If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Kentucky passes law that will allow people to break the law in accordance with their religious faith. In related news, Al Qaida was reportedly looking for directions to Fort Campbell, KY on Google Maps   (usatoday.com) divider line 116
    More: Asinine, Google Maps, Kentucky, al-Qaeda, Steve Beshear, Kentucky Supreme Court, Capitol Steps, school prayer, Frankfort, Kentucky  
•       •       •

6714 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Mar 2013 at 11:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-31 11:18:09 AM
16 votes:

cman: Anyone else deal with this kind of internal conflict?


Not with this stupid law.

"This is a piece of legislation looking for a reason," Owens said.

Like laws against gay marriage, or voter ID laws, or anti-Sharia laws.

This is a desperate move by frightened and ignorant people who have been convinced by charlatans that they are under attack.
2013-03-31 09:12:35 AM
10 votes:
So they're giving the government the power to decide what is a legitimate religion and what religious beliefs are sincere. No way this could possibly go wrong.
2013-03-31 11:52:43 AM
8 votes:

Monkeyhouse Zendo: The problem is that the religious have confused not being able to enforce their religious beliefs as law with being forced to do things that run counter to their religion.


1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-03-31 11:26:07 AM
8 votes:

cman: These kinds of things always conflict me.

I am a person who believes heavily in the freedom of religion. Although I do not believe in god I do believe that our nation was founded on core beliefs that included religious freedom.

At the same time, I dislike bigotry.

This has its awkward moments when I have to negotiate those "race mixing is devils tool" with allowing those people to not be discriminated. Then you have those who believe in the sanctity of marriage betwixt a man and a woman. That is unacceptable because marriage is a legal issue, not a moral one. Some of these people really do feel that if they are forced to wed two gay people (or back in the 50s a white and a black) then god will smite them. To them, two homosexuals marrying is on the same par as other crime.

I am really unsure how to resolve this. I dislike bigotry and I dislike it when people must commit actions against their deeply held beliefs.

Anyone else deal with this kind of internal conflict?


No. Because your right to your own beliefs ends well before imposing your beliefs on me.
2013-03-31 12:14:52 PM
7 votes:

Dansker: The Iconoclast: First, can we please have some "clear and convincing evidence" that there is a God?

One man's "clear and convincing" is another man's "nonsensical and illogical".


www.fishink.us


/oblig
2013-03-31 11:46:37 AM
6 votes:

cman: I am really unsure how to resolve this. I dislike bigotry and I dislike it when people must commit actions against their deeply held beliefs.


Let's make this easy, who is being forced to commit actions against their deeply held beliefs? As far as I can tell, no church is being forced to perform same-sex marriages or interracial marriages for that matter.

The problem is that the religious have confused not being able to enforce their religious beliefs as law with being forced to do things that run counter to their religion.
2013-03-31 10:39:34 AM
6 votes:
This sounds like a jobs creation program for lawyers.
2013-03-31 12:08:24 PM
5 votes:

cman: I dislike bigotry and I dislike it when people must commit actions against their deeply held beliefs.

Anyone else deal with this kind of internal conflict?


I dislike it when people know that they have bigoted views regarding certain situations, and then take up a job where they know they will then be forced to choose between their religion and actually doing their job.

/don't believe in birth control? Don't take a job as a pharmacist.
//don't believe certain people should get married? Don't take a job as a Justice of the Peace.
2013-03-31 11:47:53 AM
5 votes:
Let me guess; this is mainly geared towards outlawing abortion and birth control.
2013-03-31 11:34:49 AM
5 votes:
Kentucky sounds like a solid place to go if you want to practice Sharia Law.
2013-03-31 11:31:24 AM
5 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: cman: Anyone else deal with this kind of internal conflict?

Not with this stupid law.

"This is a piece of legislation looking for a reason," Owens said.

Like laws against gay marriage, or voter ID laws, or anti-Sharia laws.

This is a desperate move by frightened and ignorant people who have been convinced by charlatans that they are under attack.


These are the ignorant people who are claiming they are under attack and are 'protecting' their values. Apparently a core Christian value is oppressing others.
2013-03-31 12:47:59 PM
4 votes:
While I don't think anyone should be surprised that this cunning plan was not thought all the way through, it's amusing to note that the ultimate result of this law is to grant government a massive, broad new power: the power to determine what is and is not a "sincerely held religious belief".
2013-03-31 12:25:44 PM
4 votes:

Monkeyhouse Zendo: cman: I am really unsure how to resolve this. I dislike bigotry and I dislike it when people must commit actions against their deeply held beliefs.

Let's make this easy, who is being forced to commit actions against their deeply held beliefs? As far as I can tell, no church is being forced to perform same-sex marriages or interracial marriages for that matter.

The problem is that the religious have confused not being able to enforce their religious beliefs as law with being forced to do things that run counter to their religion.


The problem with being privileged is that when society becomes more equal, it can feel like persecution because it feels like something (IE: a greater, unearned status) is being taken away.
2013-03-31 11:58:49 AM
4 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: Let me guess; this is mainly geared towards outlawing abortion and birth control.


Actually, it's pretty much geared towards doing away with the few Fairness ordinances in the state--you know, the laws that say that you can't be fired because your boss thinks you might have The Gay.  (The local dominionists have been pretty much unsuccessful in overturning them locally, so they've worked with the state legislature--which is far more dominionist-friendly and Southern Baptist-controlled--to basically give dominionists a free ticket to disregard those laws.)

Of course, as others have pointed out, they've also effectively legalised a lot of things they probably did not intend--things like polygamy, moonshine (in dry counties), marijuana (not just the Rastas, quite a number of other groups do use marijuana as a sacrament including at least one Christian church), snake-handling churches (illegal since 1946 but only sporadically enforced as it is), peyote (there aren't any federally recognised tribes in the US but this opens up for ANYONE to use peyote sacramentally), psilocybes (magic mushrooms are used by shamanic practitioners in European paleopagan and "reconstructionist" neopagan faiths), setting up one's own brothel and drug den as the First Temple of Slaanesh...

Of course, I also expect this will go away soon enough the very first time that someone is fired for being a member of the Wrong Religion and decides to file suit in federal court and/or the first time that a group using cannabis or peyote as a sacrament gets busted by the state cops.  (Unfortunately, even our Democrats tend to be Republicans in spirit here, and the General Assembly tends to be prone to this sort of derp and the following courthouse smackdown.  About a decade ago, they tried to basically regulate non-Christian denominations out of existence by requiring licensing for pastors, and it was ironically a member of a small Primitive Baptist church that got THAT law overturned in the courts...)
2013-03-31 11:54:46 AM
4 votes:
First, can we please have some "clear and convincing evidence" that there is a God?
2013-03-31 11:53:11 AM
4 votes:

Gosling: Well, THIS isn't going to end like that Nebraska law that ended in people from halfway across the country dumping their teenagers and driving off.


That was perhaps the most sad and yet strangely entertaining thing to hear on the news in the weeks that past when that law became active. It stunned me how a person can take their (I think the max age was 16?) teenager to NB, and just abandon them Joe Dirt style.

As for this "law", which pretty much allows the Taliban to exist with impunity...it embodies one of the many reasons people are leaving the GOP.
2013-03-31 11:37:27 AM
4 votes:
unless it can show with "clear and convincing evidence" some compelling governmental interest for doing so.

Ah, so the thing that lacks that is...

 "It wasn't so long ago we had prayer in the schools, but they made us take it out."

Nope, prayer led in a government institution clearly violates the first amendment and there is a clear government interest in not allowing steps toward establishing a theocracy.  Try again?

Proponents, who include the Family Foundation and the Catholic Conference of Kentucky

not helping your case there...

... ah, so you've got nothing, and your bill fails its own standards of needing a clear and compelling government interest.  Fail.
2013-03-31 10:42:05 AM
4 votes:
Why do they hate the Constitution?
2013-03-31 10:36:31 AM
4 votes:
news.bbc.co.uk

JAH MON
2013-03-31 12:58:59 PM
3 votes:
A Roman soldier stooped Rabbi Akiba and ordered him to explain the whole of the Law while standing on one foot. Rabbi Akiba answered (while standing on one foot) "Do not do to someone else what you would not care to have done to you. All the rest is commentary." Virtually every major ethical religion has a variant on this rule, except Christianity which says "Hey let's turn that upside down so it doesn't make sense! Then people will feel free to ignore it!"

Thanks again, Jesus, ya goddam hippie.
2013-03-31 12:35:03 PM
3 votes:

fluffy2097: Monkeyhouse Zendo: fluffy2097: I'm not sure he's your go-to guy for sense and logic.

PhD in biochemistry and published a number of science books aimed at the layman... Sure, there are other sources for sense and logic but don't make the mistake of thinking that the sum total of Asimov's work was his science fiction.

Very true, but I'm sick and tired of Fundamentalist Atheist's using his good name and quotes as sophistry.

Asimov would LOVE to have a good religious debate about the nature of God (presence or belief in) and its effect on humanity as far as I can tell from his writings. I think he knew very well what the science said, and what the science CAN'T say. I think he'd roll over in his grave to be painted as a fundamentalist atheist.


I'm not seeing anything like that being put in Asimov's mouth. Methinks you're reading a bit too hard into it.
2013-03-31 12:26:22 PM
3 votes:

fluffy2097: blastoh: Dansker: The Iconoclast: First, can we please have some "clear and convincing evidence" that there is a God?

One man's "clear and convincing" is another man's "nonsensical and illogical".

[www.fishink.us image 720x540]


/oblig

Asimov made his living writing books about sentient robots with positronic brains, bent into human slavery by the 3 laws of robotics. (Though he never comes out and says they are slaves, it is a major point of discussion in his robot stories. How alive are they? One even comes up with the concept of a God (And then runs equipment through a solar storm better then 2 humans EVER Could, while the human atheists debated dismantling him because he had faith.)

I'm not sure he's your go-to guy for sense and logic.

Philosophy, sure.


Asimov also made his living writing a book into every section of the Dewey Decimal system.

Further, I think you missed part of the subtext of that very story which was that the two human characters in the setting could not prove to the robot anything they were saying. You also miss the entire subtext of all the Robot stories, where the robots were strange sympathetic beings that humanity created but did not understand, and did not trust - for no damn good reason.

The man (and his writing) had flaws, but I don't think you can use stories he wrote (and you misunderstood) to attack a very salient point he made 30 years ago that is still applicable today.
2013-03-31 12:25:20 PM
3 votes:
They argue that the bill restores a legal standard in place before recent rulings by the U.S. and Kentucky supreme courts.

Um... supremacy clause?
2013-03-31 12:19:19 PM
3 votes:
I don't see this law surviving a legal challenge. As far as I'm aware, and IANAL, it's been caselaw that you can practice your religion, as long as said practice does not otherwise commit a crime.

I could found a Aztec/Mayan/Mesoamerican bloodcult, but the sacrifices can't be real people. Or real animals, I think. This law would allow me to have a human sacrifice on the altar.

/Gotta prevent them volcanos from erupting.
2013-03-31 12:19:16 PM
3 votes:

Curious: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Let's make this easy, who is being forced to commit actions against their deeply held beliefs?

it's been covered but one of the main talking points is pharmacists having to dispense the morning after pill. if your job requires you to preform a legal activity you can't just say "because jesus" and not do it.


And this is where the religious confuse being forced to violate your beliefs and not being allowed to impose them on others. The government telling the pharmacist that they must take the morning after pill is the government running roughshod over their beliefs. The government telling a pharmacist that they can't withhold over the counter or prescription medications based on their personal superstitions isn't.
2013-03-31 12:07:01 PM
3 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: Great Porn Dragon: About a decade ago, they tried to basically regulate non-Christian denominations out of existence by requiring licensing for pastors, and it was ironically a member of a small Primitive Baptist church that got THAT law overturned in the courts...

What.  How the hell did they think that would be legal / survive legal challenge.  Or were they just idiots.


They're Southern Baptist idiots, dear...pretty much the very same folks who functionally kept three-fourths of the state in Prohibition until VERY recently (and still half the counties are dry; the main reason that some counties are going moist and/or wet is that major chain "casual dining" restaurants are refusing to set up shop along I-64 and I-75 unless they can sell a beer or a cocktail with meals and these restaurants are functionally the only tax base in those areas aside from the coal mines and Wal-Mart).

