Full Frontal on the First: Atlanta Fire Chief

[notyou2]

The prophet Jesus would not be welcome in any western christian church. Wrong ethnicity, colour, socio economic background etc. Imagine a conservative christian congregation, white, upper middle class, well kept lawn, comfortable pews. Now imagine a tiny dark skinned palestinian carpenter telling them that they should love everyone in their neighbourhood(not just from the country club), not pay as much attention to money, and in general not be judgemental pricks.
Wouldn't fly.

He was not welcome in the church of his own time and people either.

Jesus is a rogue.

[2dimes]

Jesus is a rogue.

I would say he is in conflict with how most organized churches function.

It's funny how fear driven people are. If we discuss that life might be better if we don't eat a certain animal and agree on it. Sometimes we freak out when someone else is having a sandwich with that animal in it.

He replaced "Don't eat bad things." With "Don't say bad things."

[Phatscotty]

While I grant the OP was not as clear cut a case for my point over the past few years, here is another one that displays everything the supporters wrote off as ridiculous and virtually guaranteed would not happen. I think Greekdog was the one whose main point was 'but Churches are exempt!' Yeah yeah.....and Obamacare is not a tax, mm hmm. I just couldn't get it through my thick skull eh?

You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time.

The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.

Subscribe to updates and alerts

The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.

On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

A week of honoring their faith and declining to perform the ceremony could cost the couple three and a half years in jail and $7,000 in fines.

Government Coercion

The Knapps have been married to each other for 47 years and are both ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. They are “evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs” that “God created two distinct genders in His image” and “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”

But as a result of the courts redefining marriage and a city ordinance that creates special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Knapps are facing government coercion.

Governmental recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages need not and should not require any third party to recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage. Government should respect the rights of all citizens. Indeed, a form of government respectful of free association, free contracts, free speech and free exercise of religion should protect citizens’ rights to live according to their beliefs about marriage.

The Knapps have been celebrating weddings in their chapel since 1989. Government should not now force them to shut down or violate their beliefs.

After all, protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. No one has a right to have the government force a particular minister to marry them. Some citizens may conclude that they cannot in good conscience participate in same-sex ceremonies, from priests and pastors to bakers and florists. They should not be forced to choose between strongly held religious beliefs and their livelihood.

What Can Be Done

At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience.

Government should not now force ordained ministers to shut down or violate their beliefs.

Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting.

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act—sponsored by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in the House (H.R. 3133) with more than 100 co-sponsors of both parties, and sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Senate (S. 1808) with 17 co-sponsors—would prevent the federal government from taking such adverse actions.

States need similar policy protections, including broad protections provided by state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) and specific protections for beliefs and actions about marriage.

Indeed, Idaho has a RFRA, called the Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA). State RFRAs prevent the imposition of substantial burdens on sincere religious beliefs unless the government proves that such a burden advances a compelling government interest that has been pursued through the least restrictive means possible.

Protecting Religious Liberty

It is unclear how the city could claim that forcing the Knapps to perform a same-sex wedding is a compelling government interest being pursued in the least restrictive way. There are numerous other venues where a same-sex couple could get married. Indeed, there is a county clerks office directly across the street from the chapel.

States must protect the rights of Americans and the associations they form—both nonprofit and for-profit—to speak and act in the public square in accordance with their beliefs. It is particularly egregious that the city would coerce ordained ministers to celebrate a religious ceremony in their chapel. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion arguing that this action “violates [the Knapps’s] First and 14th Amendment rights to freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, substantive due process, and equal protection.”

Citizens must work to prevent or repeal laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We must also insist on laws that protect religious freedom and the rights of conscience.

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience is the embodiment of a principled pluralism that fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/18/gover ... g-go-jail/

[Phatscotty]

Yes Jules, that's exactly what they are telling you.

[DaGip]

Yes Jules, that's exactly what they are telling you.

