Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Looking At the Kim Davis Religous Fundamentalism Rationally...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


The Kim Davis controversy exists because, as a culture, we have elevated respect for religious sensibilities to an inappropriate level that makes society less free, not more. Religious liberty should mean that no set of religious ideals are treated differently from other ideals. Laws should not be enacted whose sole purpose is to denigrate them, but, by the same token, the law shouldn’t elevate them, either.

Above is taken from The New Yorker. In one short paragraph Lawrence M. Krauss has stated what the rationally thinking American knows to be true.

The problem, obviously, is that what is sacred to one person can be meaningless (or repugnant) to another. That’s one of the reasons why a modern secular society generally legislates against actions, not ideas. No idea or belief should be illegal; conversely, no idea should be so sacred that it legally justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal. Davis is free to believe whatever she wants, just as the jihadist is free to believe whatever he wants; in both cases, the law constrains not what they believe but what they do.

In recent years, this territory has grown murkier. Under the banner of religious freedom, individuals, states, and even—in the case of Hobby Lobby—corporations have been arguing that they should be exempt from the law on religious grounds. (The laws from which they wish to claim exemption do not focus on religion; instead, they have to do with social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage.) The government has a compelling interest in insuring that all citizens are treated equally. But “religious freedom” advocates argue that religious ideals should be elevated above all others as a rationale for action. In a secular society, this is inappropriate.

Of course the fundamentalist religionists that believe their biblically held beliefs, based entirely on their definition of "religious freedom" will no doubt continue believing their religion gives them the right to discriminate based on what their good book, written in antiquity says, or if need be their interpretation of it says.

At any rate Kim Davis who frankly probably views herself as a martyr for Jesus Christ has managed to elevate the issue of same sex marriage, and the fundamentalists argument of "religious freedom", back to front and center on the national stage. At the heart of their efforts lies the desire to force their religious tyranny on those they disagree with.

Please follow this link to the full text of The New Yorker article. It is well worth the read.

Via: Memeorandum

22 comments:

  1. Looking At the Kim Davis Religious Fundamentalism Rationally...

    I'm sorry, but there's really no way to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Au Contraire! Unless one is; irrational?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, nothing about Kim Davis's 'crusade' is rational....for me at least. She, and her supporters [counting at least 2 seemingly Constitutionally-ignorant candidates for POTUS] have willfully embarked upon a campaign of 'Christian victimization'. Since they lost their intellectually stunted fight against civil liberty....I suppose in a perverse way, it could be seen as rational that they chose this strategy.....but in light of the fevered exhortations after Obergefell of gays assaulting churches and the like.....their chosen tactic is quite transparent for the petulant tantrum that it is.

      Delete
    2. Kim is irrational, as are the fundamentalist religionistst that support her. Including the politicians that fail to see the value of seperation of church and state.

      Folks who understand our democratic republic was founded on secular law and the reason(s) for it are certainly are the rational ones.

      Guess you don't agree?

      Delete
    3. How would you figure that I don't agree?

      Delete
    4. But can Kim be forced to provide her labor to those she wishes not to? According to the Latte guy's previous arguments on his blog, this is wrong. Specifically he said "YOU have no 'right' to MY labor". Seems he irrationally believes he can have it both ways.

      Delete
    5. Apparently Dervish fails to understand the difference between free market contracts and carrying out the lawful duties [to which she swore an oath] as an agent of the government. Davis negotiated the terms of her labor with her employer, the State. She violated her end of that contract. She is free at any time to leave and apply her labor in a manner more fitting with her emotional needs.

      Delete
    6. So what you're saying is that government employees have fewer rights than private sector workers? Gay couples seeking a marriage license do have a "right" to Kim Davis' labor?

      Delete
    7. Read this slowly, so it sinks in. I'm saying that government employees, whether appointed or elected, enter into a contract that stipulates the terms of their duties and compensation. In this incident, Kim Davis refused to carry out those specified duties. She is free to take her labor to another occupation, but she is not free to continue to receive [taxpayer funded] monetary compensation for failing to uphold her end of the contract. Private sector worker have the exact same rights...uphold their end of their employment contract, or take their labor elsewhere. That's really not so difficult to understand, now is it? if you're still confused, by all means stipulate where you disagree.

