Secular Absolutism

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Secular absolutism is becoming the most potent religious force in America. Just ask the Boy Scouts and Catholic Charities, which both fell afoul of secular orthodoxy and then found judges willing to punish them for it.

see the article.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 04, 2004

Answers

for more information on the BSA legal issues, see: www.bsalegal.org



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 04, 2004.


Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. When people get tired of the crimes committed by so-called belief systems, then more will embrace the concept of a lack of god..

-- Agnostic (catholic@crimes.com), April 05, 2004.

Amen to Mr. Agnostic...

-- Bob (ak3183@msn.com), April 13, 2004.

"Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. When people get tired of the crimes committed by so-called belief systems, then more will embrace the concept of a lack of god.. "

Just love how Skeptics go out of their way to harrass us lately, and how they spell God with a lower case G to diliberatly show disrespect.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom From religion, it measns that oen is free to practice ones religion as one sees fit under the cdictates of their conceince. It also means one is free not to possess any reliigous beleifs. It does not eman one is allowed to impose a secular standard on society.

Neither the Boy Scouts of America nor the Catholic Charities actually did anything wrong, btu where penalised for upholding their beleifs so popel liek you coudl enforce your own religious views. Agnostic, you may think it is approproate for the Boy Socuts and Cahtolic Charities to be FORCED to comply to regulations that act agaisnt the dictates of their concieonce, but by so doing you defeat your own argument since you are imposing your religioius veiws on others.

And before you pull the standard "Catholics/Chrisaisn killedpeople" crapola, need I remind yu that Atheistic states killed MORE poeple than Chrisain states ever did. The Soviet Union and Cimmunist CHina spring readily to mind, awiaitng your swift dismissal as not relevant, because they happen to be atheistic doesnt mean athsism is to blame.( In short, I wholly expect you will pass the buck like a Hyopctite.iF A cHRISYAIN COMMITS A CIRME, ITS PROOF cHRISTAINITY IS BAD. iF A WHOLE ATHEISTIC NATION CMITS SEVERAL CIRMES KILLING THOUSANDS,IT DDESNT MEAN ANYHTING...)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.


Zarove,

You stole my thunder LOL. I got booted with a message similar to yours.

Agnostic, (please change your name to what you are -an atheist)

Atheism IS a religion so you are stuck with some religion whether you like it or not.

The beauty of Christianity is seen on display by our fine men and women in Iraq right now. Despite the risk to themselves they do not win at all costs. They respect lives even those of the enemy. Christian countries could destroy all other religions on earth right now but we don't. We could subjugate the world to our will or enslave the world populace but we don't. Christianity is the light in this otherwise dark world.

If you doubt me I can send you a one way ticket to North Korea where you can worship the Dear Leader or I can send you to Saudi Arabia to live under sharia law. It is the the Christian doctrines that give you the freedoms you have. It is Christian justice that protects you.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 13, 2004.



Ir will also be a typical Atheist repsonce that our laws arent Chrisain... justw atch. He will deny any good came of the Chrisyain rleigin and our democracy only memrged after we cast asde religious principles. I know it. I know he will claim this...Dispite all evidence he will.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.

I will just show Agnostic and his mate the artucle, and notations in {} Brackets by me. -------------------------------------------------------------- Secular Absolutism Secular absolutism is becoming the most potent religious force in America. Just ask the Boy Scouts and Catholic Charities, which both fell afoul of secular orthodoxy and then found judges willing to punish them for it.

Start with Catholic Charities. The California Supreme Court just ruled that the social-services arm of the Roman Catholic Church must include contraceptives coverage to women as part of any prescription drug benefit it extends to employees. When Catholic Charities insisted that as an avowedly Catholic organization it fit the religious exemption provided by the law in question, the court simply said it was not a religious organization. Catholic Charities?

{Yes, Cathlic Chareties musy be forced to provide contraceptive vcoverage. Agnostic may agree with cotnraception, and htus not care, however, he ( Or she) claims that Religion is forced on people. No oen forced peopel to donate ot Catholic Charities. No one forces them to work for Cahtolic Charities. No one forces Catholisism on anyone withn the influence of this orginisation. Yet Secularism and the idea of Contraception IS forced upon this group. The reason is simple, because good old Liberals have to enfroce their values on others. You said that Beleif in "god" , in a lower case G, was what causes crimes, implying we woudl be better off wihtout such beelif systems. How is it then that you can defend other peopel imposing their views on one gorup, but hate the idea of the other group having the same privlage?}-Zarove

Leave aside the irony that of all America's Catholic institutions, Catholic Charities is arguably the most liberal and sympathetic to secular crusades. Even that didn't protect them. Nor did its practice of employing people outside the Catholic faith — which was used here as reason for denying its religious claims. If the state can order a Catholic organization to include contraceptive coverage as part of its health benefits or drop all drug coverage, it's not hard to see where that's leading. This is what passes for civil liberties now.

{ Yes, Its perfectly acceptable to ENFORCE ones beleifs on others, so long as you are a secularist enforcing your veiws on rleigiou bodies. Religious people miust be forced to comply withthe Liberal, secular state. Religion bad, liberalism good. Lets make peopel do as we say, thats called freedom!}-Zarove

The lone dissent in this 6-1 decision came from Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Judge Brown, nominated by President Bush for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, has been pilloried for refusing to bow before this increasingly stifling liberal orthodoxy. As she tartly noted in her decision here, the California high court has "such a crabbed and constricted view of religion that it would define the ministry of Jesus Christ as a secular activity."

