Are your religious freedoms in danger?

Take this quiz to see if your religious liberty is at risk. Go ahead, post your results.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my relig
ious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

If you answered “A” to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality…not your superiority.

If you answered “B” to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

 

Nope. But we have looming theocracy on the horizon.

Just remember atheists, we are not the ones suing you to block the expression of your faith.

 

How many times are we going to have to explain this. ATHEISM IS NOT A FAITH, IT IS THE LACK OF A FAITH. Really, it is like arguing the flavor of the center of a Lifesaver candy.

I would think that the Christians would be backing the Atheists on the whole secular government thing since it is what's going to keep Sharia law and an Islamic theocracy from ever coming to America. Or a Hindu theocracy... or Mormon theocracy... or Jewish theocracy... or Buddhist theocracy...

Anyway, glad to see you again.

 

Right Wing Christian extremists want THEIR religion to dictate the laws. So this would block be bad for them.

 

"Are your religious freedoms in danger?"

Nope.

 

Sure they do ... now who is the victim? Right, right, when someone disagrees with atheism - its a direct attempt to push their values on them.

But who is suing who mind you?

 

No when someone wants to ban things that don't effect them, such as gay marriage, because their holy books says it's wrong, it's forcing their religion on people.

 

Why should my tax money go toward your silly ass sexual preferrences? Should I also pay you to be single? Marry a horse? Have sex with children, which is of course ALSO beyond choice?

But we will sue every county government, city office, or federal building that has a blank wall because it if favoring atheism - and the constitution forbides such overt favoritism. Silly isn't it?

Too bad only one side is doing that.

By the way, gay marriage is not legal, its you guys demanding that we accept YOUR standards. Why? Because your propoganda says that sexuality is beyond choice, even though science pointedly disagrees.

Here, been saving this one:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/son-of-two-moms-defends-regnerus-study-on-same-sex-parenting/

Written by a happily married, to a woman, man, who is a former homosexual. What would he know though? What happens when expereices like these clash with your holy propoganda?

Now are atheists persecuted in China? North Korea? Europe? I mean do Christians hold massive demonstrations every time (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) bag Dawkins shows up like atheists do the Pope? Nah, you guys are the victims.

Fortunately, you are minority, and your antics are so ... silly, that we are in little or no danger of an atheist being elected any time soon. Thankfully.

 

Yea...

... Granny says anybody tries to take away her Bible...

... dey liable to get the business end...

... of her Mossburg 12ga.

 

and that is exactly what people are trying to prevent, we escaped a theocracy once, where would we go if it happened again

duh, because atheists are not violating the separation.. Christians are...

did you know it was Christian infighting that removed religion from our schools and government... Atheists did not have that power... Christians politicians did though

express your faith all you want, just don't use the government to force your faith on others...

.

 

How mamny time sdo I have to rebut you: any conclusion that is based on anything other that testable, verifiable facts, is a faith.

But I am glad you think, in a forum where atheists are complaining about religious people pushing their values on YOU - that you think I have to accept your ... totally unevidenced conclusions and treat them as fact - or you will type in big, bold letters?

Well, shucks - still not cinvinced, even with the big bold letters.

Atheism is a faith, no matter how angry that reality makes ... some ... atheists.

 

yep, sad that some have to sue to get equal rights (ALL or NONE)

"VETERANS ADMIN APPROVES WICCAN SYMBOL ON MILITARY TOMBSTONES"

[video=youtube;6e3Y02KfPAQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e3Y02KfPAQ[/video]

 

Di you know that secularism was created by Christians and not atheists?

And yes, when you seek to push Christians out of government, you are very clearly violating the estbalishment clause which allows equal protection and access to governance ... by those governed. Ergo, when Bush introduced faith based initiatives, atheists screamed. Then the courst got a look at it?

And, well, turns out denying a groupf funding based SOLELY on their faith choice was unconstitutional. Who would have thought?

And so, what exactly do you call attempts to control access of federal funds in deliberately exclusionary and prejudical manner?

Atheists lost that court case. And you get about half the 'religious display' cases. Intent matters, and sometimes, yep, just like atheists, religious poeple are dolts. Other times, well, remember that a government showing religious symbols in and of itself is neither exclusionary, nor is it favoritism - its art. So if a piece of art happens to be religiou, but is beautiful? Well, you see why atheists lose.

