How Far Should We Allow Religious Rights to Go?

by sammielee24 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  carvin

  A Guest I totall agree with your breakdown of the article, I noticed most of those points myself as I was reading it. However in sticking with the threads question this is not a religious matter at all. it is a legal one, and religion should not even be mentioned. Yes hindus are nor permitted to kill needlessly, actually most religions have thatidea they just differ in how the interpit needless, but they were not forced to kill tree, the city did that.

  Yes Christians have killed and distroyed in the name of their beliefs, as do/did most other religions. That does not make it right, plus most of that occoured centurise ago. The world is changing and conquest is not as popular as it once was, so trying to do so should be harder to do, we will see.
• 

  AGuest

  Greetings, dear Carvin... and peace to you! I agree that this was a legal issue, not a religious one... and the media was quite remiss in reporting it as such. But then, again, that is their job, isn't it... to report... and since "we" don't like BORING news... to sensationalize. Ah, well.

  I have to take exception, however, to your comment that, "Yes Christians have killed and distroyed in the name of their beliefs... plus most of that occoured centurise ago." True, what I stated occurred centuries ago, but there are currently two wars being fought that had some religious underpinings. And the bombing of churches by "christians" occurred in this very U.S. of A. not more than 50 years ago or so.

  My point was that just because so-called "christians" CHOOSE to "forget" what THEY have done upon the earth for millenia, even centuries ago, does not mean that others have... or will. Moreover, to imply that they DON'T is false. So-called "christians" do a whole LOT of heinous stuff... as do other religions... and in the name of God... even today. That's one way to know that they are NOT christians at all... regardless of what they call themselves.

  Again, I bid you peace!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I have to defer to AGuest and her breakdown. It is needlessly complicated by lawyers and half-truths. Something was done improperly and everyone keeps upping their bid in this game of legal poker to get everyone else to fold.

  But, it also reminds us that we "own" things on paper but have to answer to the government for everything we do. Sometimes, they are supposed to answer to us (of the people, by the people, for the people) but they don't listen so well.
• 

  AGuest

  And I bow to you, dear Sir OTWO ... and bid you peace!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  JWoods

  Well, religious freedom or not, all people have to obey the law - and that includes government regulation of property in a community. Whether we like it or not.

  It also occurs to me that if the Aztec religion were still active, and they demanded the "religious right" to build a pyramid and cut out victims hearts on the solar solstice - they would naturally be denied that "right".
• 

  Darth plaugeis

  So a Christian woman can get hired as a Stripper and refuse to remove her clothes because of her Religious Beliefs???

  She could cry Religious Rights ?.... yes/no??

  Common Sence!!!!!!!!!

  Like the NY uproar..... do they have rights??? yes says the rules...but once again it comes down to........

  Common Sence!!!!!!!!!
• 

  JWoods

  So a Christian woman can get hired as a Stripper and refuse to remove her clothes because of her Religious Beliefs???

  I am reminded of the JW woman who got hired as a christmas present wrapper and sued for her religious rights to not wrap christmas presents...
• 

  AGuest

  I guess I'm not getting where you're coming from, dear JWoods and Darthy (peace to you both!)... at least regarding this matter. Based on the article, the only assertion of religions rights came when Ms. Rao refused to get involved because HER religion didn't permit her to agree to cut down a perfectly healthy tree (that wasn't even in the way, by the way):

  "Rao and her mother fought removal of a tree in the project, saying the action ran counter to the basic precepts of their Hindu religion. Hinduism forbids the needless killing of any living thing and also requires practitioners from not participating or acquiescing in such acts, Rao said."

  The author used that one little fact as a "teaser"... in his title and opening line... to get folks to read his article. You know, like how movie promoters use trailers and make you go, "Ooh, I wanna see that..." but then you find out it had NOTHING to do with what you thought it did and as actually the best 3 second in the entire movie?

  But, if you actually READ the article, you will see FROM it that it wasn't a religious rights issue at all, but a legal rights issue. As the article states and quote Ms. Rao:

  "Rather than paying her off and making her the 'middle man' in the tree's ultimate demise, 'the city could have simply paid the amount and disposed of the judgment,' Rao said, 'so I wouldn't have to be involved.'"

  No worries, though - I understand how not fully reading a thing... or even "speed reading" through it... can lead one to believe something says something it doesn't... or doesn't say something it does. The WTBTS Publishing Company knows this, too. Indeed, their entire existence RELIES on it.

  I bid you both peace!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA