After Orlando, time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom: Neil Macdonald

No one is required to like, accept or respect gay, lesbian or trans people. People will always have other people they don't like. Put on your big girl panties and buck up...that is a fact of life.

Now...killing someone you don't like? That is illegal and in this case, terrorism. Don't confuse (not that the OP actually confused it) killing from non-acceptance.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: saintdopeium

Here ya go. While it lasts anyway.

And here's that guy from Orlando who deserves zero scrutiny...

Two cheeks of the same arse those two.

Tenth, first off, your issue as presented in the OP is spot on.

Second, I hope you're not surprised that so many want to use your discussion to pretend that they are being harmed somehow.

Third, as with many issues, perhaps all, in America, I believe we find the answer in our Constitution.

No government in the US, not the Federal, State or Local is allowed to make laws establishing one religion over another or to keep those of any faith from living (exercising) their faith .

If a religion claims that those of a certain group should be killed, and we don't allow that, aren't we interfering with free exercise of religion?

Of course not. The laws against murder are not directed at any given religion, but at all people.

There are two equal demands in the First Amendment (and there's a reason it's first) regarding religion.

The government cannot establish any religion or religious practices in law. Period.

It doesn't matter what a person's beliefs are. That bears repeating: your religious beliefs don't matter in regard to the law.

Here's the other side: the government cannot limit the free exercise of your religion.

To repeat: the laws don't matter in regard to your religious beliefs.

The government cannot legislate away your right to believe whatever you want.

That's the beauty of the First Amendment's freedom of religion. It might be the most ingenious philosophical statement since "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Not first formulated by "Jesus Christ" btw.)

Here's an even bigger challenge for so many in this thread:

The US Constitution does not allow ANY part of the government to act prejudicially against ANY religion.

So all this hoo-rah-woof-woof about what Trump or anyone else is going to do "to the Muslims" is pure BS.

In the United States, we do not go after Religions.

That is as much a part of our Constitution as the Second, Fifth or Thirteenth Amendments.

Our war is not against a religion, it is against ANYONE who cannot accept that they don't get to tell the rest of us how to live.

In other words, exactly what Tenth stated in the OP, unless I have dramatically misunderstood.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, he sure called it. That is what a prophetic voice does, make us aware of what we are doing wrong.

There definitely was a conspiracy back in the 1970s to unite the political conservative right with conservative polarizing religion. But it was NOT to discredit/undermine all religion. It was that the Republican Party felt that they needed a third leg of their political stool, which they felt was lacking a stability, having only a national security and economic focus: religious conservatives, national security conservatives, and economic conservatives.

This was a deliberate attempt to promote conservative Christianity (exclusive) over liberal Christianity (inclusive).

I must add here, that the world of the 1960-70s was a time of cultural and political revolution worldwide. From Africa shaking off the chains of European colonialism with independence, to Europe and Americas desiring to advance culturally, and to the Middle East a combination of shaking off European meddling and finding their own modernization and advancement in a Muslim world. The reaction to all this liberalization was a worldwide pivot to fundamentalism by 1980, a world where all was black and white, a world capable of being controlled under an authoritarian leader.

IMO the discrediting/undermining of (fundamentalist) religion was a reaction by the religious members themselves, not a force outside of the fundamentalism solely, who no longer felt that either fundamentalist beliefs fit the modern world or that their religion was not living up to the standards of what it meant to be a follower of Jesus.

Oh, Saudi Arabia was never a part of this surge in fundamentalism, for the House of Saud had decades before linked their rule with the most fundamental of Muslim fundamentalism, the Wahhabist branch.

I liked Benevolent Heretic's term for the current conservative, fundamentalist face of American Christianity... "the political movement of Christianity". It is time for the other face of religion, the inclusive face, to return. As was said on the first page, this is the 21st century.

a reply to: desert

Are you guys living in a different world than me because a friend of mine runs a church where a gay black person from Haiti is one of the heads of the church

What world are we living in

Christian fundamentalism is about love and compassion any branch of Christianity that teaches hate or exclusivity is not Christian they are an abomination like radical Islam

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

I don't know why the same isn't done in the USA, but I have a feeling it has a lot to do with the media.

~Tenth

I think it has a lot to do with Right Wing Christians - - and the Powerful Political Christian Lobby.

Many still think America was founded on Christianity. And the sad part is Christianity prominently was allowed the power to run this country - - up until the 1960s when atheists began to organize.

We should not have any official Federal Christian holidays, but we do. That's because it was allowed.

The atheists/humanists/non-religious have been organizing and pushing for the secular government we should've had in the first place.

A culture is one of the hardest things to undo. We have a Christian dominated culture. If Christianity hadn't gotten such a strong hold on the government in the beginning - - it would be easier.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Don't confuse...killing [with] non-acceptance.

Fine. See, because even if it's not "killing" It is definitely bullying, discrimination, shaming, power-mongering, abuse, disenfranchisement, and general bigoted ugliness.

It's amazing how radical ISIS members spawn so much Christian hate

Great job guys!

originally posted by: Pyrrho

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Pyrrho

Bigotry is freedom of speech

Yes, but you can't discriminate because of it, and certainly not while claiming religious freedom.

Why shouldn't they?

We see what happens when businesses discriminate. They get their image completely shattered across the entire country. This doesn't require government force and I'm not sure why so many people on here want the government to force ideals when we can let it be done the correct way via social cooperation.

Because it's not fair to the people discriminated against.

All they want to do to is live their lives without the BS discrimination that tries to take away their right to live and frequent these places. They want to eat, drink, shop, play, browse, buy without encountering discriminatory walls.

And that's a good thing.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Pyrrho

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Pyrrho

Bigotry is freedom of speech

Yes, but you can't discriminate because of it, and certainly not while claiming religious freedom.

Why shouldn't they?

We see what happens when businesses discriminate. They get their image completely shattered across the entire country. This doesn't require government force and I'm not sure why so many people on here want the government to force ideals when we can let it be done the correct way via social cooperation.

Because it's not fair to the people discriminated against.

All they want to do to is live their lives without the BS discrimination that tries to take away their right to live and frequent these places. They want to eat, drink, shop, play, browse, buy without encountering discriminatory walls.

And that's a good thing.

"it's not fair"

waahh

They're not being prevented from living freely. They can do all of those things just fine. Did someone chain them up and stop them from eating, drinking, shopping, playing elsewhere? No? Their freedom is still intact while the business that discriminated is one tweet away from being boycotted into bankruptcy.

You care so little about your own freedom that you're advocating for the government to violently remove peoples' freedom of speech?

a reply to: Pyrrho

It's because everyone crying fowl feels inferior and isn't co.for table in their own skin so it's everyone else's fault

Time to take ownership for your feelings and stop blaming everyone else for they you feel

People can think whatever they want as long as they aren't blowing up schools and shooting up gay clubs or hurting everyone is doesn't matter

a reply to: desert

There was a time when I might have agreed somewhat. But having watched this all play out -- how it played out -- I have to believe there was more to it.

I liked Benevolent Heretic's term for the current conservative, fundamentalist face of American Christianity... "the political movement of Christianity".

Politicians politicized Christianity -- in the ugliest ways -- with the help of media of course.

It is time for the other face of religion, the inclusive face, to return. As was said on the first page, this is the 21st century.

The inclusive face of Christianity never went anywhere... but it's been ignored and shunned... while politicians and the media shine a floodlight on the "political movement of Christianity." I'd love to see that floodlight shift to other Christians. But it's going to be up to us to seek them out and shine that light ourselves.

originally posted by: Boadicea

The inclusive face of Christianity never went anywhere... but it's been ignored and shunned... while politicians and the media shine a floodlight on the "political movement of Christianity." I'd love to see that floodlight shift to other Christians. But it's going to be up to us to seek them out and shine that light ourselves.

I wonder, how many here would be equally ready to see that floodlight also shift to the billion or so Muslims that are not radical terrorists?

I think I'll wager ... no. Let's see.

a reply to: Pyrrho

They can do all of those things just fine.

You were implying that it would be ok to discriminate against people because of the backlash against the establishment or business that refused them.

To which I replied, that would prevent them from living their lives freely.

Then:

"it's not fair"

waahh

They're not being prevented from living freely.

Not currently, but that is your implication.

If they're being prevented from visiting an establishment because of their race/gender/religion/et al (which you seem to be implying), then yes, they are being prevented from living freely.

And that is unfair. Do you understand the concept of fairness?

You care so little about your own freedom that you're advocating for the government to violently remove peoples' freedom of speech?

Kinda loaded with hyperbole there, eh?

No one's speech is being removed.

Discrimination is not speech, and it's certainly not protected.

One can be a bigot all one wishes, but one cannot discriminate because of one's bigotry.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I wonder, how many here would be equally ready to see that floodlight also shift to the billion or so Muslims that are not radical terrorists?

I'd love to see that... but I fear we would both be sadly disappointed. On the plus side, we do have some really great ATSers of the Muslim faith whose comments do shine that light here for all to see.

originally posted by: Boadicea
On the plus side, we do have some really great ATSers of the Muslim faith whose comments do shine that light here for all to see.

I would not argue with you on that point at all.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And then there is the Parable of the Good Muslim. A couple versions, here and here

originally posted by: Liquesence


If they're being prevented from visiting an establishment because of their race/gender/religion/et al (which you seem to be implying), then yes, they are being prevented from living freely.

You're going to have to come up with a decent explanation for why you think this. How does not being allowed to shop/browse/etc at a particular privately owned establishment prevent one from living freely?

So if I decide I don't want blacks to enter my home, they should be allowed to enter my home just because it's discrimination?

People should have the freedom to be wrong. Just because you're offended isn't a reason to violate their right to be wrong.

Well this put some Conservatives in a conundrum, who do they hate more..gays or muslims?

It is quite disgusting that the people who have done everything they could to deny these people rights are now using them for their own political needs...ie..more guns or hate towards Muslims.

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: Gryphon66

And then there is the Parable of the Good Muslim. A couple versions, here and here

Agreed.

From what I've seen though, the same rules don't apply. It's wrong to "bash Christians" (even when one isn't) but it's a-okay to "bash Muslims" (even when one is.)