On the bathroom issue

[bystander]

My point about religion is simple: You can't make a law solely on the basis of the Bible. If you argue that the Bible is a current controlling legal authority (using Gore's words) over our laws then I say you're totally wrong.

Maybe we should break out the Magna Carta too. In a legal proceeding, what happens if the Bible or the Magna Carta conflicts with the Constitution?

Do you agree with Ginsberg that foreign law should be sourced/referenced in SCOTUS decisions.

By the way, why don't we criminalize adultery?

 

[Mr. Deez]

By the way, why don't we criminalize adultery?

In seventeen states, we do, and some of them are liberal states like Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York. In fact, in Massachusetts and Michigan, it's a felony. No ****.

 

[bystander]

In seventeen states, we do, and some of them are liberal states like Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York. In fact, in Massachusetts and Michigan, it's a felony. No ****.

Ok. Thanks for that... interesting that it's not in Texas where religion is so prominent.

Do you think in the areas where there it's a crime it's because of harm to the spouse or because it's a sin?

Also, what is the "controlling legal authority" for these adultery laws? The Bible? If so then it should be a federal law. I would think that the laws are somehow rooted in actual damages caused to an individual versus what Jesus taught.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Ok. Thanks for that... interesting that it's not in Texas where religion is so prominent.

Do you think in the areas where there it's a crime it's because of harm to the spouse or because it's a sin?

Also, what is the "controlling legal authority" for these adultery laws? The Bible? If so then it should be a federal law. I would think that the laws are somehow rooted in actual damages caused to an individual versus what Jesus taught.

Probably a little of both. After all, perhaps adultery is a sin because it harms the spouse (and the entire family for that matter). If you can set aside your contempt for religion and religious people for a moment, you can examine the bases for our laws a little clearer and with a little more objectivity. (I'm not sure what we did to you to warrant that level of contempt, but that's beside the point.) The Bible isn't just a religious book. Though it's not a legal source of its own, it was certainly influential in developing the law. For example, murder, theft, and as you now know, adultery are straight out of the Ten Commandments, and many are loosely rooted in them, such as perjury, fraud, etc. Some facets of our civil justice system have biblical roots. In fact, if you take a look at the so-called "Blue Book," which is the unofficial guide to legal citation, you'll see that it lists the Bible as a possible item to cite in legal briefs and court opinions. In practice, that rarely happens (in part because the relevant parts of the Bible that have become part of the law have been incorporated into statutes and court opinions that carry more authority in a secular court), but the point is that it can.

Having said that, the Bible's influence on American law doesn't constitute an endorsement of Christianity as a religion. It simply takes Judeo-Christian rules and regulations, sees that they have strong merit in an orderly society, and adopts them on a case by case basis. Is that "basing a law on the Bible?" In a sense, yes, but it's doing so because the biblical law had societal merit.

The "controlling legal authority" isn't the Bible. It's various state statutes. No, it shouldn't be a federal law. In fact, I think that would be unconstitutional.

 

[bystander]

Probably a little of both. After all, perhaps adultery is a sin because it harms the spouse (and the entire family for that matter). If you can set aside your contempt for religion and religious people for a moment, you can examine the bases for our laws a little clearer and with a little more objectivity. (I'm not sure what we did to you to warrant that level of contempt, but that's beside the point.) The Bible isn't just a religious book. Though it's not a legal source of its own, it was certainly influential in developing the law. For example, murder, theft, and as you now know, adultery are straight out of the Ten Commandments, and many are loosely rooted in them, such as perjury, fraud, etc. Some facets of our civil justice system have biblical roots. In fact, if you take a look at the so-called "Blue Book," which is the unofficial guide to legal citation, you'll see that it lists the Bible as a possible item to cite in legal briefs and court opinions. In practice, that rarely happens (in part because the relevant parts of the Bible that have become part of the law have been incorporated into statutes and court opinions that carry more authority in a secular court), but the point is that it can.

Having said that, the Bible's influence on American law doesn't constitute an endorsement of Christianity as a religion. It simply takes Judeo-Christian rules and regulations, sees that they have strong merit in an orderly society, and adopts them on a case by case basis. Is that "basing a law on the Bible?" In a sense, yes, but it's doing so because the biblical law had societal merit.