It is literally impossible to underestimate the sheer, unadulterated level of religionationalist blatantly-ignorant derp that comes from the parts of this state outside Louisville, Lexington, Covington, or possibly Owensboro and Paducah; hell, we're one of the states that still had a major "Christian Patriot" militia movement after Clinton left office (and before Obama left in), are one of the few states where Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary because people refused to vote for a Blah Man, and (particularly in Appalachia) "sundown towns" existed well into the 80's and Klan membership was almost required to get into Respectable Town Society.  (Not joking on that, either.  Have known too many folks who either lived there for a time and left, or grew up there and became refugees in Louisville.)
2013-03-31 11:55:33 AM
3 votes:

Monkeyhouse Zendo: The problem is that the religious have confused not being able to enforce their religious beliefs as law with being forced to do things that run counter to their religion.


Trust me, this is geared/planned towards pharmacists, teachers, crap like that.
2013-03-31 11:50:21 AM
3 votes:
Vicco, a small town in rural Appalachia,  has voted to ban discriminiation against anyone based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Let that sink in.
2013-03-31 11:39:49 AM
3 votes:
So if a Muslim father wants to stone his daughter to death for shaming the family he should take her to Kentucky?
2013-03-31 08:32:21 AM
3 votes:
Silly submitter. Don't you know that law only applies to proper white God-fearing Christains?
2013-03-31 03:57:24 PM
2 votes:

fluffy2097: Summercat: Further, I think you missed part of the subtext of that very story which was that the two human characters in the setting could not prove to the robot anything they were saying. You also miss the entire subtext of all the Robot stories, where the robots were strange sympathetic beings that humanity created but did not understand, and did not trust - for no damn good reason.

The subtext is that what they said did not matter.

If their inability to convince the robot was a problem, then horrible things would have happened when the storm hit.

But the robot had faith which, being trapped on a space station his entire existence, is all he really needs. He just needs to make sure the power goes where it is supposed to. Who's will it is that it be done is unimportant.

That screams an agnostic viewpoint to me.



Check your hearing.

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
-- Isaac Asimov
2013-03-31 02:56:40 PM
2 votes:
Holy shiat.

"Proponents, who include the Family Foundation and the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, say those fears are unfounded. They argue that the bill restores a legal standard in place before recent rulings by the U.S. and Kentucky supreme courts."

So you are literally trying to turn back time to spite the recent rulings of the highest courts in the land. I don't think that's how our branches of government are supposed to work. On the bright side I moved out of KY last fall and thank goodness for that.
2013-03-31 02:45:56 PM
2 votes:

neongoats: This is the inbred, snaggle poop toothed idiot, jesus version of "religious freedom". The one where inbred idjits can deny lifesaving treatment to someone because jesus.

"oh, that guy looks effeminate, jesus says let him die, so I'mma not do cpr, k?"

I wish Sherman had spent some time burning down Kentucky too.


Kentucky was where all the Southern Unionists went to enlist in the Union Army.  There were almost 100,000 from Tennessee alone.
2013-03-31 02:19:01 PM
2 votes:
i2.kym-cdn.com

This is lulzy as hell and I'm sure this will in no way end with the Republicans who passed it wailing and gnashing their teeth in, oh, let's give it 180 days.
2013-03-31 02:13:47 PM
2 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: Next up, a bill banning Sharia law.


I think it should be clear by now that the only problem fundies have with Sharia law is that they don't like the competition.
2013-03-31 01:34:16 PM
2 votes:
I'm a SubGenuis. My religion requires me to do whatever the fark I want, whenever the fark I want to do it. I think I could have some fun in Kentucky.


/maybe I should move there...
//nah, then I'd have to live in Kentucky.
2013-03-31 01:06:06 PM
2 votes:

fluffy2097: Fundamentalist Atheist's


Huh?

What the fark is a "fundamentalist atheist"?

Atheist : Found any evidence for god yet?
Fundamentalist Atheist: Nope. Have you?
Atheist:  Not yet.
Fundamentalist Atheist: Damn... people have been looking for 4000+ years and we still haven't found any evidence for god.  Everything spooky that convinces theists turns out to have a natural explanation that we can actually predict and engineer, like lightning. I'm guessing there is none.
Atheist:  Well, some day, somebody might find something
Fundamentalist Atheist:  Good luck with that. I'm not holding my breath....


Or are you thinking of the people that don't want to have the state force their kids to recite prayers led by teachers during school. OH THE HORROR!
2013-03-31 12:56:58 PM
2 votes:
Does that mean Fark is now a religion? Because I need my Catruday's off to drink good beer and hate on our  mortal enemies Duke.


Also, Drew is Pope

www.themoralofthestoryis.com
2013-03-31 12:52:12 PM
2 votes:
The United States Supreme Court already answered this question many, many years ago.  Too bad the law will fail on the first judicial review.
2013-03-31 12:48:55 PM
2 votes:

cman: These kinds of things always conflict me.

I am a person who believes heavily in the freedom of religion. Although I do not believe in god I do believe that our nation was founded on core beliefs that included religious freedom.

At the same time, I dislike bigotry.

This has its awkward moments when I have to negotiate those "race mixing is devils tool" with allowing those people to not be discriminated. Then you have those who believe in the sanctity of marriage betwixt a man and a woman. That is unacceptable because marriage is a legal issue, not a moral one. Some of these people really do feel that if they are forced to wed two gay people (or back in the 50s a white and a black) then god will smite them. To them, two homosexuals marrying is on the same par as other crime.

I am really unsure how to resolve this. I dislike bigotry and I dislike it when people must commit actions against their deeply held beliefs.

Anyone else deal with this kind of internal conflict?


The issue is rather simple: The first amendment is much more nuanced than just that anyone has the right to practice their own religion without interference; it's that people derive the freedom to express their religious beliefs through not having anyone, most notably the government, impose religious beliefs on them in anyway.

This law is in complete opposition to that because it allows people to impose their religious beliefs on others.

And the bill does exactly what the Founding Fathers never wanted to see happen: let the government be the referee of religions. The bill says, "government shall prove by clear and convincing evidence prove a compelling governmental interest in establishing a burden on the freedom of religion; specify what constitutes a burden." So imagine this senario: a landlord refused to rent to a gay couple because the idea of a gay couple goes against the landlord's religious beliefs. The government say, "well, there are enough landlords out there that will rent to gay couples that this isn't a burden, the landlord has the right refuse." And now we have a new error of Jim Crow.
2013-03-31 12:39:09 PM
2 votes:

fluffy2097: Very true, but I'm sick and tired of Fundamentalist Atheist's using his good name and quotes as sophistry.

Asimov would LOVE to have a good religious debate about the nature of God (presence or belief in) and its effect on humanity as far as I can tell from his writings. I think he knew very well what the science said, and what the science CAN'T say. I think he'd roll over in his grave to be painted as a fundamentalist atheist.


