I'm Catholic but strongly disagree with the Church on this one. It is NOT recognizing same sex marriage. It is providing benefits to your employees. Stop the whining about the government forcing you to do something that is against your moral principles. You would rather deny services to the people who need your assistance and your own employees. I'm not just jumping on Catholics...other religions are involved in this crap. I also think it's time to revoke tax exempt status on ALL religions.
I think that much of the problem when it comes to this originate from the fact that "religious freedom" is an INDIVIDUAL right. That means that religious freedom forbids you the” right” to impose your religion or your views on ANYONE else (including your children). The problem is accumulated by people allowing certain things because of "accepted traditions".
E.g. take circumcision; it is NOT allowed for a religious parent to do this to their daughter but it's legal to do to the son.
religion should NOT have "special rights"...they all scream gays are asking for special rights well they do too. In being a child protection social worker in WY the religious leaders do NOT have to report abuse of any kind...that is butll shit...if you leave the law open for what you talked about then you leave it open for all...Discrimination is not part of our Constitution....I would diagree with you!
In 1983 I worked in an art gallery in Florida. Six months into my employment there the owner asked me what church I went to. When I told him that I did not belong to any church. Shocked, he promptly fired me. He said that people who did not attend church regularly were not moral people and therefore prone to stealing, dishonesty and laziness. I attempted to sue but could not find an attorney who would take my case. They said that Florida law did not protect me.
@shatros It was explained to me by one attorney that Florida did not have an anti discrimination law in regards to religion and that small business owners could discriminate any way they wanted if they had a very small number of employees. It seems that they did not think federal law protected me either. I imagine that things have changed since then but I also imagine that the statute of limitations has probably run out on this and that they are protected against post facto laws.
@shatros Still, I can't help wondering if I was not also the victim of a good ole boys network and that pretty much none of the attorneys wanted to take my case because they disagreed with my stance on religion. So I wonder, can an attorney refuse to take a case because they disagree with the client's religious beliefs or lack thereof? Can one force an attorney to take their case? Doctors are exempt from performing abortions if they don't want to so perhaps attorneys can likewise refuse.
@shatros A criminal is entitled to the services of an attorney to defend their legal rights. Are not law abiding citizens entitled to legal representation when their rights are violated? I know the constitution does not specifically exply such but does it imply as much in for example the equal protection clause?
It shouldn't matter if another person doesn't agree w/ what u think-if they say they believe differently, whether with or wothout religion they should have the decision to go against. Just like vaccines-if you think its okay and you get yoru child vaccinated then you shouldn't care if someone else doesn't or believes its wrong or whatever-i mean after all they say its safe (even though you sign a paper that states you basically can't sue if you child gets sick, illness and "in rare cases" death
No set of beliefs should be considered more than any other, just because a lot of people share them, and / or it gets classed as a religion. All are equally valid, but likewise, equally personal, and should generate extra no standing in terms of laws, politics, education, and so forth.
One should be allowed any beliefs they wish, and should fully be allowed to practice them, UNTIL the point where they negatively affect another person, and should there be prevented by law.
Why would you discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. Don't tell me beliefs. If I believed all Black people were apes that gives me no right to exclude them. If your religion excludes a group of people because of their race or sexual orientation then you need to be skeptical.
even tho i admit to mostly negative feelings about religious institutions, i always felt exemptions should be allowed, just as a kind of courtesy to our fellow citizens. it seems like the more decent way to be. on the other hand, why cant they just comply with anti-discrimination laws and have a kind of disclaimer that says "We dont agree with this law, but we are being compelled to follow it against our wills." Just like everyone else in the world.
@bobbyb826 To be clear, my analysis of this has nothing to do with negative feelings about religious institutions. Rather, I no longer see any reason why, in the main, religious institutions should be exempt from neutral laws of general applicability. It's worth nothing that today the Supreme Court agreed with me in the Christian Legal Society case, noting that the CLS was not seeking parity with other student groups, but rather "a preferential exemption" to which it is not entitled.
You described yourself in the video as previously being an "advocate of robust religious exemptions from certain laws" and describe very well why you are reconsidering that position, but I quickly found myself wondering why you held that view in the first place. Is that something you've discussed in a previous video?
@PraktikoolSinik No, it's not. It got lost in the editing. I thought the First Amendment's religion clauses and the principle of freedom of conscience required such exemptions. Sorry for the lack of clarity on that.
. . . the government, then they don't have to deal with the government. The government of the US was meant to peotect religions by not getting involved in their workings and by not allowing those religions to get involved in the governments workings. If we make exceptions for one religion because they feel like their right to hate people for no good reason is being stifled by their inability to impose those values on other peole who don't share their beilefs, well that's too bad for them.
Laws are meant to protect peoples rights. If a religion does not have to follow certain laws then they have thte right (apparently) to violate other peoples rights. Our goverment is, and always has been, by it's very design secular. This is to protect the religious beliefs of ALL people from one another. If a religion wants to be involved in some way with the government then they should have to abide by this secularist policy. If they don't want to abide by secular rules when dealing whith . . .
The Constitution grants us freedom of religious beliefs.
But, I see any religious organization, that can choose to hire who they want based on that person's religious beliefs, as a "private club" that can discriminate against others based on their religious beliefs.
This club might as well put out a sign "NO JEWS" or "NO MUSLIMS."
Is that NOT what the Civil Rights Movement fought?
It seems the time is coming to stop these private religious club's ability to circumvent the laws..
@gjsterp I'm certainly in favor of stopping most--almost all--exemptions for religious organizations from neutral, generally applicable laws. Among the few that I would allow is the one you mention here, i.e., allowing a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring. Eliminating that exemption would entangle the government in internal religious affairs, which creates an Establishment Clause problem.
1. either member of a married pair in relation to the other; one's husband or wife.
I hate that christian groups think they created marriage, even despite the fact that marriage was around waaaay before. Not to mention in other non-christian countries...
@GabrielFane Its like saying 'whats a christian?' From my friends most of them are 'there might be a god but i dont think there is', no evidence there is a God - scientific naturalism. some are saying god cannot exist because of evil in the world or because if God is conscious then he must be corruptible so cannot be perfect so cannot be God. Some are willing to say there is a non-physical cause to the universe but wont call it God. Atheism in its purest sense is the belief that there is no God.
@Whuppee Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Your definition is too broad as it encompasses agnosticism too. The claim that there is no God is a positive affirmation! You are not 'atheist' about 1 particular god. Atheism is that there are NO gods which means none what so ever. I don't believe in Allah but I do in Yarweh but I am not an Atheist in any meaning of the word because I still believe in a God just not that God. There being no God and there being a God is clearly different!
The 'a' in atheism means 'without'. Not, for example, 'I hold theism to be false'. Such would be compatible with atheism, of course, for lack of mutual exclusion.
Yes, my definition can include agnosticism, again for lack of mutual exclusivity. A/theism goes to belief; a/gnosticism goes to knowledge. I lack knowledge, and refrain from predicating belief on ignorance: an agnostic atheist.
I can (and do) hold/present positive affirmations/cases; but they, if compatible with atheism, are additions nonetheless, not representative of atheism in and of itself.
entirely unrelated to the content, but out of the corner of my eye i thought i read "Adolf Hitler" in the Related Videos box, however due to the absolute berating of that name into world history, "Adam Huttler" was easily misread until i looked at it :)
I'm assuming that the charities got money from the city due to "faith based initiatives." I question whether or not they should get money from any governmental body for their charities. Anyway, so, they're rather cut out benefits for even the hetero couples, than allow gays to have these benefits. How Christian of them.
My perspective is that there are pragmatic reasons for religious exemptions. I think that when people have a sense of a sacred obligation, it is not a reasonable strategy to attempt to change their mind through the force of law. It is, however, reasonable to limit the sphere of these exemptions and to not require those who do not accept certain religious belief to support them directly or indirectly.
