Comments on: Where Freedom of Religion and the State Clash http://blog.metacentricities.com/2008/04/19/where-freedom-of-religion-and-the-state-clash/ The intersection of vertical lines through the center of buoyancy of a floating body when it is at equilibrium... A collection of centers... Where religion, politics, science, technology, the environment and Michelle's brain and life meet. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:16:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Amanda http://blog.metacentricities.com/2008/04/19/where-freedom-of-religion-and-the-state-clash/#comment-7672 Amanda Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:14:45 +0000 http://blog.metacentricities.com/?p=565#comment-7672 Your post prompted me to start asking people whether they think polygamy should be legal or not. Honestly, I think this is exactly what the Unitarian church was good for in my life. I've been surprised by how many people just haven't given it any thought. Or haven't gotten past the "well, it is weird so it must be wrong" stage, or the "is wrong the same as illegal" stage. I'm pretty sure that one of the teen sunday school curricula has a whole discussion section on talking about legislating morality. Maybe our teacher made that up, though. I think a lot about marriage in general and these particular kinds of state sanctioned relationships and what it means that my own relationship is sanctioned and yours isn't, not outside of Mass anyhow. And for me a lot of getting married was about the commitment ceremony aspect, the standing before our families and saying "we want to make this work and we want your help and support in so doing" not the "now we're legal" aspect. And I think a lot about politics and organizing and strategy and I kind of think sometimes that gay marriage is a red herring, but I also am never sure what to say when people say things like "well, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Next they'll want polygamy and then bestiality and then the whole world will go to hell in a hand basket" because ... ... I think it is sort of obvious that each should be evaluated on its own merits and because ... ... I know it isn't particularly strategic, but yes I do think the next question might be "why is polygamy illegal?" and because ... ... Most people who want to get married, homo or no, pretty much stick to the norm and I don't think there's going to by a polygamous marriage movement coming next from the <a href="http://www.angrybrownbutch.com/2008/02/20/sanesha-stewart-lawrence-king-and-why-hate-crimes-legislation-wont-help/" rel="nofollow">HRC</a> anytime soon and because ... ... I know the bestiality bit is hyperbole, but there is a difference between a man and a dog. If you can't tell the difference and can't tell why a man might be able to consciously enter a committed partnership while a dog can't really think that deeply about things, I really can't help you. All of which is to say, I don't think it is the state's business. I know a few folks who practice polyamory and it seems to me they spend all their time flirting and dating and I'm not looking to trade (one relationship is enough for me) but it is truly bizarre, truly, to imagine that this is something that the state should have any say in at all. Your post prompted me to start asking people whether they think polygamy should be legal or not. Honestly, I think this is exactly what the Unitarian church was good for in my life. I’ve been surprised by how many people just haven’t given it any thought. Or haven’t gotten past the “well, it is weird so it must be wrong” stage, or the “is wrong the same as illegal” stage. I’m pretty sure that one of the teen sunday school curricula has a whole discussion section on talking about legislating morality. Maybe our teacher made that up, though.

I think a lot about marriage in general and these particular kinds of state sanctioned relationships and what it means that my own relationship is sanctioned and yours isn’t, not outside of Mass anyhow. And for me a lot of getting married was about the commitment ceremony aspect, the standing before our families and saying “we want to make this work and we want your help and support in so doing” not the “now we’re legal” aspect.

And I think a lot about politics and organizing and strategy and I kind of think sometimes that gay marriage is a red herring, but I also am never sure what to say when people say things like “well, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Next they’ll want polygamy and then bestiality and then the whole world will go to hell in a hand basket” because …

… I think it is sort of obvious that each should be evaluated on its own merits and because …

… I know it isn’t particularly strategic, but yes I do think the next question might be “why is polygamy illegal?” and because …

… Most people who want to get married, homo or no, pretty much stick to the norm and I don’t think there’s going to by a polygamous marriage movement coming next from the HRC anytime soon and because …

… I know the bestiality bit is hyperbole, but there is a difference between a man and a dog. If you can’t tell the difference and can’t tell why a man might be able to consciously enter a committed partnership while a dog can’t really think that deeply about things, I really can’t help you.

