Something to think about

[roo_ster]

So in your opinion, Hobby Lobby was persecuting people because they refused to provide a drug which can be bought over-the-counter for about $50?
I thought you were going to actually talk about PERSECUTION, like where isil/isis is currently beheading women and children because of their religeon.

 

Its baby steps to theocracy, you give a little now and later its full control. Think about the path of all the firearm laws, everyone one of them had some sort of appeasing attribute, then bam holy cow the anti's seem to be in charge.

charby, you have as perverse a conception of theocracy as you do of persecution.  FTR, being left alone to practice one's faith individually or corporeally without gov't interference is not theocracy.  

Your analogy to gun control is also bass-ackwards.  The gun controllers are using gov't power to limit people's liberty, just as the health insurance-controllers are using gov't power to limit people's liberty.  Gun owners are not running around forcing folks to buy Glocks and EBRs and snubbies.  And gun owners are surely not forcing those with a faith/moral/ethical/conscience objections to violence and/or firearms to purchase even the most innocent-looking single-shot .22LR or .410.

What does freedom of and freedom from religion have to do with the rest of the BOR?

I begin to suspect the nature of the problem...

[fifth_column]

Where/how in God's green earth did you construe that?

If a business takes advantage of the benefits that government gives them (tax advantages, etc), then they also need to abide by the laws whether they feel it agrees or disagrees with the dogma of their religion.

How would you feel if all religious institutions lost their not for profit status/non profit status and had to start paying income and property taxes? Also means your tithing is not tax deductible any more.

The problem is that businesses have no option but to "take advantage" of the "benefits" of government.  It's not like paying taxes, or abiding by the multitude of regulations in place, is voluntary.  And there is recourse under the law if a business feels a particular regulation is onerous.  Law is not static and unyielding.  The law is supposed to fit the needs of the people, not vice versa.

[Fitz]

What does freedom of and freedom from religion have to do with the rest of the BOR?

One should be able to worship how they choose, but they also shouldn't push their religious views on others to the point of persecution. Your religion/beliefs should not impose upon anyone else but yourself.

This is pretty hilarious.


Not paying for something is persecution?

So, if my employer doesn't buy me ammunition, he's persecuting me and violating my second amendment rights, or something.


Get a grip. What a joke

[Fitz]

I also find it amusing the direction the thread has taken, given the content of the OP.

[charby]

  The law is supposed to fit the needs of the people, not vice versa.

A minority or majority of people?

[charby]

charby, you have as perverse a conception of theocracy as you do of persecution.  FTR, being left alone to practice one's faith individually or corporeally without gov't interference is not theocracy.  

Its the baby steps toward a theocracy that causes my concern.

[charby]

I also find it amusing the direction the thread has taken, given the content of the OP.

Ditto.

[charby]

This is pretty hilarious.


Not paying for something is persecution?

So, if my employer doesn't buy me ammunition, he's persecuting me and violating my second amendment rights, or something.


Get a grip. What a joke

Excluding someone because of your religious beliefs is persecution. Persecution doesn't have to be violent.

Company offers spousal benefits, then should be required offer domestic partner benefits.

[brimic]

Company offers spousal benefits, then should be required offer domestic partner benefits.

Why?
Why should a company be required to hand out any standard of entitl, oops, I mean benefit that they don't want to?

[makattak]

Its the baby steps toward a theocracy that causes my concern.

Can you define theocracy?

Because, for me, a theocracy means that the beliefs of a religion (and that is ALL the beliefs of a religion) are enshrined in law, subject to criminal penalties should you break them.

Further, can you point to ANYWHERE in the history of Christianity in the United States under the constitution or currently in this country where Christians advocate that the government should enshrine Christianity in law and arrest/fine individuals who will not convert?

Because that's what you are claiming Christians want.

And, to respond to your coming counter-example, I can point to the gun grabbers specifically stating that their goal is the total elimination of private gun ownership in this country. That is their ultimate goal that has been stated, many times, by prominent leaders of the gun control crowd.

Please provide me with the equal statements from Christians. (I'm not sure that even the Westboro "Christians" make such statements.)

[makattak]

Excluding someone because of your religious beliefs is persecution. Persecution doesn't have to be violent.

Company offers spousal benefits, then should be required offer domestic partner benefits.

Can you point me to the passage in the Constitution that guarantees equal treatment by other private individuals?

I seem to remember something about equality before the law, but I can't seem to find the "equality of treatment" clause....

[Tallpine]

I also find it amusing the direction the thread has taken, given the content of the OP.

Clearly we are not all pals 

[makattak]

I also find it amusing the direction the thread has taken, given the content of the OP.

Ditto.