I'm curious about sec 503 [I belive it is, anyway] that grants religious institutions tax-exept status...Where did that come from, and what was the reasoning?
@gustjorodedheo Since this question has come up so consistently in comments, I'm going to do a video about the origins of and rationale for the religious tax exemption.
This seems to be a relatively easy call...by providing religious exemptions, the law is, in essence "establishing" that religion, giving it special status.
No special rights for any group! When I was "right" I thought the gay-right movement was a ploy for special rights, which, in a way, has helped me to begin my journey to where my political and social morality points today. Special recognition in the face of a wrong is not pleading for special rights, but more a plea to be recognized as an equally valuable human in the face of the law. While churches already enjoy certain special treatments, they think they are still "special" we need equality...
Just as a side note here, the very Catholic, Washigton D. C.-based Georgetown University offers benefits to same-sex spouses (although we pay dearly for them). I happen to be a recipient of these benefits, as my partner has worked diligently for the university for many years, and I am extremely grateful regardless of the reason they are offering them. They have yet to notice the "Come as little children" I Sharpied under the picture of poop benedict.
@FractalHelix777 How interesting. I didn't know Georgetown offered health benefits to same-sex spouses and partners. The Jesuits are often far more enlightened on this issue than so many of their coreligionists.
@ProfMTH I graduated from Georgetown in the Class of '95, and during my time as a student there, I happened to join the LGBT student group, which did receive campus funding, mainly due, I've inferred, to a lawsuit filed in the late 80's. I'm not entirely surprised that GU now offers spousal benefits to same-sex married couples, mainly because they've been burned before.
@FractalHelix777 This makes me even more proud to be attending Georgetown in 3 three months... my mom's response when I got accepted was "Craig, you know that's a catholic school right?"... things like this are the reason I'm not at all worried about it
@Craigipedia "...my mom's response when I got accepted was 'Craig, you know that's a catholic school right?'"
A conservative Catholic acquaintance of mine used to say with great disdain, "Georgetown isn't a Catholic university, it's a Jesuit university." (Needless to say, he didn't much like the Jesuits.) In light of that, I chuckle a bit whenever I see Fordham identifying itself as "The Jesuit University of New York.."
I still don't think the catholic church should do business with DC. One of their jobs and vital functions are to marry/funerals etc. but they won't do that for homosexuals. Isn't that discrimination?
Having said that, I am on the fence with this subject too. I think I side on the idea that religion shouldn't influence politics, and "no taxation without representation" mindset applies. We both know that religion does influence, but the idea should be strengthened for less influence not more.
The CLS in your vid did exactly what the Christian Union did at my old University. They refused to "accept" gay students (that weren't repentant, we assume) and so were denied affiliation with the overall Students Union due to non-compliance with the equality bill etc.
Needless to say, there have been no lawsuits and counter claims or if there have been then the CU hasn't got anywhere. That's the difference between UK & US I suppose. It's one of the top Unis in the UK as well.
1:12. As a general statement, I don't think they should, I think it gives religion a level of respect it is not due. The only respect I think religion deserves is common courtesy in the form of not belittling their beliefs for petty amusement. EVERYTHING about religion must be fair game and open to fair scrutiny and critical evaluation, otherwise religion becomes a dangerous thing, a shield which people with "ill intent" can use to operate and hide behind.
This is a no-brainer to me. There should be no special privileges whatsoever extended to religious organizations. I don't think the United States government should have any business interacting with religious organizations beyond putting the fires out when their churches go up, arresting pederast clerics or sending them letters reminding them to pay taxes.
May I have a picture of the hot redhead at 3:42? I...had a moment when I saw her.
@ProfMTH Dude, you have no idea. That doesn't happen to me either. Imagine, Hugh Jackman, Keanu Reeves, and the dude that did the Lady Gaga song you liked so much rolled into one. It sucks being a visual male sometimes.
Whenever I hear of "having to redefine marriage", especially with regard to Catholics, I think of how many instances in which a Catholic is required by law to recognize the marriage of someone who was divorced previously.
The Catholic Church is picky about marriages, but they don't complain as loudly about heterosexual Protestant marriages as they do about homosexual marriages such as the Unitarians perform.
@MoriarFake2 Sorry, I know this was long ago. :) I think their views on this may have made my father abandon the church. He wasn't very religious anyways, but I went to a Catholic school so going to church got you a discount on tuition. They told him something about how I should not be considered as existing since I was from a divorced marriage. Something absurd. He had to do something to rectify it and as revenge did it to scam the church for the tuition and left when I was done with school.
I think it should be illegal for public money (taxes) to be given to private schools. It is destroying public schools. And for religious organisations to receive, buy, sell, donate property/goods without paying the taxes that everyone else has to no matter where that money goes to.
All money should be clearly traceable - to members of that religion and government at the very least if not to all people.
I am all for companies having corporate secrets. But this is fairy tale selling.
So far I would agree with you. However, I'm careful to say that there isn't EVER a time where religious institutions shouldn't be exempt. I think tax exemptions, for the most part, should be upheld at least at the level of other non profit organizations. (I realize there are different degrees of non profit)
However, the marriage thing really does get me. I think we should have two levels of marriage, government and marriage. Neither of which recognize each other and are sovereign in themselves.
Exactly. This is exactly what needs to be done. Especially in terms of marriage. It isn't just about PREFORMING, but also RECOGNIZING. For example, the government should recognize gay marriage, but a Church is not obligated to do so.
It isn't a matter of discrimination, it is a matter of definition. I don't see why all private organizations should have to accept definitions made by the government. Also, I don't see why the government should be enforcing equality in the private sector
@GrudgyDiablo "religious institutions should be combated and removed from society all together !"
LOL. Well, that goes way farther than anything I'm advocating. Moreover, such an action would be blatanly illegal. But everyone is entitled to an opinion. :-)
The Catholic church considered all the moral aspects? They chose to deny all married couples insurance because they did not want to insure same sex married couples the benefits. They find it moral to deprive people of insurance. They must have saved a bundle making that "moral" decision. It is obvious to me that government should never give religion a dime. These services can be provided by non-religious groups.
Given religious beliefs are just that, beliefs, it seems obvious that their ideas should not receive special treatment especially if they are contradictory to those of what the government promises and secular society in general. The religious community's assault on basic human rights should not be tolerated.
So DC city employees couldn't use Catholic hospitals-because money from city government would be flowing into a Catholic organization? That's doing business right? Really? It sounds like a backdoor way to force Catholics to change their teachings.
@Brambledemon "So DC city employees couldn't use Catholic hospitals-because money from city government would be flowing into a Catholic organization?"
@ProfMTH If the Catholic Church had refused to change their policies in DC and refused to fund same sex partners health benefits that for individuals that work for a catholic charity, D.C. employees would not be able to go to Catholic Hospitals? Recieving heath care at a catholic charity/hospital involves a transfer of money from the city to the catholic charity. That's doing business. In my area, I think two of the largest hospitals are run by the catholic church.
obvs only christians should become priests! Atheists should not be allowed and the reasons are obvious. If religion is directly involved in the job at hand like being ordained or married then religious institutions can choose themselves what to do as a free institution in an open and free society
@nakedapedude Yeah I heard Dan Dennett talk about this and it is very sad because they have a community and don't want to let people down by revealing they are atheist. I suppose a certain intellectual honesty is needed and if you don't believe God exists or Jesus is the Son of God then they should not preach it. When they joined I assume they had some faith. Churches should filter out atheist clergy but they don't always for good and bad reasons.
So you're saying you have to believe the fantasy to be able to teach the fantasy to others? Why? I don't believe in santa clause but I can still teach people about him.
