And here's the "God's Not Dead 2" trailer:
WaPo's columnist, Amber Phillips, says:
"God's Not Dead 2" is a sequel to the hit 2014 movie where a Christian college student defends his faith against a liberal philosophy professor. The wildly successful movie made $62 million off just a $2 million budget.My wistful dream is that the common ground would be arrived at through an understanding the law of the First Amendment — Free Speech, Free Exercise, and the Establishment Clause — and the various controversies that courts and legislatures have worked through over the years. I get a hopeless, sick feeling seeing pop culture material like the 2 videos I've embedded, which I think have a great effect on how people think about legal issues, which I do sometimes take the time to try to explain here. The "SNL" thing mocks what "God's Not Dead 2" presents with melodramatic seriousness. Both are funny in their own way but also annoying if you actually care about the problems of religious freedom, which involve coordinating a lot of conflicting interests and could benefit from more open-minded, educated thinking from the citizenry. But the entertainment industry takes advantage of the existing conflicts and ignorance and, for its own benefit, further hardens minds and separates people.
Reaction to SNL's skit was pretty much what you'd expect it to be — either positive or negative, with hardly anything in between. Religious protections vs. gay rights is the social battle of the moment right now as lawmakers grapple with how to govern around a changing definition of marriage and family — against some people's wishes. And as such, there is hardly any gray area for either side to find common ground.
And I'd just like to add that I can't believe writers of a courtroom drama stoop to the level of having a judge tell a lawyer that he's holding him "in contempt" and the lawyer accepting the charge because he, in fact, feels contempt. I guess there's always somebody hearing that hoary riposte for the first time.
পোস্টগুলি
২৩৭টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 237 এর 201 – থেকে 237"Consider yourself educated."
Heh.
You're not even bright enough to see when I'm just having some fun.
On a less jokey note, though, there are many things in the Bible that are considered sinful, even "abominations." Why is it that so many pick on homosexuality as being particularly abominable? The Bible doesn't go out its way to pick that as the blackest sin of all, the one least forgivable, the one most to be abhorred.
I made my reference to Onanism because, like homosexuality, the "seed of life" is being wasted--spilled on the ground, in the case of Onan--rather than going to fertilize an egg. My guess is this is the main reason homosexuality is considered sinful in the Bible...because, as with masturbation, the sex is not procreative in either intent or end result.
"Just a question for people who are adamant about 'religious liberty' and the right of a baker to not serve gay customers: What about a real estate agent not showing homes or apartments to a gay couple? Is that OK? What about a jeweler not selling rings to a gay couple? What about a hotel refusing to rent a space to a gay couple for their reception and for their lodging? What about a printer refusing to print wedding invitations? What about a tailor refusing to provide alterations? What about a hair dresser refusing to cut hair for a gay couple? etc."
I would say the first solution is to find a service provider who will serve you. Encourage your friends not to trade with the service providers who withheld service from you. If you cannot find a service provider who will serve you, then seek legal action.
@R Chatt,
Just a question for people who are adamant about "religious liberty" and the right of a baker to not serve gay customers: What about a real estate agent not showing homes or apartments to a gay couple? Is that OK? What about a jeweler not selling rings to a gay couple? What about a hotel refusing to rent a space to a gay couple for their reception and for their lodging? What about a printer refusing to print wedding invitations? What about a tailor refusing to provide alterations? What about a hair dresser refusing to cut hair for a gay couple? etc.
Or, Catholic clergy refusing to give Mafiosi or other notorious malefactors, who are nominally Catholic themselves, Catholic burial? Do you have a problem with that? If not, why?
Do you understand why a Catholic might have a problem with driving a pregnant woman to an abortion clinic? It's not like the driver's having the abortion, after all.
The question becomes: at what point does one's moral action or inaction become the enabling of sin, which is in itself a sin. It's often hard to know, but in a previous incarnation of our republic, the choice was seen to lie with the individual moral conscience, & his/her understanding of his/her religious duty was thought to be binding.
"Either marriage means something or it does not."
Isn't "consenting adult partners joining themselves together in a formal/legal bond" the meaning of marriage?