It's particularly amusing given the fact that you posted it talking about how polarization is such a terrible thing... then went on to perfectly illustrate my point that polarization is a direct result of the government dictating rules and laws that it has no business getting involved in.

So, thanks for that.

[charby]

I give up, we all think/feel differently.

[charby]

Further, can you point to ANYWHERE in the history of Christianity in the United States under the constitution or currently in this country where Christians advocate that the government should enshrine Christianity in law and arrest/fine individuals who will not convert?

Temperance Movement.

[Balog]

Because if you aren't free to think and believe, there will be no other freedom surviving.

You're free to think and believe, as long as they're the right thoughts and beliefs.

Also, "not buying you stuff" = "persecution." 

[makattak]

Temperance Movement.

http://mackenzielcollins.weebly.com/arguments-for-temperance.html

The main reasons people supported the temperance movement were for the social issues rooted in alcohol abuse.  Statistics convinced peopled that it led to an increased crime rate and put families in troublesome situations. People supported temperance because they believed it is destructive toward health and worker productivity. Supporters found legislation to be necessary because people could not restrict their behaviors, so drinking should be eliminated. Pro-temperance advocates believed dry states and elimination of alcohol was the only way to fix the problems created by alcohol abuse.

http://library.brown.edu/cds/temperance/essay.html

So, reading these, the Temperance movement, though a great number of Christians were involved, argued for prohibition on their beliefs that it was the best policy for the government.

It was a terrible idea, and wrong, of course. But it wasn't THEOCRACY!!11!1!! It was activism. Wrong-headed activism, but no different from the "WE HAS TO SAVE THE WYMYNSES FROM TEH PATRIARCHY!" activism of today.

(Also, an irony to me of your choice: the THEOCRACRATIC! Prohibition specifically exempted sacramental use... so, they left religious freedom in place while instituting their THEOCRACY!)

[Balog]

I really hope that you are playing devil's advocate with that statement.

Even as an atheist I fully support religious freedom as protected by the 1st amendment. You have read it haven't you? it's pretty plain english.

I also fully support a persons religious choices and believe the .gov needs to butt the hell out of it and NOT force people to do things that are contrary to there beliefs.

I also read the 1st amendment to tell the government that it can't use force at the bidding of religion(s) to force people to bend to the will of religious tenents they do not subscribe to.

Given that atheists are one of the smallest minority religions in America, and frankly will be for the foreseeable future, it always amazes me that more of ya'll don't care passionately about defending freedom of conscience.

[Balog]

Ok, if the Christian church xyz is excluded from providing birth control for its employees, then should be let Muslim mosque xyz practice Sharia law over US law because that is what the church believes?

ZOMG Christian Taliban!!!!

 

[brimic]

http://mackenzielcollins.weebly.com/arguments-for-temperance.html

http://library.brown.edu/cds/temperance/essay.html

So, reading these, the Temperance movement, though a great number of Christians were involved, argued for prohibition on their beliefs that it was the best policy for the government.

It was a terrible idea, and wrong, of course. But it wasn't THEOCRACY!!11!1!! It was activism. Wrong-headed activism, but no different from the "WE HAS TO SAVE THE WYMYNSES FROM TEH PATRIARCHY!" activism of today.

(Also, an irony to me of your choice: the THEOCRACRATIC! Prohibition specifically exempted sacramental use... so, they left religious freedom in place while instituting their THEOCRACY!)

A few prominent organizations in the temperance movement used the word 'Christian' in their name, sort of like the Westboro Baptist Church today, most of them were far left socialists pushing for 'social justice.'

[Balog]

No it wasn't. My two burr is the polarization and how people hide behind their religion.

We should all just get along, and by "we" I mean you damn Christian Taliban, and by "get along" I mean you should stfu and pay for those abortions.

 

Ok, seriously now. This is a parody right? No one actually starts a thread whining about polarization, and then a couple posts later compares his political opponents to Muslim fanatics throwing acid in rape victims face. This has to be a joke, right?

[Balog]

Persecution: hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.

I know exactly what it means.

You seem pretty hostile towards Christians.

HELP HELP CHARBY IS PERSECUTING ME!!!

[Balog]

Depends which battles you fight, if you fight to establish your religious beliefs on others (no matter the intentions) then yes.

Freedom of religion is theocracy, in your mind?

[Balog]

Its the baby steps toward a theocracy that causes my concern.

So, just as a recap, the .gov NOT forcing people to violate their beliefs is theocracy, in your mind?

[fifth_column]

A minority or majority of people?

Ideally the law should meet the needs of all the people.  In the spirit of your original post; justice is possible when everyone is treated equally under the law.  Personally, I doubt true justice is possible in our country for humans.  But I'm pretty jaded . . .