@nakedapedude a preist does more than just teach though! but sure you can be an atheist n tell ppl about christianity. i study philosophy n i am a christian but i tell my atheist friends the atheist position on god, morality, reality and the rest of it although i dont find it convincing. :)
Marriage should be completely the choice of religious sects. Legal contracts should be under civil partnerships then churches can decide if they validate them as marriage. Both people are happy. Pro-gay religious people will be allowed gay marriage but anti-gay ppl cannot moan that they are being trampled on! Also, why would gays want to get married in anti-gay churches anyway? Any contract should be voluntary churches should not be made to be, or stopped, having contracts with gays
Why has the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. got a picture of a flying saucer probing people's brains on it's logo? On a lighter note, the free exercise, and establishment clauses don't make much sense to me, these laws don't involve the government taking over the church, just withholding tax exemption if it refuses to follow the law, or, y'know, basic human decency; but giving an organisation a licence to break the law just for being religious would, I think be a violation of your constitution.
@8:30 into this, so the church is giving a gay employee the money to buy the gay empoyees spouse health insurance? I'm not really sure as to how this deligitimizes the churches support of a gay couples legitamacy. Another thing are they having to purchase this HC insurance on the open market or as a rider on the organizations existing insurance? Do they have the option to spend this health care money on something other than health care?
I think that the large portion of the members of belief systems in the US vote. I think that this might give exemptions to religious groups because politicians fear the political fall out.
@wayman29 Indeed. Political reality and concerns have driven much of this. The judge-made "ministerial exception" was a bit different in that it was the courts trying to save a statute from being struck down for at least being unconstitutional as applied. In any case, there was a great article in the Fordham Law Review a few years ago about the ministerial exception in which the author talked about the political concerns that often drive these exceptions. ...
(con't) @wayman29 The author advocated eliminating the ministerial exception entirely--a position that not even I hold to. She discussed why many people react poorly to the idea that secular law could compel Catholics to admit women to the priesthood while most people seem to have no problem with secular law prohibiting religious animal sacrifices or the use of drugs. ...
(con't) @wayman29 It's quite interesting. She argues--I think correctly--that the concerns are far more political than legal or constitutional.
The article is "Above the Law? The Constitutionality of the Ministerial Exemption from Antidiscrimination Law." It was in the Fordham Law Review in March 2007.
Religious exemptions are inherently discriminatory. Jews and Muslims can torture animals to death but atheists cannot. In the UK Sikhs on motorbikes do not have to wear crash helmets but Jews, Muslims and atheists must.
Something is either right or wrong. Either everybody can do it or nobody can, no matter what crazy beliefs they hold.
BTW, the helmet law is wrong, but that's another discussion.
@bdf2718 - Well, then, so is the seat belt law, the crash safety laws, OSHA laws, and various other laws.
You just don't like the helmet laws, so that's why you say they are wrong. Of course, all the people who's helmets kept their brains from splattering all over the pavement tend to disagree, but who cares about them, right? You're perfect, so you won't ever get in to an accident.
I don't ride a motorbike so those laws do not directly affect me.
I base my argument upon John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty." Helmets save lives but result in quadraplegics or paraplegics. Those cost the rest of society money, particularly in countries with sensible health care systems.
If we were to follow Mill to the logical conclusion, we would make it illegal for motorcyclists to wear helmets.
The solution the Archdiocese came to in this instance struck me as a surprisingly practical solution.
I can see problems coming up which would involve employee discrimination with salaries, but I suppose we can give the Catholics the benefit of the doubt for now. ;)
@TheTruePooka "The solution the Archdiocese came to in this instance struck me as a surprisingly practical solution."
Yep. They resolved it all on their own without a broad religious exemption. That hasn't kept them from bitching and moaning and alleging that their religious liberty has been violated. They're just still not used to being in a less privileged position than they once enjoyed.
@Shydrow Indeed. If an organization wants to do this kind of stuff, it should pay its taxes and not look for handouts to assist it in engaging in discriminatory practices. One may believe whatever one likes, but don't expect the rest of society to subsidize it.
Listening to that archbishop makes me want to go to sleep... Are all archbishops and religious talks like that? I can understand how people can be hypnotized by that crap.
I feel that they should not be entitled to tax exemption, because since they are a non-profit organization, they need to follow it just as anyone else. If you violate it, you lose it, simple as that. Religious organizations should never get "special" privileges over anyone else, they are a business just like any other non-profit organization or corporation in general.
The rules of association, i.e. "if you work with/obtain funding from the government, you have to follow government policies in all your other activities" is to be expected and is not essentially arm twisting. However, when the government represents an increasingly large part of the economy and has a huge stake in nearly every aspect of our lives, practically assuming entire industries (like charity, education, security, transportation, etc.), it is forcing compliance, in effect.
@ProfMTH@ProfMTH Yes. I agree with your position against special exemptions. I find the current scope of the 'premise' is troubling. When the government is as large, burdensome, and entrenched as it is, policies have serious ramifications that ripple through the economy like a boulder falling in a puddle. It is not whether they have the power to compel, but what aspects of our lives should we consent to that sort of authority. My answer is, in as few aspects as possible.
@ProfMTH Off hand, I can think of none. In general, I despise special exemptions written into laws to appease interest groups rather than for practical reasons. I don't care if you act for the benefit of god, society, yourself or Carl Sagan's ghost - the law should have little to nothing to say on matters which do not infringe on the equal rights of others.
@NilDesperandum1998 Yes, this demand for special rights, to be exempt from the rules by which everyone else plays, really does come off as cry-babyish.
I often hear the line, "No taxation without representation." And yet the religious institutions in this country have the most representation within our gov. without paying any taxes! But think of this, if we do tax them, does that mean our gov. is reguired to represent them? Well, they are already represented, so why not just milk them for the money they owe? Think of the money our gov. would rake in if they did pay taxes! Goodbye deficite! lol.
@ProfMTH Your voice and mannerism just make these so easy to listen to :)
You also are thurough yet clear. I dont know how you do it, but i wont rule out magic :P
Thanks, I love legal talk. Its more real world affecting than just debate and response, though I love those too as they have an effect, though less noticable.
Did that even make sense, lol. Maybe its more that we get so little of this type of discussion, so when we do, its a a nice reprieve from the same
@ProfMTH Of course, looking back, you have done a few of these types for your last few videos, just they come sparingly, and I love learning new things, anyway, blah blah, rambling, said my piece :)
5:40: Is it just me, or does the Arch Bishop there look... evil? The sunken eyes, the skull-like face, the pervy smile that plays faintly on his lips...C'mon, he even sounds evil.
And they can't have thought too deeply on the question of legal exemptions; doesn't Jesus command all His followers to obey the law? A Christian slave-girl in Rome still had to put out to her master. So there's no Biblical basis for Christianity having any special legal status whatsoever. None; it's un-Christian.
@destronia123 Well, it is interesting to hear the Archbishop talk about the great effort that was put into thinking about how to come into compliance with D.C. law. All the hours and thought. One wishes they were as exacting when it comes to things like the clerical sex abuse scandal. In fairness to Wuerl, however, he has been among the more vigilant U.S. bishops against sexual abuse.
Thanks. As I noted in the video, it seems it may well be on the road to happening already since exceptions are being significantly narrowed. After the Smith case, the legal landscape changed a lot with respect to this.
@bobster451 If they pay their taxes, they can be involved in politics as much as they like. In this regard, losing their tax-exempt status would be liberating for them. :-)
The thing that I hate is they are active politically (case in California where Prop. * was voted down, for instance) and are still given the tax free status.
Heck if they are going to go ahead and get involved in issues like removing a woman's right to her reproductive system and forcing the rest of us to live by their dogma, I say go ahead! But don't expect to not pay for it!
This should be made clear to all the houses of (so-called) worship!
@ProfMTH I have to watch the 2nd one again, am caught up doing what I do best on another vid ;) I feel bad - I was halfway through a response too, still there ready to go 8)))
@HomoCyborgZombie Here's one thing I don't get on the part of hiring "Only catholics (as an example)".
Why can't they not just fire them for not doing their job, instead of only hiring the people they like?
Honestly, it's retarded!
There might just be a muslim who would do a better job in a christian soup kitchen than the christians who sign up, but nope, it has to be a christian! How stupid is that!?
@HomoCyborgZombie Well, I was trying to avoid being too technical with all this, but the employment law exemptions don't apply to every possible job that might be church-related. I should probably put some recommended reading in the description box about this.
Why should self inflicted mental illness (intentional delusion and the rejection of science in the context of faith) be rewarded and granted a tax exempt status? I think religion is a hobby and as a hobby it should not be granted tax exempt status. As I understand Christianity there should be no need for tax exempt status anyway as you are not supposed to acquire wealth as taught by Christ.
If all religions followed their teachings as a life style and not a hobby the tax exempt status is void.
@yourmomdidsayyourean I agree with your point, but I think it's important to note that it's not really a self-inflicted mental illness, but something that must be taught by family or society. That is why I think it's so important to pressure parents and schools (religious and secular) to admit that they don't know everything, can't know everything, and that not knowing isn't some heinous sin. We don't need to make stuff up just so we have an answer for the questions children have.
@TheWeizOne If it is taught to children it is child abuse, as children do not have an idea of self or of the world and are subject to learning from authority. To teach any child one point of view about a subjective topic is abusive. So I am not talking about children in this context (I was raised Catholic) however when I became an adult I had a choice to make I chose reality, not magic However there are adults who come to X when they are older and cherry pick ideas that make sense to them "SIMI"
@cosmicjackpot I believed that they 1st Amendment and freedom of conscience required exemptions in some cases. I still do, only as I'm reconsidering my position I'm concluding that the exemptions should be FAR fewer and much narrower in scope.
What struck me was the Archbishop saying they'd "considered all of the moral aspects [...]", but it is clear they only considered their view of moral aspects, not "all" of them by any stretch of the imagination. That is one thing I find consistent in all arguments about religion, is that essentially that they do it their way and the don't care who it hurts. Contrasted with secular organizations and US government programs that do have to consider how they affect "all" people and moral aspects.
Re ArchB Wuerl How is it that a religious institution determines what is moral or what is justice for the public? Isn't that what the public should do?
They should not impress that opinion on the public, as their exemption would do.
Your recent vids have presented issues from a legal framework (Lemon Test, Religious Exemptions, etc.) rather than a philosophical framework. For those of us who have pondered the wooly divide between ethics and law, I wonder if you might have some thoughts or conclusions to share. Great vids, as always! Much appreciated.
I'm Catholic but strongly disagree with the Church on this one. It is NOT recognizing same sex marriage. It is providing benefits to your employees. Stop the whining about the government forcing you to do something that is against your moral principles. You would rather deny services to the people who need your assistance and your own employees. I'm not just jumping on Catholics...other religions are involved in this crap. I also think it's time to revoke tax exempt status on ALL religions.
Pauly69s 6 days ago
I think that much of the problem when it comes to this originate from the fact that "religious freedom" is an INDIVIDUAL right. That means that religious freedom forbids you the” right” to impose your religion or your views on ANYONE else (including your children). The problem is accumulated by people allowing certain things because of "accepted traditions".
E.g. take circumcision; it is NOT allowed for a religious parent to do this to their daughter but it's legal to do to the son.
Draugh39 3 weeks ago
religion should NOT have "special rights"...they all scream gays are asking for special rights well they do too. In being a child protection social worker in WY the religious leaders do NOT have to report abuse of any kind...that is butll shit...if you leave the law open for what you talked about then you leave it open for all...Discrimination is not part of our Constitution....I would diagree with you!
62wyo 1 month ago
So, presumably the catholic charities didn't dive benefits to people who had had affairs or made graven images either.
St00sh13 1 month ago
@St00sh13 I wouldn't know. :-)
ProfMTH 1 month ago
That bishop guy looks and sounds incredibly evil.
ScissorHand26 1 year ago
In 1983 I worked in an art gallery in Florida. Six months into my employment there the owner asked me what church I went to. When I told him that I did not belong to any church. Shocked, he promptly fired me. He said that people who did not attend church regularly were not moral people and therefore prone to stealing, dishonesty and laziness. I attempted to sue but could not find an attorney who would take my case. They said that Florida law did not protect me.
shatros 1 year ago
@shatros It was explained to me by one attorney that Florida did not have an anti discrimination law in regards to religion and that small business owners could discriminate any way they wanted if they had a very small number of employees. It seems that they did not think federal law protected me either. I imagine that things have changed since then but I also imagine that the statute of limitations has probably run out on this and that they are protected against post facto laws.
shatros 1 year ago
@shatros Still, I can't help wondering if I was not also the victim of a good ole boys network and that pretty much none of the attorneys wanted to take my case because they disagreed with my stance on religion. So I wonder, can an attorney refuse to take a case because they disagree with the client's religious beliefs or lack thereof? Can one force an attorney to take their case? Doctors are exempt from performing abortions if they don't want to so perhaps attorneys can likewise refuse.
shatros 1 year ago
@shatros A criminal is entitled to the services of an attorney to defend their legal rights. Are not law abiding citizens entitled to legal representation when their rights are violated? I know the constitution does not specifically exply such but does it imply as much in for example the equal protection clause?
shatros 1 year ago
I wanna fuck you, Jesus style!!!
Val3y 1 year ago
It shouldn't matter if another person doesn't agree w/ what u think-if they say they believe differently, whether with or wothout religion they should have the decision to go against. Just like vaccines-if you think its okay and you get yoru child vaccinated then you shouldn't care if someone else doesn't or believes its wrong or whatever-i mean after all they say its safe (even though you sign a paper that states you basically can't sue if you child gets sick, illness and "in rare cases" death
AlishasShow 1 year ago
@AlishasShow I'm not really getting how this is related to what is discussed in the video.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@AlishasShow as for vaccinations, you need to learn about "herd immunity". You should care that ALL children get vaccinated.
tonkashouse 1 year ago
No set of beliefs should be considered more than any other, just because a lot of people share them, and / or it gets classed as a religion. All are equally valid, but likewise, equally personal, and should generate extra no standing in terms of laws, politics, education, and so forth.
One should be allowed any beliefs they wish, and should fully be allowed to practice them, UNTIL the point where they negatively affect another person, and should there be prevented by law.
theretard666 1 year ago
No amount of human stupidity/bias is extraordinary when you take into consideration we are all monkeys.
bulbinking 1 year ago
Why would you discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. Don't tell me beliefs. If I believed all Black people were apes that gives me no right to exclude them. If your religion excludes a group of people because of their race or sexual orientation then you need to be skeptical.
SManEasy 1 year ago
even tho i admit to mostly negative feelings about religious institutions, i always felt exemptions should be allowed, just as a kind of courtesy to our fellow citizens. it seems like the more decent way to be. on the other hand, why cant they just comply with anti-discrimination laws and have a kind of disclaimer that says "We dont agree with this law, but we are being compelled to follow it against our wills." Just like everyone else in the world.
bobbyb826 1 year ago
@bobbyb826 To be clear, my analysis of this has nothing to do with negative feelings about religious institutions. Rather, I no longer see any reason why, in the main, religious institutions should be exempt from neutral laws of general applicability. It's worth nothing that today the Supreme Court agreed with me in the Christian Legal Society case, noting that the CLS was not seeking parity with other student groups, but rather "a preferential exemption" to which it is not entitled.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH its always been clear to me ur arguements arent based on any negative feelings or hostility, i was just admitting that mine are.
bobbyb826 1 year ago
@bobbyb826 Gotcha.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
ProfMTH,
You described yourself in the video as previously being an "advocate of robust religious exemptions from certain laws" and describe very well why you are reconsidering that position, but I quickly found myself wondering why you held that view in the first place. Is that something you've discussed in a previous video?