Isn't "consenting adult partners joining themselves together in a formal/legal bond" the meaning of marriage?
Nope. And since I know now you're just trolling, I'll leave it at that.
@Eric: that's what I've always understood marriage to mean. Please inform me how I am mistaken.
I am expanding the wedding celebration proceedings to include hair and makeup, rings, venue, habitation -- all are part of the celebration. You are ignoring the question.
You do realize that discrimination goes against the essential character of the US? Are you arguing for a superior system like that of Iran or Saudi Arabia?
@Robert Cook,
Isn't "consenting adult partners joining themselves together in a formal/legal bond" the meaning of marriage?
Not from the viewpoint of a natural law ethics, it isn't. The "marriage" of two men doesn't admit of the procreative ends that are part of a proper marriage (&, yes, the marriage of a post-menopausal woman is still open to that end, even if it's unlikely to happen).
Now, just because the most common proponents of natural law ethics nowadays tend to be Christian, doesn't mean that natural law ethics are per se Christian. Unless, of course, you consider Aristotle & the Stoics are somehow Christian avant la lettre.
Blogger R. Chatt said...
I am expanding the wedding celebration proceedings to include hair and makeup, rings, venue, habitation -- all are part of the celebration. You are ignoring the question.
You do realize that discrimination goes against the essential character of the US? Are you arguing for a superior system like that of Iran or Saudi Arabia?
The essential character of the USA is freedom.
I oppose discrimination by the government. But I support the individual right to discriminate as they please.
Do you want to have an all black college? An all woman college? Go for it. How about a business only for women? I support it 100%.
That freedom of association is the essential character of the USA.
@YoungHegelian This has all been argued before the Supreme Court. I suggest you review the arguments there. There is no reason to keep rearguing the same things over and over as if no one has ever brought up the points.
"I made my reference to Onanism because, like homosexuality, the "seed of life" is being wasted--spilled on the ground, in the case of Onan--rather than going to fertilize an egg. My guess is this is the main reason homosexuality is considered sinful in the Bible...because, as with masturbation, the sex is not procreative in either intent or end result."
My recollection is that Onan was commanded by God to impregnate his brother's widow. While performing his duty, he selfishly, and perhaps venally, decided that he did not want to give his brother an heir (don't ask me to explain the logic involved, I can't even understand how bakers end up being part of the wedding party)and pulled out. It wasn't the pulling out and ejaculating fruitlessly that was the sin, it was taking it upon himself to disregard God's command to give his dead brother an heir that was his sin. My understanding is that taboos about masturbation and contraception use the Onan story for justification rather than the story resulting in those taboos. Of course, lots of people, Popes and others, disagree with me.
Whole Foods in Austin catches an LGBT activist doctoring a cake with a slur after it's purchase, and they're threatening to sue.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/19/whole-foods-were-suing-the-gay-activist-who-claimed-we-sold-him-a-cake-with-a-slur-written-on-it-and-we-have-video/
How much is appropriate? A few hundred thousand dollars and loss of livelihood seems about right to me.
@R Chatt,
This has all been argued before the Supreme Court. I suggest you review the arguments there.
What! Is the SCOTUS made up of moral theologians or philosophers? They rule simply on THE LAW, not what is right or what is wrong. The law can permit much of what is wrong & in a bad regime (which we may very be) prohibit much of what is right.
You asked for reasons against gay marriage. I gave you a reason, drawn from an ancient & respectable line of philosophical & religious thought that is foundational to the history of the west. And you come back to me with "Well, here's what the fucking lawyers said..."?
Get a grip, man.
@Young Hegelian:
The argument that "proper marriage" must include procreative possibility--whether intended or not--is completely at odds with our present day social mores. That said, many gay couples do desire to have children, and they often find a means (of several available) to fulfill that desire.
They rule simply on THE LAW, not what is right or what is wrong.
It's a political body now. They don't rule on the law anymore, they just pretend to in order to keep up pretenses.
@RC,
The argument that "proper marriage" must include procreative possibility--whether intended or not--is completely at odds with our present day social mores.
