"Religious Liberty" ?

[ether-ore]

Since the "Religious Liberty" movement is based on the idea that the secular world can't interfere with the religious world, including among other things letting those pesky secular laws interfere with religious motivations and practice, then the very obvious flipside of this argument is that religious beliefs should have no authority whatsoever on the public, right?

That means that religious beliefs can't be a platform for legislating anything.
That means that religious beliefs can't interfere in anyway with the wants, needs, desires, and behaviors of the non-religious.

I mean, in the spirit of equality, this is the only fair application of the "Religious Liberty" movement isn't it?

I agree with you up to a point. But there are issues of morality which I believe it to be legitimate for people of faith to speak out on. However, the religious organization is one thing, a religious individual is another. Is it your desire to remove all religious based morality speech from the public discourse and silence or disenfranchise anyone who bases their morality on faith? Is it your desire to do away with the first amendment to the constitution of the United States?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I agree with you up to a point. But there are issues of morality which I believe it to be legitimate for people of faith to speak out on. However, the religious organization is one thing, a religious individual is another. Is it your desire to remove all religious based morality speech from the public discourse and silence or disenfranchise anyone who bases their morality on faith? Is it your desire to do away with the first amendment to the constitution of the United States?

What makes the people of faith more credible teachers or morality than anyone else?
Despite their motivations or their belief on the origin of morality, all people are the same, aren't they?

Your experiences with morality and my experiences with morality aren't going to be vastly different just because one of us claims a religious origin. So why don't we judge our morality-based arguments on the merit of the argument itself and not some arbitrary claim to a magical overseer?

I'm not sure how the first amendment became part of the conversation, but no. It's not my desire to "do away" with the first amendment...
People can worship however they want and they can almost anything they want - they just can't refuse civil rights to others in the process.
For those unable to reconcile their personal beliefs with the world around them, they're free to create and thrive a subculture of their own choosing, treating others with inequality to their heart's content.

 

[Koldo]

I'm assuming you are basing that remark on the New Testament passages which talk about the members of the church 'having all things in common'? The fundamental difference between socialism and the united order under the law of consecration is that involvement in the united order is voluntary. Under socialism it s not voluntary. In the united order, the individual is deeded his stewardship making it his private property. The goal of socialism is to ultimately establish communism where all property is owned by the state and there is no private property.

So socialism has nothing in common with Christianity which has established a united order on several occasions.

It is not just that. The New Testament has a lot of criticism towards Capitalism, particularly towards accumulation of wealth. This is a shared view between Christianity and Socialism.

 

[icehorse]

Quite a bit of gish-gallop going on here - wow!

Its only authoritarian if the state also forces the person to be in business. If you want to run a business that serves the public then you can't discriminate by sex, religion, ethnicity etc. So by running a business you have given tacit acceptance to the laws that govern such interactions, if you don't want to follow the law then don't run a business that deals with the public.

Bingo!

Think we're headed towards socialism? different thread
Think the government has overreached the constitution? different thread

This is about businesses and individuals following the law of the land.

Don't like the current laws? I've got issues with some of them as well, but thank goodness we will in a secular society that allows us to change the laws. This would almost certainly not be true in a theocracy.

 

[ether-ore]

What makes the people of faith more credible teachers or morality than anyone else?
Despite their motivations or their belief on the origin of morality, all people are the same, aren't they?

Your experiences with morality and my experiences with morality aren't going to be vastly different just because one of us claims a religious origin. So why don't we judge our morality-based arguments on the merit of the argument itself and not some arbitrary claim to a magical overseer?

I'm not sure how the first amendment became part of the conversation, but no. It's not my desire to "do away" with the first amendment...
People can worship however they want and they can almost anything they want - they just can't refuse civil rights to others in the process.
For those unable to reconcile their personal beliefs with the world around them, they're free to create and thrive a subculture of their own choosing, treating others with inequality to their heart's content.

You are side stepping what I said. What motivates my morality is not the issue, that I have ia moral point of view and am allowed to participate in the public discourse is. Are you trying to imply that because my morality is motivated by religious conviction, that I should be barred from public discourse. In other words, I should not have access to representation in Washington?

Certainly for me, people of faith make more credible teachers of morality, but again, that is not the point. What is the point is that we can come to the table with our moral code along with other who have different moral codes; we hash it out and come to some conclusion about what to do concerning a moral issue. It sounds to me like you would like to bar me from the discussion. Not here in this forum, but from participation from law making. This is where the first amendment came in.

 

[icehorse]

Hey ether-ore,

How do your morals align (or not), with the UNDHR?

 

[ether-ore]

It is not just that. The New Testament has a lot of criticism towards Capitalism, particularly towards accumulation of wealth. This is a shared view between Christianity and Socialism.

I would rather say that Christianity's issue is with greed, not capitalism per se. I take it you are attempting to equate capitalism with greed. To me that is the same as saying that the root of all evil is 'money' itself, rather than the 'love of money' which is what it really says. There are many very rich leftists which got that way because of capitalism. Let's arrest George Soros and take all his money from him.

 

[ether-ore]

Hey ether-ore,

How do your morals align (or not), with the UNDHR?

Going through the list of things written in it, I find most things I could agree with, but the problem I have with it is that I see no need for the US to be a part of any world government. I wish to maintain a republic within our borders and not be involved in foreign intrigue. The constitution of the United States is all we need for our protection. It does not require and should not be superseded by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You are side stepping what I said. What motivates my morality is not the issue, that I have ia moral point of view and am allowed to participate in the public discourse is. Are you trying to imply that because my morality is motivated by religious conviction, that I should be barred from public discourse. In other words, I should not have access to representation in Washington?

No. What about anything that I wrote gives you that impression?
You have equal and fair access to free-speech just the same as anyone else in the Country.
(Let's not forget the first part of the first amendment, which does not allow laws to be written solely based in respect to a particular or preferred religion.)

Certainly for me, people of faith make more credible teachers of morality, but again, that is not the point. What is the point is that we can come to the table with our moral code along with other who have different moral codes; we hash it out and come to some conclusion about what to do concerning a moral issue. It sounds to me like you would like to bar me from the discussion. Not here in this forum, but from participation from law making. This is where the first amendment came in.

You're not understanding my point.

You have differing moral frameworks from me, sure. And you and I have differing moral frameworks from others, certainly.
But when we hash it out and come to some conclusion regarding a moral issue, as you say, we do so not because of an innate moral authority endowed upon us by some creator but by the value of the arguments that we are making in light of that. So while yes you are free to bring your argument to the table as part of public discourse, you are not free to wholly spread your moral agenda through legislation based purely on religious claims. You cannot muscle your religious conviction into other people's lives through laws that you've created based purely on religious ideology. You cannot base your legislation on the supposed authority granted to you by your religious affiliation, and you cannot hinder civil rights and equality by claiming "god prefers it that way."

If the argument for "Religious Liberty" is that secular law cannot interfere with the religious beliefs or pracrtices of the pious, then religious ideology likewise should not be allowed to interact with the secular opinions or practices of the non-religious. It's just that simple - that's the only fair and equitable way to apply this idea.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Jesus' "request" was that the man do it voluntarily and Jesus was disappointed that the man declined.

He also said it is very difficult for a rich man to get into Heaven. Jesus didn't request, he specifically stated his followers are to take care of the poor.

Socialism wants to define charity as forcibly taking from one group and giving to another.

