So about that "narrow" ruling

[General Zod]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/fai ... story.html

Fourteen prominent faith leaders — including some of President Obama’s closest advisers — want the White House to create a religious exemption from his planned executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against gays and lesbians in hiring.

A letter to the White House, sent Tuesday and made public Wednesday, includes the signatures of Michael Wear, faith director for Obama’s 2012 campaign; Stephen Schneck, a leader of Catholic outreach in 2012; and Florida megapastor Joel Hunter, whom Obama has described as a close spiritual counselor.

The letter reminds Obama of his own earlier faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage, as well as the government’s massive partnerships with faith-based social service groups that work on issues including housing, disaster relief and hunger.

“While the nation has undergone incredible social and legal change over the last decade, we still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion,” said the letter.

“An executive order that does not include a religious exemption will significantly and substantively hamper the work of some religious organizations that are best equipped to serve in common purpose with the federal government.,” it said. “When the capacity of religious organizations is limited, the common good suffers.”

Obama announced last month that he would sign an executive order barring discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. He did this after failed efforts to get through Congress the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would make it illegal under federal law to discriminate in the workplace — not just for contractors.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay equality advocacy group, nearly 90 percent of the Fortune 500 already ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. And while many see full gay legal equality as a foregone conclusion, this week’s decision at the Supreme Court — saying corporations may claim religious rights in denying workers contraception coverage — shows that legal tensions between religious liberty and rights around sexuality and reproduction are far from resolved.

The 14 signers of the letter include leaders of some of the country’s largest faith-based charities, notably Catholic Charities USA and World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The signers said they supported the executive order — “we have great appreciation for your commitment to human dignity and justice, and we share those values with you” — but said an exemption is essential.

“Americans have always disagreed on important issues, but our ability to live with our diversity is part of what makes this country great, and it continues to be essential even in this 21st-century,” the letter said. “Without a robust religious exemption . . . this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom.”

None of the groups mentioned in the letter have explicitly said they would pull out of their partnerships with the White House if they do not get an exemption.

The White House declined to comment, but Schneck said faith groups remain in conversation with the administration and are “hopeful.”

Schneck, who runs the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at Catholic University, said he did not see any contradiction between supporting gay equality and the exemption.

“I think these things fit together pretty well,” he said. “Of all federal contracts, these [faith-based ones] are such a miniscule portion. The recognition of the divisive nature of these kinds of efforts [such as the executive order], it just makes perfect sense for the White House to give the faith-based groups time to work this out. It’s not that long ago when Obama himself was where these faith-based groups are now.”

Views are deeply divided. World Vision, a massive Christian relief nonprofit that received $179 million in 2013 from the government, announced a few months ago that it would allow employees to be in same-sex marriages and then immediately reversed itself after an outcry by donors.

Thanks, SCOTUS!

[Edi]

Like I said, all kinds of parties will waste no time starting to agitate for exemption from any law they don't like based on their religious prejudices. Fuck them.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Oh for fucks sake.

Actually, what surprises me is that America doesn't already have some laws against discrimination based on sexuality. Certainly such laws have been commonplace in Britain for at least 4 years (the time since I started working) and quite probably longer.

Also, shit like this makes me wonder what Jesus would say (if he existed) if he saw it. He'd probably go "ah fuck this mess" and go back to carpentry.

[Maraxus]

Oh for fucks sake.

Actually, what surprises me is that America doesn't already have some laws against discrimination based on sexuality. Certainly such laws have been commonplace in Britain for at least 4 years (the time since I started working) and quite probably longer.

Also, shit like this makes me wonder what Jesus would say (if he existed) if he saw it. He'd probably go "ah fuck this mess" and go back to carpentry.

We have something in the works. The Employee Non-Discrimination Act makes it illegal for people to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. It passed through the Senate but it won't actually happen until the Dems retake the House. There have also been a bunch of state-level stuff (California has had a similar measure since the mid-70's IIRC), but nothing on the federal level.

As for OP, Hobby Lobby might still not apply. As I understand it, the Obama Administration's failure to demonstrate compelling governmental interest was one of the big reasons the Supremes decided the way they did. That wouldn't necessarily be the case in this instance, especially with all the recent decisions re: marriage equality and discrimination in public accommodations. Although sexual orientation/gender identity aren't explicitly protected, there's some precedent suggesting that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act can cover LGBT employment discrimination. It's definitely a hell of a lot easier to demonstrate compelling government interest in that than making Hobby Lobby "pay" for birth control.

IMO cases like this have a silver lining in that each one pushes the Supremes a little closer to making LGBT people part of a protected class.

[Simon_Jester]

Also note that religious figures were signing such petitions long before the current ruling on Hobby Lobby; this isn't new.

[General Zod]

Also note that religious figures were signing such petitions long before the current ruling on Hobby Lobby; this isn't new.

Of course not, but given the day they delivered it you can't just dismiss it as unrelated.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm. The ruling was two days ago, so yeah, there's time to organize a petition if you hurry.

