Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[Gray]

You're actually trying to rationalize this.

 

Let's say that I have $50,000 and the government takes $20,000 from me. Originally I had $50,000 before the government took $20,000 at gunpoint.

 

Then they "give" me $10,000.

 

It was mine in the first place before they took it.  You're calling that a "benefit" to me??

 

If you think the government doesn't have a right to tax people, I'd invite you to buy a yacht and take to the high seas for the rest of your life, where you can live tax free.

 

Those of us who live in civilized societies understand that taxation is legitimate and necessary.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

It ain’t just about the churches, as your next remark about the CA judges shows.

 

The fact that colleges and religious metriculates have to waste resources in such litigation is an example of the new threat, even if they win.

 

If I wanted to  I could sue the Catholic church for abducting me and handing me off to the lizard men. I could do the same to my neighbor or to Microsoft. Doesn't mean I'll win the case of course.

 

That's just how the legal system works.

 

Boycotting is a lesser (effective) abuse in my opinion but when well-orchestrated to undermine a business’ religious-based decisions, it is still a good example of a threat that impinges on the freedom of religious expression. There is an interoperative, synergetic and compounding effect of all the kinds of incidents, strong and weak, effective and not, discussed in this thread that acts within the broad social fabric that supresses the exercise of religious freedom of individuals. Just Google  the memes!

 

So do religious people have the right not to be boycotted? Am I oblidged to buy a chicken sandwich from Chick Fil A every week because the owners are religious? How much chicken do I need to buy from them to not infringe on their religious "rights"?

[thesometimesaint]

It ain’t just about the churches, as your next remark about the CA judges shows.

 

The fact that colleges and religious metriculates have to waste resources in such litigation is an example of the new threat, even if they win.

 

Boycotting is a lesser (effective) abuse in my opinion but when well-orchestrated to undermine a business’ religious-based decisions, it is still a good example of a threat that impinges on the freedom of religious expression. There is an interoperative, synergetic and compounding effect of all the kinds of incidents, strong and weak, effective and not, discussed in this thread that acts within the broad social fabric that supresses the exercise of religious freedom of individuals. Just Google  the memes!

 

That's a stretch. I purposefully don't go to First Church of Atheism nor do I buy their materials. I am boycotting them. I don't stop anyone else for availing themselves of them.

[california boy]

Some more examples of discrimination.

We don't allow old people to be commercial pilots. We don't allow those under the age of 14 to be married.

We don't allow gays with HIV to give blood.

We don't allow white actors to play Martin Luther King (that's a repeat).

We don't allow two women to be listed as biological parents on a birth certificate (whoops - a judge just ruled that was permissible).

Mormons don't allow Catholic priests to bless the sacrament. Catholics don't allow Mormons to celebrate the Mass.

We don't allow brain injured disabled people to drive.

Plenty of discrimination based on age, race, religion, sex, disability and sexual orientation. I can think up some more, if you'd like.

Some discrimination is common sense. It needs to be that way. Other discrimination obviously needs to be eliminated.

But quite a lot of discrimination is based on situations, or subjective perspectives. Some is right and some is wrong. It's a very grey area. If a gay rights organization wants to sponsor a scout troop and will not allow Mormons in leadership positions, they can do that. If a Mormon sponsored troop doesn't want to have a gay man as a scout master, the also can do that. Are they both forms of discrimination? Yes. Should both groups be punished for discrimination either legally or by the BSA cutting ties due to pressure from opponents to either group? No.

Discrimination based on age, race, religion, sex, disability or sexual orientation is not nearly as cut and dried as some want us to think. Those taking a hard line stance that any type of discrimination, even if it makes sense, should not be tolerated in those categories are basically pursuing a course that will ultimately be destructive of society.

When someone's "rights" override safety, privacy, health, or other valid concerns, or when they arbitrarily override the fundamental rights of others, we have a major problem.

We have been down this rabbit hole before. People used the exact same examples of "discrimination" to justify discriminating against gay couples desire to marry. How did that work out for you?

