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.

 

Liberal Bigotry

page: 15
45
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

It's actually a FREER country now with this SCOTUS ruling. It's funny how the conservatives who are for oppressing a minority group with their legislation are afraid that a SCOTUS ruling is going to result in THEM being oppressed.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

It's actually a FREER country now with this SCOTUS ruling. It's funny how the conservatives who are for oppressing a minority group with their legislation are afraid that a SCOTUS ruling is going to result in THEM being oppressed.


When have I ever stated that I had a problem with this ruling?

I just don't wish to see religious freedoms lost as a result.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: introvert

Actually, you're for a reinterpretation of the 2nd, if memory serves.

But hey, it's a free country (for a while)

yay socialism!


I'm glad you paid attention. I do advocate for the 2nd amendment to be further elaborated and specified. Too much of our 2nd amendment has been infringed due to it's vagueness. All it's going to take is a bunch of anti-2nd politicians to take office at one time and they will continue to define it for us. The results being less right and more of a government privilege.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

It's actually a FREER country now with this SCOTUS ruling. It's funny how the conservatives who are for oppressing a minority group with their legislation are afraid that a SCOTUS ruling is going to result in THEM being oppressed.


And if that happens, it will be because the 1st Amendment is trash, and you should fear that as much as we do.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: introvert

Actually, you're for a reinterpretation of the 2nd, if memory serves.

But hey, it's a free country (for a while)

yay socialism!


I'm glad you paid attention. I do advocate for the 2nd amendment to be further elaborated and specified. Too much of our 2nd amendment has been infringed due to it's vagueness. All it's going to take is a bunch of anti-2nd politicians to take office at one time and they will continue to define it for us. The results being less right and more of a government privilege.



Well said.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: introvert

Actually, you're for a reinterpretation of the 2nd, if memory serves.

But hey, it's a free country (for a while)

yay socialism!


I'm glad you paid attention. I do advocate for the 2nd amendment to be further elaborated and specified. Too much of our 2nd amendment has been infringed due to it's vagueness. All it's going to take is a bunch of anti-2nd politicians to take office at one time and they will continue to define it for us. The results being less right and more of a government privilege.



How odd.

I don't remeber you being pro 2nd at all.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
What is the scope of "religious freedom"?

In other words, here is what the Constitution says in the First Amendment regarding religion:



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


The free exercise thereof ... what does "exercise" mean?

Participating in the services and rituals of a given faith? Right?

Living one's own life by the principles of the religion, i.e. it's dictates, instructions, guides, etc. Right?

Right?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What is the scope of "religious freedom"?

In other words, here is what the Constitution says in the First Amendment regarding religion:



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


The free exercise thereof ... what does "exercise" mean?

Participating in the services and rituals of a given faith? Right?

Living one's own life by the principles of the religion, i.e. it's dictates, instructions, guides, etc. Right?

Right?


Pretty much, that means you live your faith. It doesn't just stay in the neat little religion preserves called churches, mosques, and temples (sorry if I left out some terms).

But I can see where this is going. You probably think you are going to catch us with the "Jesus said to love one another" thing or something.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, but that doesn't mean someone can ram legislation that infringes upon my Constitutional rights because it's part of their religious morals.

This is why we need to keep religion out of politics and in the homes, churches, hearts and minds of people. Our public institutions serve all people, of all faiths. There's simply no fair way to include one religion and exclude all others.

It's really fairly simple.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No.

He'll go with the tax exempt discussion.

That's really gaining steam, by the way.

He'll try to justify government dictating a fiscal punishment to religious institutions that don't agree with the Supreme Court ruling.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh gods no ... I've learned never try to remind Christians of what Jesus actually said.

"Live your faith." Okay.

Does that mean that anyone with any religious beliefs can behave and act anyway they choose as long as they attribute it to their "faith"?

Is there a limit on which religions that covers? Do the points of "faith" have to be recognized by the majority of adherents in the religion, or is it a free-for-all in which anyone can claim any action to be "living their faith"?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, but that doesn't mean someone can ram legislation that infringes upon my Constitutional rights because it's part of their religious morals.

This is why we need to keep religion out of politics and in the homes, churches, hearts and minds of people. Our public institutions serve all people, of all faiths. There's simply no fair way to include one religion and exclude all others.

It's really fairly simple.


The catch-22 when does something stop being something you vote for and put forward because you sincerely believe it to be the right thing to do and start being a religious thing?

It's far to easy to come up with some half-baked excuse to torpedo something because someone is jamming religion down your throat when that may not actually be the case just because you don't like it.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: ketsuko

No.

He'll go with the tax exempt discussion.

That's really gaining steam, by the way.

He'll try to justify government dictating a fiscal punishment to religious institutions that don't agree with the Supreme Court ruling.


Might want to keep your day job and stay out of the fortune/future-telling game ... just sayin'



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: ketsuko

No.

He'll go with the tax exempt discussion.

That's really gaining steam, by the way.

He'll try to justify government dictating a fiscal punishment to religious institutions that don't agree with the Supreme Court ruling.


Well, the first lawsuit to force a church to marry a gay couple is going to happen in the UK, so it will be an interesting few years.

Telegraph





Mr Drewitt-Barlow said that while he welcomed the passing of legislation for same-sex marriage, provisions exempting churches from performing the weddings meant they still felt discriminated against.

Drewitt-Barlow is not pleased with the law, and said, “As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”



edit on 29-6-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh gods no ... I've learned never try to remind Christians of what Jesus actually said.

"Live your faith." Okay.

Does that mean that anyone with any religious beliefs can behave and act anyway they choose as long as they attribute it to their "faith"?

Is there a limit on which religions that covers? Do the points of "faith" have to be recognized by the majority of adherents in the religion, or is it a free-for-all in which anyone can claim any action to be "living their faith"?


It seems to have worked well enough for the church of cannabis in Indiana. Oh, and the Satanists are also getting quite a bit of traction out of it.
edit on 29-6-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, but that doesn't mean someone can ram legislation that infringes upon my Constitutional rights because it's part of their religious morals.

This is why we need to keep religion out of politics and in the homes, churches, hearts and minds of people. Our public institutions serve all people, of all faiths. There's simply no fair way to include one religion and exclude all others.

It's really fairly simple.


I don't disagree with you, but that's not what I hear folks like Beezzer, Ketsuko and the rest saying here.

I hear them saying that "free" means "free" ... i.e. no limitations. Am I mishearing?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
[

It seems to have worked well enough for the church of cannabis in Indiana. Oh, and the Satanists are also getting quite a bit of traction out of it.


Nice sidestep.

Next?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, but that doesn't mean someone can ram legislation that infringes upon my Constitutional rights because it's part of their religious morals.

This is why we need to keep religion out of politics and in the homes, churches, hearts and minds of people. Our public institutions serve all people, of all faiths. There's simply no fair way to include one religion and exclude all others.

It's really fairly simple.


I don't disagree with you, but that's not what I hear folks like Beezzer, Ketsuko and the rest saying here.

I hear them saying that "free" means "free" ... i.e. no limitations. Am I mishearing?


Well explain your position.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
[

It seems to have worked well enough for the church of cannabis in Indiana. Oh, and the Satanists are also getting quite a bit of traction out of it.


Nice sidestep.

Next?


I am waiting for your clever attempt to trap.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I asked a very straightforward question.

If you choose to play semantic games rather than answering, that's fine.

To repeat: What, if any, are the limitations on "free exercise thereof"?




top topics



 
45
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join