Religious Freedom and the Freedom to Discriminate

I don't believe I have encountered a more clueless individual on any forum. As I make choices of conscience, I am exerting TOTAL free will and am not restricted. I choose to do the right thing and am in complete control of that choice. You totally misinterpret, purposely, what I said and what I meant. I'm not sure whether that means you crossed the line from BSer to liar. Only you know for sure.

Regarding mankind doing evil to himself, your god is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing. That means he knows what we will do in advance and that is in direct contradiction to free will. Either your god is not all-powerful or your god is not benevolent. Reread Epicurus again and perhaps you'll understand, but I doubt it.

The belief in Satan is almost as childish as the belief in your benevolent god.

"I bet you're asking, "Well, why did God have the Israelites perform blood sacrifices?"" Hysterical! How much did we bet, because you lost. Just as you've lost your absurd argument.

 

Who is more popular, gay people who want to marry the ones they love, or evangelical Christians who want discriminate against the ones they hate? Increasingly, American voters are choosing love.

Despite all the vitriol surrounding the gay rights movement, a new poll suggests Americans are warming to the idea of equality, while finding very little to approve of coming from the evangelical camp. Commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign, the poll asked likely 2016 voters about their feelings towards various groups. Surprisingly, they found increasing gay acceptance, even from people with backgrounds not always known for welcoming homosexuality like Catholics and seniors. On the flip side, these same voters seem to be tiring of evangelical Christians.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...ds-gay-people-more-popular-than-evangelicals/

 

Lost what? You haven't countered any of my points. You just made a bunch of baseless assertions. Lets break down what you just said into bite-sized chunks, hmm?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


1) You call me clueless, but you neglect to state the reasons as to why I'm clueless (the first sign of one losing an argument is when they make a statement about the opponents character without explaining why).

2) You make a humanist statement about conscience. It's a contradiction, because if you're simply a biochemically engineered robot whose actions are determined by the impulses of one's brain, then that is not free will. You do not understand the simple basics of your own beliefs. I've studied your beliefs because I wanted to know more about you. I'm highly interested in how you think - yet you contradict yourself, and that becomes frustrating.

3) You claim I misinterpret what you say without giving any examples.

4) You claim that if God cannot somehow violate logic to support your illogical points, then He is not all-powerful. You then proceed to call Satan a childish belief. Yet, you give no statements to make your side seem more plausible. This is kind of like a dead-end statement.

5) Then you adhere our conversation into some sort of bet we've never made, and then you conclude I've lost this make-believe bet.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There's your argument right there. I'm tasked with somehow coming up with a reply to all of these odd unsupported statements you've made. I honestly don't know where to start, but here we go...

1) Nope. I'm not clueless.
2) Humanists don't believe in free will. Most atheists don't, because the idea of free will contradicts science.
3) What did I misinterpret?
4) God is not a man that he should lie. If God promises mankind something, he's not going to go back on his word because mankind is hurting himself.
5) Lost what, exactly? You haven't really said anything, and none of your points have been backed up by any single fact whatsoever. I fail to see what you're getting at here.

 

We can start one by one. You're clueless because you fail to understand a single thing I have posted. Either that, or you've deliberately misrepresented what I have posted. The former is pathetic. The latter makes you a liar.

 

Once again, no examples.
If I'm not understanding you, perhaps you should clarify your points (which you haven't done). Make sure there are no loop holes in your logic, otherwise I will point them out.

 

Apologies for not getting back sooner; last week was my anniversary and I was taking some time away from the forum. Regarding other species: I think it is an unfortunate necessity, which should be avoided when possible. To me, there is an obvious spectrum, involving the conscious capacity of the species in question and the necessity of the harm. Vivisecting chimpanzees for sport is morally distinct from a eating a radish out of starvation.

 

Unless these same voters who are warming to homosexuals actually go out and flip the House, and drive the evangelicals out of public life, then it won't really matter...and they won't. The most you will get is some who will stay home, and that is not enough to do what needs to be done. The DNC & DCCC are too out of touch on too many issues to pull together such a coup.

 

Let me ask you another question...
If its moral for me to shoot and kill a dog for biting and nearly killing a child. Why isn't it moral for me to shoot and kill a human being for doing the exact same things?

 

Because a man who bites and nearly kills a child is almost certainly insane. You'd certainly be justified in shooting and killing him in an attempt to save the child, but if it is after the fact, the case should go to trial.

But what if we didn't limit this to the present world? What if this were an unruly child or the child of an Amalekite? Should the dog or the man then be given a medal of honor?

 

In point of fact discrimination is like cholesterol. There's good and bad cholesterol and there's good and bad discrimination. Let me provide some examples.

Hooters only employs attractive young women as waitresses because it built its company image on that to attract a specific customer base. It discriminates in employment based upon a legitimate interest of the enterprise.

Recently a bakery refused to decorate a cake with an anti-gay hate messages but was willing to furnish a blank cake to the customer (and they could decorate it anyway they wanted). The bakery believed that propagating a message of hatred would be harmful to the business (justifiable assumption) but the business was more than willing to sell their cakes to anyone for the profit from the sale. A ligitimate form of discrimination based upon a business interest.

The problem is when the discrimination is not based upon a legitimate interest of the enterprise. Refusing to sell a product or provide a service to a black customer is invidious discrimination that serves no legitimate purpose of the enterprise. Refusing to sell a product or provide a service to a gay or lesbian that serves no ligitimate purpose to the enterprise is also invidious discrimination.

The US Supreme Court, in it's 1878 decision in Reynolds v United States established that Freedom of Religion, protected by the First Amendment, only protected "a matter which lies solely between man and his god" but does not allow those beliefs to translate into actions that would impose those beliefs upon others or that would result in any negative actions against others.

Freedom of Religion does not authorize discrimination under the US Constitution and that's what these laws tend to allow. No one's Right to Religious Belief and Religious Freedom is being denied in the United States but invidious discrimination base upon those beliefs is expressly prohibited because it is an "action" that violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

 

So, you're saying if a dog kills a child, it's OK for us to kill the dog. But if a human kills a child, he has to go to court.
So, my question is, what makes a human being different from a dog besides the fact a dog looks different.

 

I'm saying it is OK to kill either if we are talking about an immediate act. Also, humans have a higher capacity for consciousness than dogs do. A dog can't testify in court as to his intentions. And please keep in mind that I asked you a question as well.

 

The moment you specify one class of people for specific protection, it is the moment you are in violation of the "equal protection" clause. That's why all hate crime legislation is a violation of the US Constitution.

Suppose a white person throws a rock through the window of his black neighbor to the left, and a rock through the window of his white neighbor to the right. Do you really think the black victim is deserving of a higher protection than the white victim? Of course not, but that is the nature of all hate crime legislation, and why it is a violation of the equal protection clause. The same is true for any legislation carved out for some specific class of people, including homosexuals.

The second mistake you make is to think that not being served a specific product or service is a crime, it is not. If we don't expect that gays or atheists should have to cater to Christian weddings, should we expect that Christians should have to cater to atheist or gay weddings? I would think not. They may choose to of their own accord, but it is not something that they should have to do.

I don't think you realize how destructive the liberal mindset is to the "equal protection" clause. The liberal mindset is not about equal protection, it is about "special" protection for the liberal political agenda, and its associated constituencies. It is a racist, sexist, divisive, and discriminatory agenda that is toxic to any society that it comes into contact with; a direct contradiction to the intent of the equal protection clause.

 

Your previous question asks should a dog or human be given a metal of honor for killing an unruly child or a child of an Amalekite. First off, God never told the Jews to kill the Amalekites. The Amalekites were actually more like terrorists that lived among the Jews. They weren't killed indiscriminately either.
Source: http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

You said its OK to kill the dog or a human if we're talking about an immediate act. This idea of yours is immoral. It makes sense to kill the dog, because the dog doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong like a human does. If its temperament allows the death of a child, then its clearly too dangerous to be around anyone. A human certainly does know the difference. You need to understand that there are even other children who kill even younger children than themselves. Your solution is to kill the kid. My solution is to throw the child in a rehabilitation center for several years. As for a grown adult, because he or she should know better and ought to go to jail instead of being killed like a dog. They need to think about what they've done, and perhaps after several years, they'll have a change of heart and maybe even become a totally different person.

If we were to go by your logic, then anyone who does us wrong ought to be shot and killed.

Humans are not animals, and as such, you do not treat them as such. You clearly do not believe this, and that is why your supposed "foundation" of morality should be examined.

 

God never told the Jews to kill the Amalekites? You haven't been reading your bible.

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

They lived in a separate city, and their infants were not terrorist. And the bible doesn't say to kill them because they were like terrorist. It says to kill them because of what their ancestors did. Read verse 2 above again. God is ordering infanticide for the express purpose of punishing these people for what their ancestors did in the time of Moses.

Killing all of them, both combatant and non-combatant, including their women, their children and small infants, even going so far as to kill all of their livestock isn't indiscrimante? Are you sure you don't have that word confused for another?

Your source is as full of moral failings as the original story is.

Yes. Going back to what I said here and what I said before: it is moral, in the immediacy of the act, to use lethal force to prevent the act. If we are talking after the fact, then the human should go to trial.

You are assuming that a human that tries to kill a child by biting it to death is mentally sound. Again, I am not so convinced.

Agreed. We don't have the infrastructure to house such dogs safely.

A sane human certainly does know the difference

I do understand this.

If you think that is what I'm saying, then you haven't read my posts. I support the use of lethal force in the immediacy of the act if it can be used to prevent the crime. If a someone has no other alternative than to shoot a kid in order to stop them from from killing other children -- as happened in Pearl High School, by the way -- then I support that decision. After the fact, as I've said a couple of times now, I believe the case should go to trial.

