It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Reasonable Exercise of Rights: A Proposal

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: face23785

I wouldn't even necessarily say people smarter than us.

For the purposes of determining what a right is in the US, you need to understand what the Founders understood it to be. Once you know that, it would follow that is what they're referring to every time the word is referenced in the COTUS.


I'll concede the Founders were smarter than me.


But yeah, I take your meaning. Whose fault is it that so many Americans don't know basic civics anymore?




posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Well my point in saying that was not that the Founders weren't incredibly intelligent, but that there are a lot of people who are in positions of power right now who would love for you to think that just because they're in those positions, they're smarter than you and you should let them do all the thinking for you.

Just ask them. They'll tell you so.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

And therein lies the real heart of the problem. People seem to want to "interpret" what is said to twist it into their view of what it should mean. That's not how the language works. Words have previously determined meanings, and changing those meanings is not communicating... it is the opposite of communication.

As an example, when I say I have a right to religion, I am saying that I have the ability to practice the things spoken of in my Holy Book (the Bible in my case) within reasonable laws (I can't make human sacrifices whether the book says to or not) and without any government involvement whatsoever. No one can legally even try to prevent me from going to whatever church I choose. No one can legally tell me I cannot have a symbol of the cross on my person or in my personal effects. No one can legally force me to act against my personal religious beliefs... and that must apply to everyone! Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist... everyone. If one person is denied their right to freedom of religion, that means the same ones who denied it can try and deny my right. So I support freedom of religion for all.

But far too often, a simple statement of "I can go to church if I want" is "interpreted" to mean that everyone must go to a church... no! I never said that! Just because I referred to a church, it doesn't mean that I intentionally decided that mosques or temples are different. If I say "everyone should go to church," it does not follow that I want to pass a law that says all atheists are required to attend a church, or that a Muslim person shouldn't be allowed to go to a mosque. But that seems to be how people "interpret" the words.

And discussions like this just underline the issue. What is a right? Where does a right come from? Those questions have to be answered, or we are arguing over the same thing using different words. According to my religion, God scattered the people of Babylon by confusing their language, causing them to stop building the Tower of Babylon... underscoring how impossible it is to perform a task when one cannot understand the language.

Understanding the language is more than knowing which words were uttered... it is understanding what the words mean and the concepts and ideas they carry in the context in which they are used.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Indeed.

Does one's religion provide the right to impede the rights of others? Say, for example, a clerk who's religion (or their interpretation of it) says that homosexuality is a sin, refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. Is that clerk infringing on the rights of that couple?

This can be turned around, of course. Should that person be required to do something which is contrary to their religion when it is part of their job?

Does allowing same sex couples the same rights (and privileges) as hetero couples infringe on the rights of those who are opposed to such?

edit on 8/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Does one's religion provide the right to impede the rights of others? Say, for example, a clerk who's religion (or their interpretation of it) says that homosexuality is a sin, refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. Is that clerk infringing on the rights of that couple?

I'd say yes, it would infringe IF one considers marriage a right. I happen to consider it such.

On the other hand, the preferable remedy IMO would depend on the circumstances. Was the law changed after the clerk got the job? If not, then the clerk should have known better than to take a position that interfered with his/her religion and I have no sympathy for them. If yes, the best solution I have is to allow someone else in the department to issue the marriage license. In that case, the clerk did not go into the position with knowledge of a potential interference with religion, and by changing the law the government attempted to force the clerk to compromise their religious views.

My point is that there is always a remedy, should people exercise (un)common sense.


Does allowing same sex couples the same rights (and privileges) as hetero couples infringe on the rights of those who are opposed to such?

I don't see how it does, unless and until that same-sex couple tries to force a church to marry them against its religious tenets. Then I see a problem. A couple has a right to marry; they do not have the right to force another to violate their freedom of religion by engaging in the ceremony.

That is not to say I 'support' gay marriage. I really don't; I accept it. I recognize that my personal feelings are not binding on anyone else. That's what we refer to around these here parts as "nuna muh bizness."

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




In that case, the clerk did not go into the position with knowledge of a potential interference with religion, and by changing the law the government attempted to force the clerk to compromise their religious views.
I suppose that may imply a presumption that things, as they were, were right and proper. That the precepts (real or imagined) of a religion have a place in government.


That's what we refer to around these here parts as "nuna muh bizness."
A fine outlook. Indeed. An interface of rights situation.





edit on 8/17/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/17/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I suppose that may imply a presumption that things, as they were, were right and proper. That the precepts (real or imagined) of a religion have a place in government.

