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.

 

Religious Liberty?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Moderators, please move this if it's in the wrong forum.

So, I had a thought this morning (doesn't happen often, I know). When Pope Francis spoke with President Obama, he said we should focus on Religious Liberty.

So here's the question to all of you about Religious Liberty:

If two homosexuals were to be married by an official of a church the condones homosexual marriage (there are a number of them, including the Universal Life Church that ordains ministers online), and someone denies the couple a marriage license, isn't that infringing on the Religious Rights of the couple wanting to get married?

The whole situation is a conundrum that, I think, the U.S. deserves an answer to.
edit on 28-9-2015 by CryHavoc because: mis-spell




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
the problem is, there IS religious liberty, even too much of it, frankly.
the first trick to get more and more power is to actually act like you are oppressed.
that's what religions do best.

As for the gay marriage example, well, that one is simple, the bible is against it, so you can't do something religious if the starting point is against the rules.
kinda like you can't do certain jobs if you have a criminal record- homosexuality is the "criminal act" that does not allow you to marry.
because a 2000 year old book is obviously something modern society should be based on.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

To my mind, the first thing to ensure is that people who are responsible for granting licenses for marriage, are not prohibitive in their religious beliefs. If an individual has beliefs which prevent them from dispensing their duties with total impartiality, then they should not be permitted to take the job, or occupy it for any longer than it takes to find a replacement. Government employees who currently occupy positions of power in these matters, and who hold prohibitive religious beliefs, should be re-tasked in roles where their religious beliefs are unlikely to ever be touched upon, by affairs with which they deal.

That is not to say that persons who hold religious beliefs in general may not take these jobs.


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

Churches don't issue marriage licenses....They only provide a meaningless ceramony.

The county, State, City issues the marriage licenses. Not religious at all.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Anytime someone forces another to do their will through threat or intimidation, it is violating the right of the person not to feel threatened or intimidated into doing something they don't want to do.

In your scenario, everyone's "rights" are being violated.


There is no freedom in the US anymore.
You don't tow the "we know what is best for everyone else" liberal progressives,
and we will force them to think as we do
or threaten their lively hood, or send them death threats until they comply.

I'm tired of people screaming about bakeries
when there isn't a place in the US where
you can't drive in less than two hours and get whatever you want,
a cake, someone who will perform a ceremony, etc.

Is is right to terrorize people for having a different idea than you do?

This isn't the same as racism. People were enslaved.
Today the only people being enslaved today,
are people of color in the ME and Africa enslaving other people of color.

Gay people aren't being lynched,
they are being celebrated in the media
and portrayed as a preferred lifestyle
because it is hip and cool to be gay.

There are lots of places they can go to get married now
and to get photographers, florists, bakers
that would love to have their business and happily accommodate them.

One can not terrorize people into accepting something.
As a matter of fact terrorizing others is a way to ensure
that they will always hate you, even if they didn't before.

This terrorizing of people who don't tow the neo-liberal/progressive mindset
only deepens the divide,
increases the hatred and ensures that
the hatred will be passed to another generation
who witnesses the terrorism of the thought police.


By saying we must force people with "this religious idea"
to do our will, that is terrorism.
Which deepens hatred and guarantees the hatred
will be carried to the next generation who witnesses
the terrorism.

What I mean by terrorism:
actively seeking to get someone fired because you don't like their view of the world and what they think is right and wrong;
actively seeking to shut down someones business because you don't like their view of the world and what they think is right and wrong;
sending hate filled emails
and encouraging others to do the same to someone with whom you don't like their view of the world;
sending death threats to people who simply disagree with what you think is right.
Threatening ones livelihood, ones person, ones family
for simply holding a different idea of what is right or wrong
and wanting to follow their religion
(whatever religion is, as long as they don't physically harm or physically restrain
- as in the driving example - anyone else in holding that viewpoint)
in the scenario above no one is physically harmed, they just have hurt feelings.

Hurt feelings - those who want to legislate away hurt feelings -
grow up
get off the elementary school playground emotionally
life isn't fair, hurt feelings happen
get over it, you can't legislate or bully away
hurt feelings happening.




edit on 9Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:32:02 -0500am92809amk281 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc




If two homosexuals were to be married by an official of a church the condones homosexual marriage (there are a number of them, including the Universal Life Church that ordains ministers online), and someone denies the couple a marriage license,
So which is it ? did they get married and if they did how could it be that someone denied them the licence to do so ...You seem to be making 2 claims that cant both be true at the same time .



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse




As for the gay marriage example, well, that one is simple, the bible is against it, so you can't do something religious if the starting point is against the rules.


The Bible isn't the only religious book or "holy text" from which religions speak. Since we're talking freedom of religion, the OP is asking, I believe, "Does one person's religion trump another's?"

My religion says okay to gay marriage, but your's doesn't. Because you have been given an authoritative job, should your religion trump mine?

Let's say a Saudi Arabian immigrant is given a job of Police officer, in a US city. Should that officer be able to pull over women because his religion prohibits women drivers?





edit on 28-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

So true ..A study into the marriage licence is a relatively new phenomena . I guess there are a couple ways of looking at marriage .Words and their meaning take on differences over time but they all have a kind of original meaning in the culture of the day .



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
The United States government does not have religious liberty.

The United States government does not have a religion.

The United States government is mandated by the Constitution to treat all citizens equally under the law.

A person which holds a position in government, either elected or appointed, is in fact the United States government and as such, in their job capacity, does not have religious liberty nor a religion.

To not recognize this is ignorance.

To recognize it but support it anyway is to support a tyrannical government which uses religion to persecute persons it doesn't like or agree with, violating the 1st and 14th Amendments.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

There is a lot of religion busting into our lives today and its time we knew where we stood surely.

