Religious Liberty?

a reply to: windword

Well that is a subject that could be pursued to get to the truth of the matter but without investigation and study it becomes a kettle of fish ,...so to speak .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

No "kettle of fish". Polygamy was widespread and existed for very good reasons. There is no condemnation of polygamy in the Bible. That was imposed by the Catholic Church, much later.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Flatfish


Religious liberty is a joke in the US,
the topic of the thread.

My contention is the left has decided all religion
and all religious people are immoral and should
be forced to abandon their religion and any
and all religious ideas they may have.

This is seen in the behavior of the left toward
people who dare to disagree with them, and
is encouraged by the media.
They have become the very bullies that they
claim the religious right is,
and 2 wrongs do not make a right.

Defend that if you can instead of making
childish quips.

I think we may have identified your problem.

It lies with the fact that your argument is founded in "your contention" and your contention is blatantly false.

No one is losing their job or business because they hurt someone's feelings with their religious beliefs.

On the other hand, people get sued every day when they violate and/or deny equal rights of others and the fact that you would defend someone's right to do so based on their religious convictions is both, ludicrous and revealing.

If anyone's gotten their feelings hurt here, I'd say it those religious folks who are butt hurt that they aren't allowed to use their belief in fairy tales to defend their discriminatory behavior.

a reply to: windword

So is there any justification that would make it illegal today imposed by the state ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

polygamy is good when you want to increase population, not so good if you want to reduce it or keep it rather steady.

a reply to: dawnstar

Talk to China as they have addressed it despite the many that they have . Strange thing about populations is that the original indigenous peoples out perform transplanted peoples . Is it God ordained ? don't know but it is a interesting phenomena .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

they are often poorer, and they tend to rely more on agriculture. the proverty increases the child death rate and their agriculture tends to make more hands helpful.

a reply to: dawnstar

i hardly think that poor people take the time to sit down and go through the demographic of the matter . That would befall tptb that would start a war to create a movement of peoples to repopulate areas of their domain to keep the game going . Pheasants do not have that kind of a mind set ...

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: windword

So is there any justification that would make it illegal today imposed by the state ?

What justification does the government have to prevent polygamy between consenting adults?

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: windword

So is there any justification that would make it illegal today imposed by the state ?

What justification does the government have to prevent polygamy between consenting adults?

None.

We know why it was outlawed.

a reply to: dawnstar

Have you heard of democracy its about not letting a few intimidate and boss the majority by using their religion with which to do so.

originally posted by: 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.
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.

But that only applies if your Religion used the Bible. Not all Religions use a Judeo Christian format so it wouldn't matter. Such rules only matter if you're part of that Religion.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I am saying that the left IS punishing people
for simply stating they disagree with gay marriage;
for the crime of saying something that might hurt
someone's feelings.

Nobody is punishing anyone else for saying anything. No more than anyone else is punished for saying whatever they want. Every single day people on all media formats are saying something against another group of people and nobody is punished for it any more than anyone else. Christians say mean stuff about gays and gays say mean stuff right back. White people say mean stuff against black people and black people say mean stuff back. Day in Day out. If you could see things from a perspective other than your own you'd see this quite clearly.

How about the pizza parlor who did not deny anyone
anything. They were asked a hypothetical, after
the reporter went to many other restaurants trying
to get one to say what the person said.

She said after asked a hypothetical question, they
would not cater a gay wedding, they never refused
anyone, the person asking was not asking them
to cater a gay wedding. It was all hypothetical
and "how do you feel about".

What about them??? They're doing just fine. Still there serving pizza's like they were before. Plus they actually got almost a million bucks in sympathy money sent to them by other gay hating christians. So I don't know what you're talking about.

That is how I see the left operating these days.
Chasing down people who are not doing anything,
goading them into saying things that might hurt
someone's feelings.

Then make sure they get death
threats for it, hateful emails, scare the family members,
and try to shut down the business.


That is how I see the left operating these days.
It is wrong, it is immoral, and it is evil to hunt down
people just to persecute them, not for what they
did but for what they think. (In this instance think
they would do.)

It is as wrong, evil and immoral as what the left
says the Christian right is doing, and 2 wrongs
never ever make a right, they only make hatred
and division.

The left in this instance was calling for punishment
not for a real illegal act
but for someone expressing their thoughts
and what they may or may not actually do.
Punishing for a thought crime
to intimidate people into thinking
the correct way
the way the left demands they think
or else.

So in other words, there are people from both the left and the right, from the Religious and the non religious and the gay and the straight etc. talking trash about those on the opposite side from themselves. 4 words. Ya and so what???

It's been that way since people have chosen sides about anything. Both sides do it. Both sides say the other side does it more or is more evil while saying their side is the victims.

Could it be that some people are just A-holes??? Yep, probably so.

Let me tell you all true story.