"Right and proper" has a contextual connotation. Things were stable. Right and proper change with the times (unfortunately not always to the better in my experience).

As for religion having a place in government, religious people have a place in government as long as they are elected/hired. The very idea of prohibiting anyone religious from government service is prohibitive to the free exercise of religion and relegates the religious to a class of lower citizenship than others. I find that completely unacceptable and abhorrent. Whether or not a person can exercise the duties of their office should be the only consideration, not what religion or skin color or gender or sexual preference or heritage or any of the myriad of nonsensical things people like to dredge up.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ketsuko

And therein lies the real heart of the problem. People seem to want to "interpret" what is said to twist it into their view of what it should mean.

*snip for brevity*

TheRedneck



Indeed. You've eloquently destroyed the premise of your own allegedly "reasonable" argument. Taken literally, your words are fallacious. Taken ironically, they are tragically heavy-handed.

Typical "swing-and-a-miss" effort, Redneck. At best.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


You've eloquently destroyed the premise of your own allegedly "reasonable" argument.

Is it possible that was my intent?

I believe I have made some people think.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Ummm...even your right to free exercise of religion...falls by the wayside...when it runs counter to another individuals rights...as do each and every one of your rights...and everyone else’s as well...
Therefore...a clerk leaves their personal belief choices at the door...or in the privacy of their own places of worship or home...never in the performance of their public duties especially when working in a professional capacity for any level of government.

Your rights are for you specifically much like an imaginary personal space...

The above only holds true in government and it’s agencies...it does not hold true in the private sector in a place of business...we are always free to take our business elsewhere...







YouSir



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Any time a right to protest needs a permit or license from the Government then the battle is lost.
We are losing rights by increments. It'll be too late when people wake up.




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

And see, this is where you and I would disagree.

Marriage to me is not a right for anyone.

I say that because to me, rights are intrinsic things to ourselves. For you or I to be married to anyone else, we need to agreement of at least one and often two other people -- the person we are marrying and the person officiating the marriage. So since you can't just be married independent of others, but it relies on social convention and agreement, a marriage is a social privilege, not an inherent right.

Religion, on the other hand, you can have intrinsic to yourself. You don't need any other person in order to have and hold and practice your personal religious/faith beliefs. And for that reason, your religion is and can be a right.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: YouSir

But then, if government creates requirements by law that run counter to the free exercise of a person's religion, are they not then running afoul of their own COTUS?

If I cannot expect to work for my own government which explicitly states that it cannot have a law that prohibits the free exercise of my faith in its own foundational charter *because* it has created legal conditions that prohibit me from living my personal faith in service to it, then isn't my own government in violation of that ideal?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I can see and appreciate your point on marriage. However, might I point out that the freedom of association is also a freedom that is dependent on consent of others. One does not have the freedom to associate with someone who does not reciprocate the desire... the law calls that "stalking." Yet, the freedom of association is explicitly enumerated in the 1st Amendment.

I call that a shared right... one has the right to associate with others who share the desire to do so, just as one has the right to enter a monogamous relationship with another person who consents. Marriage is a contract between two people to live as one in such a relationship, as defined by Christian ideology. But we, society, have defined it further as a secular contract outside religion, and that is where it begins to be a right.

I'll admit, as a Christian, I battled my own beliefs over this for some time. The Torah states homosexuality is a sin, and therefore it follows that the consummation of a homosexual relationship would also be a sin. But the Bible is almost too clear on this fact... the Torah calls it an "abomination," which is elsewhere used only for false god worship. At the time of the Torah, I believe those whom the Hebrews were at war with used homosexual acts as an integral part of their religious ceremonies. That would explain the "abomination" description, and also explain the severe punishments decreed. In other words, the prohibition might well be contextual and primarily applicable to that specific circumstance.

Let me emphasize that I am not saying this is true... only that it might be a possible interpretation. In any case, we have, by precedent, recognized the right to marriage under certain religious ideologies, and that right, if it exists, must not be restricted to any particular religious belief. Doing so violates the right to freedom of religion.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: YouSir

But then, if government creates requirements by law that run counter to the free exercise of a person's religion, are they not then running afoul of their own COTUS?

If I cannot expect to work for my own government which explicitly states that it cannot have a law that prohibits the free exercise of my faith in its own foundational charter *because* it has created legal conditions that prohibit me from living my personal faith in service to it, then isn't my own government in violation of that ideal?



Ummm...in short...no...

