Something to think about
Dec 31, 2022 21:15:06 #
whitnebrat
Loc: In the wilds of Oregon
Please read the entire post before calling me a liar, bigot, or wh**ever epithet you choose. There will be those that consider it to be liberal claptrap or worse ... I expect that. But if you can't dispute the logic and still come up with that viewpoint, I do feel sorry for you.
-----------------------------------------------------------
We hear a lot these days about the 'fact' that this country was founded as a “Christian Nation.”
While that may ring true to some people, it implies that it was a unified theology that established the country. That's not totally true.
While it sounds right, it should read “A Nation of Christians.” Almost all the colonies were originally founded by exiled religious sects from England. Other varieties followed thereafter, but the original set of colonists were kicked out of England because the Anglican (Episcopal) church was the established state religion of the British Empire, and it wouldn’t stand for any competition.
So we had a variety of original colonies. We had the Puritans in Massachusetts; Anabaptists in Rhode Island; Baptists in Connecticut: Dutch protestants in New York and New Jersey; Shakers and Quakers in Pennsylvania; Catholics in Maryland; … and the list goes on.
Each of these sects had contrary ideologies to the others, and the last thing that they wanted was to have an overriding state religion similar to the one that they had just escaped from. Implying that we were a “Christian Nation” that was uniformly so, is comparable to saying that all people in the country belong to the same political party with the same point of view. It just ain’t so.
The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....”
“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was expressly included to protect the rights of one religious group from imposing their beliefs on another group that may not have the same tenets of their core theology. An example might be where the State of Pennsylvania might try to impose a required use of only automobiles on state roads, to clear the roads of slow, horse-drawn carriages. This would be an impingement on the religious rights of the Amish. Note that the Amendment only applies to governments.
What exactly does “free exercise” mean, anyway? Does it mean that a majority of citizens of one religious belief can impose such things as mandatory Sunday Closing laws, or the prohibition of alcohol? Both of these things were tried and were eventually reversed as being vastly unpopular and religiously motivated.
Thomas Jefferson, in his celebrated letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1809 said: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
To my way of thinking, you are perfectly free to practice your religion in your own home or place of worship, but the instant that your religious beliefs cross the property lines beyond those two areas and aywhere else, they cannot be imposed on any other individual or part of society.
You may claim that your religious beliefs are violated when you have to deal with a member of the public that appears or thinks differently from you, or treats their personal relationships in a manner that your particular religion abhors. If you are offering your products or services to the general public, can you pick and choose whom you wish to serve? Could you, as an devout religious person that believes that Jews are an a*********n, refuse to sell a product to someone wearing a Yarmulke?
You would claim that to do so would violate your religious freedom, perhaps. Where does your religious freedom end and theirs begin? Can government step in to enforce those limitations on the exercise of religious principles?
In a democracy, the answer is that there are limits on how far you can practice your religious beliefs. Because of the multiplicity of thoughts on what is right and wrong according to one’s own religious morality, we can only enforce, in a major way, those commonly held moral beliefs that affect the population as a whole. These would include murder, rape, theft and assault, c***ting and lyinbg, among others. Other than those major categories that affect the society as a whole, there can be no imposition of any distinctly religious belief on the society as a whole.
The issue of plural or same-sex marriage fits into this area as well. Islam and some LDS members (Mormons) have no problem with this at all.
What is marriage, anyway? Merriam-Webster’s dictionary describes it this way:
“1.a.)the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
b.) the mutual relation of married persons
c.) the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2. an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities : an intimate or close union, the marriage of painting and poetry”
Note that there is no mention of God or religion in this definition. The closest that they come to this is the phrase “wedding ceremony and attendant festivities.”
There are those that would force same-sex couples to use the term “civil unions” instead of the term “marriage”, claiming that for these people to use the term ‘marriage’ degrades the concept of the institution. Just how this affects their own relationship and status is not clear, unless it conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs. But that is not a valid basis for imposing a prohibition on the entire society to use that term for a same-sex or plural legal relationship between people. Likewise, the requirement for having both sexes involved in order to define a union as a “marriage” is also legally flawed because of the religious connotation. In short, the First Amendment prohibits any definition of ‘marriage’ in law. This is but one example of a purely religious concept creeping into the legal world.
