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.

 

Should muslims be able to ban you from eating pork/drinking alcohol ?

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Technically you can't work on Saturday. Sunday is supposed to be the first day of the week, not the last.
Neat!

Just replace "Sunday" with "Sabbath" and the post is correct. My bad.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'll definitely educate myself on the issue.


The only expression by a Supreme Court Justice prior to 1970 was by Justice Brennan, who deemed tax exemptions constitutional because the benefit conferred was incidental to the religious character of the institutions concerned.

law.justia.com...

Will dive further into the issue.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   

In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

touch.latimes.com.../-1/article/p2p-42529986/

Just more info for those interested.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am a 55 model and the civil rights movement was during the 1960's.
I was in grade school and junior high and I was more interested in
watching Star Trek and cartoons on saturday morning.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Well it just makes it even more hypocritical that Christians celebrate the Sabbath on the wrong day.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

Fair's fair. Scooby Doo IS awesome.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I never said we should deny or punish faith. I'm just saying we should abolish the institutions. Religions aren't "an easy way to get together and celebrate mutual beliefs", they're attempts at telling people what to think.

If you want to believe in a god fine, just don't tell people to believe in your god, don't make an organization hell-bent on changing everyone's mind. Because that's what religion really is.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: beezzer

I never said we should deny or punish faith. I'm just saying we should abolish the institutions. Religions aren't "an easy way to get together and celebrate mutual beliefs", they're attempts at telling people what to think.

If you want to believe in a god fine, just don't tell people to believe in your god, don't make an organization hell-bent on changing everyone's mind. Because that's what religion really is.


But you begin to restrict deny freedoms when you inhibit the ability of people to congregate.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Maybe that's the best aproach when it comes to extremists. Otherwise you won't hold that democracy of yours for long.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
No, Muslims should not be able to ban me having a beer but, at the same token, the state shouldn't force Muslims to sell me beer if they don't want to.
edit on 2-7-2015 by NavyDoc because: Needed a comma.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: beezzer

Maybe that's the best aproach when it comes to extremists. Otherwise you won't hold that democracy of yours for long.


A democracy isn't much of a democracy if there are no freedoms.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: beezzer

Maybe that's the best aproach when it comes to extremists. Otherwise you won't hold that democracy of yours for long.


A democracy isn't much of a democracy if there are no freedoms.


Which freedoms have you lost exactly? Name ONE right from the bill of rights that you no longer have. Restrictions don't count.
edit on 2-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No Muslims should not be able to ban me having a beer but, at the same token, the state shouldn't force Muslims to sell me beer if they don't want to.


If Muslims don't refuse to sell beer to one group while selling it to everyone else, the state shouldn't have a problem. And most Muslims are smart enough to get out of the beer business if they don't want to sell beer.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: beezzer

Maybe that's the best aproach when it comes to extremists. Otherwise you won't hold that democracy of yours for long.


A democracy isn't much of a democracy if there are no freedoms.


Which freedoms have you lost exactly? Name ONE right from the bill of rights that you no longer have. Restrictions don't count.


First off, we were talking about restricting the formation of churches, keep up!

Second, I had to laugh when you said, "Name ONE right from the bill of rights that you no longer have. Restrictions don't count."

lolz



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

And there won't be any freedoms if you let extremists roam about. Because sooner or later they will gain influence and attempt to force their ideals on others. Christians and Muslims alike have been doing that for two thousand years.

Maybe you're in favor of releasing all the convicted criminals as well, considering they are not free?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
nvm
edit on 2-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: beezzer

And there won't be any freedoms if you let extremists roam about. Because sooner or later they will gain influence and attempt to force their ideals on others. Christians and Muslims alike have been doing that for two thousand years.

Maybe you're in favor of releasing all the convicted criminals as well, considering they are not free?


That's the risk we all take in a free society. And I'm all for letting prisoners out after they've paid their dues. I even think they should be able to vote, own a firearm, and enjoy all the freedoms everyone else enjoys.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No Muslims should not be able to ban me having a beer but, at the same token, the state shouldn't force Muslims to sell me beer if they don't want to.


If Muslims don't refuse to sell beer to one group while selling it to everyone else, the state shouldn't have a problem. And most Muslims are smart enough to get out of the beer business if they don't want to sell beer.


So you don't want people to be entirely free.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   


Maybe that's the best aproach when it comes to extremists. Otherwise you won't hold that democracy of yours for long.



A democracy isn't much of a democracy if there are no freedoms.


FYI - The U.S.A. is a republic - not a democracy. Just sayin' ... and assuming you're both discussing the US
edit on 7/2/2015 by RedParrotHead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: RedParrotHead

How is it that people still do not understand that America is BOTH, and that a republic which has no democratic system of voting is null and void?

Honestly, its like Groundhog Day. The two are not mutually exclusive, and one is necessary to the function of the other. Why is this difficult to understand?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join