Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackuser | Hacker News Reader

> opinion also reasserted that people who are really mad about this can continue to be mad and vocal about it, as guaranteed by the First Amendment

Was this a question? I don't think I've heard anyone ever say otherwise.

I'll add though, that people long have cloaked oppression in religion. People justified (and still justify) slavery, segregation, and oppression of women under the guise of religion, for example. Some might have been sincere (not that it justifies oppressing others), but for some the 'ultimate' authority of their God is an effective defense against any mortal criticism.

EDIT: To be clear, this is not a problem with religion in particular. I'm only discussing religion because that's the issue on the table. Thanks to chrisguilbeau for pointing that out; I agree with his comment below.

View on HN

To be fair, the things you mention (slavery, segregation, oppression, even genocide) have been justified by people led by pure atheistic humanism effectively cloaking oppression in logic, academia and scientific theory (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot). I think it's fair to say that people with all sorts of ideologies have treated those they fear, don't understand or just plain don't like pretty poorly.

I'll add that some who have been at the forefront of fighting for the abolishment of the oppressions you list have done so while following Christianity (MLK, Wilberforce)

Agreed, absolutely. I was only responding to an issue raised about religion and so I didn't mention the other ideologies.

There are quite a lot of people who argued that changing the definition of marriage was an infringement of their religious rights. I've never been clear on how that was supposed to happen but maybe you can dig it out of the oral arguments.

I am one of those religious types - if I may give you me reasoning or at least my ideas:

The immediate difficulty comes when we as religious citizens have trouble with separating what is civilly permissible with what is a religious ideal.

Long term, religious people are worried that our institution and faith will not be allowed to continue if a super-majority deems us unworthy - as we have seen through history.

As for me I'm not terribly upset at all as over my short life I should be infinitely more worried about my sacramental relationship with my wife than what others claim marriage should look like.

I would also point out from a religious standpoint that some people have found solace today actually points to the reality of how wonderful sacramental marriage truly is.

The immediate difficulty comes when we as religious citizens have trouble with separating what is civilly permissible with what is a religious ideal.

Indeed. You, or any other religious group, can have whatever prohibitions you believe in your own lives, homes and churches. Different groups can have different prohibitions. However, they must therefore be kept separate and out of the public law and state, because that space can only accomodate one or zero religions. The US constitution specifies zero: no establishment of religion. This enforces a ceasefire between the doctrines that would otherwise fight to be the one doctrine that has control of the state, as Europe experienced during the Reformation and Islam is experiencing in the Sunni-Shia conflict.

For decades if not longer it was non-straight people who were deemed unworthy and not allowed freedom from persecution by the religious supermajority. There really isn't a desire to put the boot on the other foot - provided you don't condemn people.

Perhaps if the spiritual and temporal benefits of marriage were entirely separable this wouldn't be a problem. But the UK tried it with civil partnerships and it was so obviously a "separate but equal" (ie not equal) arrangement that full equal marriage was enacted.

Thanks; it's very valuable to learn from your perspective.

> Long term, religious people are worried that our institution and faith will not be allowed to continue if a super-majority deems us unworthy - as we have seen through history.

A sincere question: I can see that risk for small religious minorities facing a history of discrimtination (e.g., Jews and Muslims). But most people talking about this are white-skinned Protestants and Catholics. Have they ever been subject to discrimination in the U.S.? And aren't they the most powerful political grouping in the country?

There was discrimination against Catholics in prior generations, but I don't see that now (just look at the Supreme Court!).

It is indeed a sincere question! I'd love to whole-heartily agree with you that our country is a bastion of tolerance and courtesy, and in the grand sweep of history we could argue such.

But I would also say that we have persecuted the weak from the start - Native populations, African-Americans, Irish, and Japanese to name a few.

From a religious and biological standpoint our greatest persecution is our most recent - we have (in my opinion) disposed of 50,000,000 children in the womb during the last 40 years for various reasons.

So, while indeed Christians have nothing to fear based on our numbers, I could imagine that in the future that our claim a supernatural relationship with an unprovable entity will be deem us mentally unfit and not worthy of consideration.

Oddly enough our Bible acknowledges us as crazy " We are fools for Christ! [...] We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored!" in 1 Corinthians.

The weird bit - from a Christian perspective, we Christians deserve persecution.