I understand the reference points that a society examines to achieve a consensus. I'm saying the Bible isn't pulled out in court other than to swear someone in... there are far too many people who are trying to use the Bible as the direct source for new laws or to uphold laws that I consider to be unconstitutional.

I have contempt for religion because of the zealotry that I have experienced personally and what history has shown to be true.

But I do not have contempt for the Sermon on the Mount. I think it is an amazing guidepost for me PERSONALLY.

 

[Horn6721]

Mr D
Once again you explain and put into context things most of us have not thought about or known about. Then you explain something and there is an A Ha moment. As in I never/thought about how the bible plays into most of Western civilization laws even if indirectly even likely influencing the Magna Carta. (I can not imagine the MG contradicts the constitution) Most worthy tenets are common sense or basic morality but the Bible is the glue.
So with that in mind it seems that the Koran even the many violent parts play into most Muslim countries' laws and prsctices. Most seem to get more horrific and barbaric ,the opposite of Judeo-Christian countries ' evolution.

 

[Seattle Husker]

So with that in mind it seems that the Koran even the many violent parts play into most Muslim countries' laws and prsctices. Most seem to get more horrific and barbaric ,the opposite of Judeo-Christian countries ' evolution.

Why do you assume the "many violent parts play into most Muslim countries laws"? Do some? Absolutely. At the local level of many of them? Yes but in most Muslim countries it seems they are fighting those "violent parts". Take Pakistan for example, this idea of honor killings is prohibited in their national and local laws. They consistently fight the local customs. Saudi Arabia? How are their laws any different than our own capital punishment laws? (Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.') Are the bibles' many violent parts part of our laws too?

 

[Horn6721]

Husker?
Are you actually comparing Saudi Arabia ' s laws to ours?
I know if I said up you would say down just because I said up
But to seriously say SA'S laws in general and their execution of those laws are
remotely similar to ours is mind boggling.
To single out one area,capital punushment,as somehow that makes their laws similar is reaching ,really reaching.
I did not know that Pakistan has a law banning honor killings Good for them Is this a new law? Can you provide a link?

 

[theiioftx]

Maybe we should make murder legal since it is in the Bible? No way we want any laws attributable to the Bible.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Husker?
Are you actually comparing Saudi Arabia ' s laws to ours?
I know if I said up you would say down just because I said up
But to seriously say SA'S laws in general and their execution of those laws are
remotely similar to ours is mind boggling.
To single out one area,capital punushment,as somehow that makes their laws similar is reaching ,really reaching.
I did not know that Pakistan has a law banning honor killings Good for them Is this a new law? Can you provide a link?

No, I'm pointing out your inference that your god and laws are better and less violent than theirs isn't 100% accurate so you may want to step down from that perch.

 

[Horn6721]

?
Well so far you have not actually 'pointed " that out. In fact what I wrote was, here let me repost, ".it seems that the Koran even the many violent parts play into most Muslim countries' laws and practices. Most seem to get more horrific and barbaric ,the opposite of Judeo-Christian countries ' evolution."

Using one example from S A does not qualify as " most". BTW does Saudi Arabia cut the hands off of thieves? I guess you don't consider that barbaric. SA gouges people's eyes out. How about that? is that vilolent?
Did you find the link that explains Pakistan now has a law against honor killing?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Using one example from S A does not qualify as " most". BTW does Saudi Arabia cut the hands off of thieves? I guess you don't consider that barbaric. SA gouges people's eyes out. How about that? is that vilolent?
Did you find the link that explains Pakistan now has a law against honor killing?

