"Religious Liberty" ?

[Deathbydefault]

When you say "overrun with theists", it makes it sound like in the beginning there were only atheists, and then theists overran the country.

Overrun as in they are overbearing due to the amount of them.
I can't watch an hour of t.v. without seeing a Christian commercial.
It's so annoying, and many of them are being taught idiotic notions that are fed through a tube of lies from birth.

"This country is founded on Christian morals"
"You're a liar! you know God exists"
"What's a logical fallacy?"
"I don't discuss scripture with a baby eater"

These are the normal everyday spoon fed Christians, not the more intelligent ones found here.
I would be so bold as to say they are the 80% of the 83% of the Christians in America.

I said "theists" to be a bit nicer, but I meant Christians.
I mean, if a Christian here wants to deny what I've said I can easily direct them to the comments section of Atheist YouTube videos.
People say that everyone is a liar on the internet, I say the internet makes people more honest.

 

[icehorse]

Interesting discussion - at least two threads going on:

1 - morality / ethics
2 - legal

From the legal perspective, I don't think that the "we reserve the right to refuse service" attitude holds much sway any more. It used to, but I think it's being stamped out - hooray. (Admittedly, it can cause a lot of trouble, but it's better than the alternative.)

From the morality / ethics perspective, I don't think the theists have any leg to stand on. As a thought experiment, imagine that atheists were the majority and theists the minority. Atheists might well take the attitude that theists were immoral (lots of fertile ground there), and effectively shut them out of huge slices of society.

The thing is that secularism is actually the best friend of the religious - it keeps religious choice alive.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The thing is that secularism is actually the best friend of the religious - it keeps religious choice alive.

The way many speak today, it's almost hard to believe that back when the Constitution was being written many religious leaders insisted on a secular society that separates the church and state because they knew that was the best way to preserve their freedoms to worship as they see fit, and would prevent their denominations from being outlawed just because they are at odds with an official state church.

 

[ether-ore]

That doesn't necessarily mean anything. I've known heterosexual couples who refer to their significant other as their partner or significant other.

A doctor, by the very definition and nature of their job, put themselves at risk for contracting many different illnesses, viruses, diseases, and anything and everything else that is contagious. If they don't want to accept those risks, they shouldn't be a doctor.

Sexuality and gender identity are not interchangeable terms; performing any procedure needed for a sex change is not a form of endorsement of homosexuality, because it has nothing to do with sexuality. Also, assuming by sex change operation you mean genital surgeries, they are highly specialized and a procedure that not just any surgeon can do; it's a safe assumption if a surgeon takes the time to train and learn how to do them they are doing it of their own volition. But even it's filling a prescription for hormones, a pharmacist who would refuse to fill the script based on religious objections is hindering the patient's ability to access health care, and may also be causing problems with insurance if such a pharmacist sends the patient to another pharmacist.

I recognize there is little or no way to pursued you. I just find it interesting that all the confusion about what sex a person is didn't occur until recently in history. I mean the per capita numbers of people who think they are something different that what they were born as. With all the social engineering that is going on, there is little wonder that many are confused. There may have been 'some' previous to this century, but they aren't documented to the degree you seem to think and therefore you cannot point to history with any real degree of justification for what has been happening in this era.

 

[LuisDantas]

You realize how eerie the resemblance to arguments about racial purity runs?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I recognize there is little or no way to pursued you. I just find it interesting that all the confusion about what sex a person is didn't occur until recently in history.

Actually those of gender variance have existed since ancient times. The Hijra of India and South/Eastern Asia go back to at least 400-200 BC, likely much earlier. The Native Americans had "Two-Spirits," and it was considered good luck to be married to one. There are the stories of the Greek priestess Tiresias. There is even evidence of those who demonstrated gender variance since our earliest days. To claim it's something new and there were only "some" instances previous to modern times is to ignore historical fact and evidence.

 

[ether-ore]

Interesting discussion - at least two threads going on:

1 - morality / ethics
2 - legal

From the legal perspective, I don't think that the "we reserve the right to refuse service" attitude holds much sway any more. It used to, but I think it's being stamped out - hooray. (Admittedly, it can cause a lot of trouble, but it's better than the alternative.)

Agreed, it is losing ground. Except that I think it indicative of a loss of freedom in favor of socialism. I'm sure you would be against slavery on a theoretical basis, but at the same time, you seem to be saying that you are in favor of forcing someone to perform a service against their will. I always thought that was the definition of slavery.