PraktikoolSinik 1 year ago
@PraktikoolSinik No, it's not. It got lost in the editing. I thought the First Amendment's religion clauses and the principle of freedom of conscience required such exemptions. Sorry for the lack of clarity on that.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
. . . the government, then they don't have to deal with the government. The government of the US was meant to peotect religions by not getting involved in their workings and by not allowing those religions to get involved in the governments workings. If we make exceptions for one religion because they feel like their right to hate people for no good reason is being stifled by their inability to impose those values on other peole who don't share their beilefs, well that's too bad for them.
Snipe4261 1 year ago
Laws are meant to protect peoples rights. If a religion does not have to follow certain laws then they have thte right (apparently) to violate other peoples rights. Our goverment is, and always has been, by it's very design secular. This is to protect the religious beliefs of ALL people from one another. If a religion wants to be involved in some way with the government then they should have to abide by this secularist policy. If they don't want to abide by secular rules when dealing whith . . .
Snipe4261 1 year ago 2
The Constitution grants us freedom of religious beliefs.
But, I see any religious organization, that can choose to hire who they want based on that person's religious beliefs, as a "private club" that can discriminate against others based on their religious beliefs.
This club might as well put out a sign "NO JEWS" or "NO MUSLIMS."
Is that NOT what the Civil Rights Movement fought?
It seems the time is coming to stop these private religious club's ability to circumvent the laws..
gjsterp 1 year ago
@gjsterp I'm certainly in favor of stopping most--almost all--exemptions for religious organizations from neutral, generally applicable laws. Among the few that I would allow is the one you mention here, i.e., allowing a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring. Eliminating that exemption would entangle the government in internal religious affairs, which creates an Establishment Clause problem.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"@MisterDoctorE What makes you say the Archbishop is gay?"
I say he is gay.. the way talks, the way he moves... it's shining through :)
MisterDoctorE 1 year ago
No, religions should not have any special rights, nor any special exemptions from the laws that would apply to any other institution.
NONE!
DeSwiss 1 year ago
So....I must support religious groups moneywise no matter my beliefs. Catholic Charities takes tax mony from United way. Religion is stupid.
jerrydoubleu 1 year ago
Oh no! They might have redefine the word 'spouse' and recognize same sex marriage as legit? The nerve! The audacity!
The church cannot support the redefinition of marriage? Cannot or will not?
I dislike his choice of words.
Snoot501 1 year ago
spouse
1. either member of a married pair in relation to the other; one's husband or wife.
I hate that christian groups think they created marriage, even despite the fact that marriage was around waaaay before. Not to mention in other non-christian countries...
raymitch7410 1 year ago
Comment removed
MisterDoctorE 1 year ago
@MisterDoctorE What makes you say the Archbishop is gay?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@GabrielFane Its like saying 'whats a christian?' From my friends most of them are 'there might be a god but i dont think there is', no evidence there is a God - scientific naturalism. some are saying god cannot exist because of evil in the world or because if God is conscious then he must be corruptible so cannot be perfect so cannot be God. Some are willing to say there is a non-physical cause to the universe but wont call it God. Atheism in its purest sense is the belief that there is no God.
moomin468 1 year ago
@moomin468
Wrong. Atheism is a negation of theism, not a mutually-exclusive/positive affirmation.
In the interest of clarity, it can also be reasonably taken to negate beliefs in other types of deities.
Whuppee 1 year ago 6
@Whuppee Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Your definition is too broad as it encompasses agnosticism too. The claim that there is no God is a positive affirmation! You are not 'atheist' about 1 particular god. Atheism is that there are NO gods which means none what so ever. I don't believe in Allah but I do in Yarweh but I am not an Atheist in any meaning of the word because I still believe in a God just not that God. There being no God and there being a God is clearly different!
moomin468 1 year ago
@moomin468
The 'a' in atheism means 'without'. Not, for example, 'I hold theism to be false'. Such would be compatible with atheism, of course, for lack of mutual exclusion.
Yes, my definition can include agnosticism, again for lack of mutual exclusivity. A/theism goes to belief; a/gnosticism goes to knowledge. I lack knowledge, and refrain from predicating belief on ignorance: an agnostic atheist.
Whuppee 1 year ago 2
@moomin468
I can (and do) hold/present positive affirmations/cases; but they, if compatible with atheism, are additions nonetheless, not representative of atheism in and of itself.
Whuppee 1 year ago 2
Aaaaah, you're questions make too much sense!
(and enough with the pics of the cute couples because they're so cuuuuuute!)
ThorGoLucky 1 year ago
Great video.
LordNapalm 1 year ago
@LordNapalm Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Is there anyone from the upper echelons of the Catholic Church that doesn't look like a relative of Emperor Palpatine?
HecticSkeptic 1 year ago 11
@HecticSkeptic LOL!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
entirely unrelated to the content, but out of the corner of my eye i thought i read "Adolf Hitler" in the Related Videos box, however due to the absolute berating of that name into world history, "Adam Huttler" was easily misread until i looked at it :)
Neeboopsh 1 year ago
"Catholic Charities - Helping those who need it*
*Conditions may apply"
And here I was thinking that charity was altruistic and for that to be true it must be unconditional...silly me, I guess...
jjmblue7 1 year ago
I see nothing wrong with these exemptions.
craigdb84 1 year ago
If they abolished religious exemptions don't you think every amish would be in jail
jamminjago 1 year ago
I'm assuming that the charities got money from the city due to "faith based initiatives." I question whether or not they should get money from any governmental body for their charities. Anyway, so, they're rather cut out benefits for even the hetero couples, than allow gays to have these benefits. How Christian of them.
ChuckyJesus666 1 year ago
My perspective is that there are pragmatic reasons for religious exemptions. I think that when people have a sense of a sacred obligation, it is not a reasonable strategy to attempt to change their mind through the force of law. It is, however, reasonable to limit the sphere of these exemptions and to not require those who do not accept certain religious belief to support them directly or indirectly.
RationalRat 1 year ago
Religion is a business and should be treated as such.
MsWanderer1 1 year ago 2
They quite often want to have their cake and eat is too, don't they?
GoatOfTheMountains 1 year ago
@GoatOfTheMountains They do indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I'm curious about sec 503 [I belive it is, anyway] that grants religious institutions tax-exept status...Where did that come from, and what was the reasoning?
gustjorodedheo 1 year ago
@gustjorodedheo Since this question has come up so consistently in comments, I'm going to do a video about the origins of and rationale for the religious tax exemption.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I wish the Founding Fathers had written "religion is bullshit get over it" in the establishment clause
Craigipedia 1 year ago
This seems to be a relatively easy call...by providing religious exemptions, the law is, in essence "establishing" that religion, giving it special status.
It's Orwellian double-speak to assert otherwise.
middlekk 1 year ago
No special rights for any group! When I was "right" I thought the gay-right movement was a ploy for special rights, which, in a way, has helped me to begin my journey to where my political and social morality points today. Special recognition in the face of a wrong is not pleading for special rights, but more a plea to be recognized as an equally valuable human in the face of the law. While churches already enjoy certain special treatments, they think they are still "special" we need equality...
barebowarchery 1 year ago
Just as a side note here, the very Catholic, Washigton D. C.-based Georgetown University offers benefits to same-sex spouses (although we pay dearly for them). I happen to be a recipient of these benefits, as my partner has worked diligently for the university for many years, and I am extremely grateful regardless of the reason they are offering them. They have yet to notice the "Come as little children" I Sharpied under the picture of poop benedict.
