Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 777 of 928 (758401)
05-25-2015 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 770 by Faith
05-24-2015 5:58 PM


Re: Go get it somewhere else
quote:
I'm far more interested in obeying God and honoring His law,
And the Bible says that if you break the secular law you deserve what you get.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 770 by Faith, posted 05-24-2015 5:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 793 of 928 (758446)
05-26-2015 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 787 by Faith
05-25-2015 7:17 PM


Re: No second thoughts?
quote:
Yes and I'd be happy to have second thoughts. I don't like the idea of Christendom going down.
Then I believe that you are on the wrong side. But since you seem to hate actual Christians I doubt that.
quote:
This is just now getting started, it's going to take some time to develop, how much I don't know, but if the Supreme Court rules against opponents of gay marriage next month it could take off fast.
It's true that some of the opponents of gay marriage have threatened all sorts of mayhem, but they are full of bluster and lies. Orson Scott Card has already walked back on his threats of murder. But maybe some really believe that they can start and win a second civil war and impose their tyranny. If THAT happens you can expect to see Christians persecuted.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 787 by Faith, posted 05-25-2015 7:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 809 of 928 (758532)
05-28-2015 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 808 by Faith
05-28-2015 2:01 AM


Re: No second thoughts?
quote:
Ah yes, another redefinition aimed at pretending what is actually happening is not happening. At least it's another semantic dodge intended to obscure the reality.
No Faith. Your false claim that beliefs were being criminalised was an attempt to obscure the reality.
quote:
OK, how about "Preaching or acting upon our ancient traditional beliefs is now being defined as criminal, by redefining it as "hate speech" and a "violation of civil rights." But there is no such thing as a genuine belief that one DOESN'T preach or act upon. Really, shouldn't you just acknowledge that this is what is happening?
There,s no criminalisation of speaking beliefs either. And as the distinction between belief and action is part of the thinking behind the First Amendment - and equating freedom of belief with the right to act on that belief has very obvious problems - there's a valid point there.
So all you are offering is a defence of bigotry on the grounds of "tradition". That's not really much of a defence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 808 by Faith, posted 05-28-2015 2:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 810 by Faith, posted 05-28-2015 2:59 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 812 of 928 (758535)
05-28-2015 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 810 by Faith
05-28-2015 2:59 AM


Re: No second thoughts?
quote:
My point was simple and factual and you along with all the rest here are engaged in obscuring it. I outlined changes over the last few decades to show that it's only very recently that any kind of law has existed that has brought about legal action against Christians living according to their beliefs.
It is a fact that beliefs are not criminalised in the U.S. It is a fact that there are no hate speech laws in the U.S. Any claim to the contrary is NOT factual.
Compare the Puritan's persecution of Quakers in Boston. Even when the death penalty was revoked, Quakers were still whipped out of town. You've got nothing like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 810 by Faith, posted 05-28-2015 2:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 813 by Faith, posted 05-28-2015 4:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 814 of 928 (758537)
05-28-2015 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 813 by Faith
05-28-2015 4:23 AM


Re: No second thoughts?
quote:
There's a passage in the Bible that says something like Woe to those who hold a person guilty over a word. That's what you are doing
What I am doing is disagreeing with false claims. As I pointed out outlawing the Quakers could justly be seen as criminalising belief.
quote:
The point I'm making does not hinge on your petty precision in making an issue over my imprecise use of the word "belief" as opposed to "acting on belief."
But it is not a petty distinction. It is a very big distinction. And one very relevant to your claims of persecution. It is one thing to say that you will be arrested because of your beliefs, it is another to say that you should be able to break any law you like, so long as you have a religious justification.
To say that belief is being criminalised is a distortion and correcting that distortion clarifies the issue - as we can clearly see.
quote:
What I spelled out is factual changes in the law that do criminalize Christians for preaching the Bible or acting on their belief in the Bible, and this has occurred in reality as I showed
If you can show a criminal prosecution in the U.S merely for preaching the Bible I'd like to see it. As for actions, as I've pointed out religious motivation is not a free pass to breaking the law. And in fact, if it had been the original purpose of the laws you are complaining about - ending racial segregation - would have been thoroughly compromised.
And stop whining just because your distortion and misrepresentations are being exposed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 813 by Faith, posted 05-28-2015 4:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 815 of 928 (758538)
05-28-2015 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 806 by Faith
05-28-2015 1:48 AM


Re: Inquisition still continuing
quote:
...but it did turn up reports on this sort of persecution being common in that region of Mexico, such as Persecuted Christians in Mexico kept from returning home.

