Your religion < My human rights

You have no right to violate my right to equal treatment under the law just because you think God says so. Unless you think your beliefs really are more important than human rights, in which case I invite you to go try to restart the thuggee cult and explain to the government that it's okay to murder because God and see what they have to say on the subject of religion vs human rights.

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Edit<<<

 

It's always a worry when legislators use God to justify their legislation. It's always slightly more surprising than when regular, un-elected bigots have a go. We expect more from our legislators. Sadly then continually fail us.

 

I don't pay attention to religious folks in politics because I'd be willing to bet that pretty much all of them would not support a land where people can be discriminated against because of their religion. They're fine with religious folks discriminating against others though under the guise of said religion because Constitution Constitution Constitution.

So see those folks for what they actually are, and that is mouth breathing window lickers who can't make a real argument for what they propose so they invoke "God".

 

No. You will burn forever in excruciating, never-ending torment. Such is the will of the depraved, maniacal, petty, jealous, immoral, sexist, racist and revolting Christian god.

 

It's pretty recent in history that legislation isn't also a theatric religious body. Old ways die hard. Some even think they are superior. I however do not.

 

my religion = my right

your rights = my rights

your wants < my rights​

 

None of this is about placing somebody's wants over your rights. Practice what ever rituals you want. As long as they don't encroach on rights of others I dint think it's ever going to be a problem.

 

I honestly don't think anybody believes as he claims to.

Everybody is just asexual until the first time they have sex? The population of the planet would be much smaller if that nonsense were true.

Some people only see reality bent through a political prism. As long as his political rhetoric depends on this concept that sexuality is just a choice you make, but somehow requires a confederation of churchy voodoo masters to break some spell, or whatever the hell nonsense he was arguing.

It only happens because it fits his political agenda. Basically it's political correctness as he applies the term. Yes the conservative side of the spectrum also has its political correctness. It's not really political correctness, because that really applies to labels on what a person is or does. It's really called propaganda. Propaganda is just another word for lies.

 

Is that why you continue to misrepresent and practice hypocrisy, be cause you know you can ask for forgiveness?

 

Religious arguments about public policy questions are perfectly valid - among religious people and concerning religious institutions. Secular arguments about public policy questions are perfectly valid everywhere. If you are religious I suggest you practice and hone your skills at both because you will need to adapt your case to your audience and venue.

I am not religious. I will not be quoting scripture or paying a lot of attention to scripture quoted at me. The courts and legislatures of the country are trained to think more like I do, than they are trained through seminary education, to see issues like Rev. Falwell, Cardinal Schuster, or Rev. Jackson. You are just going to have to deal with that reality and learn to use secular language to communicate, secular methods and reasoning to persuade, and secular sources as evidence if you want to impact public policy as opposed to religious dogma and practice.

 

It seems completely illogical to hold the position many religious folks hold about same sex marriage if you were to approach it with a secular frame of mind.

 

Its a pretty easy concept.

Your religious rights < my freedom from religion.

Your rights = my rights.

Neither should encroach on the other.

Me living my own life with the person I love =/= trampling your religious rights.

You don't have the right to dictate my life or freedom and you don't have a right to use your religion to justify taking my rights.

 

Nope. One person's religious rights = Another person's religious rights, including the right to hold no religious beliefs and refrain from engaging in religious practices. So the question is how to balance those two. The answer is that religious people can't force non-religious people to participate in religious practices. The answer is that non-religious people can't force religious people not to engage in religious practices.

The finer question is what constitutes a religious practice. I would consider that limited to matters of belief, worship, and personal conduct that doesn't infringe the rights of others. I would consider religion-themed speech to be protected as free speech, not as a religious practice unless it is part of some holy rite. I do not consider the operation of business interests dealing with the general public to be a religious practice.

In other words, I fully support the right of people to believe, worship, and order their personal lives according to those beliefs. i don't support the attempts to make religious rights superior to other rights; I don't support the attempts to excuse any conduct one chooses by claiming it's a religious practice; I don't support the idea that claiming a religious belief exempts one from laws one finds disagreeable.

Edit: I do not consider there to be a right to complete freedom from the presence of religion in society.

 

I completely agree.

What I meant by

'

Is that another persons right to religious freedom does not give them the freedom to force that religious believe into law and thereby force those religious beliefs into other peoples lives.

