|
Post by goz on Feb 3, 2018 2:12:20 GMT
Ahah! Butt what is 'religious liberty for ALL'? If you mean protection of religious people's bigotry and discrimination, then that affects other people and their religious or non-religious rights! Can you give me a specific example? ...all that refusing service to homosexuals and refusing to issue them with marriage licences etc etc etc
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 3, 2018 2:19:49 GMT
Can you give me a specific example? ...all that refusing service to homosexuals and refusing to issue them with marriage licences etc etc etc But there are atheist bigots as well.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 3, 2018 2:23:23 GMT
...all that refusing service to homosexuals and refusing to issue them with marriage licences etc etc etc But there are atheist bigots as well. Can you give me a specific example?
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 3, 2018 2:27:52 GMT
But there are atheist bigots as well. Can you give me a specific example? I can't think of any making the news, but I know people who don't believe in God who are against same sex marriage, racist or sexist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 2:42:34 GMT
Can you give me a specific example? ...all that refusing service to homosexuals and refusing to issue them with marriage licences etc etc etc As it relates to Kim Davis: She should have had someone else do it if she didn't want to do it herself. She wasn't doing her job, and she's no hero. As it relates to not baking cakes for gay weddings: No one has a "right" to the services of anyone else. That's slavery. In a free market system, both parties need to agree to the transaction. A Jewish deli shouldn't be forced to cater a Nazi rally. That's not to say that gay people are comparable to Nazis, but the principle is the same. You can't force people to do things for you. Plus, you can just take your business elsewhere. There are plenty of bakeries (both run by religious and nonreligious people) that would be more than happy to take your money in return for baking you a cake. This isn't an issue that should require the feds to step in. And if any business was being extremely discriminatory in their practices, it would be all over the news, and they would be (rightly) shunned by the public.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 3, 2018 2:55:08 GMT
...all that refusing service to homosexuals and refusing to issue them with marriage licences etc etc etc As it relates to Kim Davis: She should have had someone else do it if she didn't want to do it herself. She wasn't doing her job, and she's no hero. As it relates to not baking cakes for gay weddings: No one has a "right" to the services of anyone else. That's slavery. In a free market system, both parties need to agree to the transaction. A Jewish deli shouldn't be forced to cater a Nazi rally. That's not to say that gay people are comparable to Nazis, but the principle is the same. You can't force people to do things for you. Plus, you can just take your business elsewhere. There are plenty of bakeries (both run by religious and nonreligious people) that would be more than happy to take your money in return for baking you a cake. This isn't an issue that should require the feds to step in. And if any business was being extremely discriminatory in their practices, it would be all over the news, and they would be (rightly) shunned by the public. I never agreed with Kim Davis's refusal. I wouldn't have agreed even if I happened to be against same sex marriages being allowed. She wouldn't be making a statement on what she thought was right or wrong by giving a couple a license. All she'd be doing by signing the certificate is certifying the state allows it.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 3, 2018 3:05:29 GMT
It's atheist because it's secular. It simply allows for ones who are not atheist, the majority, to practice their religion within the confines of a secular law. Everything it does, the laws it passes as well as the education it supplies is based on the notion that God does not exist and if you want salvation, you look to your country to provide it. I would argue the opposite. The very concept of "inherent rights" (which our Constitution and Declaration of Independence presuppose) is based on the notion that humans have natural rights that aren't granted by government, but by a divine creator. The Constitution doesn't "provide" us with a list of rights (as if the government was handing them out). It simply states which rights are inherent to our status as humans (the ability to speak your mind, defend yourself, etc.), and then creates blocks AGAINST the government from taking away those rights. None of this is to say that the US is a "Christian nation" (I don't believe such a thing is even possible). But I do believe it was generally founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. All that said, the separation of church and state is a beautiful thing. There should be no official religion of the state. But the state should ensure that religious liberties are protected for ALL. To be clear, what the government determines to be their domain is not in lockstep with inherent rights. That only matters to the extent that they aren;t annoyed by it or gain power by it. That isn't to say that they can force someone to not have faith. I would never do anything that was contrary to my religion regardless of what my country tells me. It's just that the individual is irrelevant to a government since they want all the citizens to be in lockstep with their rules. The US WAS NOT founded on Judeo Christian values which are without question based on laws and doctrines from what they feel is God's will. There is no aspect of government that mirrors Christian teaching because it is a lower standard. What is more accurate to say is that the US was founded by people largely identifying as Christian. I'll also add that since the US view of right and wrong is a lower standard, it accepts more kinds of people and more kinds of actions. Religion, by definition, is discriminatory as it should be. If people don't like that, the law makes clear they don't have to be a part of it. Most of what we see is basically a lot of noise from people who don;t like the views of other people. Since gay marriage legalization, that has become even more the case. Freedom of religion ensures that religion does not turn into government and vice versa. For the most part it works and the thought of living in a place that has a state religion or religious persecution or makes me glad I was born in the States.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 3, 2018 4:42:45 GMT
due to the first amendment to the US Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause"? Nope. Christmas is a federal holiday here.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 3, 2018 6:21:37 GMT
due to the first amendment to the US Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause"? Atheist to me would be implying the government is endorsing the view God doesn't exist. I don't see where the Amendment implies that at all or takes any position. No, that is not atheism. Atheists don't necessarily propose a positive 'that God doesn't exist' more a simple personal and general non-belief. There is no grouping or combination of atheists as it is a simple position of lack of belief. This point is often misconstrued by theists who propose that atheism is an alternate religion which is the exact opposite of the case.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Feb 3, 2018 6:30:42 GMT
No.