It happened to someone I know personally, a government employee.

Not religious, but an example of the leftist thought police.

A true story of someone being punished for incorrect thought or really being incorrectly thoughtless.

There was a man who had hanging on his cubical wall a piece of rubber that somewhat resembled a noose.
There was a black woman who was very sensitive and saw this piece of rubber as an implied threat to her.
She was well known in the office for making complaints about racism and sexism and everyone who wasn't a black woman walked on eggshells around her and basically did their best to avoid any contact with her.
She complained and there was an investigation.
Turns out the man had surgery and the piece of rubber was exercise equipment that the Dr. prescribed and told him to use several times a day. He went to the restroom with his "noose" daily to do his exercise
The black woman said he was a liar that it was an intimidation tactic because the man didn't like her and purposely avoided her. So the "noose" was a silent message to her.
The man got a note from the Dr. proving it was exercise equipment.
The outcome? The man was no longer allowed to bring his exercise equipment to work as he was being insensitive to black people by bringing it to work.
He was demoted for being insensitive to black people.
True story. I await the usual, you lie, sigh, but it is quite true.

The left thought police punished the man
for not seeing in advance that his prescribed exercise equipment
looked like a noose and he was being insensitive
to black people and needed to be demoted for his insensitivity to people of color.

For failing to see that his exercise equipment might hurt someones feelings.

In this case the leftist liberals who ran the EEO office,
of course during the Obama administration,
were thought police and punished the man
for not thinking correctly and seeing
the symbolism behind his exercise equipment;
and that it might hurt the feelings of black people.

This is what people who are not politically correct enough
for the liberal left live with every day.

The extreme intolerance of the left.

Interesting not one of you agreed that the
left is doing things that are as bad as the far right.

I admitted the far right does things it should not
I admitted the extreme Christians do things they should not.

But all of you, ALL, defended the far left as being perfect
in what they do.

That is blind sheeple religious type following of
the leftist/liberal/progressive ideology

and idealizing it to such an extent that you can not
see the intolerance and hatred being spewed by your own

radical and extremist
people is equally as bad as what you condemn in others.

You jump on my mistakes like phirrana's at a feeding frenzy.

And refuse to see that the far left is doing as much
damage and causing as much hatred and division
as the right. And refuse to see how blind you are
to reality in your religious fervor and circling of the
sharks to defend your blind support of whatever
the left does, no matter how intolerant.

That is worship of a ideology so strong that you
are totally blind to it's faults and prefer to
defend and worship the leftist/liberal/progressive
stance, no matter what it does, or who it hurts
in order to forward its agenda.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Interesting not one of you agreed that the left is doing things that are as bad as the far right.

I'll agree with you that neither side has a monopoly on political correctness or attempts at thought policery. BOTH sides play this game.

But all of you, ALL, defended the far left as being perfect in what they do.

This is a lie. NONE of us has claimed the left is perfect. You're making things up. Again.

You jump on my mistakes like phirrana's at a feeding frenzy.

That's because you're making crazy and incorrect claims! Every claim you've made about some news story or other has been proven to be false! Maybe you should realize that all the stuff you've been claiming DIDN'T happen, so why should we agree with you?

You're basing your outrage on things that DIDN'T happen!!!! And blaming the evil left for all of the stuff in your imagination! You're not going to get agreement or sympathy from the THINKING members here.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thank you for proving my point that someone would call liar.

Who has said that what the left has done to people
that is unfair
like the pizza parlor family is wrong

I knew you wouldn't believe the story about the man
but it is true, happened to someone I know personally.

Doesn't matter you don't believe it.

If I say black you react violently with NO WHITE

If I say the sky is blue you react violently with NO PINK

You said the left isn't perfect, but you have not admitted
that it has gone to far with politically correct in a number
of instances and is basically trying to force people into
correct speech, which only deepens the divide and makes
matters worse.

But, in this thread, I won't go back and forth with you anymore,
it is useless.

Now I say tomato!

a reply to: grandmakdw

I didn't say or imply that your personal story was a lie. You said that we ALL defend the left as perfect. THAT is the lie. Nice attempt at being slimy. You did not succeed.

What the pizza parlor family did is perfectly within their rights. Death threats are illegal and no one should have to experience that. Feel better? But remember, the anti-gay, religious right sent this family over $800,000 to support their bigotry. Was that also "wrong"? It's two sides of the issue. (I'm not big on saying people's actions are "right or wrong". I'm not into making moral judgments. I say if it's legal or illegal.)

If I say black you react violently with NO WHITE

If I say the sky is blue you react violently with NO PINK

No, I respond with "prove it" and then I find proof that what you're saying isn't true and then you ignore that, you DON'T admit that you were mistaken, and then you move onto some other outlandish claim. It's not my fault that the claims you put forth have been factually incorrect.

