I don't get these "religious freedom" bills

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/north-carolina%E2%80%99s-terrible-anti-lgbt-law-even-worse-we-thought
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/08/civil-rights-groups-mobilize-against-mississippis-religious-freedom-law/82804786/

I am not an expert in the law, but when you open a business, I think there is the assumption that you will encounter undesirable/offensive patrons now and then. But most enterprises will still accept their money, because the bottom line is often more important than principle. Sure, if people are blatantly violating your code of conduct or basic decency, you can refuse the right to serve (and call the authorities on them). But $1 from Jack or Jill or Ahmed should be accepted equally, otherwise you are biased.

For equal opportunity employment, there are federal laws and it's pretty clear. If Jack is qualified to do the job, and you hire him, then you must give equal consideration if Jill (or a person with some sort of differentiating feature like age, sexual orientation, disability, etc.) has equivalent qualifications. And you can't retaliate against workers who complain about prejudicial treatment.

For a private business, I'm less clear. But if these MS and NC style laws spread, it sets a dangerous precedent. I know we give special protections for religion, and Christianity is the dominant faith in the US, but we all are entitled to equal protection under the law, even those without a faith. Anyone can come up with some sort of reason to refuse service to a patron because they disagree with some element of their behavior/persona (or are "offended" by it). But I'm sorry, in the US we have the right to offend, just not harm. You are guaranteed to life and liberty (tell that to poor urban black youth though), but not an offense free life.

The MS law narrowly states (according to USA Today): "The denial of certain services to the LGBT community based on any of three religious beliefs -- that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex is proper only within such a marriage, and that people are male or female based on their genetics and anatomy at birth."

So are those the only considerations that matter? Why not expand it to Jews, who after all, rejected Jesus' teachings and condemned him? Would America be OK with that? Plenty of heterosexual (and Christian) couples engage in sodomy/anal sex. Do you need a questionnaire to screen those folks out of your establishment too? Would such a business be sustainable?

What if I am a Satanist and I am offended by Christians, so I refuse to serve and hire them? Supporters of the law have to be OK with that, right? Selective beliefs/outrage always tick me off; so John Q Baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding (sinful abomination), but he is OK to sell pastries to a clearly obese person (gluttony, deadly sin)? And just because he refused to bake that wedding cake, did he stop those 2 men from getting hitched? Likely not. So what was the point, that he can go home with a clear conscience? Well he can tell St. Peter, and also admit that he refused to act with compassion and love that day. If Mr. Baker cares so much, why not take some time to talk to the gay couple and use your wits/morals to convince them to change their ways? Nope, it's just easier/lazier to discriminate. And even that is flawed - I am sure some gay customers slip through the cracks and still get service. So you let down your god! How can you live with yourself?

I am not too concerned about these laws because I think they are poorly thought out and destined to be struck down by a higher ruling. It's probably hasty backlash against the recent SCOTUS rulings about gay marriage, gay adoption, employer covered contraception, etc. Religious conservatives feel like their belief system (and "traditional American values") are under attack, yet I bet most of them never even encounter a gay couple in their daily affairs, so is their life so much worse now? Even if I was against Obamacare, I would have to admit that I don't feel its effects at all in my daily life, so I can't claim any harm, apart from "feeling offended."

Grow up. Sometime you don't get your way, and sometime you don't approve of what others are doing. That is compromise and living in a mixed society, and Christians are still the majority faith with the most sociopolitical power. We should strive to protect everyone's freedoms as much as possible, but not at the expense of discriminating another group. Because then who gets to decide who wins and loses in each case? I thought conservatives were opposed to the gov't picking winners and losers? Just another display of hypocrisy. I don't even know why I wasted 30 min of my life writing about this issue. It's so ludicrous it's almost comical.

"Prayer shaming" after the CA mass shooting

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/03/458361194/god-isnt-fixing-this-politicians-reactions-to-san-bernardino-shooting

The tweet from this CT Senator sums up the issue: https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/672176555859296256?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Forgive me for ranting and using foul language here, but for "religious pro-gun conservatives" who find prayer-shaming "offensive and dismissive of their faith," I say... go F yourselves.