Which may very well be, & are thought by many religious people of all stripes, morally deficient.
That said, many gay couples do desire to have children, and they often find a means (of several available) to fulfill that desire.
All of which involve artificial means, and those artificial means are frowned upon by those same religious authorities even for heterosexual couples. And, don't say "adoption is natural". I know that. But, if a hetero couple adopts after repeated failures at natural procreation, that is making the moral best of a bad situation. But, for a het couple to adopt with no intention or attempt at natural reproduction is also an offense against the natural law.
Do you guys think that faith traditions are just there to smack around the fags? These religious traditions are incredibly detailed in how they muck with your life on a minute by minute basis. The fact that most adherents fall so miserably short of attainment doesn't necessarily affect the coherence of the moral arguments.
@eric You are free to hold your interpretations and opinions and also to go somewhere and form your own country with your own laws. If you are living in a sovereign nation their laws apply. You must obey the speed limits, traffic signals, laws against discrimination. You are not totally free, in case you didn't notice. I have the sneaking feeling I am having a conversation with a teenager or a libertarian.
"My recollection is that Onan was commanded by God to impregnate his brother's widow. While performing his duty, he selfishly, and perhaps venally, decided that he did not want to give his brother an heir (don't ask me to explain the logic involved....
I think you're right. The reason probably had something to with Onan coveting whatever inheritance his brother's heir would have coming to him, or something along those lines.
Young Hegelian:
We're talking about the civil right of gays to marry and thereby to obtain the legal advantages and protections (and obligations) available to non-gay Americans; religious authority and thinking has no rightful bearing on the matter at all.
If the lady married to the dolphin puts a 500,000 gallon tank next door, it's going to lower my property values.
Lots of (deliberate?) misunderstandings of the facts in these cases.
"What about a real estate agent not showing homes or apartments to a gay couple?"
I know an old lady years ago, long before homosexuality was approved, who owned an apartment building in Los Angeles. She rented ONLY to gays because they kept the place clean and because they quickly found another tenant for her as soon as someone moved. They did not want straights (or breeders as they call us) in their building. She always had 100% occupancy.
She was the widow of a movie agent.
"I think you're right. The reason probably had something to with Onan coveting whatever inheritance his brother's heir would have coming to him, or something along those lines."
I'm certainly no authority. I haven't given much thought to this nonsense since they tried to cram Christianity up my ass one silent prayer at a time back about 60 years ago.
Blogger R. Chatt said...
@eric You are free to hold your interpretations and opinions and also to go somewhere and form your own country with your own laws. If you are living in a sovereign nation their laws apply. You must obey the speed limits, traffic signals, laws against discrimination. You are not totally free, in case you didn't notice. I have the sneaking feeling I am having a conversation with a teenager or a libertarian.
Nah, I'm a conservative. But I'm still for discrimination.
The wonderful thing about this country is, we can work to change the laws. Like, if you're gay and want to make putting your penis into someone's butt legal, you just go to 9 people with black robes and they'll find it in the constitution for you even though it's been against the law for decades.
But unlike our hostess who gets a victory and likes to declare it over, in this country, laws can be changed, and changed back again.
@RC,
religious authority and thinking has no rightful bearing on the matter at all.
No, not true. Not true in the legal history of the United States, where great deference has been shown to religious conscience.
Whatever the ruling may be, as a matter of law, it cannot be binding on a religious conscience. It is a bad law. Have you never read MLK on resistance to bad laws, which by the way, he cribs from Augustine? Do you read about Dred Scott & say "Well, that's what the SCOTUS says, & that's the end of it"?
"But unlike our hostess who gets a victory and likes to declare it over, in this country, laws can be changed, and changed back again."
In order to change the laws back again, you are going to need a constituency and it's going to have to be more powerful and influential than the constituency opposed to changing the law back. In the case of legalization of homosexual sodomy, I don't think there is a significant constituency that wants to overrule Lawrence. Even Scalia, who, as I recall, was against the Lawrence decision, claimed that he didn't favor laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy. Even here in Texas, I don't think there is a significant bloc favoring overrule of Lawrence. Likewise gay marriage. I don't think that it's politically possible. Even if most Americans are opposed to homosexual marriage, I don't see how that can be turned into a voting constituency. Not even by someone like Trump.
