The Daily Roxette discussions forum has been closed. The forum is only available as a read-only archive.
Are we living in the middle ages?!
33 replies
kachina008 said on July 21, 2006 07:05:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/20/cohabitation.law.ap/index.html
Here’s the copy/paste of the article:
t’s legal to play house in North Carolina
Judge lifts state’s cohabitation ban, calls it unconstitutional
Thursday, July 20, 2006; Posted: 6:44 p.m. EDT (22:44 GMT)
RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) – A state judge has ruled that North Carolina’s 201-year-old law barring unmarried couples from living together is unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued last year to overturn the rarely enforced law on behalf of a former sheriff’s dispatcher who says she had to quit her job because she wouldn’t marry her live-in boyfriend.
Deborah Hobbs, 41, says her boss, Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County, near Wilmington, told her to get married, move out or find another job after he found out she and her boyfriend had been living together for three years. The couple did not want to get married, so Hobbs quit in 2004.
State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford issued the ruling late Wednesday, saying the law violated Hobbs’ constitutional right to liberty. He cited a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law.
That ruling showed that “the government has no business regulating relationships between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home,” Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina, said in a statement.
She added that “the idea that the government would criminalize people’s choice to live together out of wedlock in this day and age defies logic and common sense.”
The suit named Smith, the state and Attorney General Roy Cooper as defendants. Cooper had argued that Hobbs couldn’t challenge the law because she wasn’t charged with a crime.
A Cooper spokeswoman said Thursday that lawyers had not decided whether to appeal.
Hobbs said Thursday she was “very happy for myself and for everyone else this law has affected.” She added that she hasn’t thought about applying for another job with the sheriff’s office.
Rudinger said that since 1997, the law has spawned about 36 criminal cases in North Carolina. State officials have said the number of people actually convicted under the law – formally known as the fornication and adultery statute – is not clear.
The law also has been used to deny compensation to crime victims, child custody, health benefits, probation and parole, Rudinger said.
The law states, in part: “If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”
About 144,000 unmarried couples live together in North Carolina, according to the 2000 census. The ACLU says along with North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi and North Dakota have laws that prohibit cohabitation.
rox-kuryliw said on July 21, 2006 13:16:
i blame bible bush !!, i mean its good a US president has a religion but how dare he rule with it isnt that what he does ? i remember tony blair saying god will judge the terroists, i remeber people in england what the hell ? lol was funny. fudge that WE WILL judge the terroists. They should never bring in there religious beliefs to govern run a country.
They should run a country with everyones beliefs and human rights in mind not a specific group like bush and blair do. BUT saying that alot of others countrys aqre FARRRR worse for it.
LittleSpooky said on July 21, 2006 14:30:
There’s a law in Idaho that can get you arrested for sex if you’re not married to the person. It’s the vast minority trying to control the majority.
TinyBubbles said on July 21, 2006 15:57:
As long as there is religion we will always be living in the middle ages ^^
whateveriam said on July 21, 2006 20:05:
’Religion is the opiate of the masses’ I think it was Marx who said it
TinyBubbles said on July 22, 2006 06:00:
It’s probably true.. not all religions. BUT definately the 3 great monotheist religions. All religions involve ppl and their beliefs tho.. so i dunno.. i mean i’m just thinking.. give the other smaller religions the same power as the 3 great religions enjoy and maybe they too would become a problem.
If i was forced to follow a religion i’d probably go for buddism. But i honestly just do not like organised religion. I dont like when a belief system becomes the alpha and omega and you have to live and die by it.
nate said on July 22, 2006 13:21:
That’s awful that Ms Hobbs had to resign her position. Shame on Sherriff Carson.
That said, I think one needs to be careful NOT to label everybody belonging to a specific religious group(s), and judging them all equally for the actions of a few. That seems just a little narrow minded.
People live and die for their belief systems all the time - whether it’s a “religious” belief system, or your own personal belief system. If I was unufortunate enough to live in a country where freedom of religious expression did not exist, and worshipping my God was considered a criminal act, sure I would die to defend my right to practice my faith.
People ought to have the freedom to believe what they want to believe, and live how they want to live - so long as no one is harmed as a result.
kachina008 said on July 22, 2006 15:22:
....and as long as they dont try and enforce that religion on others. I wonder how many christian missionaries are in Iraq at the moment, anyone know?? Perhaps all these wars ain’t about the oil, they are an evangelistic effort muahah! ok ok back to the topic :D
nate said on July 22, 2006 15:51:
I agree with you in that, “enforcing any religion or belief system (including atheism) on others” would elminate freedom of religion.
For a period of almost two years, I worked overseas as a missionary. If I were to go overseas again and serve in a similar capacity, I do not think the middle east would be my first choice.
coyboyusa said on July 22, 2006 20:37:
lol how on earth do u force atheism on anyone, atheism arises out of an awakening that religion is a joke
nate said on July 22, 2006 21:42:
“lol how on earth do u force atheism on anyone, atheism arises out of an awakening that religion is a joke”
Many former atheists (including myself) have experienced another kind of awakening that has brought us to the opposite conclusion, which has resulted in faith in God or “a higher power” as some would prefer to call it.
The challenge is living in a western society that shows little or no respect towards any religious minority or institution (as demonstated in the previous unflattering reply), and tries to impose its own godless convictions upon the masses. Those who do not willingly embrace it are branded as religious fanatics, bigots, narrow-minded prudes, or uneducated ignorant morons”. So don’t bother telling me otherwise Coyboy because your reply reveals your own narrow-mindedness, and intolerance.
LittleSpooky said on July 23, 2006 05:47:
Coy: Not all religions are a joke. But you’ve never bothered investigating ALL of them, because you don’t have an educated opinion. You’re just stating what is the common knee-jerk reaction. If you truly had an informed opinion about religions (rather than watching what’s on the idiot box and making broad based assumptions based upon the narrow-mindedness of the masses), then perhaps you’d understand that each religion is right for an individual who is happy there. I despise the hypocricy of MANY Christians / Catholics / Jews / Muslims, et al.
Are all of them like that? No. But to the uninformed and narrow-minded, they are.
kachina008 said on July 23, 2006 08:44:
nate: interesting. how do you reconcile your stint as a missionary with allowing the freedom of religion?
Santi said on July 23, 2006 09:08:
As said by nate: “The challenge is living in a western society that shows little or no respect towards any religious minority or institution (as demonstated in the previous unflattering reply), and tries to impose its own godless convictions upon the masses.”
The point is that the “godless convictions” you talk about do work, and science is clearly superior to any trascendental beliefs. At least science can make accurate predictions that nearly always come true. Religions can never do that, they’ve never done that... That’s why we don’t take them seriously...
Moreover, many atheists (myself included) believe religions are extremely dangerous (not only minorities), because they teach the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. And like a hijacked plane is much safer when the hijacker values his own life (in Northamerica you know about this, don’t you?), if death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. The world would be a much safer place without all the afterlife nonsense, you see... And no holy wars would be fought either...
Oh my... don’t get me started about this... :(
kachina008 said on July 23, 2006 09:23:
Mwah, I don’t agree that without religion, the world would be safer etc etc. I think that man will find something to be fanatic about anyway. I firmly believe that man is arrogant enough to believe he is intelligent in order not to behave like an animal, but in the end no one can turn off those instincts. So, I don’t see a better world in the alternative, santi.
and what do you mean “dont get me started” :P As I see it, you alraedy did :P
nate said on July 23, 2006 13:04:
Thank you all for your replies.
Look, I’m not trying to get anyone started, I just wish to respectfully share another point of view.
kachina008 to answer your question: “how do you reconcile your stint as a missionary with allowing the freedom of religion?”
I don’t have a problem sharing my faith with a person or group of people who is/are willing to listen.
How he/she/they respond is his/her/their choice.
Santi I don’t have a problem with science, but I don’t believe that science satisfactorily answers every question, and I do not agree that all faiths that believe in an afterlife are or should be classified as dangerous. Many religions including my own value life.
If you really wish to discuss or debate the issue with me further, you’re welcome to e-mail me. I’d be interested in hearing your ideas.
roxtexanet said on July 23, 2006 16:32:
I’d like to say that I agree with Santi 100%, but unfortunately I think Kachina’s right too... patriotism is a good example of a stand-in for religion. As soon as someone is willing to sacrifice his/her own life for a “higher” moral ideal, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s religion that motivates that decision - all hell will break loose anyway!
I wonder what the people who support laws like this one in NC would think about the fact that more than half of Canadians now choose to live in common-law relationships (with the same benefits as legally-married couples), and I’m sure that stat is even higher in many other countries... I guess we’re all going to burn in hell (-:
nate said on July 23, 2006 18:41:
Personally, I think many would fight to preserve their freedom - and maybe even die trying. I don’t know where Ms Hobbs stands on the “God” issue, but surely she is an example of someone who is willing to stand up for her rights and personal convictions eventhough they go against NC law.
Perhaps this should be a new thread, but the question I now pose is this:
If you lived an a country ruled by an evil and oppressive dictatorship, where you only have two options (no option to escape) to either conform to the religious institution of that country against your own free will, or to face certain death what would your choice be?
1) Would you compromise by putting your personal beliefs and convictions aside, and allow yourself to
be controlled by the religious institution?
2) Or would you risk your life trying to preserve your freedom to believe in what you want to believe - including the belief that there is no god?
I’m not going to judge anyone’s responses, I’m just interested to hear what you have to say.
TinyBubbles said on July 24, 2006 05:52:
Ughhh Sheba is so right :S Even without religion ppl would still be fanatical and ridiculous. That’s the whole reason religion came about in the first place i guess.
Good question Nate..probably not the best person to answer it myself, cuz as i’m agnostic i dont think that would really apply to me. I’d not be prepared to die for my beliefs since i dont have any :P
But in answering your q.. i’d be controlled by the religious institution and mannnn i’d not be happy about it i can tell you that much. But it wouldn’t be as bad for me as it would be, for instance, for a christian to have to conform to an Islamic system. I can well imagine for that a die hard christian would probably be prepared to die.
When i was growing up i lived in a country that was practically ruled by the church. All my friends and most of my family were, what i would call fanatical christians. My life was never in danger, but i still chose to hide my then atheist attitude and i conformed to the ideas of everyone around me out of fear..(atheism in those days and in the place i lived was like devil worship) (but then again so was watching the Pokemons on TV)
I went to church and religious meeting with my friends. I was the captian of my school’s Bible quiz team etc, all while i didn’t believe in any of it myself.
NOW, had atheism been something i felt was worth dying for and starting a war for.. i’d probably have done it. But i dont see the point. And that is what makes religion, and those who live and die by it, very dangerous in my opinion. See.. if we were all atheists or atleast agnostic as i am.. we’d have a better chance to have world peace :)
kachina008 said on July 24, 2006 08:00:
“See.. if we were all atheists or atleast agnostic as i am.. we’d have a better chance to have world peace :)”
Until I start a movement that everyone should wear orange :P or everyone should run to work instaed of using cars. or hmm everyone should paint themselves blue just because it is so much better! no, the human race NEEDS something to be fanatic about. We will find something to make war.
As to answer your question Nate: I would take the coward’s way out, me. My “cause” isn’t worth dying for, really. I mean, impose what you will on me, my relationship with God/supreme being/the lord/creator/force is mine and mine alone. Unless your evil dictator has found a way to read minds, my beliefs are firmly under wraps and a very personal thing. I find people imposing their religion on others almost vulgar. It’s like telling someone what to wear, or how to behave or how to have sex with their partner. VERY VERY PERSONAL!! :D
This is why I asked you the question Nate, about you being able to reconcile your missionary days with freedom of religion. I agree with you talking to people who are willing to listen, but how do u characterize the ones that don’t? I mean doesn’t your religion dictate to convert as many as possible and pray for the rests’ souls? If you are willing to give people the freedom of thought and choice, why undertake a journey for the specific purpose of talking to people about your religion? I simply can’t reconcile that in my mind. A simple situation: we are having coffee and by chance the topic of religion comes up. You tell me what you believe and I tell you the same because we are friends and we can talk that way. But if you came to have coffee with me with the sole purpose of somehow talking about your religion to me, I’d be offended.
In the end, in my mind (and I might get flamed for this!), an evil dictator imposing his beliefs and religion on his people, and a missionary going to remote place in the world to spread what he thinks is the Word of God is quite similar. The methods might not be the same, force and fear by the dictator and the simple coersion by the missionary, but the original idea, the original purpose is the same. Please Nate, convince me otherwise :)
TinyBubbles said on July 24, 2006 11:01:
bah fine sheba, lets forget about eradicating the world of religion... lets just eradicate the world of any form of fanatasism..now where the hell are my nukes...?!?! I think you had them last :P
Honestly tho.. dont you think that without religion we’d already be better off? A step in the right direction?
just hand over the nukes.. me and Santi will take of things ;) ^^ ;) :D
nate said on July 24, 2006 11:23:
wow kachina008, I didn’t expect that kind of reply. “gasp” - I’m not used to being compared to an evil dictator.
One difference I think is “motive”. Though I cannot speak for the motives of every missionary throughout the ages, I can say confidently that many missionaries do have good intentions, and desire the best for the people they are serving. Dictatorships to my knowledge are not run that way. I myself decided to put my career in banking and finance on hold at the time, and use my savings, and raise my own funds to be able to finance the various short-term projects I was involved in. Regardless of the project (teaching english, humanitarian, preaching, construction), I worked hard to build relationships with people, to listen to them, support them and love them, and to share the hope that I have - when that opportunity became available.
If you have any more questions about that, perhaps we can discuss it off the forum, and I’d be happy to answer any of your questions.
kachina008 said on July 24, 2006 12:07:
nate: hehehehee I apologize for shocking you. I’m sure you are as much an evil director as the moon being made of cheese, but I hope you understand where I am coming from. I am simply hoping to understand your statements. I appreciate the idea that you are putting forth, and being involved in projects to help the people etc. That is indeed something very very noble.
But why do u think you are “serving” these people? Do they actually need to be “served” ? If you want to build bridges and provide education and food, why not join a humanitarian organization? Why go in the name of the church? Again, to me, doing this is like inviting someone to your house with offers of love and friendship, but with an ulterior motive. That is what I do not appreciate. What did you tell these people when you shared your hope with them? That they should accept the faith and believe in it in order to be truly saved? what did you tell them the alternative was? This is why I made the comparison to missionaries (not you personally!) and the dictator. Both have an ulterior motive, it is simply more obviuos with the dictator. MY parents taught me to do good for people and to others without expecting anything in return and this is why I have such a big problem with the whole idea.
Yeah perhaps it is better to discuss it off the forums lol. I believe my email address is on my profile ;)
and um....*takes nukes very carefully away from TB* :P
LittleSpooky said on July 24, 2006 21:42:
I just find the “all religions are trash” label offensive is all. I keep forgetting that for the most part, if it’s not Christian / Muslim / Jewish / Islamic / Catholic, it ain’t crap in most folks eyes.
Well, I can tell you this: My experience with MOST people of the above mentioned faiths are narrow-minded and are the cause of 99% of the worlds problems.
nate said on July 24, 2006 22:24:
Tinybubbles, thanks also for your reply. I wanted to respond to you as well this morning, but I did not want to be late for work. :)
That must’ve been very challenging for you to grow up in an environment where you had to “hide your beliefs in fear” - although your life was not in any danger, perhaps there was the fear of being rejected or ostracised - perhaps even from your own family, I don’t know...... I would never wish that on anybody.
That said, I don’t think the eradication of all religions or all “religious people” for that matter would = world peace.
.....and I’m not just saying that because I value my own life :))) - but seriously speaking, I think GREED & POWER & JEALOUSY are huge factors which inspire men to invent wars.
Besides, I’m certain that there many people within these “large religious institutions” (myself included) who truly desire world peace.
nate said on July 24, 2006 23:24:
kachina008 I think I do understand where you’re coming from. I’m going to risk answering your questions on the forum again because I believe you and I are mature enough to comfortably share ideas, and agree to disagree if we need to.
Though admittedly my views are conservative (I suppose that would probably warrant the fanatic label in many peoples minds), I enjoy building relationships with all people whether they embrace my views on matters of spirituality or not. Conversion has never been a condition or a requirement for my friendship. If it was a condition, I would only have friends from inside the religious group I belong to - but that simply is not the case. Kachina, I myself would never have made a decision to belong to any religious group out of fear - nor would I ever attempt to manipulate anyone to convert to my faith out of fear. No one would benefit from this.
I could have joined a humanitarian organization, and many good things would have been accomplished as well. I suppose the reason why I chose to represent a religious organization (and perhaps I will stand alone in my opinion here) is that I believe that religion/faith can have a very positive effect people. I know that I’m a very different person today than I was 10 years ago when I didn’t believe God existed. I believe my faith has made me a stronger person, and has taught me (and continues to teach me ) to love others, even when it’s not reciprocated, and to be thankful in all situations, to consider others instead of only thinking about myself. I could go on - but that’s probably not necessary. I have also seen many other lives positively changed for the better, and perhaps this is one of the reasons I feel so strongly about this.
kachina008, I hope this answers your questions, and maybe addresses some of your concerns.
PS. Though I’m glad you don’t really think I’m an evil dictator. :)
TinyBubbles said on July 25, 2006 05:29:
You’re a cool dude Nate.. for a christian :P *kidding* As for growing up in the situation i did... it wasn’t too bad too be honest. I had an exceptionally mature understanding of it all for my age. And i understood all too well why the ppl i knew needed religion, as i understand it today aswell. I respected them and their beliefs. But i also understood why they wouldn’t respect me and my belief (or lack thereof) and reject me as an atheist. I wasn’t happy with it, but i understood it.
Ok now that we’ve established that Nate isn’t the evil dictator..can i be it?? can i? can i pleasseeeeeeee?? I got nukes now :d
And i changed my mind!!! i DO wanna be a martyr for atheism :D
*KABOOM*
coyboyusa said on July 21, 2006 12:24:
this was all over the news about a month ago, its the bible blet states trying to get gays and unwed minority mothers out of their states, isn’t redneck racism so great :(