I maintain, believe what you want. Go about observing your observances as you choose…and if you choose a religion, then more than likely, that choice includes observing the way they observe, and if you don't, that's between you and your conscience, and you will decide how quiet you keep it. I know plenty of Jews who keep kosher homes, but use summer vacations or trips to restaurants to indulge in that bacon cheeseburger or the twin lobster special. I know plenty of observant Catholics who use birth control, live with their lovers, and so on.
I even find it interesting to discuss, to understand, to be informed about the religions of others, what they believe, what they do, why they do it, traditions, etc. But when it crosses the line into one religion or representative of a religion trying to make me do what his religion dictates, then I say no.
This crap about the United States being a Christian country is utter crap. We are supposed to be a nation of religious tolerance, anyone can practice his or her religion freely with no strictures imposed upon him by the government, unless it involves criminal acts like murder, child abuse, theft, whatever, although it seems that some religions manage to get away with criminal acts anyway, and no one will bother you. However, the flip side of that pertains as well, the religious can not impose his will on the rest of society which does not share his religious beliefs and practices.
That's where it all breaks down for me.
Not a Christian nation, but a nation that allows the free exercise of religious observance by its citizens with no government interference.
Removing the recitation of the Lord's prayer from public schools? Yes.
Removing the moment of silence for each kid to reflect, pray, daydream, plan an insurrection or a lunchroom prank? Maybe not…having a little quiet time is not such a bad idea, united in quiet.
Taking the reading of the Bible out of the schools? Perhaps rather add alternate readings from other holy books as an exercise in cultural diversification is maybe a better idea. One day, the Bible, one day the Baghavad Gita, one day the Koran, one day Buddha, etc. The world's cultures are full of references to these things, literary, artistic, theatrical, musical, and if we all grow up ignorant of the reference points, we lose much of the aesthetic richness of both our own cultural heritage, flawed though it may be, and also that of others.
I read something recently, it went something like this: If a person who sells a same-sex couple a wedding cake can claim he is then part of the marriage, how come the person who sells a killer a gun can't be said to be part of the murder?
alice
On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
Absolutely right, Alice. And you said it with far more control than
I. But you see, the entire premise is built upon one lie after
another. I'll pass over my contention that Man...Men, not Women
invented God. Let's say He really is here...or out there...or up
there. So now Mankind divides into groups, each waving a Holy Book
handed down to them by God...or whatever name they call Him.
But anyway, the Europeans came bumping their ships against the big
piles of land that stood between them and the Spice Center of the
world. And there were strange Beings wandering about this huge Land.
And suddenly the Europeans God, both Catholic and the many Protestant
denominations, called out to them saying, "It is good! This is your
Promised Land. Build my temples and worship me forever".
And so it came to pass that the Europeans claimed the Land in the name
of...no, not in the name of God, but in the name of the Kings of the
several nations involved in this Land Grab. Oh sure, they had banners
with crosses on them. They built churches and temples and went forth
each Sunday Morning to Worship God and thank Him for sharing of His
bountiful wealth. But little of what God shared went back to God. It
mostly went back to the Kings living far across the ocean. So moving
right along, after butchering and raping and enslaving all the folks
who had believed they were entitled to live here, the Europeans
grabbed and fought among themselves. Finally a bunch of rascals, the
equivalent to today's Terrorists, kicked the King of England out of
the Land and took over.
And even at that, later on this new nation split and fought among its
own States over the right of men to own other men and women and little
children.
And when that war was over the Industrialist went back to enslaving
the common people by forcing them to work six and seven days a week,
twelve to fourteen hours per day, for barely enough to pay for the
rent and food sold to them by their Bosses.
And here's the real joke. People today would have us believe that
this nation, these United States of America, is a Christian nation.
And we call ourselves intelligent?
Carl Jarvis
On 9/9/15, Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@verizon.net> wrote:and this is precisely what they have no right to do…they are free to not
have abortions, to not use burt control, to not have homosexual
relationships, to not shop on whatever holy day their religion binds them
to, to close their own business on that day if they own a business,
whatever. But they have no right to impose any of that on the rest of us if
the law says differently, the secularly defined law, not a religious one…
and this is what I don't quite understand why there's not more objection,
louder opposition to, this imposition of somebody else's religious laws on
others. Kim Davis doesn't believe in gay marriage? Fine. Then she should
not enter into one. But part of her job is to issue marriage licenses, and
if the law permits gays to marry, or a man to marry a sheep, or a woman to
marry a tree, then it is up to her to issue the license whether she likes
the choice of spouse or not…again, to trot out everyone's favorite
yardstick: what if she, in 2015, even in Kentucky, refused to issue a
marriage license to an interracial couple? It's not for her to impose her
religious views on others, and if she can't overcome herself to uphold civil
law, then she should find another job.
Alice
On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
wrote:But they've been imposing their will on us, they and the Catholic
Bishops.
No federal funds for abortion. And that Supreme Court decision last year,
didn't that have to do with on the job medical insurance benefits for
birth
control? And all those state regulations that have eliminated abortion
clinics and added on requirements for women before they can get their
abortions?
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 9:25 AM
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fwd: [act-chat] Oops! National Federation
of
the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
Abdulah and all,
I get so furious every time I hear yet another story about this sniveling
sack of shit Kim Davis and all her brainwashed evangelical cohorts and
supporters, including the odious Mike Huckabee.
They keep yapping about how their religious freedom is being taken away.
And
no one contradicts them, no one seems to have the balls to say to them,
"You
have no idea what the concept of religious freedom even means. You have
no
idea whatsoever what it means to have no religious freedom. You are free
to
unobstructed and unchallenged practice any religion you choose, complete
with whatever demands it makes of you, to comply with all the dicta
attached
to that religion, from the standard denominations of the world's
religions,
even the wacko sects of those religions, right down to pastafarianism.