All of which is to say, I don’t think it is the state’s business.

I know a few folks who practice polyamory and it seems to me they spend all their time flirting and dating and I’m not looking to trade (one relationship is enough for me) but it is truly bizarre, truly, to imagine that this is something that the state should have any say in at all.

]]> By: Kevin Mark http://blog.metacentricities.com/2008/04/19/where-freedom-of-religion-and-the-state-clash/#comment-7617 Kevin Mark Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:58:09 +0000 http://blog.metacentricities.com/?p=565#comment-7617 [note: I avoid the sexual or feminist issue and address the freedom aspect] I'm surprised the g-ment did intervene sooner. It seem America is not comfortable with freedom of religion unless it meets a certain mainstream view (eg. christian in nature). The g-ment tried to get rid of the mormans in the 1800s IIRC. The g-ment has tried to tax the amish and failed. There was FUD spread about Mr. Ellison's muslim faith. And they destroyed the branch dividians. And the candidates must profess in loud, public terms their faith or be labeled as un-american by the public. so it would appropriate that W would be the one to go after people professing a different religion when trying to hilight american religiousness by g-ment support. What would happen if their was a wahabi enclave in a far away township where women could not drive or be unescorted? This 'war game' seems like iraq: -find something you want to attack -find false evidence to base an attack -execute 'shock and awe' -have no plan for how to handle the aftermath -breakup families and create turmoil for the children Its funny when I hear about america's moral relativism from the pope and you have a very strict religious community being attacked. Would strict adhearants ala 'little house on the praerie' be mocked like these folks? I'd expect it. [note: I avoid the sexual or feminist issue and address the freedom aspect]
I’m surprised the g-ment did intervene sooner. It seem America is not comfortable with freedom of religion unless it meets a certain mainstream view (eg. christian in nature). The g-ment tried to get rid of the mormans in the 1800s IIRC. The g-ment has tried to tax the amish and failed. There was FUD spread about Mr. Ellison’s muslim faith. And they destroyed the branch dividians. And the candidates must profess in loud, public terms their faith or be labeled as un-american by the public. so it would appropriate that W would be the one to go after people professing a different religion when trying to hilight american religiousness by g-ment support. What would happen if their was a wahabi enclave in a far away township where women could not drive or be unescorted?
This ‘war game’ seems like iraq:
-find something you want to attack
-find false evidence to base an attack
-execute ’shock and awe’
-have no plan for how to handle the aftermath
-breakup families and create turmoil for the children

Its funny when I hear about america’s moral relativism from the pope and you have a very strict religious community being attacked. Would strict adhearants ala ‘little house on the praerie’ be mocked like these folks? I’d expect it.

]]> By: admin http://blog.metacentricities.com/2008/04/19/where-freedom-of-religion-and-the-state-clash/#comment-7616 admin Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:11:06 +0000 http://blog.metacentricities.com/?p=565#comment-7616 I totally agree - but then there is the question of whether we as a society should do anything about that. One could argue that growing up among, say, radical feminists is also a form of brainwashing. (I wouldn't make that argument, but some might.) Do we give the right to the state to intervene? What does that mean for us, then? I totally agree - but then there is the question of whether we as a society should do anything about that. One could argue that growing up among, say, radical feminists is also a form of brainwashing. (I wouldn’t make that argument, but some might.)

Do we give the right to the state to intervene? What does that mean for us, then?

]]> By: Allyson http://blog.metacentricities.com/2008/04/19/where-freedom-of-religion-and-the-state-clash/#comment-7615 Allyson Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:04:39 +0000 http://blog.metacentricities.com/?p=565#comment-7615 Even if the women got married at 18+ your point about life-long brainwashing still remains true. Many of the women will rarely be able to break free and truly consent to this life. Even if the women got married at 18+ your point about life-long brainwashing still remains true. Many of the women will rarely be able to break free and truly consent to this life.

]]>