If you really want to say that it is ok to discriminate against gays because we don't allow 10 year olds to drive, go ahead. You will look just as foolish as when those same arguments were used to deny gay couples equat protection. The public did not by that argument and every single court in this country including the supreme court. Didn't buyiy. So go ahead. Present that concept to justify discrimination against gays. See if it works for you this time

The single most important thing that changed public opinion on gay marriage was a lack of any rational argument that could hold up in a court of law. People using religion as an excuse to discriminate against gays, blacks, Jews or any other group will once again find themselves on the loosing side of the law.

[jwhitlock]

We have been down this rabbit hole before. People used the exact same examples of "discrimination" to justify discriminating against gay couples desire to marry. How did that work out for you?

If you really want to say that it is ok to discriminate against gays because we don't allow 10 year olds to drive, go ahead. You will look just as foolish as when those same arguments were used to deny gay couples equat protection. The public did not by that argument and every single court in this country including the supreme court. Didn't buyiy. So go ahead. Present that concept to justify discrimination against gays. See if it works for you this time

The single most important thing that changed public opinion on gay marriage was a lack of any rational argument that could hold up in a court of law. People using religion as an excuse to discriminate against gays, blacks, Jews or any other group will once again find themselves on the loosing side of the law.

 

You missed the point.

 

The point is that as a general term, "discrimination" is to subjective to be useful. Gay activists are using generalized accusations of "discrimination" without defining specifically what they mean.

 

I was giving examples of discrimination that we allow in society as an example of why "discrimination" without specifics is useless.

 

We do not want to do away with all discrimination. When we choose what to allow or disallow, there has to be a good reason for doing so. And that reason is NOT a generic accusation of "discrimination", such as Scouts for Equality have made.

[thesometimesaint]

Discrimination in and of itself is value neutral. It is the why and who uses it that discrimination that puts a value on it.

[jwhitlock]

If you think the government doesn't have a right to tax people, I'd invite you to buy a yacht and take to the high seas for the rest of your life, where you can live tax free.

 

Those of us who live in civilized societies understand that taxation is legitimate and necessary.

 

I asked at one point on this thread whether the government's power to tax is superior to or overrides the various freedoms we are guaranteed, such as freedom of religion, etc.

 

No one on your side answered it.

 

Those who support the punishment of those who have opposed SSM are more than willing to see removal of tax exemptions as a way to punish churches and others who have taken a moral stance against SSM. Your comments presuppose that the government power to tax overrides our freedoms. They also presuppose that our current system of taxation is legitimate. 

 

Neither of those suppositions are true. Yet I suspect that you'll continue to ignore inconvenient evidence against your arguments.

[jwhitlock]

Discrimination in and of itself is value neutral. It is the why and who uses it that discrimination that puts a value on it.

 

Hence the subjective nature of most claims of discrimination. There are always those inconvenient details about why discrimination might be valid that those claiming discrimination want us to ignore.

[thesometimesaint]

I asked at one point on this thread whether the government's power to tax is superior to or overrides the various freedoms we are guaranteed, such as freedom of religion, etc.

 

No one on your side answered it.

 

Those who support the punishment of those who have opposed SSM are more than willing to see removal of tax exemptions as a way to punish churches and others who have taken a moral stance against SSM. Your comments presuppose that the government power to tax overrides our freedoms. They also presuppose that our current system of taxation is legitimate. 

 

Neither of those suppositions are true. Yet I suspect that you'll continue to ignore inconvenient evidence against your arguments.

 

Yes under our system of government my religious rights don't override our governments' right to tax. IE; I can believe I have a reliegious right to electricity. One of the requirements of our governments is to establish electrical codes for a machines/buildings that use electricity. They are a type of tax. I can be/am legally required to comply with those codes. I can be legally charged with a crime if someone is hurt by my actions to not comply with those codes.

 

I think whenever we get into absolutes we get into trouble.

Edited July 18, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[california boy]

You missed the point.

The point is that as a general term, "discrimination" is to subjective to be useful. Gay activists are using generalized accusations of "discrimination" without defining specifically what they mean.

I was giving examples of discrimination that we allow in society as an example of why "discrimination" without specifics is useless.

We do not want to do away with all discrimination. When we choose what to allow or disallow, there has to be a good reason for doing so. And that reason is NOT a generic accusation of "discrimination", such as Scouts for Equality have made.

