Washington State Attacks Freedom Of Religion

[Dave]

I am objecting to be associated with the union, due to its behavior......

Then, like I pointed out, your "religious" objection is a sham and would be laughed out of court.... as it should be.

[kokigami]

I am objecting to be associated with the union, due to its behavior......

Then, like I pointed out, your "religious" objection is a sham and would be laughed out of court.... as it should be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, a case can still be made based upon the tenants of ULC. It will be a difficult case to win. Most people dismiss ULC outright, and moreso if the person is not espousing a christian based theology. Then there will be questions as to previous union involvment, and there you will need to establish that union action since that time has impacted your moral stance. Personally, I agree with the advise that you should start seeking other work. According to other ULC tenants, once your challenge has run it's course you are still bound by whatever the law finds. But it will be a good court case anyway, and you might establish some legal precedents, even if they find against you..

[Dave]

I am objecting to be associated with the union, due to its behavior......

Then, like I pointed out, your "religious" objection is a sham and would be laughed out of court.... as it should be.

no, a case can still be made based upon the tenants of ULC.

Which is irrelevant since her sole objection is to the way the union operates and has nothing what so ever to do with her religious beliefs - AS SHE STATED HERSELF! Here is the exact quote:

I am objecting to be associated with the union, due to its behavior. This union is not presently working in the interests of the line staff level employee. It is tyrannical, and tells workers what their best interests are. I am not anti-union. I am deeply committed to individual liberty and fundamental human rights. I am agreeable to pay non-association fees to charity.

It will be a difficult case to win. Most people dismiss ULC outright, and moreso if the person is not espousing a christian based theology.

That's the point; she is espousing NO theology but a dislike of the union.

Then there will be questions as to previous union involvment, and there you will need to establish that union action since that time has impacted your moral stance. Personally, I agree with the advise that you should start seeking other work. According to other ULC tenants, once your challenge has run it's course you are still bound by whatever the law finds. But it will be a good court case anyway, and you might establish some legal precedents, even if they find against you..

There is nothing in the ULC tenants about disliking a certain union. She's just looking for a ploy to get out of joining the union. It would be wrong of her to abuse the ULC in an attempt to twist her dislike of a union into a religoius tenet she claims is backed by the ULC.

[kokigami]

I am objecting to be associated with the union, due to its behavior......

Then, like I pointed out, your "religious" objection is a sham and would be laughed out of court.... as it should be.

no, a case can still be made based upon the tenants of ULC.

Which is irrelevant since her sole objection is to the way the union operates and has nothing what so ever to do with her religious beliefs - AS SHE STATED HERSELF! Here is the exact quote:

I am objecting to be associated with the union, due to its behavior. This union is not presently working in the interests of the line staff level employee. It is tyrannical, and tells workers what their best interests are. I am not anti-union. I am deeply committed to individual liberty and fundamental human rights. I am agreeable to pay non-association fees to charity.

It will be a difficult case to win. Most people dismiss ULC outright, and moreso if the person is not espousing a christian based theology.

That's the point; she is espousing NO theology but a dislike of the union.

Then there will be questions as to previous union involvment, and there you will need to establish that union action since that time has impacted your moral stance. Personally, I agree with the advise that you should start seeking other work. According to other ULC tenants, once your challenge has run it's course you are still bound by whatever the law finds. But it will be a good court case anyway, and you might establish some legal precedents, even if they find against you..

There is nothing in the ULC tenants about disliking a certain union. She's just looking for a ploy to get out of joining the union. It would be wrong of her to abuse the ULC in an attempt to twist her dislike of a union into a religoius tenet she claims is backed by the ULC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The ULC tenant says that every individual is both capable and responsible to determine that which is right for themselves. If she has done the work, and come to the conclusion that paying fees to the union is not right, by our creed, "do only that which is right" she is obligated to fight the requirement. The case is not impossible. It is unlikely, more because our society does not agree with the the tenant that each individual is capable and responsible for their moral compass. That is a societal problem.

[Dave]

The ULC tenant says .....

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.

[kokigami]

The ULC tenant says .....

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.

[Dave]

The ULC tenant says.....

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.

perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.

I understand she was trying to use the ULC as an excuse. To abuse the ULC in that way and claim an attack on her RELIGIOUS freedom is not doing the right thing. "Do that which is right" does not give you free reign to do whatever you want and when someone doesn't let you do that then cry about your "religious" freedom. To put it simply; you cannot rob a bank and then claim your religious beliefs said you can do it because you think it is right.

[kokigami]

The ULC tenant says.....

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.

perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.

I understand she was trying to use the ULC as an excuse. To abuse the ULC in that way and claim an attack on her RELIGIOUS freedom is not doing the right thing. "Do that which is right" does not give you free reign to do whatever you want and when someone doesn't let you do that then cry about your "religious" freedom. To put it simply; you cannot rob a bank and then claim your religious beliefs said you can do it because you think it is right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but she isn't robbing a bank. She is making a legal objection, based upon her estimation of what is right. She is capable of making that determination. There are no restrictions placed upon the process she uses to make that determination, save that she not break the law or interfere with the right of others to make their own determinations. In fact, I would say that "Do that which is right" does give you exactly the freedom you claim it does not - with the caveat that it violation of the law is specifically exempt.

I see no reason that a member of ULC could not argue that they had a religious objection to paying Union dues simply because their personal understanding of what is right is to keep all the money they earn for themselves. She has the right to make the challenge. If she can prove her allegations of corruption, or even support them, she might have a chance of winning.

[Dave]

The ULC tenant says.....

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.

perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.

I understand she was trying to use the ULC as an excuse. To abuse the ULC in that way and claim an attack on her RELIGIOUS freedom is not doing the right thing. "Do that which is right" does not give you free reign to do whatever you want and when someone doesn't let you do that then cry about your "religious" freedom. To put it simply; you cannot rob a bank and then claim your religious beliefs said you can do it because you think it is right.

but she isn't robbing a bank.

I never said she was. I guess you didn't understand the point, so never mind.

[kokigami]

The ULC tenant says.....

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.

perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.

I understand she was trying to use the ULC as an excuse. To abuse the ULC in that way and claim an attack on her RELIGIOUS freedom is not doing the right thing. "Do that which is right" does not give you free reign to do whatever you want and when someone doesn't let you do that then cry about your "religious" freedom. To put it simply; you cannot rob a bank and then claim your religious beliefs said you can do it because you think it is right.

but she isn't robbing a bank.

I never said she was. I guess you didn't understand the point, so never mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

then you didnt make a point. you think she is what she is doing is not right. But you dont' have authority or capacity to determine that for her. You may only say that, in a similar situation, you would not do the same.

[Dave]

The ULC tenant says.....

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.

perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.

I understand she was trying to use the ULC as an excuse. To abuse the ULC in that way and claim an attack on her RELIGIOUS freedom is not doing the right thing. "Do that which is right" does not give you free reign to do whatever you want and when someone doesn't let you do that then cry about your "religious" freedom. To put it simply; you cannot rob a bank and then claim your religious beliefs said you can do it because you think it is right.

but she isn't robbing a bank.

I never said she was. I guess you didn't understand the point, so never mind.

then you didnt make a point.

I did, but never mind. Edited September 13, 2005 by Dave

[Guest gravitypresses]

For love of the English language...the word is TENET, not TENANT. Typos I can understand. Ignorance makes us all look bad. Good thing ignorance (as opposed to stupidity) is easily correctable with the judicious application of knowledge.

[Dave]

For love of the English language...the word is TENET, not TENANT.  Typos I can understand.  Ignorance makes us all look bad. Good thing ignorance (as opposed to stupidity) is easily correctable with the judicious application of knowledge.

Given time I'm sure we'll find something that you are ingorant, or stupid, about and remind you of it in a very nasty way..... just as you did here.

[mdtaylor]

And I think that just about does it for this topic.....

[kokigami]

For love of the English language...the word is TENET, not TENANT.  Typos I can understand.  Ignorance makes us all look bad. Good thing ignorance (as opposed to stupidity) is easily correctable with the judicious application of knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oopsi.. my bad. once I got to typing it, and it looked right, I never thought to question it...

edited to say, i dint fine it insalting. I though it was funny.