FractalHelix777 1 year ago
@FractalHelix777 How interesting. I didn't know Georgetown offered health benefits to same-sex spouses and partners. The Jesuits are often far more enlightened on this issue than so many of their coreligionists.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I graduated from Georgetown in the Class of '95, and during my time as a student there, I happened to join the LGBT student group, which did receive campus funding, mainly due, I've inferred, to a lawsuit filed in the late 80's. I'm not entirely surprised that GU now offers spousal benefits to same-sex married couples, mainly because they've been burned before.
TimCubUAkbar 1 year ago
@FractalHelix777 This makes me even more proud to be attending Georgetown in 3 three months... my mom's response when I got accepted was "Craig, you know that's a catholic school right?"... things like this are the reason I'm not at all worried about it
Craigipedia 1 year ago
@Craigipedia "...my mom's response when I got accepted was 'Craig, you know that's a catholic school right?'"
A conservative Catholic acquaintance of mine used to say with great disdain, "Georgetown isn't a Catholic university, it's a Jesuit university." (Needless to say, he didn't much like the Jesuits.) In light of that, I chuckle a bit whenever I see Fordham identifying itself as "The Jesuit University of New York.."
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH haha, that was my response "whoa lady, they are Jesuits"
Craigipedia 1 year ago
Oh, I am so non-repentant...
FractalHelix777 1 year ago
I still don't think the catholic church should do business with DC. One of their jobs and vital functions are to marry/funerals etc. but they won't do that for homosexuals. Isn't that discrimination?
Having said that, I am on the fence with this subject too. I think I side on the idea that religion shouldn't influence politics, and "no taxation without representation" mindset applies. We both know that religion does influence, but the idea should be strengthened for less influence not more.
DblOSmith 1 year ago
The CLS in your vid did exactly what the Christian Union did at my old University. They refused to "accept" gay students (that weren't repentant, we assume) and so were denied affiliation with the overall Students Union due to non-compliance with the equality bill etc.
Needless to say, there have been no lawsuits and counter claims or if there have been then the CU hasn't got anywhere. That's the difference between UK & US I suppose. It's one of the top Unis in the UK as well.
Widgetas 1 year ago
With regards to the Archbishop - Why do the CHARITIES need to consider "how to teach in the light of these changes"?
Unless the word "charity" means something different over here. Yay for Christian charity.
Widgetas 1 year ago
ps - Above comment is not really in the context of this video. Just a little brain fart :)
Widgetas 1 year ago
Wow, that Wuerl character is like a caricature of an archbishop. Scary guy.
Nocturnuz 1 year ago
1:12. As a general statement, I don't think they should, I think it gives religion a level of respect it is not due. The only respect I think religion deserves is common courtesy in the form of not belittling their beliefs for petty amusement. EVERYTHING about religion must be fair game and open to fair scrutiny and critical evaluation, otherwise religion becomes a dangerous thing, a shield which people with "ill intent" can use to operate and hide behind.
Wolfau5 1 year ago
Gays will probably get their apology from the catholic church in 2460 (Galileo had to wait 450 years for his, so this is a rough estimate)
Raptor302 1 year ago
The Catholic Church should just go away completely, that would solve the problem.
13shadowwolf 1 year ago
This is a no-brainer to me. There should be no special privileges whatsoever extended to religious organizations. I don't think the United States government should have any business interacting with religious organizations beyond putting the fires out when their churches go up, arresting pederast clerics or sending them letters reminding them to pay taxes.
May I have a picture of the hot redhead at 3:42? I...had a moment when I saw her.
fkerpants 1 year ago
@fkerpants "I...had a moment when I saw her."
LOL!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Dude, you have no idea. That doesn't happen to me either. Imagine, Hugh Jackman, Keanu Reeves, and the dude that did the Lady Gaga song you liked so much rolled into one. It sucks being a visual male sometimes.
Oh, great vid, Prof.
fkerpants 1 year ago
@fkerpants "It sucks being a visual male sometimes."
Tell me about it! It definitely can have its challenges.
"the dude that did the Lady Gaga song you liked so much"
I had to think about that for a second and then it hit me: Chris Daughtry. Now *that* is a beautiful man.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH lol oh prof, when I read messages like this it makes me wonder how I didn't know you were gay... gaga and chris daughtry
Craigipedia 1 year ago
Whenever I hear of "having to redefine marriage", especially with regard to Catholics, I think of how many instances in which a Catholic is required by law to recognize the marriage of someone who was divorced previously.
The Catholic Church is picky about marriages, but they don't complain as loudly about heterosexual Protestant marriages as they do about homosexual marriages such as the Unitarians perform.
MoriarFake2 1 year ago
@MoriarFake2 Sorry, I know this was long ago. :) I think their views on this may have made my father abandon the church. He wasn't very religious anyways, but I went to a Catholic school so going to church got you a discount on tuition. They told him something about how I should not be considered as existing since I was from a divorced marriage. Something absurd. He had to do something to rectify it and as revenge did it to scam the church for the tuition and left when I was done with school.
Reip187 6 months ago
how does a sex deprived priest talk about marriage? how do these people not realize what duplicitous fools they are?
yogurtking 1 year ago
I think it should be illegal for public money (taxes) to be given to private schools. It is destroying public schools. And for religious organisations to receive, buy, sell, donate property/goods without paying the taxes that everyone else has to no matter where that money goes to.
All money should be clearly traceable - to members of that religion and government at the very least if not to all people.
I am all for companies having corporate secrets. But this is fairy tale selling.
O2BSoLucky 1 year ago
So far I would agree with you. However, I'm careful to say that there isn't EVER a time where religious institutions shouldn't be exempt. I think tax exemptions, for the most part, should be upheld at least at the level of other non profit organizations. (I realize there are different degrees of non profit)
However, the marriage thing really does get me. I think we should have two levels of marriage, government and marriage. Neither of which recognize each other and are sovereign in themselves.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 religious groups are already free to do that. the issue is separating the religious laws from the government
OjohYou 1 year ago
@OjohYou
Exactly. This is exactly what needs to be done. Especially in terms of marriage. It isn't just about PREFORMING, but also RECOGNIZING. For example, the government should recognize gay marriage, but a Church is not obligated to do so.
It isn't a matter of discrimination, it is a matter of definition. I don't see why all private organizations should have to accept definitions made by the government. Also, I don't see why the government should be enforcing equality in the private sector
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@GrudgyDiablo "religious institutions should be combated and removed from society all together !"
LOL. Well, that goes way farther than anything I'm advocating. Moreover, such an action would be blatanly illegal. But everyone is entitled to an opinion. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
The Catholic church considered all the moral aspects? They chose to deny all married couples insurance because they did not want to insure same sex married couples the benefits. They find it moral to deprive people of insurance. They must have saved a bundle making that "moral" decision. It is obvious to me that government should never give religion a dime. These services can be provided by non-religious groups.
MsMommaRose 1 year ago
ProfMTH: You should be on the Supreme Court.
Dwicker64 1 year ago 2
@Dwicker64 Nah. I'd get bored and probably be unduly grumpy towards several of the other justices. ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
...non-repentant ones... the repentant ones are probably a big source of untaxed income!
Luv the animated ProfMTH:)
angryislander56 1 year ago
@angryislander56 Thank you, dahlink. ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Given religious beliefs are just that, beliefs, it seems obvious that their ideas should not receive special treatment especially if they are contradictory to those of what the government promises and secular society in general. The religious community's assault on basic human rights should not be tolerated.
BananerBreadMan 1 year ago
So DC city employees couldn't use Catholic hospitals-because money from city government would be flowing into a Catholic organization? That's doing business right? Really? It sounds like a backdoor way to force Catholics to change their teachings.
