually acceptable to both parties and does no harm to others.

This fits the US tradition of freedom and liberty for all I think and does nothing to change any religious belief as long as that belief does not do injury to others.

I heard this from a commentator from OK about the issue being discussed on C-Span. Sounded good to me.

[beam me up scottie]

11. If SCOTUS rules in favour of same sex marriage, no religion will have to recognize it.

That's a right wing meme promoted by religious leaders who want to frame this as an attack on religious freedom instead of a civil rights issue.

Desegregation didn't mean racists were forced to give up their racism, and marriage equality won't interfere with religious bigots' right to be homophobes.

They will still be free to discriminate in their churches.

[Stevepol]

13. But this adds one more assurance to the procedure.

If the term civil union is solely used by the government and not "marriage," the GOVERNMENT won't be required to define the term marriage, so it gets such a loaded term completely out of the orbit of government and leaves everybody free to make the definition through social groupings.

Admittedly, if the SCOTUS sanctions gay marriage, you will have the same result on the surface, but you will also have the government weighing in on one side supposedly by sanctioning the term. If the government only sanctions civil unions, then the opponents of gay marriage can no longer argue that the government is telling them what marriage means. It will save a lot of political folderol and pull the props out from under haters of government over-reach, etc. It may seem to be a too subtle difference but these people who rely on wedge issues can make a mountain out of a mole hill and this gets around that I think.

Anyway, we'll see what happens, and how this SC dances around the issue so as not to offend their right-wing masters.

[beam me up scottie]

14. But that wouldn't prevent discrimination against same sex couples

when it comes to adoption, shared property, insurance, etc.

Many other laws would have to be changed to include protection for couples who are joined by civil unions.

Much simpler to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.

[Lordquinton]

16. We need to take marriage away from religion

They stole it and claim that they invented it, when it's really been a social thing for the entirety of history. The church, in their mission to control people, decided that the best way to control people is to make themselves intragal in the contract process.

Marriage is a social contract, everything religious has been forced into the equation.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Yes!

Just like morality.

[Lordquinton]

18. One poster here had an interesting take on religious morality

Religion doesn't teach morality, they teach taboos.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Interesting idea, makes sense.

People who think they need religion to dictate morality scare me.

Look at all of the things that are considered immoral in their holy books.

[Lordquinton]

20. It's the ray comfort school of morality

What keeps you from living a selfish life is how he puts it, then lumps murder and rape in with surfing all the time.

Scary man. Thunderfoot had an interesting interview with him (before he went all mra on us) i miss his old stuff. When he went and trolled the Westboro baptists was amazing.

[beam me up scottie]

21. This is from a deleted post in the other place:

David439 (7 posts)
89. If there was no god and no judgement in the afterlife

There'd be no limits to the lengths I'd go to gain total control and dominance, protect my people and my family, and preserve the natural order. None whatsoever. That's about as specific as I feel comfortable being right now. Just be thankful that I believe in god and that my people already have most of the control, because many other groups in this world have no such restraint and wouldn't show any if they were allowed to seize power from us.

Now there's an example of that good ole timey religious morality...

[Lordquinton]

22. That kind of thinking isn't as uncommon as some may think

Just drive 20 miles out of the city and speak to someone.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Heh.

I live more than 20 miles out of the city and it's like Deliverance.

[Lordquinton]

25. Out here in the SF bay area

You go out hwy 4 and travel back in time to the 50s.

An aside, all the rich people are buying up the landscape out there, does it still count as gentrification if they're kicking out the poor white people?

[beam me up scottie]

26. I think it does.

I feel for you, I really do. Such a beautiful progressive part of the country and very few of us could ever afford to live there.

[Lordquinton]

12. The first part, yes

By the religious ceremony should have no legal standing. If they want their union recagnized by the state, then they need to go through the same process as anyone else.

[AlbertCat]

15. the religious ceremony should have no legal standing.

Indeed. And you can call the religious ceremony a marriage if you want. I give the word to the religious.

The government should just get out of the marriage business altogether.... and only concentrate on the legal aspects that are free of religious convictions...."civil unions" sounds fine to me.

One can just do the civil union thing and be completely legal in the eyes of the law.

One can just do the church thing, but then, you aren't "legal" in that you don't get deductions and your kids aren't legal and that kind of stuff....

Harsh?

Nonsense. Just do both and you'll be fine with the government and whatever ancient superstitions you want to honor.

You and Stevepol and I are really on the same page.

[Yorktown]

23. the “criminalization of Christianity", the "war on Christmas",..

Dang, looks like them pesky atheists are haters.