I'm starting a new religion.

[darkstar3]

I'm calling it the "HE God Woman Haters".

Our founding ideas?
1. God created MAN first and in HIS image.
2. God created woman from MAN to be his companion.
3. MAN's fall is due to woman's indiscretion and impurity.

Our principles?
1. Women will be subservient to men. They will not work or speak outside the home. They will venture outside the home only when necessary, only under male escort, and only under modest coverings.
2. Women will be subservient to men. They will give themselves freely to their husbands, and they will bear and raise their children without complaint or option of termination.
3. Women will be subservient to men. A daughter may only leave the house of her father when she is married for profit to the man of her father's choosing.
4. Women will be subservient to men. Their virginity and fidelity to their chosen husband will be secured through female genital mutilation.
5. Women will be subservient to men. Should a woman KNOW a man other than her chosen husband, she shall be put to death. Her punishment shall only be stayed if 4 other men can testify that she KNEW the scoundrel unwillingly, and then the scoundrel shall be forced to pay damages to her husband for his trespass...

Oh, wait, somebody already beat me to this...

I want to make something perfectly clear: The First Amendment is not the ONLY amendment, and it is very important to understand its TRUE meaning.

The First Amendment guarantees the right of people to practice their religion in THREE very important ways. Free speech (for what is religion if not a special form of speech?), free exercise, and lack of Establishment. Taken together with the spirit and some of the letter of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, I propose that the Constitution lays down as the law of the land the following simple rule:

You are free to openly practice your religion anywhere within the US insofar as this practice does not deny to ANY others ANY of the rights, including religious, enumerated within the Constitution.

Oppression is indefensible. Denial of rights, of education, of medical care, of free reign over the small bit of turf contained within your own skin is IN. DE. FENSIBLE. And it is criminal to allow it, and it is disgusting to stand up for it, in a land of the ostensibly FREE.

And if saying so makes me rude, so be it. If the statement "anyone who believes in the principles of the He God Woman Haters is an awful example of humanity, a threat to themselves and to others, and shouldn't be allowed to EVER raise children" makes me intolerant, then intolerant am I.
:rant:

[jberryhill]

1. So?

And you are perfectly welcome to buy a building in lower Manhattan and say it as often and loud as you'd like there.

Is someone trying to stop you?

[darkstar3]

5. And if I did so,

especially after attacking lower Manhattan in the name of my religion, it would be in very poor taste.

You have the right to stand on a rooftop with a megaphone and repeatedly call Sarah Palin a c***. That doesn't make it a good idea, and neither will that action ever be in good taste.

[jberryhill]

8. Nobody who attacked lower manhattan is proposing to build a facility there

So I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

[darkstar3]

10. This thread isn't about

a mosque at or near the poorly named "Ground Zero." I took your bait to begin with because I thought for certain you would see the simple applicability of the phrase "very bad taste" to your divergent argument and that would be the end of it.

I still don't believe for a second that you fail to understand the difference between rights and "very bad taste". I think you're just looking for a thread hijack in which to continue an argument that I was never interested in having.

[jberryhill]

11. I don't even think it is in bad taste

Imam Rauf has been assisting the FBI with counterterrorism efforts for years.

What is in "bad taste" about that?

You seem to proceed from the proposition that every believer in every religion is a die hard advocate of the most extreme interpretations of their faith. That is hardly true.

By and large, the rank and file of any major religious group in the US, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or whatnot, if pressed on what their religion means to them would probably say, "Try to be nice to people."

If what you know of most people comes from TeeVee then, sure, you are likely to have a warped view of what most actual real people in the real world are like on a day to day basis.

Your issue is with cartoon characters and loudmouth assholes.

[darkstar3]

12. But do the loudmouth assholes put sugar on their porridge?

:eyes:

As my final post in this diversionary hijack, let me say this: I don't watch TV, I interact with hundreds of different people on a weekly basis, and I heartily disagree with your characterization of me, and of the "rank and file". When you dig into what religious people really believe, regardless of their religion, you find it is A LOT more than simply "try to be nice to people." That is a surface one-liner offered by people who have neither the time nor the inclination to tell you what they really believe.

Play Scotsman Shuffle all you like, but I'll be sitting on the sidelines laughing my ass off at the absurdity of the entire game.

[cleanhippie]

14. [phone]

[jberryhill]

16. Their oppression of you must be difficult to bear

I will add a little extra in my donation to Amnesty International this year, so that they may address more attention to your case.

[jemelanson]

2. Thank You, darkstar3, very well said.

[DirkGently]

3. Amen. No free pass for religion. Believe as you will, but

... if your belief includes bashing other people about the head and shoulders, prepared to be told that your beliefs are evil, and cannot be incorporated into a free society.

[obxhead]

4. K&R

[Silent3]

6. I'm not exactly sure what you're advocating.

It saddens me to think of young minds being warped by some of the things some religious parents will teach their children. Unless there is a threat of actual physical harm (such as cruel standards of discipline or refusal of medical care), however, or a risk of psychological trauma as defined some very strict and unbiased standard, I can't imagine wanting to support or live under any constitutional or legal framework that would deny parents the right to raise their children in accordance with their own beliefs, even beliefs I personally find repugnant.

I want government to be strongly secular, but being secular and being officially atheist are two different things.

[darkstar3]

7. I am advocating for a standard interpretation of the Constitution by lawyers, judges, and scholars.

This interpretation, this one bolded line above, would allow for EXACTLY what you have stated here. People would be free to practice their own religions, parents would be free to pass those religions on to their children, but only so long as those practices and those teachings do not do serious and demonstrable physical or psychological harm.

For example, rather than doctors at the American Association of Pediatricians hemming and hawing about the proper response to requests for FGM, the practice would be clearly illegal, and its implementation would result in immediate revocation of parental custody.

I will agree that the phrase "serious and demonstrable physical or psychological harm" can be a little problematic with regards to proof, especially in the field of psychology. But I think if ALL of us, including those who practice law for a living, would see the bolded sentence in the OP as clearly as I do it would cut down significantly on the number of legal gray-area cases involving religion. It might also have helped prevent such things as Prop 8 and similar measures...

[iris27]

13. I could be wrong, but I think the OP is advocating for

the sort of America that would've decided the other way in, for example, Wisconsin v. Yoder.

An America that went after known women-oppressing, child-marrying groups like the FLDS with the full force of the law, instead of allowing local police forces in places like Colorado City to be staffed entirely with FLDSers and become the prophet's personal enforcement squad.

An America in which things like "conscience clauses" were illegal, and those with strong views on the sanctity of embryonic life became podiatrists instead of obstetricians and pacemaker sales reps instead of pharmacists, because the law would prevent them from allowing their personal views to ever endanger a woman's life or health.

ETA: A world in which no one was against a burqa ban because "if we ban it, those women will just be restricted to their homes". Well, how about we stop respecting and start openly challenging a religious belief and its practioners who would confine a woman to her home unless she is swathed in yards of opaque fabric?

[darkstar3]

17. You are not wrong. n/t

[Duppers]

9. ...

:thumbsup:

Caveat: I'm one of those arrogant, intolerant atheists who's sick of coddling any and all ignorance.

Besides, decades ago I had a long-term, intimate relationship with one of the male followers of above-described religion. I was ignorant and insane then.

[dimbear]

15. Slowly approaching as we are the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage

we ought to remember the bold men who fought so hard against it. That would be mostly clergymen.

Anyone have any idea why they aren't better remembered?