Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind

Americans love throwing around the word "bigot" and its derivatives.

Perhaps, Trav, that's because we have a pretty long history with the word and its derivatives.
Our lovely history had bigotry infused in its very earliest days. Read a little bit about the religious bigots who established the Plimouth colony. Read a little bit about the Salem Witch trials (had very little to do with witches, and quite a lot to do with misogyny and racism with a touch of avarice thrown in to liven things up). Read the Constitution as it was originally written and ratified before all the later amendments excised some language--things like slaves counting as fractions of persons for census and Congressional representation, but denying most people the right to vote. Read the Constitution's guarantee of not requiring any sort of religious qualification for political office, and then discover how few atheists or agnostics have ever been elected to any office (heck, one might even read the anti-Catholic material which accompanied JFK's 1960 run for office).
So, yeah, we might throw the word around a bit, but I think we have a pretty good reason for doing so. I would note the above examples are really just the tip of the iceberg.

Discrimination against any group of people because of their race, religion (or lack thereof), sex, health, national origin or sexual orientation is bigotry. Ramming your religion down anybody else’s throat is an act of bigotry. Blue laws are acts of bigotry. Not allowing consenting adults to get married is an act of bigotry.

That’s why we have the word.

Agree with you totally, Mike, but we do need to leave room for the opposite, the freedom of association. I think there are certain times when we go to far in stamping out bigotry, and many times when we don't go nearly far enough. Two examples I can think of are the Gay Boy Scout guy in California, and Paula Poundstone being forced to go to AA. I know how the Boy Scout thing turned out, not so sure about Ms. Poundstone.

But, if the argument is that it's better to go too far to get rid of bigotry, then I can't disagree with you.

I didn't know about Paula Poundstone being forced to go to AA, but if that's the case, it seems to be another form of religious discrimination. If, on the other hand, she volunteered to join a substance abuse program and she chose AA, then I have no problem. If she was forced to go to any substance abuse program, then the courts were wasting everybody's time and doing nothing to resolve the problem -- unless they got real lucky. And I put two decades of work in the social services field behind that statement.

As for freedom of association and the Boy Scouts, well, if the Boy Scouts want to ban gays, or blacks, or Jews, or left-handed German speaking midgets, more power to them. However, they should then be perceived as a religious organization and be denied government funding and tax-exempt status. I am proud to say I worked hard to get the United Way chapter with whom I worked at the time to cut off contributions to the Boy Scouts, although I was unsuccessful in getting them to do the same with the Red Cross.

Since I'm still swimming in these waters, I'll state for the record I am opposed to forcing churches to perform gay marriages against their will. Discrimination is an essential part of organized religion, so since they can be permitted to ban or put sanctions on interfaith marrianges, banning gay marriages is just an extention of what they do best.

However, they should then be perceived as a religious organization and be denied government funding and tax-exempt status.

Yes, and yes. Well, mostly. There are many religous groups doing good work for the world and the community, that I wish there was some way to encourage giving to them. Habitat for Humanity, for example, a Christian group. Probably going to have a big role in cleaning up in Indonesia -- and are about as qualfied to do it than anyone. We need to come up with a way to separate the relgion from the work. It seems like it should be easy to separate "building houses" and "worshipping God."

Mike, there's been no one, other than the Religious Right, who's even suggested that any church be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. That's nothing more than a boogeyman argument. There *are* religious groups which accept the idea of same-sex marriage, and would be willing to perform them just as soon as they're deemed legal by the state. But the simple reality is that no one can force a church to marry any two people that the church doesn't wish to--some denominations require that a non-member of the faith become a convert to that faith before a marriage can be performed--and that same principle will be applied following the legalization of same-sex marriage.
I don't, however, extend the idea of personal conscience being allowed to justify someone who represents the State to be allowed to discriminate against a same-sex couple where same-sex marriage is allowed. If your job involves your performing a marriage ceremony, you don't have any right to refuse a couple who otherwise meets the legal requirements. If you don't like the idea that you might have to perform a ceremony for a couple whose lifestyle is not to your liking, then you don't need to hold that job. You were elected (or hired) with the understanding that you would serve ALL the people who come before you, regardless of your personal viewpoints.

"As for freedom of association and the Boy Scouts, well, if the Boy Scouts want to ban gays, or blacks, or Jews, or left-handed German speaking midgets, more power to them. However, they should then be perceived as a religious organization and be denied government funding and tax-exempt status. I am proud to say I worked hard to get the United Way chapter with whom I worked at the time to cut off contributions to the Boy Scouts, although I was unsuccessful in getting them to do the same with the Red Cross."

For the life of me I can't understand people who take this position. All the Constitution says is that government should neither endorse nor OPPOSE any particular religious doctrine. In other words, the government shouldn't CARE whether the Boy Scouts are a religious group or not.