What
you are not permitted to do is impose those beliefs and their
restrictions
on others. We do not live in a theocracy. We are under no obligation to
observe any religion's laws if we ourselves do not subscribe to that
religion. And you can't make us, no matter how hard you try to shoehorn
the
concept of religious freedom into this form of tyranny, right up there
with
fascism of the worst order. The lack of religious freedom means that you
will be thrown in jail for mouthing off about your wacko beliefs and/or
practicing them. When that happens, then we'll talk about how Christians
are
being persecuted and you right wing evangelicals are being deprived of
your
religious freedom. Bullshit. So until then, shut up and go away."
Something like that.think I"m ready for prime time yet? :)
Alice
On Sep 9, 2015, at 3:22 AM, abdulah aga <abdulahhasic@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi
Hmmmm So it means that USA as capitalism People like more religion
then money?,
So Saudi Arabia we know is religion country,
but they are work even Fridays,
in Saudi Arabia is Fridays weekend,
So I don't know then what start going on in USA with people:
Maybe they are want to make all USA as Vatican? or what?.
Abdulah Hasic.
-----Original Message----- From: Frank Ventura
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 11:57 PM
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fwd: [act-chat] Oops! National
Federation of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
I wonder what would happen if people refused to work on religious
days for Walmart, somehow I dount the EEOC would have the guts to go
after
Wallyworld.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of abdulah aga
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 4:30 PM
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fwd: [act-chat] Oops! National
Federation of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
Hi
I don't know where this lead us?
When people start use religion to much as esquse for something then
is not
good:
other word that esquse lead us in Couse or some type of mess,
I know how looks like and I past true all this things
So I would like ask smart NFB why they are didn't do sem thinks in
my case with TX comition for the blind?
I would like ask smart NFB what would bee hempen if Muslim people
say we don't work Fridays, because of are religion?
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 3:11 PM
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fwd: [acb-chat] Oops! National
Federation of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
I guess the NFB is a bit narrow in their definition of
discrimination? They recognize it only when it happens to blind people?
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Charles
Krugman (Redacted sender "ckrugman@sbcglobal.net" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 3:38 PM
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fwd: [acb-chat] Oops! National
Federation of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
and the stupidity award goes to the National Federation of the
Blind! I wonder whether the NFB membership will be apprized of this.
Chuck
From: R. E. Driscoll Sr <mailto:llocsirdsr@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 9:39 AM
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
Subject: [blind-democracy] Fwd: [acb-chat] Oops! National Federation
of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
All:
This came in the morning mail. It had rather long "TO and COPY"
sections which I have deleted... Further details may be found in the
link.
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
National Federation of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination
by EEOC
Advocacy Group Terminated an Employee because He Would Not Work on
the Sabbath, Federal Agency Charged
BALTIMORE - The National Federation of the Blind, the largest
organization of blind and low-vision people in the United States,
violated
federal law when it refused to allow an employee to observe his Sabbath
and
instead terminated him because of his religion, the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.
According to the lawsuit, Joseph R. Massey II is a practicing Hebrew
Pentecostal, a Christian denomination, and abstains from working from
sunset
Friday to sunset Saturday based on his sincerely-held religious beliefs.
The National Federation of the Blind hired Massey for a bookkeeping
position at its Baltimore office in November 2013. In January 2014, the
Federation told Massey he had to work certain Saturdays. Massey
explained
he could not work Saturdays due to his religious faith and suggested
alternatives such as working on Sundays or working late on week nights
other
than Fridays. EEOC charged that the Federation refused to provide any
reasonable accommodation and instead fired Massey because he could not
work
Saturdays due to his religious beliefs.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals
because of their religion and requires employers to reasonably
accommodate
an employee's sincerely-held religious beliefs unless doing so would
impose
an undue hardship on the employer. EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. The National
Federation of the Blind, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02484-GLR) in U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division,
after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its
conciliation process.
"Employees should not have to choose between their jobs and their
religious convictions when a religious accommodation will not unduly
burden
others,"
said EEOC Philadelphia District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr.
EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, "Most religious
accommodations are not unduly costly, such as allowing an employee to
switch
his schedule to observe his Sabbath. No employee should be forced to
choose
between earning a living and following the dictates of his faith."
EEOC's Philadelphia District Office has jurisdiction over
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and parts of New Jersey
and
Ohio. Its legal staff also prosecutes discrimination cases arising from
Washington, D.C. and parts of Virginia.
EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.
Further information about the agency is available at its website,
www.eeoc.gov
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.eeoc.gov&d=BQMCaQ&c
=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6Nr
snGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=X-azbiIlLDe6yFm40VOo18BkP3dAM0rd0Ra4aH1VCUU&s=r8E7HDDW1tHlr
NnXx76co9RJpg0MAQYmFeuiHLDXiq8&e=> .
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/national-federation-of-the-blind-sued-36517
/?utm_source=JD-Supra-eMail-Digests
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jdsupra.com_legalne
ws_national-2Dfederation-2Dof-2Dthe-2Dblind-2Dsued-2D36517_-3Futm-5Fsource-3
DJD-2DSupra-2DeMail-2DDigests&d=BQMCaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXek
fBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=X-azbiIlLDe6yFm40VO
o18BkP3dAM0rd0Ra4aH1VCUU&s=2h2gkTHVm-iso4Gw9uPk127o2sQOVIxWkTz82tm4L2k&e=>
<http://mandrillapp.com/track/open.php?u=30489975&id=ec68daf2a10b47949ad494e
7b411a6fc>
________________________________
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
No comments:
Post a Comment