|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
You did not provide an example of where the first amendment is violated. I shall take that as indicating that you do not have an example.
The Left/SCOTUS treats the public school system as the equivalent of Congress in its denial of religious practices on school property, which itself is a prohibition of the free exercise of religion in reality, and now you are saying that a law that prohibits Christians from acting on our beliefs, that came from SCOTUS, as usual usurping the role of Congress, doesn't count as prohibiting Christian freedoms.
This is just nonsense. You clearly do not understand the first amendment. It does not give a religion free rein to do whatever it wants. If a particular religion had a requirement that the first born son must be killed on his 12th birthday as a sacrifice to the Gods, the first amendment would not prevent that from being considered a criminal act of murder. The laws on murder apply to all, regardless of religion, so banning murder is not a restriction on freedom of religion. Likewise, as long as school policies apply equally to all, regardless of religion, they are not a restriction on the freedom of religion.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Whatever the basis for treating gay marriage as legitimate, whether it's originated by the state or by SCOTUS, the fact is that wherever it clashes head-on with Christian belief, as it does in the serving of a gay wedding, Christians are losing their religious freedoms. Although I often just throw up my hands and assume we're headed back to the paganism Christianity supplanted centuries ago (which supplanting is what built Western Civilization), which regression does fit Biblical prophecy of the End Times, I can't give up without a fight. The loss of freedom of religion is too great an attack on American culture to tolerate passively.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You clearly do not understand the first amendment. It does not give a religion free rein to do whatever it wants. In the case of Christianity yes it does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: Whatever the basis for treating gay marriage as legitimate, whether it's originated by the state or by SCOTUS, the fact is that wherever it clashes head-on with Christian belief, as it does in the serving of a gay wedding, Christians are losing their religious freedoms. Sorry but that is simply not true Faith. No Christian has lost any religious freedoms in the US and to claim that has happened is at best ignorance and denial of reality. You cannot show a single example and have never shown a single example of a Christian losing their religious freedom in the US.
Faith writes: Although I often just throw up my hands and assume we're headed back to the paganism Christianity supplanted centuries ago, which is what built Western Civilization, this regression does fit Biblical prophecy of the End Times. But I can't give up without a fight, and the loss of freedom of religion is too great an attack on American culture to tolerate passively. Nonsense Faith, again that is simply another perversion of what the Bible actually says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Christians are losing their religious freedoms Freedoms that came at the expense of the freedoms of gay people. The difference is that Christians and Muslims have ways of avoiding those losses, by changing their businesses so they are not public accommodations, or so their products/services never have to conflict with their religious beliefs. Gay people had no such recourse. Either they have free and equal access to public accommodations or they don't. So their freedom loss has no mitigating method they could use. So why should one person's religious freedom trump another person's freedom?
I can't give up without a fight. That's fine, and nor can the queer community. On the one hand, a religious freedom to provide lesser service to women could be allowed - at the expense of women (or old people, or Jews, or black people or gays or whatever). Or we could ask people who have religious qualms about serving women equally to adjust their business so that this issue never comes up preserving as much freedom as possible for everyone. I think the minority groups have a stronger case, and you simply reasserting that when you take away our freedoms its not 'totalitarian' is insufficient. The Minorities loss is more 'totalitarian' as it truly is total - there is nothing we can do about those losses. When we ask you to not take away our freedoms that is not totalitarian. You can still live and operate within your religion. I can't sacrifice children to Moloch.Or marry ten 12 year old girls. Or supply heroin to my community. Even if my religion says I can, or even should. Religious freedom is important, but it cannot be such that it supercedes the rights of other people. You wouldn't want a Muslim or atheist or Marxist majority dictating which shops you were allowed to use would you?
quote: My religious, or if you prefer, philosophical opinion that gays should be able to marry should not result in my suffering a loss of access to goods and services that are publicly in the free marketplace.
quote: Indeed, hypocrisy and meanness if you get to have your freedom at the expense of mine.
quote: quote: Refusal of service is injurious to others. You can believe same-sex marriage is wrong and it does me no harm, but your actions can. And its your actions that can be legislated. So if your religious exercise causes injury, they can be restricted. The state has the right to take life, liberty and impinge on the pursuit of happiness when the individual they are depriving those rights to has carried out injurious acts.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
In the case of Christianity yes it does.
Wrong again.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Faith explodes her brain:
You clearly do not understand the first amendment. It does not give a religion free rein to do whatever it wants. In the case of Christianity yes it does. YOU ARE SO WRONG. You are the totalitarian here. Jeezo-man.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Since this was a State's decision - this should be acknowledged. Obviously we should stick with the truth, but I suspect that even Oregon would argue that their laws were supported by the 14th amendment. In my opinion, anti-discrimination laws that are not well grounded in constitutional principles can be suspect, because state laws cannot trump the constitution. An Oregon law that prevented discrimination against democrats probably would not survive court review if it interfered with a first amendment right.
This extends to the Federal/State Totalitarian argument. Since this was a State's decision I suppose so. But that federal/state argument is ridiculous anyway. And beyond that, despite NCE's statement that any discrimination ought not to be challenged beyond the state level, it seems that he would find appealing to the state to be just a little less totalitarian that suing in federal court. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
New Cat's Eye writes: That people think we need to call on the feds to help us figure this one out is what I'm calling a totalitarian mentality. A totalitarian mentality would want what Hitler had or what Kim Jong-un has.
This sub-thread stems from Message 417... That message is from Theodoric, and the exchange that actually followed doesn't support you. It goes like this:
Percy writes: New Cat's Eye writes: Theodoric writes:
... You do realize that the Federal guidance on bathroom rules was because there were laws states were passing restricting bathroom use.Too, only one state passed a law restricting bathroom use *before the guidance was issued (abe for pedantry). And a number more in the legislative pipeline,... Also, I interpreted Theodoric's use of the phrase "were passing" to mean "were in the legislative process." Note that you said "passed" while Theodoric said "were passing." Big difference.
Also, a false assumption people are making about me: I don't think the individual states are the perfect place for people to go to the government. You can have the same totalitarian mentality regardless of the level of government you go towards. Going to the feds though, especially because you cannot allow for other states to make different decisions than the one you want, is an even more totalitarian approach than sticking to more local levels. Higher levels of government do not equate to a greater level of totalitarianism, and neither does appealing to them. What I hear in all your words is that you object to laws where you believe common sense should rule. But the universality of common sense is a myth, and for civil rights the federal government is the correct jurisdiction. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
You clearly do not understand the first amendment. It does not give a religion free rein to do whatever it wants.
In the case of Christianity yes it does. Poe Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
True Christian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
If we relied on common sense we would still believe the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.
Common sense is about as reliable as eyewitness testimony. In other words not very.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What I hear in all your words is that you object to laws where you believe common sense should rule. Weird, I haven't objected to a single law. Oh well, I'm spent. Have a nice day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1138 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined:
|
In the case of Christianity yes it does. Why? Where in the Constitution & Amendments does it say that? Where is Christianity called out for unique treatment not given to other religions? Remember, the Constitution was written at a time when specific Christian sects were afforded special legal and financial consideration by individual states. If the writers had wanted to provide specific federal protection, why didn't they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Remember, the Constitution was written at a time when specific Christian sects were afforded special legal and financial consideration by individual states. If the writers had wanted to provide specific federal protection, why didn't they? The whole point of the First Amendment was based on that fact. It was created to limit Christian sects ability to force their beliefs on others. No one wanted to see the crazy Puritans have the right or ability to impose their nonsense on the other states. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin of ---> on Edited by jar, : want ---> wanted Edited by jar, : fix attribution
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024