Dearborn Guilty

[Top Gun]

Until DS9 shows up and Sisko literally becomes a god.

[Spidey]

The Vulcan mystics in Search for Spock seemed pretty religious.

[Top Gun]

There was also Star Trek V, but...less said the better about that one.

[Nightshade]

can't wait to hear the explanation of how you 'exterminate' a religion that a couple billion people believe in without genocide.......

It's little more than wishful thinking. Perhaps humanity will grow out of needing a religion to pin all of their morals and hopes to- but that day isn't anytime soon.

Rational disbelief in ghosts and goblins (and gods for that matter) is taking hold in the western world- but the savage ideology of islam rules by the sword. You're under real threat of being killed if you don't profess 'submission' of some kind to islam.

[Top Gun]

Yeah those "savages" at the mosque down the street are totally threatening me with swords.

[Jeff250]

It's little more than wishful thinking. Perhaps humanity will grow out of needing a religion to pin all of their morals and hopes to- but that day isn't anytime soon.

I'd also like to see the day militant atheists outgrow the need to blame all of their problems on religion, but that day isn't coming any sooner.

[Nightshade]

Yeah those "savages" at the mosque down the street are totally threatening me with swords.

Not right away, no- but more of them sympathize with the cause of jihad than you'd like to admit. You are still an infidel that must be dealt with.

[woodchip]

I think I'll start a new Knights Templar to balance things out.

[callmeslick]

It's little more than wishful thinking. Perhaps humanity will grow out of needing a religion to pin all of their morals and hopes to- but that day isn't anytime soon.

I'd also like to see the day militant atheists outgrow the need to blame all of their problems on religion, but that day isn't coming any sooner.

[Spidey]

Little?

How about one of those pointy things people wear in corners.

[Lothar]

According to Lothar's above post, there shouldn't be any Jews allowed in the Kingdom of God either.... Where's all that "love and peace" Jesus taught so much?

you don't understand what the above post was saying. Ask questions instead of making assertions. (Hint: Jesus isn't criticizing "Jews", but people who twist God's teachings.)

Nor do you understand Jesus. He's not a hippie; He's the Savior. He doesn't bring "easy peace", but difficult reconciliation. He doesn't eliminate conflict, but shows God's love in the way He both stokes conflict and responds non-violently to it (except for the whole whip-in-the-temple thing.)

"Jesus is all about tolerance" is the sort of nonsense people who don't actually listen to Jesus say.

[vision]

[removed]

[Top Gun]

Yeah those "savages" at the mosque down the street are totally threatening me with swords.

Not right away, no- but more of them sympathize with the cause of jihad than you'd like to admit. You are still an infidel that must be dealt with.

And while you curl up in a corner scared of the big bad boogeymen of your own deluded imagination, I'll be over here in reality hanging out and doing normal stuff. Feel free to join us once you're on some good meds.

[Ferno]

Not right away, no- but more of them sympathize with the cause of jihad than you'd like to admit. You are still an infidel that must be dealt with.

You don't know that. As far as we're concerned, this is only your personal feelings on the matter, and as such represent no basis in fact.

And no matter how many times you try to say otherwise, your prophecies fall on deaf ears here.

[Tunnelcat]

you don't understand what the above post was saying. Ask questions instead of making assertions. (Hint: Jesus isn't criticizing "Jews", but people who twist God's teachings.)

Nor do you understand Jesus. He's not a hippie; He's the Savior. He doesn't bring "easy peace", but difficult reconciliation. He doesn't eliminate conflict, but shows God's love in the way He both stokes conflict and responds non-violently to it (except for the whole whip-in-the-temple thing.)

"Jesus is all about tolerance" is the sort of nonsense people who don't actually listen to Jesus say.

The Jews, ie., the Pharisees, were the main target of his railing, weren't they? Sounds like criticism to me since they refused to follow his teachings and were considered sinners in his eyes because of it. In fact, you're right about Jesus NOT being tolerant. He says it all in this statement:

Jesus said to him "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me."

Kind of exclusionary, isn't it? Accepting me is the only way to heaven? That pretty much brands as sinners billions of people who follow different Prophets or religions. Nope, I can't accept that Chrisitianity is the "right" religion. I mean, how petty is it that Christians are getting upset right now over a stupid plain red cup from Starbucks? What, not Christmasy enough for ya'll to force it on everyone else, in a nation that isn't 100% Christian in the first place? They're nuts!