By the way, I'd pay SNL good money to do this skit with an Orthodox Jew instead of a Christian, because it all would apply. And don't tell me that the writers at SNL don't bump into more obnoxious Orthodox Jews in their daily lives than obnoxious Christians, because in NYC, that just isn't true.
I think much of liberal/secular Judaism's discomfort with American Christianity is displaced anger at the Orthodox. If you're a lefty Jew, you can slash Christianity in public, but the Orthodox, however obnoxious, are still members of the tribe. In private, hoo-boy, it's a whole different matter!
I think what really gripes the keisters of liberal Judaism about Orthodoxy is that the Orthodox can tell them to their faces "You know, you really aren't Jews", &, unlike hearing the charge from the goyim, the Orthodox can make the charge stick.
R. Chatt: You do realize that discrimination goes against the essential character of the US?
Remarkable how many features of its "essential character" the U.S. lacked for most of its history.
@YoungHegelian Orthodox Jews don't take a job at the county government and then attempt to impose their religious practices on non-Orthodox Jews and Christians. That's the significant difference along with not proselytizing. I'm also confident that Jewish hospitals cover their workers' health care obligations regardless if there are Orthodox Jews on the board.
Also, Jews are a tiny minority in the US, and the Orthodox even smaller, so if you wanted to make a case about mainstream discrimination you'd be wiser to pick someone more mainstream. Everything offensive you mentioned about Jews and the Orthodox is irrelevant to this discussion, but thanks for reminding us that Jews are also human.
@R Chatt,
Orthodox Jews don't take a job at the county government and then attempt to impose their religious practices on non-Orthodox Jews and Christians.
Oh, what fucking bullshit! Do you not know about places in NY like Kiryas Joel where if you aren't an Orthodox Jew of the right type you are essentially ostracized? Or, how in Orthodox communities in NY & Brooklyn, they'll declare every third house a "house of worship" & thus not pay taxes on the property, leaving their neighbors to pick up the tab? Or, how the women will work & the men will be on welfare so that they can spend all their time studying Torah?
I'm sorry, you really need to get informed on this shit before you open yer yap again.
I know all about this and more, but how does that relate to the issue of Christians claiming their religious liberty is being threatened? Please explain.
@RChatt,
Did you not watch the skit? Did you not notice how the "Jewish ACLU Lawyer" who threatens the woman is wearing a kippa, implying that somehow an observant Jew would be with the ACLU suing this woman? No, more likely, a Jew who so observant he wears a kippa to work would probably be on this woman's side.
I also don't like the insinuation that Christians like this woman are anti-Semitic, when they aren't particularly. Matter of fact, in terms of being pro-Israel, your average Southern Baptist is more pro-Israel than your average American Jew. And the ethnic group that's the most anti-Semitic? That would be American blacks, who somehow liberal Jews see as partners in "The Struggle". Tell me when's the last time you saw a Jewish comic deal with black antisemitism, as opposed to poking fun at evangelical Christians?
Blogger Anglelyne said...
R. Chatt: You do realize that discrimination goes against the essential character of the US?
Remarkable how many features of its "essential character" the U.S. lacked for most of its history.
It's probably Inga trolling us. Notice how quickly they dropped that line as soon as challenged and just moved on to something else?
Complete troll behavior. Better ignored.
Blogger CachorroQuente said...
"But unlike our hostess who gets a victory and likes to declare it over, in this country, laws can be changed, and changed back again."
In order to change the laws back again, you are going to need a constituency and it's going to have to be more powerful and influential than the constituency opposed to changing the law back. In the case of legalization of homosexual sodomy, I don't think there is a significant constituency that wants to overrule Lawrence. Even Scalia, who, as I recall, was against the Lawrence decision, claimed that he didn't favor laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy. Even here in Texas, I don't think there is a significant bloc favoring overrule of Lawrence. Likewise gay marriage. I don't think that it's politically possible. Even if most Americans are opposed to homosexual marriage, I don't see how that can be turned into a voting constituency. Not even by someone like Trump.
