Krauss’s rousing New Yorker piece inspired me to declare this Anti-Theism Day, with all posts (save Hili and Readers’ Wildlife) having to do with religion or its absence. Here’s the final post of the day.
Reader Linda Grilli sent me this explanatory tw**t from Mrs. Betty Bowers, with a figure that also appeared at The Daily Kos:
And an update—a new meme from reader Bruce:
That sums it up nicely.
Here’s another good one along those same lines…
https://www.facebook.com/GSHMP/photos/a.815214348503994.1073741828.153786011313501/1206410836051008/?type=1&theater
Yeah, S.O.L. County must be a tough place to live.
“Shit Outta Luck” county? That’s probably the mildest profanity you’d here from an angler denied the opportunity to wet his or her fishing line.
And one that Facebook God shared with us:
https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLordAbove/photos/a.608095492611491.1073741834.157750900979288/1539870362767328/?type=1&theater
Luckily, guns are still accepted for checkout at any register.
Whoops, I just posted that one above without having read the comments.
While on the subject, would the Muslim cashier also sell condoms? I am not sure.
Maybe only if they’re the natural lambskins. I’ve had one at the ready in my wallet since the time of the last Caliphate.
Gives sheep-shagging a whole new meaning… 😉
Welshist!
Reblogged this on Rainbowman56's Blog.
My taboo shall be yours. I have god on my side, what you got?
As Ambrose Bierce said:
CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.
Love the DD. It seems to me that implicit in that definition is the hypocrisy xians demonstrate by being much more concerned about others obeying all their rules than they are about their own obedience (or lack thereof).
Yes, I think his main point was that they don’t follow their own rules. The point that they spend a lot of time trying to get other people to follow their rules is probably secondary.
She is also threatening all the other clerks to make sure they don’t help, either.
Well, as of right now they are issuing licenses, she’s “on vacation,” and at least one deputy has publicly stated that if she comes back and gives an order not to issue licenses, he’ll ignore the order and obey the judge.
So as of now, her threat appears to be ineffectual.
What if one of the other clerks believed in a religion that is pro marriage? It would be religion vs religion.
Oh, that’s easy. One of them is following God, and the other one is forming God in their own image.
We only have to take a poll.
The analogy that I like is that religious disputes are like 6-year olds playing cops and robbers on the playground. When there is a loud angry argument over who shot who with their finger pistols, it is NOT the chaperone’s (i.e., Government’s) job to decide who shot who. Its their job merely to ensure the kids don’t hurt themselves or each other while they play their imaginary game.
Ah, but how would such a clash play out in a legal battle? The government would be forced either to pronounce that one religion is legitimate and the other isn’t, or it could do THE RIGHT FUCKING THING AND ENFORCE NEUTRALITY.
Quite the dilemma.
sub
It is at precisely this intersection that the two religion clauses of the First Amendment tend to collide — how much accommodation to religious belief does the Free Exercise clause permit (or require) vs. how much accommodation to religion runs afoul of the Establishment clause?
This tension has led over the years to badly fractured US Supreme Court decisions, with odd juridical bedfellows forming unusual judicial majorities. Rarely do these cases break down along the traditional liberal/conservative divide, especially in cases concerning the exemptions from general laws that must be afforded religious minorities — peyote-smoking among Native Americans, for example, or animal sacrifice in Santeria — and rarely do you find the same alignment of Justices in both Free Exercise and Establishment clause cases.
That break-down is less prevalent in cases involving the accommodation of more-mainstream religious practices, since large denominations can take care of themselves very well, thank you, in the legislative process, so cases involving them usually arise in the context of a pre-existing statutory exemption for religious practice and, thus, present issues solely on the Establishment clause side of the ledger.
In the news is the story of a Muslim woman working as a flight attendant who would not serve alcohol to the passengers. That was worked around her supervisor, who had another flight attendant do that for her. Then someone complained and she was suspended.
I do not know of all the details, but it seemed to me that since the situation did not prevent the passengers from getting their EtOH, I personally saw no real problem with the situation as it was.
She didn’t do the job she was paid for. She made the passenger suffer her taboo. Good job all the attendants weren’t muslim in that way. Sack her.
Except for the extra burden on the other flight attendants. Was she under the impression alcohol wasn’t served on aircraft when she signed up? Agree frank.