Since you brought up the whipping, or the cleansing of the Temple from the moneychangers, what would Jesus think of all this commercialization of Christmas anyway? Or the worshiping of all things money we seem to have gravitated towards in this society? Same for Prosperity Theology, actually merging capitalism and religion as a new way towards salvation. Good grief.

[Lothar]

you don't understand what the above post was saying. Ask questions instead of making assertions. (Hint: Jesus isn't criticizing "Jews", but people who twist God's teachings.)

The Jews, ie., the Pharisees, were the main target of his railing, weren't they?

One faction of Jews. Not Jews as a whole; the vast majority of Jesus' early followers were Jews, and Jesus Himself was a Jew. (Remember when the movie "The Passion of the Christ" came out and people were offended because "the bad guys were Jews"? I was like "It's a story about a Jewish Rabbi teaching Jewish disciples in a Jewish country, opposed by Jewish religious authorities backed up by Roman civil authority. The good guys are Jews, the background characters are Jews, and the bad guys are a mix of Jews and Romans. What were you expecting from the story of a first-century Jewish man named Jesus?") Of particular note, Jesus is criticizing a hyper-religious faction -- one that's all about ritual and outward appearance and pressuring others into following their expectations. Interesting, isn't it?

you're right about Jesus NOT being tolerant. He says it all in this statement:

Jesus said to him "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me."

Kind of exclusionary, isn't it?

Jesus' message is definitely exclusionary -- "Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

And yet it is also inclusive -- "Those who are healthy don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy to bear, and my load is not hard to carry." He tells a convicted criminal who is being executed "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

These tie together when Jesus tells those who think themselves righteous "I tell you the truth, tax collectors and prostitutes will go ahead of you into the kingdom of God! For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him. But the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe. Although you saw this, you did not later change your minds and believe him." He upset the patriarchy with the way he treated women like Mary and Martha, He upset the racial-superiority types by including Samaritans and even a Roman centurion, He upset the scholarly types by including children, He upset the religious-ritual types by including social pariahs like tax collectors and prostitutes.

That's not somebody building a traditional kingdom, nor an ordinary religion. That's somebody building a kingdom "not of this world", based on different principles -- not based on how good you are coming in, not based on your social standing, not based on whether you have the right bloodline, but based on how willing you are to be transformed by the Prince of Peace, God With Us, Savior and Lord. Jesus is simultaneously hard on those who think they have their own path to righteousness (and who therefore take on the role of self-god), and gentle to those who recognize themselves as in desperate need of help from God.

(And this all flies in the face of the Prosperity Gospel -- the Joel Osteen / Prayer of Jabez / Name it and Claim it / God-as-ATM religion that masquerades as Christian.)

----------

There's an interesting parallel here with the rest of the thread. Some people insist that Muslims must believe certain things because Muhammed taught to "slay the infidel". What else did Muhammed teach? They couldn't tell you. There's a very limited, one-sided view -- some awareness of some teachings, but nothing coherent or complete. No balance or nuance. As if the outsider is the expert and the person who has studied the teachings of Jesus or Muhammed in-depth is just some hyper-literalist chump.

-------

Regarding the red Starbucks cups: I've seen zero people complain about the cups, dozens of people complain about people complaining about the cups, and dozens more people point out that the whole thing looks like a manufactured controversy and that we should stop giving stupid people attention. Via facebook this morning:

I think I understand it all too well. The original agitator wanted to get some clicks by doing the department stores one better and starting the "War on Christmas" hype train before we even hit Thanksgiving. Internet secularists took the opportunity to bolster the in-group and punish the out-group by spreading the message. Christians defended their identity and signalled their culture savvy by spreading and mocking the message. Christians with second-tier savvy like myself are also curating their identities by spreading the message along with our interpretations of the message. We're all sharing this thing for slightly different reasons but they all have everything to do with making the world see us the way we want to be seen and very little do with effecting any kind of real, positive change.

The worst part is, we are doomed to do this over and over again.

[Tunnelcat]

Lothar, everything Jesus did or said cannot be proven as "The Truth". Everything Jesus did or said has to be taken on "Pure Faith" since those historical times were full of superstition and fear and the superstitious people who wrote about such occurrences. Maybe to die hard Christians, Jesus IS the truth. So be it. It's a free country. To many others, he is a historical figure who may have had a mental illness and delusions. Even the Jews don't regard him as a Prophet and they were around during Jesus's life to witness the things he did.