Although if the petition had taken a week to draft and put together, obviously its timing would have little to do with the ruling.

[Terralthra]

Not if you know that the ruling is coming and organize everyone to sign it on the condition that it only gets submitted if the SCotUS rules in your favor.

[General Zod]

Hm. The ruling was two days ago, so yeah, there's time to organize a petition if you hurry.

Although if the petition had taken a week to draft and put together, obviously its timing would have little to do with the ruling.

You keep saying it's a petition. Where are you getting this from? 14 religious leaders signing a letter doesn't constitute a petition.

What it looks like to me is they've been talking about this issue for some time and decided to act on it once the ruling was handed down.

[Sea Skimmer]

Even one person sending a letter demanding action on a specific subject can and does constitute a petition. No requirement exists for multiple people to be involved for something to be a petition, never mind the modern trend to open calls for internet signatures and such.

[blahface]

It sickens me so much that we have to bend over backwards as a society to accommodate someone's superstition. Conservatives decry political correctness, but demand that we give religion a much undeserved respect and get indignant when anyone calls it out for the ridiculous horseshit that it is.

Anyone hear about that playboy interview with Gary Oldman? In the context of Political Correctness run amok, he brought up an antidote about how a Buddhist student got offended and his parents sued the school when a SCIENCE teacher said in class that anyone who doesn't believe in god is stupid. His point wasn't that we have gotten so PC that we have to teach bad science to placate the sensibilities of the Christians; his point that it was too over the top PC to find it objectionable to teach bad science.

[Raw Shark]

The letter reminds Obama of his own earlier faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage, as well as the government’s massive partnerships with faith-based social service groups that work on issues including housing, disaster relief and hunger.

“While the nation has undergone incredible social and legal change over the last decade, we still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion,” said the letter.

“An executive order that does not include a religious exemption will significantly and substantively hamper the work of some religious organizations that are best equipped to serve in common purpose with the federal government.,” it said. “When the capacity of religious organizations is limited, the common good suffers.”

"That sure is a nice set of programs you've got for the homeless, starving, and disaster victims there, Mr. Obama. It'd be a real shame if it was to... y'know, just up and decide to burn down or something..." [/Mafia ThugsChristianity]

[Borgholio]

It sickens me so much that we have to bend over backwards as a society to accommodate someone's superstition. Conservatives decry political correctness, but demand that we give religion a much undeserved respect and get indignant when anyone calls it out for the ridiculous horseshit that it is.

Anyone hear about that playboy interview with Gary Oldman? In the context of Political Correctness run amok, he brought up an antidote about how a Buddhist student got offended and his parents sued the school when a SCIENCE teacher said in class that anyone who doesn't believe in god is stupid. His point wasn't that we have gotten so PC that we have to teach bad science to placate the sensibilities of the Christians; his point that it was too over the top PC to find it objectionable to teach bad science.

I think it's rather immature and inappropriate for a teacher or professor to flat out say that "People who don't believe in x are stupid". So someone believes in God? Big deal. No need to start a fight about that unless their belief is interfering with the ability of the teacher to actually teach real science.

[General Zod]

Even one person sending a letter demanding action on a specific subject can and does constitute a petition. No requirement exists for multiple people to be involved for something to be a petition, never mind the modern trend to open calls for internet signatures and such.

hatever you want to call it, you can bet that it wasn't penned out at the last minute. I can almost guarantee they've been talking about what to do about this ruling for awhile.

[blahface]

It sickens me so much that we have to bend over backwards as a society to accommodate someone's superstition. Conservatives decry political correctness, but demand that we give religion a much undeserved respect and get indignant when anyone calls it out for the ridiculous horseshit that it is.

Anyone hear about that playboy interview with Gary Oldman? In the context of Political Correctness run amok, he brought up an antidote about how a Buddhist student got offended and his parents sued the school when a SCIENCE teacher said in class that anyone who doesn't believe in god is stupid. His point wasn't that we have gotten so PC that we have to teach bad science to placate the sensibilities of the Christians; his point that it was too over the top PC to find it objectionable to teach bad science.

I think it's rather immature and inappropriate for a teacher or professor to flat out say that "People who don't believe in x are stupid". So someone believes in God? Big deal. No need to start a fight about that unless their belief is interfering with the ability of the teacher to actually teach real science.

I think that even the teacher saying that “I believe in God,” interferes with his/her ability to teach real science because it gives off the impression God is backed up by science and gives it authoritative backing. At the very least the teacher should follow that up with “... but that is just my personal belief. God is an unfalsifiable claim and science doesn't deal with unfalsifiable claims. When doing science, however, we operate as if God and other supernatural forces do not exist.” It would also be nice if the teacher were to say that the more educated someone is in science the less likely they are to believe in god, but that may be overdoing it (even though it is true).

