![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 43. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 15:47:52
In an attempt to institute constitutionalized hatred, bigotry and intolerance, NH Lawmakers are now trying to pass a constitutional ammendment specifically designed to prohibit marriages by other than conventional heterosexual couples.
The religious right is working to usurp every right that has been gained to release the country from their oppression and they are fighting for all they are worth to prevent any attempts at liberty from those they deem unrighteous.
Constantly working to legislate the laws of their religion upon the land, those who are not christian heterosexuals will be left with no freedom of religion or civil liberties unless we make our voices heard even louder.
I guess that for some of us, this means outing ourselves as non-heterosexual, or non-christian. In closeting ourselves though, aren't we feeding into the idea that what we are doing, who we are, or how we live is wrong?
Some of us are compelled to do so because of fear of losing our children in a custody battle, fear that our families will disown or deny an inheritance, or other such penalties.
What's really at stake though?
. Gay individuals can legally be denied visitation of their partners in hospital.
. Gay couples can legally be prohibited from sharing the same hotel room in many states.
. A gay person can lose custody of their legally adopted child when their partner dies.
. It is legal to deny housing to a gay person merely because of their sexual orientation.
. A person may lose custody of their children for practicing any sort of paganism.
. People can be dismissed from their positions teaching or caring for children if it becomes known that they are pagan or gay.
. Gay people cannot serve openly in the military.
. President Bush has publicly stated that he does not like the idea of witches (pagans) in the military, and that they should not have their own chaplains.
. If you die, and you're openly gay, and the least bit public, you'll likely have members of the WBC picketing your funeral.
All of the above is legal. Maybe not in every state, but in many.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, the right claims that this is to protect the 'sanctity' of marriage. The word sanctity means "holy". It is a blatant religious word. This means that they wish to condone marriage for only those circumstances in which it fits into thier narrow conservative christian definition of the word. They are trying to impose their religious teachings upon a nation.
With the divorce rate approaching 50%, where is the holiness in their definition of marriage. Tossing out sanctified relationships as used rags is what they are teaching for family values.
If I as a woman choose to marry a woman, how can this possibly lessen the meaning of another relationship? How does my relationship diminish another?
The sanctity of a marriage does not stem from the teachings of Moses, or Christ or from any religion. It comes from the blessed commitment between loving people who chose to stay with each other.
The 50% divorce rate is the thing which diminishes marriage. Now, at a wedding, the comments are as much like "I hope they make it" as "what a wonderful family they make".
My only comments for the religious right are: Keep your religion out of my life, and before you try to sweep my side of the street, pick up the trash on your own.
I'm a little fired up right now, but calming down. Hoping to remain civil in my letters to my representatives.
--Dee
Posted by crazy teresa on February 8, 2006, at 17:56:22
In reply to NH Weighs in., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 15:47:52
Constantly working to legislate the laws of their religion upon the land, those who are not christian heterosexuals will be left with no freedom of religion or civil liberties unless we make our voices heard even louder.
Sorry, I would have to STRONGLY disagree with this broad statement.
Posted by 10derHeart on February 8, 2006, at 18:33:40
In reply to NH Weighs in., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 15:47:52
I have a question:
>>Tossing out sanctified relationships as used rags is what they are teaching for family values.<<
I assume the *they* are conservative Christians, is that correct?
If so, with this phrase, were you saying you believe that Christians are [allegedly] teaching tossing out sanctified, non-heterosexual relationships as a value, or did you mean that Christians are teaching tossing out traditional (heterosexual) marriages (those ending in divorce) as a value...? I couldn't be sure....
Hope I asked that clearly enough. I do want to understand what you are saying.
And I wonder if this statement - whichever way you meant it - is a bit broad-brush and therefore possibly uncivil? I know when I read it, I felt maybe I was being told that I (and all conservative Christians?) am okay with discarding important relationships like rags? :-(
Maybe there's another way to say what you think and feel....to state what distresses you about the teaching of family values in our society?
