Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/11/2015 2:36:20 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Yeah it's a crying shame that those pesky murder laws don't allow us to kill disrespectful children.

If you want to live in a theocraticy, change the constitution.

if there's a faith practice out there that wants to be able to "kill disrespectful children", I suspect you might be one of the very few who knows about it.

Deuteronomy" 18-21

The 'obscure' religions that only crazyml knows about are Christianity and Judaeism.

Quite a few people allegedly follow those.

Except for the detail that Christianity neither enshrines nor follows the whole of Old Testament law.

K.


Well, let's just toss out those pesky commandments, shall we?

Yaknow, the ones that Christians want on courthouse walls in a lot of the country.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/12/2015 10:35:09 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline 		[Ed for misreading of k's post ]

New reply...

Sure... most modern Christian sects take a buffet bar approach to the old testament . Now, to be honest that's their business. .although I can't help wondering why it's OK to simply ignore the stuff you don't like and embrace the stuff you do.

You're missing the point though (doubtless deliberately).

The point is that as soon as you dictate which religious views are valid, you're establishing religion, and heading on your merry way to theocracy.

So.. should we only provide freedom to break laws that run counter to religious beliefs that Bishop Kirata approves off?



< Message edited by crazyml -- 10/12/2015 10:41:10 PM >

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/12/2015 11:16:12 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Sure... most modern Christian sects take a buffet bar approach to the old testament . Now, to be honest that's their business. .although I can't help wondering why it's OK to simply ignore the stuff you don't like and embrace the stuff you do.

It's impossible not to make those kinds of choices when reading either of the testaments. The texts force it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

You're missing the point though (doubtless deliberately).

The point is that as soon as you dictate which religious views are valid, you're establishing religion, and heading on your merry way to theocracy.

So.. should we only provide freedom to break laws that run counter to religious beliefs that Bishop Kirata approves off?

I'm not missing any fucking point. I was just correcting an error, that's all. Now I'm correcting another one.

If you want to go for three, knock your socks off.

K.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/12/2015 11:17:01 PM >

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 12:58:33 AM   
AurumCaminus


Posts: 50
Joined: 10/30/2008
From: Cleveland, OH
Status: offline 		I am not Christian; I have no religious grounds upon which to object to any type of formally legal or ceremonial bonding celebrations.

But even I can see that there is a world of difference between denying someone retail service because of disapproval of how they live their lives and declining a contract opportunity on account of genuine religious objections.

A baker can't refuse to sell me one of the cakes under the counter, but I don't have the right to compel him to inscribe a pentagram upon it.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 2:24:33 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Except when laws "force" us to violate our religious tenets. That's what's going on in this country, lately.



Michael

But it doesn't 'force' you to violate 'your' religious tenets at all.

As an employee (agent) of the govt,. though, you relinquish the right to 'force' your religious tenets on others in violation of law as in the Kentucky case for example. If one feels the job forces one to do so, then one quits their job.

And yes, we have a 200+ year history of religious tenets being trumped by law. But if your position in govt. requires one to act in violation of any religious tenet, then one simply needs to leave that position in govt.

The free exercise of religion does not entitle you that exercise in a position of govt. duty bound by the law.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 3:15:44 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Yeah it's a crying shame that those pesky murder laws don't allow us to kill disrespectful children.

If you want to live in a theocraticy, change the constitution.




if there's a faith practice out there that wants to be able to "kill disrespectful children", I suspect you might be one of the very few who knows about it.


Deuteronomy" 18-21

The 'obscure' religions that only crazyml knows about are Christianity and Judaeism.

Quite a few people allegedly follow those.



yup that's an interesting one...

Deuteronomy 21:18-21King James Version (KJV)

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

King James Version (KJV)
by Public Domain

I'm just glad they have courts to deal with this kind of shit now. Today your kid grows up to be a drunken asshole and the cops deal with it. Back then things were vastly different. One of the reasons I get a laugh out of people who want to slam christians but have to go back that far to find a good example. And yes people will bring up the fact that a lot of christians see the old testament as a history lesson and actually follow the new testament because they do. But that won't stop others from trying to claim all christians believe the same exact things and think with one mind.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 3:54:28 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Yeah it's a crying shame that those pesky murder laws don't allow us to kill disrespectful children.

If you want to live in a theocraticy, change the constitution.

if there's a faith practice out there that wants to be able to "kill disrespectful children", I suspect you might be one of the very few who knows about it.

Deuteronomy" 18-21

The 'obscure' religions that only crazyml knows about are Christianity and Judaeism.

Quite a few people allegedly follow those.

Except for the detail that Christianity neither enshrines nor follows the whole of Old Testament law.

K.


Well, let's just toss out those pesky commandments, shall we?