I just re-read the what Oldman said and it isn't AS bad as I had originally thought after the first glance. This is what he said:

I just think political correctness is crap. That’s what I think about it. I think it’s like, take a fucking joke. Get over it. I heard about a science teacher who was teaching that God made the earth and God made everything and that if you believe anything else you’re stupid. A Buddhist kid in the class got very upset about this, so the parents went in and are suing the school! The school is changing its curriculum! I thought, All right, go to the school and complain about it and then that’s the end of it. But they’re going to sue! No one can take a joke anymore,” said Oldman. 

I don't like the idea of suing schools or the police departments and I'd much prefer it if there was more personal accountability for individuals who do stupid shit, but a lot of the time suing is the only incentive available to get these actors to change their behavior. If we didn’t' sue the schools, we'd still be teaching creationism in the classroom.

[Borgholio]

I think that even the teacher saying that “I believe in God,” interferes with his/her ability to teach real science because it gives off the impression God is backed up by science and gives it authoritative backing. At the very least the teacher should follow that up with “... but that is just my personal belief. God is an unfalsifiable claim and science doesn't deal with unfalsifiable claims. When doing science, however, we operate as if God and other supernatural forces do not exist.” It would also be nice if the teacher were to say that the more educated someone is in science the less likely they are to believe in god, but that may be overdoing it (even though it is true).

I don't think that saying you believe in God automatically means anything beyond saying you believe in God. It's not like his judgment is clouded or his science is automatically tainted. It's no different that someone believing that Asian girls are hotter than Latinas, for instance. It's just a personal belief that should not be used as an attack against anybody's professional competency.

[Raw Shark]

I don't think that saying you believe in God automatically means anything beyond saying you believe in God. It's not like his judgment is clouded or his science is automatically tainted.

Depends; some gods are more loaded with baggage than others.

It's no different that someone believing that Asian girls are hotter than Latinas, for instance. It's just a personal belief that should not be used as an attack against anybody's professional competency.

...but where do you stand on Filipinas..?

[Borgholio]

Depends; some gods are more loaded with baggage than others.

I wonder...are there any religions (excluding fundies) that actually frown on the pursuit of scientific knowledge as a matter of official doctrine?

...but where do you stand on Filipinas..?

I don't. I kneel behind them.

[General Zod]

Depends; some gods are more loaded with baggage than others.

I wonder...are there any religions (excluding fundies) that actually frown on the pursuit of scientific knowledge as a matter of official doctrine?

The Amish?

[Borgholio]

The Amish?

I'm not sure...they actually don't frown on the use of technology, they're just forbidden to own it. They can (and do) use cell phones, cars, and computers when they need to...so that's kind of an implied acceptance of the stuff.

[General Zod]

The Amish?

I'm not sure...they actually don't frown on the use of technology, they're just forbidden to own it. They can (and do) use cell phones, cars, and computers when they need to...so that's kind of an implied acceptance of the stuff.

Doesn't mean they encourage the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

[Borgholio]

The Amish?

I'm not sure...they actually don't frown on the use of technology, they're just forbidden to own it. They can (and do) use cell phones, cars, and computers when they need to...so that's kind of an implied acceptance of the stuff.

Doesn't mean they encourage the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Edit - nevermind, you're right. I had to sit and think about it for a moment. If you want to work with science and technology, you have to leave the church.

[Patroklos]

It sickens me so much that we have to bend over backwards as a society to accommodate someone's superstition. Conservatives decry political correctness, but demand that we give religion a much undeserved respect and get indignant when anyone calls it out for the ridiculous horseshit that it is.

Own goal.

[Highlord Laan]

“While the nation has undergone incredible social and legal change over the last decade, we still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion,”

Fuck you and your entire pile of delusional bullshit. You work in this country, you follow the fucking laws no matter who you are or what you get on your knees for. That means no discrimination. Don't like it, then haul your fanatic ass to Vatican City where you'll be welcome.

[blahface]

I think that even the teacher saying that “I believe in God,” interferes with his/her ability to teach real science because it gives off the impression God is backed up by science and gives it authoritative backing. At the very least the teacher should follow that up with “... but that is just my personal belief. God is an unfalsifiable claim and science doesn't deal with unfalsifiable claims. When doing science, however, we operate as if God and other supernatural forces do not exist.” It would also be nice if the teacher were to say that the more educated someone is in science the less likely they are to believe in god, but that may be overdoing it (even though it is true).

I don't think that saying you believe in God automatically means anything beyond saying you believe in God. It's not like his judgment is clouded or his science is automatically tainted. It's no different that someone believing that Asian girls are hotter than Latinas, for instance. It's just a personal belief that should not be used as an attack against anybody's professional competency.

I agree that someone is fully capable of doing science and believing in god. Francis Collins and Ken Miller are good examples of this. There is no reason for a professor to profess his belief to the class though. And he should definitely not state it as a matter of fact. A science class should not give any impression at all that science backs the existence of a god.

How would you feel if a science teach professed in front of his class that he believes that real psychics exist?