The allowance by governments for prayer in public schools also fits into this category, since it sanctions a religious activity in a public venue.
The concept of ‘democracy’ enters into the fray here. Majority rule should prevail, they say. But that falls the minute that the First Amendment rears its’ ugly head, saying “ Congress (and by extension state and local governments) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” which goes for the attempted establishment of religiously based laws imposed by a majority of those v****g as well. It can not and should not be done.
In our country at the present time, the vocal and activist part of our society that is religiously evangelical in nature has prevailed with a 30% minority wanting to ban not only same-sex marriage, but gay rights as well. This means that 70% of the country has no objection to these concepts becoming a staple of our society. If this continues, minority rule will become the norm, and our society suffers as a result, because there will be other legalities based on religion that will be imposed on the country as a whole.
How do you spell ‘virtual theocracy?’ This is what alarms me when I hear the words 'Christian Nation'. Whose variety of Christianity would be the prevailing one? How far down the rabbit hole would they go? Do you want to figure out how it works?
Think "Taliban Lite" ... or maybe not so "lite". Or maybe even "The Handmaid's Tale."
-----------------------------------------------------------
We hear a lot these days about the 'fact' that this country was founded as a “Christian Nation.”
While that may ring true to some people, it implies that it was a unified theology that established the country. That's not totally true.
While it sounds right, it should read “A Nation of Christians.” Almost all the colonies were originally founded by exiled religious sects from England. Other varieties followed thereafter, but the original set of colonists were kicked out of England because the Anglican (Episcopal) church was the established state religion of the British Empire, and it wouldn’t stand for any competition.
So we had a variety of original colonies. We had the Puritans in Massachusetts; Anabaptists in Rhode Island; Baptists in Connecticut: Dutch protestants in New York and New Jersey; Shakers and Quakers in Pennsylvania; Catholics in Maryland; … and the list goes on.
Each of these sects had contrary ideologies to the others, and the last thing that they wanted was to have an overriding state religion similar to the one that they had just escaped from. Implying that we were a “Christian Nation” that was uniformly so, is comparable to saying that all people in the country belong to the same political party with the same point of view. It just ain’t so.
The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....”
“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was expressly included to protect the rights of one religious group from imposing their beliefs on another group that may not have the same tenets of their core theology. An example might be where the State of Pennsylvania might try to impose a required use of only automobiles on state roads, to clear the roads of slow, horse-drawn carriages. This would be an impingement on the religious rights of the Amish. Note that the Amendment only applies to governments.
What exactly does “free exercise” mean, anyway? Does it mean that a majority of citizens of one religious belief can impose such things as mandatory Sunday Closing laws, or the prohibition of alcohol? Both of these things were tried and were eventually reversed as being vastly unpopular and religiously motivated.
Thomas Jefferson, in his celebrated letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1809 said: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
To my way of thinking, you are perfectly free to practice your religion in your own home or place of worship, but the instant that your religious beliefs cross the property lines beyond those two areas and aywhere else, they cannot be imposed on any other individual or part of society.
You may claim that your religious beliefs are violated when you have to deal with a member of the public that appears or thinks differently from you, or treats their personal relationships in a manner that your particular religion abhors. If you are offering your products or services to the general public, can you pick and choose whom you wish to serve? Could you, as an devout religious person that believes that Jews are an a*********n, refuse to sell a product to someone wearing a Yarmulke?
You would claim that to do so would violate your religious freedom, perhaps. Where does your religious freedom end and theirs begin? Can government step in to enforce those limitations on the exercise of religious principles?
In a democracy, the answer is that there are limits on how far you can practice your religious beliefs. Because of the multiplicity of thoughts on what is right and wrong according to one’s own religious morality, we can only enforce, in a major way, those commonly held moral beliefs that affect the population as a whole. These would include murder, rape, theft and assault, c***ting and lyinbg, among others. Other than those major categories that affect the society as a whole, there can be no imposition of any distinctly religious belief on the society as a whole.