We would likely disagree on most points of this issue at every turn, *however* I very much want to understand your position. I also totally respect your passion and your participation in *your* (our!) government by writing to your representatives. I hope you keep that up.
(ps - born and raised in western Mass. - NH is a beautiful place!)
Posted by lynn971 on February 8, 2006, at 19:45:12
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by crazy teresa on February 8, 2006, at 17:56:22
I totally agree with Theresa.
I also feel that Christians are losing their rights on a daily basis.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:10:57
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by 10derHeart on February 8, 2006, at 18:33:40
Ok.... calmed down a bit after writing my representatives.
Here's what I meant:
I don't find that the sanctity of christian marriages means very much when so many -- half of them are tossed aside. If it is such a sacred act, why do they fail so readily. And there are undoubtedly many which don't end in divorce that are extremely unhealthy, experiencing spousal abuse, etc.
If those are the values being defended, why are the ones trying to defend it doing so by attacking other committed relationships? Wouldn't a better preservation of marriage be to educate the adherents of the christian faiths to make better choices of life partners and stronger commitments?
How does two people of the same sex getting married to each other in any way threaten the sanctity of a christian marriage? There are only two possible motives for the christian right to wish to deny the right to marry to the LGBT community:
1. As I said, to impose their religious beliefs on a country. It was legal in many other societies prior to the christian takeover for two people of the same sex to take on the role of husband and wife. These came to be known as savages.
2. To stamp out a way of life that they do not agree with. Perhaps from fear. Maybe they are afraid that if their (already) gay children see that some people can live without burrying who they really are, they might choose to do so. I don't know.
As far as filthy rags, I'm talking about the cavalier attitude that so many people have toward marriage. It's not taken as a commitment, either to the parties involved, or to the God or Goddess or Judge who solemnized those vows. In religious terms, it has become a throw-away sacrament.
I'm NOT saying that a marriage between committed people that endures is a filthy rag, but that the sacrament is lessened in esteem by the cavalier attitude with which people dismiss and discard it. Certainly the sacrament will not be brought into discrace by people of the same sex celebrating a lifelong commitment in the eyes of their God / Goddess / judge.
In any event, for the religious right to say that their rules come from love is being disingenuous at best. Even Jesus made it clear that His rules were for His followers. He did not try to bring into common legislation His rules for life. And nowhere do I find in His rules that people who were gay are evil. Most of the words translated as gay or homosexual in the bible did not even mean gay or homosexual in the original tongue. Many of the references were originally to temple prostitutes. I other cases, there are alternative interpretations which are just as likely.
My personal opinion is that religious rules should be held and practiced to the best extent possible by those who adhere to those rules. They should not be made into law. Doing so creates, if not a defacto religion, then at least a society that behaves as one. That's something I don't want a part of.
If a church wishes to preach, proslytize, publish books, hang banners, whatever, that's fine with me. I don't mind hearing their views. I was a christian, and have deep and abiding respect for the Bible as a historical, spiritual and practical document. I just don't want Leviticus to become the law of the land. Especially fundamentalist interpretations of it.
Prohibiting people who love each other, and are ready to commit for life, but happen to be LGBT, to do so solely on the grounds of religion, fear, or hatred is simply wrong.
I fear this ammendment because I'm transgendered. It is quite possible that with this ammendment I would be prohibited from marrying ANYBODY. Someone could argue from either side... birth sex, present sex, whatever. It's happened in different states different ways. Inheritance has been tossed out because one way or another the marriage wasn't legal.
There's a personal stake in this for sure. The things I've said though, aren't simply reactionary. It's the truth that I'm living.
Again, I'm not a christian hater, or a Christ hater, or a Bible hater. What I am vehemently opposed to is the legislation of christian morals, especially where they interfere with civil liberty.