From the morality / ethics perspective, I don't think the theists have any leg to stand on. As a thought experiment, imagine that atheists were the majority and theists the minority. Atheists might well take the attitude that theists were immoral (lots of fertile ground there), and effectively shut them out of huge slices of society.

As I said to the other guy, you are seeing it that way because of the bias you are coming from. But your position is just as subjective as you say mine is. However you are correct about one thing. Atheism is gaining ground and will soon achieve its goal of silencing theists.

The thing is that secularism is actually the best friend of the religious - it keeps religious choice alive.

Of course as you may expect, I have a contrary view. Secularism is the very thing that is opposed to a belief in God. Secularism is a more polite way of saying Socialism which is atheistic in its nature and cannot tolerate a belief in God... as per all of the socialist experiments that have ever been tried.

 

[ether-ore]

You realize how eerie the resemblance to arguments about racial purity runs?

So now you are going to pull out the race card? I have not been talking about race at all, much less racial purity. Eugenics is not something I would ever endorse. I'll leave that to the socialists... like the National Socialist Party (NAZIS). To my mind, that kind of thinking goes against my belief in freedom as was supposed to have been protected by the original Constitution. Progressive socialism is trying to destroy that constitution. I have been talking about freedom and morality. I believe (as did the founding fathers) that the republic that they established can only exist with a moral society. The constitution is indeed hanging by a thread. And so is the continuance of this nation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course as you may expect, I have a contrary view. Secularism is the very thing that is opposed to a belief in God. Secularism is a more polite way of saying Socialism which is atheistic in its nature and cannot tolerate a belief in God... as per all of the socialist experiments that have ever been tried.

Socialism, secularism, and atheism are not inherently related, they are not interchangeable, and they are not the same things. Socialism is an economic model, and it does not address religion in any way. Secularism is more of a label of the state, and it holds that the state has no official position towards religion, favoring neither atheism or theism, meaning all are free to believe and worship as they see fit, provided it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others - it's really best that way, as strong theist and atheist societies tend to get ugly and nasty for those who are not of the same opinion as the state. Atheism, in its most simplistic definition, is the lack of a belief in a god; inherently, it is not related to or attached to socialism or secularism.

 

[ether-ore]

Socialism, secularism, and atheism are not inherently related, they are not interchangeable, and they are not the same things. Socialism is an economic model, and it does not address religion in any way. Secularism is more of a label of the state, and it holds that the state has no official position towards religion, favoring neither atheism or theism, meaning all are free to believe and worship as they see fit, provided it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others - it's really best that way, as strong theist and atheist societies tend to get ugly and nasty for those who are not of the same opinion as the state. Atheism, in its most simplistic definition, is the lack of a belief in a god; inherently, it is not related to or attached to socialism or secularism.

I know the definitions. But I disagree that they are not inherently related. They invariably seem to go hand in hand. For socialism to establish itself, it must do away with the competition; which is any concept of religious morality... enter atheism. Your definition for secularism (which is always a precursor to socialism) is only a theoretical one. Those in power are either people of religious faith who desire freedom or they are those who desire power with socialism as the proffered candy treat for the gullible masses. Those in power decide what secularism means and the socialists will have you believe up to a point, that they will allow the free exercise of religion. It should be readily apparent to anyone watching that Christianity is receding because of the socialists in power claiming secularism. Freedom in this country is about to be lost, and it is disappearing because people want someone to take care of them rather that be industrious and independent.

 

[LuisDantas]

So now you are going to pull out the race card? I have not been talking about race at all, much less racial purity. Eugenics is not something I would ever endorse. I'll leave that to the socialists... like the National Socialist Party (NAZIS). To my mind, that kind of thinking goes against my belief in freedom as was supposed to have been protected by the original Constitution. Progressive socialism is trying to destroy that constitution. I have been talking about freedom and morality. I believe (as did the founding fathers) that the republic that they established can only exist with a moral society. The constitution is indeed hanging by a thread. And so is the continuance of this nation.

Not the race card. The lack of vision card.

 

[Baladas]

I know the definitions. But I disagree that they are not inherently related. They invariably seem to go hand in hand. For socialism to establish itself, it must do away with the competition; which is any concept of religious morality... enter atheism. Your definition for secularism (which is always a precursor to socialism) is only a theoretical one. Those in power are either people of religious faith who desire freedom or they are those who desire power with socialism as the proffered candy treat for the gullible masses. Those in power decide what secularism means and the socialists will have you believe up to a point, that they will allow the free exercise of religion. It should be readily apparent to anyone watching that Christianity is receding because of the socialists in power claiming secularism. Freedom in this country is about to be lost, and it is disappearing because people want someone to take care of them rather that be industrious and independent.

