The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

a reply to: Serdgiam

Did you find my response satisfactory?
I neither caved, NOR capitulated. I was given enough information to reconsider my alarm and render it back to a simmer.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Serdgiam

Did you find my response satisfactory?
I neither caved, NOR capitulated. I was given enough information to reconsider my alarm and render it back to a simmer.

Considerable progress for 24 pages.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Were they forbidden from using birth control? Were they forbidden to go buy it on their own? Were they forced to worship or pray or go to church? No. None of that. They just didn't get as much free stuff as they wanted.

Only a progressive thinks that someone else not forced into providing them with free stuff is an infringement on their rights.

Once again, you are asserting a false argument, that has nothing to do with the issue. The SCOUS ruling was NEVER about "free stuff", 16 or 20 methods of contraception or contraception at all. It was about granting a for profit corporation the same status as a church or religious charity when it comes to religious objection.


a reply to: NavyDoc

Me:
The way I see it, this law says the government CAN substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion as long as they have a compelling interest.

And it would be unconstitutional.

Right. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act is unconstitutional!

No amendment in the Bill of RIghts has the caveat "except for compelling interest"

Right. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act violates the Establishment Clause.

(which translates into whatever the government wants essentially). "Compelling interest" is a dangerous slippery slope for the government. Freedom of speech? Not if WE decide we have a "compelling interest." Freedom from illegal search and seizure? Not if WE decide we have a "compelling interest." Can you see where this train of thought leads? I know that many people want the government to squash religion and religious freedoms because they hate Christians, but that IMHO is very short sighted because you are giving the government the power to squash you eventually too.

Agreed. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act needs to be repealed.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc



Good. Now, hand me your pistol so I can go destroy some beer cans.

My CCW of the day is a G29 in 10mm. Gun enough for ya?

I have a Baby Glock with a laser pointer, does that count?

Mostly, I grew up with rifles and shotguns. Handguns are new to me.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Yeah Well - I'm stubborn. And obsessive about some things - like religious ideologies (No one stateside saw ISIS coming, did they? At least not that we are aware of.)

And yes, it's their "religiosity". You done bashing me for today? Yet?

a reply to: Annee

Yes, it counts. I pick Annee for my team.
HA!

originally posted by: manna2
Do you believe in absolute truths? If not i will have a short debate on it. Very short.a reply to: Chiftel

Yes, I do believe in absolute truths.

For example, the Pythagorean theorem.

Of course, I probably do not consider to be absolute truths some of what you consider to be.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I've been following the fight against Christian dominance for about 40 years. And, I considered myself Christian most of my life. The result of many years of reading and search for information has lead to atheism.

I am a major supporter of separation of church and state. I do consider organized control via theocracy a threat to my freedom.

a reply to: Annee



That's why I pick you for my team. Plus, I don't have experience with shotguns and rifles.
You with me??

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Yeah Well - I'm stubborn. And obsessive about some things - like religious ideologies (No one stateside saw ISIS coming, did they? At least not that we are aware of.)

And yes, it's their "religiosity". You done bashing me for today? Yet?

Bashing you? Seriously? Good grief. Criticism is cheap at ATS, yet you seem surprised to find me doling it out. It's the only way we ever manage to sort the wheat from the chaff.

And their "religiosity" will be firmly dealt with should it get out of hand. And ISIS presents no threat to America, nor will it continue to function effectively if the day comes when it does pose a threat. How does that song go? "We'll light up their world like the 4th of July..."

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc



Good. Now, hand me your pistol so I can go destroy some beer cans.

My CCW of the day is a G29 in 10mm. Gun enough for ya?

I have a Baby Glock with a laser pointer, does that count?

Mostly, I grew up with rifles and shotguns. Handguns are new to me.

Well, heck. Since you got Glocks covered we got to get you into 1911's. We'll set you up with a Springfield Armory TRP in .45.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Well, heck. Since you got Glocks covered we got to get you into 1911's. We'll set you up with a Springfield Armory TRP in .45.

Can I bring my Desert Eagle to this love fest?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Were they forbidden from using birth control? Were they forbidden to go buy it on their own? Were they forced to worship or pray or go to church? No. None of that. They just didn't get as much free stuff as they wanted.

Only a progressive thinks that someone else not forced into providing them with free stuff is an infringement on their rights.

Once again, you are asserting a false argument, that has nothing to do with the issue. The SCOUS ruling was NEVER about "free stuff", 16 or 20 methods of contraception or contraception at all. It was about granting a for profit corporation the same status as a church or religious charity when it comes to religious objection.


a reply to: NavyDoc

Me:
The way I see it, this law says the government CAN substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion as long as they have a compelling interest.

And it would be unconstitutional.

Right. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act is unconstitutional!

No amendment in the Bill of RIghts has the caveat "except for compelling interest"

Right. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act violates the Establishment Clause.

(which translates into whatever the government wants essentially). "Compelling interest" is a dangerous slippery slope for the government. Freedom of speech? Not if WE decide we have a "compelling interest." Freedom from illegal search and seizure? Not if WE decide we have a "compelling interest." Can you see where this train of thought leads? I know that many people want the government to squash religion and religious freedoms because they hate Christians, but that IMHO is very short sighted because you are giving the government the power to squash you eventually too.

Agreed. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act needs to be repealed.

I don't disagree. DOMA also needs to be repealed. However, what also needs to be done is reign in government across the board. It should not be in the business of mandating every little thing to people and business, religious or not.

However, the underlying issue in this particular case, was "free stuff" and that there where those who felt their rights were violated because they were not having a particular thing subsidized. That's also a wrong issue.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Yeah, well -

You don't frighten us with your silly knees-bent running around advancing behavior!

a reply to: NavyDoc

You should be aware that the government is scrambling to accommodate all the 1000's of women who are disenfranchised by this ruling with the "free stuff" that the ACA still requires.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Be careful Buzzy, the rumor is you weigh the same as a duck.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: tsingtao
end up with the eloi and morlocks.

That works. So every now and then some Blue Collar worker drags some wealthy business owner down on to the factory floor and they all eat him.

What's the problem with that???

LOL. Ironic post is ironic. It's amusing how leftists fight hate and intolerance by being hateful and intolerant.

It does become a sort of comic irony. I think it's just meant as dark humor. Popular examples are Aerosmith's "Eat the Rich" and They Might Be Giants' "When Will You Die?".

When I've heard some people joking about doing terrible things to people who are different from them, I assumed they really would if they could get away with it. It never occurred to me that my occasional dark humor may be interpreted the same way. Thank you for pointing that out.

On a related note, did the humor become inappropriate on page 26 of this thread?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Annee

That's why I pick you for my team. Plus, I don't have experience with shotguns and rifles.
You with me??

Absolutely!

And I understand the difference between "believers" and organized ideology for control.

Read the factual history of the Puritans, some of who migrated south and were (in part) instrumental in starting the Southern Baptist movement.

a reply to: Annee

Read the factual history of the Puritans, some of who migrated south and were (in part) instrumental in starting the Southern Baptist movement.

Oh sweetie, I'm VERY AWARE of it.




a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Be careful Buzzy, the rumor is you weigh the same as a duck.

shh! Hush! Shut up! Just...shut up!!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

You should be aware that the government is scrambling to accommodate all the 1000's of women who are disenfranchised by this ruling with the "free stuff" that the ACA still requires.

And why? Having 16 options rather than 20 options is not a disaster and why should the government or the insurance be obligated to provide something that people have been providing for themselves for along time?

This "scrambling" is nothing more than hyperbole.

ANd again, If I refuse to buy you something, your rights are not violated.