The Right's claim of religious persecution "ridiculous & embarassing"

I'm not changing the topic. As I've stated from the beginning, nobody's plight in America is worse than somewhere else in the world. This whole thread is based upon a double standard with the sole purpose of attacking Christians. I'm not playing that game...

 

I have had that taped to my refrigerator for the last year. lol

 

Good ..so then you agree that the RR has no basis for their claims of oppression.

 

No more than anyone else in America...

 

Why do they need to be? Why must this crap be forced on to people?

All it is is just a scam to take other people's money away.

 

This is how American politics has gone to the dogs.

 

And what is it that they are feeling? Stick to this country which is the only place I have any in-depth experience.

Dang. Never knew that about the Cherokee, Sioux or Iroquois, not to mention all of the others. Oh! You meant the people who came from Europe. Yeah. Them. Like the Pilgrims who came for religious freedom and then immediately set about denying it to anyone who didn't share their beliefs. Yeah. Those Christians. Then there was Roger Williams. I do hope you know about that fellow, particularly his advocacy of the separation of church and state.

BTW - there never was a "Christian nation" established here.

Oh, twaddle. They wanted THEIR religion placed at the head of the line. That's all.

Well, you did get something right, but that didn't last long .....

What limits, other than to preserve public order? Give me some specifics - laws, court cases, whatever. Happy to discuss.

I associate with a lot of people who don't believe as I do. Makes for lively discussions. So? But I know and they know that our rights stop just short of each other's noses.

 

Historical and archeological data exist, but people believe all sorts of rather strange stuff. So?

Nope. Not part of the argument.

Oh, there's quite a bit, and more being added every day. Like, me, thee and everybody here is made of stardust. Or mathematics. That's a fairly recent finding.

No. What we have left is SCIENCTIFIC FACTS.

Actually, yes. And it wasn't magic. AFAIK, that one is still under development. Stay tuned. It appears there was something before the First Cause.

 

what if taxes are against their religion...

corporations are not any one persons religion, they are a collection of beliefs of all their shareholders, if even one atheist buys a share, they are part owner... their beliefs are the companies beliefs then

want to run a religious business, don't incorporate... jmho

.

 

How about we narrow it down even more. Let’s just stick to the 1st amendment. Do a study on ‘the free practice thereof…’ There is a movement in this country (a movement you seem to be part of) that aims to strip any mention of god in public places. It’s gotten so ludicrous that the anti-Christian crowd is offended by an obscure cross out in the middle of the desert and went through great lengths to have that cross removed. Removing pray in school, removing ‘one nation under god’ from the pledge, every Christmas season the battle begins to sue any business or public place that dares to use the term ‘Christmas’ DURING THE CHRISTMAS SEASON, calling Christian groups like the American Family Association ‘hate groups’, “clinging to their bibles and their guns”, etc… The list really long of the ongoing efforts to eliminate god from any public ear. What are we feeling? That the constitution means nothing to you people; except when it serves YOUR purpose.

Those are Native American tribes, not religions. I’m not aware of this “set about denying it to anyone who didn't share their beliefs” since the 1st amendment clearly refutes this claim. And once again, I have NOT once stated that we are a Christian nation; I have stated the settlers came here seeking RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Again, the 1st amendment is clear that we are NOT a Christian nation or nation of any religion, or a nation of no religion.

Again, 1st amendment refutes this. If they wanted their place at the head of the line the constitution would look much different.

I’m not sure what this means.

Please keep this in the context of "... prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

• A child cannot pray in school.
• Student working at college orientation told to remove her cross necklace because 'it might offend some of the incoming freshmen'
• Atheist Group Forces Calif. Mother to Remove Cross Honoring Dead Son
• Teacher's Aide Given One Year Suspension for Wearing Cross
• Students rally for Rutgers University bus driver who says prayer led to his dismissal
• War on Christmas
• University Bans Christian Group for Requiring Leaders to Adhere to 'Basic Biblical Truths of Christianity'
• Religious Symbols Covered Up When President Obama Spoke at a Catholic University

Need more? There's much more.

That doesn’t remove your desire to limit their RIGHT to FREELY practice their religion.

 

Really? Tell that to Chick Fila, which expressed the Biblical view of marriage and was promptly attacked by swarms of liberal idiots.

Today, if one expresses the Biblical view of homosexuality they are accused of hate. Reading parts of the Bible have been compared to hate speech. In fact, people in Canada have actually been charged with such for the very reason.

Your thread is dumb. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Was Fila hurt in the "attack"?

Have YOU ever experienced persecution or discrimination?

 

Yes, stores were closed, jobs were lost.

Yes, thanks to people with your attitude.

 

HOW were you "persecuted"?

 

Having my speech stifled for one.

Free speech is the right of every American. Your ilk stifles my rights. There is one example.

Face it, you are on the side of evil - pro-terrorist, antisemite, etc. - and I am on the side of good.

The sad thing is that you don't see you are on the side of evil because of the very fact that you ARE on the side of evil, so I never expect any intelligent decent response from you.

 

Because this is so unique to Christians in America. You'd never get these kinds of statements from Atheists, Jews, blacks, whites, etc. Etc. Etc.

 

A child can pray in school.

The school backed the cross-wearing student, not the supervisor.

The cross wasn't on her property, was it? Since when does "free exercise" mean putting crosses up wherever you want whether you own the property or not?

The teacher's aide was reinstated and the court overturned a law first enacted in 1895 prohibiting religious garb. Sounds like religious freedom is more protected, not less.