No I got your point you want to say that it is ok to discriminate against gays occasional. I think the courts and the public are not ok with people breaking the civil rights laws and discriminating against gays, blacks, Jews or any other group by using religion to justify it. Like I said discrimination is not an American value. You are going to have a tough job of convincing the courts and Pontic that it is ok to discriminate.

[tonie]

You missed the point.

The point is that as a general term, "discrimination" is to subjective to be useful. Gay activists are using generalized accusations of "discrimination" without defining specifically what they mean.

I was giving examples of discrimination that we allow in society as an example of why "discrimination" without specifics is useless.

We do not want to do away with all discrimination. When we choose what to allow or disallow, there has to be a good reason for doing so. And that reason is NOT a generic accusation of "discrimination", such as Scouts for Equality have made.

What should gays be prohibuted from participating in Scouts?

[cinepro]

[Why] should gays be prohibited from participating in Scouts?

 

I think this is a critical, key point.

 

It's just like the Priesthood Ban.  Before discussing whether or not it should end, we should clarify why it is there in the first place.

 

I strongly suspect that the prohibition of gays serving as leaders is an outgrowth of the culture of the early 20th century, which was fearful of gay people and fostered many, many harmful myths about why people were gay, and what gay people in general thought or wanted to do.

 

If that is the case, should we continue to perpetuate a policy that is founded on such thinking?  And if that isn't the case, what is the argument?

Edited July 18, 2015 by cinepro

[jwhitlock]

No I got your point you want to say that it is ok to discriminate against gays occasional. I think the courts and the public are not ok with people breaking the civil rights laws and discriminating against gays, blacks, Jews or any other group by using religion to justify it. Like I said discrimination is not an American value. You are going to have a tough job of convincing the courts and Pontic that it is ok to discriminate.

 

Nope. You've missed it entirely.

[jwhitlock]

Yes under our system of government my religious rights don't override our governments' right to tax. IE; I can believe I have a reliegious right to electricity. One of the requirements of our governments is to establish electrical codes for a machines/buildings that use electricity. They are a type of tax. I can be/am legally required to comply with those codes. I can be legally charged with a crime if someone is hurt by my actions to not comply with those codes.

 

I think whenever we get into absolutes we get into trouble.

 

And when no one is hurt by my actions?

 

Historically, it's rather clear that this nation was founded to get away from the kind of oppressive government (ie., one where the rights of the people don't matter) that is evolving in our nation. The government has moved away from a reasonable interpretation of "compelling interest" to government mandates without regard to the rights of the people.

 

The fact that so many people are buying into it means that the American experiment is in its final stages - and is ultimately failing.

[jwhitlock]

I think this is a critical, key point.

 

It's just like the Priesthood Ban.  Before discussing whether or not it should end, we should clarify why it is there in the first place.

 

I strongly suspect that the prohibition of gays serving as leaders is an outgrowth of the culture of the early 20th century, which was fearful of gay people and fostered many, many harmful myths about why people were gay, and what gay people in general thought or wanted to do.

 

If that is the case, should we continue to perpetuate a policy that is founded on such thinking?  And if that isn't the case, what is the argument?

 

I think taking a look at how children are really turning out under two gay parents would be helpful. At this point, I think we are getting enough experience to make some initial judgments about this.

 

Like the rest of society, there should be examples of gay parents that are on the ball, and examples of gay parents who are dropping the ball.

 

Yet all we hear about, outside of anecdotal experiences, is of gay parents who are "successful".  I'm sure that it's not as one sided as gay activists would like us to believe.

 

Instead of the agenda-driven "studies" that draw dubious conclusions from cherry picked data, I'd like to see some significant raw statistical data that will tell us how successful that parenting really is in relation to the rest of the population.

 

In order to accept gay adults into scouting, we should have some assurance that gay men can indeed function as the types of male role models that impressionable young men really need. Because ultimately, it's really about the young men and their needs - not about the needs of the adults.

[Scott Lloyd]

So, rockpond, since you're a supporter of tonie's myopic rants, do you agree with his post #359 where he claims that most of us in the church view all gays as pedophiles?

Incidentally, Tonie is female. I think she devised her new avatar to disguise that fact.

