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: 16
45
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:18 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?


As long as it does not actively infringe upon the rights of another, free it is.




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

"Rights of another" ... are those legal rights, natural rights, civil rights?

Followup: So "free" means without limitation by any law, policy, rule, etc. Right?

And religion is "anything I claim to believe as a religion"?

Is that right?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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"?



It means the Amish can live off in their closed communities if they like so long as the ones who disagree can leave. It means if a pastor wants to preach the Gospel as written, including that marriage is between a man and a woman like Christ taught, then so be it.

And now that we've broken down the definition of marriage, we have no legs to stand on anymore as concerns polygamy either, so when the Muslims come a calling they have more legal standing than the gays as they have the 1st on their side.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

"Rights of another" ... are those legal rights, natural rights, civil rights?

Followup: So "free" means without limitation by any law, policy, rule, etc. Right?

And religion is "anything I claim to believe as a religion"?

Is that right?


Until you infringe on the unalienable rights of someone else. So no human sacrifice.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The Bible includes multiple examples of polygamy among the patriarchs as "traditional."

Plenty of folks in Utah and other western states who have a long-standing "religious belief" in polygamy.

So, surely you are in favor of that, right?

And ... let me make sure I have this right human sacrifice is the only limit on what "free exercise of religion" means?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

The Bible includes multiple examples of polygamy among the patriarchs as "traditional."

Plenty of folks in Utah and other western states who have a long-standing "religious belief" in polygamy.

So, surely you are in favor of that, right?

And ... let me make sure I have this right human sacrifice is the only limit on what "free exercise of religion" means?


You missed my post above?

And human sacrifice is but one example of something that wouldn't be allowed.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

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.


wow, beez....I didn't know you were so concerned with religious freedoms, you mean like a woman's freedom to wear a burka to work? or if a Muslim has to pray to mecca twice during his work shift, he gets time off to do that?, and Jewish people taking the 8 days of Hanukah off?....I guess the only people that do not have to have their religion respected is atheists, because the have none.



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

Why not? Feminists want to have years off to take care of children.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No I don't think I missed a post.

Can't you answer? Are you in favor of polygamy or not? As an expression of religious freedom?

What are some other "obvious limits" then, as you see it ... that's my question.

Are there limits on "religious freedom" and what are they?

It didn't seem to be that hard or difficult given your (and others) constant talking about "religious freedom" and your fears that it's going to be abridged by someone, somewhere, sometime.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

"Rights of another" ... are those legal rights, natural rights, civil rights?

Followup: So "free" means without limitation by any law, policy, rule, etc. Right?

And religion is "anything I claim to believe as a religion"?

Is that right?


What's your point?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer

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.


wow, beez....I didn't know you were so concerned with religious freedoms, you mean like a woman's freedom to wear a burka to work? or if a Muslim has to pray to mecca twice during his work shift, he gets time off to do that?, and Jewish people taking the 8 days of Hanukah off?....I guess the only people that do not have to have their religion respected is atheists, because the have none.


I have no idea what you are going on about.

But you haters gonna hate, ain'tcha!



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Examples off the top of my head:

An adherent of Voudon or Santeria regularly sacrificing cattle, goats, chickens in their front yard.

A worshiper of the Greek Goddess Hecate sacrificing puppies in their front yard.

A Wiccan practicing rituals while skyclad (nude) under the light of the moon (in their front yard.)

That's not only examples of religious freedom ... those have to do with the sacrosanct rights of PROPERTY as well!

So, what say you? Religious freedom?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Point, are you for forcing churches to allow weddings between 2 gay men?

Are you for removing tax-exempt status of churches in order to force them?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

No I don't think I missed a post.

Can't you answer? Are you in favor of polygamy or not? As an expression of religious freedom?

What are some other "obvious limits" then, as you see it ... that's my question.

Are there limits on "religious freedom" and what are they?

It didn't seem to be that hard or difficult given your (and others) constant talking about "religious freedom" and your fears that it's going to be abridged by someone, somewhere, sometime.


I'm not in favor of polygamy, but I'm not in favor of gay marriage either.

However, now that we've decided that marriage is any adults who love each other ... what stops anyone from further defining it in just about any way they want? As I said, at least the Muslims will have the 1st on their side when they take it to court.

The bottom line is that a person's belief is something no government gives, it isn't something that needs anyone else in order for a person to have it, and therefore, all you can do is seek to oppress it.

When we talk about freedom of religion being lost, we are talking about the government dictating what scriptures can be preached and who can or can't come into various houses of worship and demand to be married there. After all, the government now created the civil privilege of marriage in the name of equality under the 14th. So which Amendment in your opinion takes precedence? The 1st and the natural right of religion or the 14th and civil privilege of marriage?
edit on 29-6-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer


What's your point?


Beezzer, I'm asking really simple questions. If you don't' want to answer, or can't answer, that's cool.

I'm asking questions trying to find out what people's opinions are about religion, nothing more.

In light of the fact that many of you in the thread keep insisting that "liberal bigotry" has something to do with shutting down "religious freedom."

I've seen the repeated nonsense and outright lies about the former, so as a directly connected subject, I asked a simple question that, I would have guessed, has a simple answer.

But you are completely within your freedoms of speech, assembly, press and possibly religion not to answer, if you don't wish to.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Examples off the top of my head:

An adherent of Voudon or Santeria regularly sacrificing cattle, goats, chickens in their front yard.

A worshiper of the Greek Goddess Hecate sacrificing puppies in their front yard.

A Wiccan practicing rituals while skyclad (nude) under the light of the moon (in their front yard.)

That's not only examples of religious freedom ... those have to do with the sacrosanct rights of PROPERTY as well!

So, what say you? Religious freedom?


I would say that the sacrifice needs to be done in sanitary ways and in ways that aren't cruel to the animals in question. Ah, but I have a farm background ... so the animal slaughter thing doesn't faze me.

The Wiccan needs to do it her backyard with a tall fence. Public decency.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

To answer your question promptly: both apply equally.

There have been earnest religious beliefs on the part of Americans in this country regarding polygamy long before the concept of "same-sex marriage" was ever uttered.

So ... I'm assuming that your belief in religious freedom includes a belief in polygamy, and that you just misspoke, when you said you weren't "in favor" of polygamy, right?

I mean, you don't want to have the government dictating to believers what they can preach, or believe, or pray for, or how they wish to live their lives with MULTIPLE references in the Bible that approve of polygamy ... right?

Right?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So, you have no issue with Hecateans sacrificing puppies? Bastians mummifying cats? Interesting.

Er, but wait ... "public decency?" Where is that in the Constitution again?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The polygamy issue may be for another challenge/ruling.


The Court specifically says. "Two People".




Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.


6/26/15 - Obergefell v. Hodges






posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

To answer your question promptly: both apply equally.

There have been earnest religious beliefs on the part of Americans in this country regarding polygamy long before the concept of "same-sex marriage" was ever uttered.

So ... I'm assuming that your belief in religious freedom includes a belief in polygamy, and that you just misspoke, when you said you weren't "in favor" of polygamy, right?

I mean, you don't want to have the government dictating to believers what they can preach, or believe, or pray for, or how they wish to live their lives with MULTIPLE references in the Bible that approve of polygamy ... right?

Right?



Christ taught in the context of man and woman, and that's the direction I go. Or do you make the mistake of thinking that all Christians believe in exactly the same way?



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join