We don't have to respect your so-called faith if you don't even show respect for the tenets of the faith. I'm no expert in Christianity, but WEAPONS ARE UN-CHRISTIAN. I know that the history of organized Christianity is barbaric and violent (some periods make ISIS look like pacifists), but the beliefs are pretty clear:

• Do not live by the sword; violence of any kind is unequivocly wrong
• Defeat your enemy with love, not with violence
• Protect the vulnerable, even if it kills you
• Blessed are the peacemakers

So for the conservative leaders who claim to be Christians, if you don't espouse the most obvious, fundamental teachings of Christ, then you're not really a Christian and your prayers don't mean squat. There is absolutely zero way to justify gun rights and gun ownership through the lens of Christianity (on paper).

These leaders are religious, but they seem to worship guns, money, and themselves more than they love Jesus' teachings.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2013/03/03/What-kind-of-gun-would-Jesus-carry/stories/201303030208

I hope Pope Francis delivers more hope and change than Obama

Not sure if you've been following some of the recent comments from Pope Francis, but he is definitely a better "Maverick" than McCain and Palin. I know there are many different levels of belief on this email list (each no better than the rest), so I don't mean to get too deep in the religion weeds here. But as a lifelong confused/jaded Catholic, I mostly just want to comment on the new pope's effectiveness vis-a-vis the core beliefs of the church, and what his org needs to do to be more successful in the 21st Century.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-says-church-cannot-obsessed-gays-contraception-abortion-163220900.html

Yes, Christianity has to be about more than quasi-arbitrary rules... all the things we are not supposed to do (and imposing that on others who are doing no harm). That is Taliban style. Faith isn't about prohibition and guilt - it's about being happy and doing good. And what is the point to fight for the welfare of unborn fetuses when you will turn your back on them after they are born into bad circumstances? Many Christians do act like Christ, but many more are astoundingly silent or complicit regarding greed (Francis spoke out), violence, and basically any other bigotry and injustice that doesn't directly affect them. But that is the strange marriage of Christianity and western free market & social conservatism - for them to pretend to be compatible, something's gotta give (and it's usually an abdication of core Christian values).

Francis is like the polar opposite of Benedict (the least inspiration pope since the Nazi appeasers IMO), and is more in tune with reality and modernity (and Jesus' teachings). I think some hardliners are seriously going to plot to kill him (it has likely happened before). Francis is saying/doing all the right things considering the constraints of his office, except really coming clean and contrite about the sex abuse scandals and the inferior role of women in the church. Maybe he's working up to that. But so far he has chosen to live like a common man (as opposed to Benedict's Prada slippers), literally washed the feet of his flock, and held a peace vigil and fasting for the people of Syria.

Other Christian denominations are leaps and bounds ahead of the Vatican on gender and sexuality tolerance, but on the record Francis said that he is not opposed to gay priests, and has no right to judge anyone who practices goodwill and searches for the Lord. Let's see if he actually implements this in the church. This contrasts Benedict's statement in 2005 that gays would not be welcomed in the priesthood (but bishops who cover up sex abuse are fine?), and that homosexuality is an evil disorder. Supposedly God loves all his children, so why would he create and curse some to lead "evil" lives just so self-righteous bigots can denounce them to feel better about themselves? Well, why would God curse innocent children to be born into starvation, war zones, and AIDS (and bless others with safety, riches, and opportunity)... but I guess we'll never have an answer for that.

He's also said that atheists can go to heaven just like believers. Doing good is the criterion, not some ceremonial label. Clearly stuff like this has ruffled some feathers among the stuffy establishment types. But the College of Cardinals picked this man to lead (and came to their decision rather quickly compared to Benedict). It's not like Francis was always a rebel, or he would have never risen in the church's ranks. As recently as 2010 Francis spoke out against gay adoption in his native Argentina, but apparently he has changed his views for the greater needs of the office (some might think divine inspiration, or just sensible rebranding?). Maybe the Cardinals realized that the church has pretty much been failing in every way, especially with the young, vulnerable, and poor of the world (the most blessed people according to Jesus). So a big change was needed, like Obama-sized change. I just hope at the end of his papacy, we have more to show for it than a health care policy mess and drone strikes.