That said, in modern times, there are people who don't believe in the Gospels or Jesus, don't like to hear about it, or want it pushed into their faces constantly. I am not a believer, never will be either. No amount of Bible quoting will change that fact. I did at one time read the Bible from cover to cover and I still don't accept it. No amount of pushing; "Tis the Reason for the Season" every time Christmas rolls around will make everyone become a believer either. There are other reasons for celebrating the Winter Holiday and not just for Jesus. So the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Fox News can just shove it over their insipid "War on Christmas" stories they rant about every year at this time. Those plain red Starbucks coffee cups, cups that have usually been graced with snowmen, snowflakes or sledding dogs, have never, ever been graced with nativity scenes, mangers or crosses in the past, so Andrea Williams can go and shove it too.

That's what I'm trying to get at Lothar. All these Christians griping about the infringement of their religious freedoms are in turn, now infringing on mine with their constant whining about being repressed and their recent successful court cases backing that up into protectionist laws. We ALL have the freedom to practice any religion we want in this country, but I think we need to also have the freedom FROM those religions as well, and respect those that don't follow a religion, or have a different religion. Right now, Christians seem so set on making sure to grind into everyone's heads that the U.S.A is a Christian Nation, and using it as a political wedge, that they are going to get some serious push back from those in this country who disagree with that sentiment.

[Tunnelcat]

The Vulcan mystics in Search for Spock seemed pretty religious.

Alien religion. Not Terran. Same with Sisko in DS9. Alien Gods.

[Lothar]

there are people who don't believe in the Gospels or Jesus, don't like to hear about it, or want it pushed into their faces constantly. I am not a believer, never will be either. No amount of Bible quoting will change that fact

Why do you think I'm quoting the Bible in this thread?

Hint:

these people claim they follow the tenants of Jesus

You don't get to complain about "freedom FROM religion" AFTER making ignorant claims about someone's religion. You don't get to have your say and then have a valid complaint against others having their say on the same topic.

That doesn't mean the red-cup protesters are right (they're not), or that the original provocateurs in this thread are right (they're not). But both you and they have the right to speak ignorantly, and the rest of us have the right to tell you that you're wrong. And responding to someone else's wrongness isn't "shoving it down their throat". I didn't come to your house and start throwing Bible quotes through your window; you made a claim about the teachings of Jesus and then I showed you how you were wrong. If you don't want to talk about the teachings of Jesus, don't make claims about what Jesus taught.

[Tunnelcat]

Why do you think I'm quoting the Bible in this thread?

You did quote Matthew 23 earlier and if I'm not mistaken, that is from the Bible. Perhaps as a compromise, most Christians shouldn't judge those who don't hold their beliefs instead of proselytizing at them and telling them they'll burn in Hell as non-believers if they don't repent and accept Jesus, just as I shouldn't judge or criticize you for holding your beliefs which are obviously very important and personal to you. Yes, I am ignorant of your beliefs and I'm quite happy that way, but I do base my opinions on what goes on in the political sphere. I don't want to suppress your right to worship as you see fit, nor do I want to be forced to follow Christian doctrine either. So I get tired of those supposed religious leaders delving into national politics because they believe their religion is a victim of some type of secular leftist oppression and want to change the law to favor their religion, all because they have the mistaken belief that this nation is exclusively Christian, like Mike Huckabee does. I walked right by a Hobby Lobby today and never set foot in the place. They may be Christian, and that by itself doesn't bother me, but once they lobbied the courts and got what they wanted, they lost a non-believer female customer who might have bought something from their store.

[snoopy]

All these Christians griping about the infringement of their religious freedoms are in turn, now infringing on mine with their constant whining about being repressed and their recent successful court cases backing that up into protectionist laws. We ALL have the freedom to practice any religion we want in this country, but I think we need to also have the freedom FROM those religions as well, and respect those that don't follow a religion, or have a different religion. Right now, Christians seem so set on making sure to grind into everyone's heads that the U.S.A is a Christian Nation, and using it as a political wedge, that they are going to get some serious push back from those in this country who disagree with that sentiment.