[tzor]

The prophet Jesus would not be welcome in any western christian church. Wrong ethnicity, colour, socio economic background etc.

Good point, all of the visiting priests in our parish come from a more southern location of Africa than the Holy Land.

(Well, OK, one of them lives in ROME for 11 our of the 12 months of the year.)

[crispybits]

Yes Jules, that's exactly what they are telling you.

YES! That IS exactly what we are telling you!

Look, if someone has sincere religious beliefs then nobody should force them to break any of their religious rules in their own lives. BUT in a society where there are many different religious philosophies then nobody should force their religious beliefs upon others either.

Imagine a native american religious group said that everyone must take peyote on their holy days. How far do you think they would get with that?

What you believe in the privacy of your own mind, and what you preach about religious topics in the privacy of your own church is your own business. Nobody should interfere with that (within reason, I'd still want the police to get involved in cults of human sacrifice for example).

But what you do in the public space of wider society should show respect and tolerance of all other law-abiding beliefs, even those fundamentally opposite to yours. This is the point the religious seem to consistently miss. In order to have a society where we all respect and tolerate your right to follow whatever religious rules you want to follow, you have to show the same respect and tolerance for those that follow different rules.

And when you step out of your church and into wider society, and especially where you do so in order to offer goods or services to the public in return for money (as in the case of that chapel, or the baker, or the florist), you should follow all the relevant civil rules about how you do business. If one of those civil rules is that you are not allowed to discriminate based on sexuality then guess what - YOU FOLLOW THAT RULE!!

If following one of those rules would cause you to break a rule in your religion, and there is no compelling interest in enforcing that rule, then sure we can turn a blind eye. In a society where we are constantly having to fight against discrimination of all kinds (not just homophobia, there's racism, sexism, ageism, etc), then there is a compelling interest in ensuring that nobody is allowed to discriminate against people based on these protected characteristics. By doing so we protect not only the minorities, but everyone.

Your religious rules do not get to trump the basic right of anyone else to be treated equally regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality or any other protected characteristic.

[PLAYER57832]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In a move most people consider 'shocking', Houston Mayor Annise Parker has subpoenaed not only sermons delivered by multiple Churches in the area, but also "all speeches, presentations, discussions, texts, emails, literature, packets, memos that had to deal in any way with homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession,” according to the Houston Chronicle. The mayor stands by her decision, her aide re-affirming that anything proclaiming that homosexuality is a sin preached by a pastor at a Church is not protected speech....."“The pastors made their sermons relevant to the case by using the pulpit to do political organizing,” Evans said in her statement. “This included encouraging congregation members to sign petitions and help gather signatures for equal rights ordinance foes. The issue is whether they were speaking from the pulpit for the purpose of politics. If so, it is not protected speech.”

Here is the full article Houston subpoenas pastors’ sermons in gay rights ordinance case
and here is some fact checking The city of Houston, Texas, subpoenaed several pastors' sermons as part of a crackdown on preaching against homosexuality.


So basically, the government can tell religions and pastors not only what is a sin and what isn't a sin, but that they are breaking the new law by saying certain things are sins, breaking the new law by preaching the Bible, and the government will not allow religion to preach anything concerning the issue of homosexuality, unless it is positive.

I say, people who believe in the principle and regularly say 'but, Separation of Church and State! should be saying it the loudest right now. This is clearly violating the Freedom of Religion as well as the Freedom of Speech.

Yeah.. and you do realize that this was almost instantly stopped precisely because it is a violation?

See, laws don't stop people from being idiots. They just give avenues for folks to object and win if the idiots try to prevail.

[Phatscotty]

Sure player. Read on, you'll see I brought up a much better example of a more direct attack that was not instantly stopped, namely an Ohio chapel the government is forcing to marry homosexuals or else they will close the chapel down. 'But that will never happenb!' mm hmm, mm hmm....

[Phatscotty]

Christians Strike Back

Be careful what you ask for Mayor....