I would like to know what the statistics are for people who actually practise religion - whatever one they choose or are bred into.

I would also like to know what the statistics are for those who choose not to practise a religion although they were bred into one and simply toe the line for weddings and high days etc.

Also lastly to know who gave up the ghost on religion whether agnostic or atheist.

If we know these figures then the majority can stop being bullied by the power of the weak and we can tell them where to go etc etc. After all we live in democracies - perhaps its time to start doing it and not being emotionally blackmailed by a few, whichever way the religious cookie crumbles.

As far as gay marriage is concerned the religious top men want your donations in order to keep their prestige, quality of life and to get the biggest following. Unless you breed, the poor things struggle. Its easier to boss a man around whose tied down by family commitments - he's too busy to oppose you. So Gays are not conducive unless working within the priesthoods of the religions themselves - NB. Always best to hide in plain sight- what!



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
The United States government does not have religious liberty.

The United States government does not have a religion.

The United States government is mandated by the Constitution to treat all citizens equally under the law.

A person which holds a position in government, either elected or appointed, is in fact the United States government and as such, in their job capacity, does not have religious liberty nor a religion.

To not recognize this is ignorance.

To recognize it but support it anyway is to support a tyrannical government which uses religion to persecute persons it doesn't like or agree with, violating the 1st and 14th Amendments.


You are right in one thing you said.

The US does not have religious liberty.

Not anymore, it has been stripped away
to insure that people with the emotional
stamina of a kindergartner
don't get their feelings hurt by someone
disagreeing with what they think is right or wrong.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Govt's rely on the Law Society to create laws . They (the law society) are restricted in the language . Take for instance ,in Canada the Conservative Govt. was petitioned by their base to bring in legislation for the un-born child . Without giving a reason as to why they would not , the put it on a back burner somewhere . The real reason I suppose comes down to person hood . The fiction of the person created at birth .Prior to this document they cannot be deemed a real person . Funny because a Corporation can be determined a person . So there exist within the laws a fiction we are lead to think of as real but it is for all intense purposes a fiction .



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc
If two homosexuals were to be married by an official of a church the condones homosexual marriage (there are a number of them, including the Universal Life Church that ordains ministers online), and someone denies the couple a marriage license, isn't that infringing on the Religious Rights of the couple wanting to get married?


That's two different things. A religious marriage and a civil marriage. No one is interfering with the religious marriage, so, no, it would not be a violation of their religious right.

It IS a violation of their civil rights as guaranteed by the 14th amendment, however.

If they got a marriage license and went to the church and some people physically blocked their entrance and wouldn't let them in, that might be construed as violating their religious rights.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw



You are right in one thing you said.

The US does not have religious liberty.


Yes, you do have religious liberty. The US as an entity in and of itself does not.

You are free to believe what you want, worship however you want and whomever you want. What you do not have the right to do is deny people their rights based on your own personal religious beliefs.

I don't know why that concept is so hard for people to grasp.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Don't twist my words.

The US does have religious liberty.

The United States government is not entitled to religious liberty, or any rights at all.

If you are elected, appointed or hired into a government position... while you are doing that job you are the government and not entitled to religious liberty.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
what if that person you are claiming should make a two hour drive to get what he wants since the baker has a religious belief that he shouldn't be baking that cake, has his own belief, has arranged his life so that he can take care of all his needs without the use of a car because he has just as strong of a belief that all these people carelessly running all over the place for stupid selfish reasons are someday gonna cause the extinction of the human race? Shouldn't his belief recieve the same consideration as yours? and by refusing him, aren't you forcing him to defy his belief? what if the one shopkeeping for miles decided that they weren't gonna do any transactions with women since well, they are unclean? should the mother that lives across the street be forced to watch her little ones starve because she can't find a way to transport herself and kits to the next closest store?

gee, life would be so much easier if we all just followed the golden rule and treated others as we would want to be treated. if people who know that others had such convictions would ask them not to betray them or when told would just accept it and if those with the convictions would be respective in the way they refuse to serve some and well, understand that since they would not like to be put in a position where something they needed meant having to travel a long distance, maybe they should bite the bullet themselves once in awhile just so they aren't causing unwarrented hardship on another.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Gay people aren't being lynched,


Yay! Let's celebrate our tolerant society! LOL!



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It's true what you say and if a "Church" had a creed to allow for that there would be no problem ,but not all Churches are created equal and they all have differing doctrines and creeds . To try and standardize the whole group just wouldn't work . Or I guess would only cause more divisions .



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Kali74
The United States government does not have religious liberty.

The United States government does not have a religion.

The United States government is mandated by the Constitution to treat all citizens equally under the law.

A person which holds a position in government, either elected or appointed, is in fact the United States government and as such, in their job capacity, does not have religious liberty nor a religion.

To not recognize this is ignorance.

To recognize it but support it anyway is to support a tyrannical government which uses religion to persecute persons it doesn't like or agree with, violating the 1st and 14th Amendments.


You are right in one thing you said.

The US does not have religious liberty.

Not anymore, it has been stripped away
to insure that people with the emotional
stamina of a kindergartner
don't get their feelings hurt by someone
disagreeing with what they think is right or wrong.

Careful Grandma. Your bitterness is showing. Your statement could apply to both sides of this equation, and to any one individual at any time. Neither side owns the copyright to ignorance and immaturity.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

who the majority is doesn't really matter does it, since well, by shear numbers, the majority could claim any rights they want without the gov't protections of rights laid out in the constitution. the constitutional rights were laid out to protect the minority's rights and not allow mob rule to infringe on them.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join