So far Francis has been mostly talk, though that's kind of his job. He isn't the head of a state (well, not a very big one), so he can't really change our lives as much as civic leaders. He does have a lot of financial and human resources at his disposal that he could deploy. But in general he is there to inspire. And it seems he is doing a good job of that, especially in the "growth markets" that the church will depend on in the future. He's the first non-European born pope in centuries (though he is ethnically Italian), and he is a huge hit among the young of the developing world. During the Brazil protests, he mingled with the crowds and spoke about inequality (Brazil is the largest Catholic country in the world and also has one of the biggest wealth gaps). While the silver-haired septuagenarians in the west are the church's core following (and cash cow), everyone knows that their time is short (and their kids and grandkids are not going to church anymore). Maybe the pope's message doesn't resonate with them, and he may make them uncomfortable (not necessarily a bad thing for a leader to do at times). But where are they going to go... join the LDS? :) Maybe Francis could get some of them to rethink their antiquated and frankly un-Christian beliefs. Ironically or maybe not, most of this email has nothing to do with religion. It's about getting people to consider the benefits of not being intolerant, selfish pricks. If Francis can move the needle a bit there, then he should be canonized.  

Like the GOP, there is a struggle for the soul and future of the church. The hateful, egocentric, self-serving, and power-hungry factions of both the GOP and the Catholic Church may hold disproportionate sway now, but it can't last or their future is doomed. Just get back to basics: why does the church exist? Not to look after itself, conceal crimes/corruption, and act superior judging others. It should help people through education and compassion. I think Francis realizes that the bigger the leader, the more of a servant he or she must be. A servant, not a king. Any leader could benefit from that lesson, from POTUS to parent.

Intolerance, the GOP, and "Christian" values

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiU3maL6rzE

I totally missed this one, and shame on you all for not bring it up either. J/K :)

"The Newsroom" mentioned this in tonight's episode. Apparently at one of the forgettable and often pathetic 2011 GOP primary debates hosted by FNC, they aired a clip of a soldier serving in Iraq who just came out as gay on YouTube and asked the candidates if they would roll back the progress that gay and lesbian soldiers have made. Loud boos came from the audience, and not a single candidate had the courage (not even courage, but minimum human decency) to support that soldier - who was taking a major risk - and chastise members of the crowd who were disrespectful. At least in 2008 McCain had the decency to correct the people who were spouting Obama lies/hate/fear (much to his political peril among some conservatives, unfortunately). The question was directed at major bigot Santorum, who blah blahed a little about how sexuality has no place in the military (and he got cheers for that). Just like how racism is no longer a problem in the US, and abstinence is the best way to fight AIDS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc

I guess during that summer of GOP debates, there were also regrettable crowd reactions like cheers for TX's prolific executions and letting the sick uninsured die. But for the "pro-military" party, I can't believe how they handled the gay soldier issue. He had to hide who he was, and probably endure a lot of homophobic conversation weekly, just to live through 120 degree heat and get shot at/blown up. All that because he cared enough to serve the US in the armed forces. And I think this was the first time in a long time that the entire GOP field had not served in uniform at all. So yeah, they have every right to pass judgment and hang that soldier out to dry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xT1iMvTwYI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao

Well, after the repeal of DADT and various state and federal court rulings, one could argue that the LGBT crowd got the "last laugh" and are on a winning streak vs. the old, hateful ways of a certain wing of the GOP. Obviously there's a long way to go before sexual orientation discrimination is no longer an issue, but we have to hold people accountable when they are exhibiting shameful behaviors. I don't think Romney's trouncing has done anything to reverse the undercurrents of bigotry that exist in some of the GOP, and frankly I don't know what will. But for those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, a choice, a disease, a deviant lifestyle, etc... how is this for thought?

There are plenty more damaging and even deadly transgressions discussed in the Bible that we should probably address before we try to eradicate homosexuality from society. For those who are so against gays and the "sin" that they represent - are they just as intolerant and vociferously opposed to the rampant selfishness and greed that has caused great suffering and even deaths worldwide during the recession? Are they similarly protesting the brutality and violence of our penal system and foreign policies? And will they also boo those who show a total lack of Christian compassion for the poor, the sick, and the mistreated (and may even contribute to their pain)? Fight those fights first, because as far as I know Jesus didn't bring up homosexuality even once in all the Gospels. And if he did, I really doubt it was in the context of booing them.

----------

Come on, that's just LIBERAL MEDIA talk. The right and honorable Mr. Rick Santorum totally would have condemned those boos...if he had heard them.

"I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier. That soldier is serving our country. I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job; I hope he is safe and I hope he returns safely and does his mission well.

I have to admit I seriously did not hear those boos. Had I heard them, I certainly would have commented on them. But, as you know, when you’re in that sort of environment, you’re sort of focused on the question and formulating you answer, and I just didn’t hear those couple of boos that were out there. But certainly had I, I would've said, “Don’t do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.”

I mean, you could barely even hear those boos, how could he have known they were booing? Or what exactly they were booing? Maybe they were booing something else.:

"Kelly brings up an excellent point, sharing that it was unclear whether those booing were doing so because of the soldier, or the content of his question"

Because if that was the case, then it would have been totally okay right?

----------

Haha thx. Gotta love the excuse machine. That's kind of amazing that 10 candidates + the moderator didn't hear anything from what seemed to be dozens/hundreds of booers in the crowd. They were just too dialed in! They presumably heard the question (which they were concentrating on) and the video... so putting 2 and 2 together, could they at least acknowledge that soldier's patriotic service and legit concerns, apart from the issue of crowd boos? They acted like that man didn't even exist, and Kelly was giving them a hypothetical question. Humanizing an issue with an actual personal example makes it harder to blanket stereotype and hate (kudos to Google and Fox for that I guess). I guess that's debating for dummies 101 though: when you don't like the question or direction of the discussion, just pretend it never happened and talk about what you want to talk about.

At least in 2008 McCain had the decency to respectfully and diplomatically correct people who were spouting Obama lies/hate/fear (much to his political peril among some conservatives, unfortunately). And McCain was a fogey probably going deaf and senile at the time. He heard the boos and did the right thing. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc

Is the GOP 'pro-life'?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-why-i-am-pro-life.html?src=me&ref=general

As the author said, the GOP isn't 'pro-life', they just believe that a few cells in the womb = a human. I think it's partially subconscious guilt - they are so 'anti-life' on most other issues that they need to assuage their guilt and feel like 'good Christians' if they fight to save one poor 'victim' - embryos - even though the Bible doesn't say anything about that stuff. But it does say plenty about protecting the Earth, sharing your wealth, being honest, turning the other cheek, practicing peace, showing compassion/tolerance, and such.

Same thing for the GOP 'hatred' of the poor and financially unsuccessful. The rich made their wealth by hook or by crook, and to somehow convince themselves they aren't dirty thieves, they say that the other honest people are inferior, saps, muppets. The rich got rich because of social Darwinism. Well, some of the most evolved and fit creatures in history are pathogens, bloodthirsty predators, and roaches.

"I'm not going to apologize for my success." - Mitt

"I'm not going to apologize for my success (infecting and killing a lot of people)." - Spanish Flu

Maybe the US isn't such a religious nation?

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/24/163527979/what-we-say-about-religion-and-what-we-do

But we are sure good at guilt-fueled lying! The common stats show that a much larger % of Americans report being religious and attending worship regularly vs. the EU and virtually all other developed nations. But is it true?

Self-reporting often produces suspect information due to self-esteem, social norms, and image issues - like will an alcoholic admit to his/her problem if directly asked about it, especially from another person face-to-face? 45% of respondents claimed that they went to services EVERY week, but many preachers suspect that is inaccurate because based on what they know of population stats, they should see their pews much fuller then. Americans think that they are supposed to respond that they attend services regularly, otherwise they may not think of themselves as "good people".

So the survey staff tricked the respondents; instead of posing the question directly, they instead asked them to recite their morning schedules for each day of the week. This "disarmed" the respondents and they forgot that they were "supposed" to say they go to worship every week. In this case, only about 20% said they attend church weekly, which is on par with many EU nations.

Of course the act of attending church is not necessarily indicative of one's religious convictions and how important faith is in one's life. Maybe if the survey asked how faith affects daily decisions and political beliefs (or what is the role of religion in society), they may find differences vs. Europe even when reducing the chance of respondent lying. That's of course ironic because EU nations literally have political parties called "Christian Democrats" or whatnot, yet I don't think their beliefs would even come close to those of Palin, Aikin, Ryan, etc. (extreme examples I know). Or at least the Euros know to separate their personal beliefs from the secular constitutional duties of their offices.