I don't see that quote or it's usage in this thread as painting Asimov as a "fundamentalist atheist" (whatever the fark that is supposed to be). I think you may be projecting a little.

I reject the belief that any supernatural dimension exists and that all observable phenomena are the result of the physical properties of our universe. Is that sufficient to make me a "Fundamentalist Atheist"?
2013-03-31 12:30:10 PM
2 votes:
FTFA Republican Rep. Stan Lee said, "It wasn't so long ago we had prayer in the schools, but they made us take it out."

Ok - so lets bring back teacher led prayer back into schools.  Just as soon as we get 100% agreement on which version of the Bible to use.

/lets see how the Catholics and evangelicals resolve this
2013-03-31 12:25:50 PM
2 votes:
My religion requires the still beating heart of a republican for a weekly sacrifice.
2013-03-31 12:24:35 PM
2 votes:

fluffy2097: I'm not sure he's your go-to guy for sense and logic.


PhD in biochemistry and published a number of science books aimed at the layman... Sure, there are other sources for sense and logic but don't make the mistake of thinking that the sum total of Asimov's work was his science fiction.
2013-03-31 12:19:19 PM
2 votes:

that bosnian sniper: The funny thing is, I've already heard of a minister or two, and more than a few gay couples, in Louisville who are going to cite this very law in the course of applying for marriage licenses and marrying.


Yep, that.  There are 9 Unitarian churches in Kentucky (okay, only 4 large enough to have full-time ministers), and I'm pretty sure all of them have at least one same-sex couple to marry as soon as this law is applicable.

Your move, Kentucky.
2013-03-31 12:16:11 PM
2 votes:
Expect the courts to be packed as now every prisoner in Kentucky will be filing to have their sentence overturned on religious grounds.
2013-03-31 12:15:38 PM
2 votes:
The funny thing is, I've already heard of a minister or two, and more than a few gay couples, in Louisville who are going to cite this very law in the course of applying for marriage licenses and marrying.

The state legislature set its own bar for overcoming this law, in the law itself, as strict scrutiny. The state now must without exception show compelling interest  and least-restrictive means in disallowing gay marriage, if the minister and couple involved have a sincerely-held religious belief they should be allowed to be married. Of course, knowing the yahoos who got this law passed, the state will try to argue it's not a sincerely-held religious belief which is a whole different ballgame in the courts as it turns to a free exercise issue and therefore strict scrutiny applies by default.
2013-03-31 12:13:22 PM
2 votes:
My religion makes sacrifices to our Gods.

All we need are Virgins.

Unfortunately the test to check for Virginity removes the virginity, so we shall now use the people of Kentucky as virgins for sacrifice.

/Separation of church and State... Hows that work?... One law for all!
2013-03-31 12:11:14 PM
2 votes:

The Iconoclast: First, can we please have some "clear and convincing evidence" that there is a God?


One man's "clear and convincing" is another man's "nonsensical and illogical".
2013-03-31 12:10:13 PM
2 votes:

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Let's make this easy, who is being forced to commit actions against their deeply held beliefs?


it's been covered but one of the main talking points is pharmacists having to dispense the morning after pill. if your job requires you to preform a legal activity you can't just say "because jesus" and not do it.
2013-03-31 12:09:26 PM
2 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: Monkeyhouse Zendo: The problem is that the religious have confused not being able to enforce their religious beliefs as law with being forced to do things that run counter to their religion.

Trust me, this is geared/planned towards pharmacists, teachers, crap like that.


Doubtless. My initial thought was that it was a same-sex marriage thing since that's the hot button topic of the day but I see your point regarding providing a legal shield for douchebag pharmacists and proselytizing teachers.

It's shiat like this that took me from not caring about other people's religion to "militant atheist". I don't care what flavor of imaginary friend people vow their eternal submission to provided they don't try to force other people to submit to their primitive world view. I can live with the vast amount of time, energy, and resources wasted in the worship of mythological beings; I don't like it but I can live with it. Unfortunately, not having everyone else bow down to their idol and it's dictums is apparently unacceptable.
2013-03-31 11:51:30 AM
2 votes:
This is the inbred, snaggle poop toothed idiot, jesus version of "religious freedom". The one where inbred idjits can deny lifesaving treatment to someone because jesus.

"oh, that guy looks effeminate, jesus says let him die, so I'mma not do cpr, k?"

I wish Sherman had spent some time burning down Kentucky too.
2013-03-31 11:46:46 AM
2 votes:
But Republican Rep. Stan Lee said, "It wasn't so long ago we had prayer in the schools, but they made us take it out."

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
Have a seat my lad, we need to have a little talk.
2013-03-31 11:42:05 AM
2 votes:
Well, THIS isn't going to end like that Nebraska law that ended in people from halfway across the country dumping their teenagers and driving off.
2013-03-31 11:33:52 AM
2 votes:

cman: These kinds of things always conflict me.

I am a person who believes heavily in the freedom of religion. Although I do not believe in god I do believe that our nation was founded on core beliefs that included religious freedom.

At the same time, I dislike bigotry.

This has its awkward moments when I have to negotiate those "race mixing is devils tool" with allowing those people to not be discriminated. Then you have those who believe in the sanctity of marriage betwixt a man and a woman. That is unacceptable because marriage is a legal issue, not a moral one. Some of these people really do feel that if they are forced to wed two gay people (or back in the 50s a white and a black) then god will smite them. To them, two homosexuals marrying is on the same par as other crime.

I am really unsure how to resolve this. I dislike bigotry and I dislike it when people must commit actions against their deeply held beliefs.

Anyone else deal with this kind of internal conflict?




Here is how I solved it. As long as my belief did not interfere with anyone else's beliefs or harm someone. School prayer, forces a religious view on people.

You can't force a church to gay marry someone ( just like you cannot force catholic Church to remarry a divorce) but it should mean that gay people are allowed to marry elsewhere.
2013-03-31 11:17:55 AM
2 votes:
I'm a devout Rastafarian.

I'll be relocating to Kentucky as soon as I can load up my VW van!
2013-03-31 10:06:20 AM
2 votes:
And just like that moonshine becomes legal
2013-03-31 09:41:55 AM
2 votes:
As a devout Goldfingerian, I look forward to my pilgrimage next week to Ft. Knox.
2013-04-01 12:08:14 PM
1 votes:

fluffy2097: give me doughnuts: fluffy2097: Summercat: Further, I think you missed part of the subtext of that very story which was that the two human characters in the setting could not prove to the robot anything they were saying. You also miss the entire subtext of all the Robot stories, where the robots were strange sympathetic beings that humanity created but did not understand, and did not trust - for no damn good reason.