I'm a pagan. I don't propose creating a legal basis for handfastings. (A trial marriage for a year and a day). Doing so would certainly reduce the divorce rate, but that's not my agenda. I just want the legal authority to visit my spouse when they are dying. I want the legal authority to share my life with the person whom I choose, regardless of their sex. I want the legal right to not have my will contested because I chose to live my life with someone that a church decided was the wrong sex. I want to rest in the knowledge that if I have children and I die, that they will be able to live with the person that I married, rather than taken by family or court because my partner was gay. I want the legal authority to occupy the same hotel room as my partner in whatever state I travel to.
Are these unreasonable requests? The things mentioned above are rights that are denied to the GLBT community on a daily basis simply because they are not able to have a legal marriage in this country.
Are we asking too much?
I don't mind hearing arguments. I don't mind debate. In the end though, I don't want "me" legislated out of existence. I don't want being "me" to be a crime. I don't want my love for another human being to be declared invalid or a crime. That's where the definition of marriage ammendments are truly heading.
--Dee
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:19:36
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by crazy teresa on February 8, 2006, at 17:56:22
Teresa,
After reading that sentence, I realized that it was missing a subject.
As far as who is constantly working, I mean the christian right. The Jerry Fallwells of the world. He founded an entire university whose main purpose is to further entrench his version of christian values onto the country. That's the primary purpose for the lawyers he trains.
Add to this Concerned Women for America, Pat Robertson, Focus on the Family, and many other institutions. Not to mention the virtually anti-christian sort of Fred Phelps.
The advertising and promotion of christian ethics from these organizations is truly threatening those outside of their reality.
I am frightened, for friends and for myself. Look at my last post. Look at the rights that the GLBT community lacks simply because we cannot be legally married.
We aren't trying to intrude on your faith, we just wish to express our own. We just want laws that reflect our reality as well as yours.
--Dee
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:36:09
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by 10derHeart on February 8, 2006, at 18:33:40
10derHeart
Sorry, but I forgot to put Teresa's name on previous post.
What I was saying in that statement that you pointed out was that with 50% of 'christian' marriages ending in divorce, (tossed out as used rags) (and that's for first-time marriages alone), that family values (staying together, etc.) are becoming visibly lacking in even the christian community. Is 50% too broad a brush?
I don't have statistics for how many gay marriages stay together, frankly, because they are illegal. We have laws that legislate that we aren't supposed to stay together, that being together is a crime.
I do know many committed gay couples. I do not see them falling apart any more than heterosexual couples. Many have been together for a great length of time, and I have no reason to believe that they will not be together when one of them dies.
I have no problem with teaching family values. Family values are fundamental and important. In religious schools, you can teach religious values. In public schools though, religion should bow out. Teaching a child that because they are gay or transgendered they are going to hell is not a family value. Providing support for heterosexual relationships, but telling a homosexual child that they have to dance with someone of the opposite sex, that same sex relationships are inappropriate does not belong in a public school.
People wonder why there are LGBT people with mental health issues... or they show the mental health issues as proof that LGBT people are sick... try growing up in a family where you are told by clergy that because of who you are, you are going to hell. Try having a parent show you pornography to turn you around. Try living a life of panic praying to a god who will not take this "sickness" away for years on end. Try entering into a marriage to prove that you aren't LGBT only to have it fail after you have two children. Try having a parent point out that the loss of your family was due to your "sickness"
These are the traditional family values, the panicked parents, the righteous clergy, the anti-GLBT agenda that fashioned my being.
I don't want my daughters growing up in a world where their sexuality is legislated. Where they can't marry whomever they choose. They still go to a catholic church, and I'm ok with that. The church can teach what it teaches. I don't want it's laws though, to become the law of the land.
--Dee.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:50:18
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in., posted by lynn971 on February 8, 2006, at 19:45:12
Lynn,
I honestly don't think that christians are losing all of their rights. They are though, losing some that other religions may have never had. I think that in many arenas, they are losing laws that specifically favor them.
Some of this loss I disagree with. Forcing a town to take down a monument of the ten commandments, etc. is, I think, wrong. However, if another faith with significant population wished to erect a similar monument to their faith, that should be supported.
Removing christian specific prayers as mandated prayers, is not wrong. Forbiding a christian student from mentioning Christ in an address is wrong.
