Popular Post Sleeper Cell Posted July 10, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 10, 2015 You need to let this go Scott. No one is going to take away your freedom or the freedom of the church to treat people anyway they want, as long as it is within the law. However, people are becoming more accepting and inclusive, and organizations that remain exclusionary will be relegated to the dustbin of history. “As long as its within the law?” So every time the law is changed to limit religious freedom, you can still say that “nobody is going to take away your freedom or the freedom of the church to treat people anyway they want… as long as its within the law.” As an added bonus, you can always say that whatever aspect of religious freedom that was taken away wasn’t really religious freedom. Hence religious freedom will always be protected. 5
Gray Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 You need to let this go Scott. No one is going to take away your freedom or the freedom of the church to treat people anyway they want, as long as it is within the law. However, people are becoming more accepting and inclusive, and organizations that remain exclusionary will be relegated to the dustbin of history. “As long as its within the law?” So every time the law is changed to limit religious freedom, you can still say that “nobody is going to take away your freedom or the freedom of the church to treat people anyway they want… as long as its within the law.” As an added bonus, you can always say that whatever aspect of religious freedom that was taken away wasn’t really religious freedom. Hence religious freedom will always be protected. There is a difference between privilege and freedom.
tonie Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 "While there are — so far — no meaningful judicial precedents that would permit such dramatic interference with churches’ core First Amendment rights, lawsuits challenging church liberties are inevitable." As soon as I read this, I knew it was all hype from there. So nothing exists that could change a church's first amendment rights, but we'll keep talking as if these lawsuits have a chance anyway to scare the heck out of you. Such are the certain articles from National Review.
Gray Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Religion is a freedom, not a privilege.dc When you think you should be able to infringe other people's rights because of your religion, you've left questions of freedom and are now talking about privilege. 1
tonie Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Here's another specific instance of a threat, that religious schools such as BYU may be in danger of losing accreditation because they won't tow the line on political correctness. By the way, contributions from others are welcome. I intend to crowd-source this compilation of threats to religious freedom. Since when does religious freedom garuntee accredidation? And why are you looking to Canada? The Supreme Court of the United States brought up the issue of tax exempt status during oral argument concerning same-sex marriage? However, even more important, is that MUST BE esstablish that tax exempt status is a RIGHT for religious organizations. But the Supreme Court of the United States is unanimous that Congress has the power/authority to grant and deny tax exempt status. So how does tax exempt status equate to threat to religious freedom? Bob Jones University (private religous school) tax exempt status was revoked due to policies agaisnt interracial marriage. Even after the revocation, Bob Jones Unversity was permitted to maintain the policies. So how was Bob Jones University "religious freedom" threatened? 1
Sleeper Cell Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 How naive and pollyannaish! Have you seen what''s going on in the Middle East?!? The problem with progressives is that they don't seem to believe there's a real devil. And if they do believe there's a real devil, they don't think he's nearly as cunning and evil as he actually is. The problem with fundamentalists is they're too quick to see the devil in their neighbor. Unfortunately, this problem isn’t limited to fundamentalists or even to those who believe in God. Liberal Christians and non believers simply use different words to demonize those with whom they disagree. 1
Popular Post changed Posted July 10, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Over the lifetime of the church, how much $ has the LDS church contributed to feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked? vs. how much $ has it spent on prop 8? Then, let's compare this to how much $ the LGBT groups have spent on feeding the hungry, vs. how much they have spent campaigning for marriage. Put the #'s up, then we can discuss who is more concerned for starving children. Edited July 10, 2015 by changed 6
Gray Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 How naive and pollyannaish! Have you seen what''s going on in the Middle East?!? The problem with progressives is that they don't seem to believe there's a real devil. And if they do believe there's a real devil, they don't think he's nearly as cunning and evil as he actually is. The problem with fundamentalists is they're too quick to see the devil in their neighbor. Unfortunately, this problem isn’t limited to fundamentalists or even to those who believe in God. Liberal Christians and non believers simply use different words to demonize those with whom they disagree. Sometimes they do, yes. Although not often specifically the devil thing, they nevertheless demonize. It's a problem with becoming too polarized.
Bernard Gui Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Over the lifetime of the church, how much $ has the LDS church contributed to feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked? vs. how much $ has it spent on prop 8? Then, let's compare this to how much $ the LGBT groups have spent on feeding the hungry, vs. how much they have spent campaigning for marriage. Put the #'s up, then we can discuss who is more concerned for starving children. How silly.
