It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NLBS #44: Taking a Look at Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration BS

page: 1
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Today we couldn't resist sinking our teeth into the multi-layered BS coming out of Indiana, after Governor Mike Pence signed their Religions Freedom Restoration Act into law. The resulting storm of mainstream media exaggerations, social media indignation and religious-right celebrations is nothing short of epic. The law doesn't make it legal for bigots to discriminate against people, but enables those people to use their religion as defense when they do. We take a close look at the law, the history of what brought it all about, and even examine a significant group of people this law can't protect. Grab your hip-waders and follow along, the BS is deep with this one.





Watch in HD on www.TheNLBS.com


Share this video. Tell your friends. Spread the Next Level BS!


Follow Next Level BS on Twitter @theNLBS

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

And get NLBS t-shirts and swag thenlbs.spreadshirt.com




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   
So,

Good episode. I reside in Indiana, the uproar is wild.
I'm an athiest but will gladly subscribe to this church.

In fact, just did, so did most of my friends. Can we spark up freely now or will it be a problem and have to be resolved by court? That part still isn't clear to me.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Im from Australia so Im not all that conversant with the law in the USA however like here I would imagine the Constitution and Federal law over-rides State law. I do know there are US anti discrimination and unfair dismissal laws at the Federal level and the gay mafia or such is probably going to go straight to the Supreme court to get any State decision over ridden my guess is that the Governor of Indiana is of the far religious right persausion and this is an exercise of pandering to his constuency rather than social justice.
edit on 3-4-2015 by khnum because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Nice job Joe and just in time as we needed some clarification in this department. Hopefully this will help everyone understand what all is happening with these new RFRA laws.

On a side note, why is it that Atheists always seem to get screwed with stuff like this??? Was that the intention from the start or just one of those "unfortunate accidents"???



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
First time I've actually ever watched NLBS, never really had the spare megabytes, only just hooked up cable internet.......... Anyway, I was impressed with the video and the way the narrator put all points of view across.

I agree with the conclusion to, it'd be a lot easier if people could just protest by spending there money somewhere else. Rather than going to court and demanding all these new laws. But I guess most people are just to bitter & petty for that.

Good stuff



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyEyesSeeTooClear
So,

Good episode. I reside in Indiana, the uproar is wild.
I'm an athiest but will gladly subscribe to this church.

In fact, just did, so did most of my friends. Can we spark up freely now or will it be a problem and have to be resolved by court? That part still isn't clear to me.


I am Hoosier born but transplanted to Texas.

Where you at in Indiana?



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Agreed. People have always voted with their feet and their wallets until the last generation or so. Now that seems to be too much to ask so we want to force everyone to acclimate to what we need/demand instead of seeking out those who are already acclimated to our needs/demands.

It's almost like we want the entire world to be our own personal utopian Wal-Mart. One for each of us. We can get what we want, pay what we want, shop when we want, leave when we want, etc.

Those who are refusing service are hurting their own bottom line. If people started voting with their feet and wallets again, change would come far quicker than it will in any courtroom IMO.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Disclaimer: My post (this post) is after my bedtime and drink limit, but I THINK I would agree with me, even if not out loud. That being said: I was thinking about starting a thread on this topic named something like, "Devil's Advocate pertaining to the Indiana law in the recent news," but this might be a better soapbox...

I have many CLOSE friends and relatives who are gay, and I love them dearly, but I disagree with their stance on this topic... I don't care, really, what they do, for the most part, but on "certain" social media sites, they have been posting their views on the subject, which fall in line with, "you can't refuse service to me." I want to respond, and because of what has been stated in my disclaimer, I almost have, but I am pretty anti-confrontational. This leaves me feeling like their opinion might be heard, but mine might not be, so:

My view is of that: Individuals, at least on a local level, should be able to do what they want. Refuse service, or what-not, religion related, or not. I, myself, am not "religious," (but I do consider myself at LEAST spiritual) I understand people not wanting to be discriminated against... Heck, that's one of my biggest pet peeves, when I think something's not fair, at least to "my favor," but as long as it's an individually controlled thing, (not government/corporation) it should be allowed... (in most cases, I GUESS, 'cause there're always exceptions to rules)

Take for instance the case with the couple and the cake makers who want to refuse service... Let's say they HAVE to make a cake for a gay wedding (btw, imo, between two humans, as far as legally, I think SHOULDN'T be denied, especially if it has certain benefits) Can the people being wed be able to ban the cake makers from the wedding, even if they want to denounce the wedding, thus "ruining" the wedding? Isn't having to make the cake for the wedding "ruining" the cake makers' business, in their eyes? I might be able to expand on this though, but I think I'll wait for a response, to respond to, if that makes sense...