The issue of plural or same-sex marriage fits into this area as well. Islam and some LDS members (Mormons) have no problem with this at all.
What is marriage, anyway? Merriam-Webster’s dictionary describes it this way:
“1.a.)the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
b.) the mutual relation of married persons
c.) the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2. an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities : an intimate or close union, the marriage of painting and poetry”
Note that there is no mention of God or religion in this definition. The closest that they come to this is the phrase “wedding ceremony and attendant festivities.”
There are those that would force same-sex couples to use the term “civil unions” instead of the term “marriage”, claiming that for these people to use the term ‘marriage’ degrades the concept of the institution. Just how this affects their own relationship and status is not clear, unless it conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs. But that is not a valid basis for imposing a prohibition on the entire society to use that term for a same-sex or plural legal relationship between people. Likewise, the requirement for having both sexes involved in order to define a union as a “marriage” is also legally flawed because of the religious connotation. In short, the First Amendment prohibits any definition of ‘marriage’ in law. This is but one example of a purely religious concept creeping into the legal world.
The allowance by governments for prayer in public schools also fits into this category, since it sanctions a religious activity in a public venue.
The concept of ‘democracy’ enters into the fray here. Majority rule should prevail, they say. But that falls the minute that the First Amendment rears its’ ugly head, saying “ Congress (and by extension state and local governments) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” which goes for the attempted establishment of religiously based laws imposed by a majority of those v****g as well. It can not and should not be done.
In our country at the present time, the vocal and activist part of our society that is religiously evangelical in nature has prevailed with a 30% minority wanting to ban not only same-sex marriage, but gay rights as well. This means that 70% of the country has no objection to these concepts becoming a staple of our society. If this continues, minority rule will become the norm, and our society suffers as a result, because there will be other legalities based on religion that will be imposed on the country as a whole.
How do you spell ‘virtual theocracy?’ This is what alarms me when I hear the words 'Christian Nation'. Whose variety of Christianity would be the prevailing one? How far down the rabbit hole would they go? Do you want to figure out how it works?
Think "Taliban Lite" ... or maybe not so "lite". Or maybe even "The Handmaid's Tale."
Dec 31, 2022 21:49:00 #
whitnebrat wrote:
Please read the entire post before calling me a li... (show quote)
It is always interesting how those who complain about Christians forcing their views on everyone are the first ones who want to force their godless secular humanistic views of morality on everyone else.
Dec 31, 2022 22:01:25 #
whitnebrat
Loc: In the wilds of Oregon
Liberty Tree wrote:
It is always interesting how those who complain about Christians forcing their views on everyone are the first ones who want to force their godless secular humanistic views of morality on everyone else.
I don't believe that I advocated forcing my views on anyone lese. You are perfectly free to hold your religious views in your home or place of worship. I'm all for that. What I'm saying is that with the multiplicity of views on religion in a pluralistic society, that religious concepts of any stripe cannot become law for the entire society. You are perfectly free to ignore such contrary concepts as you prefer. Your religious preferences just can't t***sfer over to the entire society.
Dec 31, 2022 22:30:10 #
whitnebrat
Loc: In the wilds of Oregon
It occurs to me that some people would love to live in a bubble, insulated from anything that offends them or their religious views. For them, I recommend founding a commune out in the country, surrounded by lots of acreage and your friends that believe as you do. You could get Instacart to deliver to your front gate, and Amazon to provide the other necessities of life delivered to you. You'd never have to leave your bubble..
In the real world, however, we are constantly bombarded with things that we don't like and are offended by. I dislike having Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon missionaries coming to my front door. If I lived in Dearborn, Michigan, I'd probably be irritated by the five times a day that a muezzin calls the Islamic faithful to prayer. In my apartment house, I resented being woken up by the cries of my next door neighbor's wife in the throes of ecstasy that penetrated through the thin walls at 3AM.