Pastors Flood Houston Lesbian Mayor’s Office with Bibles and Sermons

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/10/pasto ... XMYD61F.01

[chang50]

The answer of course is for American society to evolve to a point where people generally don't take all this religious speculation/belief too seriously.I present to you the good ole inoffensive Church of England (at least in Britain),very efficient at match,batch and despatch and other social occasions,largely hovers in the background of progressive secular society,and is generally loved like a kindly unobtrusive,slightly old-fashioned old aunt.

[Gweeedo]

Yes Jules, that's exactly what they are telling you.

YES! That IS exactly what we are telling you!

Look, if someone has sincere religious beliefs then nobody should force them to break any of their religious rules in their own lives. BUT in a society where there are many different religious philosophies then nobody should force their religious beliefs upon others either.

Imagine a native american religious group said that everyone must take peyote on their holy days. How far do you think they would get with that?

What you believe in the privacy of your own mind, and what you preach about religious topics in the privacy of your own church is your own business. Nobody should interfere with that (within reason, I'd still want the police to get involved in cults of human sacrifice for example).

But what you do in the public space of wider society should show respect and tolerance of all other law-abiding beliefs, even those fundamentally opposite to yours. This is the point the religious seem to consistently miss. In order to have a society where we all respect and tolerate your right to follow whatever religious rules you want to follow, you have to show the same respect and tolerance for those that follow different rules.

And when you step out of your church and into wider society, and especially where you do so in order to offer goods or services to the public in return for money (as in the case of that chapel, or the baker, or the florist), you should follow all the relevant civil rules about how you do business. If one of those civil rules is that you are not allowed to discriminate based on sexuality then guess what - YOU FOLLOW THAT RULE!!

If following one of those rules would cause you to break a rule in your religion, and there is no compelling interest in enforcing that rule, then sure we can turn a blind eye. In a society where we are constantly having to fight against discrimination of all kinds (not just homophobia, there's racism, sexism, ageism, etc), then there is a compelling interest in ensuring that nobody is allowed to discriminate against people based on these protected characteristics. By doing so we protect not only the minorities, but everyone.

Your religious rules do not get to trump the basic right of anyone else to be treated equally regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality or any other protected characteristic.

Your missing it.
It is not a life made up of rules.
It is life, the life...It is the reality that governs all life.
It goes beyond physical laws.
Carnal vs Spiritual, how can you understand anything of the spiritual realm when you are 100% carnal.
Spiritual trumps physical.
Nor are they compatible. Your understanding is too simple, it is not that simple.

[Phatscotty]

The prophet Jesus would not be welcome in any western christian church. Wrong ethnicity, colour, socio economic background etc.

Good point, all of the visiting priests in our parish come from a more southern location of Africa than the Holy Land.

(Well, OK, one of them lives in ROME for 11 our of the 12 months of the year.)

Bogan, when was the last time you were in a church? Did that church turn away certain races, or poor people? Because my church keeps it's doors open to the poor even when the church is closed. My x's sisters church is like 80% black, many of them straight from Africa and barely a lick of English and certainly very poor. Kinda what I mean about the brainwashing that comes from constantly living in and dealing in double standards and blind acceptance of false stereotypes

[Phatscotty]

The answer of course is for American society to evolve to a point where people generally don't take all this religious speculation/belief too seriously.I present to you the good ole inoffensive Church of England (at least in Britain),very efficient at match,batch and despatch and other social occasions,largely hovers in the background of progressive secular society,and is generally loved like a kindly unobtrusive,slightly old-fashioned old aunt.