The subtext is that what they said did not matter.

If their inability to convince the robot was a problem, then horrible things would have happened when the storm hit.

But the robot had faith which, being trapped on a space station his entire existence, is all he really needs. He just needs to make sure the power goes where it is supposed to. Who's will it is that it be done is unimportant.

That screams an agnostic viewpoint to me.


Check your hearing.

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
-- Isaac Asimov

The hilariously ironic thing about that statement, is that his atheism is based in faith in the unknowable. He does not have the proof that god does not exist, but he strongly thinks so, so he's not going to waste any more time on the issue. God's not real.
 
This does not sound familiar to you?


If I ever heard a religious person say "I don't know God exists, but I strongly suspect he does", I might have a modicum more respect for the whole thing.
2013-03-31 11:41:39 PM
1 votes:
shotglasss (farkied: Has had way too many shotglasses): I wonder how many of the people in this thread expressing massive butthurt over this don't live in Kentucky.
 
Fundies are everywhere, and derp never dies.  (Though it does kill.)  If this schitt flies in one state, there'll be no shortage of idjits and Foxbots trying to enact it in the other 49.
2013-03-31 11:39:39 PM
1 votes:

Gosling: Well, THIS isn't going to end like that Nebraska law that ended in people from halfway across the country dumping their teenagers and driving off.


What was that? I couldn't hear you over the screams of my human sacrifices and the bleating of the goats I'm preparing for Walpurgis Nacht.
2013-03-31 11:29:24 PM
1 votes:
IOW, Kentucky has now given anyone convicted of any crime grounds for appeal, no matter how clear-cut the case.  
 
I love how the legislation is only one paragraph long.  No need to get specific here! Why bother creating exceptions for traffic laws or child abuse or health codes-- that's what the courts are for! We've got more ALEC junkets to attend!
2013-03-31 10:39:31 PM
1 votes:
Granted the King James Bible was written before democracy and republics had really started to spread, I think you'll find Romans 13: 1 has this pretty much open and shut as being bullsh*t.

/Sigh. Can't wait to see how outrageously this blows up in their faces. I just hope nobody gets hurt because of it             :|
2013-03-31 07:53:16 PM
1 votes:
So are they going to have laws against coveting soon? That should be fun. Thoughtcrime!
2013-03-31 07:50:45 PM
1 votes:

balloot: Kentucky sounds like a solid place to go if you want to practice Sharia Law.


Welcome to Teabagistan!
2013-03-31 06:44:36 PM
1 votes:

way south: Arthur Jumbles: FTFA:The bill says that government shall not infringe on any person's sincerely held religious beliefs unless it can show with "clear and convincing evidence" some compelling governmental interest for doing so.

Yikes, I don't actually have a problem with this! The government shouldn't be making ANY law that restricts a person's liberty unless it had some "compelling governmental interest" in doing so. If they just removed the word "religious" from the bill I'd be supporting this 100% with a smile on my face.

This.

/On Its face it sounds like the kind of law that shouldn't be needed tho.
/Implying that, without it, the government could infringe on people's rights with no valid reason?


Exactly. Ironically enough, most of the times when the government passed laws restricting a person's rights without "compelling governmental interest" it was for religious reasons (e.g. laws against gambling, liquor, stores doing business on Sunday, religious holidays, pornography, etc...etc....)
2013-03-31 04:41:33 PM
1 votes:

Great Porn Dragon: "Snake-handler Oneness Pentecostal",


I used to wonder why the hell some churches around here had ambulances on site that is until a woman died from snakebites to the face.
2013-03-31 04:38:22 PM
1 votes:
Fairly simple solution - billboards everywhere saying

"Republicans vote to allow Sharia Law"
2013-03-31 04:29:25 PM
1 votes:

Girion47: shotglasss: I wonder how many of the people in this thread expressing massive butthurt over this don't live in Kentucky.

I live in Kentucky and am absolutely horrified that this state has allowed filth like this to exist as well as elect Mcconnell to the Senate.

Oh well, I keep voting against bullshiat like this, and try to convince others to do so as well.


Even if I don't have a ride I make sure to vote,but it's so farking hard to try to convince some people I know to vote.  They'll biatch about politics all day but they don't vote which annoys the fark out of me. I find voting to be my duty as a citizen,what the hell happened to other people thinking like that?
/I'm beginning to think that McConnell won't leave office til he dies,just like Gorman in Hazard.
2013-03-31 04:04:58 PM
1 votes:

shotglasss: I wonder how many of the people in this thread expressing massive butthurt over this don't live in Kentucky.


I live in Kentucky and am absolutely horrified that this state has allowed filth like this to exist as well as elect Mcconnell to the Senate.

Oh well, I keep voting against bullshiat like this, and try to convince others to do so as well.
2013-03-31 03:59:00 PM
1 votes:

shotglasss: I wonder how many of the people in this thread expressing massive butthurt over this don't live in Kentucky.


I was thinking the same thing.  It's like those assholes that get all fired up about rape even though they've never been raped before.
2013-03-31 03:55:55 PM
1 votes:
MusicMakeMyHeadPound:
Oh, it's not what you think. It's much, much worse.

An argument like that then sets up a contradiction between Section 233A (DOMA) and Sections 2,3,4 and 5 (Freedom from tyranny of the majority, equality of all men in a social compact, the power of the people to abolish government in any manner they deem proper, and religious freedom) of your State's Constitution. Section 233A would then be unlikely to survive.


FTFM. Multiple typos.
2013-03-31 03:51:21 PM
1 votes:

Silverstaff: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: And all it will take is one lawyer to say:

" It's true that Leviticus 18:22 states "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; it is an abomination unto the Lord", among many other practices. The penalty for which is being unable to claim being an Israelite.

Furthermore, Jesus recognizes in Matthew 22:23-33, Luke 20:27-40, and Mark 12:18-27 that marriage is purely a terrestrial affair. Most importantly, Luke 6:30-31 has Jesus commanding, "Give to everyone who asks you for something, and when someone takes what is yours do not ask for it back. Do for others just what you want them to do for you."