These petty annoyances are just things that any society has to put up with. It's called life.
In the real world, however, we are constantly bombarded with things that we don't like and are offended by. I dislike having Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon missionaries coming to my front door. If I lived in Dearborn, Michigan, I'd probably be irritated by the five times a day that a muezzin calls the Islamic faithful to prayer. In my apartment house, I resented being woken up by the cries of my next door neighbor's wife in the throes of ecstasy that penetrated through the thin walls at 3AM.
These petty annoyances are just things that any society has to put up with. It's called life.
Dec 31, 2022 23:24:43 #
Strycker
Loc: The middle of somewhere else.
whitnebrat wrote:
"To my way of thinking, you are perfectly free to practice your religion in your own home or place of worship, but the instant that your religious beliefs cross the property lines beyond those two areas and anywhere else, they cannot be imposed on any other individual or part of society."
"To my way of thinking, you are perfectly free to practice your religion in your own home or place of worship, but the instant that your religious beliefs cross the property lines beyond those two areas and anywhere else, they cannot be imposed on any other individual or part of society."
This statement puts you squarely in the "freedom from religion" category which put you at the antithesis of constitutional freedoms.
Dec 31, 2022 23:33:58 #
whitnebrat
Loc: In the wilds of Oregon
Strycker wrote:
This statement puts you squarely in the "freedom from religion" category which put you at the antithesis of constitutional freedoms.
We agree to disagree. Wishing to be "free of religion' just as much of a constitutional freedom as any other. It's a personal choice just like any other ... like choosing what clothes to wear or how to style your hair, or what movie to watch.
Please enlighten me as to how being free from religion is antithetical to constitutional freedoms?
Jan 1, 2023 00:56:33 #
Strycker
Loc: The middle of somewhere else.
whitnebrat wrote:
We agree to disagree. Wishing to be "free of religion' just as much of a constitutional freedom as any other. It's a personal choice just like any other ... like choosing what clothes to wear or how to style your hair, or what movie to watch.
Please enlighten me as to how being free from religion is antithetical to constitutional freedoms?
Please enlighten me as to how being free from religion is antithetical to constitutional freedoms?
Freedom "from" requires the restriction or limitation of freedom "of". Both cannot exist together. An inalienable right cannot be taken from or given away.
I suppose if I wanted to be "free of speech" is just as much a constitutional freedom as "free of religion". Your same concept of restricting speaking to your home or property would also apply.
Jan 1, 2023 01:00:10 #
whitnebrat wrote:
I don't believe that I advocated forcing my views on anyone lese. You are perfectly free to hold your religious views in your home or place of worship. I'm all for that. What I'm saying is that with the multiplicity of views on religion in a pluralistic society, that religious concepts of any stripe cannot become law for the entire society. You are perfectly free to ignore such contrary concepts as you prefer. Your religious preferences just can't t***sfer over to the entire society.
Exactly what homosexual rights are being threatened?
Jan 1, 2023 05:32:20 #
whitnebrat wrote:
Please read the entire post before calling me a li... (show quote)
In the case of homosexual marriage, think "Heather Has Two Mommies," and "Dennis Has Two Daddies."
Think Heather and Dennis are going to have one screwed up childhood.
What consenting adults do in private is their business and no one else's. When minors are involved or they get in someone's face with their preferences, it's no longer a private matter.
Jan 1, 2023 06:34:59 #
whitnebrat
Loc: In the wilds of Oregon
Strycker wrote:
Freedom "from" requires the restriction or limitation of freedom "of". Both cannot exist together. An inalienable right cannot be taken from or given away.
I suppose if I wanted to be "free of speech" is just as much a constitutional freedom as "free of religion". Your same concept of restricting speaking to your home or property would also apply.
I suppose if I wanted to be "free of speech" is just as much a constitutional freedom as "free of religion". Your same concept of restricting speaking to your home or property would also apply.
Nice try. However, as you must know, there are restrictions on almost every right, including the freedom of speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise, I'm, sure that if someone stood up in the middle of your pastor's sermon and proceeded to cause a disturbance, you'd be escorting them out the door and filing a complaint with the local police.
The restriction of religious activity and norms upon the general society is one that is generally accepted, because of the vast number of differing sects and denominations and their beliefs, which vary in many ways and would be unacceptable if applied to the society as a whole. You are free to discuss your religious beliefs in public in a non-bimdomg way on any streetcorner you choose, in any airport (think Hari Krishnas), or with anyone you like ... you are not free to impose them on the population as a whole.
Jan 1, 2023 06:38:19 #
whitnebrat
Loc: In the wilds of Oregon
AuntiE wrote:
Exactly what homosexual rights are being threatened?
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence to the Dobbs case reversing Roe, said:
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
Gfiswold involved the right to contraception: Lawrence found that private, consensual, "non-procreative" sex could not be regulated by the state; Obergefell involved the right to same-sex marriage. He would welcome cases challenging these precedents so as to be able to overturn them.
There are other cases involving discrimination against L***Q people, and denying t***ssexual minors the medical care they need to cope with their problem. In the latter case, it is predicted that the suicide rate amongst these children will increase to at least twice the current rate.
All of these L***Q rights are under attack because of religious dogma that teaches that they must be 'saved' from their 'sinful' lifestyle, most of which (if not all) has been medically asserted to be genetically inherited.
Jan 1, 2023 06:45:27 #
whitnebrat
Loc: In the wilds of Oregon
Smedley_buzk**l wrote:
In the case of homosexual marriage, think "Heather Has Two Mommies," and "Dennis Has Two Daddies."
Think Heather and Dennis are going to have one screwed up childhood.
What consenting adults do in private is their business and no one else's. When minors are involved or they get in someone's face with their preferences, it's no longer a private matter.
Think Heather and Dennis are going to have one screwed up childhood.
What consenting adults do in private is their business and no one else's. When minors are involved or they get in someone's face with their preferences, it's no longer a private matter.
Your information is biased if not outdated. Most, if not all, of these children don't have a problem with their parents in these situations, and in many (if not most) cases grow up to be 'straight' and have children of their own. At least you give consenting adults the right to do what they wish in the privacy of their own home ... does that carry over to allowing them to call their legal relationship a 'marriage', if allowing that legal status at all?
Jan 1, 2023 10:12:19 #
whitnebrat wrote:
Nice try. However, as you must know, there are res... (show quote)
Yes, you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
Jan 1, 2023 10:34:09 #
Strycker
Loc: The middle of somewhere else.
whitnebrat wrote:
Nice try. However, as you must know, there are res... (show quote)
You absolutely can yell fire in a crowded theater. Claiming you cannot is a lie you have been told over and over in order to limit and control free speech. It is totally legal. Having said that. if your action causes harm you can be held liable for that harm. It is the consequences of an action, not the action itself, that has legal repercussions.
As far as restrictions on freedoms, you, in your exercising of your freedom cannot damage another. That is the only restriction that should exist. Respect for others freedoms. By restricting religion to one's home or place of worship you are disrespecting others and their freedoms.
If you want to discuss "blue laws", that being government restricting freedoms based on religious dogma, that is a different subject, but, that is not what you are supporting. You want to use government police powers to restrict freedoms of others which would make you no different than any group using government to force particular religious ideals on you. Why don't you see the hypocrisy of your position?
Jan 1, 2023 11:48:13 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
Strycker wrote:
You absolutely can yell fire in a crowded theater.... (show quote)
Exactly what progressives always do. They wrap themselves in the Constitution while trying to find ways around it. Whitenbrat is nothing more than an anti-Christian bigot. I'm a member of a large Southern Baptist Church. We pray for those we consider lost. We do not try to force our views on anyone, but we also don't "bend" our morals and obligations to God because some man or group of said we have to. You cannot be in a homosexual relationship and be a member of my church. Likewise you can not be a straight couple, living together (unmarried) and be a member. Pretty consistent. don't like it; don't become a member.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.