eh... the same could be said about the homosexual couple not taking their cake so seriously? Oh, the same is harsh when it flipped over huh? I wonder if you would pick the right to have your cake the way you want it as more important than the right to practice and live your religion. I have a better idea. How about evolving to a standard that does not mean someone is sued every time someone is offended that another does not embrace their religion or sexual orientation? Ya know, live and let live? I mean hey, really the couple could have just gotten whatever cake they wanted, kept their lifestyle to themselves the same way the cake maker is expected to keep his lifestyle to himself and not start demanding others are forced to accommodate him, and then just walked over 1 aisle, purchased 2 female bride figures to top the cake, and then put them on the cake themselves, right in front of the baker? I am free to live my life, you are free to live yours, and you tolerate my religious beliefs and that I won't do something against my religion, and I tolerate your lifestyle and don't come to your work and push my lifestyle on you or anything that goes against your orientation, because what you do is your business, and what I do is my business. Deal? Instead we are devolving ever faster in the opposite direction.

[chang50]

The answer of course is for American society to evolve to a point where people generally don't take all this religious speculation/belief too seriously.I present to you the good ole inoffensive Church of England (at least in Britain),very efficient at match,batch and despatch and other social occasions,largely hovers in the background of progressive secular society,and is generally loved like a kindly unobtrusive,slightly old-fashioned old aunt.

eh... the same could be said about the homosexual couple not taking their cake so seriously? Oh, the same is harsh when it flipped over huh? I wonder if you would pick the right to have your cake the way you want it as more important than the right to practice and live your religion. I have a better idea. How about evolving to a standard that does not mean someone is sued every time someone is offended that another does not embrace their religion or sexual orientation? Ya know, live and let live? I mean hey, really the couple could have just gotten whatever cake they wanted, kept their lifestyle to themselves the same way the cake maker is expected to keep his lifestyle to himself and not start demanding others are forced to accommodate him, and then just walked over 1 aisle, purchased 2 female bride figures to top the cake, and then put them on the cake themselves, right in front of the baker? I am free to live my life, you are free to live yours, and you tolerate my religious beliefs and that I won't do something against my religion, and I tolerate your lifestyle and don't come to your work and push my lifestyle on you or anything that goes against your orientation, because what you do is your business, and what I do is my business. Deal? Instead we are devolving ever faster in the opposite direction.

Actually you picked an example where I agree,a baker should be able to refuse any potential customer for any or no reason at all.If I can continue the wishful thinking of my first post..wouldn't it be great if such a baker went out of business because his stated reasons revolted so many.That would be progress IMHO.

[Phatscotty]

The answer of course is for American society to evolve to a point where people generally don't take all this religious speculation/belief too seriously.I present to you the good ole inoffensive Church of England (at least in Britain),very efficient at match,batch and despatch and other social occasions,largely hovers in the background of progressive secular society,and is generally loved like a kindly unobtrusive,slightly old-fashioned old aunt.

eh... the same could be said about the homosexual couple not taking their cake so seriously? Oh, the same is harsh when it flipped over huh? I wonder if you would pick the right to have your cake the way you want it as more important than the right to practice and live your religion. I have a better idea. How about evolving to a standard that does not mean someone is sued every time someone is offended that another does not embrace their religion or sexual orientation? Ya know, live and let live? I mean hey, really the couple could have just gotten whatever cake they wanted, kept their lifestyle to themselves the same way the cake maker is expected to keep his lifestyle to himself and not start demanding others are forced to accommodate him, and then just walked over 1 aisle, purchased 2 female bride figures to top the cake, and then put them on the cake themselves, right in front of the baker? I am free to live my life, you are free to live yours, and you tolerate my religious beliefs and that I won't do something against my religion, and I tolerate your lifestyle and don't come to your work and push my lifestyle on you or anything that goes against your orientation, because what you do is your business, and what I do is my business. Deal? Instead we are devolving ever faster in the opposite direction.

Actually you picked an example where I agree,a baker should be able to refuse any potential customer for any or no reason at all.If I can continue the wishful thinking of my first post..wouldn't it be great if such a baker went out of business because his stated reasons revolted so many.That would be progress IMHO.

