Monday, June 27, 2011
Religions' impact on our PluralisticState
Archbishop Dolan fought hard against same sex marriage, and, he and others continue to fight same sex marriage....
See for example, http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/06/27/2011-06-27_sermons_mounted_pro__con_gay_unions_on_minds_of_citys_pastors.html
But most of all religions have been actively political not just when it comes to same sex marriage.
The teachings of the Church(es) have also imposed on our foreign policy: no condoms distributed in Africa, so the AIDS epidemic there continues to devastate countries;
on our military policy: female service members do not have access to full reproductive health care on military bases.
The teachings of our Temples have allowed for a pro-Israeli foreign policy, that does not grant Palestinians' their human rights.
There are more examples.
Religion should be a private matter, and not impose on others. When it imposes on others in our pluralistic democracy, it has overstepped.
Former Governor Cuomo articulately made the point about imposing religious views on others at the University of Notre Dame in 1984. The full text of his speech can be found here:
http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm
In the following excerpt, the bolded lines are the important ones, IMHO.
. . .In fact, Catholic public officials take an oath to preserve the Constitution that guarantees this freedom. And they do so gladly. Not because they love what others do with their freedom, but because they realize that in guaranteeing freedom for all, they guarantee our right to be Catholics: our right to pray, to use the sacraments, to refuse birth control devices, to reject abortion, not to divorce and remarry if we believe it to be wrong.
The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.
I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant or non-believer, or as anything else you choose.
We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us.
This freedom is the fundamental strength of our unique experiment in government. In the complex interplay of forces and considerations that go into the making of our laws and policies, its preservation must be a pervasive and dominant concern.
But insistence on freedom is easier to accept as a general proposition than in its applications to specific situations. There are other valid general principles firmly embedded in our Constitution, which, operating at the same time, create interesting and occasionally troubling problems. Thus, the same amendment of the Constitution that forbids the establishment of a State Church affirms my legal right to argue that my religious belief would serve well as an article of our universal public morality. I may use the prescribed processes of government -- the legislative and executive and judicial processes -- to convince my fellow citizens -- Jews and Protestants and Buddhists and non-believers -- that what I propose is as beneficial for them as I believe it is for me; that it is not just parochial or narrowly sectarian but fulfills a human desire for order, peace, justice, kindness, love, any of the values most of us agree are desirable even apart from their specific religious base or context. . .
Overstep, become an imposing political force, lose your tax exemption, in my opinion.
See for example, http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/06/27/2011-06-27_sermons_mounted_pro__con_gay_unions_on_minds_of_citys_pastors.html
But most of all religions have been actively political not just when it comes to same sex marriage.
The teachings of the Church(es) have also imposed on our foreign policy: no condoms distributed in Africa, so the AIDS epidemic there continues to devastate countries;
on our military policy: female service members do not have access to full reproductive health care on military bases.
The teachings of our Temples have allowed for a pro-Israeli foreign policy, that does not grant Palestinians' their human rights.
There are more examples.
Religion should be a private matter, and not impose on others. When it imposes on others in our pluralistic democracy, it has overstepped.
Former Governor Cuomo articulately made the point about imposing religious views on others at the University of Notre Dame in 1984. The full text of his speech can be found here:
http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm
In the following excerpt, the bolded lines are the important ones, IMHO.
. . .In fact, Catholic public officials take an oath to preserve the Constitution that guarantees this freedom. And they do so gladly. Not because they love what others do with their freedom, but because they realize that in guaranteeing freedom for all, they guarantee our right to be Catholics: our right to pray, to use the sacraments, to refuse birth control devices, to reject abortion, not to divorce and remarry if we believe it to be wrong.
The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.
I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant or non-believer, or as anything else you choose.
We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us.
This freedom is the fundamental strength of our unique experiment in government. In the complex interplay of forces and considerations that go into the making of our laws and policies, its preservation must be a pervasive and dominant concern.
But insistence on freedom is easier to accept as a general proposition than in its applications to specific situations. There are other valid general principles firmly embedded in our Constitution, which, operating at the same time, create interesting and occasionally troubling problems. Thus, the same amendment of the Constitution that forbids the establishment of a State Church affirms my legal right to argue that my religious belief would serve well as an article of our universal public morality. I may use the prescribed processes of government -- the legislative and executive and judicial processes -- to convince my fellow citizens -- Jews and Protestants and Buddhists and non-believers -- that what I propose is as beneficial for them as I believe it is for me; that it is not just parochial or narrowly sectarian but fulfills a human desire for order, peace, justice, kindness, love, any of the values most of us agree are desirable even apart from their specific religious base or context. . .
Overstep, become an imposing political force, lose your tax exemption, in my opinion.