Not right now.
before Lawrence we weren't talking about wedding two dudes together. We weren't moving the overtone window so far to the left that the government wasn't demanding dirty old men be allowed to use the woman's bathroom.
Eventually, people will realize what a slippery slope that Lawrence was. Bring back sodomy laws and it all goes away.
DOMA was passed only a few decades ago. I predict when the search for scapegoats gets hot and heavy, no one will be listening to these SJWs anymore.
@Blogger YoungHegelian I did watch the skit and found the Jewish lawyer meme inaccurate, just offensive. The Jewish lawyers who are extreme left wing are not going to be wearing head coverings. More likely to be wearing khalifas, if you want to get into the weeds. Prejudiced much?
I also know that Evangelicals are strongly pro Israel, so again, what is your point? I'm pretty sure you also are not clear or you wouldn't be floundering around bringing up NY Orthodox Jewish communities.
I suspect that you resent that Jews are not being attacked by the LGBT community, and you have other resentment towards Jews. But the fact is that for the most part (Conservative and Reform) Jews are accepting of gays. Even the Orthodox are coming around and recognizing the human need for acceptance of Orthodox gays. Jews look at the facts and adapt, and follow the law, for the most part. There are fringe elements but they are not running a candidate for President.
Like I said, Orthodox Jews don't take a job at the county clerk's office and then try to impose their practices on the general public and deny marriage licenses. Orthodox Jews also don't try to prevent non-Jews from getting abortions or shut down clinics.
Out of curiosity, why don't you pretend to be gay and go to a Jewish bakery and ask them to make a wedding cake? See what happens? Report back. Hope you enjoy the cake.
@R Chatt,
I'm sorry, you seem to have major trouble with responding to any of my points. You stated Orthodox Jews don't affect the larger commonweal. I showed you how you did, & in a big way, where they have the numbers.
You agree with me on how offensive the portrayal of the Jewish lawyer is, but yet you cannot bring yourself to condemn the slur of antisemitism on the Christian character. Nor to discuss my charge of bad faith against liberal Judaism for not taking black antisemitism to task.
But the fact is that for the most part (Conservative and Reform) Jews are accepting of gays. Even the Orthodox are coming around and recognizing the human need for acceptance of Orthodox gays. Jews look at the facts and adapt, and follow the law, for the most part.
Do you just not pay attention to any Christian theological teaching at all? They, too, have preached love the sinner & hate the sin for 2000 years. Orthodox Jewish acceptance of gays, in some sense, maybe. But, support of gay marriage? Yeah, about the same day that the Catholic Church okays it!
The rabbis were very talkative guys, and over 3000 years said a lot of things. But, never, ever, did they say something nice about homosexuality. Never. It is forbidden even to the Gentiles under the Noahide laws. How much more so to the Chosen People! If the modern Jewish community wishes to ignore their history, they have their 1st amendment freedom to do so, & if that freedom is ever threatened I will die on the barricades with them. But, don't ask me to deny what is the plain text meaning of rabbinic history, because I ain't buying it.
Your turn, I'm done for the evening.
R Cook 4:01: "Of course it's open to dispute. There hasn't been any evidence put forth even to support it as a hypothesis."
If Christians are not the most persecuted group in the world, Cook, what group is?
On subjects that challenge your narrow worldview, you are blindingly, mind-numbingly stupid.
No evidence?
Wikipedia:Persecution of Christians
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/08/beheadings-imprisonment-made-2015-worst-year-for-christian-persecution-report-finds.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/world/christian-persecution-2015/
http://www.prisoneralert.com/vompw_persecution.htm
http://m.clarionproject.org/analysis/isis-end-times-prophecies-justify-beheading-copts?gclid=Cj0KEQjwrte4BRD-oYi3y5_AhZ4BEiQAzIFxn28CblJSBzk1I-m67YZPa3GmD3uCveG-9qP0Ja7SwEUaAsMs8P8HAQ
http://csi-usa.org/middle-east-persecution/
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন