"Live and let live" is itself a principle and a rule of social organization. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, live and let live, so long as letting live doesn't get in the way of you living. Certainly for the priest who is forced to officiate a gay wedding, letting live is getting in the way of his living. So what shall he do? It seems that the law has condemned him.

As you no doubt know, no one--priest, pastor, minister, rabbi, boat captain, airline pilot, or Chief Justice--is required to marry anybody. When a denomination, such as the Lutheran Church decides that it will allow gay marriages to be performed by clergy, that doesn't mean that any Lutheran pastor is required to perform a gay marriage.

The reverse, though, is not true. If the General Conference of the Methodist Church decides it will not allow gay marriages, then Methodist pastors may not perform the ceremony, whatever their personal wishes are.

Whether civil officials (like, justices of the peace, county clerks, etc.) can refuse to marry a couple with a license, I don't know.

As you no doubt know, no one--priest, pastor, minister, rabbi, boat captain, airline pilot, or Chief Justice--is required to marry anybody. When a denomination, such as the Lutheran Church decides that it will allow gay marriages to be performed by clergy, that doesn't mean that any Lutheran pastor is required to perform a gay marriage. — Bitter Crank

That is precisely the problem in Saudi Arabia.

As you no doubt know, no one--priest, pastor, minister, rabbi, boat captain, airline pilot, or Chief Justice--is required to marry anybody. When a denomination, such as the Lutheran Church decides that it will allow gay marriages to be performed by clergy, that doesn't mean that any Lutheran pastor is required to perform a gay marriage.

The reverse, though, is not true. If the General Conference of the Methodist Church decides it will not allow gay marriages, then Methodist pastors may not perform the ceremony, whatever their personal wishes are.

Whether civil officials (like, justices of the peace, county clerks, etc.) can refuse to marry a couple with a license, I don't know. — Bitter Crank

Just one of many such cases -

http://newsexaminer.net/crime/christian-sentenced-to-prison-for-refusing-to-marry-gay-couple/

Please note this sentence in the article to which you referred me:

"But the church is also registered as a for-profit business and city officials said that means the owners must comply with state and federal regulations."

I haven't the vaguest idea why this church is registered as a for-profit business -- most irregular. However, if it is so registered, then as such it would have to deliver up a wedding service.

What do you mean, "That is precisely the problem in Saudi Arabia"? Is there a functioning Christian church in Saudi Arabia? I'm pretty sure that the Moslem authorities in Saudi Arabia wouldn't permit two men to marry if their lives (the clergy) depended on it.

There is great reason to be concerned about civil liberties in Saudi Arabia -- whether two men can marry is the least of a saudi citizen's concern. Isn't just being gay illegal there?

You may want to look at:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/16/blog-posting/did-vermont-pastor-get-sentenced-prison-refusing-m/

I'm pretty sure that the Moslem authorities in Saudi Arabia wouldn't permit two men to marry if their lives (the clergy) depended on it. — BitterCranK

Not only is homosexuality forbidden, but trying to disseminate Christianity in Saudi Arabia is punishable by death.

Here is an article on The Left's Problem with Islam. I think it makes a valid point that whilst some on the Right really are 'islamaphobic', many on the Left seem unwilling to acknowledge the genuine issues that exist in respect of the co-existence of Islam with democratic liberalism.

It's interesting that PC goes out the window in regard of the prophet. To be replaced with fear of death, or war. It's the one subject I wouldn't depict in a cartoon, whilst being the one most enticing.

There is some very confused thinking on the left with respect to religion. The stronger influence of relativism hobbles some leftists in discriminating between "good religion" and "bad religion". Wahhabism, ISIS, Boko Haram, et al are "bad religion". These leftists are sometimes as unable to tell good and bad religion apart where Christianity is concerned. A hateful, literalist fundamentalist and a Catholic bioethicist are indistinguishable to them. No wonder they can't tell the difference between poisonous strains of Islam from benevolent strains.

Many leftists are very secular, and have never had any kind of religious training or experience. (Contrary factoid: Joseph Stalin was educated by the Jesuits and they seem to have done him no good, whatsoever.) They don't have much of a POV to even begin sorting out good and bad religion.

Secular, anti-religious leftists have no experience with the process of accommodating very old strands of a religion that on the face of it seem utterly alien to us. The story of Abraham and Isaac is to modern ears an appalling story. Of course; it is appalling, but ancient and modern believers look beyond the preparation for a ritual killing and burning of one's own child; in it they found/find a key element of their faith in Abraham's obedience.

All religious people do this. Islamic and Christian lunatics do it in reverse: They fasten upon the appalling teaching and elevate (and sometimes exaggerate) it to literal code: It says x, y, and z, then that is exactly what you have to do -- exactly x, y, and z -- no wishy-washy interpretation. Burn the witch. Kill the Jews. Stone the adulterous woman, and so on ad nauseum.

Yes, fair point. But the article goes on to say:

[ISIS] hatred of infidels and their belief in martyrdom and armed Jihad have a scriptural basis, and it’s dishonest to pretend otherwise. And their brand of Islam isn’t radically different from the Wahhabism practiced in Saudi Arabia. Most Muslims aren’t Wahhabists and don’t share this vision of life, just as most Christians aren’t stoning adulterers, even though there are biblical injunctions to do so. But it’s disingenuous to say ISIS has no connection to Islamic tradition.

I also think that it's mistaken to say that Islam is really a peaceful religion. It is and always was a martial creed, with scope for religious sanction of warfare where it is justified. It was founded by a general and grew by military conquest. That isn't to demonise Islam but I think there is precious little understanding of that aspect of their culture in the West, and again, it's often 'politically incorrect' to discuss it.

I didn't say that Islam was violent and intolerant, I said it was a martial creed. It was indeed founded by a general, and did grow by military conquest. I know there are peaceful schools of Islam, marvellous ones, like the various Sufi schools (who incidentally are and were often also persecuted by the militants.) It is a rich and complicated tradition indeed. But I think depicting it as being what it calls itself, 'the religion of peace', certainly ought to be critically assessed.

That article concludes:

ISIS doesn’t represent true Islam, just as the Westboro Baptist Church doesn’t speak for Christianity. But both are religious problems, and one is clearly more dangerous and ascendant than the other. Insofar as Jihadists believe in specific ideas about apostasy and prophecy and martyrdom and blasphemy and religious freedom, we have to take them seriously, and we have to criticize those ideas. These critiques are not of all or even most Muslims, but only of the tiny minority who hold and act on these ideas. The fundamentalists on the Right won’t acknowledge this distinction, which is exactly why the Left has to make it.

Islam is and always has been a martial religion, i.e. it has a fundamental belief in just warfare (or 'Jihad' which has several meanings). The history of Islam is that the founder was indeed a desert warrior, leader of an armed group, who made their fortune attacking caravans on the desert trade routes - that is how the Islamic religion started. But I don't wish for a moment to imply that this fact either explains or justifies terrorism, and I also agree that terrorism not typical of Islam, indeed the largest number of victims of terrorism are actually Muslims.

But the article I referred to is critical of the fact that the Left will generally attribute the cause of terrorism to US foreign policy and are unwilling to face the fact that Islam has some responsibility for the problem. But clearly it is a nuanced, multi-faceted, and complex issue, with no easy answers.

But it’s disingenuous to say ISIS has no connection to Islamic tradition.

And it's disingenuous to say that the Westboro Baptist Church, or Christians that bomb abortion clinics, or murder dozens of young Norwegians, have no connection to Christian tradition.

What traditions and ancient scriptures say is of very little importance. People that wish to be violent will always find ways to justify their violence. What is important is what the people who belong to religions that have those scriptures believe and do.

And it's disingenuous to say that the Westboro Baptist Church, or Christians that bomb abortion clinics, or murder dozens of young Norwegians, have no connection to Christian tradition. — andrewk

Do you remember the name of the person who murdered 77 young Norwegians?

Of course you do.

Can you name any of these perpetrators?

Murderer of 86 and injured 434 by mowing them down with a cargo lorry in Nice.
Murderer of 49, injured 53 in Florida, for being gay.
Either of the murderers of 14 plus 22 injured in San Bernardino.
Any of the perpetrators of the Bataclan massacre, in which people were disembowelled and castrated before being murdered. 89 deaths.

Of course you can't, despite these atrocities being more recent than the one in Norway. I wonder why you think that is?

And just to correct you, Anders Breivik declared that he has never identified as a Christian. He calls his religion Odinism, but then he does have a personality disorder.

If you ever feel inclined to draw an equivalence between the Westboro Baptist church and the problem of Islamic terrorism again, please consult this Wikipedia page first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

And spare a thought for the plight of the Yazidi sex-slaves.

What traditions and ancient scriptures say is of very little importance. People that wish to be violent will always find ways to justify their violence. What is important is what the people who belong to religions that have those scriptures believe and do. — andrewk

To some extent this is true. You're explaining that people aren't slaves to scripture, but rather people define for themselves what's sacred by their innate knowledge of good and evil. You're on the verge of formulating a moral outlook that has its roots in Zoroastrianism, which is one of the tributaries of Islam.

However, there have been Muslims who justified slavery and rape by pointing to the life and words of the Prophet. That is beyond reasonable doubt. It's also a fact that Muslims are dependent on secular law to condemn these actions. That is a serious problem. Muslim scholars know it is. There just isn't any way to address that issue right now.

So Islam faces some serious challenges. We can't take those challenges off the table entirely and say they have nothing to do with events in the world. That would essentially be saying that Islam is a dead religion. It's not.

But an allied point is this: people who are prone to judging large numbers of people they've never met won't be persuaded not to do that by the presentation of any facts. A person acts according to an innate moral compass, not by presented information. True? Sometimes. Sometimes not.

people who are prone to judging large numbers of people they've never met won't be persuaded not to do that by the presentation of any facts. — Mongrel

So true, and so clearly exemplified by the post immediately above yours.