We have been given the faith and love of Jesus Christ, and we have not shared that love and kindness with our neighbors. From our standpoint, those that have been given much will be called to account, and (again from our standpoint) we have been given everything in Christ Jesus.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. There is too little conversation between different parts of the political spectrum, too much of an echo chamber for everyone, and we end up not taking other people's interests into account.

Certainly I agree that many groups have been persecuted, and I understand how abortion could be very troubling depending on your beliefs. To me, persectution of Christians seems to be a far-off, theoretical possibility at this point, but it's too easy to downlplay risks that won't affect me. I certainly see that, in some settings, taking a religious approach to an issue would be a non-starter, so in that respect people with strong religious beliefs are marginalized.

Thanks again. It's very interesting and enlightening.

Thank you for the courteous conversation as well!

That is because largely these laws won't be weaponized to stick it to them. There was a youtube video of a guy going around to Muslim bakers trying to get them to bake him a gay wedding cake, which they of course refused. And the US media collectively mouthed a we-do-not-give-a-fuck.

>And aren't they the most powerful political grouping in the country?

If they really were, they would have stopped this ruling presumably.

Unfortunately, in NC, we have a law on the books allowing magistrates to refuse to perform marriages that would not be consistent with the magistrate's personal religious views. It's insane, I know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/us/north-carolina-allows-o...

But did anyone argue that they couldn't express their views?

Kennedy is addressing the idea (myth) that churches would be compelled to perform same-sex marriages or somehow face legal consequences for speaking on the issue.

[Myth?](http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/October/Idaho-Ministers-T...) Also, what about [photographers](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/supreme-court-g...) and so on facing fines and criminal charges for not taking on clients? I came across this amusing story too, [pro-gay bakers refuse to make cakes that do not support their own precepts](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-evangelist-asked-a-ga...).

Wait and see though, is what I say.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2014/10/2...

The key point about the Idaho ministers is this: "The Hitching Post has apparently in the past operated as a for-profit business and offered civil services as well as religious ceremonies. Earlier this month, it either became a religious organization or decided to present itself as such. If the Knapps are operating and plan to continue operating the Hitching Post as a religious organiztion, they have no reason to fear prosecution from the city."

The closest thing I have seen is that Denmark apparently forces all church buildings to be available for gay weddings. No priest is forced to officiate, but the local bishop must arrange a willing replacement if necessary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/931...

Denmark has a state church, which means that the church can influence politics, but also that politics can influence the church. So if church buildings are state buildings for marriage, and the state allows same-sex marriage, then those buildings have to accommodate same-sex marriages.

If the church has a problem with this, it should divorce the state.

In neighbouring Sweden, church and state separated in the year 2000, so when same-sex marriage was finally made legal in 2010, this was simply not an issue. The Church of Sweden can deny same-sex marriages on its premises and by its staff if it so chooses.

Separation of church and state gets a bit murky when there is a state religion.

> Was this a question? I don't think I've heard anyone ever say otherwise.

As a former Mormon, I'll give a resounding YES. Mormons have a persecution complex. And whenever Prop 8 or gay marriage is brought up it gets even worse. They tend to inflate opposition - you say "we should legalize gay marriage" and they will respond "I have a right to talk about my religious beliefs!!"

IME, it's just part of the rhetorical toolbox of the 'outraged conservative' (I'm not criticizing all conservatives, just those who get carried away with this talk radio / Fox News rhetoric). Outrage, persecution complex ... you can see it in some of today's dissents: Alito protesting that people opposing gay rights will be criticized (is this an issue for the Supreme Court?), and, you won't believe it, but Scalia was outraged. Why should Friday be any different than Thursday?

>Was this a question? I don't think I've heard anyone ever say otherwise. You live in a very optimistic world! 2 quick examples: First, Glenn Beck and other popular conservatives have said exactly that, and worse: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/30/glenn-beck-if-gay...

Second: Do you remember the Mormon funded ad blitz in California, which promised all kinds of (patently untrue) negative consequences if prop 8 went the wrong way? Kids being indoctrinated in grade school, churches of all kinds forced to cater to same sex couples, etc.

I think people may have a hard time separating the two. They feel that it is infringing upon their religion, and they associate that religion with the First Amendment which they use to express it.

I also think they are putting it in there as a covering themselves, preempting the argument from others.

There's been a dull hum of religious conservatives worrying about consequences like this ever since the 2013 ruling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com