religious rights

[paul]

I've heard a bit about about these Phelps, they are just one family, and think everyone on the whole earth is going to hell but them.

I saw the Louie Theroix documentary on them.
I think he even saw, the girls seemed very nice in some ways, but their mentality learnt from their parents, i don't even know if you could call it madness, for they seemed quite sane in being able to function.
But their view and actions although not of reasonable mind, i suppose we would call them brainwashed.

I as i saw louie felt sorry for these girls, and think they have the potential to be nice people.

I suppose when we talk of rights, and people having the right to bring up children.
You could say their children should have been taken off them, and would have been better for it.

But that's a very hard area to go into.

I'd actually like to see those girls taken from their homes and sort of dedoctrinized.
I don't know if that's at all possible though for they are adults and make up their own minds, although i don't think they've had much choice as to what to think.
Although i don't think them physically forced or abused in any way

I think i heard at least one of their children left them.

ironically i've talked about peoples religious rights, and i think i've made my feelings clear on homosexuality.
But in this case i must say i'd like to see their rights taken from them, for the sake of them all.

But even that i'm not sure about.
What could you do, lock them up and try to teach them some reality and compassion?

I suppose beleif on this religious rights, is more to do with deep feelings.
I by my nature know homosexuality is wrong, it wouldn't matter even if i didn't beleived anything religious or maybe even Spiritual.

Although if i didn't have Spiritual beleifs maybe i wouldn't care.
And that's not a good thing, i'm saying maybe i wouldn't care so deeply about righteousness and love.

Religion, at least i beleive of Christianty, i can't speak so much for others, as i haven't enough knowledge of them.
But what i know of Christianity, it can help lead us love and righteousness, and it's not just about the words of a book, but about us discovering our true feelings, true righteousness and what love is.

As i've said i think it wrong for people to be forced into having to use their services or property, their religion to permit homosexual acts.

I think it would be wrong if any of us forced to use or property and services, money, whatever for the Phelps actions in any way.

We may want to help them and even treat them as human beings and with love and compassion.
But certianly we wouldn't want to condone their behaviour or be part of it in any way.

I suppose in this way i would be wrong to force them to my beleifs, even if i deeply think it may do them some good and save them from themselves. (I'm talking of the Phelps here.)

I don't know though, their behaviour may not be tolerated in the U.K. social services may have been involved and they may have had their children taken off them.
It would be a very complicated thing though in respect to these freedoms we talk of.
And the children are not physically harmed, seem to actually be inteligent and functional and clean and healthy.

It's a bit of a bizare case.

[paul]

my last post hasn't appeared although i am down as being the last post


edit:
Strange, after posting this post it then appeared before it.

[Tao_Equus]

You can see that documentary here:
YouTube - The Phelps Family - BBC Documentary (1/5)

[Muslimwoman]

Hi Paul

I think you are right, it is a very bizarre case and there is no easy answer. It was the small children I felt so sorry for. The young boy that had written the little book but when asked what some of the words meant had to look to his mother. This is classic brainwashing, there is no attempt to educate, just indoctrinate. I believe the smaller children would be better away from them but as you say they are fed, clothed and schooled, so on what grounds could they be removed from that situation .... "we don't like your attitude"? It is not as though they have the children making bombs, which would be cause for removal.

A very difficult one and I hope quite an isolated one.

Salaam
Sally

[Tao_Equus]

We could put a legal age limit on religion like with sex and alcohol consumption. But since religion is so dangerous maybe make it 55?

Tao

[paul]

I think there are just as many dangers in not beleiving in God.
I must say there's even worse behaviour commited by people than the Phelps, and often they are atheist and have no moral code.

There are undoubtedly many people, who have been changed by religion.
Have changed from being pretty bad people, into being better people.

Take drug addicts as one example I've had some experience with.

I know there's this pretty conservative Christian organization, which has helped many youngsters from drugs and live now better lives.

And there are programmes in my own town, that try to help youngstes off drugs.

From my experince i find the Christian organization does the job a lot better.