If a pagan student is forbidden to wear his or her pentacle to school, I think that it is only fair that a christian be forbidden to wear a cross. They are both emblems of faith, and what is done for one should be done for the other. Personally, I think that all true emblems of faith should be allowed.
Christians have freedom to worship. Their ministers are able to marry their faithful. They are able to establish religious schools. They hold tax exempt status.
What is being lost is the expression of their religious beliefs in state sanctioned arenas. NO more teaching creationism in school, removing Christ from benedictions. (personally, I think this is wrong as long as other religions are allowed to mention their deities and are allowed to give benedictions) and other such things.
Again, I'm not anti-christian. I think horrible some of the things some christians have done, but christians should have every right to co-exist amongst others in a free country which promotes no religion above another.
That said, civil rights should not be based on the morality of any religion. Every person should have the right to vote, the right to work, the right to find housing, the right to worship whom they choose, the right to marry whom they choose.
No religion though, should be forced to marry a couple who they don't believe should be married. I don't want to force my morality on a church. It's a two-way street.
--Dee
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 21:31:55
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » lynn971, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:50:18
My love for whom I choose to love can in no way diminish any relationship sanctioned and sanctified by any church.
The laws and constitutional ammendments attempting to be passes throughout the country and supported and even fostered by fundamentalist christians would have the committed relationships of GLBT people declared invalid and legally meaningless.
Please, PLEASE, explain the fairness of this in a country which supposedly is prohibited from imposing religious beliefs.
--Dee
Posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 11:50:17
In reply to NH Weighs in., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 15:47:52
I agree with you.
Is NH, by chance, facing some close senate/house elections? That ammendment was put on a lot of state ballots during the presidential election - mainly in close states. Call me cynical.
My logical brain has a hard time with this one. Especially the argument that "marriage" is holy, but a civil union would be fine.
But - what is marriage? In modern times it is two things. It can be a sacrement, blessed by a church, but not recognized by the governemt. And it is also a civil contract, which *is* recognized by the state.
But both have the same name.
By outlawing "marriage" but at the same time allowing a civil union are we actually telling churches that they can't perform gay marriages?
Or are we actually using religious terminology to outlaw a civil contract?
If it is the first, my opinion is that the government should not tell churches what they can and cannot do.
If it is the second one, well - why not just be honest about it and say we don't want gay unions to be legitimized in any way?
Are we letting our personal feelings get in the way of what is the "right" thing to do?
---------------
Now - my emotional response.
My sister is gay. A couple of years ago she needed major open heart surgery and could have died. If her kids had wanted to, they could have legally kept her partner away from her while she was out of it.
I love my sister very much. This illness could have easily killed her - and the idea that she could have died without the person she loves near her... well it would have broken my heart.
Luckily her kids feel the same way as I do.
Many years ago one of my dearest friends died of aids. His partner of many years took care of him night and day until the end, where he died at home. If his parents had wanted to they could have taken over and he would have also died without the preson he loved near him.
That, too, would have been too much for me to bear to watch - especially since most of his other friends had disappeared.
How can either of those relationships diminish what my husband and I have together? If anything they are shining examples of love, and I can't see how love can ever be bad.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 12:08:52
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 11:50:17
AuntieMel,
Thanks for your post. I'm glad that you have such reasonable friends and family. It's sad, still, to see that even in the case of your sister, her partner essentially needed the 'permission' of 'family'. Because they can't get married, they aren't considered family in the eyes of the law, the hospital, whatever. That's terribly sad. That's exactly my point.
I don't know how to help people understand that simple fact. People who love each other so much are legally prevented from seeing each other at their dying hour, or when they are in desperate need of each other.
Thank you for your beautiful examples of open-minded friends and family. I just wish that the GLBT community wouldn't have to rely on others to demonstrate that our relationships are legitimate.
--Dee
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:34:41
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 11:50:17
> But - what is marriage? In modern times it is two things. It can be a sacrement, blessed by a church, but not recognized by the governemt. And it is also a civil contract, which *is* recognized by the state.
I agree. This is the root of the issue. And maybe it can't be solved without splitting the terminology. So that no government entity recognizes marriage at all, leaving it purely a religious sacrament. And all government entities recognize something else, civil union or whatever, which is what people (any people) would get a license for, and which would be open to anyone.
Although that still leaves plenty of room for argument. My not too far distant ancestors were second (or later) wives in polygamous marriages whose children were made illegitimate when Utah joined the United States, which led to disastrous economic consequences for my one step down ancestors. Should civil unions be limited to two individuals? Custom in many cultures would dictate otherwise. Is it fair to impose western values on polygamy?
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:35:55
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 11:50:17
Posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:57:15
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in., posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:34:41
Good questions. Some would say that polygamy is the slippery slope that gay marriage would start.
Others say just limit it to two.
These days the children of your second-step ancestors would have as much right to inheritance as the first-step ones, so it isn't as important an issue as it was then.
But - even among religions there isn't just one answer. I heard a guy on the radio the other day - a talk show about this very topic. The guy was a (Christian, but I didn't catch which branch) preacher and he was talking about divorce. He said that according to the bible there is only one valid reason for divorce - adultery. If you are beaten within an inch of your life you can move away, but you can't divorce or remarry.
Another reason to keep civil and religious compacts separate, I think.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:59:24
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in., posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:34:41
An ability to discuss issues without getting personal.
I love it! Good job, guys.
Posted by ClearSkies on February 9, 2006, at 14:16:57
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:59:24
Way cool. Fun to watch!
:-)
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 15:24:56
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » AuntieMel, posted by ClearSkies on February 9, 2006, at 14:16:57
I think it's possible to discuss things without getting personal. I also think it's possible because all of us recognize that there actually *is* a problem.
I like the idea of separating the *sacrament* from the *institution*. The legal rights and priveleges would come from the institution while the sacramental aspect is conferred by the religion.
I don't have a problem with polyamorous or polygamous relationships though that's not my personal style, with an exception: The people involved in such a relationship ought to be able to support themselves as a family. I'll have to think about my position though, because there are monagamous relationships that don't support themselves well. hmmmmmm
Whatever the case, I hope that this country comes to realize that calling only heterosexual marriages legitimate does a disservice to a great many people.
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 16:29:05
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 15:24:56
I think the problem that would come from multiperson legal unions would be the cost of benefits. But maybe they could fix that by increasing the base salary and having the benefits being a pre-tax deduction that each person pays for. I don't know.
My only requirement for legal unions would be the ability of all parties involved for informed consent. That would outlaw some of the most slippery slope forms of union.
The entire concept of separating the sacramental and legal aspects of what is now jointly known as marriage, and thus removing the emotional overtones of what it means to have a "marriage" seems so logical that I'm sure I'm missing something.
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 21:35:45
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:59:24
And fun too!
We have started having "political" discussions at the dinner table. World events anyway, and especially local events.
It's sort of fun because with little ears around, not only do I have to be civil, but I feel compelled to give both sides of every argument so that he can feel free to come to his own conclusions. No matter how strongly I feel about a topic.
I'm certain I don't come across completely impartially, but I do enjoy the mental stimulation of finding good things to say about opposing points of view.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 22:27:35
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 21:35:45
Dinah,
I like to stay open, but I'm glad that I don't have to come up with something positive to say about prohibiting marriage of other than heterosexual couples. Still, I'd never fight against a church's right to preach against this, only to try to pass laws against it. Oh yeah... I'd fight Rev. Phelps ability to protest funerals, etc. I think that's obscene.
--Dee
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 23:47:27
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » Dinah, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 22:27:35
Well there are a few topics where I won't even try (racism, Hitler, etc.), and others where I can only say "some people believe". But even with those topics, I try to place them in context so that he at least understands the historical basis that had influences on the result.
For example, I in no way excuse the Holocaust or a quest for world domination, but I do explain the financial devastation Germany experienced after WWI and how that ripened the environment for what happened. And how important it is not to humiliate a defeated nation.
