Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002033.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002033.php on line 106
June 08, 2005
Religious Freedom

Okay, it's Canada, but I think many of the same issues being raised there are those that we face here in the USofA.

I think our Northern neighbor is letting itself be buffaloed by homophobic churches.

The Liberal government moved yesterday to prevent an internal crisis over its bill to legalize same-sex marriage, saying it is willing to beef up protections for church groups complaining that their religious freedoms will be violated.

It's absurd to say that same-sex marriage violates someone's religious freedom. If they disapprove, they're entitled to disapprove.

What they don't have the right to do is to tell the rest of the world it can't approve of same-sex marriage.

I was talking with someone about this just last night. The problem is that some people interpret their "freedom" as the freedom to dictate to other people. Wrong.

Your "religious freedom" stops at the door of your church.

A Justice official said the government will give "serious consideration" to an amendment that would assure churches will not lose their charitable status for refusing to perform gay marriages.

I support this. (Except for the part where I don't see any reason a "church" should be tax-exempt.) A church that's homophobic shouldn't have to perform same-sex marriages. Also, a church that's racist shouldn't have to let in people from other than their preferred ethnicity. Or to perform marriage ceremonies for couples of different races. A church that's misogynistic shouldn't have to let women worship.

That's not sarcasm. I'm serious.

Okay, I think it's all a lot of superstition anyhow, but I also think everyone is entitled to their hobby. I don't really think it matters what they do, and if they decide to redefine "religion" to mean "biased against women" or "celebrating left-handed people" or whatever other idiocy they come up with, I can't really see that it matters. Let them pay their taxes and believe whatever insanity they want to believe in private.

Even more than that, though, I think there are many advantages to providing complete religious freedom.

For one thing, the bigots, misogynists, racists, and homophobes would be self-identified. I'm sure you can all see the good of that.

Face it...if you remove the tax-breaks "churches" get, does it really matter how someone defines their particular brand of superstition?

It's not like pretending the bigotry doesn't exist erases it. Maybe a little of the harsh light of day on the shadow will help dispell it?


(With apologies, in advance, to those who don't deserve the scorn I'm heaping on the bigoted and narrow-minded among the "religious" crowd.)

Posted by AnneZook at 06:32 PM


Well done, Anne. (By the way, you may wish to consider switching your site feed to full instead of partial. I've tried on a number of occasions to click on your blog to read the rest of your posts, only to be met with error messages.)

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at June 8, 2005 08:47 PM

Thanks, Elayne.

And I'd totally make that switch...if I'd understood a single word of what you said. Can you dumb it down some?

Posted by: Anne at June 8, 2005 09:41 PM