Religious Liberty now allows some to be Above the Law

a reply to: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You two are just tools of the devil.

On Topic: "Fundamentalist Mormon"? I didn't know there was such a thing. You learn something new every day.

a reply to: Klassified

Yes its FLDS. Its basically the mormons that followed the original ways of the religion. The majority of LDS broke away from the polygamy and all that.

Is there a direct relationship between intelligence level and mental illness? The more intelligent a creature is, the more likely it is to exhibit some form/degree of mental disorder? I don’t know, but it sure seems we humans excel when it comes to crazy. And when it comes to crazy, religion’s got it all sewn up and in the bag.

Seriously, religion has been behind more death and destruction to mankind than any other thing I’m aware of. We’ve proudly slaughtered many millions of our own kind for simply praying to a different Higher Power, or for choosing to opt out and not pray at all. And in this day of “hi tech” and self-proclaimed “intellectual enlightenment” we continue to slaughter each other in the name of God, or Allah, or Whoever... Christian Fundamentalists, in the name of Almighty God, righteously murder doctors who perform abortions, while Islamic Fundamentalists, in the name of Allah or the Prophet Mohammed, are busy lopping off the heads of nonbelievers. As well as the Christian and Islamic religions, there are countless other equally sick and murderous belief systems to choose from. So take heart, if your current religion just ain’t quite gettin’ it on the Crazy Scale, there’s another one just down the road that might just fit the bill.

I like George Carlin’s take on religion and God. I think he got it right...

Greetings and Salutations from a "common passerby".. Organized Religion™ should start and show 'good Faith' (pun intended) and start paying their taxes. The original shirking of the taxes was attributed to providing 'charity' for the needy of the community in which that Sect...uh...er.... Church™ 'served'. I guess after watching themselves fail miserably at that task, they declared themselves "needy" after reading the catchy phrase "Charity begins at home..."

This dodging of the taxes provides even more Churches™ and more copies of 'The Rule Book' to be dumped at every flea bag motel that rents by the hour which is actually owned by either a Sikh or Hindu or Muslim and the $$ that isn't siphoned off by "screwing the foreigner" is sent back "home" ( I'd opine they read the same 'catchy phrase'?...)

More countries to visit and bug the snot out of them telling them about Your 'Faith' and not being concerned One bit that these folks have had the same 'religion' for 10,000 years before Jesus pounded His first nail.. Just show them how to farm and be self sufficient but NO...

So Yeah, religion™ is currently above the law and has been since religion™ and Gov't. crawled under the same rock. Sickening and to steal a phrase from "them" Y'all should burn in Hell..


I think when Jesus said "You are the Church™.." He meant for Us to be 'tax free' and not the likes of the nice, Chris†ian preachers like Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggert and the cast of L.A. Preachers, ALL who flaunt their wealth, wear $35k watches and live in $3M mansions while "their flock" starve...

Yeah, right..

This is what happens when the court is dominated by political ideology and not the constitution, like Roberts supreme court is, there rulings will be the end of America.

Religion thinks if they can't rule you, discriminate against you then they have lost there freedoms, when there action do in fact lead to others losing there real freedoms.

a reply to: LDragonFire

What part of the Constitution was violated by this recent ruling?

When Jesus was brought before Pilate to be sentenced to death, Pilate asked him directly if he was King of the Jews.

Christ Jesus was direct and clear, fully aware what was to happen in the coming hours.

"My kingdom is not of the world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm"...

"You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth."

Those calling themselves Christians(I don't know their hearts) who attempt to control this world...socially, politically, economically...are disregarding the words of God incarnate.

It's embarrassing and gives Christ a bad name.

Christians, I beg you, stop!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: LDragonFire

What part of the Constitution was violated by this recent ruling?

Equal Protection Under the Law.

Separation of Church and State.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: LDragonFire

What part of the Constitution was violated by this recent ruling?

Equal Protection Under the Law.

Separation of Church and State.

Could be.

But how?

What parts?

Wow its strawman overload up in here. Warren Jeffs will stay his sick self in prison and nowhere in the Bible does it say that black people are devils lol.

With that said, and from what I've gathered from the the tidbits of information in the video that actually pertained to the case in question, he didn't even have to pull the Hobby Lobby card, nor does it even apply here. That in it's self makes me question the judge's motives.

Last time I checked, no one can force you to rat on someone else. And I also don't recall ever reading that ratting on the leaders of your church for doing something wrong was a sin. What's really going on here?

originally posted by: xuenchen

Could be.

But how?

What parts?

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

The Establishment Clause
This one I realize will be debated like always which I don't care to do again but I will include this as part of my reasoning.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...

I'll let others argue about it.

Clearly however, allowing people to claim Religious Reasons for why they do not have to follow the Law will result in absolute chaos. Sharia Law, Christian Law, Scientology Law, etc. all across the land??? Sure that will work out just fine.

This current article makes a good example. Forced Marriage of Underage girls to the Old Male members of this church is Illegal. However, they are now allowed to do it without any Law stopping them. Where and how is Justice for these Girls forced into this going to be achieved??? For the Forced Child Labor??? What about a Future Islamic Beheading done publicly and based upon their Law??? What then???

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: LDragonFire

What part of the Constitution was violated by this recent ruling?

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:


"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

A religion is made up of like minded individuals that share the same faith. Hobby Lobby isn't a religion nor a religious organization. It is a for profit company and now the supreme court has given corporations them the right to deny its employees things they deem immoral!!! Or things that go against there religion....terrible decision of the court!

a reply to: mOjOm

I thought the 1st Amendment applies equally to everybody?

And what law has established a specific religion?

a reply to: xuenchen

The Constitution protects this individual from testifying if doing so would incriminate himself, but it doesn't protect him from laws that require him to testify against his religious buddies or leaders.

However, this judges ruling, as well as the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling didn't address constitutional rights, they are addressing the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, that regulates when, why and how the government can restrict religious expression. The Supreme Court ruled, in the Hobby Lobby case that the government had other ways to get contraception to women, without Hobby Lobby, therefore, they didn't have enough cause to burden Hobby Lobby's religious expression.

I don't see that as being the case here. If this man doesn't testify, is there someone else who will? Who's right are more important, the right of the man not to testify against his religious buddies or the rights of the children not to be forced into hard labor?

Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of UC-Irvine School of Law, said Sam's decision reveals the pitfalls of Hobby Lobby, calling it "stunning" and contrary to precedent for a judge to use RFRA to let a person get out of testifying.

"I think it is quite predictable that the court's decision in Hobby Lobby would open the door to such claims of an exemption from laws for religious reasons," he said. "I fear it is just the start of cases of people claiming religious exemptions from general laws."

Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA, said the ruling shows how "Hobby Lobby threatens to make religious believers a law unto themselves."

TPM

a reply to: windword

require him to testify

What law(s) "requires" somebody to testify?

a reply to: xuenchen

Your right to maintain silence is based on self incrimination.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword

require him to testify

What law(s) "requires" somebody to testify?

I believe a Subpoena is what requires you to testify in Court. Now you can not comply with it obviously but if you choose to not comply you are subject to charges and/or Jail Time or Fines.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword

require him to testify

What law(s) "requires" somebody to testify?

If you were a witness to a alleged crime do you think you have the right to opt out of the process?

a reply to: xuenchen

The State and Federal Subpoena Laws, that force someone to appear in court to be asked questions, and then allows them to be charged with "Contempt" when they refuse.