Well, that would be the free market speaking, and yes, I support that totally, although a business owner standing on his religious conviction and his first amendment rights, even in this situation, probably isn't very 'revolting' It can be abused either way you look at it, by the couple trying to get even and make a stupid religious person serve them against his will and laugh about it forever more... I'm sure there are plenty of situation we nor anyone has ever thought about, but yes that's the beauty of the free market system, if you don't like that business you don't go to that business. Having the Freedom of speech, you can urge others not to go to that business provided you don't violate the bakers rights by standing in his doorway and not letting anyone enter. But that touches the very heart of the main concern I raise. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are both part of the same Freedom and the same 1st Amendment. You can't have Freedom of either one without the other one, that's why we must defend the rights even of people we disagree with and we should all be united, because if we let one groups rights be violated, or even if we create special rights for certain groups, it sets a precedent that it's only a matter of time before it comes back to us to violate another groups rights. And that;s also the importance of individual rights, as the individual by far is the supreme essence of a minority, as they are all by themselves. And Freedom of Speech and Religion is not at all for popular speech or popular religion, as that does not need protecting. It's for unpopular and controversial speech and religion that needs protecting the most, and where all American who value their Freedom should be uniting. Unfortunately, many Americans are all 'Meh, I am not religious, but I know a gay person' and they laugh about Christians who are openly discriminated against and it's not the gay clubs that are getting vandalized anymore, it's the churches that are getting vandalized. the imagery Americans still have is that gays are persecuted and chained up behind trucks and dragged to death and that churches is where boys gets molested and hypocrisy rules, when in reality there have been more Hispanics trying to run jump the fence in the last month than there have been major hate crimes involving any kind of murder against gays in many years. And I'm not talking about the hate crime of calling someone a mean name. Anyone who is trying to look that up right now, the fact that none have come to your mind along with the fact you know the media would be reporting on it for weeks, you should already know it's true. For instance, many people reading this are thinking 'Matthew Shepard" right now, but very few realize that the truth is he was not killed because he was gay, the truth is he jacked someone for their meth and was only slightly bisexual, maybe not at all and just did stuff with other males for the drugs as is common with drug addicts. we truly are being divided more and more, whether we know it or not, and it's almost always emotional.

I would really have to dig, since I tried to debate the gender/marriage issue from every single angle (even ones I did not feel strongly about) and the bigger government angle was definitely one of them. Surely the baker should be able to refuse, if it truly is a free country anyways, you should be able to refuse someone for looking at you funny. That might suck, but I bet people would pay more attention to mind their manners in public around others and be on good behavior mode! not necc a bad thing. But, because of laws that address race, creed, orientation, (thought religion was in there somewhere?) it seems we are trying to make things more equal by making laws that have to operate on the premise we are not equal and one is less than another so special treatment is the law. I have a new story here on affirmative action that happens to me on a daily basis I am saving for the right time and another thread. And the laws will apply to more and more products, places, groups, people as the government is passing about 20,000 new laws and regulations every year. Look at how our government ended up taking over marriage, just because it basis some of the tax code on it? Well that can happen with anything, and the way the government is growing it's just a matter of time before another thing I warned would happen, and that is the obvious eventuality that one day the government will be so big and powerful that the only area you will be free to practice your religion will be a few approved buildings and only on certain days and at certain times, and that is religion being forced into the closet, which means there really is no freedom of religion, which means it's impossible for there to be any freedom of Speech. and that's what makes this entire issue a direct attack. Unfortunately, I'm expecting most people will not make the link how this relates to the first amendment that exact same way many people did not fully realize that setting the standard 'gender does not matter' in fact means just what it says, but in all areas, even to the point of men fighting in the Female full martial artists league. Hell of a story here I'll get around to sharing it

I don't think he went out of business, but many other bakers, florists, choirs, orphanages, faith based groups doing charity and food for poor people programs and other specific businesses have, and soon it will likely include at least a chapel or two. This particular baker we are talking about has been forced into re-education, literally. He also has a big-brother watching over everything he does, he has to fill out weekly, monthly, and bi-annually forms documenting all perceived 'discrimination' and how he dealt with it, as well as a lot of money in fines. Literally, as I predicted, this is leading up to the government forcing Christians to go to the church, carry the christian inside the church, stand behind the christian and force their eyes open, and make them participate in gay weddings. It won't be like that tho, they'll just fine people who don't do it until they give up and put their religion in the closet or go out of business.