I feel like I see a lot of this sentiment lately, and I think it has deep logical flaws. Specifically, some people seem to think that their beliefs are somehow different because they aren't part of an organized religion. If you see any belief system as something that could be termed a religion, then everyone has a religion, and the only way to have such a thing as "freedom from religion" would be to silence all voices. From the other side (if you insist that your set of beliefs really isn't a religion) - asking for freedom from religion is in effect asking for certain speech to be abridged, which is clearly unconstitutional. Either way, in my eyes the sentiment of "freedom from religion" amounts to wanting to be able to express your own views and beliefs while forcing others to stay silent about theirs.

Perhaps as a compromise, most Christians shouldn't judge those who don't hold their beliefs instead of proselytizing at them and telling them they'll burn in Hell as non-believers if they don't repent and accept Jesus, just as I shouldn't judge or criticize you for holding your beliefs which are obviously very important and personal to you.

I also don't like the "whatever's right for you is okay and whatever's right for me is okay" strategy because it asks us all to suspend our logical facilities. If I say that 2+2=5 and you say that 2+2=4, we can't both be right. We don't have to jerks about our disagreement, and we can agree to disagree, but it would be intellectually disingenuous to try to walk away pretending that we can both be right. In a similar fashion, when it comes to religious beliefs, we can't all be right. We might not be able to prove who is right and who is wrong right now... but at the end of the argument mutually exclusive beliefs can't both be right.

[Lothar]

Why do you think I'm quoting the Bible in this thread?

You did quote Matthew 23 earlier and if I'm not mistaken, that is from the Bible.

You misunderstood my question. Let me rephrase it: what REASON do you think I had for quoting the Bible in this thread? I didn't quote it just out of the blue; there was a triggering event.

I'll spell it out for you: it's because you made a claim about the teachings of Jesus. When you make such a claim, whether or not you hold "Christian" beliefs, you are inviting a response from Christians. You cannot simultaneously make claims about someone else's belief system and then get offended when people provide clarity about their belief system. You cannot simultaneously judge people as "not following the tenants of Jesus" (when you admit ignorance about the teachings of Jesus) and then pull the "they shouldn't judge outsiders" card. If you want to involve yourself in a discussion about how Christians should act according to their own religion, then you have to accept the fact that you're going to be taught some things about Christian beliefs and that sometimes those things are going to be opposed to your own beliefs. That's not "forcing it down your throat", that's simply the way discussing someone else's belief system works.

FWIW, most Christians are also tired of people trying to make America into a "Christian nation" and enforcing "Christian laws". That's not how Jesus' kingdom is supposed to operate.

[Tunnelcat]

All these Christians griping about the infringement of their religious freedoms are in turn, now infringing on mine with their constant whining about being repressed and their recent successful court cases backing that up into protectionist laws. We ALL have the freedom to practice any religion we want in this country, but I think we need to also have the freedom FROM those religions as well, and respect those that don't follow a religion, or have a different religion. Right now, Christians seem so set on making sure to grind into everyone's heads that the U.S.A is a Christian Nation, and using it as a political wedge, that they are going to get some serious push back from those in this country who disagree with that sentiment.

I feel like I see a lot of this sentiment lately, and I think it has deep logical flaws. Specifically, some people seem to think that their beliefs are somehow different because they aren't part of an organized religion. If you see any belief system as something that could be termed a religion, then everyone has a religion, and the only way to have such a thing as "freedom from religion" would be to silence all voices. From the other side (if you insist that your set of beliefs really isn't a religion) - asking for freedom from religion is in effect asking for certain speech to be abridged, which is clearly unconstitutional. Either way, in my eyes the sentiment of "freedom from religion" amounts to wanting to be able to express your own views and beliefs while forcing others to stay silent about theirs.

re•li•gion (rĭ-lĭjˈən)

n. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

n. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

===

I do not belong to any organized religion, and that's what I'm referring to here, nor do I want to. I keep my own beliefs to myself. I do not try to force others to live by or follow my personal beliefs, but I don't want to be forced to follow many Christian (or any of it's subsets like Mormonism, Methodism, Seventh Day Adventist and Evangelical), nor those of Scientology, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist beliefs, hence my desire to have the freedom from any organized religion trying to force their beliefs on me. Christian proselytizing and meddling in politics is definitely forcing Christian beliefs on me when those beliefs are codified into laws that apply to everyone in this country regardless of their personal beliefs. I'm NOT interested. I want the freedom to believe things for myself, not to be told what to believe. I don't want to hear how Christians are victims of this or that repression, when they already have the freedom to worship freely, in their church. They just can't seem to get past what being secular means to those not of the Christian faith. Even though many of our moral laws are religious-based, most of those laws have evolved from many religions and beliefs over time to protect human rights and life in a civilized society, and they are not always exclusive to Christianity. Snoopy, would you want to be forced to follow Jewish, or even Muslim beliefs and laws? Would you want Sharia Law to become embedded in U. S. law? I think not.