And I don't present the viewpoint of people who hate on the basis of race. But I do explain that the world changed around older people who were taught one thing in their youth and another now. And how reasonably decent people can try to do what's right, but how hard it is to overcome a lifetime of learning, and how confusing life can be when everything you thought you knew turns out to be wrong by current standards.
I guess it's along the lines of learning to reject actions while having a certain amount of compassion for how they came to be.
I don't know. Maybe it's wrong of me. But I guess it's got something to do with the religious idea of hating the sin but not the sinner, or the Montessori idea of being sad that someone made a bad choice. Or maybe just the hope for redemption.
I guess I don't want him growing up to hate.
Posted by Dinah on February 10, 2006, at 0:05:10
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » deirdrehbrt, posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 23:47:27
Believe it or not, I actually pride myself on my cynicism.
But that's different than hating.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 10, 2006, at 1:29:16
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by Dinah on February 10, 2006, at 0:05:10
Dinah,
Ok... I understand that, and I guess that's the way I try to live my life too. I can have compassion for another's beliefs. For example: I don't particularly like the current Pope, but I don't hold him accountable for having been involved in the Nazi youth movement in his childhood. That wasn't his choice, and I don't think that he holds to the beliefs promoted by that organization. I don't like his stance on alot of issues, but he's not making rules for me anymore. That's the Catholic church, which I'm no longer a part of.
My children still attend there, with my ex, but I think they have more liberal views. They can decide for themselves what they believe, though I hope they won't grow to reject me, and I don't think they will.
My oldest daughter is now in an inter-ratial relationship. When she first brought it up with me, I think she was trying to shock me, but I really don't have a problem with it at all, and let her know that. I'm kind of sad that she might have even thought that I might have a problem, but then again, she hadn't spoken to me in about four years so I didn't really have the opportunity to discuss dating with her.
As I've been thinking about things, I realized that I really need to consider my opinions about compelling a religious organization, as an employer, to hire people who live a lifestyle which is in opposition to that organization's beliefs. If I believe that organization should be free to uphold it's beliefs, shouldn't that extend to it's hospitals, schools, and the like? Isn't that still part of the church?
I don't know... there's lots to think about. Just as much as I don't want the religious right creating laws that interfere with my life, I don't think it's fair for the courts to tell a religious organization how they should be run. Freedom should be extended in both directions.
I've even come to terms with the Boy Scout's stand on homosexuality. There are legitimate alternatives. Spiral Scouts is a growing organization that is much more open. Still, I wish that GLBT people didn't have to search for alternatives.
Maybe one day society will be more sexually mature and less afraid of the differences among us. I hope so.
--Dee
Posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2006, at 8:43:14
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » Dinah, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 10, 2006, at 1:29:16
"As I've been thinking about things, I realized that I really need to consider my opinions about compelling a religious organization, as an employer, to hire people who live a lifestyle which is in opposition to that organization's beliefs. If I believe that organization should be free to uphold it's beliefs, shouldn't that extend to it's hospitals, schools, and the like? Isn't that still part of the church?"
I guess that depends, but then I think there ought to be a line drawn between what is considered 'church' (tax exempt) and 'business' (tax paying.)
So many churches these days are also multi-million corporations. I doubt if anyone had this in mind when they made churches tax exempt.
As far as employment - and the benefits that come with it - I think if that school or hospital were to take *any* taxpayer money - even school vouchers or federal school loans - that it should also be subject to EEOC.
Luckily schools and hospitals are all short staffed enough that no one should need to work where they aren't wanted.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 10, 2006, at 10:39:37
In reply to Re: employment, posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2006, at 8:43:14
AnutieMel,
I suppose you're right... I just think I needed to think about it to figure out where I am. I wonder if the religious aid organization that provide services overseas are bound by the same laws?
I have'nt figured out my entire position, and I guess that's why I posted on this thread... it helps to hear other viewpoints to either solidify or modify my own.
Thanks for making me think.
--Dee
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.