Compare this ruling with what's going on with the Boy Scouts. Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court turned down the Scouts' appeal of a Connecticut decision to kick them off a list of charities on its state-worker voluntary-donation plan. Meanwhile the American Civil Liberties Union has routed the Scouts in San Diego.

{We all know how bad the Boy Scouts are. why, their evil and impose their vews on evedryone.They mustbe contrstained!}-Zarove

In a settlement reached earlier this year with the ACLU, San Diego agreed to revoke a Scouts lease for public campgrounds, where the Scouts have had a presence since 1918 and a formal lease since 1957. The city also agreed to pay the ACLU a whopping $950,000 for its efforts.

{I am sure you like this, after all, we dont need those wretched Boy Socuts. They force their veiws on others by not lettign peopel jojn them that don live up ot heur standards!Can you imagine! Obviosuly, the benefit they offer society shoudl b ignored, afterall, its beter to have an increasingly Amoral,secular society than clean and maintained parklands.}-Zarove

The Boy Scouts are suing, and they will not actually be evicted until the courts have ruled on all the outstanding issues and the litigation has been settled.,i. But their opponents cite previous briefs in which the Scouts used the words "religious organization" to describe themselves as an association of believers and explain why they could not admit atheists. Never mind that by this broad definition, the Continental Congress that signed the Declaration of Independence would be a "religious organization." ,

Twisting these words, the ACLU contends that leasing the Scouts public lands is tantamount to the public establishment of religion. Silly as that might sound — and the civil rights division of the Justice Department agrees with the Scouts here — the argument received a huge boost when a federal judge decreed that the Scouts are a religious organization and that the leases do raise Establishment Clause concerns, a decision that no doubt led to the city's decision to settle.

{ Yes, we cant allow a religiosu orginisation to run things, why that is bad! Granted, if the rleigious orginisation does a lot fo good and helsp peopel, its no excuse. Only secular activitiescan be allowed in public! Othersise its discrimination. Of coruse those foolish religious folk ( Anyone hwo has a standard of ethic, in this case) think thy shodl have rights like normal peoe, they ar so so wrong! Religion shoud be forced to exist only in home and churches, not in public. Public is for Gay Pride Parades where peopel walk the streets nude and have pun;ic sex. Not for peopel who want to clean parks!}-Zarove

Never mind that the Scouts have not discriminated against, or even been accused of discriminating against, anyone who has sought to use the campgrounds they maintain.

They dont actlaly discriminate, but we can call this unfair becase they maintain parkland for us and have a code o ethics. Yup. rleigion bad...

Their real crime is to have won the Supreme Court case involving their First Amendment right not to admit an openly homosexual Scoutmaster. Ever since, a liberal jihad has been launched to strip them of any public association. As another federal judge put it in that Connecticut case the Supremes have just refused to hear, the Scouts "pay a price" for exercising their First Amendment rights.

{Morallt unacceptable. How datre they have a code of ethics and conduct! They MUST either bow to the state or loose all rights. I am sure gad the state protects us form religion!}-Zarove

All this is being done notwithstanding that the results will leave people worse off than they were before. The easiest way for Catholic Charities to comply, for example, would be by withdrawing all its prescription drug benefits. Its female employees will end up with fewer benefits than now. And you can bet the people of San Diego will be worse off with the Scouts no longer maintaining those campgrounds.

{well, we may end off worse than before, but at leays the Liberals will have won and rleigion wl beforced fiurther intot he background. Thats what we want, right? Religion is clearly bad,a nd commits horrendous crimes. we need no part of it. Freedom of reliigon is also reedom form religion, therefore we shoidlbt be forced to give freerighs ot religious grous that benefit society. No, thats worng. Weither htey will accet contraceptiona nd Homosexuality, or else they are banned form the public. Obey Big Brother, or else! Are you sure religion is the bad guy here?}-Zarove

What's going on here is an effort by liberal activists and their judiciary enablers to turn one set of personal mores into a public orthodoxy from which there can be no dissent, even if that means trampling the First Amendment. Any voluntary association that doesn't comply — the same little platoons once considered the bedrock of American freedom — will be driven from the public square. Meet the new face of intolerance

{Yes, practicing the first amendment is wrong. Liberals define the bit about rleigion a menaig the state must forcebely evict anyone with rleigious convistion, they dont read it as fredom to express their rleigion. Therefore to them, anyhtign that doesnt Goosestep along withhtem is clealry evil. We shouldnt all give up god ( loswer Case G) and relaise how depraved pepel ofteligious natures are.

Freeodm of religion may mean to you freedom form religion, but you, nor the state, shoudl ah the right to impose your veiws on others. If you are offended by a picture of Jesus that was donated to a public library, tough. If yo don't like it that Catholic CHarities upholds the Cahtolci Standard, so what? Why do you have the righ to deny them thi fredom of concoence? Is this not imposign your beleifs on everyone else? Why d we have to loose our right to freedom of assemply, speach, and religion just to make you happy?

Also remmeber, this wasnt an article by a rleigious newspaper, it was the wall street journal.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAOFF3@JUNO.COM), April 14, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