Because f the ONLY reason that government cannot display a piece of art is because it is religious in nature? Well, who the hell, besides atheists, cares? Why do you seek to block the legiotimate expression of faith?

 

Gay marriage will create revenue, not cost money.
Another knee jerk post without any thought behind it.

 

not saying there is a god, is not the same as saying there is NO GOD

if someone wanted to put "in no god we trust" on our money, you think Christians would remain quite?

 

Am I supposed to be offended by that or something? I am not sure what point you are trying to make. A jew can have a star of david, Muslims the crescent, atheists ... nothing. Why would I be offended by a Wiccan having his symbol on his own grave?

Who cares?

 

Yeah, it is.

We call this semantics.

And remember, on one hand, you atheists like to lecture about how scientific your atheism is and how stupid faith is. Now, when asked for the evidence, we get .... semantics.

Either your evidence for there not being a God is solid, as in beyond a doubt, or at leats probable, or you are using faith. The later is just a smaller leap in in faith, but its still a leap in faith. The former?

Seriously, just because you come up with a one liner doesn't make your arguement logical, conclusive, evidenced, or, espcially so, convincing.

 

Christians denied them that right, they had to SUE to get that right, you asked who was suing who didn't you?




.

 

Of course the athiests screamed, more people should have. This directly goes against the separation of church and state.

 

Part of the problem for this poster is he really doesn't understand the meaning of the words "atheist" and "agnostic", and just thinks that when someone doesn't believe in the biblical god they are an atheist. It is really just a problem of ignorance of the words themselves, and how he believes them to be attacks on him personally.

 

maybe we should put "in goddess we trust" on our coins for awhile

though I doubt the "men" in power would ever allow that to happen


.

 

I was unaware that the military, and avowedly secular group that punishes its members for preaching, was a 'Christian Group?'

Indeed, you atheists seem very keen on making just that point.

http://ffrf.org/outreach/atheists-in-foxholes/

Now, do you know why the military denies some religion 'equal' status? Because we live in a world where some idiot will make up his own religion to justify whatever he wants. For example, as we deploy into combat, you would be amazed at how many Soldiers are suddenly 'consciencious objectors' - or, until recently were suddenly gay. The military ha sno desire to give Soldiers a easy out from difficult situations - especially an all volunteer force, where we cannot rely on th edraft to replace the shirkers. However, the militaru has every desire to be as inclusive as possible, provided the religion is not disruptive - there will be no devil whorshipper symbol on a Soldier grave mind you. All LEGITIMATE faiths are welcomed in an avowedly secular institution. There is however, a vetting process that a religion must go through to ensure that it is legit.

If your religion is legit and has not yet been reconginzed my the military? Perhaps its because your religion has not yet petitioned the military? I mean, our job is to fight and win wars, not scoure the world for every possible religion out there and give a good hard stress test.

Now, contrast you eagerness at the display of a Wiccan symbol with the repeated demands that Christians remove crosses from war memorial sites, even though the vaste majority of Soldiers buried there died as Christians.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ath...oss-wwii-memorial-but-city-isnt-backing-down/

Can you explain to me why atheism is NOT anti-Christian when it sues to remove CHRISTIAN symbols on one hand, but encourages the display of Wiccan religion symbols in the same setting?

Who indeed in forecing their views on the other?

 

SCOTUS disagreed with this overt prejudice. I am glad you simply eliminated that part of the discussion and deemed it irrelevant.

So, naked atheistic prejudice should just be ignored? In fact, MORE people should do it?

Nice.

 

Yes, we should make changes that would deliberately inflame people.

And we wonder why atheists have such a hard time getting elected with such a platform? You do realize that elected officials represent EVERYONE, correct? And no politician would take on such a needlessly distracting policy issue - unless of course they were using it as a distraction, something to keep critics fixated on while they were pushing through something far more contentious.

So, if you ever see this as a policy, I suggest you look very, very closely at what else is going on.

 

all or none, if your allow Christian symbols on tombstones, then you MUST allow Wiccans that same right, simple really


.