Yaknow, the ones that Christians want on courthouse walls in a lot of the country.


as kirata alluded to and i can elaborate on---it would be very helpful if people understood the old testament, and the relationship between the old testament and the new testament instead of, in their hubris, claiming that Christians (and jews for that matter) "pick and choose"---as if you know something, have some insight into doctrine and faith practice that they are oh so clearly missing. the same can be said about the ten commandments.

that said, in this particular instance---Christians don't stone their children. Christians have never stoned their children. to suggest Deuteronomy as proof texts in support of the need to have "pesky laws" to prevent them from killing their children is utterly moronic. in fact, the new testament story of the "prodigal son" is exactly the case in question with exactly the opposite set of consequences.

and outside of that one particular place in time, jews don't stone their children, and if they ever actually did during that time there are no biblical accounts of it occurring. and you somehow think its civil law that prevents them? during the time in question, the land was Israel's.

more importantly, if they ever did indeed do it, they haven't since for many thousands of years.

you either can submit that today's jews then are blatantly disobedient to old testament law, or you can look for an answer that actually seeks to understand Judaic history. otherwise, you can just imagine schlomo and Rachel sitting around saying, "gee our son sure is rebellious, I wish we could stone him."

that said though--it wasn't the parents who stoned the offender, it was the "all men in the town" which points towards a court system. and just to point out, when you use the word "children"---they weren't talking about 9yr olds, they are talking about grown men.

its worth noting, though its not "children" specific, that muslims today engage in stoning and other forms of capital punishment for breaking certain aspects of religious law. if you want a faith practice from which to protect the general population by civil law, look there.




< Message edited by bounty44 -- 10/13/2015 4:14:06 AM >

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 3:59:18 AM   
Greta75


Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline 		Strange article. I don't even know what the person is saying.

Over here it's black and white.

1) Law comes First

2) Religious laws comes second to Civil Law

So if religion bans homosexuality or marriage for homosexuals, and civil law says it's legal, it means the civil law comes first.

Definitely no trespass of religious freedom. Religious freedom can only work as long as they obey common law. In my country, any religion who disobey common law gets banned. It's actually pretty cool, and so far, only Jehovah Witness got banned. Satanism still legal!

I say this as an atheist who oppose same sex marriage by the way, majority in my country are Buddhists which is practically Atheism anyway, opposes same sex marriage. And I don't need religion to believe in traditional family, of two different genders raising kids together.

But if the law changed to legalise same sex marriage, it's not a big deal to me. If I had to vote, I'd vote no. But if it happens, doesn't bother me.

I am just against a world where it starts being normal for kids to have 2 dads or 2 moms. It just seems imbalance. No ying and yang. And more children being conceived by artificial insemination when unnecessary, as in, there is nothing wrong with the reproductive organs of a lesbian woman for example, but she just don't want to be with a man.

Make your own Test Tube babies home kit are getting super close.

< Message edited by Greta75 -- 10/13/2015 4:05:16 AM >

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 4:37:39 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

Christians don't stone their children. Christians have never stoned their children.

yeah but they kill them, abuse them, shoot them, drown them, poison them, batter them, abuse them, have sex with them.
What is so special about stoning?

biblical"accuracy"?

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 4:42:44 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		republican candidate from arkansas charlie fuqua in his book released in 2012 advocated for the death penalty for rebellious children.
And please before any whingers post that he is not all republicans or all "christians, or all of anything. NO he is not. thankgod...but he is deluded, he is ugly, he wanted to run for congress, and the country.


http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2012/10/08/republican-candidate-fuqua-endorses-death-penalty-for-rebellious-children

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellioius children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:
…

This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

< Message edited by Lucylastic -- 10/13/2015 4:49:37 AM >

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 1:32:09 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline 		Ah. You'really deliberately missing the point.

Fair enough.

Although, denying it is apt to male you look stupid

As for your laughable claim that you were correcting an error... feel free to correct as many imagined errors as you like. I know you are utterly comfy looking stupid.

There was no error to correct, you simply pranced in to make a fantastic show of missing the point.



_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 1:40:49 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline 		Another poster being utterly moronic.

By all means join in the half witted point misathon if you like.

The point is not how you choose to justify your selection from the old testament buffet.. which is what it certainly is. The admonition against homosexuality comes from the OT and is echoed in the NT. I have no doubt that there are many theologians, many of them ever so much smarter than you or I who can make those excuses.

There are others who believe that the OT is the received word or will of God. You may think they are wrong, main stream Christian sects may believe they are wrong, but if a person believes that the OT is law, that is a religious belief.

So is it down to you to decide what is a bona fide religious belief? Perhaps you and Kirata?

I am presuming that when you defend the right of bigots to break the law, you only really mean Christian bigots who share your interpretation of Scripture.