I have grown up in a very small town in the welsh valleys, it's diameter may only be about 2 miles.
I'm only 30 but I know of 8 people I have grown up with die of heroin overdoses.

At my age and in such a small town I'm very unlikely to know many people who die around my age, not even of cancer, I don't know anyone of my age to die from cancer.

There are the methodone programmes, and I know at least two of the people who died I talked with about a week and in one case it may have been a couple of days before they died.
They had told me they had given up heroin.
And what I heard happened and know happens when you come off heroin for a while and then go back on it, your at great risk of overdosing.

My point is, I know people who try to give up herion, go on these methodone programmes, and still don't come off heroin.

But those who have joined this conservative religious group actually have for years with no desire to go back on drugs.

I think one thing they do well, is they take them out of the enviroment.
They have new lives and new friends and a new way of life, which religion can do.
The problem I see in my town, is no drug programme can do that.

I know one of the boys who died, I saw, and he was telling me he had moved away had a job in the city.
He had come back to the town for the weekend, and i am told he met up with old friends.

Religious people do make mistakes, but I don't beleive in from what God truly teaches us.
And beleive the truth and cure can be found from God.

And I beleive the Atheist world has a lot to learn from religion, without which their problems will only get worse.

It's not people who truly follow the morals of their religions, that are drug addicts, and fall to the many problems that much of soceity does, but they may fall to some errors which all us are prone to, unless we truly set our heart on God, on love and righteousness.
And i find this greatly taught in at least the Christian religion.
But I know from experience I can put my own interperatation on things.

But know we have to open our hearts to God, to pray an let Him lead us.

And I think we can find that in many peoples lives God has changed them.
And where in many peoples lives, mine included the lack of God has been to me for the worse of what type of person i was.

The thing I find with athiesm, is someone can come to realize one thing is wrong in their life and may even manage to change, which is good.
They may actually in some cases manage with a lot of help from others to overcome some drug or alcohol addiction, even give up crime.

But what i find with Athiests is they don't change as a whole person as maybe religious people do.

They only change in part.

I beleive Christianity addresses every wrong in our lives, and teaches us the right way.
I see Atheists don't recognize all these truths in religion.

And in the lack of submitting themselves to God, I think trust too much in themselves as even many who follow religions have.
But if we truly submit to God, i think we find a better path in all areas of our lives.

[Impqueen]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Where would you draw the line Impqueen? Our children learn about the reproductive system in biology lessons. Should they now include instruction on homosexual activities? What about teaching our children the medical conditions that anal sex can cause?

Instruction on homosexual activities - no I don't think so, although the potential dangers of anal sex should be taught along with the sexual health stuff. I have to admit I have no idea what the dangers of anal sex are , though I know HIV transmission is higher in penetrative forms of sex i.e MtoF and MtoM.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Who decided what the moral standards of the country are? Who asked us? Clearly they are having to legislate our moral standards, or more correctly what they now feel our moral standards should be or this law would not have been necessary. The fact that we are having this conversation surely means that our moral standards have not changed enough, in the 40 short years, for this to be acceptable to everybody.

They ask us every 5 years, and you can write to your MP any time you want.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Are our morals now so far in the gutter that a 14 year old girl, who is still a child and does not shag around, is now seen as a freak?

That's not what I said. Thanks for putting words in mouth, I really appreciate it.

You said that they weren't talking about any sex, not just anal sex. If they aren't talking about sex at all then at fourteen she's going to be a bit confused.

Besides two men can be staying in a room together for all sorts of reasons.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

We do already have gay only signs about the place

Where? I haven't seen any?

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I am sorry but I simply do not agree with you here. The website I have spent months designing is to provide services for a niche market. Now the whole site has to change to fit in with the law and provide services for gay people. People's sexuality was not the issue, in the niche market I cater for I have never met anyone that has stated they are gay.

I don't understand why you're having to change the site unless it previously discriminated against gays. I mean, the greengrocer doesn't have to have a 'gays welcome' sign does he?