it's generally been Christian for a long time and needs to stay that way for the countries sake (hell, and probably the worlds to for that matter). but with that said... it's obvious things are becoming less Christian as people move away from God and towards the ways of the world and therefore, not surprisingly, the general standards of the country get lower-and-lower. the moral decline is pretty obvious over the last 50 years or so. hell, even in the last 15-20 years it's taken a solid hit.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 3, 2018 6:47:13 GMT
No. it's generally been Christian for a long time and needs to stay that way for the countries sake (hell, and probably the worlds to for that matter). but with that said... it's obvious things are becoming less Christian as people move away from God and towards the ways of the world and therefore, not surprisingly, the general standards of the country get lower-and-lower. the moral decline is pretty obvious over the last 50 years or so. hell, even in the last 15-20 years it's taken a solid hit. ...Christian? Yet the 1st amendment specifically precludes the adoption by the government of any one religion.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 3, 2018 13:59:03 GMT
The United States is not a theocracy in that no religion has any power or authority over anyting but its own members (on Earth and as far as anyone on Earth knows).
The United States does not establish (support financially) any religion by forcing payments to any religion or giving money collected by taxes (forced payments) to any religion. (Many consider it remarkable what it has forced people to buy.)
The government (state) might be described as "agnostic" on (having nothing to say about) religion. However that does not imply an especially agnostic populace. See "render unto Caesar" in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 3, 2018 14:02:30 GMT
It's atheist because it's secular. It simply allows for ones who are not atheist, the majority, to practice their religion within the confines of a secular law. Everything it does, the laws it passes as well as the education it supplies is based on the notion that God does not exist and if you want salvation, you look to your country to provide it. How do you know the majority of people in the States are "not atheist". You look to yourself for salvation sunshine, not God. God is not going to do it for you. Maybe they are. It doesn't matter since the law protects whatever minority there is in regards to ideology as long as it does not cross paths with what the country enforces.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 3, 2018 19:01:54 GMT
tpfkar As it relates to not baking cakes for gay weddings: No one has a "right" to the services of anyone else. That's slavery. In a free market system, both parties need to agree to the transaction. A Jewish deli shouldn't be forced to cater a Nazi rally. That's not to say that gay people are comparable to Nazis, but the principle is the same. You can't force people to do things for you. Plus, you can just take your business elsewhere. There are plenty of bakeries (both run by religious and nonreligious people) that would be more than happy to take your money in return for baking you a cake. This isn't an issue that should require the feds to step in. And if any business was being extremely discriminatory in their practices, it would be all over the news, and they would be (rightly) shunned by the public. It's not "slavery" to be required to actually provide the wares you're in business to sell, and not exclude protected classes based on retrograde nastiness. "Nazis" are abhorrent to society; gays, blacks, Jews, <whatever other harmlessness targeted by petty maliciousness by excuse of whatever coarse mythology> are not. The principle is the same only for those who consider the bully and the target of the bully to be the same. You can and we do require public businesses to uphold all kinds of standards, and in addition to just plain common sense and basic decency we have an interest for the benefit of all of us in commerce not devolving into a balkanized tribalist minefield. And there are many locales where it would at the very least be highly inconvenient to both locate and procure another vendor, even after getting past the completely unnecessary repulsive antagonism of the arbitrarily rejecting vendor. And it wasn't "shunning" that made inroads the last century in ending these repulsive practices, it was legislation and enforcement. Satan was the first to demand equal rights
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Feb 3, 2018 19:07:53 GMT
no. and it never should be.
it should be regarded as a nation based on laws and the precepts of liberty.
that being said, there will always be a percentage of any population that clings to archaic belief systems. systems that come and go with the passing of time. the power of the 'unseen' as propagated by religious institutions can hold individuals and nations spellbound.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Feb 3, 2018 19:50:55 GMT
due to the first amendment to the US Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause"? Secular, but not atheist. If the USA was an atheist state you wouldn't see the various forms "ceremonial deism". Examples: "In God We Trust" on our money. "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Congress opens its sessions with prayer.
"In God We Trust" wasn’t always on our money. "Under God" wasn’t originally in the Pledge of Allegiance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 22:19:11 GMT
Can you give me a specific example? ...all that refusing service to homosexuals and refusing to issue them with marriage licences etc etc etc What about the fact that inter-racial marriage wasn't fully legal in the US until after the State vs Loving in '67.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 3, 2018 23:06:27 GMT
...all that refusing service to homosexuals and refusing to issue them with marriage licences etc etc etc What about the fact that inter-racial marriage wasn't fully legal in the US until after the State vs Loving in '67. That's all white people. There were plenty of races in the US, including better white people, that were perfectly fine with marrying each other until a bunch of rednecks saw it differently.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 4, 2018 4:01:00 GMT
due to the first amendment to the US Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause"? Nope. Christmas is a federal holiday here. ...except that I gather that in recent years it has politically incorrect to say Merry Christmas ( apart from nutter Trump) and express the more secular 'Happy Holidays' with reason for the holiday left unspecified. I just find it a dichotomy that there is a definite separation of Church and State, yet many Americans see themselves as a 'Christian' community, despite what is in their Constitution. Isn't this view outdated since atheism in the sense of simply 'the non-belief of God' is more in accord with the Constitution? whilst of course allowing the freedom to practice any religion.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 4, 2018 13:44:41 GMT
due to the first amendment to the US Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause"? Nope. Christmas is a federal holiday here. I'm not sure what the point of that is. So is New Year's Day, MLK Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans' Day and Thanksgiving. The government can't have a Federal holiday on a religious occasion?
|
|