I envision the possibility of one couple who really is bigoted against Christians, who are just assholes that just exists and they do of all groups, but this one hypothetical couple will walk into a Christian photo-shop and demand some photos be taken of their upside down cross covered in fecal matter. Well, the christian 'must endorse all views' so he has to take the photo or else go out of business/face fines/even go to jail, so he takes the photo and the couple says 'wait, that's not good enough, the picture needs to be taken from 6 inches in front of the fecal matter covered upside down cross' so they demand a retake, and then that's not good enough, so they say 'wait, almost, but its gotta be 5 inches' and on and on down to 1 inch, at which point the assholes 'accidentally bump into the Christian' and the guy has been abused to the point, all sanctioned by special rights enforced by the government, that he has their shit on his equipment and on himself and listens to them laugh about it and record it as he starts to cry. Really? Is this Freedom? 'must endorse all views?'

The ruling that went against him was thus 'All artists must endorse ALL views' Therefore, nobody can refuse anybody. I'm still waiting for something like this to happen at a Mosque or a halal meat shop or bakery. We all know homosexuality trumps Christianity every time in that there is no freedom of religion, well, freedom to keep your religion in the closet, but I would bet ya anything our current government and other local governments would have a double standard and side with a bakery run my Muslims if they didn't want to bake the cake on religious grounds. It's already been ruled that Muslim cab-drivers can legally discriminate against blind people who need rides if they have a seeing-eye dog, based on their religious freedom not to have to violate their religion. I'm even seeing in more and more schools that special prayer places and times are being made so that Muslims can pray in school. Public schools are more and more teaching Islam as a religion of peace to young children and learning that religion in general. Yet as much as I pay attention on the issue, not a soul has been crying 'Separation of Church and state!' This is where those who have ever said it in the past should be saying it the loudest right now. All this, now that it's clear, is what I have meant in the past that discrimination and racism and bigotry are looked down on EXCEPT when it's a white Christian male heterosexual. I have a great story about a convo I had with a doctor last week where I froze him in his tracks, but saving that for another thread. You guys are lucky that the puppy love faze with me and my gal is wearing off It is interesting to note that the best back n forths on this topic I have had with people who are not American. Kinda shows we where we are on knowing our rights/standing for our rights. My goal here is to lift the veil and work together with others so we can all see what is really going on. Most people think that since the government did not come right out with guns blaring saying 'there is no freedom of religion anymore, and no freedom of speech' that means we are still free in those ways, but that's not how the reality works. The reality of how we are losing these freedoms here is between the lines. we have to know how the courts work, we have to know the adendas, we have to know past vote results, outcomes, and rulings. I could see this all coming a mile away. I'm not doing this to throw it in people's faces and told ya so people, I'm doing this hopefully so we can learn together and and maybe people now will say 'ya know what maybe Phats was onto something, maybe i will participate and listen and speak more clearly and keep my mind more open and not be so quick to judge this time' so maybe one day in the future we can stop being blindsided repeatedly through emotional manipulation and repetitive propaganda

So, regardless of what we might think about all this, the reality is here. I finish what I start, especially when I was right all along. I've sacrificed a lot in reputation and even lost a few friends who apparently believe if I don't agree with them about something they have barely looked into and solely judged on emotion, then they can write me off and i don't deserve tolerance, which is a bit ironic. I realize what I risk, but that's what I accept by not caring what people think, and only focusing on truth. blame is easy, truth is much harder. And I'll end with this, one of my favorite quotes

"tolerance of others is the price we pay for others tolerating ourselves." I think this is what we were originally striving for changers, but unfortunately right now it's 'you MUST tolerate, accept, even celebrate xyz special minority status, and if you do not you will go to jail/we'll put out of business/sue you, and don't even try that 1st amendment bullshit!"