SmileyMcGee Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Here's another specific instance of a threat, that religious schools such as BYU may be in danger of losing accreditation because they won't tow the line on political correctness.By the way, contributions from others are welcome. I intend to crowd-source this compilation of threats to religious freedom.Since when does religious freedom garuntee accredidation?And why are you looking to Canada? The Supreme Court of the United States brought up the issue of tax exempt status during oral argument concerning same-sex marriage?However, even more important, is that MUST BE esstablish that tax exempt status is a RIGHT for religious organizations. But the Supreme Court of the United States is unanimous that Congress has the power/authority to grant and deny tax exempt status.So how does tax exempt status equate to threat to religious freedom? Bob Jones University (private religous school) tax exempt status was revoked due to policies agaisnt interracial marriage. Even after the revocation, Bob Jones Unversity was permitted to maintain the policies. So how was Bob Jones University "religious freedom" threatened? And let's not forget that religious freedom does not entitle a church to operate however it wishes when it engages in secular activities. When a church performs civil marriages, operates an adoption agency, or runs an accredited college, that church is not exempted from laws that apply to everyone. Religious freedom does not mean religious privilege in secular society. That church can whine and claim they are being attacked, but the law is just being applied to them as it is to everyone else. Edited July 10, 2015 by SmileyMcGee 3
SmileyMcGee Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Over the lifetime of the church, how much $ has the LDS church contributed to feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked? vs. how much $ has it spent on prop 8? Then, let's compare this to how much $ the LGBT groups have spent on feeding the hungry, vs. how much they have spent campaigning for marriage.Put the #'s up, then we can discuss who is more concerned for starving children.? No one said that the church is less concerned about starvation than the lgbt community is. They just pointed out the silliness of putting so much effort into preventing a subset of society from getting married. Edited July 10, 2015 by SmileyMcGee
Tsuzuki Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Gay marriage is a worse problem on the long term. You see those starving kids. It is a terrible thing but if they die they have a great chance of making the celestial kingdom. Those in gay marriage have zero chance. The only tragedy to God is not hunger or sickness, or death as all of those are temporary but sin. The consequence of sin can be eternal. So though we might be called to fight things like hunger, to focus on that and not the bigger issues like sin is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.A god who treats consensual sexual activity as sin is not a god that I would have any respect for. And since we're on the subject of religious freedom, how about those religions where all forms of consensual sexuality are celebrated rather than demonized? Are you going to trample on their religious freedom by trying to pass laws against their sacraments? 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Religion is a freedom, not a privilege.dc When you think you should be able to infringe other people's rights because of your religion, you've left questions of freedom and are now talking about privilege. So the constitutions says that you have to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage. Who knew? 1
Daniel2 Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Gay marriage is a worse problem on the long term. You see those starving kids. It is a terrible thing but if they die they have a great chance of making the celestial kingdom. Those in gay marriage have zero chance. The only tragedy to God is not hunger or sickness, or death as all of those are temporary but sin. The consequence of sin can be eternal. So though we might be called to fight things like hunger, to focus on that and not the bigger issues like sin is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.A god who treats consensual sexual activity as sin is not a god that I would have any respect for. And since we're on the subject of religious freedom, how about those religions where all forms of consensual sexuality are celebrated rather than demonized? Are you going to trample on their religious freedom by trying to pass laws against their sacraments? Welcome back, Tsuzuki! Good to see you posting again.
SmileyMcGee Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Gay marriage is a worse problem on the long term. You see those starving kids. It is a terrible thing but if they die they have a great chance of making the celestial kingdom. Those in gay marriage have zero chance. The only tragedy to God is not hunger or sickness, or death as all of those are temporary but sin. The consequence of sin can be eternal. So though we might be called to fight things like hunger, to focus on that and not the bigger issues like sin is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.A god who treats consensual sexual activity as sin is not a god that I would have any respect for. And since we're on the subject of religious freedom, how about those religions where all forms of consensual sexuality are celebrated rather than demonized? Are you going to trample on their religious freedom by trying to pass laws against their sacraments?+1
Daniel2 Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) And let's not forget that religious freedom does not entitle a church to operate however it wishes when it engages in secular activities. When a church performs civil marriages, operates an adoption agency, or runs an accredited college, that church is not exempted from laws that apply to everyone. Religious freedom does not mean religious privilege in secular society. That church can whine and claim they are being attacked, but the law is just being applied to them as it is to everyone else. Excellent post, Smiley. The same principle is true for individuals: religious freedom does not entitle an individual or business to operate however it wishes when it engages in secular activities. When an individual opens a business, that business is not exempted from laws that apply to everyone. Religious freedom does not mean religious priviledge in secular society. An individual can whine and claim they are being attacked, but the law is just being applied to them as it is to everyone else. Seems like such an obvious principle... Edited July 10, 2015 by Daniel2 1
ERayR Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 You need to let this go Scott. No one is going to take away your freedom or the freedom of the church to treat people anyway they want, as long as it is within the law. However, people are becoming more accepting and inclusive, and organizations that remain exclusionary will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Wasn't there a similar statement going around in Germany in the early 1930's? 2
Jacob Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 This is a bit of a stupid question, but given that from an eternal perspective worldly marriage is not technically recognized, if a legally recognized SSM exists, is it recognized in some manner?