She converted after she was on the job.
Instances like that one, that don’t involve any governmental action, are solely up to the employer and employee. If the former wants to accommodate the request of latter (as, apparently, the supervisor was willing to do for the Muslim flight attendant here) fine; if not, that’s fine, too.
I’m very pro requiring everyone to follow facially neutral laws, regardless of belief. But even I can understand some exceptions — not exclusive to the religious, of course, but as a matter of person’s private conscience.
For example, many hospitals do not require staff to participate directly in non-emergency third-trimester abortions. If hospitals don’t want to allow such an exemption, I’m fine with that. But I have a hard time criticizing them if they do.
The complainant was another flight attendant, who was complaining about the extra work the rest of them had to do because of her failure to do her job.
I think this is a good example of when reasonable accommodation becomes unreasonable. The boss tried to accommodate her. A few weeks or months later the other employees told him it just wasn’t working. He asked her to do her job normally, she refused, and he suspended her. Had it worked, it would’ve been reasonable accommodation. Because it didn’t, its unreasonable.
Here in Minnesota a few years ago, we had an issue arise where Muslim cabbies (of Somali descent) were refusing to carry people with guide dogs (or other dogs; but guide dogs were the real issue) and refusing to carry people who were also carrying alcohol.
The cities made quick work of it. A license to drive a cad is a privilege. If you don’t want to be a common carrier, we will revoke your license.
As far as I know, this was not seriously challenged in court.
As I mentioned several days ago, if this were only about Kim Davis then some sort of accommodation would likely have been made and this issue would be dead.
The ONLY people who will “win” anything out of this are the lawyers. I have every reason to believe that Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel is “counseling” Kim Davis to drag this out as long as possible so that he can raise money by scaring people.
From kentucky.com, Lexington Herald-Leader August 13, 2015:
Sharing Davis’ glow is Liberty Counsel, which describes itself as a nonprofit that provides pro bono legal representation related to “religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family,” funded by tax-deductible donations and grants. In 2012 those gifts reached just over $3.5 million and in 2013 topped $4.1 million, according to IRS filings.
The husband and wife team who founded and run Liberty Counsel, Anita and Matthew Staver, were paid $137,758 and $153,591, respectively, in 2013. The staff of five ran up $184,479 in travel expenses that year and spent $429,584 on conferences, conventions and meetings. Liberty Counsel paid one independent contractor over $600,000 for “email alert services,” and another almost $500,000 for printing and mail services. “Case costs,” were reported at $105,487.
http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/13/3987637_time-for-davis-to-do-her-job-or.html?rh=1
By their repeated cooption of it, rightwingers have all but wrecked the word “liberty” for me. We need to send a para-rescue squad out to wrest if from their control.
Cashier might glance over at those new self-checkout stations that are showing up everywhere and maybe have a bit of a think.
Excellent idea. If only it could also apply to self-service marriage licenses…
IIRC, the Republican candidate for governor was asked about the Kim Davis affair and suggested amending the rules so licences could be issued over the Internet.
(Translation – he didn’t want to go near the Davis affair).
cr
Its annoying that some types of progress only happen after bigotry and discrimination essentially force an issue to the forefront. But I guess after the fact, its still progress. Simplified on-line forms would be a good that comes out of this bad.
And presumably you and Krauss would have said, concerning the religious conscientious objectors who defied the Fugitive Slave Act: Hang ’em!
Ditto Rosa Parks, the Berrigan brothers and Gandhi.
You presume wrongly, rude person. If you think that all of those people’s objections to racism, colonialism, and war came solely from religion and not philosophy, or were not articulated eloquently without saying “that’s the way God wants it,” you’re sadly misguided.
Setting aside the fact that Kim Davis wasn’t hung and setting aside the fact that a sense of justice is innate and requires no appeal to religion, the difference you seem not to see is that helping a slave in 1850 or assisting Rosa Parks to her seat on a bus is an act of inclusion.
Denying someone of their right is the opposite: exclusion.
Kim Davis chose to exclude.
nb. If you require hyperbole (ie. Hang ‘em!) your argument isn’t as strong as you think it is.
There are certain matters about which a person should be able to exercise a “right of conscience” (and who gives a damn if their conscience is motived by religion or not).