The free exercise of your religion say...in the work place will no doubt run counter to workplace regulations...you are merely prohibited from abrogating another's constitutional rights by exercising your own...I.E. you cannot infringe upon someone else with your free exercise...unless you work or own a private business that caters to the general public...

This however is much different than denying someone their rights to satisfy your religious beliefs...






YouSir



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: YouSir


Therefore...a clerk leaves their personal belief choices at the door...or in the privacy of their own places of worship or home...never in the performance of their public duties especially when working in a professional capacity for any level of government.

A right cannot be temporary, and certainly cannot be removed by the government except by due process of law. Our Constitution is clear on that point. Religion is, by definition, a deeply-held belief in a lifestyle which cannot be denied a person except under very specific circumstances (as in, it must not violate reasonable laws such as a prohibition against human sacrifice as I mentioned earlier). One cannot leave their morality and belief system "at the door" when moving from one capacity to another. If they do, their beliefs are not deeply seated enough to be defined as a religion.

It follows then that if a Probate Judge is elected to a position where they are required by their job description to grant marriage licenses, and the present laws concerning marriage do not interfere with their religious beliefs, they are able to effectively discharge their duties. If they accept a position which requires them to violate their own beliefs, they cannot make the claim that those duties violate their religious freedoms because they knowingly chose to apply for the position.

If, however, as has happened, the laws are changed during their tenure, then they still have their claim of religious freedom intact. Their right to religious freedom cannot be denied simply because any people, even a voting majority, decide they are "wrong." Their right to continue in the occupation they chose when it did not violate religious objections cannot be suddenly denied by even a majority; such would be a workaround to deny religious freedom. In that case, we have two parties that both hold rights, but which are at odds with each other. The only reasonable solution I see, and what happened in Alabama, was that those with a religious objection were allowed to pass their cases off to those who did not hold a religious objection. In some cases, the marriage license was signed by someone other than a Probate Judge. It still, by law, held the same power as if it had been signed by an objecting Probate Judge, but the name signed was that of an associate.

A Probate Judge in this case had the right to object to providing his/her personal approval to the marriage, but that did not prohibit their office, as a duly authorized department of the government, from doing so. The Probate Judge may run the Probate Office, but he/she is not the Probate Office. All rights were preserved: both the right of the Judge and the right of the couple to marry.

It's still early (I was up late and slept in) but I hope that made sense.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




As for religion having a place in government, religious people have a place in government as long as they are elected/hired.
I didn't say anything about religious people. I said religious precepts.

Some of my best friends (even relatives) are religious people. I have nothing against them, just some of their precepts.
edit on 8/17/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

In Kentucky, Kim Davis went so far as to stop issuing any marriage licenses at all. Clearly a failure to do the job she signed up for.

She also forbade her deputy clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, even though they were willing to do so.

A clear case of one's religious precepts impeding the rights of others. The same precepts which had codified discrimination against same sex couples.

edit on 8/17/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I didn't say anything about religious people. I said religious precepts.

I think you are splitting hairs here. A religious person is one who observes religious precepts. if you like a person, I fail to see how you can say you dislike their religious precepts... they are an integral part of who that person is.

I could understand "disagree with."


In Kentucky, Kim Davis went so far as to stop issuing any marriage licenses at all.

I don't recall all the specifics of that case.

In Alabama, when a Constitutional amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court, Judge Roy Moore ordered the various probate Judges to not issue homosexual marriage licenses. He claimed, and I partly believe, his decision was based in what he felt was an improper exercise of authority by the Federal government to restrict the right of the people of Alabama to rule themselves, rather than a bias against homosexual marriage. Personally, I think both issues were in his mind.

That placed the various Probate Judges in a precarious position... which Supreme Court do they follow, the US or Alabama? My personal opinion is that the whole debacle was an exercise in political power-playing and had no one's best interests at heart. In any case, the Probate Judges who decided to not issue any licenses during that time period were simply trying to follow both directives: one from the US that said they could not discriminate based on homosexuality and one form Alabama that forbade homosexual licenses being issued.

I really don't recall if similar circumstances surrounded Kim Davis' decision or not. But in any case, I don't see how removing one person's right in order to validate another person's right is in any way right. There were better options.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


which Supreme Court do they follow, the US or Alabama?
Are you kidding? The SCOTUS is the final legal arbiter. It determined that laws against same sex marriage are invalid.



I really don't recall if similar circumstances surrounded Kim Davis' decision or not. But in any case, I don't see how removing one person's right in order to validate another person's right is in any way right.
What right was removed? The right for the government to discriminate based on one's religious precepts?
edit on 8/17/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join