Because the marriage applicants are not seeking to be recognized as Israelites and because they are asking to be recognized as married before the law and because my client the Court Clerk is Christian who is, themself, married, I invoke the Religious Freedom bill to declare the state Constitutional and statutory definitions of marriage as infringing my client's religious beliefs. Furthermore I submit that any opponent of same sex marriage is not Christian as per the teachings of Christ. "

Won't work in Kentucky.

Kentucky passed one of those damnable "Defense of Marriage" amendments to its state constitution by popular referendum in 2004.

A state law, like this one, can't overturn a state constitutional amendment.

It's going to take another referendum, or something at the Federal level (like say a SCOTUS ruling) to change that in the Commonwealth.


Oh, it's no what you think. It's much, much worse.

An argument like that then sets up a contradiction between Section 233A (DOMA) and Sections 2,3,4 and 5 (Freedom from tyranny of the majority, equality of all men in a social compact, the power of the people to abolish in any manner they deem proper, and religious freedom) of your State's Constitution. 233A would then be unlikely to survive.
2013-03-31 03:37:52 PM
1 votes:

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: And all it will take is one lawyer to say:

" It's true that Leviticus 18:22 states "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; it is an abomination unto the Lord", among many other practices. The penalty for which is being unable to claim being an Israelite.

Furthermore, Jesus recognizes in Matthew 22:23-33, Luke 20:27-40, and Mark 12:18-27 that marriage is purely a terrestrial affair. Most importantly, Luke 6:30-31 has Jesus commanding, "Give to everyone who asks you for something, and when someone takes what is yours do not ask for it back. Do for others just what you want them to do for you."

Because the marriage applicants are not seeking to be recognized as Israelites and because they are asking to be recognized as married before the law and because my client the Court Clerk is Christian who is, themself, married, I invoke the Religious Freedom bill to declare the state Constitutional and statutory definitions of marriage as infringing my client's religious beliefs. Furthermore I submit that any opponent of same sex marriage is not Christian as per the teachings of Christ. "


Won't work in Kentucky.

Kentucky passed one of those damnable "Defense of Marriage" amendments to its state constitution by popular referendum in 2004.

A state law, like this one, can't overturn a state constitutional amendment.

It's going to take another referendum, or something at the Federal level (like say a SCOTUS ruling) to change that in the Commonwealth.
2013-03-31 03:29:41 PM
1 votes:
And all it will take is one lawyer to say:

" It's true that Leviticus 18:22 states "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; it is an abomination unto the Lord", among many other practices. The penalty for which is being unable to claim being an Israelite.

Furthermore, Jesus recognizes in Matthew 22:23-33, Luke 20:27-40, and Mark 12:18-27 that marriage is purely a terrestrial affair. Most importantly, Luke 6:30-31 has Jesus commanding, "Give to everyone who asks you for something, and when someone takes what is yours do not ask for it back. Do for others just what you want them to do for you."

Because the marriage applicants are not seeking to be recognized as Israelites and because they are asking to be recognized as married before the law and because my client the Court Clerk is Christian who is, themself, married, I invoke the Religious Freedom bill to declare the state Constitutional and statutory definitions of marriage as infringing my client's religious beliefs. Furthermore I submit that any opponent of same sex marriage is not Christian as per the teachings of Christ. "
2013-03-31 03:29:16 PM
1 votes:
It is so sad to see a legislature that is so short sighted. I can't believe that no one really thought the whole idea through.  It's like living to Bizarro World.  I feel sorry for the people of Kentucky.

/then again, I live in Wisconsin
//yeah, I feel sorry for me too.
2013-03-31 03:25:37 PM
1 votes:

TheBigJerk: Witty


As I'm over 21, the law I saw before I posted said it's a crime. FWIW. Maybe they're too poor in Kentucky to be able to afford to update their laws.
2013-03-31 03:18:31 PM
1 votes:
I am now a very devout Rastafarian who also observes the traditions of cultures that uses mushrooms and peyote to contact the gods.
2013-03-31 02:52:08 PM
1 votes:

fluffy2097: pseudo-intellectual fundamentalist atheist detected.



pseudo intellectual?  you won't even answer a question regarding "fundamentalist atheist".

// pot, meet kettle
2013-03-31 02:48:42 PM
1 votes:

TheBigJerk: Better than the marijuana option, since it won't get you arrested.  Yet I am sure they will still wriggle out of it.  I just wonder how.

Ah, I know.  "Disobeying the law is not the same as forcing the law to recognize you."  Followed by some kid getting suspended for not attending a mandatory school prayer because they have the self-awareness and memory of a goldfish.


And then the school administrators get slammed repeatedly by frustrated judges. The social conservatives will then become livid that people out there are getting away with liking things that they don't like and using their own law to do it. After that there will be blood.

The legislature voted for anarchy, so yes, anarchy is what they'll get. Sad but true. The people I feel bad for are the children and folks who voted against these clowns. With any "luck" it'll get bad enough that even ardent GOP voters will vote Democrat to get this overturned.
2013-03-31 02:34:55 PM
1 votes:

Lawnchair: that bosnian sniper: The funny thing is, I've already heard of a minister or two, and more than a few gay couples, in Louisville who are going to cite this very law in the course of applying for marriage licenses and marrying.

Yep, that.  There are 9 Unitarian churches in Kentucky (okay, only 4 large enough to have full-time ministers), and I'm pretty sure all of them have at least one same-sex couple to marry as soon as this law is applicable.

Your move, Kentucky.


Better than the marijuana option, since it won't get you arrested.  Yet I am sure they will still wriggle out of it.  I just wonder how.

Ah, I know.  "Disobeying the law is not the same as forcing the law to recognize you."  Followed by some kid getting suspended for not attending a mandatory school prayer because they have the self-awareness and memory of a goldfish.
2013-03-31 02:33:36 PM
1 votes:

Princess Ryans Knickers: thornhill: And now we have a new error of Jim Crow

Era...


I dunno. Both seem apt.
2013-03-31 02:29:19 PM
1 votes:

Bermuda59: I'm sure they meant to include that the only recognized religion freedom concerns Christianity. Doesn't apply to any others


Yes but the lulz begins when they try and enforce it.
2013-03-31 02:28:24 PM
1 votes:
My religion just determined that orgies with 16 year old girls is an appropriate way to worship.

I guess I'm moving to Kentucky, as it's now legal!
2013-03-31 02:23:58 PM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: While I don't think anyone should be surprised that this cunning plan was not thought all the way through, it's amusing to note that the ultimate result of this law is to grant government a massive, broad new power: the power to determine what is and is not a "sincerely held religious belief".