Why, I can't say. We have no gender discrimination here that I can see. One of the most popular posters here is female.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Historically, it's rather clear that this nation was founded to get away from the kind of oppressive government (ie., one where the rights of the people don't matter) that is evolving in our nation. The government has moved away from a reasonable interpretation of "compelling interest" to government mandates without regard to the rights of the people.

 

thanks for confirming that the thread is political, the main subject is simply a conservative point. 

 

So, do you think the government should be promoting a specific religion? 

 

What about "one nation under God" or "in God we trust" or a Christian flag in a police station? 

 

Is that fair to Jehovah witnesses? Is that fair to Buddhists? Atheists? Hindus?

 

If it changes to "in Lord Brahma" we trust, many Christians would be furious? 

[jwhitlock]

Incidentally, Tonie is female. I think she devised her new avatar to disguise that fact.

Why, I can't say. We have no gender discrimination here that I can see. One of the most popular posters here is female.

 

Huh. How do you know? Just curious.

[Scott Lloyd]

Huh. How do you know? Just curious.

I don't remember now specifically.

We have a history going way back, almost from the beginning of her posting here. There was always the presumption that she was female, and she never did anything to change it.

[jwhitlock]

I don't remember now specifically.

We have a history going way back, almost from the beginning of her posting here. There was always the presumption that she was female, and she never did anything to change it.

 

Hey Scott - tried to send you a PM, but your mailbox wasn't accepting messages (probably full).  Just wanted to ask you about something.

 

Here's a temporary e-mail address (self destructs in 24 hours) that will forward a message to my real e-mail address. If you have the time to shoot me a quick e-mail, I'll respond with my observation. If you don't have time, that's ok too.

 

Thanks!

 

shENtjQx5pB1@meltmail.com

[Scott Lloyd]

Hey Scott - tried to send you a PM, but your mailbox wasn't accepting messages (probably full).  Just wanted to ask you about something.

 

Here's a temporary e-mail address (self destructs in 24 hours) that will forward a message to my real e-mail address. If you have the time to shoot me a quick e-mail, I'll respond with my observation. If you don't have time, that's ok too.

 

Thanks!

 

shENtjQx5pB1@meltmail.com

I'm afraid I don't tend my PM mailbox here on the board.

 

But feel free to reach me at my Deseret News account, rscott@deseretnews.com

[tagriffy]

You missed the point.

 

The point is that as a general term, "discrimination" is to subjective to be useful. Gay activists are using generalized accusations of "discrimination" without defining specifically what they mean.

 

I was giving examples of discrimination that we allow in society as an example of why "discrimination" without specifics is useless.

 

We do not want to do away with all discrimination. When we choose what to allow or disallow, there has to be a good reason for doing so. And that reason is NOT a generic accusation of "discrimination", such as Scouts for Equality have made.

 

I think it has been pretty what we've been talking about when we talked about discrimination. And if it wasn't clear, both Gray and I explicitly spelled it out. Your "point" is disingenuous at best.

[jwhitlock]

I think it has been pretty what we've been talking about when we talked about discrimination. And if it wasn't clear, both Gray and I explicitly spelled it out. Your "point" is disingenuous at best.

 

I disagree. It's not pretty clear when someone well-poisons with the statement that it's discrimination when people try to force their religion on gays. That's still a generalized, subjective statement and one that was heavily misused by gay activists during the Prop 8 situation.

 

It's still being misused today. The BSA situation is an example of that. When a church sponsored scout troop doesn't want to accept gay adult leaders, it's a real stretch of the imagination to claim that it's forcing one's religious belief on other people.

 

The "examples" you and others have given are either extremes that don't apply, or just re-iterations of subjective claims of discrimination - along with your ridiculous "MIGHT" statements that demonstrated how far out of touch your viewpoints really are.

[thesometimesaint]

If it weren't for those darn (Fill in the Blank) pushing their religion onto others there would be no discrimination.

[cinepro]

In order to accept gay adults into scouting, we should have some assurance that gay men can indeed function as the types of male role models that impressionable young men really need. Because ultimately, it's really about the young men and their needs - not about the needs of the adults.

 

I spent almost 10 years in a ward that encompassed a large homosexual population in the city.  We had many gay Elders on the rolls, but few attended.  Of those that did, I can assure you there were several who would have been great role models for the Scouts in the ward.