You claimed "most". Shouldn't the honus be on you to backup your claim? You also assume that Pakistan has a low allowing for murder. Read any article from Pakistan about the honor killings and you'll find the murderer(s) in jail. That should tell you the laws don't allow them.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
so the onus is on me to back up claim that most muslim countries laws are base in part or whole on the koran? Are you pretending you do not think that is true?
Here is a Wiki link on muslim countries and their adherence to Islamic law. Here is one paragraph :'Sharia is a significant source of legislation in many Muslim countries where some countries apply a majority or some of the sharia code, and these include Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen and Mauritania. In these countries, sharia-prescribed punishments such as beheading, flogging and stoning continue to be practiced judicially or extra-judicially ."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
yes it is wiki but the countries listed are fact not opinion. Much more information at the link. Perhaps there is a tiny nugget you can find that you think proves your point that our laws are not better.

As long as we are talking about onuses I asked you for a link showing ( from your post )"Take Pakistan for example, this idea of honor killings is prohibited in their national or local law" ( note I did not mention local laws I specifically mentioned country.}
As far as I know Pakistan has never passed a law prohibiting honor killings. If they , as you assert, have such a law please provide a link.

 

[bystander]

Maybe we should make murder legal since it is in the Bible? No way we want any laws attributable to the Bible.

You'e not getting my meaning. It is not against the law solely because of the Bible. Atheists concur that murder should be illegal. So your comment is a bit thin in my view.

There are many other commandments and instructions in the Bible that are not laws. We are not a country based upon a Christian version of true theoretical Sharia Law (where a religous book is the Constitution). The judge is not reading from it from the bench. We are a nation of laws built by CONSENSUS. You can roll your eyes but it tells me you'd rather be sarcastic that understand what I'm saying.

Think about the following posted below; this is an American Catholic presidential candidate assuring other Christians that he honors the separation of church and state. OTHER CHRISTIANS who were concerned about this very issue. (by the way, the speech given by JFK which is quoted in part below prompted Rick Santorum to say it made him want to vomit; that tells me it's a great speech):

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2010/09/10/jfks-houston-speech-at-50-three-views/

"In August 1960, Protestant organizations in Michigan and Kentucky announced their opposition to a Catholic president. Later in the month, twenty-five Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal ministers promised to “oppose with all powers at our command, the election of a Catholic to the Presidency of the United States.” Numerous other groups representing tens of thousands of Protestants voiced similar anti-Catholic opposition to Kennedy.

On September 7, an ad-hoc group of 150 Protestants led by the renowned Dr. Norman Vincent Peale issued a statement criticizing the Catholic Church and accusing it of being a “political as well as religious organization [that has] specifically repudiated, on many occasions, the principle sacred to us that every man shall be free to follow the dictates of his conscience in religious matters.”

Later that same day, Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State (POAU) launched another political torpedo:

We cannot avoid recognition of the fact that one church in the U.S., the largest church operating on American soil, officially supports a world-wide policy of partial union of church and state wherever it has the power to enforce such a policy. In the U.S. the bishops of this church have specifically rejected the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the separation of church and state.
Kennedy and his team knew that he could not ignore these diatribes, and he decided to confront the issue at a meeting of the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960. In his speech (written by Theodore Sorensen) Kennedy declared:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him…. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office….

Whatever issues may come before me as President, if I should be elected – on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject – I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

 

[bystander]

By the way, I took my 12-year old daughter to The Coffee Bean at SW Parkway and Mopac and we had to go to the bathroom. Both of them had signs indicating they were unisex. She stopped and was a bit confused. So.... TEACHING MOMENT. I started in on it and she goes, "Oh yeah, I heard about this." I said, for us, just make sure you read the sign. All bathrooms aren't for anybody. Some are specifically for boys or girls (especially when multiple people can use them; in this case they were "single-serve"). I said you don't want to wander into the boys restroom thinking you can use any of them.

Ha... I seem to recall wandering into a women's bathroom after a few rounds one time long ago; must have been the night my key wouldn't open my car and my roommate came out and asked me why I was trying to open someone else's car... good times man. I should have been arrested for driving while blind (shout out to The Right Reverend Willie G).

Oh and there was the time I went into a single-serve female restroom with my girl friend, 'cause you know, we needed a room. There were some unhappy women who were waiting in line when they saw me walk out with her.

Anyway I explained that The Coffee Bean provided a good solution because a bathroom is a bathroom when it's single-serve.