My gods, I wish more people understood socialism.
I am a socialist who is fairly educated on the subject, and I assure you that this is a completely distorted view of socialism.

 

[ether-ore]

My gods, I wish more people understood socialism.
I am a socialist who is fairly educated on the subject, and I assure you that this is a completely distorted view of socialism.

Yeah... ok... just sit back and watch freedom disappear.

 

[ether-ore]

Not the race card. The lack of vision card.

It is only lack of vision in terms of my agreeing with your point of view.

 

[Baladas]

Yeah... ok... just sit back and watch freedom disappear.

Socialism has nothing to do with a lack of freedom...look it up.
Socialism is a very broad term, and is not necessarily the same thing as State Socialism.

 

[icehorse]

ether-ore,

It seems only fair, since you are using your own definitions of common words, that you define what you mean when you use the words secular, socialist, and atheist. I gotta say I'm with Shadow Wolf on this one, but I'll wait to hear what you have to say...

 

[ether-ore]

Socialism has nothing to do with a lack of freedom...look it up.
Socialism is a very broad term, and is not necessarily the same thing as State Socialism.

You want me to look up a sterile dictionary term when what is practiced in reality is entirely something else? Socialism in practice has everything to do with the loss of freedom because it is about gaining power through the establishment of a welfare state. People see some short term benefit passed off as charity when it has absolutely nothing to do charity because true charity is voluntary. So they let those who lust for power introduce socialism because they perceive it as helping the poor. Yet the condition of the poor never really changes. It is all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Glaurung]

It clearly is an issue since you seem to be getting worked up about it. If a bakery advertises that it will make cakes with customisable messages or images on them then that's not a "request that you may happen to make a "service"" - that's what the shop itself is offering as a service. What about all the gay couples who have so far asked for cakes saying something as innocuous as "Congratulations on your wedding day" or "Well done Mrs & Mrs B"? Are those 'political messages' that you're going to get upset over bakers having to make because that's the job they claim they do?

Selling a product does not mean I have to do anything specific with that product. If I decide to sell cakes, it does not mean I have decided to be beholden to any and all specific demands concerning those cakes. Even tacit support of grave sin is itself grave sin, and devout Christians are not going to abandon that simply because it's politically incorrect. You are telling me that the feelings of a particular gay person trumps my right to live in good conscience. You're free to that belief, but I'm telling you that you can go shove it.

Whereas before gay people had to hide who they were for fear of being neglected, shunned, beaten or even killed. In fact they still do

Yeah, refusing to overtly support gay marriage is equivalent to supporting murderous bigotry. No doubt homosexuals have suffered, but this is not the world most of us live in and no one but fringe lunatics are advocating going back.

If you're upset at the fact that your fellow Christians are losing your religious privilege to discriminate then I have no sympathy

I actually supported everyone's right to discriminate with whom they do business, not just Christians, and even when it works against me. You can open a no-Christians shop and I wouldn't really care.

But no, what I'm actually upset about is the instance that religious people don't have the right to their own consciences the moment it conflicts with liberal social beliefs. And it's only going to get more overt. Of course they're going to demand Catholic provided abortions (hello ACLU) of course they going to demand ceremonies in Christian churches. (Yes they will, and you know it) And people like you are going to scream, civil liberties for everyone but Christians!

 

[Koldo]

I know the definitions. But I disagree that they are not inherently related. They invariably seem to go hand in hand. For socialism to establish itself, it must do away with the competition; which is any concept of religious morality... enter atheism. Your definition for secularism (which is always a precursor to socialism) is only a theoretical one. Those in power are either people of religious faith who desire freedom or they are those who desire power with socialism as the proffered candy treat for the gullible masses. Those in power decide what secularism means and the socialists will have you believe up to a point, that they will allow the free exercise of religion. It should be readily apparent to anyone watching that Christianity is receding because of the socialists in power claiming secularism. Freedom in this country is about to be lost, and it is disappearing because people want someone to take care of them rather that be industrious and independent.

I don't know what you are talking about.
Christianity is compatible with Socialism.

 

[Koldo]

I think it is important to differentiate between refusing to provide certain services and refusing to provide services to certain people.