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

If you look round the net you will find dating sites exclusively for black people or asians or by religion or by sexual preference. But of course it would be against the law for me to have a white only site or a hetrosexual only site. I do not sue because I am not allowed onto niche market sites, so why can't I have a niche market site for hetrosexuals? Good Lord, being a hetrosexual is now a niche market - I give up.

I think to a certain extent you should be able to have those sites. However if I walk into a gay bar I won't get thrown out for being straight, I won't find anyone to go to bed with, but then if that was my intention it was a bit dumb to go to a gay bar. I suspect if I go onto a Christian website (at least, if it's not a raging fundie one) I won't get thrown out either. I think you should be allowed to have a site for white issues, but it shouldn't be a 'whites only' site. Just as a gay bar isn't a 'gays only' bar. As someone said (sorry can't remember who and you're off the bottom of the page - Tao I think) as only 1% of the population is gay, most bars are already heterosexual bars.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I think you missed my point. It is about legislation. Yes anyone can go and support a gay pride march and I am sure they are a lot of fun for the people taking part. However, I am not legally allowed to hold a hetrosexual rights march, I would be arrested.

Would you be? I'm not so sure, especially if you didn't directly exclude gay people.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Your comment would suggest that people should be proud to be different but almost ashamed to be of the majority.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth... The majority hasn't been oppressed for years and has not recently achieved a semblance of equality. The majority should not be ashamed to be the majority, but I can see why minorities wish to express themselves in this way. I find 'pagan pride' frankly embarrassing, but if other pagans want to go march, then why not? I don't see why pride in something minority automatically has to mean the majority should be ashamed.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

will the government never learn?!

Only if people actually use the democratic process to make their views known.

On the idea of someone making a porn film in my house... If someone is doing something on my premises that will bring them profit (whether that's selling icecream or making a porn film) I have the right to decide whether I want that or not, and whether I want to charge them money. Which is all beside the point. If you are a hotel you rent rooms with beds in to people, people are going to have sex. Some of them will have kinky sex or anal sex. Unless you plan on installing CCTV you will not know. Some of them may be noisy about it, in which case you tell them you have a 10 o'clock quiet rule and if they break it you can kick them out. You can't control the morals of your customers, they aren't your concern. But I don't think we'll ever agree on this.

[paul]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

On the idea of someone making a porn film in my house... If someone is doing something on my premises that will bring them profit (whether that's selling icecream or making a porn film) I have the right to decide whether I want that or not, and whether I want to charge them money. Which is all beside the point. If you are a hotel you rent rooms with beds in to people, people are going to have sex. Some of them will have kinky sex or anal sex. Unless you plan on installing CCTV you will not know. Some of them may be noisy about it, in which case you tell them you have a 10 o'clock quiet rule and if they break it you can kick them out. You can't control the morals of your customers, they aren't your concern. But I don't think we'll ever agree on this.

My point about the porn film is that some people may not want such behaviour going on on their property and even home.

It's not about them making a profit, but about their behaviour in someone elses property and even home.

Sure people may smuggle drugs in their room and you'd never know.
But it doesn't mean you would welcome such behaviour and certainly not let your property or services be used to condone such, as if people would then openly use your premises for such.
That would destroy what you stand for as a person, which I think you should have that right in anything you partake in, put money to or own, or promote, or put time and effort and dedication to.

If it was wife swapping or orgies.

As you say they can do what they want in private, but usually we say in private of your own homes, when somebody else owns it, or it's their home, you usually have respect to their wishes.
I find it not a very nice or respectful person, who couldn't care less about the owners wishes and feelings.
Ecspecially that they would want such a law to permit them to do that.

It speaks volumes to me what type of person would want to do that.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

this whole thread is profoundly disturbing on many fronts.

i shall simply say this.

the issue is *Human Rights* and all Humans have the same rights.

in the particular case of the United States government, the rights of the *minority* are upheld in opposition to the desire of the majority. democracy is not "mob rule" where whomever has the most people get to make the rules for everyone else.

in our modern society we engage in the politcal process to resolve differences between groups of beings that have different interests and views regarding social issues.

i equally agree that legislating morality, such as requiring private organizations or companies to specifically single out a community, is not an effective means of ensuring the rights of beings.

free enterprise virtually assures that some person will see an underserved gay community and provide services to them even if others do not.

metta,

~v

[InLove]

Namaste, Vaj

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

this whole thread is profoundly disturbing on many fronts.