How is a private bus company allowing a bus driver to resign over a safety violation an example of government interference with religious free exercise?

War on Christmas? Please...

Tufts University is a private university.

A request that the school could have refused? How is that an attack on free exercise of religion?

 

Those were examples of the ongoing onslaught of attempts (some successful and some not) to shut religion up. But I get you reject the notion of 'free practice thereof'. I get you don't see this goes on and on until the right courts are aligned to get this agenda fully implemented. You don't even seem to recognize there is an agenda.

 

Oh, I've done more than "A study", I assure you. Matter of fact, I've been living it, learning about it, and studying it for over 35 years. And I've learned a lot. The first lesson is that you don't even have to get to the 1st Amendment to see what our founding document had to say about religion - actually, not much - there is NOTHING in the body of the Constitution that grants ANY power to government on matters of religion. At the time, there was a good deal of discussion about the various rights, what they were and so forth. The first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) was added to address the various issues.

Who owns the property? If it's government, then that cross or any other religious monument is a no-no.

Prayer hasn't been removed from school. Public school teachers FORCING children to pray in a manner prescribed by government has been removed. Students can pray about any time they want.

Why was it even added? Do you know?

Any business is free to use the term "Christmas" during the season. I guess you didn't know that. Their customers may object, of course, but they have that right as well. Really, that's what we're about as a country, right?

No, you've totally missed the point. What has been happening is that certain individuals/groups do their best (and sometimes succeed) at misusing the power of government to advance their religious viewpoint(s). And that's when people like me stand up and say "NO".

OK.

It referred to this exchange:


A: The constitution was written on THAT premise; that government would not intrude on your freedom to practice whatever faith you wanted, or no faith at all, and no one would be limited by government to that end.

G: Well, you did get something right, but that didn't last long .....

A: Well, government has seen fit to place limits on peoples’ liberty to ‘THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF’. The yearly erosion of ‘THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF’ is what Christians are battling. Not to exclude anything or anyone, but to just be able to freely practice our faith.

If you were referring to that list you posted, it simply didn't pass the sniff test. Anything you care to add?

I believe buddhaman made an excellent reply.

You're projecting once again. As far as I'm concerned, you can go into the desert during one a month and howl at the full moon if that's your thing. Just don't expect to use government powers to force me or mine to join you.

 

As I pointed out, none of the examples you gave had anything to do with the "free practice thereof". You are seeing a conspiracy where one does not exist.

 

I'd like to address this single point here:

I actually agree with this sentiment, but there are problems with it.

This is a generalization. A lot of the times it is the wrong conclusion. For example, the claim of not providing certain forms of birth control is somehow imposing their religion on to other people. And I'm sorry, but no, that is just not true.

Secondly, it is a behavior that is not just limited to religious people. Anybody of strong ideological, religious, or political beliefs, wishes to impose them on to others. It is not just limited to any one single group in America.

There are many examples to draw on to support this.

The imposition of morality is wrong, and is what causes atrocities to occur.

And morality is such a nebulous thing to consider. Different cultures have different forms of morality and different codes. The same for dfifferent groups.

What I'd like to see end is this expectation that we all have tro be the same and live b y the same morality that those people are demanding.

Do what thou wilt at no harm to others shall be the whole of the law.

And people have a right to their beliefs, even if they are atrocious ones. As long as they are not acting to harm people, then what does it matter what one believes, even if it is something that it is racist?

 

You're ignoring the conspiracy where it does exist.

 

In some cases, that is true as in the Hobby Lobby case where the religious beliefs, not scientific or medical facts, of those running HL were accepted by the Supreme Court as reason to deny two forms of birth control to their employees.

There is a difference between wanting to ban, or severely limit abortions, because there is evidence that it is harmful to the woman and wanting to ban it because of a person's religious beliefs. One can be argued persuasively in the public square, the other not at all because that would amount to an imposition of a religious doctrine. You'll notice that all of the abortion cases brought to limit the practice don't mention religion.

You can reach a moral conclusion without citing Scripture, regardless of whose religion it is. If there is general agreement on the part of the public, that then would become law.

Well, yes. But there are millions of people who do not share that benign view and see no problem with imposing their beliefs on the public at large.

I have no problem with allowing any belief to anybody, no matter how right, wrong or wacky I might think it is. However, when that person or group wants to enact that belief into law, then it behooves me to take a closer look.

BTW - racism, enacted into law, is harmful.

 

That is misleading. Its not a matter of denying anything to employees, its a matter of they don't want to pay for it or have anything to do with it. Their employees can go but themselves a different plan if they don't like Hobby Lobby's plan. I am sure Hobby Lobby would have no problem with that.

You left out the third reason, that the child in the womb is a human being and therefore killing him or her is murder,. That is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, not a "religious belief"

As I said before: The big problem with this discussion in America today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact. Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood, human flesh, human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a human life. That is science. That is fact.

What is all too often being focused on instead though is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person. Does anyone here know what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, scientifically they were human beings like anybody else, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too. Today, just as then, the law flies in the face of scientific fact.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. That's science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.

And one other thing: It is also a fact that the DNA of the child in the womb is unique and different from the mother's DNA, which b1ows out of the water the argument that "I can do what I want with my body", because its not the woman's body, it is an entirely seperate person, with the right to life.

 

You wonder where this sense of persecution comes from.

Check out the persecution in the unionized government-run schools.

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2014/...for-saying-bless-you-after-classmate-sneezed/