It is not a zero-sum game. The Us or Them mentality is the true intolerance.Requiring religious institutions doing secular activities to comply with secular rules is not persecution. Medical treatment and adoption services and education are secular activities.Sure, one can complain about the
Rick asks:
"Who else has a political agenda that targets the ordinary activities (such
as adoption ministries and health benefits)of mainstream religious
institutions and turns these ministries into unlawful acts."
Answer: Land useplanners.
On the conflict between sexual liberty and
Doug is right--land use planners also target the
ordinary activities of mainstream religious ministries
that are merely trying to worship or do good works.
But one difference is that zoning laws don't
stigmatize ministries as outlaws whose activities and
programs are contrary to the law and
Perhaps there is also a linkage between gay rights and religious liberty in
the sense that both are largely about identity. Precisely because religious
and sexual identity are not entirely immutable (although neither seems to be
wholly a matter of unconstrained choice), the government can
It has absolutely nothing to do with religious activities, but rather the
intensity of the use of land. I haven't met someone opposed to a religious
project yet that could have cared less whether it was a religious project or an
automotive repair shop. First, those opposedare invariably
Rick- I would have thought you would not fall into this sort of either/or
reasoning given that it implicates the free market. There is a free market
in the provision of services, including charitable services,and if a
religious organization drops out, others will step in. To think that the
The right thing to do? I am not so sure.
You did say that some children will suffer. Is that a good thing? Oops. This
discussion probably belongs off-list.
From: Rick Duncan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 11:15
PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law
But the Religious Right Catholic, Protestant
and otherwise insists that gay people CAN be reasonably asked to live
celibate lives, if they cannot live heterosexual lives.
I merely wish to point out that some deny
the equivalence that you posit. I am not saying that I agree or disagree
One should, of course, never say never. The conflict in the Chicago
suburbs of a few years ago was over the takeover of a community center by a
mosque. No one could have possibly argued that the "use" by the mosque was
in any way more disruptive than its use as a community center -- except
