"I'm entitled to my beliefs, so you're required to be ruled by them"

cheri1122 · Apr 4, 2015

http://thesouthern.com/lifestyles/f...cle_d146f19e-c7b0-5ccc-b802-511470d447a5.html

Where will it end? When anyone and everyone's "religious beliefs" are required to be honored by everyone else?
Louisiana Pentecostals, for example, don't permit women to wear jewelry, other than a wedding ring and watch. If you get a new boss, and he is a strict believer, can he fire you for wearing pearl earrings?
Mormons require women to dress "modestly" [as they see it]. Can your landlord evict you for wearing a bathing suit he objects to?

Can parents sue the school that offers yoga as a form of exercise, because they 'believe' it leads to Hinduism?

The whole concept of "beliefs" being accepted as requirements that can be imposed upon others is just nuts.

Ragman · Apr 4, 2015

cheri1122 said:
http://thesouthern.com/lifestyles/f...cle_d146f19e-c7b0-5ccc-b802-511470d447a5.html

Where will it end? When anyone and everyone's "religious beliefs" are required to be honored by everyone else?
Louisiana Pentecostals, for example, don't permit women to wear jewelry, other than a wedding ring and watch. If you get a new boss, and he is a strict believer, can he fire you for wearing pearl earrings?
Mormons require women to dress "modestly" [as they see it]. Can your landlord evict you for wearing a bathing suit he objects to?

Can parents sue the school that offers yoga as a form of exercise, because they 'believe' it leads to Hinduism?

The whole concept of "beliefs" being accepted as requirements that can be imposed upon others is just nuts.

Religious beliefs need to be kept out of a court of law. IMHO

LDB · Apr 4, 2015

And yet if it's something else it's perfectly fine for one party to force participation on another. Priceless but predictable.

cheri1122 · Apr 4, 2015

LDB said:
And yet if it's something else it's perfectly fine for one party to force participation on another. Priceless but predictable.

Would you give up your right to bear arms because the Quakers believe it's immoral?

paullud · Apr 5, 2015

cheri1122 said:
http://thesouthern.com/lifestyles/f...cle_d146f19e-c7b0-5ccc-b802-511470d447a5.html

Where will it end? When anyone and everyone's "religious beliefs" are required to be honored by everyone else?
Louisiana Pentecostals, for example, don't permit women to wear jewelry, other than a wedding ring and watch. If you get a new boss, and he is a strict believer, can he fire you for wearing pearl earrings?
Mormons require women to dress "modestly" [as they see it]. Can your landlord evict you for wearing a bathing suit he objects to?

Can parents sue the school that offers yoga as a form of exercise, because they 'believe' it leads to Hinduism?

The whole concept of "beliefs" being accepted as requirements that can be imposed upon others is just nuts.

What exactly is your issue? You link an article about a lawsuit then question requirements to honor other people's beliefs. Then for some unknown reason you bring up Pentecostals, Mormons, and ask if parents can sue a school which you clearly know that they can since that was what the article was about. Do you have a problem being respectful of other's beliefs or something else that you didn't clarify?

LDB · Apr 5, 2015

I will not give up my right regardless of who thinks it's improper for any reason. Conversely, I will not force someone else to exercise same if it is against their beliefs. That's the problem in this and many other situations. One side is fine to have their way and allow others the same. The other side is not satisfied unless they force their way on everyone.

xiggi · Apr 5, 2015

Except for those who should be put to death of course.

LDB · Apr 5, 2015

Yeah, with independently tested corroborating DNA evidence, that would be the case at times.

paullud · Apr 5, 2015

LDB said:
And yet if it's something else it's perfectly fine for one party to force participation on another. Priceless but predictable.

It's funny that people on the left are complaining about the lawsuit. They are the ones all fired up about keeping the government and religion separate and that's exactly what this lawsuit was over as anyone can see. The parents weren't forcing their view on anyone but they were questioning whether or not the yoga classes were endorsing religion. Given the history and goals of Ashtanga yoga and the people behind the foundation that are giving the grants to get the programs in schools it seems like a very reasonable thing to question.

" The eight limbs of Ashtanga are:
1. yama: moral restraint 2. niyama: ethical observance 3. asana: posture 4. pranayama: focused breathing 5. pratyahara: calm mind 6. dharana: attention 7. dhyana: meditation 8. samadhi: union with God."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3570850

I wonder if the same people that think it is so wrong to question this program would be just fine with a program that involved moves that mimicked things like kneeling and praying, doing the sign of the cross, or other similar moves if grants were being given out by the Koch brothers.

cheri1122 · Apr 6, 2015

paullud said:
What exactly is your issue? You link an article about a lawsuit then question requirements to honor other people's beliefs. Then for some unknown reason you bring up Pentecostals, Mormons, and ask if parents can sue a school which you clearly know that they can since that was what the article was about. Do you have a problem being respectful of other's beliefs or something else that you didn't clarify?

What I have a problem with is someone imposing their "beliefs" upon others. The parents who sued were not forced to allow their child to participate in a voluntary program - they wanted the program removed. Just like the parents who want books removed from the library, or the curriculum, because they don't want their child to read it. [Harry Potter is full of magic, and that's Satanic!]
Anti abortion protesters aren't forced to have abortions, but they want no one else to have the right to one, either. [And they're perfectly willing to go to great and dishonest lengths to accomplish it, including extortion, now.]
Allowing "religious beliefs" to exempt anyone from laws that apply to everyone is insanity, IMO. The Bible says "spare the rod and spoil the child" - does that exempt parents who sincerely believe it from the laws against child abuse?
One can find justification for all kinds of "beliefs" in the Bible, many of which are illegal. If it's ok to exempt people from the law because of their beliefs, which beliefs will they proclaim next? Because if this one [homosexuality is a sin] is acceptable, why not the rest?

paullud · Apr 6, 2015

cheri1122 said:
What I have a problem with is someone imposing their "beliefs" upon others. The parents who sued were not forced to allow their child to participate in a voluntary program - they wanted the program removed. Just like the parents who want books removed from the library, or the curriculum, because they don't want their child to read it. [Harry Potter is full of magic, and that's Satanic!]

They are questioning whether or not that particular class was endorsing religion. If it is endorsing religion then it has no business at all being taught in schools. The goal of that yoga is religious and the grants are coming from a foundation from incredibly wealthy people that happen to be followers. There is a very good reason to question it and that has nothing to do with imposing beliefs on anyone, in fact it's doing the exact opposite and trying to stop it.

Anti abortion protesters aren't forced to have abortions, but they want no one else to have the right to one, either. [And they're perfectly willing to go to great and dishonest lengths to accomplish it, including extortion, now.]

They view abortion as murder. Do you think people that murder people should be allowed to go around murdering without being stopped? Answer that question looking at it from their point of view and not your's. Of course you're going to go to extreme lengths to stop children from being murdered.

Allowing "religious beliefs" to exempt anyone from laws that apply to everyone is insanity, IMO. The Bible says "spare the rod and spoil the child" - does that exempt parents who sincerely believe it from the laws against child abuse?
One can find justification for all kinds of "beliefs" in the Bible, many of which are illegal. If it's ok to exempt people from the law because of their beliefs, which beliefs will they proclaim next? Because if this one [homosexuality is a sin] is acceptable, why not the rest?

It's not insanity at all. If people have a reasonable complaint that their rights are being violated then they should stand up for themselves. As for laws against child abuse I guess it would depend on your definition of what child abuse is. I don't think a few swats from a switch is child abuse as long as there are no injuries. There aren't "all kinds" of beliefs in the Bible that are illegal.

xiggi · Apr 6, 2015

It's difficult to understand other people's reasons when you don't share the same view or thoughts. It's something I certainly struggle with.

davekc · Apr 6, 2015

I wonder how some would square this topic with the Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby vs Ocare?

Pilgrim · Apr 6, 2015

cheri1122 said:
http://thesouthern.com/lifestyles/f...cle_d146f19e-c7b0-5ccc-b802-511470d447a5.html

The above is a perfect example of a "frivolous lawsuit", and the court treated it as such.

Where will it end? When anyone and everyone's "religious beliefs" are required to be honored by everyone else?
Louisiana Pentecostals, for example, don't permit women to wear jewelry, other than a wedding ring and watch. If you get a new boss, and he is a strict believer, can he fire you for wearing pearl earrings?
Mormons require women to dress "modestly" [as they see it]. Can your landlord evict you for wearing a bathing suit he objects to?

The answers to the above two questions are obviously NO and NO.

Can parents sue the school that offers yoga as a form of exercise, because they 'believe' it leads to Hinduism?

Obviously they can, with the obvious results reported above. It only takes the nutty parents of one kid and a sleazy lawyer that will take their money.

The whole concept of "beliefs" being accepted as requirements that can be imposed upon others is just nuts.

True, although there seems to be some confusion lately as to what constitutes "beliefs" as opposed to "rights".

cheri1122 · Apr 7, 2015

davekc said:
I wonder how some would square this topic with the Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby vs Ocare?

I think the Supremes screwed up big time, on this one. If religious beliefs entitle exemption from laws that everyone else must obey, the 'beliefs' are going to become more numerous - and not just from Christians, either.
Interesting note: I read somewhere [and no one has refuted it, to my knowledge] that Hobby Lobby offered the same birth control they objected to before the law, but owner Green says he never noticed it., never really paid much attention to the particulars of their insurance coverage.