Oh, it was thought through.

The Governor vetoed it, saying that the law would have many unintended side-effects and unforeseen consequences.  There has been some commentary in the media here about just how far this could be abused.  Basically any state law can be ignored on religious grounds now, if you can get a court to agree it was a sincere religious reason to avoid it.

The intent was at least in part to gut the "fairness ordinances" passed by some communities providing for protection of LBGT persons by letting people discriminate against them if they could prove it was religiously motivated discrimination, ditto with letting schoolkids ignore anti-bullying rules by letting them taunt and bully their fellow students if they think they are LBGT.

The legislature passed it with a veto override.

/Kentuckian
/Facepalming at my own state.
2013-03-31 02:14:46 PM
1 votes:
One thing that is really funny about Kentucky is Mitch McConnell. He's the head Republican in the senate but when it comes time for him to head back home to Kentucky, he actually lives in one of the most liberal neighborhoods in the entire state.
2013-03-31 02:08:24 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Lionel Mandrake: cman: Anyone else deal with this kind of internal conflict?

Not with this stupid law.

"This is a piece of legislation looking for a reason," Owens said.

Like laws against gay marriage, or voter ID laws, or anti-Sharia laws.

This is a desperate move by frightened and ignorant people who have been convinced by charlatans that they are under attack.

These are the ignorant people who are claiming they are under attack and are 'protecting' their values. Apparently a core Christian value is oppressing others.


It actually kinda is. Intolerance is one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
2013-03-31 02:06:14 PM
1 votes:

HeartBurnKid: I'm a SubGenuis. My religion requires me to do whatever the fark I want, whenever the fark I want to do it. I think I could have some fun in Kentucky.


/maybe I should move there...
//nah, then I'd have to live in Kentucky.


Hey now! Louisville is great. Lexington and Coving are ok too but especially Louisville is one part of the country that is quite heavily and reliably blue. One of the big churches here was on Fark a while back because they stopped doing any legal marriage because they could only do them for straight people.
2013-03-31 02:02:03 PM
1 votes:
Do unto others. Many, many others. (Fornicus 2:69)

img.photobucket.com
2013-03-31 01:50:41 PM
1 votes:
The bill says that government shall not infringe on any person's sincerely held religious beliefs unless it can show with "clear and convincing evidence" some compelling governmental interest for doing so.

Like, maybe, a law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor?
2013-03-31 01:49:53 PM
1 votes:

sprgrss: The United States Supreme Court already answered this question many, many years ago.  Too bad the law will fail on the first judicial review.


I hope it does, and for irony sake I hope its a religious institution bringing it to court instead of a real victim.

/Kentuckian
//Louisvillian, signed the petition to secede from the state.
2013-03-31 01:44:13 PM
1 votes:
FTFA:The bill says that government shall not infringe on any person's sincerely held religious beliefs unless it can show with "clear and convincing evidence" some compelling governmental interest for doing so.

Yikes, I don't actually have a problem with this! The government shouldn't be making ANY law that restricts a person's liberty unless it had some "compelling governmental interest" in doing so. If they just removed the word "religious" from the bill I'd be supporting this 100% with a smile on my face.
2013-03-31 01:38:17 PM
1 votes:
Well my new religion allows gay marriage, believes in evolution, and supports abortion on demand.  Better not opress me motherfarkers.
2013-03-31 01:30:25 PM
1 votes:

cbathrob: Finally, a place where I can worship Quetzalcoatl in peace! My diet's going to have a lot more protein in it real soon!


My religion requires me to consume 1 char-grilled aborted fetus per day.

For maximum trolling.
2013-03-31 01:18:29 PM
1 votes:
Finally, a place where I can worship Quetzalcoatl in peace! My diet's going to have a lot more protein in it real soon!
2013-03-31 01:07:18 PM
1 votes:

formerfloozy: I'm thinking I am going to start with the Methodists. Those guys have always rubbed me the wrong way.


Hedly?
3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-03-31 01:02:40 PM
1 votes:
Packing my bags and moving to Kentucky... My faith has so much to do.
2013-03-31 01:00:11 PM
1 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: Summercat: fluffy2097: Monkeyhouse Zendo: fluffy2097: I'm not sure he's your go-to guy for sense and logic.

PhD in biochemistry and published a number of science books aimed at the layman... Sure, there are other sources for sense and logic but don't make the mistake of thinking that the sum total of Asimov's work was his science fiction.

Very true, but I'm sick and tired of Fundamentalist Atheist's using his good name and quotes as sophistry.

Asimov would LOVE to have a good religious debate about the nature of God (presence or belief in) and its effect on humanity as far as I can tell from his writings. I think he knew very well what the science said, and what the science CAN'T say. I think he'd roll over in his grave to be painted as a fundamentalist atheist.

I'm not seeing anything like that being put in Asimov's mouth. Methinks you're reading a bit too hard into it.

You know, I was so pissed off when the Foundation series revealed it was still a God Damned Robot Novel.


The Foundation universe is interesting in how all those books and shorts are tied together into a single setting. As a grand setting (and ignoring the stupidity of 'Gaia', ugh), it is fairly interesting. Also complete bollocks. "Physchohistory" is just... So much fail. It's ultimately something that only works... if you only have one person acting upon it.  Further, it doesn't run into issues of cult of personality. It could predict the French Revolution - maybe. Up a point. There's simply too much chaos there.

You can predict general trends, but the idea you can have a thousand year roadmap made ahead of time is idiotic (and much of the reason why I dislike much in the way of the expanded explanation novels, aside from tieing the setting together).

But taking as each group - the Empire novels are all nicely done, as are all the Robot novels. The Foundation series, less so, I thought he was trying to overplay the fall of the Roman Empire a bit too much. He did hit upon a good point in Robots and Empire, though - assuming Spacers were a dead end, humanity needed to grow and diversify. That wouldn't happen with Earth intact to serve as a nucleus for a singular culture. In order to break the cycle of history, you'd have to break Earth away and allow the planets to evolve as themselves, not as colonies of a nascent Imperial Earth.

/spent too long on this. Oy.
2013-03-31 12:49:57 PM
1 votes:

balloot: Kentucky sounds like a solid place to go if you want to practice Sharia Law.


guess that mosque in murfreesboro is a go!
2013-03-31 12:48:16 PM
1 votes:

abb3w: Unfortunately, this is a mere law, while Kentucky's ban on gay marriage is in its Constitution. So... no, I don't think they do. A Federal Judge might take notice in a case and make the state AG's sweat a bit; but I think the reasoning would have to be a stretch.