I agree.

i shall simply say this.

the issue is *Human Rights* and all Humans have the same rights.

Again, I agree.

in the particular case of the United States government, the rights of the *minority* are upheld in opposition to the desire of the majority. democracy is not "mob rule" where whomever has the most people get to make the rules for everyone else. in our modern society we engage in the politcal process to resolve differences between groups of beings that have different interests and views regarding social issues.

Thank you, yes..."mob rule" is when the majority dismisses the privileges of anyone to employ the methods of democracy in order to influence legislation through due process.

i equally agree that legislating morality, such as requiring private organizations or companies to specifically single out a community, is not an effective means of ensuring the rights of beings.

free enterprise virtually assures that some person will see an underserved gay community and provide services to them even if others do not.

Well, like I said before, I wish that everyone could just treat each other with respect and common sense. And I believe you are right when you say there are plenty of folks willing to do business with gay people, myself included. I don't like the idea of posting reservations either, but allow me to present another specific situation for consideration, if I may---

Say, for instance, a gay couple books a room at a privately owned inn at a resort area hundreds of miles away. They make vacation plans, take off work, and maybe even book a flight. No one ever mentions that gays are not welcome. When they get to their destination, the hotel manager tells them, "sorry, we do not rent to homosexual couples". (To me, this all sounds so far-fetched, but we have an example of this right here on this thread.) I suppose that if I were that couple, I would definitely consider suing for lost time and money. I mean, I doubt that I would be able to find lodging of equal accomodations in the same area at the last minute. We might even go farther with the scenario--what if the couple was booking an out-of-town wedding? So when I suggested that maybe it would be good to let people know ahead of time, this is what I was thinking about. I'm not saying it is the ideal solution, but perhaps it protects the interests of all parties concerned. I know, I hate the idea, too. It does smack of "whites only" restrictions. I guess I just wanted to let you know why I said what I said.

It's easy for me to state that these situations shouldn't exist at all. But that is the ideal, not the reality as we know it right now. Maybe in time, like you say, due process will take its course and matters like this can be resolved. It would be nice if we could just sort things out without legislation, but obviously, we aren't there yet....

InPeace,
InLove

[Snoopy]

I don't recall choosing my sexuality. Does anybody remember choosing theirs?

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

I don't recall choosing my sexuality. Does anybody remember choosing theirs?

s.

Nope, most never choose it. Here we are talking about the few who want to. In some ways you might call it the ultimate vanity. I still say live and let live tho. Just they better stay the **** away from my kids school with their free condoms.

Tao

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

I have to admit I have no idea what the dangers of anal sex are , though I know HIV transmission is higher in penetrative forms of sex i.e MtoF and MtoM.

I was talking about the damage to the anus itself, as it was designed as an 'out' hole rather than an 'in' hole.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

They ask us every 5 years, and you can write to your MP any time you want.

Well personally I would never vote labour in a million years but clearly a majority did. However, did you notice the little tidbits they snuck in this week eg the American spy base, that they never even discussed with Parliament before agreeing to. Is this the democratic process you are refering to? How could I write to my MP if even he did not know about this and what exactly would be the point after the fact, it has been agreed now so my communication would not make them change their minds.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

That's not what I said. Thanks for putting words in mouth, I really appreciate it.

I apologise, it was just what your words suggested to me. You seemed to be saying that at 14 all girls should know about sexual acts and I do not see why.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

You said that they weren't talking about any sex, not just anal sex. If they aren't talking about sex at all then at fourteen she's going to be a bit confused.

What is it she is going to be confused about? I began my menstrual cycle aged 9, everything to do with the functioning of my body was explained to me (how often this would happen, what I should do about it, etc) everything except the sex. So do you believe my parents should have had the sex talk with me at 9?