Or perhaps, given that they have tried to kill a child by gnawing it to death, they are insane, in which case another institution would be more appropriate.

If you think that is my position, then you haven't read my posts.

Humans should be treated differently from other animals based on their capacity for consciousness. Should we discover another race of highly intelligent, conscious animals, they should also be treated differently. Your complaints are based on a completely misrepresentation of what I have said.

Why do you call me immoral for saying it is okay to kill a man to prevent him from murdering a child while you say that it was moral for the Israelites to kill children themselves? Such a "value" system would value an attempted murderer of a child more than a child born to the wrong parents.

Why did the Amalekite children not deserve the treatment that you say is owed to all humans?

 

I hate it when you fragment my sentences the way you do. Makes it hard to read.

You're right and I'm wrong. I must've been thinking of something else and mixed it with the Amalekites. As for the source, I think the source is pretty detailed and shouldn't be thrown out all together. Good response! I completely concede to this.

Sounds like you're backpedaling. No need to do that now. I have a great understanding of your moral aptitude now. Switching up at this point would be moot.

No one suggested that. I even re-worded it for you for clarity. You obviously didn't quite understand the point I was making.

I don't feel like reading and responding to the rest. Make your replies simple and stop fragmenting sentences. It's annoying.

 

Fragmenting helps keep straight what sentences refer to what. It helps avoid confusion so that we don’t waste any more time than what’s necessary organizing arguments.

Thank you, and much appreciated. I’ll take another look at it, but I take any attempt to justify infanticide with a huge grain of salt.

Backpedaling? It was exactly what I had said before.

Here was my original answer the very first time you had posed this question:

“You'd certainly be justified in shooting and killing him in an attempt to save the child, but if it is after the fact, the case should go to trial.”

Compared the quote you have issues with:

“Yes. Going back to what I said here and what I said before: it is moral, in the immediacy of the act, to use lethal force to prevent the act. If we are talking after the fact, then the human should go to trial.”

How are they different?

I’m sorry, but if you are going to make individual points, I’m going to address them individually. This is a common practice in debate forums. Even as it stands, there is enough confusion. Doing lump responses would be far less simple.

 

Your last paragraph is just idiotic bovine excrement. How the hell is equality “special?” The divisiveness emanates entirely from those who oppose equality. You really don’t know what you’re talking about

 

"Hate Crimes" are defined by those that are solely motivated by an animosity to a group and all that the laws impose is a greater sentence based upon the "motive" while the crime is the same. By analogy it's the same as armed robbery with a knife and armed robbery with a firearm that have different sentencing guideines. The crime is the robbery in both cases and the difference sentencing relates to the weapons. In hate crimes the crime is the smae but the sentencing difference is based upon motive. There is no denial of equal protection under the law.

Why wouldn't we expect gays or athiests to cater a Christian wedding? To my knowledge they have to comply with the same anti-discrimination laws that the Christians are required to comply with. In point of fact gays are arguably known for being the best caterers of affairs like weddings and, of course, the athiest is in it for the money and couldn't care less of the customer is a Christian, a Jew, or from Timbuktu.

I'm a card carrying Llibertarian which, by definition, means I advocate for the Right of Liberty and invidious discrimination violates the Right of Liberty of the Person. Every advocate of Liberty opposes invidious discrimination against any person for any reason.

 

What is absurd about this deal is that some people want to discriminate against a particular group of people, queers, and they are trying to use the freedom to practice one's religion as the means to do it. That is, I am Christian and of course we see queers as sexual sinners, and we should not have to serve them in our business, because of a, er, conflict of interests. That it would be against my religion and the codes I am taught to exercise in my actions towards others.

But Christians have always had to live in cultures that were not theocracies. And you adjust to the culture, or in other words, you serve queers and do not discriminate against them, for we are not living under a religious law like Sharia, or a Christian version. So Christians just need to learn to fit in and stop causing unnecessary trouble and conflict over this bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Alright. I must've missed the second part - partly because I was really referring to the first part. My apologies.

You pointed this out already. My mistake. My original point for the first half still stands, however.

Could you number them? It could make it much easier instead of fighting with the BB Codes.

 

I can do numbers, but just remember that it is against the rules to alter someone's posts in the quote function, so we'll have to start fresh with the numbering. What's your original point for the first half?

 

In point of fact this is untrue. For example all of the kingdoms of Europe when America was founded were Christian Monarchies. The King of England was the head of the Church of England for example. It was this fact, more so than many others, that lead the founders of the United States to reject Christianity as the basis for government in the United States and why they choose secularism as opposed to sectarianism as the foundation for government.

 

But you wouldn't be altering my quotes. You'll be numbering them. :/
If this is too much of a hassle, then don't worry about it.

 

Please refresh my memory
Which law pertains to pedophiles marriage rights
Or are you proposing a new law?