That strongly depends upon how the Supreme Court rules in the California Prop 8 case. A broad ruling in favor of Perry (which I think has a noteworthy chance) would certainly undermine the state constitutional amendment, leaving this particular law the highest apparent pedigree in which case my argument would be totally accurate.

That said, the purpose of such a challenge wouldn't be to overturn the Kentucky state constitutional amendment; it would be to overturn the law itself or remand it to the state general assembly for amendment, because of that conflict between the law and the state constitution.
2013-03-31 12:45:21 PM
1 votes:
Asimov rocks, but the go-to place for that topic is  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_American_Life
2013-03-31 12:42:06 PM
1 votes:

Summercat: fluffy2097: Monkeyhouse Zendo: fluffy2097: I'm not sure he's your go-to guy for sense and logic.

PhD in biochemistry and published a number of science books aimed at the layman... Sure, there are other sources for sense and logic but don't make the mistake of thinking that the sum total of Asimov's work was his science fiction.

Very true, but I'm sick and tired of Fundamentalist Atheist's using his good name and quotes as sophistry.

Asimov would LOVE to have a good religious debate about the nature of God (presence or belief in) and its effect on humanity as far as I can tell from his writings. I think he knew very well what the science said, and what the science CAN'T say. I think he'd roll over in his grave to be painted as a fundamentalist atheist.

I'm not seeing anything like that being put in Asimov's mouth. Methinks you're reading a bit too hard into it.


You know, I was so pissed off when the Foundation series revealed it was still a God Damned Robot Novel.
2013-03-31 12:37:13 PM
1 votes:
FTA: They argue that the bill restores a legal standard in place before recent rulings by the U.S. and Kentucky supreme courts.

i.imgur.com

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. GOODNIGHT.
2013-03-31 12:36:26 PM
1 votes:

Summercat: the robots were strange sympathetic beings that humanity created but did not understand, and did not trust - for no damn good reason.


Sounds like slavery to me. *shrug*  It's just with titanium people instead of brown people.
2013-03-31 12:30:49 PM
1 votes:

Great Porn Dragon: About a decade ago, they tried to basically regulate non-Christian denominations out of existence by requiring licensing for pastors, and it was ironically a member of a small Primitive Baptist church that got THAT law overturned in the courts...


Not very ironic. Back in the colonial and post-colonial days, it was the Baptists who were leading the charge in church/state separation; that's probably a living fossil example. It's the SBC that's changed on that.

that bosnian sniper: The state now must without exception show compelling interest and least-restrictive means in disallowing gay marriage, if the minister and couple involved have a sincerely-held religious belief they should be allowed to be married.


Unfortunately, this is a mere law, while Kentucky's ban on gay marriage is in its Constitution. So... no, I don't think they do. A Federal Judge might take notice in a case and make the state AG's sweat a bit; but I think the reasoning would have to be a stretch.
2013-03-31 12:30:02 PM
1 votes:

Monkeyhouse Zendo: fluffy2097: I'm not sure he's your go-to guy for sense and logic.

PhD in biochemistry and published a number of science books aimed at the layman... Sure, there are other sources for sense and logic but don't make the mistake of thinking that the sum total of Asimov's work was his science fiction.


Very true, but I'm sick and tired of Fundamentalist Atheist's using his good name and quotes as sophistry.

Asimov would LOVE to have a good religious debate about the nature of God (presence or belief in) and its effect on humanity as far as I can tell from his writings. I think he knew very well what the science said, and what the science CAN'T say. I think he'd roll over in his grave to be painted as a fundamentalist atheist.
2013-03-31 12:28:25 PM
1 votes:
FINALLY!  I have a place where I can http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/13849 worship in peace...
2013-03-31 12:26:35 PM
1 votes:
This is great news for snake handlers!
2013-03-31 12:25:20 PM
1 votes:
Oh hey yeah, my religion allows me to live in the governors mansion, while smoking blunts with naked hookers running around the front yard. I'm also a sovereign citizen who's religion prevents me from going to jail or paying taxes.
2013-03-31 12:22:43 PM
1 votes:

Lawnchair: Yep, that.  There are 9 Unitarian churches in Kentucky (okay, only 4 large enough to have full-time ministers), and I'm pretty sure all of them have at least one same-sex couple to marry as soon as this law is applicable.


Yep. Most of the LGBT people I know have been quietly pointing and giggling since this law hit the Kentucky  General Assembly floor waiting for this to detonate in the state's face. Sure, they're disappointed and angry at the  intent of the law, but on the other hand...
2013-03-31 12:18:16 PM
1 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: School prayer, forces a religious view on people.


Teacher-led school prayer, anyway. There will always be school prayer as long as there are students who do not study for their math tests.
2013-03-31 12:14:06 PM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: balloot: Kentucky sounds like a solid place to go if you want to practice Sharia Law.

I think that's where Subby was heading with the al Qaeda herpaderp.


Not really herpaderp. I could easily see a devout Muslim or fundamentalist Christian attempting to use this law as a defense for slapping a woman in a short skirt for her lack of modesty.
2013-03-31 12:09:06 PM
1 votes:

Great Porn Dragon: Satanic_Hamster:  About a decade ago, they tried to basically regulate non-Christian denominations out of existence by requiring licensing for pastors, and it was ironically a member of a small Primitive Baptist church that got THAT law overturned in ...


There is no irony there. The Primitive Baptists churches I grew up around are, and always have been, adamant about the seperation of church and state.
2013-03-31 12:01:09 PM
1 votes:
These people are seriously retarded. It has to be some kind of mental disorder, there is no other explanation.
2013-03-31 11:56:39 AM
1 votes:
This couldn't possibly backfire.
2013-03-31 11:48:20 AM
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: unless it can show with "clear and convincing evidence" some compelling governmental interest for doing so.

Ah, so the thing that lacks that is...

 "It wasn't so long ago we had prayer in the schools, but they made us take it out."

Nope, prayer led in a government institution clearly violates the first amendment and there is a clear government interest in not allowing steps toward establishing a theocracy.  Try again?


Proponents, who include the Family Foundation and the Catholic Conference of Kentucky

not helping your case there...

... ah, so you've got nothing, and your bill fails its own standards of needing a clear and compelling government interest.  Fail.


Came to say this. Unless they've actually forbidden students from praying, I don't see a problem.
 
Displayed 116 of 116 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report