Brambledemon 1 year ago
@Brambledemon "So DC city employees couldn't use Catholic hospitals-because money from city government would be flowing into a Catholic organization?"
Huh?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH If the Catholic Church had refused to change their policies in DC and refused to fund same sex partners health benefits that for individuals that work for a catholic charity, D.C. employees would not be able to go to Catholic Hospitals? Recieving heath care at a catholic charity/hospital involves a transfer of money from the city to the catholic charity. That's doing business. In my area, I think two of the largest hospitals are run by the catholic church.
Brambledemon 1 year ago
obvs only christians should become priests! Atheists should not be allowed and the reasons are obvious. If religion is directly involved in the job at hand like being ordained or married then religious institutions can choose themselves what to do as a free institution in an open and free society
moomin468 1 year ago
@moomin468
There are plenty of catholic priests who are also atheists.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude Yeah I heard Dan Dennett talk about this and it is very sad because they have a community and don't want to let people down by revealing they are atheist. I suppose a certain intellectual honesty is needed and if you don't believe God exists or Jesus is the Son of God then they should not preach it. When they joined I assume they had some faith. Churches should filter out atheist clergy but they don't always for good and bad reasons.
moomin468 1 year ago
@moomin468
So you're saying you have to believe the fantasy to be able to teach the fantasy to others? Why? I don't believe in santa clause but I can still teach people about him.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude a preist does more than just teach though! but sure you can be an atheist n tell ppl about christianity. i study philosophy n i am a christian but i tell my atheist friends the atheist position on god, morality, reality and the rest of it although i dont find it convincing. :)
moomin468 1 year ago
Marriage should be completely the choice of religious sects. Legal contracts should be under civil partnerships then churches can decide if they validate them as marriage. Both people are happy. Pro-gay religious people will be allowed gay marriage but anti-gay ppl cannot moan that they are being trampled on! Also, why would gays want to get married in anti-gay churches anyway? Any contract should be voluntary churches should not be made to be, or stopped, having contracts with gays
moomin468 1 year ago
2 part-er from The Prof!!! Epic! :D
Brascofarian 1 year ago 2
@Brascofarian "2 part-er from The Prof!!! Epic! :D "
lol Thanks a lot! The two-parters don't always attract a lot of enthusiasm.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Why has the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. got a picture of a flying saucer probing people's brains on it's logo? On a lighter note, the free exercise, and establishment clauses don't make much sense to me, these laws don't involve the government taking over the church, just withholding tax exemption if it refuses to follow the law, or, y'know, basic human decency; but giving an organisation a licence to break the law just for being religious would, I think be a violation of your constitution.
Aletheophile 1 year ago
@Aletheophile I agree.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
That 'Christianity vs Tolerance' case is long overdue...
rationalmuscle 1 year ago 2
@rationalmuscle Indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@8:30 into this, so the church is giving a gay employee the money to buy the gay empoyees spouse health insurance? I'm not really sure as to how this deligitimizes the churches support of a gay couples legitamacy. Another thing are they having to purchase this HC insurance on the open market or as a rider on the organizations existing insurance? Do they have the option to spend this health care money on something other than health care?
InScienceITrust 1 year ago
I think that the large portion of the members of belief systems in the US vote. I think that this might give exemptions to religious groups because politicians fear the political fall out.
wayman29 1 year ago
@wayman29 Indeed. Political reality and concerns have driven much of this. The judge-made "ministerial exception" was a bit different in that it was the courts trying to save a statute from being struck down for at least being unconstitutional as applied. In any case, there was a great article in the Fordham Law Review a few years ago about the ministerial exception in which the author talked about the political concerns that often drive these exceptions. ...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @wayman29 The author advocated eliminating the ministerial exception entirely--a position that not even I hold to. She discussed why many people react poorly to the idea that secular law could compel Catholics to admit women to the priesthood while most people seem to have no problem with secular law prohibiting religious animal sacrifices or the use of drugs. ...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @wayman29 It's quite interesting. She argues--I think correctly--that the concerns are far more political than legal or constitutional.
The article is "Above the Law? The Constitutionality of the Ministerial Exemption from Antidiscrimination Law." It was in the Fordham Law Review in March 2007.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Religions should not be exempt from anything. Neither law or taxes.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
Religious exemptions are inherently discriminatory. Jews and Muslims can torture animals to death but atheists cannot. In the UK Sikhs on motorbikes do not have to wear crash helmets but Jews, Muslims and atheists must.
Something is either right or wrong. Either everybody can do it or nobody can, no matter what crazy beliefs they hold.
BTW, the helmet law is wrong, but that's another discussion.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718 - Well, then, so is the seat belt law, the crash safety laws, OSHA laws, and various other laws.
You just don't like the helmet laws, so that's why you say they are wrong. Of course, all the people who's helmets kept their brains from splattering all over the pavement tend to disagree, but who cares about them, right? You're perfect, so you won't ever get in to an accident.
LeksServices 1 year ago
@LeksServices
I don't ride a motorbike so those laws do not directly affect me.
I base my argument upon John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty." Helmets save lives but result in quadraplegics or paraplegics. Those cost the rest of society money, particularly in countries with sensible health care systems.
If we were to follow Mill to the logical conclusion, we would make it illegal for motorcyclists to wear helmets.
bdf2718 1 year ago
Equality rights have always been more important to me then religious freedoms. Religion should never trump equality.
alexma63 1 year ago
The solution the Archdiocese came to in this instance struck me as a surprisingly practical solution.
I can see problems coming up which would involve employee discrimination with salaries, but I suppose we can give the Catholics the benefit of the doubt for now. ;)
TheTruePooka 1 year ago
@TheTruePooka "The solution the Archdiocese came to in this instance struck me as a surprisingly practical solution."
Yep. They resolved it all on their own without a broad religious exemption. That hasn't kept them from bitching and moaning and alleging that their religious liberty has been violated. They're just still not used to being in a less privileged position than they once enjoyed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@Shydrow Indeed. If an organization wants to do this kind of stuff, it should pay its taxes and not look for handouts to assist it in engaging in discriminatory practices. One may believe whatever one likes, but don't expect the rest of society to subsidize it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Listening to that archbishop makes me want to go to sleep... Are all archbishops and religious talks like that? I can understand how people can be hypnotized by that crap.
IdleGod 1 year ago
I feel that they should not be entitled to tax exemption, because since they are a non-profit organization, they need to follow it just as anyone else. If you violate it, you lose it, simple as that. Religious organizations should never get "special" privileges over anyone else, they are a business just like any other non-profit organization or corporation in general.
alchron 1 year ago
The rules of association, i.e. "if you work with/obtain funding from the government, you have to follow government policies in all your other activities" is to be expected and is not essentially arm twisting. However, when the government represents an increasingly large part of the economy and has a huge stake in nearly every aspect of our lives, practically assuming entire industries (like charity, education, security, transportation, etc.), it is forcing compliance, in effect.
furtim1 1 year ago
@furtim1 Government has always had the power to compel compliance. That's one of the things these exemptions were premised on.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH @ProfMTH Yes. I agree with your position against special exemptions. I find the current scope of the 'premise' is troubling. When the government is as large, burdensome, and entrenched as it is, policies have serious ramifications that ripple through the economy like a boulder falling in a puddle. It is not whether they have the power to compel, but what aspects of our lives should we consent to that sort of authority. My answer is, in as few aspects as possible.
furtim1 1 year ago
@furtim1 So what would you allow with respect to religious exemptions from the law?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Off hand, I can think of none. In general, I despise special exemptions written into laws to appease interest groups rather than for practical reasons. I don't care if you act for the benefit of god, society, yourself or Carl Sagan's ghost - the law should have little to nothing to say on matters which do not infringe on the equal rights of others.
furtim1 1 year ago
@furtim1 I agree completely!
shelly8510 1 year ago
@NilDesperandum1998 Yes, this demand for special rights, to be exempt from the rules by which everyone else plays, really does come off as cry-babyish.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I often hear the line, "No taxation without representation." And yet the religious institutions in this country have the most representation within our gov. without paying any taxes! But think of this, if we do tax them, does that mean our gov. is reguired to represent them? Well, they are already represented, so why not just milk them for the money they owe? Think of the money our gov. would rake in if they did pay taxes! Goodbye deficite! lol.