Maybe she has been told what will happen after marriage, the making baby conversation but why should this include alternative lifestyles?

Originally Posted by Impqueen

Where? I haven't seen any?

Just google gay dating.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

I don't understand why you're having to change the site unless it previously discriminated against gays. I mean, the greengrocer doesn't have to have a 'gays welcome' sign does he?

I love the 'discriminated' term, how is offering a service that does not include any alternative lifestyles discriminatory? So am I also discriminating against people that wish to commit adultery? What about people looking for group sex? Neither of those lifestyle choices are illegal, so I should now be forced to provide for them as well?

It is none of my business what people get up to in private and I feel sure there are very pleasant people that enjoy all non-mainstream lifestyles, all I am objecting to is being legislated into providing services. Let's face it gay people would click on my site, say "not my scene" and look for a more suitable site, as would people from other non-mainstream niche markets. So why did that have to change? Why can't I offer a site just for one legged, green people, with bad breath, 3 arms and that only have sex with potato's? Oh that's right I can, yet I cannot offer a site for hetrosexual people from any culture, colour, religion, etc, in order to meet the love of their life, get married, have gorgeous babies and live happily ever after? Please explain to me why it is wrong to be allowed to do that, who am I offending, the people who do not want to be on my site anyway?

Originally Posted by Impqueen

However if I walk into a gay bar I won't get thrown out for being straight, I won't find anyone to go to bed with, but then if that was my intention it was a bit dumb to go to a gay bar.

I would never want gay people to be thrown out of a bar just for their sexual orientation. But when there are plenty of sites offering the same services to gay people, why can't it just be seen as dumb to come looking for a gay partner on an old fashioned, G-rated, matrimonial site?

Originally Posted by Impqueen

but it shouldn't be a 'whites only' site.

So why is it ok, under law, to have black only sites? Please do not imagine for a moment I am racist, my husband is from the African Continent and has beautifully coloured skin. I am also not homophobic, my issue is purely with legislating morals.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

Just as a gay bar isn't a 'gays only' bar. As someone said (sorry can't remember who and you're off the bottom of the page - Tao I think) as only 1% of the population is gay, most bars are already heterosexual bars.

My favourite night club when I was young was a gay club. My passion was dancing and I could dance all night without being bothered by men. Although the loo run was always a bit of a chore. One of my dearest friends was called Hatti and he was as camp as they come (always wore kaftans) but I doubt very much if he would want a law like this. He just wanted to get on with his life and people didn't accept him they could "damn well get out of his club".

Originally Posted by Impqueen

I don't see why pride in something minority automatically has to mean the majority should be ashamed.

I believe what you said is that there would be no point in a hetrosexual pride march. Why not, why can't people be proud to be hetrosexual?

Originally Posted by Impqueen

You can't control the morals of your customers, they aren't your concern.

No you cannot, we agree on that but do you not agree we should have the choice of who we choose as customers? Even if we rent our home or office by the hour, should we not be allowed to refuse to rent it out for the purpose of making a porn film?

[Impqueen]

Ok just to clarify ....

No-one should be banning anyone from anywhere. That means black, white, straight, gay, green or purple. So no, there should not be 'blacks only' sites. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be sites for black culture, but that they should be cool with white people coming by. And yes you should be able to have a 'white' site. Unfortunately at the moment the people who most often want to emphasise pride in being white seem to think hatred of others is a necessary part of pride in oneself. And so white or straight pride is likely to be suspected of this sort of bigotry, and in fact a white pride march or a straight pride march would probably only attract those sort of people.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I love the 'discriminated' term, how is offering a service that does not include any alternative lifestyles discriminatory?

I have no idea what service your website provides, as you said sexuality didn't come into it I was assuming it had nothing to do with sex, if this is the case why do you have to change anything about it?

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Well personally I would never vote labour in a million years but clearly a majority did. However, did you notice the little tidbits they snuck in this week eg the American spy base, that they never even discussed with Parliament before agreeing to.