Sleeper Cell Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Here's another specific instance of a threat, that religious schools such as BYU may be in danger of losing accreditation because they won't tow the line on political correctness. By the way, contributions from others are welcome. I intend to crowd-source this compilation of threats to religious freedom. So how does tax exempt status equate to threat to religious freedom? Bob Jones University (private religous school) tax exempt status was revoked due to policies agaisnt interracial marriage. Even after the revocation, Bob Jones Unversity was permitted to maintain the policies. So how was Bob Jones University "religious freedom" threatened? Because it was treated differently than those other religious schools which also impose faith based restrictions on the personal lives of their students. Restrictions that presumably were voluntarily accepted by the students when they applied for admission. Religious freedom is meaningless unless it protects religions I don’t like. I presume that BYU has a faith based policy against same gender marriage. Would you be OK with the IRS revoking BYU’s tax exempt status unless it allowed same gender marriage?
ERayR Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Why worry? Jesus said, "all these things will be added to you" Matthew 6:33All is well, your religious rights will never go away. You think God will allow governments to destroy religion? Just live and let live. See post # 43 above.
ttribe Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) ETA: I used to argue in favor of the slippery-slope theory relative to religious freedoms and gay marriage. I now believe I was wrong to do so. There will be extremists from either side who seek to "punish" one another; especially in the recent aftermath of the SCOTUS ruling. However, I don't currently believe that will become the status quo, nor do I think it will result in significant erosion of the religious freedoms of churches. Eventually, even the most outspoken gay activists will tire of trying to force the christian cake lady to bake them a cake for their wedding. On the flip-side, I believe most of the die-hard gay marriage opponent county clerks will realize it's not a major moral sacrifice to sign the marriage license of a gay couple who just wish to gain legal status for their commitment to one another. Edited July 10, 2015 by ttribe 2
carbon dioxide Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Gay marriage is a worse problem on the long term. You see those starving kids. It is a terrible thing but if they die they have a great chance of making the celestial kingdom. Those in gay marriage have zero chance. The only tragedy to God is not hunger or sickness, or death as all of those are temporary but sin. The consequence of sin can be eternal. So though we might be called to fight things like hunger, to focus on that and not the bigger issues like sin is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.A god who treats consensual sexual activity as sin is not a god that I would have any respect for. And since we're on the subject of religious freedom, how about those religions where all forms of consensual sexuality are celebrated rather than demonized? Are you going to trample on their religious freedom by trying to pass laws against their sacraments? So adultery is not a sin if the party in question consent? You say if people who participate in an activity consent to that activity, then it is not a sin. That is fine. You go with that. I don't think God really cares about whether the people involved consent or not. My view is if the action is not in compliance with the boundaries that God establishes, it is a sin. I believe God decides what is sin or not and its not up for a vote. God has given people agency to choose life or death. Eternal life or eternal misery. I am not about restricting people right to choose. Other religions are free to do whatever they want. I have no problem in that regard. But choices will have consequences down the road. Edited July 10, 2015 by carbon dioxide 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Religion is a freedom, not a privilege.dc When you think you should be able to infringe other people's rights because of your religion, you've left questions of freedom and are now talking about privilege. So the constitutions says that you have to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage. Who knew? I would bake a cake. Just a very bad cake. Might forget to put the eggs in.
carbon dioxide Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Here's another specific instance of a threat, that religious schools such as BYU may be in danger of losing accreditation because they won't tow the line on political correctness. By the way, contributions from others are welcome. I intend to crowd-source this compilation of threats to religious freedom. So how does tax exempt status equate to threat to religious freedom? Bob Jones University (private religous school) tax exempt status was revoked due to policies agaisnt interracial marriage. Even after the revocation, Bob Jones Unversity was permitted to maintain the policies. So how was Bob Jones University "religious freedom" threatened? I presume that BYU has a faith based policy against same gender marriage. Would you be OK with the IRS revoking BYU’s tax exempt status unless it allowed same gender marriage? If that was to happen, I suppose the best way around that is for BYU to only allow LDS students. Since any LDS person who has a gay marriage would be exed, they could not attend BYU. It will kill the sports programs at BYU but some things are more important than sports. To some that is heresy but it is true.
Recommended Posts