Perhaps as a compromise, most Christians shouldn't judge those who don't hold their beliefs instead of proselytizing at them and telling them they'll burn in Hell as non-believers if they don't repent and accept Jesus, just as I shouldn't judge or criticize you for holding your beliefs which are obviously very important and personal to you.

I also don't like the "whatever's right for you is okay and whatever's right for me is okay" strategy because it asks us all to suspend our logical facilities. If I say that 2+2=5 and you say that 2+2=4, we can't both be right. We don't have to jerks about our disagreement, and we can agree to disagree, but it would be intellectually disingenuous to try to walk away pretending that we can both be right. In a similar fashion, when it comes to religious beliefs, we can't all be right. We might not be able to prove who is right and who is wrong right now... but at the end of the argument mutually exclusive beliefs can't both be right.

I'm not saying I'm right or you're right. There are no absolute truths, only beliefs and suppositions when it comes to our creation and what constitutes the existence a God and any laws that God wants us to follow. I only want the freedom to think and believe for myself as an independent human being with my own free will. I don't need anyone telling me I'm wrong, or need to live a certain way, or need to worship a certain deity. Live your life the way you want snoopy, and I'll live mine the way I want.

[Tunnelcat]

I'll spell it out for you: it's because you made a claim about the teachings of Jesus. When you make such a claim, whether or not you hold "Christian" beliefs, you are inviting a response from Christians. You cannot simultaneously make claims about someone else's belief system and then get offended when people provide clarity about their belief system. You cannot simultaneously judge people as "not following the tenants of Jesus" (when you admit ignorance about the teachings of Jesus) and then pull the "they shouldn't judge outsiders" card. If you want to involve yourself in a discussion about how Christians should act according to their own religion, then you have to accept the fact that you're going to be taught some things about Christian beliefs and that sometimes those things are going to be opposed to your own beliefs. That's not "forcing it down your throat", that's simply the way discussing someone else's belief system works.

FWIW, most Christians are also tired of people trying to make America into a "Christian nation" and enforcing "Christian laws". That's not how Jesus' kingdom is supposed to operate.

Fine Lothar. I agree with your point. I'm not studied in the Bible as you said, so I won't make claims about something I know very little about. But we do get force fed quite a bit of junk masquerading as Christian beliefs everyday by these new religious politicians, some of it is not so nice or palatable either, and that tends to give the wrong impression about true what Christians believe in to the average person who's not a believer, nor wants to be. And thank you for your last paragraph.

[Spidey]

We get fed all kinds of crap on a daily basis, I don’t see why Christian beliefs should offend anybody any more than secular beliefs.

I live in a world where I get constantly bombarded with liberal beliefs, they don’t bother me until they start to actually have an affect on my life, up to that point I can simply tune them out.

[Tunnelcat]

We get fed all kinds of crap on a daily basis, I don’t see why Christian beliefs should offend anybody any more than secular beliefs.

I live in a world where I get constantly bombarded with liberal beliefs, they don’t bother me until they start to actually have an affect on my life, up to that point I can simply tune them out.

You're not a female.

Besides, I have to swallow conservative beliefs everyday too. Sometime those beliefs are palatable and tasty, sometimes I choke on them but manage to keep them down, sometimes I can't tolerate them at all and projectile vomit them into the most convenient face. That's why we get to vote.

[snoopy]

I keep my own beliefs to myself. I do not try to force others to live by or follow my personal beliefs, .... Christian proselytizing and meddling in politics is definitely forcing Christian beliefs on me when those beliefs are codified into laws that apply to everyone in this country regardless of their personal beliefs. .... Even though many of our moral laws are religious-based, most of those laws have evolved from many religions and beliefs over time to protect human rights and life in a civilized society, and they are not always exclusive to Christianity. Snoopy, would you want to be forced to follow Jewish, or even Muslim beliefs and laws? Would you want Sharia Law to become embedded in U. S. law?

Aren't you politically active? Don't you speak up for women's rights? How exactly is that keeping your beliefs to yourself? Don't you want to meddle in politics and pass laws in favour of women's rights that apply to everyone in the country? Don't you want to force Hobby Lobby to pay for women's abortion benefits? To answer your final question: I want a law that allows me to practice my faith, you to practice your faith (or non-faith as you might put it), and everyone else to practice theirs, so long as they do it without hurting those around them.