Socialism doesn't redefine charity. It specifically states that it is "state aid/welfare." They don't call it charity because it isn't. And like it or not, society tends to turn very ugly when you have a ton of people who can't provide for themselves, especially food and shelter. If we didn't have the programs we do, America probably wouldn't have survived WWII because people wouldn't have fought had there been no efforts to ameliorate their suffering during the Depression.
Wrong!
The Progressive movement, what labeled as the Progressive movement according to any political scientist and historian ran through the early-to-mid 20th century. Like it or not, Wilson was one of the last.
I'm referring to teh EU as a whole. It is in trouble.
The EU, as a whole, isn't in trouble.
Yes, they have.
If they are here illegally, it means they lack the documents needed to get state welfare.
The only thing that has changed is the rejection of the required morality necessary to maintain a free republic,
The constitution clearly states that there shall be no tests of religion required to hold public office.
I said that is the direction that Obama is taking us..
If you truly believe that, you have no clue about what communism is. Obama hasn't moved us an inch closer towards communism, no more than Reagan did.
The City of Enoch before the flood, The City of Salem under Melchizedek, The United Order under Peter and lastly, the United Order under Joseph Smith. The latter two didn't last because the people weren't ready for it, so the law of tithing was (and is) used instead until the millennium, when it will be re-instituted.
So, in other words, absolutely nothing outside of your own religious views.

That was a very good recitation of revisionist history.

If it's "revistionist history," then why did Jefferson write the Jefferson Bible, which strips all religious dogma, miracles, supernatural references, and other such stuff? Why did Thomas Paine write that Christianity is a "thing" that is "insulting" and "degrading" to the Almighty? Why did Benjamin Franklin write he doubted the divinity of Christ? Why was it said "Sir, Washington was a deist" when someone asked a friend about Washington's religion at his funeral?

 

[icehorse]

Going through the list of things written in it, I find most things I could agree with, but the problem I have with it is that I see no need for the US to be a part of any world government. I wish to maintain a republic within our borders and not be involved in foreign intrigue. The constitution of the United States is all we need for our protection. It does not require and should not be superseded by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It's not about being a part of a world government - for this discussion, it's about human rights. It strikes me that if a religious person refuses service to someone based on religious discrimination, that's a violation of human rights. You don't want to serve the public, don't participate in a business that serves the public.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It does not require and should not be superseded by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Have you ever read that document? It reads like it is strongly plagiarized from the U.S. Constitution, and of course the Constitution itself reads like it was heavily plagiarized from the likes of Locke, Hobbes, and Montesquieu.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are conflating legitimate functions of government with those that are not for one thing. And for another, the poor receiving these things is not at issue. It is how the funds are obtained that is the problem. Socialism wants to define charity as forcibly taking from one group and giving to another. The united order (and its temporary substitute: tithing) defines charity as voluntary giving to the poor.

Tithing is voluntary? Tell that to Ananais and Sapphira.

If someone has faith that God will provide everything he needs, why would he feel the need to store up treasures on Earth?

(BTW: I think Jesus also had something to say about storing up treasures on Earth)

 

[Koldo]

I would rather say that Christianity's issue is with greed, not capitalism per se. I take it you are attempting to equate capitalism with greed. To me that is the same as saying that the root of all evil is 'money' itself, rather than the 'love of money' which is what it really says. There are many very rich leftists which got that way because of capitalism. Let's arrest George Soros and take all his money from him.

If there is no Socialism without the authority of the state to enforce it, then likewise there is no Capitalism without people seeking to accumulate wealth.

 

[ether-ore]

(Let's not forget the first part of the first amendment, which does not allow laws to be written solely based in respect to a particular or preferred religion.)

You have differing moral frameworks from me, sure. And you and I have differing moral frameworks from others, certainly.
But when we hash it out and come to some conclusion regarding a moral issue, as you say, we do so not because of an innate moral authority endowed upon us by some creator but by the value of the arguments that we are making in light of that. So while yes you are free to bring your argument to the table as part of public discourse, you are not free to wholly spread your moral agenda through legislation based purely on religious claims. You cannot muscle your religious conviction into other people's lives through laws that you've created based purely on religious ideology. You cannot base your legislation on the supposed authority granted to you by your religious affiliation, and you cannot hinder civil rights and equality by claiming "god prefers it that way."

If the argument for "Religious Liberty" is that secular law cannot interfere with the religious beliefs or pracrtices of the pious, then religious ideology likewise should not be allowed to interact with the secular opinions or practices of the non-religious. It's just that simple - that's the only fair and equitable way to apply this idea.

What you are saying to me is that my basis for believing the moral code that I have is not legitimate and therefore I should shut up. And you with your subjective basis for your very liberal (anything goes) "moral" code should be allowed to make all of the rules.

Sorry, but I do not and will not agree to that. I and other believers will continue to assert our point of view in the public domain. We may not always win (as is evidenced by the SCOTUS rulings). But we feel it our duty to God and to rising generations to maintain those conditions we consider necessary to keep the republic the founding fathers gave us. I think it extraordinarily arrogant of you to presume to tell me what I cannot or may not do and to outline the parameters for my participation in the making of laws.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I really don't know why you're getting so emotional about this.

What you are saying to me is that my basis for believing the moral code that I have is not legitimate and therefore I should shut up

I actually said the opposite, if you'd just chill out and read what is actually on the page.

And you with your subjective basis for your very liberal (anything goes) "moral" code should be allowed to make all of the rules.

Where did I say anything about that? My moral arguments have to be judged by the value of the argument, same as yours.

Sorry, but I do not and will not agree to that. I and other believers will continue to assert our point of view in the public domain. We may not always win (as is evidenced by the SCOTUS rulings).

Great. Wonderful. Good for you.

But we feel it our duty to God and to rising generations to maintain those conditions we consider necessary to keep the republic the founding fathers gave us. I think it extraordinarily arrogant of you to presume to tell me what I cannot or may not do and to outline the parameters for my participation in the making of laws.

I didn't do anything of the sort, and you would see that if you'd bother to read before getting all huffy and puffy.

 

[JoStories]

I don't deny that Christianity is the dominant faith in the US and that quite naturally, as a consequence, laws are made which conform to the Judeo-Christian ethic. The people who founded this country were mostly if not all Christian who came here to find religious freedom. For the most part, religious freedom is extended to all faiths. You may not know, but my particular brand of Christianity is that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon). If you know anything about our history, you will know that there was an extermination order put out on us by the State of Missouri in 1838 which was not rescinded until 1976. So I do understand some of what you are saying. But most of your "outrage" is simply because Christianity is dominant (at least for now) without explaining exactly which tenets of Christianity you have issue with. What moral tenets of Christianity do you take issue with?

Are you referring to that couple in St Albans, Ohio and the issue with their lawn? If so, then your rant overlooks the fact that it is the couple that are Christians. It is for reasons other than religious that the township wants the lawn mowed. So your complaint about Christians doesn't seem to apply here.

prescript:

I will apologize before even writing this by saying I am very upset right now. We rescued a new 10 week old kitten and this morning, she darted out from under the bed and I stepped on her. I am beside myself. She is presently in surgery getting a fractured right hip pinned back together. So if this seems angry, I do not mean it to be but after two seriously strong drinks and I don't drink, I am not myself today.
1. I never said the couple in Ohio had anything to do with faith or the lack thereof. It was simply about your remark about socialism and Big Brother.
2. I understand that you think your persecution by one state was awful and indeed was right up to very recently, however that really doesn't have much to do with this. I am half Native American and I can tell you first hand about persecution by alleged "christian do-gooders". I have seen the aftermath of what missionaries have done to my people. All in the name of your god. All down under the auspices of 'god's law'. If you have never been to the art museums in either Phoenix, AZ, or the one in Honolulu..the Bishop, I strongly recommend it. You will see firsthand the faces of my kin painted with despair and sorrow. And rage.
3. You asked me what moral tenets I have against your faith. I refer you to the above. Or the many people, some of your faith, that come to my door and tell me I am going to go to hell because of my lack belief in your god. Or the ones that tell me I am damned because I am bisexual. Or the ones that scream at me because I don't kowtow to what your beliefs hold, such as my being prochoice. Or hating the outright hypocrisy of all those men who screw hookers and go to mass each Sunday or beat their wives and are the deacons of their church. Shall I continue? No, I think you get the point.

Again, if this seems angry, I am sorry. I mean you no disrespect whatsoever and have enjoyed reading your posts even though we rarely agree.

 

[JoStories]

You are side stepping what I said. What motivates my morality is not the issue, that I have ia moral point of view and am allowed to participate in the public discourse is. Are you trying to imply that because my morality is motivated by religious conviction, that I should be barred from public discourse. In other words, I should not have access to representation in Washington?

Certainly for me, people of faith make more credible teachers of morality, but again, that is not the point. What is the point is that we can come to the table with our moral code along with other who have different moral codes; we hash it out and come to some conclusion about what to do concerning a moral issue. It sounds to me like you would like to bar me from the discussion. Not here in this forum, but from participation from law making. This is where the first amendment came in.

From an outsider POV, I don't think that was what Jonathan was saying at all Either-ore. I read him as saying that people of any faith or the lack thereof can be as moral as another. While faith can and does affect your morals, I would assume it is not all that affects those. I think you both have a lot more middle ground than you realize. No one is saying you are not welcome at the table. All voices should be welcome but I think what he was saying is that it should be a table of equal representation without faith involved at all. Morals can be maintained and upheld without the need for faith and when ti comes to making laws, faith must be set aside in the setting of those laws. It can be affected in how you view them, and how you wish to see laws enacted, but when you come to a table stating, as an example, that a woman must be a human incubator against her will because of what a book says, you will get serious repercussions. And rightfully so. This is not to say you should not nor do not have a voice. Only that the formation of that law should be made without religious intent backing it.

 

[ether-ore]

prescript:

I will apologize before even writing this by saying I am very upset right now. We rescued a new 10 week old kitten and this morning, she darted out from under the bed and I stepped on her. I am beside myself. She is presently in surgery getting a fractured right hip pinned back together. So if this seems angry, I do not mean it to be but after two seriously strong drinks and I don't drink, I am not myself today.
1. I never said the couple in Ohio had anything to do with faith or the lack thereof. It was simply about your remark about socialism and Big Brother.
2. I understand that you think your persecution by one state was awful and indeed was right up to very recently, however that really doesn't have much to do with this. I am half Native American and I can tell you first hand about persecution by alleged "christian do-gooders". I have seen the aftermath of what missionaries have done to my people. All in the name of your god. All down under the auspices of 'god's law'. If you have never been to the art museums in either Phoenix, AZ, or the one in Honolulu..the Bishop, I strongly recommend it. You will see firsthand the faces of my kin painted with despair and sorrow. And rage.
3. You asked me what moral tenets I have against your faith. I refer you to the above. Or the many people, some of your faith, that come to my door and tell me I am going to go to hell because of my lack belief in your god. Or the ones that tell me I am damned because I am bisexual. Or the ones that scream at me because I don't kowtow to what your beliefs hold, such as my being prochoice. Or hating the outright hypocrisy of all those men who screw hookers and go to mass each Sunday or beat their wives and are the deacons of their church. Shall I continue? No, I think you get the point.

Again, if this seems angry, I am sorry. I mean you no disrespect whatsoever and have enjoyed reading your posts even though we rarely agree.

I can empathize about the kitten, I'm a cat lover myself. My wife was very much involved in animal rescue.

 

[JoStories]

I can empathize about the kitten, I'm a cat lover myself. My wife was very much involved in animal rescue.

Thanks. We presently have 2 indoor only, one indoor/outdoor who was feral, one feral, who we feed but cannot get to trust us, and one we lost to a fischer about 3 months ago. This kitten was rescued by the Pixel Fund from Florida and transported to me a week ago. I had a rescued Maine Coon that traveled with me all over the country until she got brain cancer and I had to have her put down. This one, two years later, is my new travel buddy. Except that now, she will be immobile for about a month. I feel like an absolute **** over this. Excuse the language please.