Eh.. for my money, it's too soon to be deflecting grief and anger about recent attacks which were apparently done in the name of ISIS with "Yea.. Christians do bad things too." I have a gay friend who moved to Florida not too long ago... so I don't take what happened lightly.

How about: "I think we should think hard about the best way to respond to attacks like these. Should we respond to them with a violent spirit? Or should we take a different path?"

What's your answer Andrew? What words or actions would represent our best selves?

A cool conversation:

How about: "I think we should think hard about the best way to respond to attacks like these. Should we respond to them with a violent spirit? Or should we take a different path?" — Mongrel

I agree with that, except that I'd rule out the 'responding with a violent spirit' at the very start. Violence is sometimes a necessary part of a multi-faceted solution to domestic and international law enforcement, but it should be done calmly and regretfully, not in a frenzy of hatred, which is what 'violent spirit' suggests to me.

My answer is that we need to take a multi-faceted approach, just like we do in combating other forms of organized crime. That involves:
1. Support for victims
2. Intelligence gathering
3. Enforcement against people involved in the criminal activity
4. Working to minimise the causes of the criminal activity. In the case of Islamic terrorism the most well-known of causes are war and poverty in regions from which the criminals mostly come, plus US foreign policy.

Many of these things are already being done. They are all necessary. I think there is too much emphasis on 2 and 3 and not enough on 1 and 4, but at least they are all being done to some extent.

We will never completely extinguish terrorism, just as we will never completely extinguish other forms of organized crime, but I believe a calm, thoughtful, determined application of the above approach can produce good results.

In the case of Islamic terrorism the most well-known of causes are war and poverty in regions from which the criminals mostly come, plus US foreign policy. — AndrewK

So would you argue that 'US foreign policy' is more or less responsible for terrorism than, for example, Saudi Arabia's financial support for Wahabi ideologies across the Islamic world?

We will never completely extinguish terrorism, just as we will never completely extinguish other forms of organized crime, but I believe a calm, thoughtful, determined application of the above approach can produce good results. — andrewk

Pretty unemotional answer there, Andrew. :)

No one cares about your justifications, they only see your actions. Violence always perpetuates more violence. I won't deny it's possible necessity, but I will also not deny that in that moment, my acts are no different than any other analogous acts regardless of how different I think they are. Know that you always are the proponent of violence when you are violent, without exception.

I don't see any need to argue one or the other. Both are significant and we can do what is possible to mitigate both. But we in the West have more potential to modify the first than the second.

Indeed, and deliberately so. It's emotional responses to crime that generate harmful actions that make us all worse off. That's why doctors, jurists, detectives and so many other crucial professions take themselves off a case if they are emotionally involved in it - such as when the patient, or the victim of a crime, is known to the doctor/detective. I wish politicians would do the same.

Of course people care about justifications. That's why wrongful arrest is such an emotional issue. I doubt the movie 'In the Name of the Father' would have been made if the Guildford Four had actually been responsible for the bombings for which the British government committed the violence of imprisoning them. Violence does not always perpetuate violence. A well-aimed sniper shot to a lone hostage-taker can save many lives. But mostly I agree with you. The West responded with far too much violence to the 2001 terrorist attacks, and has been reaping the fruits of that since.

I only say it, because it often seems politically correct to attribute the causes of terrorism to US foreign policy. Whereas whilst I would agree that US foreign policy under W was egregiously dreadful and de-stabilising, I still don't see it as a major cause of terrorism.

My apologies, I meant no one that isn't under their employ.

I'm sorry, I can't help myself... you know that the person that is shot down, regardless of why is not a monster, a comic book villain... people loved them.

It's emotional responses to crime that generate harmful actions that make us all worse off. — andrewk

Emotional responses are the problem? Um.. no. It takes a hardening of the heart to be able to chop somebody's head off. The vileness actually starts with a lack of natural emotion.

It's emotional responses to crime that generate harmful actions that make us all worse off.
— andrewk

Emotional responses are the problem? Um.. no. It takes a hardening of the heart to be able to chop somebody's head off. The vileness actually starts with a lack of natural emotion. — Mongrel

I'm stealing this to start a new thread, hopefully out of the eye and interest of the extremists.

Emotional responses are the problem? Um.. no. It takes a hardening of the heart to be able to chop somebody's head off. The vileness actually starts with a lack of natural emotion. — Mongrel

I think you might completely misunderstand the mindset of those who behead, immolate, rape, disembowel, and castrate in the name of their religion. These are people who genuinely believe they are doing good. They are filled with joy at finally being able to fulfill the will of their god. It is probably addictive.

There are many stories, related by escaped Yazidi sex-slaves, of ISIS members praying before and after their heinous act. And of course, the Quran and Hadith do in fact justify these behaviours.

Hopefully we're both just speculating based on our respective experiences. My opinion comes from working in healthcare where causing pain is part of the job. What's the source of your speculations?

And of course, the Quran and Hadith do in fact justify these behaviours. — tom

They are used to justify them, yes.