Jul 2009
What's Up With That?
There are so many things happening these days in the world of politics, religion and technology that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the part time blogger to keep the bases covered. To that end, I am introducing a segment that I will call "What's Up With That?" that will appear in a recurring format and will attempt to address a handful of issues that bear comment, but perhaps not worthy of a full article. I hope to cover a wider range of topics in a shorter amount of time in this manner. So, here we go:
Windows 7
I have been testing Windows 7 on my Mac Pro desktop for a couple of months now and overall like what I see. It does appear to have a slight speed increase over Vista and other welcome enhancements and tweaks that really should've been included in Vista. But will I upgrade to Windows 7 when it comes out? No way. What's up with Microsoft on their insane pricing policy for their OS anyway? They continue to stick with their confusing assortment of OS packages for people to have to choose from, but there is no significant discount for those (like me) who had purchased Vista to upgrade to 7. I will not spend another $200 on an OS that is not that much different in appearance or functionality from Vista. Where is the $30 upgrade option like Apple is doing for Leopard users to Snow Leopard? I would've gladly gone that route. If Microsoft is hoping for an onslaught of people migrating to Windows 7 I will go ahead and make a prediction right now that it's not going to happen due to their pricing alone.
Iran Diplomacy
The Obama administration is attempting to make diplomatic connections with Iran in a hope to maybe bridge some of the differences between our governments, cultures, and world views. This is something that is long overdue and should be attempted whether you think it will work or not. I certainly have my doubts, but think it is imperative that we try. So, what's up with Secretary of Defense Gates going to Israel this week and appearing on national TV to tell the world that the US will continue to supply Israel with the latest state of the art weaponry and technology to defend itself from attack? Was there ever any question about the US severing it's ally status with Israel? Israel then turns around and says all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. Call me ignorant, but that is a guaranteed move to foil any diplomatic discussions with Iran before they even begin. I am not suggesting we sever our ties with Israel, but at the very least we have to give the appearance of being neutral and willing to engage in meaningful discussions or why bother?
Rate this blog post:
|
New Hampshire Law Exempts Religious Groups...
The following article is taken directly from the American's United Church & State publication for July/August 2009. It is presented here in it's entirety and unedited. Here is the link to the original article.
---------------------------------------------------
For years, Religious Right organizations have claimed that if same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative churches will be forced to perform such unions or accommodate same-sex couples in other ways.
That’s certainly not the case in New Hampshire, where a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage contains a host of exemptions for religious groups.
HB 73 was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch June 3 after Lynch requested a series of modifications to the bill to make it clear that many of its provisions will not affect the rights of religious bodies.
The law states that religious organizations and their employees may refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and reiterates the point that religious organizations retain exclusive control over their doctrine and beliefs.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives had at first balked at Lynch’s request for changes to the bill, but several members changed their minds to get the bill passed.
“Let’s vote this one last time,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Republican from Windham. “Church and state should be separate.” In the Senate, Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat representing Plymouth, said the compromise language provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”
Although the new language helped get the bill passed, it probably was not necessary. Most legal scholars agree that the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures that no houses of worship or ministers could be compelled to perform a same-sex ceremony, just as pastors may refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples who do not meet certain theological standards.
In California, advocates of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the state supreme court upheld a ban on gay marriage passed narrowly by the voters in 2008. By a 6-1 vote, the California high court said Proposition 8 was not an unlawful “revision” to the state constitution. Such a “revision” would have required action by the legislature. Prop. 8 passed after a heavy lobbying campaign and infusion of cash from religious groups, including fundamentalist Christian bodies, the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Americans United, the Anti-Defamation League and 30 other civil rights and civil liberties groups joined the effort to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, filing a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that a bare majority of voters should not be permitted to remove fundamental rights from a minority group.
AU asserts that civil governments have no business writing theological definitions of marriage into civil law. “If Proposition 8 can strip fundamental rights from gay and lesbian people by a 52 percent majority, future amendments can strip away fundamental rights from other disfavored groups based on race, national origin, gender or religion,” read the brief.
Although the California Supreme Court upheld the Prop. 8 vote, it approved the 18,000 same-sex unions that were performed during the period gay marriage was legal.
That part of the ruling angered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The court’s recognition of these ‘marriages’ clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Perkins said in a statement.
-------------------------
TD3k Commentary:
I think it is clear that the New Hampshire Law sets a precedent in the application of same sex marriage laws by clearly stating that the matter is a civil matter and does not bear on any religious organizations, nor requires them to conform to the civil statues outlined by the government. Even though it is clearly implied in the first amendment to the US Constitution, a specific exemption being included should help to quell some of the fear and anxiety expressed by so many people who felt that such a law was a trampling of their religious rights and freedoms. Clearly, this matter can be resolved in such a manner that should prove to be equitable and fair for all involved. These types of exemptions allow religious groups to maintain their doctrines and beliefs without fear of being overridden by laws designed to promote fair treatment under the law.
Rate this blog post:
---------------------------------------------------
For years, Religious Right organizations have claimed that if same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative churches will be forced to perform such unions or accommodate same-sex couples in other ways.
That’s certainly not the case in New Hampshire, where a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage contains a host of exemptions for religious groups.
HB 73 was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch June 3 after Lynch requested a series of modifications to the bill to make it clear that many of its provisions will not affect the rights of religious bodies.
The law states that religious organizations and their employees may refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and reiterates the point that religious organizations retain exclusive control over their doctrine and beliefs.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives had at first balked at Lynch’s request for changes to the bill, but several members changed their minds to get the bill passed.
“Let’s vote this one last time,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Republican from Windham. “Church and state should be separate.” In the Senate, Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat representing Plymouth, said the compromise language provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”
Although the new language helped get the bill passed, it probably was not necessary. Most legal scholars agree that the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures that no houses of worship or ministers could be compelled to perform a same-sex ceremony, just as pastors may refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples who do not meet certain theological standards.
In California, advocates of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the state supreme court upheld a ban on gay marriage passed narrowly by the voters in 2008. By a 6-1 vote, the California high court said Proposition 8 was not an unlawful “revision” to the state constitution. Such a “revision” would have required action by the legislature. Prop. 8 passed after a heavy lobbying campaign and infusion of cash from religious groups, including fundamentalist Christian bodies, the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Americans United, the Anti-Defamation League and 30 other civil rights and civil liberties groups joined the effort to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, filing a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that a bare majority of voters should not be permitted to remove fundamental rights from a minority group.
AU asserts that civil governments have no business writing theological definitions of marriage into civil law. “If Proposition 8 can strip fundamental rights from gay and lesbian people by a 52 percent majority, future amendments can strip away fundamental rights from other disfavored groups based on race, national origin, gender or religion,” read the brief.
Although the California Supreme Court upheld the Prop. 8 vote, it approved the 18,000 same-sex unions that were performed during the period gay marriage was legal.
That part of the ruling angered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The court’s recognition of these ‘marriages’ clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Perkins said in a statement.
-------------------------
TD3k Commentary:
I think it is clear that the New Hampshire Law sets a precedent in the application of same sex marriage laws by clearly stating that the matter is a civil matter and does not bear on any religious organizations, nor requires them to conform to the civil statues outlined by the government. Even though it is clearly implied in the first amendment to the US Constitution, a specific exemption being included should help to quell some of the fear and anxiety expressed by so many people who felt that such a law was a trampling of their religious rights and freedoms. Clearly, this matter can be resolved in such a manner that should prove to be equitable and fair for all involved. These types of exemptions allow religious groups to maintain their doctrines and beliefs without fear of being overridden by laws designed to promote fair treatment under the law.
Rate this blog post:
Heard It On The Newsvine
As I mentioned in the previous article I have been spending some time in the Newsvine discussion forums over at MSNBC. For each story published to their website they provide a discussion forum so that everyday folks like you and I can join in and add our two cents on any given subject or article. I think it's a great idea and really allows for some dynamic interchange of thoughts and ideas on current and breaking news events. Since I don't get that many comments here on TD3k Speaks, it has been a bit more interesting over there with people leaving comments on your comments. Blogging is more fun when people interact and leave opinions, regardless if they agree with you or not.
However, I have to say, there is also a large number of people in the discussion forums that are there for the express purpose of trolling and slandering anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Such juvenile behavior is nothing new, but it can be very irritating and even disturbing. There are some truly mean and hateful people in this world I am sad to say. I have seen hate filled rants and comments on subjects ranging from the health care debate, politics, and of course religion. I have been particularly discouraged by those who feel that the health care system in the US is just fine and think it should be left alone. They have their coverage and they don't really care whether anyone else does or not. There are those who are so partisan and biased in their comments as to be completely illogical and almost impossible to comprehend. These comments occur on both sides of the political fence, but the Obama-haters are particularly vocal at the moment. And then you have comments from people who just like to make a comment or leave an opinion on the topic at hand. It is always interesting reading if you can get past those who are insisting that everyone agree with them or those who proclaim without discretion that if you disagree with them then you are an idiot.
I've added some links in the sidebar for the RSS feeds on the articles and the comments that I have posted. Check those out and join in the conversation if you like or start your own newsvine account and join in the fun. It is free and rather entertaining. As you contribute by adding comments to various articles, you increase your "Vineacity" rating which is a graphical icon representing your earned reputation. I just recently earned the rank of "Fruitfulness" (see diagram below).
However, I have to say, there is also a large number of people in the discussion forums that are there for the express purpose of trolling and slandering anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Such juvenile behavior is nothing new, but it can be very irritating and even disturbing. There are some truly mean and hateful people in this world I am sad to say. I have seen hate filled rants and comments on subjects ranging from the health care debate, politics, and of course religion. I have been particularly discouraged by those who feel that the health care system in the US is just fine and think it should be left alone. They have their coverage and they don't really care whether anyone else does or not. There are those who are so partisan and biased in their comments as to be completely illogical and almost impossible to comprehend. These comments occur on both sides of the political fence, but the Obama-haters are particularly vocal at the moment. And then you have comments from people who just like to make a comment or leave an opinion on the topic at hand. It is always interesting reading if you can get past those who are insisting that everyone agree with them or those who proclaim without discretion that if you disagree with them then you are an idiot.
I've added some links in the sidebar for the RSS feeds on the articles and the comments that I have posted. Check those out and join in the conversation if you like or start your own newsvine account and join in the fun. It is free and rather entertaining. As you contribute by adding comments to various articles, you increase your "Vineacity" rating which is a graphical icon representing your earned reputation. I just recently earned the rank of "Fruitfulness" (see diagram below).
Rate this blog post: