Is it discrimination and bigotry or religious persecution?
Apr 1, 2015 02:37:09 #
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/01/arkansas-passes-religious-freedom-bill-similar-to-new-indiana-law-sparking-more/
Religion vs an act of Human desire.
It amazes me how we have to write a law to keep the government honest, nevertheless, some group is going to have a problem with it.
The law mentioned here protects religious liberty. Although, by true understanding of the Constitution that clearly states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
people today in both politics and not, are ignoring these words.
Religion is protected not only by the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, but it is also protected in the words of Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
(Thomas Jefferson states the grievances)
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Without religion, then the logic of the highlighted parts of the declaration, would be empty. With them carrying no weight then the powers that empowered the colonies to break with England, would be no power. Then, the Continental congress could not publish or ordain this declaration.
Now, in respect to religion, religion has certain rites of the human person, in which they govern. These rites are within the sacraments of the Christian religion.
The Roman Catholic Church has seven sacraments which are the right of its members to exercise. They are:
1. Baptism
2. Conformation
3. Eucharist
4. Penance or Reconciliation
5. Anointing of the Sick
6. Holy Orders
7. Matrimony
All Christian religions have a variation of these sacraments and the governing party is that of the religion not these United States. The Constitution and the Declaration refer to religions as the ruling party in issues based upon their sacrament.
Since we are a country with more religions than Christianity, other religious rites are presented, like the rite of circumcision. This is called a Bar Mitzvah.
Now that I stated the long established tradition, there is a movement in the United States today that is becoming very aggressive. This movement is called the Gay or Homosexual movement.
Using the three long established principles of Religion, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, I will show how this movement is not being persecuted but rather is persecuting.
In human existence all people are given a choice of who they want to be. This choice extends to all corners of human life.
Just in the matter of the old west, where the sheriff stands up against the mob, to protect the accused, so should the Government stand up to protect the people.
The mob in this case is the homosexual community.
The accused is the religions.
The sheriff is President Obama.
President Obama has not fulfilled his duties as president. As what is stated in the first amendment and here in the declaration, the government must remain neutral on all issues of religion. However Obama is not doing that. Instead he is fueling the fire.
President Obama wants to make circumcision illegal. In doing so he has violated both the declaration of Independence, as I highlighted in red, and the Constitution by declaring himself having authority over religion.
The President is not a religion, nor is Congress, nor is the Supreme Court. They must remain neutral.
President Obama wants to redefine Marriage. President Obama cannot define marriage, since marriage has been defined as a "union between a man and a woman" for 4000+ years. Due to this reason, since the institution of marriage, which is governed not by the state, but by the religion of the person getting married, it would not be Prudent to do so. (See the red highlighted statement of Thomas Jefferson in the declaration I have highlighted.)
By assuming authority over religious groups in this manner, he also is now prohibiting the constitutional right of these groups to exist. This is a form of persecution.
The homosexual groups supporting him are supporting the destruction of this great nation. This is treasonous.
These "homosexual" groups claim racism, since when is a race defined by human desire. If this was true, then are murders a race? thieves a race? adulterers a race? liars a race?, false witnesses a race? blasphemers a race? Homosexuality is not a race but it is a lifestyle. For even murderers, thieves, adulterers, liars, false witnesses, and blasphemers have a lifestyle. Some are more desirable then others, but still sin is a lifestyle. But these acts of desire are controlled by not only religion but also governments help religion to control this behavior.
Since this country was built on freedom, why is it more desirable to enslave our selves within the freedom to choose being slaves to our own desire? Is this freedom? Or is freedom, being free from the bonds of human desire? These are all questions of morality.
In the United States, every citizen has a right to own property. A business is property that creates wealth. Business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Just like in most right to work states, the employer reserves the right to discharge an employee for any reason. Just like the employee has the right to quit for any reason.
Because of this the "mob" as in the analogy above has no right to pressure any business on the practices they hold, if they refuse service to anyone for any reason. In this case the mob is not fighting against racism but rather is persecuting the business.
I am quite curious at what you all think. I have related the facts and now wish to hear others input. Are the actions of President Obama acts of persecution against the religions? are the actions of the homosexual community acts of persecution against religion? Are the acts of religion acts of bigotry or discrimination? what say you?
Religion vs an act of Human desire.
It amazes me how we have to write a law to keep the government honest, nevertheless, some group is going to have a problem with it.
The law mentioned here protects religious liberty. Although, by true understanding of the Constitution that clearly states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
people today in both politics and not, are ignoring these words.
Religion is protected not only by the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, but it is also protected in the words of Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
(Thomas Jefferson states the grievances)
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Without religion, then the logic of the highlighted parts of the declaration, would be empty. With them carrying no weight then the powers that empowered the colonies to break with England, would be no power. Then, the Continental congress could not publish or ordain this declaration.
Now, in respect to religion, religion has certain rites of the human person, in which they govern. These rites are within the sacraments of the Christian religion.
The Roman Catholic Church has seven sacraments which are the right of its members to exercise. They are:
1. Baptism
2. Conformation
3. Eucharist
4. Penance or Reconciliation
5. Anointing of the Sick
6. Holy Orders
7. Matrimony
All Christian religions have a variation of these sacraments and the governing party is that of the religion not these United States. The Constitution and the Declaration refer to religions as the ruling party in issues based upon their sacrament.
Since we are a country with more religions than Christianity, other religious rites are presented, like the rite of circumcision. This is called a Bar Mitzvah.
Now that I stated the long established tradition, there is a movement in the United States today that is becoming very aggressive. This movement is called the Gay or Homosexual movement.
Using the three long established principles of Religion, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, I will show how this movement is not being persecuted but rather is persecuting.
In human existence all people are given a choice of who they want to be. This choice extends to all corners of human life.
Just in the matter of the old west, where the sheriff stands up against the mob, to protect the accused, so should the Government stand up to protect the people.
The mob in this case is the homosexual community.
The accused is the religions.
The sheriff is President Obama.
President Obama has not fulfilled his duties as president. As what is stated in the first amendment and here in the declaration, the government must remain neutral on all issues of religion. However Obama is not doing that. Instead he is fueling the fire.
President Obama wants to make circumcision illegal. In doing so he has violated both the declaration of Independence, as I highlighted in red, and the Constitution by declaring himself having authority over religion.
The President is not a religion, nor is Congress, nor is the Supreme Court. They must remain neutral.
President Obama wants to redefine Marriage. President Obama cannot define marriage, since marriage has been defined as a "union between a man and a woman" for 4000+ years. Due to this reason, since the institution of marriage, which is governed not by the state, but by the religion of the person getting married, it would not be Prudent to do so. (See the red highlighted statement of Thomas Jefferson in the declaration I have highlighted.)
By assuming authority over religious groups in this manner, he also is now prohibiting the constitutional right of these groups to exist. This is a form of persecution.
The homosexual groups supporting him are supporting the destruction of this great nation. This is treasonous.
These "homosexual" groups claim racism, since when is a race defined by human desire. If this was true, then are murders a race? thieves a race? adulterers a race? liars a race?, false witnesses a race? blasphemers a race? Homosexuality is not a race but it is a lifestyle. For even murderers, thieves, adulterers, liars, false witnesses, and blasphemers have a lifestyle. Some are more desirable then others, but still sin is a lifestyle. But these acts of desire are controlled by not only religion but also governments help religion to control this behavior.
Since this country was built on freedom, why is it more desirable to enslave our selves within the freedom to choose being slaves to our own desire? Is this freedom? Or is freedom, being free from the bonds of human desire? These are all questions of morality.
In the United States, every citizen has a right to own property. A business is property that creates wealth. Business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Just like in most right to work states, the employer reserves the right to discharge an employee for any reason. Just like the employee has the right to quit for any reason.
Because of this the "mob" as in the analogy above has no right to pressure any business on the practices they hold, if they refuse service to anyone for any reason. In this case the mob is not fighting against racism but rather is persecuting the business.
I am quite curious at what you all think. I have related the facts and now wish to hear others input. Are the actions of President Obama acts of persecution against the religions? are the actions of the homosexual community acts of persecution against religion? Are the acts of religion acts of bigotry or discrimination? what say you?
Apr 1, 2015 03:40:12 #
[quote=Ranger7374]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/01/arkansas-passes-religious-freedom-bill-similar-to-new-indiana-law-sparking-more/
Religion vs an act of Human desire.
You attempt to claim that you have presented facts.
I would argue that you have presented your opinion.
As soon as you start looking at other people as a movement without taking the same definition on yourself you begin treading in dangerous territory philosophically.
If, as you seem to imply, you respect other people's rights why would you support people in turning them away from their business?
Isn't it the quest of people who worship through an organized religion to show their adoration through their own behavior not the impact they have on others' actions?
Religion vs an act of Human desire.
You attempt to claim that you have presented facts.
I would argue that you have presented your opinion.
As soon as you start looking at other people as a movement without taking the same definition on yourself you begin treading in dangerous territory philosophically.
If, as you seem to imply, you respect other people's rights why would you support people in turning them away from their business?
Isn't it the quest of people who worship through an organized religion to show their adoration through their own behavior not the impact they have on others' actions?
Apr 1, 2015 07:15:13 #
In my opinion, what all the verbiage on her part conceals is nothing more than bigotry.
[quote=jelun]
[quote=jelun]
Ranger7374 wrote:
Apr 1, 2015 07:41:45 #
Ranger7374 wrote:
NO you are confused, no one is stopping religion. You guys don't realize what true religious prosecution is, it's when you are prevented from even practicing in you own church, this is what Jefferson was talking about. It wasn't about allowing religion practice in the government or one religion being forced among the public. Go further into Jefferson's feelings about religion; you will be surprised.
This is because these men respected the differences of beliefs within the community.
He wanted to make sure all churches would be allowed to simply practice without fear of prosecution
Apr 1, 2015 07:59:31 #
Ranger7374 wrote:
Please provide a link proving that Obama wants to criminalize circumcision. Or admit to being a liar.
Apr 1, 2015 08:49:31 #
Artemis wrote:
NO you are confused, no one is stopping religion. ... (show quote)
Agreed. Throughout history one religion or another has forced by penalty of death their beliefs onto members of another religion. I believe what Jefferson was trying to convey was we should have the right to practice our faith whatever it may be in our churches or temples without government interference. That does not mean I have the right through legislation to force my beliefs upon you.
If you own a business, you are subject to the laws governing that business. I don't get involved in my clients' personal lives. It is none of my business. The laws governing businesses are pretty simple. If you feel you can not abide by them you can not own a business.
My temple would not perform a gay marriage, which is our right. We would not say another faith could not follow their path. I think the problems arise when anyone attempts to force a member of a religion to perform a ceremony which is in direct conflict with their beliefs. We have the right to practice our religion in our churches or temples but we do not have the right to force our beliefs in the market place. It is hard to live your faith while running a business but it is necessary.
Apr 1, 2015 08:54:46 #
She Wolf wrote:
Agreed. Throughout history one religion or anothe... (show quote)
You have it exactly right.
That is what is different about this Indiana and, I believe, the Arkansas law, the federal statute and the laws formerly passed are protecting non-profit entities.
While I don't understand the need to codify the protection I don't really argue with it.
To extend this to private enterprises is excessive.
Apr 1, 2015 09:59:02 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
Artemis wrote:
NO you are confused, no one is stopping religion. ... (show quote)
Your religion is (or is supposed to be) how you live your entire life, not just Sunday service If you leave your God in church rather than have Him walk with you through each and every day, you do not really believe in your religion. Your belief is apparently that in the real world no religion except money is allowed, and my religion shapes all that I do on a day to day basis. Go find a bakery that is run by Muslims and order your same sex wedding cake there.
Apr 1, 2015 10:01:04 #
no propaganda please wrote:
Your religion is (or is supposed to be) how you live your entire life, not just Sunday service If you leave your God in church rather than have Him walk with you through each and every day, you do not really believe in your religion. Your belief is apparently that in the real world no religion except money is allowed, and my religion shapes all that I do on a day to day basis. Go find a bakery that is run by Muslims and order your same sex wedding cake there.
What is a same sex wedding cake?
Which is EXACTLY the point. There are wedding cakes. They are made, decorated, and delivered or picked up.
There is NO participation in the wedding, the wedding is over by the time the cake is viewed by the participants.
The baker is not there for the wedding night festivities even though it would seem that some are so intrigued by the thoughts of homosexual sex they might like to be there.
And you do know that you totally missed the point in the post that she made about church, right?
Apr 1, 2015 11:06:30 #
Apr 1, 2015 11:09:37 #
She Wolf wrote:
Agreed. Throughout history one religion or anothe... (show quote)
I agree, especially to the rights of the church and if, someone is obeying the law they should not be discriminated against in a public service. I have not seen where the government comes in at all on the ceremonies they perform and for whom.
Apr 1, 2015 11:12:17 #
jelun wrote:
What is a same sex wedding cake? br Which is EXACT... (show quote)
Good thing they are not photographers then HUH! :thumbdown:
Apr 1, 2015 11:19:50 #
Workinman wrote:
Good thing they are not photographers then HUH! :thumbdown:
What can I say? Maybe they should all set up as non-profit. It is a lot more paperwork...but then, if they are only doing business with people who are chaste they are pretty darned bored, aren't they?
YOU didn't answer the question, though. What IS a same sex cake?
Apr 1, 2015 11:38:35 #
jelun wrote:
What can I say? Maybe they should all set up as non-profit. It is a lot more paperwork...but then, if they are only doing business with people who are chaste they are pretty darned bored, aren't they?
YOU didn't answer the question, though. What IS a same sex cake?
YOU didn't answer the question, though. What IS a same sex cake?
This may or may not be interesting to you.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/31/religious-freedom-laws-are-about-tolerance-which-is-exactly-why-the-left-doesnt-like-them/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoju6nNZKXonjHpfsX56ekoXa%2BzlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4HSMZiI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D
Apr 1, 2015 11:40:12 #
jelun wrote:
What can I say? Maybe they should all set up as non-profit. It is a lot more paperwork...but then, if they are only doing business with people who are chaste they are pretty darned bored, aren't they?
YOU didn't answer the question, though. What IS a same sex cake?
YOU didn't answer the question, though. What IS a same sex cake?
A cake decorated with same sex couples or has wording that promotes same sex marriage.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.