      Delete
    8. Your concise clarification is not anything a person thinking rationally can or would take issue with. Dervish can speak for himself.

      Delete
    9. His line of argument [while a distraction from this topic] stems from his disagreement that a private business owner should have the right to dispense with his/her labor and goods as they see fit. That debate is not applicable here.

      Delete
    10. Latte says a private business owner should have the right to dispense with his/her labor and goods as they see fit, but what he's really saying is that they should have the right to discriminate. Thankfully there are laws prohibiting a lot of the discrimination he thinks should be allowed. Laws/protections we need more of, not less.

      In the previous discussion he was pro-discrimination, while in this one he argues against it. But he's obviously to concentrated on being condescending to realize what a huge hypocrite this makes him.

      Delete
    11. Latte: That debate is not applicable here.

      Because we're discussing an employee instead of an owner. I understand what you're saying. I do not need to read slowly so that it sinks in... you're making the More Money = More Rights argument many Libertarians believe in. Because Kim Davis is an employee instead of an owner she has fewer rights. Not that I believe either an owner or an employee has the right to discriminate... I do not. Latte does, however. He believes the owner can discriminate if he/she chooses. Despite the granting of a business license being contingent upon rules/regulations set down by The People through our elected representatives. But Latte the Libertarian disagrees with that democratic principle as well. Because The People are the rabble and the Owners should not be subjected to their wishes. So it's not only more rights for those who have more money that Latte favors, but throwing out democracy so those with the money have their way.

      Delete
    12. You're partially correct, you're simply framing it incorrectly, in order to fit your preconceived narrative where the State reigns supreme. I absolutely believe in the democratic principle of free market and free association. I do not believe in the State mandated, external restrictions place upon the market....placed there to pursue a naive and false paradigm of 'equality'. Every citizen should have the right to 'discriminate' towards or against any other citizen the so desire, in the pursuit of the dispensation of their labor of their association.

      My position is decadent democratic and in line with the very definition of liberty. Your's does not. But nice try.

      Delete
    13. By all means, please explain how your silly argument of "more money = more rights" [laughable as it is].....is in any way pertinent to the Km Davis affair. Or are you simply feeding your insatiable desire to argue against Libertarianism? God knows you have enough blogs where you should be able to quench your addiction.

      Delete
    14. Scratch 'decadent' and read 'decidedly'.

      Delete
  3. .....listens to the deafening silence as KD quotes Jesus from the Bible concerning homosexuality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really, the Christian problem with homosexuality comes down to Paul and the formation of the early church in old Greek lands. The Greeks had sexual culture unique to contemporary cultures around it, and little like any culture today. Taking Paul's instructions on how to view homosexuality in the Greek world out of context and placing it today is intellectually specious at best. It would be nice to see theologians today stand up and explain that to their respective churches. But no, because this has nothing to do with good theology and everything to do with political tribalism. I bet Ms. Davis also espouses all sorts of other theologically baseless beliefs that she relates to her Christianity. Whatever her pastor tells her to believe, I'd bet.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. Actually JMJ, many are doing just that. Now whether the folks in the pews want to hear it is another matter...

      Delete
    3. Jersey: ...because this has nothing to do with good theology and everything to do with political tribalism.

      Exactly. The supposed homosexuality is sinful Bible passages all had something to do with prohibiting following from doing what the old religions allowed. For example...

      ...the word "abomination" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew "toevah". Toevah did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something ritually unclean for Jews. The reference in Leviticus to "lying with a man as with a women" concerned male sacred prostitution. These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. We never once see a concrete example of a condemned homosexual act in the old testament which is not an act of temple prostitution. There is no condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible. And, in regards to the Old Testament "purity laws", Jesus set them aside and gave the commandment of love. Homosexuality is not a sin. (Source).

      As a Progressive Christian I see the Christian Right's cherry picking and mistranslating as an un-Godly attempt to justify their hatred for gay people. IMO they are going to be extremely surprised when they are held accountable for this sin.

      Delete
  4. ya, ...it seems to be a movement.....there is a Game Warden in Wisconsin who will not longer issue hunting licenses because he has become a Vegan. A bartender who will not serve drinks because he joined AA. this could be big.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OKJimm! Welcome back!

      Been catching up on Bloom County?

      Sorry, off topic!

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.