I'm not for giving the Boy Scouts or ANY civic group public funding, but to advocate that because of religious views, a right guaranteed in the constitution, that a group be targeted for governmental harrassment is just sick and unconstitutional. It violates freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of speech. I'm not sure I want to live in YOUR AmeriKa. In fact, kinda sounds like Nazi Germany.

He wasn't talking about government harrassment, he was talking about government support. If the government funds a group that engages in discriminatory practices, the people have a right (and an obligation in my mind) to request that their tax money not be used to support said group.

Jon:
Read what I wrote. I said, I'm not in favor of ANY group being funded by taxpayer dollars, but once again, we get to the heart of government censorship. Should the government be using taxpayer dollars to influence the actions and thoughts of ANY group? If some one tried to tell an artist that if he created artwork that was offensive to some people there would be a large hue and cry. In fact, there has been. the government can't brand the Boy Scouts a religious group and then say that because your religious practices are discriminatory (i.e. you don't let non-believers join) we're going to punish you by withholding money unless you do it our way.

Second, I think all religious groups should be tax exempt. Especially if you're not going to be allowing them a say in what the government says or does.

"Should the government be using taxpayer dollars to influence the actions and thoughts of ANY group?"

In a way, they do when we get educated in public schools, and when they have health advisories on the air (buckle up, smoking is a proven health hazard, etc.) So I don't have a problem with influence by way of empirically proven info.

"the government can't brand the Boy Scouts a religious group and then say that because your religious practices are discriminatory (i.e. you don't let non-believers join) we're going to punish you by withholding money unless you do it our way."

I don't see it as punishment. If the Boy Scouts practice public works (as they did when I was in them) and recieve government funding, then the government has a right and an obligation to say, "According to our current understanding of our Constitutional Principals, we may not fund groups that do not allow homosexuals to join. Therefore, we can no longer fund you."

"Second, I think all religious groups should be tax exempt. Especially if you're not going to be allowing them a say in what the government says or does."

What little I've read on the laws about this confuses the hell out of me. Some religious groups fund propositions, campaign, etc. that they beleive matches their beliefs (housing for the homeless, anti-gay marraige initiative, whatever) Are they entitled to tax exemption in this case? Should they be? That's too tough for me to answer.

There are so many grey areas in what counts as for profit, not for profit, social services eligible and non eligible (when is it okay for a church run homeless shelter to get government fund? What about religious schools? If they get government funding because they provide a social service, then take the money that they were providing before the gov. stepped in and they redirect it to religous outreach, is the governemtn then indirectly funding religious outreach?) Shitlaod of grey areas.

Bottom line, most government services I see are underfunded, staffed, etc. When a private group comes along (Catholic Charities for instance) and the gov says, "this group provides a homelss shelter, halfway house, etc. (in other words, they're doing our jobs for us) they are eligible for and should recieve funding." If some group then says, "Wait! They don't allow homosexuals to join, that's discriminatory as we understand it, and the government is not supposed to be allowed to fund discriminatoy measures." Then I don't see it as harrassment for the gov. to say, "Boy Scouts, The protestors are correct. We're not supposed to fund a group that does what you do. We made a mistake. The only two resolutions we can see to this are: 1) If you stop discriminating, we have no problem funding you. 2) If you don't, we're not supposed to."

Let's take this to the next obvious step. Mother's Against Drunk Drivers has a membership drive. One of the people who wants to join is a drunk who just got arrested and admits that he won't stop drinking. plus he's killed in the past, but served his time. MADD doesn't want to let him in for obvious reasons. He sues on the charge of discrimination. MADD says that he's doesn't believe or follow what they preach. MADD wins, he's out. Should MADD lose government funding because they discriminate against drunks? According to your argument yes, they should.

1) I wasn't aware that MADD got government funding.

2) Maybe I should have been more clear. If a group discriminates based on actions (we're the cops, you can't join if you're currently committing crimes)then in those cases I have no problem. If a group discriminates based on race, color, creed (and isn't THAT a loaded term!), or, as our laws seem to be recognizing, sexual preference, that runs counter to what we understand as "Constitutional Intent."

If someone is gay because of their genes, physicality, etc. (and I just got done with an argument on another post on how thorny that issue is) then, "they can't help just being the way they are" (practicing or not) and it goes against (what I understand anyway) to be the legal precedents set by anti-segregation laws, laws striking down "restrictive" clubs (No Jews Allowed, for instance) and so on. That is what I see as the difference between MADD and the Boy Scouts in your counter example.

About churches or ministers being somehow forced to
perform gay marriages:

My dad was a minister-- a Baptist minister. He didn't have to marry anyone whom he didn't want to. For instance, he refused to perform a marriage ceremony if one of the couple had been previously married and then had been divorced.

I don't think that states or feds can force a religious entity to do something if doing so violates certain religious principles of the entity.

"I don't think that states or feds can force a religious entity to do something if doing so violates certain religious principles of the entity. "

Sure they can. That's why they threaten to take away a church's tax exempt status.

A totally bogus argument. What's next? If the American Heart Association tries to teach about Cancer they'll stop giving them money?