I agree it sucks badly. No, you can't change their mind after the fact but you can vote for their opposition, or write to them or the papers and express your disgust with this abuse of the democratic process. You can join organisations that oppose this sort of thing, or even start your own organisation. You can make sure your friends and family are aware that voting for them is a vote for being decieved. You can go on demonstrations.... Hell, you could even stand for parliament as an independant candidate. Democracy is not perfect, not by a long way (as I think I said earlier ) but at least we have voices - we just have to make the effort to use those voices. Not that I do, being a lazy so-and-so.......

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I apologise, it was just what your words suggested to me. You seemed to be saying that at 14 all girls should know about sexual acts and I do not see why.

I think they should, that doesn't mean they should be doing them though (thinking kids should know about it is rather different than thinking any girl who isn't sleeping around at 14 is a freak....). If they don't know about it they are more at risk from predatory men. Besides which by the time they're 14 they will have heard about it in the playground, if nothing else, and the misinformation and chinese whispers kids hear about sex can be frightening. They should know that sex will make you pregnant, even if you do it standing up, that condoms are not 100% effective and do not protect you from all STD's, that some people are attracted to members of their own sex....

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What is it she is going to be confused about? I began my menstrual cycle aged 9, everything to do with the functioning of my body was explained to me (how often this would happen, what I should do about it, etc) everything except the sex. So do you believe my parents should have had the sex talk with me at 9?

So they explained the function without explaining sex? That's quite an achievement. At 9, I'm sure they did it right, I'm assuming they explained the basics, without going into the detail. But there's a big difference between 9 and 14.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I believe what you said is that there would be no point in a hetrosexual pride march. Why not, why can't people be proud to be hetrosexual?

They can. What I meant was, as heterosexuals haven't been oppressed for years they feel no need for pride marches. The point in pride marches is to celebrate something that has been discriminated against and to bring it further into society, saying 'look we're here, you can't deny it'. As heterosexuality is the mainstream there is little need for pride marches, but as I said, if someone want to run one, why not? I'm not a fan of pride marches generally actually, they bring out the wierdos in any group and so the majority can get a skewed view of that group.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

No you cannot, we agree on that but do you not agree we should have the choice of who we choose as customers? Even if we rent our home or office by the hour, should we not be allowed to refuse to rent it out for the purpose of making a porn film?

The making of a porn film is quite different to sex between two lovers. I don't understand why you think it's a suitable comparison. If I rent a house the tenancy agreement will include a clause about using the house as a base for a business; if i choose to run a knocking shop from it, I'm breaking the agreement. If I choose to have a different man, or different woman even, every night that's none of their business.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

And so white or straight pride is likely to be suspected of this sort of bigotry, and in fact a white pride march or a straight pride march would probably only attract those sort of people.

I agree completely but as you say later in your post the gay pride and black pride marches also attract the more extreme unpleasant side. Should we then ban marches? Perhaps I shall have a 'ban marches' march. Sorry I just don't see the need for 'pride' marches of any kind, I think they do bring out the extreme opposition and this just leads to problems. Women were oppressed and had to fight to become people rather than property in this country, yet women just sigh with relief and don't ever seem to have felt the need to flaunt it. Maybe I am just anti everyone that flaunts their sexuality? I would be just as offended by a hetrosexual pride march as I am by half naked women advertising cars and gay pride marches.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

Not that I do, being a lazy so-and-so.......

That's the problem, most of us are.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

So they explained the function without explaining sex? That's quite an achievement. At 9, I'm sure they did it right, I'm assuming they explained the basics, without going into the detail. But there's a big difference between 9 and 14.

They simply explained the menstrual cycle, without discussing the sex side at all, they made it about my body, what was happening to it and didn't feel the need to discuss sexual intercourse at that age - hell I was scared enough already.

I don't think we will ever agree on this, as we seem to have different views on children. I may be old fashined but I see little difference between a 9 year old and a 14 year old, to me they are both children. It is something that worries me about our society, that we are now not only letting our children grow up too quickly, we seem to be encouraging them to do so. Bring back long white socks and clarkes sandals is what I say!!