There are no absolute truths, only beliefs and suppositions when it comes to our creation and what constitutes the existence a God and any laws that God wants us to follow. I only want the freedom to think and believe for myself as an independent human being with my own free will. I don't need anyone telling me I'm wrong, or need to live a certain way, or need to worship a certain deity. Live your life the way you want snoopy, and I'll live mine the way I want.

Thanks for the example: I say there is absolute truth, you say there isn't. We can't both be right. You just told me that I'm wrong, but you don't want me to tell you in turn that I think you're wrong. No one is taking away your freedom to believe whatever you like... in fact I'd fight for your freedom not only to believe what you want, but to peaceably express that belief to me and the world. In turn, I'd like you to accept that others will disagree with you and tell you their beliefs - and in fact I'd ask you to be willing to fight for their right to tell you about how they disagree with you just as you want others to give you that same right.

[Ferno]

you do have a law that protects your religion and gives you the freedom to practice it. It's in the constitution already.

[snoopy]

you do have a law that protects your religion and gives you the freedom to practice it. It's in the constitution already.

Indeed, and I would quite like it to stay that way.

[callmeslick]

you do have a law that protects your religion and gives you the freedom to practice it. It's in the constitution already.

exactly, and stunning though it may seem, I apparently have to inform snoopy and others that the Constitution protects the INDIVIDUAL'S right to practice his/her religion, but does NOT allow anyone's religious belief to be forcibly inpinging upon others. Hobby Lobby? They wish to deny health care and insurance coverage to a few thousand employees who merely signed up for a job, not the religious beliefs of the corporate owners. On and on, folks seem to STILL mistake freedom of worship in a nation where such is the law, with the protections from state sanction of religious beliefs which are also in our law. Sticking to Hobby Lobby, not one soul in that company HAS to get an abortion, purchase contraceptives, whatever. They are free to follow their beliefs. The ownership isn't free to impose their view on those in their employ. It seems obvious, but seemingly not to some.........

[callmeslick]

you do have a law that protects your religion and gives you the freedom to practice it. It's in the constitution already.

Indeed, and I would quite like it to stay that way.

nobody changed anything.

[Tunnelcat]

I keep my own beliefs to myself. I do not try to force others to live by or follow my personal beliefs, .... Christian proselytizing and meddling in politics is definitely forcing Christian beliefs on me when those beliefs are codified into laws that apply to everyone in this country regardless of their personal beliefs. .... Even though many of our moral laws are religious-based, most of those laws have evolved from many religions and beliefs over time to protect human rights and life in a civilized society, and they are not always exclusive to Christianity. Snoopy, would you want to be forced to follow Jewish, or even Muslim beliefs and laws? Would you want Sharia Law to become embedded in U. S. law?

Aren't you politically active? Don't you speak up for women's rights? How exactly is that keeping your beliefs to yourself? Don't you want to meddle in politics and pass laws in favour of women's rights that apply to everyone in the country? Don't you want to force Hobby Lobby to pay for women's abortion benefits? To answer your final question: I want a law that allows me to practice my faith, you to practice your faith (or non-faith as you might put it), and everyone else to practice theirs, so long as they do it without hurting those around them.

Naa, too old and tired to be an activist. I just vent here. Besides, you wouldn't WANT me to be a young activist anyway. I'd probably be too militant for most people's tastes. As for practicing your faith, you can do that in your church quite freely, or even on the corner of the street if you want to be an ass, which IS Constitutionally protected. I don't have a "church". I don't have a "group". I only live in the public sphere as a non-religious individual, along with other non-religious individuals, where you and your brethern's activism can impact me, or them, directly. I couldn't vote to close down your church if I wanted too, it would be unconstitutional. I can't even vote to stop Christian proselytizing on the public streets since it's free speech. I only have one vote, one vote out of millions to protect my personal rights.

There are no absolute truths, only beliefs and suppositions when it comes to our creation and what constitutes the existence a God and any laws that God wants us to follow. I only want the freedom to think and believe for myself as an independent human being with my own free will. I don't need anyone telling me I'm wrong, or need to live a certain way, or need to worship a certain deity. Live your life the way you want snoopy, and I'll live mine the way I want.

