Is the Religious Right in America gunning for you?

[Polymath257]

You want freedom to get high, get aids, burn a flag, gamble away your money and hire a prostitute?
How about freedom to own firearms, mow your yard only when you want to, eat steak, and not get jabbed?
How about freedom to better yourself instead of freedom to destroy yourself?

Which was which?

 

[Polymath257]

Fine. Just call it a civil union. What's wrong with that,,?

As long as they are not 'separate but not equal'.

For that matter, if it carries the same benefits as marriage, then why have a different name?

Maybe the government should *only* have civil unions? So, you get a civil union license and not a marriage license? Then the marriages can be done in houses of worship only.

 

[pearl]

I voted yes. For those who are white, male, and evangelical, they're pretty safe.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I guess my answer to the poll is "I don't know."

Are there conservatives who would love to dismantle the suite of civil rights we have gained in the past few decades? Hell yes!

Is that "all" conservatives? Probably not. For a lot of conservatives, abortion is their main thing. Many of them may be satisfied if they achieve this one goal. Perhaps there's a bit of slippery slope going on in the way the question was posed. I'm not quite sure.

I think roe v wade being overturned would be the worst thing ever to happen to conservatives. They might be popping champagne the day it happens, but they are not going to enjoy the backlash that will ensue thereafter.

 

[Secret Chief]

As long as they are not 'separate but not equal'.

For that matter, if it carries the same benefits as marriage, then why have a different name?

Maybe the government should *only* have civil unions? So, you get a civil union license and not a marriage license? Then the marriages can be done in houses of worship only.

Weirdly, in England and Wales, a same-sex civil partnership can be converted into a marriage, but an opposite-sex one cannot. (The differences between civil partnerships and marriages are getting quite hazy - eg from the link: "You’ll get a marriage certificate, dated when your civil partnership was formed.").

- Convert a same-sex civil partnership into a marriage

 

[Windwalker]

I disagree with them to.
But I don’t see them with the evil motives so often ascribed to them.

January 6

 

[Revoltingest]

January 6

Some elaboration required.

 

[Windwalker]

Some elaboration required.

You said, "But I don’t see them with the evil motives so often ascribed to them." I thought January 6 was a great example of that evil. They want to take away the freedom of others by force and at all costs, lying, cheating, deception, stealing, violence, death, etc., all in the name of God and freedom.

Yes, they are evil. The very biblical definition of wolves in sheep's clothing. "By their fruits you shall know them," not by their proclamations of righteousness. These are not Christians in any sense biblically speaking. They are Christian Nationalists.

 

[Suave]

For the record, I voted "yes." I truly believe that the Religious Right has never gotten over the fact that men can marry men and women can marry women, that sex doesn't have to be done with a sheet with a small hole between the couple -- and that pedophiles are running everything and only the Donald can save them.

I am outraged the religious right would want to take away my young adult girl friend's reproductive rights, even if she and I were to agree I am too old to be a father again and she should finish college before being a mother, nevertheless the religious right would force us to bring an unwanted child into our world.

 

[Clara Tea]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that in late June the decision of SCOTUS on abortion is delivered, and it is substantially the same as the leaked document penned by Justice Alito. (Presumably including the arguments based on 400 year old jurists who just happened to believe in witches empowering evil spirits in the world). What will they aim for next?

I believe that the religious right thinks itself "on a roll," and that if you are not a heterosexual, cis-gender God-fearer, they are coming for you. So far as I can tell, they have never been shy about making this intention perfectly clear, even though many weren't paying attention.

Thinks like same-sex marriage, the right to make love to the consenting individual of your choice, the right not to have to "join us in prayer," and many more, I believe, will all soon be under threat, because the Religious Right is now smelling blood, and it is hugely energizing for them.

Their paper was 400 years ago (their age is not 400).

It isn't good to mix religion and politics. There should be a separation of church and state so that we all can worship as we please. Belief in witches and evil spirits could influence modern politics.

There are modern reasons (that have nothing to do with evil spirits) to block abortion. Some believe that life begins at inception, and that it is murder to kill a fetus. They don't think that abortion is a good substitute for a condom or pill. They believe that full term babies could be adopted.

Christians see a vast number of virtues taught in the bible, and assume that the world would be a better place if a theist were in charge. Yet, seldom do flawed humans follow God's laws. I'm more worried about Christians ignoring the teachings of Christ and God (example: "thou shalt not kill"...."thou shalt not bear false witness)."

If we elect other members of ancient religions, we might find that Aztecs took power in America and are now playing basketball with human heads (once practiced in their ancient civilization).

The Religious Right is getting its way because they are organized and take over broadcasts (such as the Rush Limbaugh show on radio). Year round, they campaign. No organization opposes them. Such radio shows are highly funded. Limbaugh got several times the budget (from Republican companies buying ads on the radio) than Democrats.

Democrats would not tolerate outright lies, but Republicans are fine with lies, as long as they lie to achieve their ends. Thus, Veterans For Truth was an organization that told lies about Senator John Kerry's war record, and their real purpose was to defeat Kerry in an election (so that W. Bush would win).

Limbaugh was once sued for slander, and his defense was that his information wasn't designed to be accurate, it was only to titilate his Republican viewers.

 

[Clara Tea]

You said, "But I don’t see them with the evil motives so often ascribed to them." I thought January 6 was a great example of that evil. They want to take away the freedom of others by force and at all costs, lying, cheating, deception, stealing, violence, death, etc., all in the name of God and freedom.