I, personally, don't think that freedom to do what you want, means that others should have to do what you want them to do...

An argument AGAINST the religious freedom act: There are many things which are restricted (which many times I disagree with, but that's kinda another topic) like when someone has a patent on something, or a copyright... If something is THE ONLY avenue, for an end, then the means cannot be restricted... For example: A cake maker is the only person with the "rights" to make cakes... THEN they should have to make cakes for who(m)ever, but if anybody can make a cake, then why would you MAKE said person make a cake, if they don't feel they should (have to)?

(edit
Goodnight to ALL... I don't normally get responses, so I'm not gonna check for any too often, but I do check... I will respond back, because I like conversation, but normally, on ATS, I'm just a consumer, not a contributer.
edit on 4/3/2015 by japhrimu because: last two lines



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Well done episode, and I have come to the same conclusions as you.

On a side note, though, the HIV problem is due to a massive heroin problem in this area, not because Planned Parenthoods were shut down--it's not as if PP can immunize against HIV or something. That was a pretty bad last-second comment with which to close the video.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Here is the thing that concerns me about this law.

If one is going to institute a law, which could see people refused service on religious grounds, then that law must come with a caveat that all such arguments be validated by scripture. Where ambiguity arises in scripture about how one is to deal with certain situations (which it often does) the law should consider the grounds cited by the individual as being infirm, and refuse to support the individual.

For example, everyone knows that there are passages of the Christian Bible which deal with homosexuality. However, there is also an explicit instruction from Jesus Christ himself, that we are not permitted to judge, unless we ourselves are without sin. So from a scriptural point of view, there is ambiguity present, and therefore the religious grounds for refusal of service are not supported in full by scripture.

In short, a measure which seeks to free people to practice their faith without undue burden to their ability to do so, is something I agree with. But if the application of that law does not take into account the whole of the scripture involved, whether that be the Holy Bible, or the Muslim holy book, or what have you, then that is basically tantamount to giving people the freedom to be dicks to one another, while holding up a flawed understanding of their faith as a tool to deflect from themselves, reasonable accusations of bigotry and hatred.

Because there is no solid scriptural basis for the institution of this law, it is nothing but a vehicle for discrimination, and though I feel that religious freedom is important in a secular society, I also feel that any such law should come with rigorous measures to examine the validity of a persons interpretation of the holy book, that they are basing their argument on. Joyously, the existence in the Christian bible, of the passage relating to judgement of ones fellow man, which instructs us explicitly not to do it, should put a hole in the water line of ANY argument for discrimination of any kind, toward anyone, by Christian people. Therefore, this law properly instituted should force Christian people to behave rather better toward people, than they currently do. That would be good for everyone I think, and I say that as a Christian myself.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Condescending, snarky, and cringe-worthy. This is the worst NLBS video of them all, and I've barely liked the few that I've watched but this is just the final nail in the coffin. This wasn't "digging" toward any truth remotely, it's basically a religion-bashing mud-pit which I can find on any atheist circle-jerk board on the internet. Leave religion out of it for a second: if I own a business I can refuse service to whoever I want. If I don't want your money, I don't have to take it - I don't care if you're the biggest fairy gay man in the world if I don't want to serve you I won't.

I'm seriously never clicking these topics ever again, and the pandering picture of Gervais reveals this NLBS bull# stems from militant aggressive atheism. I don't care about religion, or your opinion on faggots getting married - just give me the facts and call it a day.

Also it bothers me that this idiot somehow gets top of the board for topics, effectively pushing down whatever the most popular topic is on ATS right now. Whatever. Go ahead everyone, bow down and show how "open minded" you all are by bashing others for their religious beliefs, I won't be here to watch.
edit on 3-4-2015 by LiberLegit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: LiberLegit

Well I liked the video, and I believe in God.

I really cannot see what your problem is, with a free exchange of ideas on these topics, a free exchange which if entered into with an even head, cannot be seen as anything remotely sinister. Christian beliefs do not force a person to be wilfully ignorant, and so I cannot see why it is that people seem to deliberately misread the meaning and attitudes of content which simply happens to disagree in some respects with their views.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
To me, as someone who legitimately supports religious and sexual freedom, I am very disappointed in America. It seems as though the only thing you are actually allowed to support these days is same sex gettin' it on. Anything else is automatically deemed as hurtful or slapped with a derogatory label. In all honesty, this law would not have changed anything. Unless you are a federal or state entity, yo already can refuse to serve or accommodate anyone anytime for any reason.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

By Kyle Becker and Justen Charters (1 day ago) | Culture, Nation, Politics, Religion

IJRShareEmail

Indiana’s controversial new bill signed into law is called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The bill guarantees individuals the right to conduct business without ‘substantially burdening their ability to exercise their religion.’

It has been roundly condemned around the nation. Seattle’s mayor went so far as to issue a travel ban to Indiana for city workers, while San Francisco’s mayor is considering a ban on city funds being sent to the Hoosier state.

Nevertheless, the ‘extremely controversial’ RFRA is based on a 1993 Federal Law, which is also dubbed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was signed into law by ‘right-wing extremist’ president Bill Clinton. END QUOTE



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

There is my problem right there, I don't think it's "ignorant" to refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding you don't support. If their view is "intolerant" to you, then truly open your mind and let them be. If a Jewish bakery were forced to bake a cake with Hitlers face on it commemorating the Holocaust, would they have to do it too? Where is the line?

Personally I don't care if gay people get married, marry away. Sign a legal document that assures the both of you that you're in love, but the church shouldn't have to marry you and someone sure as hell shouldn't be forced to bake you a #ing cake.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

How about this for a new law...

If you want to use your religious "convictions" to refuse service to someone, you then have to prove in court that your "convictions" are genuine.

For example, there is a lot in the Bible about not cutting your hair, not eating shellfish, not handling anything from a pig, women not having the right to an opinion, menstruating women being banished from the community, divorce...

If someone wants to claim that their so-called religious "convictions" are the reason for them doing one thing, they should then have to prove their dedication to ALL OF IT, not just cherry-pick the one thing that allows them to be a bigot in one instance.

You cannot (or you should not be able to) use one line from your book, claiming to be all about God and the Bible, while ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE, because it's convenient or inconvenient to do so.

You are NOT a devout Christian if you only use one line from your holy text as an excuse.

I would support the idea that we have a law stating this to be the case. If you reject the inconvenient parts of the Bible, you have no right to abuse the law claiming one thing from it allows you to be a hateful and intolerant asshat.
edit on 3-4-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: LiberLegit

Well LiberLegit,

Just because you do not think that it is ignorant to refuse service to a person based on their sexuality, does not change the fact that it IS ignorant, judgemental, and therefore a deeply unchristian thing to do. There is no firm scriptural basis for discrimination, because we are instructed not to judge. Also, there is a difference between creating a baked good for a wedding, and taking part in the wedding, a distinction which should be pretty clear to anyone who has a significant and accurate grasp of the English language.

This is not a point which requires debate, but it is a point where persons who support discrimination, need to learn how to read their bible a little better.
edit on 3-4-2015 by TrueBrit because: Grammatical error removal

edit on 3-4-2015 by TrueBrit because: Second grammatical error removed



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

This is a very good point, and it comes right back around to the idea that those who have sinned may not judge others, and of course, according to the Bible, though Jesus died for our sins, we are none the less sinners all the same, and have no business inserting our attitudes into other peoples lives without invitation or permission.

My attitude to all this is, that if people who profess to Christian beliefs spent more time being decent to all people, regardless of their particular gender, sexuality, religious convictions, politics, attitude toward birth control, and so on and so forth, then they would spend more time actually BEING Christian, than they tend to at the moment.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Ecept if you refuse to service a gay wedding, the scripture is pretty clear on that from both God and then from Christ himself -- man and woman.

In those cases, it's not the people being discriminated against; it's the ceremony.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Rocker2013

This is a very good point, and it comes right back around to the idea that those who have sinned may not judge others, and of course, according to the Bible, though Jesus died for our sins, we are none the less sinners all the same, and have no business inserting our attitudes into other peoples lives without invitation or permission.

My attitude to all this is, that if people who profess to Christian beliefs spent more time being decent to all people, regardless of their particular gender, sexuality, religious convictions, politics, attitude toward birth control, and so on and so forth, then they would spend more time actually BEING Christian, than they tend to at the moment.


Except we are constantly enjoined not to sin ourselves. If you believe a gay wedding to be a mockery of a sacrament, then you also believe that for you to participate in one would be for you a personal sin.

Where did we see Jesus sinning in order not to appear judgmental? We didn't, not once, not ever. So WWJD? He wouldn't celebrate something that by His own teachings cannot exist in the eyes of God.




top topics



 
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join