Religious Freedom and the US election.

[Scuba Pete]

You would see reading through That I already said government should not give anything just because you are married

But they didn't. Hello reality. There's now an issue here.

 

[bobhikes]

But they didn't. Hello reality. There's now an issue here.

There is no issue you and others are taking this off topic. The thread is about the concerns of the voters for the US presidential election and that some voters believed that Religion was being unfairly attacked and that the constitution protects religious rights.

Nowhere in the OP do I have to defend every religious right. You have already pointed out you believe the vote is because everyone that liked Trump is a Bigot. I disagree and would wonder how such a thread would be defended.

If people want to believe simplistic reason's for Hillary's loss. I'm fine with that I didn't vote for either. I would however like a candidate I could vote for next time so offer suggestions for the problem. I am not a political wonder so if you don't like my idea that's fine. If you want to debate if it has value that's fine. If you want to debate every wrong doing you perceive Religious people have done you are missing the point of this thread.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

America is 75% religious, Has the constitutional protection of religious rights. If you want to attract voters your best bet is to treat Religious Rights as you do Civil rights. Process them in court. Not the media.

That's exactly what happened when the Supreme Court made their ruling Obergefell v Hodges and ruled that 'because that's what my religion tells me' is insufficient grounds for denying same-sex couples the same legal protections etc associated with marriage as straight couples.. Some people seem to believe that religious rights should trump every other form of right, however. They do not.

I'm not saying it isn't. I saying it should of stayed a religious contract.

... why can't it be both? Because one religion is no longer allowed to impose its dogma-enforced definition on everyone else?

added: some groups and individuals believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that marriage should be a matter of personal liberty, not requiring permission from the state.[7][8] Individuals that align with this libertarian stance argue that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it falsely presupposes that we merely have the privilege, not the right, to marry. Wilkapedia

I wouldn't be at all surprised if none of these people could offer a plausible solution for the ensuing legal ****-storm which would ensue as divorce laws, wills, inheritance and a host of other issues went out the window if marriage as a legal contract was done away with.

Basically what @ADigitalArtist and others have said.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There is no issue you and others are taking this off topic. The thread is about the concerns of the voters for the US presidential election and that some voters believed that Religion was being unfairly attacked and that the constitution protects religious rights.

Nowhere in the OP do I have to defend every religious right.

I was just replying to the point I saw. I do not believe religion has been unfairly attacked at all, and the reasons people give for believing so usually indicate to me they think the status quo of religious domineering civil law is a protected right. There's no shortage of quotes from the founding fathers that stress the value of state-religion separation, both within and without the constitution. With even the most Christian members making it perfectly clear that we are not a Christian nation and should not be thought of as such.

 

[bobhikes]

That's exactly what happened when the Supreme Court made their ruling Obergefell v Hodges and ruled that 'because that's what my religion tells me' is insufficient grounds for denying same-sex couples the same legal protections etc associated with marriage as straight couples.. Some people seem to believe that religious rights should trump every other form of right, however. They do not.




... why can't it be both? Because one religion is no longer allowed to impose its dogma-enforced definition on everyone else?




I wouldn't be at all surprised if none of these people could offer a plausible solution for the ensuing legal ****-storm which would ensue as divorce laws, wills, inheritance and a host of other issues went out the window if marriage as a legal contract was done away with.

Basically what @ADigitalArtist and others have said.

My reply goes back to the original post. The way religious rights were perceived to be under threat from Obama presidency lead to a voters turning away from Hillary. Take it as you want I don't really care about the status of marriage in the US. My concern is for getting good presidential candidates next election.

 

[bobhikes]

I was just replying to the point I saw. I do not believe religion has been unfairly attacked at all, and the reasons people give for believing so usually indicate to me they think the status quo of religious domineering civil law is a protected right. There's no shortage of quotes from the founding fathers that stress the value of state-religion separation, both within and without the constitution. With even the most Christian members making it perfectly clear that we are not a Christian nation and should not be thought of as such.

They were just taking it to far off course, Here is what the constitution actually says in the 1st amendment. It took several amendments and years before civil rights came up.

The "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ("religion") or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.

The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice.

 

[McBell]

I'm not saying it isn't. I saying it should of stayed a religious contract.

added: some groups and individuals believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that marriage should be a matter of personal liberty, not requiring permission from the state.[7][8] Individuals that align with this libertarian stance argue that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it falsely presupposes that we merely have the privilege, not the right, to marry. Wilkapedia

When was it a "religious only" contract?

 

[Scuba Pete]

They were just taking it to far off course,

You say that only because you lost the point.

The "perceived" attack on religious rights is a red herring promoted by the Breitbart group. They use religion as a crowbar to garner power. When you look at the actual issues: they just aren't there. That you've fallen for this charade surprises no one here. Just like I'm not surprised that you call "off topic" the minute the discussion doesn't go your way. It's the White Wing Way.

 

[idav]

This country was first settled for Religious Freedom. Religious Freedom not civil rights is actually built into the constitution. I believe Obama pushed civil rights a little to far during his tenure which added to the back lash. The liberals actually made fun of the religious rights over civil rights. To correct this going forward we need a balance. In the US our blood boils if our Religious rights are being trampled.

Government should have no say in how religions operate. Rather than protest the religion use your anger to compete against the religion. Catholic hospitals wont allow abortion. Collect money and build the best hospital that will allow abortions. Put the catholic hospital out of business.

Individuals that can prove Religion is the most important thing in there life should have rights too. They should be required to prove there religious values though.

If we don't respect Religious rights has much as civil rights the US will always be divided. Think about it, Religion has always and will always be important to this nation.

Let's think what this religious freedom means. If a Christian Muslim and Atheist ate in a room, who gets to make a rule that infringes on either of the other. I quickly becomes a civil rights issue. Simplist answer is everyone gets to keep religion in church and not in laws.

 

[Twilight Hue]

except for the fact that marriage is a LEGAL contract.

That's the whole thing in a nutshell. Its just a legal declaration on the government's part that a union is officially recognised.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My reply goes back to the original post. The way religious rights were perceived to be under threat from Obama presidency lead to a voters turning away from Hillary. Take it as you want I don't really care about the status of marriage in the US. My concern is for getting good presidential candidates next election.

'Perceived' is probably the key word here...unfortunately some take it as reality.

 

[bobhikes]

Let's think what this religious freedom means. If a Christian Muslim and Atheist ate in a room, who gets to make a rule that infringes on either of the other. I quickly becomes a civil rights issue. Simplist answer is everyone gets to keep religion in church and not in laws.

When has the government ever used the simplest answer. No individual makes rules or laws they are passed by government which is constitutionally required to protect religious and civil rights.