There are also times when people of genuine conscience must stand firm and be willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions — as Rosa Parks, Daniel & Phillip Berrigan, and Mohandas Gandhi all did. (And each of them did so in service of a broader secular cause — civil rights, opposition to the Vietnam War, the independence of India — whatever their private motivations may have been.)
Here in the US it’s a proud tradition we call civil disobedience.
Exactly, Diane; with a long and noble history, and a literary canon that runs from Thoreau to Howard Zinn and many others.
Religious people have such trouble with logic and critical thinking.
This is not exactly surprising…
Because Kim Davis is fighting the same good fight the abolitionists fought. Give me a break.
Am I fighting that good fight if I demand the government allow me to exercise my religious freedom, as an adherent of the Aztec religion, to sacrifice children?
http://reverbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/11951217_810854362367250_1633664091482297411_n.jpg
sub
Wendy Davis is just like Rosa Parks ,,, If Rosa had said: “I don’t hate Jim Crow, and I’m not trying to overturn segregation generally, but my religion tells me — and I’m only speaking for myself here, not those dark heathens in the back of the bus — but my religion tells me that I must sit next to a white person when riding on the Montgomery public transportation system. So I demand that you set aside one seat in the front of the bus as ‘reserved for Sister Rosa.'”
Well said, Ken.
A typo? ITYM “Kim Davis is just like Wendy Davis ,,, If Wendy had said: …”
But there is another angle:
“I am going to open a restaurant that does not serve pork”
Which gets met with “then I will sue you”
Is that supposed to be an analogy for the cake fracas? If so, it doesn’t work. If your pork-free restaurant reference send to serve certain people based on race or sexual orientation, then you’ve got an analogy.
reference send = refused
I can’t believe hiw much worse the current iOS autocorrect is than previous iterations. Its learning and intuiting capabilities are much worse.
Case in fucking point. Hiw? It didn’t change that?
😀
Sort of a rant, but I’m tired of a lot of freedom be damned attitude by so many people who should know better.
Yes it is an analogy and no it does not miss the mark. Our current climate is going so far off the rail, in a case of “we will trample freedom to save freedom”. Unfortunately the term ‘discrimination’ has become such a potent talisman that just the mention of it is enough to trample freedom.
Consider the sandwich example. You make roast beef but not pork. Now some people (certain Hindus, for instance) can eat pork, but not beef. So the argument (logically identical to the bakery argument) is ” if you sell sandwiches, you must accommodate all religions”
But the bakery argument is actually NOT even about discrimination against gay people. If a gay person came in for a dozen donuts, there is little chance he would be turned away. So it’s *not* against the person. The objection is to the message, which for better or worse people have opinions about and for better or worse people have the RIGHT to hold opinions about. It’s not like there’s some critical service being denied here (like medical attention). It’s a freakin cake! Go next door and get one.
Sometimes the behavior of people I would normally support (LGBT) has been horrendous. Like the case of a couple who sued an old woman florist for an obscene amount because she did not want to do flowers for their wedding. One of the plaintiffs was quoted as saying “we’ve been coming to her shop for years…”. How caring!. Destroy this woman’s livelihood because her opinions don’t match yours!. Whatever happened to decency?
Or the couple who claimed in court papers that they felt ‘mentally raped’ when their order for a cake was refused. Perhaps they should look up the word in the dictionary. I’m certain that ACTUAL rape victims might feel very different about this trivialization of their inconvenient experience.
Consider the cheering that happened when Brendan Eich was essentially run out of Mozilla because he was on record as (legally) objecting to gay marriage. What would be the reaction if a gay CEO were forced out of Mozilla because of pressure from Christians? Lots of people would be rightly screaming. They should also be rightly screaming about this.
Basically what is happening here is that when a new group gets political clout, suddenly all the concerns about protecting freedom, including free speech goes out the window.
It’s time to step back and respect other peoples’ rights to opinions and expression as we would want our own respected.
If I tell a black person they can’t sit in the front of the bus, but they can use the same water fountain as I do, according to the analogy you just laid out, that’s not discrimination against the black person so long as I sincerely believe that black people shouldn’t sit in the front of the bus.