In light of recent posts, this seems relevant:
Exacerbating the problem is impunity in Mexico for religiously motivated crimes.
"We know of almost no cases where somebody has been prosecuted for criminal acts in the name of religion," she said. "In Mexico, if you commit a crime, destroy your neighbor's house, and you say it was religious, suddenly it becomes an exempt crime for some reason, [as if they] can't touch that."
Do you agree that this is wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by Faith, posted 05-28-2015 1:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 827 of 928 (758562)
05-28-2015 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 820 by Faith
05-28-2015 11:43 AM


Faith, there is a difference between not following an argument and not believing a pack of lies
The law you object to is the addition of gays to the groups of people protected from discrimination from businesses.
That cannot be honestly said to criminalise belief or to target Christians.
Indeed, those accusations could more fairly (but still, I believe falsely) be said of the original passage of the laws, when they protected the rights of blacks against the Christian segregationists. Which you have never objected to,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 820 by Faith, posted 05-28-2015 11:43 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 829 by Faith, posted 05-28-2015 12:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 833 of 928 (758571)
05-28-2015 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 829 by Faith
05-28-2015 12:55 PM


quote:
I guess only a Christian can see the real motivation in the recent laws: taking down the Bible.
You mean it takes a "Christian" to tell such obvious lies.
quote:
And for the umpteenth time there is nothing Biblical in support of racism no matter what some misguided "Christians" claimed.
And it doesn't matter. What I said was still true. New laws, put in place to demand that businesses go against the religious beliefs of many "Christians" like you can more justly be called an attack on their religious freedom than your complaint about the same laws when gays benefit.
The idea that Christians should rule over others through lies and hate isn't found in the Bible either - but that is the real crux of this argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 829 by Faith, posted 05-28-2015 12:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 835 by Faith, posted 05-28-2015 1:17 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 839 of 928 (758577)
05-28-2015 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 835 by Faith
05-28-2015 1:17 PM


quote:
You sure know how to turn an innocent desire to obey God into an evil act deserving punishment.
I didn't say anything about deserving punishment.
But there isn't anything innocent about what you are doing.
quote:
Basically the same mentality that is bringing about these laws.
Exactly - honesty, a sense of justice and a desire for a good and fair society. The fact that you oppose these - and see Christianity as being fundamentally opposed to them - says a lot about you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 835 by Faith, posted 05-28-2015 1:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 863 of 928 (758645)
05-30-2015 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 854 by Faith
05-29-2015 9:31 PM


Re: Inquisition still continuing
quote:
The only benign player in the game -- not perfect, not without fault, but still basically benigh -- is under attack while the wolves are defended against the sheep. Unbelievable.
The only benign force in the game is the secular state which guarantees freedom of religion - and recognises that there is a need to restrict actions, even if they are religiously motivated. And you're attacking it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 854 by Faith, posted 05-29-2015 9:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 874 of 928 (758662)
05-30-2015 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 871 by Faith
05-30-2015 8:38 AM


Re: Inquisition still continuing
Banning people from political office for their faith is indeed contrary to the whole idea of freedom of religion. And that is what you have proposed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by Faith, posted 05-30-2015 8:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 885 by Faith, posted 05-30-2015 9:30 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 879 of 928 (758678)
05-30-2015 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 878 by NoNukes
05-30-2015 5:39 PM


Re: Inquisition still continuing
The U.S. Constitution ruled out religious tests for office before the First Amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2015 5:39 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 880 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2015 8:58 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 896 of 928 (758701)
05-31-2015 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 885 by Faith
05-30-2015 9:30 PM


Re: Inquisition still continuing
quote:
It's what the original American colonies did, and since they were original, how can anyone imagine they would have seen things any differently when it came to establishing a federal government. Attempts to reconcile denominational differences failed to anticipate the ultimate destruction of the colonies' original Christian worldview.
I guess that if we had no knowledge of the history that might sound reasonable. But, why would sects persecuted in the original colonies want to be denied a part in the Federal government? How could anyone ignore the role of Enlightenment thinking? Or that the Revolutionaries were fighting for liberty? Or the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were hardly orthodox Christians - including George Washington himself.
quote:
When you appreciate how thoroughly Protestant the original colonies were in their constitutions and politics, it's really absurd to think an anti-Christian secular society could have resulted from any of their efforts except by some very strange misunderstandings that are today's revisionist interpretations
Maryland was founded as a refuge for Catholics. It only became ProtestAnt after they made the terrible mistake of inviting the Puritans in. Read up on the history, Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by Faith, posted 05-30-2015 9:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by Faith, posted 05-31-2015 2:57 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 900 of 928 (758705)
05-31-2015 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 898 by Faith
05-31-2015 2:57 AM


Re: Inquisition still continuing
quote:
I listed five founders who were Deists and not Christians. But most of the company of the founders WERE Christians. Enlightenment thinking was considered anti-Christian, it infected many in those days but Christians rejected it.
And yet even your quote from Sam Adams cites Locke. And his view lost.
quote:
The sects persecuted in the colonies of course would want to be part of the Federal government, that's one of the reasons a generic Christian perspective was sought. Generic Christian, not secular.
In reality the secular view won, which is why the Constitution is not a Christian document.
And really, how would you construct an idea of "generic Christianity" to exclude Catholics and include Deists?
(To go back to Maryland the Catholics passed a law that gave religious freedom to all Christians - including Catholics, of course. The Puritans repealed it. Twice.)
quote:
The Revolutionary War was promoted powerfully by Christian preachers who based the seeking of liberty on the Bible. There were some who argued against it but the majority were for it.
Let us not forget that the Revolutionary War was fought against a Christian country, where the Head of State was the head of the established Church. Or that there were Christians who argued against Government support for religion.
You ought to read up on the Virginia [url=www.virginiamemory.com/online_classroom/shaping_the_constitution/doc/religious_freedom]Act for Establishing Religious Freedom[\url] too, especially Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance.
And I mean REALLY read up on it. You have an embarrassing habit of missing or ignoring or quickly forgetting anything inconvenient your sources might say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 898 by Faith, posted 05-31-2015 2:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024