And "violently"???? Are you serious? Asking if you have a link is "violent"? How thin-skinned are you, anyway? If we can't have a "cognitive exercise" in discussion without you feeling violated, maybe you should reconsider your participation here. I relate to your participation being a cognitive exercise, because that's what I enjoy about ATS, but I try to make sure what I'm saying is true, ESPECIALLY if it's proving a point. And if I am proven wrong, I admit it and apologize. But with your untrue claims, you only disprove your point. Disagreement is not a "violent reaction".

... you have not admitted that it has gone to far with politically correct in a number of instances and is basically trying to force people into correct speech...

That's because I believe in freedom and choice. I don't care how far the left OR the right goes with their political correctness. I don't care! I will not be swayed from what I truly believe. People are FREE to be politically correct if they want to. People are FREE to change their minds about things. No one is "going too far", as far as I'm concerned. Freedom extends beyond the bounds of "what people should say" or "how people should act". Freedom extends to Fred Phelps and his merry men.

I believe in individual freedom. No, I mean REALLY. Donald Sterling has the freedom to be a racist. I support that freedom. The NBA has the freedom to handle the situation in a way that they choose. There are consequences to our actions and words, but I will support the right of ANYONE to think and say what they believe. I support Kim Davis' right to refuse to issue marriage licenses, based on her religious beliefs. But I don't support her imagined "right" to keep a job that she refuses to do, or to illegally alter official paperwork that affects other citizens' legal rights.

So, no. PC hasn't "gone too far" on the left, any more than it has on the right. People are just living their lives. OF COURSE, people are pushing their agendas, whatever that may be. They have that freedom. I'm just observing...

a reply to: grandmakdw

Your story, true or not, is hardly a convincing argument for either side of the dispute.

There seems to be more missing from this story than meets the eye and it would be asinine for anyone to render a decision based on what you and/or your friend have provided.

Here's just a few questions I have;

For starters, I like to state that getting a doctor to write a letter is no great feat and I'm pretty sure the doctor didn't tell him that publicly displaying the device would help his condition in any way.

Now, are there any pictures of the "exercise device" in question?

If the guy felt that his exercise routine needed to be done in the privacy of the restroom, why did he feel it was appropriate to "hang" the device in his cubicle between uses?

Are there any actual witnesses to this guy doing his exercises in the restroom, or is that just a convenient explanation for why no one ever saw him exercise at work?

Has this guy been the target of other complaints of racism and/or sexism in the past? If so, we're any of the complaints substantiated?

Is there an actual record for all the past frivolous claims of racism and/or sexism that the accuser is so "well known for" by her co-workers?

I'd just bet that the EEOC got the answers to those questions and many more before rendering their decision and I'd also bet your friend isn't giving you the whole "story."

As someone who has personal experience defending myself (and the organization I represented) before the EEOC on 4 separate occasions, I can tell you that the process was both fair and just.

We were vindicated on each and every count brought against us and we did so without any legal advice or expense.

It was a fairly simple process and when all the facts were presented, the truth became evident and the EEOC ruled in our favor.

In one of the cases, the EEOC representative overseeing it even stated that we had the fairest hiring process she had ever seen at any site she had ever reviewed. And when I say "reviewed," I mean to say that she personally showed up at every hiring call we had, (4 per day) for over a month to witness the process.

Yes, I'm white. Yes, the accusers were black with the exception of one Hispanic. And believe it or not, we were all left leaning progressives. That's right! Lefties suing lefties, can you believe it?

The same way those on the right sometimes sue their fellow conservatives. It happens! Just like Donald Trump, (The king of political incorrectness) threatening to sue his fellow conservatives for running negative attack ads. Go figure!

Yes, people deal with complaints every day, it's pretty much a part of life regardless of what ideology you entertain.

On the other hand, how someone reacts to that fact of life is totally their choice.

For those who have a genuine desire to do the right thing by treating others respectfully and impartially, finding out you were wrong about something isn't the worst thing that could happen. You learn from it, correct the mistakes and move on with your life.

At the same time, there are those who either lack the empathy to "put the shoe on the other foot" and recognize their mistakes for what they are, or hold convictions that they have every right to continue their behavior and that others should just accept it.

For those in the second category, I'm sure they hate being called out by their fellow employees, their company's Human Resources Dept., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or anybody else and I'm sure it drives them Bat-# crazy.

All I have to offer them is my pity.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
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 .

In Illinois, you have to have a marriage license before you have the ceremony. The ceremony isn't official without the license. That may only be if you don't get married in front of a Judge.

Maybe it would be clearer if I said "someone planning a marriage ceremony".

originally posted by: CryHavoc


the Universal Life Church that ordains ministers online),

Ordination online? Are you trying to tell me that nowadays, one can become a pastor via online service?, That is so ridiculous..