The cake case did not have anything to do with accomodating religions, and that is the phrase you somehow have tried to smuggle into your argument unchecked. It had to do with making their advertised goods and services equally available to all people without discrimination. The sandwich shop sells sandwiches of whatever type the make to customers who order them. It does not sell “religious accomodation sandwiches.” If the shop refused to sell a Catholic person a roast beef sandwich on a Friday but still sells it to Jewish people, that is discrimination and that again is entirely different than your example. Another different scenario–the shop doesn’t sell roast beef sandwiches on Friday in Lent because of their own Catholic beliefs, that would in all likelihood be fine if challenged in court because the roast beef sandwiches are not on offer to any customer, in the same way that $2 weeknight Happy Hours are not on offer to any customer on the weekend.
Some people may take things too far when seeking reparations for discrimination they’ve experienced. Presumably they could find ways to do this without destroying someone’s livelihood.
This doesn’t mean your analogy is apt. The plaintiffs aren’t suing because they went to a bakery and found that it doesn’t make cakes. That kind of “religious freedom” would be fine because it doesn’t involve discrimination. No one who goes to that bakery is getting a cake. No one who goes to your restaurant is getting pork. In fact, I think such restaurants are pretty common. I don’t think there’re any pork products on the menu at McDonald’s. At least, not after 11am. The litigation is happening because these establishments are refusing to serve certain people. You want to talk about respect?
“The litigation is happening because these establishments are refusing to serve certain people”
Exactly.
Also:
Because being gay wouldn’t come up and the proprietor wouldn’t know. If the gay customer came in with his partner and said he wanted several dozen donuts for their upcoming wedding you bet he’d be turned away.
And even if the refusal of service is limited to items meant for a same-sex marriage, how does that make it any more acceptable? It’s still refusing service based on sexual orientation.
I find your hypotheticals a bit fanciful.
Are there going to be some assholes on both sides of the issue? Aren’t there always? But the law tends to be an inutile tool for curing asshole-ism.
The nation’s going through a period of adjustment right now. But I don’t expect it to be a particularly long or difficult one. Soon, with any luck, instances of overt discrimination against gay folk will recede in memory. (That’s not to say we’re on the cusp of a panacea for all our ills. Anti-gay bigotry is etched deeply on many people’s hearts. But just as racism is still rampant in some quarters, overt acts of racism — at least in the sense of black people being denied services or turned away from business — tend to be extremely rare.)
I expect what we’ll find is that gay people will by-and-large patronize business that actively solicit and welcome their business — as well they should, and as long they already have. Where, for one reason or another, that’s not an option, I expect businesses that aren’t gay-friendly will nevertheless buck-up, accept their legal responsibility to serve gay patrons, and perform accordingly. Who knows, maybe it will prove a learning experience, dispelling their preconceived biases and disclosing that they’ve more in common with their new patrons than they ever dreamed? Might even find they like some of them and want to keep their business. Keep hope alive, as Jesse used to say.
I think this is the result all of us here hope for, and I think its the result the American mainstream is ready to accept. So I’m cautiously expectant that it’s the result we’ll all have, once the social outliers have gotten the steam and vitriol out of their systems and come to the ineluctable realization that this is yet another battle they’ve irretrievably lost.
Just in case anyone thinks this is all hypothetical: a year or so ago, I asked for a pound of deli ham at a local supermarket [it advertises itself as “American owned”, so any inhabitants of WNC will know who I mean.] The young lady in a headscarf [I guess to proclaim she was Muslim] said “I’ll have to get someone else to serve you.” So I have to wait for a minute or two while she hunts up someone else, no big deal. But mostly I am asking myself, “Why would they put a Muslim at the deli counter?”
I can better understand Texas’s supermarket chain, HEB, putting under-21-year-olds at the cash register, where too young to drink equals too young to handle someone else’s purchase at your register. At least, these young adults will grow out of it, and managers have a work-around.
A wonderful comment at gocomics today:
“I’m sorry, but my religion does not permit me to sell you a gun.”
And, speaking of comics, here’s one that relates to the topic at hand.
Where in Gocomics was that comment? (Not in Wiley Miller’s Non Sequitur, which is what I immediately think of when Gocomics is mentioned).
cr
Unfortunately there seems to be a plentiful supply of religio-legal fuckwits.
Here we have a Tennessee judge who refused a straight couple a divorce because, apparently, he was in a snit about the Supreme Court and wanted to mouth off about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/04/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-of-gay-marriage/
I wonder if it’s possible for the divorcing couple to sue the moronic prat for their wasted legal fees?
cr