Labels: religious bigotry, religious freedom, tax exemptions
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Legalizing Discrimination
Friday evening the NYS Legislature passed the Marriage Equality Act but not before passing an amendment that exempted religious organizations from having to celebrate (or recognize) these marriages if they are counter to te religion's principles. Also this amendment can not be severed from the who bill without causing the who bill /law to self destruct. http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8520-2011
I would not want to celebrate my marriage where I am not welcome so that is a moot point,in my mind.
It is the second section that is worrisome to me (see what I have bolded & italicized below) for it legalizes discrimination:
2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW OR RULE, REGU
LATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NOTHING IN
THIS ARTICLE SHALL LIMIT OR DIMINISH THE RIGHT, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION
ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, OF ANY
RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGAN
IZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPER
ATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATION, TO LIMIT EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMO
DATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELI
GION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH
ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTAB
LISHED OR MAINTAINED.
Now, I am not a lawyer, nor a religious scholar, but I can clearly see how many religiously affiliated groups--Mormons,Catholics,Orthodox Jews, Fundamental Christians, Muslims. . .-- could use this clause to discriminate. Many of these religions run not for profit service delivery and education organizations. Perhaps they will refuse to serve those who are in a same sex marriage, or who so marry. Catholic Charities went out of the business of adoptions in 2006, because under equal protection they would have been forced to place children with gay adoptive parents prior to this type of clause, with this clause in place, Catholic Charities could have just discriminated against the gay want-to-be-adoptive-parents.
I have already heard one diocese say this morning that they will not hire any married lesbians or gay men to teach or work in their parochial schools.
If this legalized discrimination is allowed to stand, I am proposing that all religious organizations that have politicked for these protections have violated their tax exempt status, and should lose that status. This means the Church of the Latter Saints which funded (the California) Proposition 8, no more tax exemptions. Catholic Church & other Christian churches which lobbied against same sex marriage, against the full reproductive health rights of women (see Health care reform) no tax exemptions.
In other words, Religions, you can not have it your way--if you want to politic, if you want not to practice equality,i.e, to discriminate, you should not be afforded tax breaks. (This might also solve many communities' budget problems. . .)
Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion, that's EQUALITY, too.
I would not want to celebrate my marriage where I am not welcome so that is a moot point,in my mind.
It is the second section that is worrisome to me (see what I have bolded & italicized below) for it legalizes discrimination:
2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW OR RULE, REGU
LATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NOTHING IN
THIS ARTICLE SHALL LIMIT OR DIMINISH THE RIGHT, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION
ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, OF ANY
RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGAN
IZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPER
ATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATION, TO LIMIT EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMO
DATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELI
GION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH
ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTAB
LISHED OR MAINTAINED.
Now, I am not a lawyer, nor a religious scholar, but I can clearly see how many religiously affiliated groups--Mormons,Catholics,Orthodox Jews, Fundamental Christians, Muslims. . .-- could use this clause to discriminate. Many of these religions run not for profit service delivery and education organizations. Perhaps they will refuse to serve those who are in a same sex marriage, or who so marry. Catholic Charities went out of the business of adoptions in 2006, because under equal protection they would have been forced to place children with gay adoptive parents prior to this type of clause, with this clause in place, Catholic Charities could have just discriminated against the gay want-to-be-adoptive-parents.
I have already heard one diocese say this morning that they will not hire any married lesbians or gay men to teach or work in their parochial schools.
If this legalized discrimination is allowed to stand, I am proposing that all religious organizations that have politicked for these protections have violated their tax exempt status, and should lose that status. This means the Church of the Latter Saints which funded (the California) Proposition 8, no more tax exemptions. Catholic Church & other Christian churches which lobbied against same sex marriage, against the full reproductive health rights of women (see Health care reform) no tax exemptions.
In other words, Religions, you can not have it your way--if you want to politic, if you want not to practice equality,i.e, to discriminate, you should not be afforded tax breaks. (This might also solve many communities' budget problems. . .)
Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion, that's EQUALITY, too.
Labels: religious freedom, same sex marriage, tax exemptions
Friday, June 24, 2011
Marriage Equality
Marriage Equality passed in New York...the 6th state! One step closer to equality for all!
Friday, June 03, 2011
Dirty Tricks
Is it just a coincidence that our attention is directed away from important issues? Could the alleged Congressman Weiner lewd twitter be because of his investigation of Justice Thomas' apparent conflict of interest?
http://www.anthonyweiner.com/blog/125-conflicted-clarence-thomas-countdown-to-clarity
http://www.anthonyweiner.com/blog/125-conflicted-clarence-thomas-countdown-to-clarity