Thanks for the example: I say there is absolute truth, you say there isn't. We can't both be right. You just told me that I'm wrong, but you don't want me to tell you in turn that I think you're wrong. No one is taking away your freedom to believe whatever you like... in fact I'd fight for your freedom not only to believe what you want, but to peaceably express that belief to me and the world. In turn, I'd like you to accept that others will disagree with you and tell you their beliefs - and in fact I'd ask you to be willing to fight for their right to tell you about how they disagree with you just as you want others to give you that same right.

Let me rephrase that. Sure, there are absolute truths, but we can't see them physically or prove them with our limited frames of reference. The concept of "truth" itself is a human, or anthropocentric construction. Since we can't see or know the entire universe, we can't see what's really the full truth of our existence. We can only speculate on what's true in many instances, especially with our own creation. The Bible itself is not proof of any particular truth that I pesonally believe in, so it's not a truth for me. I was written by men who developed their concept of truth from sources we no longer have access to. Only if God spoke from the Heavens would we have the truth, and He hasn't spoke to anyone for ages. Even then, there would be people who wouldn't believe it if they heard it. They'd think it was some trick or illusion. I might even be skeptical. That doesn't mean you're wrong or that I'm wrong. It means there are things in life that are unknown and un-provable and that we have to go on our faith when believing in them. You have faith in your Savior. It's that faith that allows you believe that's the truth. But it's YOUR truth, not mine. Neither one of us is wrong, in a sense.

[vision]

[removed]

[Ferno]

you do have a law that protects your religion and gives you the freedom to practice it. It's in the constitution already.

exactly, and stunning though it may seem, I apparently have to inform snoopy and others that the Constitution protects the INDIVIDUAL'S right to practice his/her religion, but does NOT allow anyone's religious belief to be forcibly inpinging upon others. Hobby Lobby? They wish to deny health care and insurance coverage to a few thousand employees who merely signed up for a job, not the religious beliefs of the corporate owners. On and on, folks seem to STILL mistake freedom of worship in a nation where such is the law, with the protections from state sanction of religious beliefs which are also in our law. Sticking to Hobby Lobby, not one soul in that company HAS to get an abortion, purchase contraceptives, whatever. They are free to follow their beliefs. The ownership isn't free to impose their view on those in their employ. It seems obvious, but seemingly not to some.........

Establishment clause in a nutshell.

[woodchip]

you do have a law that protects your religion and gives you the freedom to practice it. It's in the constitution already.

And yet in the case of the Dearborn Christians, initially their freedom was not protected.

[Lothar]

the Constitution protects the INDIVIDUAL'S right to practice his/her religion, but does NOT allow anyone's religious belief to be forcibly inpinging upon others. Hobby Lobby?.... They are free to follow their beliefs. The ownership isn't free to impose their view on those in their employ.

General principle:

The first amendment groups together speech, assembly, religion, and press -- not merely as freedoms people hold individually behind closed doors, but as public and corporate rights. Restrictions against these things, even in public and by groups, are extremely limited, generally focused on direct harm (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, publishing false accusations against someone, inciting violence) or on the time/place/manner of practicing rights (yelling on a bullhorn at 3 AM in a residential neighborhood, "assembling" on someone else's property who doesn't want you there). I apparently have to occasionally inform people that trying to limit people to only individual, private practice of their beliefs is actually a violation of their constitutional rights.

Specific note:

nobody has a right to be employed by Hobby Lobby, or by Ahmed's Islamic Plumbing Company, or by Eastside Kosher Deli. If you want an employer to provide you with contraceptives, work for an employer who is willing to provide that. This is one of the bafflingly incoherent issues that often comes up on the left -- this idea that we should require employers or the government itself to provide services to people, but simultaneously telling employers and taxpayers to get their noses out of other peoples' business. The solution isn't to say "Hobby Lobby doesn't have the right to be involved in employee health care decisions", but to say "health care decisions should not be tied to one's employer". Create true health insurance (ie, catastrophic coverage) that can be sold in a sensibly-regulated market, use the right type of regulations for basic preventative care to make it affordable, and if you're going to subsidize people who have expensive health care needs, solve that problem directly instead of through a multi-layered bureaucracy that involves government and employers both in the health-care chain.

[Ferno]

you do have a law that protects your religion and gives you the freedom to practice it. It's in the constitution already.

And yet in the case of the Dearborn Christians, initially their freedom was not protected.

null acquit.