Edited September 13, 2005 by kokigami

[Guest gravitypresses]

Dave wrote:

Given time I'm sure we'll find something that you are ingorant, or stupid, about

Ignorant, absolutely, about way, way too many things. Stupid? Not on your life, pal.

[Guest bearhugs]

thank you to all for giving me your perspectives on this topic. I appreciate the time you took to share with me. I am at peace with my decision, and am ready to retire the issue on the forum please.

See you elsewhere on the ULC forum!

Bye,

Cheryl

[kokigami]

thank you to all for giving me your perspectives on this topic. I appreciate the time you took to share with me. I am at peace with my decision, and am ready to retire the issue on the forum please.

See you elsewhere on the ULC forum!

Bye,

Cheryl

Can't promise that will end it thoug

[MoonShaddow]

In my personal religious belief system, I accept those of all religions and those with no religion. I am an advocate of human rights at the individual level. Each person must walk their own path, live their own life and die their own death. I had to do serious soul searching when the union went for the union security clause. After thorough and careful reflection and consideration, I came to peace with my inner turmoil when I recognized that in my ministry, I would be a hypocrite if I continued association with an organization that was functioning so inconsistently with my conscience. I can live with my money going to charity, but I cannot accept sending it to an organization that forces association on individuals. I believe people have a right to work, feed their families, etc, which for me takes precedence over the rights to unionize in a compulsory fashion.

I do not wish to engage in philosophical, political, legal or religious debate with this posting, and I apologize to those union sympathizers/supporters who misunderstood my request. I was seeking encouragement and energy, if anyone had some to spare or share with me.

I already understand, and have been told in writing by my employer, that I am risking receiving notification that I may be terminated. So be it. Life is a journey, and if someone like an employer or union, or the forum tells me I am not wanted around anymore because of what I believe and stand for, I will move on.

Mother Earth is my church, except for those exhilarating moments when the sky is my church (on an airplane, I haven't earned my own wings as yet). My religion grows with exposure to others' perspectives and as I experience different situations. I mean no harm to anyone, or anything (except bugs who dare to land on me who usually just get a swat but if they aren't careful, they might get squashed).

ULC is the closest thing to organized religion that feels like a humanly created spiritual respite to me. I am deeply grateful to our founder and brothers and sisters who maintain and contribute to its existence.

Thanks for your input,

Cheryl

Hi Cheryl,

Big warm hug from a fellow traveler on a similar path. My beliefs vary but some of our tenets agree. From your posts I see two very clear pillars under which you may shelter when the earthquake hits: First and foremost, Do That Which Is Right. You know in the depths of your soul that it is wrong for you to join this particular union, AND to be forced to join ANY group whatsoever. Therefore joining against your will is doubly forbidden by your church, the ULC. Secondly, being forced to disclose and defend your religious beliefs in order to remain in a job which you had been perfoming satisfactorily prior to this new law is unconscionable, and therefore also NOT doing That Which Is Right.

Have you contacted the American Civil Liberties Union? LOL there's an irony - asking a union to defend you against compulsory membership in a union - maybe it's just me, but I see constitutional issues here. In my experience, living among "liberal" people here in the SF Bay Area, that there is an inverse relationship between individual liberty and political liberalism. The more "liberal," the less individual liberty counts and the more the "greater good" of the collective counts. In other, less tactful words, liberalism is socialism, which is anathema to individual liberty.

To take the best care of yourself when the earthquake hits, I would advise you to begin looking at what you can do for a private company that deploys to best advantage all you have learned while working for the government and unions. There are probably many pro-freedom businesses which would love to employ you at a higher salary to contribute your understanding of the inner workings of both government and union management.

Best wishes for success beyond your wildest dreams.

Cathi aka MoonShaddow

in "the People's Republic of California"

Silicon valley, Calif

[Dave]

Hi Cheryl,

Big warm hug from a fellow traveler on a similar path. .....

She's gone. She "unregistered" long ago. She basically admitted that she was trying to use the ULC as a ploy to get out of having to pay union dues. She didn't get the amount of support she wanted, so she left.