[AndyDufresne]

unfortunately right now it's 'you MUST tolerate, accept, even celebrate xyz special minority status, and if you do not you will go to jail/we'll put out of business/sue you, and don't even try that 1st amendment bullshit!"

--Andy

[crispybits]

Take your chill pills PS

The point is - there are several characteristics which society has decided, with the backing of science, are things that people cannot change about themselves (not within reasonable limits anyway). I can't change my age. I can't change my skin colour. I can't change my gender. I can't change who I am attracted to. So, as a society we have decided that to discriminate based on any of these things is to be a complete douchebag. It doesn't matter what the reason is, if you're ageist or racist or sexist or homophobic then you're a douchebag.

The laws aren't there to give anyone special rights, they are there because those characteristics should be irrelevant in any decision. When someone is dealing with anyone else there shouldn't be the thought "this guy is black, do I want to sell him a coffee?" or "this woman wants to work for my company, do I want to give her a job?". The process should be "this person wants to buy a coffee, he's paid me the correct money and so I will give him a coffee", or "this person wants a job, they have all the correct skills and are the best applicant, therefore I will give them the job." "Black" or "woman" or "old" or "gay" are all things that should not even enter the discussion.

The fact they are entering the discussion means that someone is acting like a douchebag. The fact that the person falling foul of the "don't be a douchebag" rule tends to so very often be a "devout christian" says more than anything else ever could....

[Gweeedo]

Much of science is a mystery, it is changing all the time.
''society has decided, with the backing of science''...that's just the point.
Christians know this.
Society is backed by Science...Christians are backed by God.
One Nation under God; America is slipping further away from God, it will lead to our own destruction.
You Should be thankful that God has not pulled his Spirit away.

''When someone is dealing with anyone else there shouldn't be the thought;'' it doesn't matter what a persons thought process is, it will always be misconstrued as discrimination (aka douchebag).
All of society does not need to be forced to immerse themselves in this depravity.
We, through Science, think we know so much...we don't know shit!
Jesus did not go around hating people. I Love you...as a matter of fact, I love all Homosexuals.
It's OK to be Gay, just don't shove it in my face.

[BoganGod]

The prophet Jesus would not be welcome in any western christian church. Wrong ethnicity, colour, socio economic background etc.

Good point, all of the visiting priests in our parish come from a more southern location of Africa than the Holy Land.

(Well, OK, one of them lives in ROME for 11 our of the 12 months of the year.)

Bogan, when was the last time you were in a church? Did that church turn away certain races, or poor people? Because my church keeps it's doors open to the poor even when the church is closed. My x's sisters church is like 80% black, many of them straight from Africa and barely a lick of English and certainly very poor. Kinda what I mean about the brainwashing that comes from constantly living in and dealing in double standards and blind acceptance of false stereotypes

I'm at a mosque most fridays, and a few other times a week besides. Much more diversity in the average mosque than a christian church. Was raised Seventh Day Adventist(Dr Ben Carson, for you americans), and went to catholic schools after I was kicked out of government and Seventh Day Adventist schools. Churches, mosques, etc generally reflect the diversity or lack there of in the surrounding community.
Scotty, it is only of very recent times that some christians stopped blaming the jews for killing jesus(forgetting that jesus was in fact a jew....), and using that accusation to justify persecution of jews. Many christians on seeing jesus(a short olive skinned jew....), and noting he is not white with blue eyes, would discount him as jesus. "You don't match your picture"..........
Muslims believe that Jesus didn't die on the cross, God changed Judas's face to resemble the prophet jesus. Judas was crucified in Jesus's place. Jesus(a prophet, not a god) was raised to heaven, like Enoch and some of the other prophets before him. Jesus is alive now, and will return to this duna(world) at the end of time. I love that in Islam graven images are forbidden, including "religious" iconography.

[Gweeedo]

Society backed by Science...ya, so what?
Science leaves a lot to be desired.
Society backed by God...What more do you need to know.

Science is entertaining the unknown....you don't have a handle on it.
Society has history with God...God has History with Society.
Why try something new?

[Gweeedo]

Delete

[crispybits]

Society backed by Science...ya, so what?
Science leaves a lot to be desired.
Society backed by God...What more do you need to know.

Science is entertaining the unknown....you don't have a handle on it.
Society has history with God...God has History with Society.
Why try something new?

My friend Laura says you're wrong.

Oh you don't know Laura? Well she's always right about everything. You're just going to have to take it on faith that she really exists and she knows more than you, but I'm telling you that she thinks what you say here is totally wrong. She's been very influential on a load of authors writing really good books about ethics (no she didn't actually write them herself but she did inspire them) and when society follows what she says everyone's life gets better.

I therefore declare myself to have the backing of the ultimate authority of Laura in this argument and I win. Suck it up.

Don't think I can do that based on that kind of argument? Then either stop doing it yourself or be labelled a hypocrite and ignored in any serious discussion...

(Note - It may be that some of what Laura says you would agree with, such as "seas, rivers and lakes are mostly water", but ask yourself what you are using to judge whether those things are true.... oh yeah - science bitch!)

(Note 2 - My belief in Laura's infallibility is a religious belief, therefore according to the "freedom of religion" argument I should be allowed to do whatever based on anything Laura says and the law shouldn't be able to touch me. I shouldn't have to follow any civil law that clashes with the truth as taught by Laura. Anyone who tries to enforce any of these civil laws on me is discriminating against me for my religious beliefs. Anyone unsympathetic to my right to ignore civil rules based on these religious rules is a bigot. Convinced yet?)

[Gweeedo]

@crispybits; Religious desire, belief, understanding, power, wars have always been the main entity of all civilizations, from the beginning of time.
Do you actually believe it can be stomped into oblivion...science can't fill the void.
Your Argument runs full circle.
Religious rite can circumvent the law/laws...

If you have a problem, take a pill...science has created a pill to alleviate any problem that you might have...not helping.
If you have a mental problem, it is good to bring it out in the open...talk it out...what a farce.
If you are mentally unstable there is a good chance you will need therapy for the rest of your life...hogwash!
Science is not the answer. Society through Science is f*cked!
Science gives you a false sense of security, Power, ability...look what it did for Hitler; nyuk nyuk.
Science and our trust in it, will be the downfall of us all...don't put your faith in it.

Our society has excepted homosexuality as a lifestyle.
Not everybody needs to acknowledge it legitimate.
Dropping label's on people (bigot, resist, sexist, homophobe etc.), holds no cause for action!

[AndyDufresne]

@crispybits; Religious desire, belief, understanding, power, wars have always been the main entity of all civilizations, from the beginning of time.
Do you actually believe it can be stomped into oblivion...science can't fill the void.
Your Argument runs full circle.
Religious rite can circumvent the law/laws...

If you have a problem, take a pill...science has created a pill to alleviate any problem that you might have.
If you have a mental problem, it is good to bring it out in the open...talk it out.
If you are mentally unstable there is a good chance you will need therapy for the rest of your life...hogwash!
Science is not the answer. Society through Science is f*cked!
Science gives you a false sense of security, Power, ability...look what it did for Hitler; nyuk nyuk.
Science and our trust in it, will be the downfall of us all...don't put your faith in it.

Our society has excepted homosexuality as a lifestyle.
Not everybody needs to acknowledge it legitimate.
Dropping label's (bigot, resist, sexist, homophobe etc.), holds no cause for action!

--Andy