< Message edited by crazyml -- 10/13/2015 2:20:54 PM >

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 3:48:53 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3664
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline 		http://m.wftv.com/ap/ap/us/parents-charged-with-fatally-beating-son-in-new-yo/nn2ry/

Not sure what's going on in New York these days. Parents & church members arrested for the death of a 19yo son, and the severe beating of their other son.

Must be some of that religious liberty.

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 4:02:41 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Another poster being utterly moronic...

So is it down to you to decide what is a bona fide religious belief? Perhaps you and Kirata?

Not that I haven't said it before, but since you're so determined to involve me in this shitfest: Rome was widely known for its licentiousness and slaughters. Should a follower of Christ be forced against his will to fund such sinfulness by paying tribute to such a state? What would Jesus say? Feel free to let me know if you need a hint.

Theologically speaking, Christians are not tainted by the sins of others, and neither is judgment given into their hands. In my purely and entirely personal opinion, those who prize the purity of their own souls above obeying the Supreme Commandment are following a path that will neither better this world nor benefit them in the next.

Are we done here now? May I please be excused from any more of your shit?

K.


(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 4:07:14 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Is this where people say oh, I dont follow the old testament? only the new?




Ah....... Got to love the cherry picking.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/13/2015 4:43:37 PM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
[Ed for misreading of k's post ]

New reply...

Sure... most modern Christian sects take a buffet bar approach to the old testament . Now, to be honest that's their business. .although I can't help wondering why it's OK to simply ignore the stuff you don't like and embrace the stuff you do.

You're missing the point though (doubtless deliberately).

The point is that as soon as you dictate which religious views are valid, you're establishing religion, and heading on your merry way to theocracy.

So.. should we only provide freedom to break laws that run counter to religious beliefs that Bishop Kirata approves off?


Going from this quote in the original:
quote:

Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is — unlike the right imagined by the majority — actually spelled out in the Constitution.”

It might be considered cherry picking/buffet style to some people. I just happen to think that particular subject was taken down wrong.

Imagine you had a stenographer. Several, in fact. Add the additional challenge that everything you know based on science, medicine, DNA is completely foreign to these guys who are trying to take down what you are saying and some stuff that your saying in dictation kind of sounds like gibberish. Plus, these guys who are trying to work out what you are saying have their own prejudices, <sorry> male privilege, and their own fears about things they don't understand.

Isn't it possible that, either intentionally or not intentionally, over the course of several translations over centuries, that maybe those things about homosexuality might just be wrong?

This doesn't mean that everything was taken down incorrectly. I mean, don't kill people tends to be a pretty good idea. Do what you can to tell the truth. I kind of like that, too. Let's work on not stealing from each other and if you have to because you are starving to death, we'll even offer folks this shot at redemption. Not coveting is probably something that's hard for some folks because we all know people who always focus on what they don't have, rather than be happy for those that do. Are those things good ideas because they happen to be in the book or are they good ideas in general?




_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/14/2015 12:31:45 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Another poster being utterly moronic...

So is it down to you to decide what is a bona fide religious belief? Perhaps you and Kirata?

Not that I haven't said it before, but since you're so determined to involve me in this shitfest: Rome was widely known for its licentiousness and slaughters. Should a follower of Christ be forced against his will to fund such sinfulness by paying tribute to such a state? What would Jesus say? Feel free to let me know if you need a hint.

Theologically speaking, Christians are not tainted by the sins of others, and neither is judgment given into their hands. In my purely and entirely personal opinion, those who prize the purity of their own souls above obeying the Supreme Commandment are following a path that will neither better this world nor benefit them in the next.


Ah! So you popped in to the thread simply to bungle an attempt at condescension by wilfully missing the point.

quote:



Are we done here now? May I please be excused from any more of your shit?

K.




Oh wait as sec, while I count the number of fucks I give about your presence or absence from a thread...


_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/14/2015 1:16:17 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Oh wait as sec, while I count the number of fucks I give about your presence or absence from a thread...

Well you sure fooled me.

K.






< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/14/2015 1:58:01 AM >

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/14/2015 2:31:39 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		How many christians only use the new testament?

Or ....how many christian .. churches and sects ...not individuals

< Message edited by Lucylastic -- 10/14/2015 2:46:57 AM >

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 10/14/2015 9:42:25 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

http://m.wftv.com/ap/ap/us/parents-charged-with-fatally-beating-son-in-new-yo/nn2ry/

Not sure what's going on in New York these days. Parents & church members arrested for the death of a 19yo son, and the severe beating of their other son.

Must be some of that religious liberty.

they also beat his brother...
who is hospitalized in serious condition with injuries from an assault.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/14/police-say-couple-beat-son-to-death-in-new-york-church/?intcmp=hppop

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109