Zlibservacratican 1 year ago
@Zlibservacratican Ah I have it! "No representation without taxation!"
Zlibservacratican 1 year ago
@Zlibservacratican "Think of the money our gov. would rake in if they did pay taxes!"
Indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
you are really good at dumbing things down for an idiot like me [applause]
:D I always love your vids <3
defect530 1 year ago
@defect530 LOL. Not dumbed down, but I'm glad you found the explanation to be clear. ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Your voice and mannerism just make these so easy to listen to :)
You also are thurough yet clear. I dont know how you do it, but i wont rule out magic :P
Thanks, I love legal talk. Its more real world affecting than just debate and response, though I love those too as they have an effect, though less noticable.
Did that even make sense, lol. Maybe its more that we get so little of this type of discussion, so when we do, its a a nice reprieve from the same
waltermh111 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Of course, looking back, you have done a few of these types for your last few videos, just they come sparingly, and I love learning new things, anyway, blah blah, rambling, said my piece :)
waltermh111 1 year ago
@waltermh111 "You also are thorough yet clear. I dont know how you do it, but i wont rule out magic :p"
LOL.
Thanks for the nice words and the laugh. :-) I'm glad you're enjoying these videos.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@TheRamenAvenger Well, I don't know about "genius," but I appreciate the very nice words and am glad you like the video. Thanks! :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
5:40: Is it just me, or does the Arch Bishop there look... evil? The sunken eyes, the skull-like face, the pervy smile that plays faintly on his lips...C'mon, he even sounds evil.
And they can't have thought too deeply on the question of legal exemptions; doesn't Jesus command all His followers to obey the law? A Christian slave-girl in Rome still had to put out to her master. So there's no Biblical basis for Christianity having any special legal status whatsoever. None; it's un-Christian.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
@JCLeSinge "...there's no Biblical basis for Christianity having any special legal status whatsoever."
Indeed. Quite the opposite.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
your videos are so well made. thank you.
toolegit2quittttt 1 year ago
@toolegit2quittttt Thanks a lot. Nice of you to say. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Q: What's creepier than a Catholic priest?
A: A Catholic priest who talks like NephilimFree.
SSJ3Ulcer 1 year ago
LOL! The Catholic Church is all for protecting gay priests who abuse underage boys, but they can't sanction same-sex marriage. Damn the hypocrisy!
destronia123 1 year ago
@destronia123 Well, it is interesting to hear the Archbishop talk about the great effort that was put into thinking about how to come into compliance with D.C. law. All the hours and thought. One wishes they were as exacting when it comes to things like the clerical sex abuse scandal. In fairness to Wuerl, however, he has been among the more vigilant U.S. bishops against sexual abuse.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@VitaVeritasVictoria "But we all know that's not going to happen. Great video!"
Thanks. As I noted in the video, it seems it may well be on the road to happening already since exceptions are being significantly narrowed. After the Smith case, the legal landscape changed a lot with respect to this.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@quinnmcguee Right. And they want the law school to give them money to help them do it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Revoke the tax free status of all religious organization, especially those that become active in politics, like the Catholics and Mormons.
bobster451 1 year ago
@bobster451 If they pay their taxes, they can be involved in politics as much as they like. In this regard, losing their tax-exempt status would be liberating for them. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Maybe that is the case.
The thing that I hate is they are active politically (case in California where Prop. * was voted down, for instance) and are still given the tax free status.
Heck if they are going to go ahead and get involved in issues like removing a woman's right to her reproductive system and forcing the rest of us to live by their dogma, I say go ahead! But don't expect to not pay for it!
This should be made clear to all the houses of (so-called) worship!
bobster451 1 year ago
@bobster451 Oops That was Proposition 8, please excuse my typo!
bobster451 1 year ago
Prof
What a fantastic presentation. On to pt2 8))
L☮♥E
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist Hey, thanks a lot!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I have to watch the 2nd one again, am caught up doing what I do best on another vid ;) I feel bad - I was halfway through a response too, still there ready to go 8)))
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
A man gave herpes to children after cutting up their dicks and sucking up some of the meat, and spitting it out. Some died.
Why wasn't he charged?
Rabbi doing some circumcision. He was exercising his religious freedom.
No religious exemptions. It was fucking stupid!
HomoCyborgZombie 1 year ago
@HomoCyborgZombie Here's one thing I don't get on the part of hiring "Only catholics (as an example)".
Why can't they not just fire them for not doing their job, instead of only hiring the people they like?
Honestly, it's retarded!
There might just be a muslim who would do a better job in a christian soup kitchen than the christians who sign up, but nope, it has to be a christian! How stupid is that!?
HomoCyborgZombie 1 year ago
@HomoCyborgZombie Well, I was trying to avoid being too technical with all this, but the employment law exemptions don't apply to every possible job that might be church-related. I should probably put some recommended reading in the description box about this.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Why should self inflicted mental illness (intentional delusion and the rejection of science in the context of faith) be rewarded and granted a tax exempt status? I think religion is a hobby and as a hobby it should not be granted tax exempt status. As I understand Christianity there should be no need for tax exempt status anyway as you are not supposed to acquire wealth as taught by Christ.
If all religions followed their teachings as a life style and not a hobby the tax exempt status is void.
yourmomdidsayyourean 1 year ago
@yourmomdidsayyourean I agree with your point, but I think it's important to note that it's not really a self-inflicted mental illness, but something that must be taught by family or society. That is why I think it's so important to pressure parents and schools (religious and secular) to admit that they don't know everything, can't know everything, and that not knowing isn't some heinous sin. We don't need to make stuff up just so we have an answer for the questions children have.
TheWeizOne 1 year ago
@TheWeizOne If it is taught to children it is child abuse, as children do not have an idea of self or of the world and are subject to learning from authority. To teach any child one point of view about a subjective topic is abusive. So I am not talking about children in this context (I was raised Catholic) however when I became an adult I had a choice to make I chose reality, not magic However there are adults who come to X when they are older and cherry pick ideas that make sense to them "SIMI"
yourmomdidsayyourean 1 year ago
I have to wonder why you were ever an advocate of religious exemptions (0:48).
cosmicjackpot 1 year ago
@cosmicjackpot I believed that they 1st Amendment and freedom of conscience required exemptions in some cases. I still do, only as I'm reconsidering my position I'm concluding that the exemptions should be FAR fewer and much narrower in scope.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
What struck me was the Archbishop saying they'd "considered all of the moral aspects [...]", but it is clear they only considered their view of moral aspects, not "all" of them by any stretch of the imagination. That is one thing I find consistent in all arguments about religion, is that essentially that they do it their way and the don't care who it hurts. Contrasted with secular organizations and US government programs that do have to consider how they affect "all" people and moral aspects.
TheWeizOne 1 year ago
Re ArchB Wuerl How is it that a religious institution determines what is moral or what is justice for the public? Isn't that what the public should do?
They should not impress that opinion on the public, as their exemption would do.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Hello ProfMTH,
Your recent vids have presented issues from a legal framework (Lemon Test, Religious Exemptions, etc.) rather than a philosophical framework. For those of us who have pondered the wooly divide between ethics and law, I wonder if you might have some thoughts or conclusions to share. Great vids, as always! Much appreciated.
h0tsex0r 1 year ago