Then we discussed the transgender issue. I told her that I don't know why some people are born one way but believe they are another (clumsy way of describing it but she understood my meaning). I said that's just the way it is and let's be nice to everyone, find the right bathroom for you and let me know if you have any problems.

What else can you say?

 

[Horn6721]

bystander
you did an outstanding job of explaining in a calm and common sense way. This wxplnation would also be proper for much younger kids.
and do not worry what you didn't go into details on will surely be covered this fall at her school.

 

[bystander]

bystander
you did an outstanding job of explaining in a calm and common sense way. This wxplnation would also be proper for much younger kids.
and do not worry what you didn't go into details on will surely be covered this fall at her school.

Yes, I'm sure the school will explain the other details. It's a big deal but then again maybe not. It's just something to manage. I suppose those of us with young daughters are concerned about who is going into the bathroom with them. I do not apologize for that concern either. But I'm not going to get crazy about it. Hopefully it won't be a big deal. We have many problems in life and sometimes we assume a lot of bad things are going to happen.

Look at open carry. I recall thinking we'd see all these Cowboys walking around like Clint Eastwood but I haven't seen one yet. It has become a non-issue.

As a society we seem to analyze on the extreme margin of possibility, normalize it and then assume that is what will happen. We need rational people but it's hard to be a true visionary when it comes to human nature.

 

[Horn6721]

I agree and wonder why it is more important for a transfemale ( isn't that what a man saying he is really a woman called?) to be allowed into a female restroom than the right of young girls? What dignity right do the children have?
Plus since there is no standard for what constitutes a transwoman we have already seen men forcing themselves into locker rooms simply by saying they were females that day.
The actual restroom issue is easily solved and mostly seems to have been. The issue of men or men with male genitalia no matter what they call themselves being allowed into locker rooms and showers is still a mess.

 

[bystander]

I agree and wonder why it is more important for a transfemale ( isn't that what a man saying he is really a woman called?) to be allowed into a female restroom than the right of young girls? What dignity right do the children have?
Plus since there is no standard for what constitutes a transwoman we have already seen men forcing themselves into locker rooms simply by saying they were females that day.
The actual restroom issue is easily solved and mostly seems to have been. The issue of men or men with male genitalia no matter what they call themselves being allowed into locker rooms and showers is still a mess.

It is messy; I can't think of an answer that solves all the problems except possibly the singe person use bathroom that is unisex. But that's not always practical.

 

[theiioftx]

You'e not getting my meaning. It is not against the law solely because of the Bible. Atheists concur that murder should be illegal. So your comment is a bit thin in my view.

There are many other commandments and instructions in the Bible that are not laws. We are not a country based upon a Christian version of true theoretical Sharia Law (where a religous book is the Constitution). The judge is not reading from it from the bench. We are a nation of laws built by CONSENSUS. You can roll your eyes but it tells me you'd rather be sarcastic that understand what I'm saying.

Think about the following posted below; this is an American Catholic presidential candidate assuring other Christians that he honors the separation of church and state. OTHER CHRISTIANS who were concerned about this very issue. (by the way, the speech given by JFK which is quoted in part below prompted Rick Santorum to say it made him want to vomit; that tells me it's a great speech):

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2010/09/10/jfks-houston-speech-at-50-three-views/

"In August 1960, Protestant organizations in Michigan and Kentucky announced their opposition to a Catholic president. Later in the month, twenty-five Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal ministers promised to “oppose with all powers at our command, the election of a Catholic to the Presidency of the United States.” Numerous other groups representing tens of thousands of Protestants voiced similar anti-Catholic opposition to Kennedy.

On September 7, an ad-hoc group of 150 Protestants led by the renowned Dr. Norman Vincent Peale issued a statement criticizing the Catholic Church and accusing it of being a “political as well as religious organization [that has] specifically repudiated, on many occasions, the principle sacred to us that every man shall be free to follow the dictates of his conscience in religious matters.”