Yes, they are evil. The very biblical definition of wolves in sheep's clothing. "By their fruits you shall know them," not by their proclamations of righteousness. These are not Christians in any sense biblically speaking. They are Christian Nationalists.

I agree. I am relieved that someone else sees things as I do.

 

[Sheldon]

Lol, that's a Crock. The right wants more freedom, not less.

For themselves and what they believe perhaps, but this law is taking away freedom.

BTW a baby being free to be born is a basic human right.

It's not a baby, until it is born, this dishonest misrepresentation says it all it all really, that you care more about granting imaginary rights to an insentient clump of cells, than about the rights of a woman who is pregnant.

If you don't want an abortion, then don't ever have or one, but you want everyone to conform to your beliefs.

 

[Clara Tea]

Which to me is why it shouldn't be in the hands of the court system.
SCOTUS ought to make decision based on the constitution. Let the law be determine by elected representatives.

Those elected representatives are put in office by swaying public opinion with year-round propaganda on the radio from Rush Limbaugh, et al. Limbaugh is highly funded by commercials from Apple Computer, Microsoft, etc. Democrats can't compete with his huge funding. Republicans tolerate his obvious lies, because they know that he is lyling on their behalves. Democrats wouldn't tolerate lies, so they are at a disadvantage.

 

[Sheldon]

I disagree with them to.
But I don’t see them with the evil motives so often ascribed to them.

We are talking specifically about laws that are taking away civil rights, in favour of their own religious beliefs. I never used the word evil, and prefer to address facts, rather than indulge in sweeping generalisations.

I am happy for those who oppose abortions to never have one, or ever help anyone to have one, but there are those who are not content to reciprocate, and want everyone to conform to their views.

 

[Revoltingest]

You said, "But I don’t see them with the evil motives so often ascribed to them." I thought January 6 was a great example of that evil.

That was a small portion of conservatives.
Should liberals be judged by Antifa types
who committed crimes? If so then liberals
are gunning to take our property & burn
our buildings.
Nah....let's not have double standards.

 

[Revoltingest]

We are talking specifically about laws that are taking away civil rights, in favour of their own religious beliefs.

I see it that way too.
But I advise understanding their position,
which is about the rights of the unborn.

Consider the OP....

I believe that the religious right thinks itself "on a roll," and that if you are not a heterosexual, cis-gender God-fearer, they are coming for you. So far as I can tell, they have never been shy about making this intention perfectly clear, even though many weren't paying attention.

Thinks like same-sex marriage, the right to make love to the consenting individual of your choice, the right not to have to "join us in prayer," and many more, I believe, will all soon be under threat, because the Religious Right is now smelling blood, and it is hugely energizing for them.

It strikes me as being less about the issue,
& more about a war between enemies.
That doesn't foster the discussion necessary
to sway them towards greater tolerance &
liberty.

 

[Clara Tea]

For themselves and what they believe perhaps, but this law is taking away freedom.

It's not a baby, until it is born, this dishonest misrepresentation says it all it all really, that you care more about granting imaginary rights to an insentient clump of cells, than about the rights of a woman who is pregnant.

Opinion of Clara Tea:

Even live humans are lumps of cells. The difference is that we have active brains and can think. Yet, fetuses have the potential to live. Is that potential to be ignored? If so, we could remove a fetus from a woman, cut its arms off, then put the fetus back. It would grow up to be a human without arms. Did we harm life? No, we harmed potential life. Would it be wrong to kill potential life?

Every sperm has the potential to merge with an egg and create life. The dumping of millions of sperm would seem like killing potential life. Surely all that potential life should not live or soon the world would be over populated.

Everywhere that we walk we might kill germs on the ground. If we eat, we consume life. Maybe plants are sentient?

If a fetus is nothing more than a part of a woman. Isn't that true of a live child? The child has a brain, and can think, and maybe talk. Does the life of the child begin at birth, or are there rights before it is born?

Some fetuses are aborted and still live. Doctors, under Federal law, are required to keep those premie babies alive. But they might be blind, deaf, or have damaged brains which could impair their intelligence or ability to move. We should make every effort to make sure that abortions don't result in any fetus living. Abortion should be done no later than the first trimester. Yet, we see laws in some states allowing late term abortions. Is there any difference between a 9 month old fetus and a live baby?

 

[Sheldon]

You know what they say about opinions...

Does this include yours?

That's your opinion.

Ah. I think I see the answer.

All I see are the left wanting more restrictions on rights.

That's just your opinion, and no one is trying to force you or anyone else to have an abortion are they.

Force people to get jabbed.

To save countless lives, the very nerve.

Force them to register guns,

Whaaaat, they should be giving them away free in schools, I mean with all the unwanted regencies that won't be terminated what a few mass shootings.

The right wants less laws overall, but the sensible laws enforced.

Another opinion?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Some insist that belief in Jesus means you never die, and that the innocent go to heaven anyway, so they have an odd mix of beliefs about life and death and murder.

Totally. Just like the Bible, they are full of contradictions.

 

[Sheldon]

You want freedom to get high, get aids, burn a flag, gamble away your money and hire a prostitute?

Cannabis has medical benefits, for instance managing chronic pains conditions. Though of course I see nothing immoral in smoking it it get high, it's not like anyone is telling anyone else they have to use it. This is a concept you seem to struggle with.

He never mentioned AIDS, what on earth are you talking about?
It's just a flag, what's the big deal? Gambling is something many people enjoy harmlessly, why not raise tax from it and use that to help people who need it, like addicts? There are strong arguments for legalising prostitution, not least is to protect women from exploitation, but I happy to listen to arguments as to who benefits from it being illegal, organised crime probably.