Later that same day, Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State (POAU) launched another political torpedo:

We cannot avoid recognition of the fact that one church in the U.S., the largest church operating on American soil, officially supports a world-wide policy of partial union of church and state wherever it has the power to enforce such a policy. In the U.S. the bishops of this church have specifically rejected the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the separation of church and state.
Kennedy and his team knew that he could not ignore these diatribes, and he decided to confront the issue at a meeting of the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960. In his speech (written by Theodore Sorensen) Kennedy declared:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him…. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office….

Whatever issues may come before me as President, if I should be elected – on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject – I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

There is plenty of argument within these posts that somehow opposition to this is based upon religious beliefs. For me, it is not. It is based upon common sense and the safety of my teenage daughter.

And, as stated before, much of our moral code is based upon the bible whether everyone likes it or not. As well, our country's laws also reflect this even though we are clear to separate religion from state. And I totally agree with that separation.

 

[bystander]

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/bible-verse-homosexuals-heard-house-gop-prior-vote

"House Republicans at a conference meeting heard a Bible verse that calls for death for homosexuals shortly before the chamber voted Thursday morning to reject a spending bill that included an amendment barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

"Georgia Rep. Rick W. Allen led the opening prayer by reading from Romans 1:18-32, and Revelations 22:18-19."

What does that prayer and message have to do with government business?

 

[Seattle Husker]

As long as we are talking about onuses I asked you for a link showing ( from your post )"Take Pakistan for example, this idea of honor killings is prohibited in their national or local law" ( note I did not mention local laws I specifically mentioned country.}
As far as I know Pakistan has never passed a law prohibiting honor killings. If they , as you assert, have such a law please provide a link.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/14/pakistan-prosecute-rampant-honor-killings

The 2004 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act made “honor” killings a criminal offense, but the law remains poorly enforced....
In March, Pakistan’s senate passed an anti-honor killing bill, which is now pending National Assembly approval.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36542285

The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) in Pakistan has declared that killing in the name of family honour is un-Islamic and against the law. The group, which advises the government on religious aspects of law and society, issued its statement after a recent spate of killings shocked many in Pakistan and around the world.

There are others. Look, honor killings are a barbaric practice and much more common in remote rural areas of Pakistan where tribal leaders are the law. My sincere hope is that Westernization will ultimately push their society to not just outlaw but enforce the laws fully.

 

[Horn6721]

? I Husker I don't think that link means what you want it to mean.
So the Pakistanis passed a law 12 years ago that they do not enforce. A d there is a law pending but likely will not pass, honor killings are up
Do you still think Pakistan has in reality banned or prohibited honor killings?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I agree with large parts of what you say, but I don't understand why it makes you have no patience for moderates. Can you explain?

Sure. Because typically the moderates on this issue (I don't mean moderates in general, I mean people who tend to view the movement as a good faith effort to "protect kids") tend to only look at the stated goals for the legislation, and don't consider the inevitable applications and outcomes. The article clearly outlines several specific stated goals of the legislation that go well beyond the idea of transgender protection in public bathrooms. It's one thing to say "your kid doesn't have to use the school restroom if they feel threatened". It's another thing to say "we're not going to keep your kids from bunking with opposite-sex members on field trips, and we aren't even going to tell you when it happens." Moderates typically hear and dismiss those things, assuming that "I'm sure that's not really what's going to happen, and sensible people will make sensible application."

 

[Mr. Deez]

Because typically the moderates on this issue

It you really ponder this issue, it's almost impossible to be a moderate on this issue. Frankly, I try to advocate for common ground and consensus on most issues, but that's pretty hard to do on this. If you accept the idea that gender is subjective and that society should honor the subjective gender of each individual, then you can't reasonably argue for much balance on this issue without being blatantly inconsistent. The reverse is true if you reject the idea.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

If you accept the idea that gender is subjective

then you are an abject idiot.

 

[Joe Fan]

When the Houston ordinance was put on the ballot by the mayor, it lost, primarily IMO due to a great anti-commercial run on TV. This time, the pro-pee-with-little-girls side struck first with its own commercial. Made by our Richard Linklater. I sort of feel bad for him, as must live in a constant state of having to apologize to his Hollywood pals for Texas. What a way to live

 

[Joe Fan]

Here was the original
Which was more effective?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]