 

What human rights are being violated?

You really have no sense of irony, do you? Look at all the nasty things you say about these people. You clearly hate their guts. You make no attempt to understand them. You have no desire to work with them. Their needs are simply not important to you. You just judge them for not being the way you think they ought to be. And you call yourself the tolerant one. Give me a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing break.

You have freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion. Trying to treat the former as the latter inevitably leads to stomping on other people's religious freedoms.

[/thread]

 

You're actually quite wrong. Freedom of religion includes the right to be free from others forcing their religion onto you.

You can't have one without the other.

 

You're right, I do judge them. Everybody judges people in their minds. But lets not pretend like we're talking about their "needs". They have the same needs as every other person. Food, water, medicine, clothing, and shelter. And my post wasn't about just any old bloke who happens to be religious because religion itself is not what I have a problem with. Religion is just an idea in your head. Ideas in your head don't do anything. Ideas in your head can't take physical action. When I am hungry, the fact that I think I'm hungry does not feed me. I have to DO that.

It's in the doing that some religious folks rub my rhubarb in a manner other than directed. And you think I don't understand them, but I do. You think I don't want to work with them, but I would. But you'd better have a damn good airtight justification for suggesting that the law treat other people less equally than you would have it treat yourself and this is where some religious folks fall short. People who believe that believing in a God should grant you special rights that others don't get unless they also declare that they believe in a God the same way that you do. People who believe that other people's rights should be infringed or non-existent because their God says so or they think he said so.

For example, I don't care what your particular God story says about gay people or how they should be treated. I don't care what it says about women. I don't care what it says about morality. Each religion has it's own version of what is okay and what isn't and that's fine. But when that God is the only thing you can offer up as a justification and evidence for a law or policy you want to create or destroy, I'm sorry but I'm just going to need a little more than that. Like, real things, real reasons, real evidence. Faith that your version of God, out of all the ones that have existed, is the right one just doesn't cut it for me. And it shouldn't cut it for any thinking person.

Religion as a personal belief system for yourself is fine. Religion as the justification for laws and policies...well...I think we should all know better than that at this point.

 

`
Technically, that's an inaccurate statement. Semantics aside, the courts are full of lawsuits protecting people from the onslaught of prayer in schools, bible studies in schools, proselytizing in schools, religious art in public places, laws influenced by religious dogma, etc. All of these are examples of the freedom to be protected from the harm religion can cause, specifically in the public domain. It is a constitutional right.
`

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Yeah, the first amendment pretty much states that you have the freedom from religion.

 

I notice that your equation states that my rights MUST be my religion or they cannot equal your rights. Even with center margining, I wonder how you justify equal rights for a non-religious person? If it's based on "your religion", then it defeats the purpose of equal rights under your definition.

 

and believing that one is "born homosexual" is also a personal beleif system as no study has been able to confirm the theory.

So, the concept of "born homosexual" is just like a religious belief however it seems that you feel that your faith of born wanting gay-sex should trump religion, why is that?

 

I don't see gays trying to prevent you from marrying. Yeah, give me a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing break. The anti-gay crowd are the ones that have shown their true colors. They HATE gays through and through. Why else would you call someone an abomination?

 

As a gay man, I have facts and not just "a personal belief system". As a young boy as early as 4, I knew I was attracted to other males. At the time, I didn't know that it meant that I was gay. I didn't know what gay meant. I was told that being gay was wrong. It wasn't until years later that I realized that being attracted to males meant that I was gay.

 

uh huh

and my immersion in a heterosexual upbringing is what groomed me and thus I chose straight sex when it was time.

So, despite the eloquent post on your part, it is just your belief that one is "born homosexual"


I've witnessed the birth of our children

I've heard the magical sound of children playing

I've seen total strangers help each other

I've seen my friend survive a heart attack that the Drs gave little hope.

I hae seen the work of God and it is good. That is my faith and I accept it as my faith.

Why can you not accept your faith?

 

My faith has nothing to do with this. I believe that faith is a personal matter between that person and their god. So it is none of your business what my faith is.

My immersion in a hetrosexual upbringing groomed me as well. The only thing is, I am gay. I had a mother and father living at home(they didn't divorce until after I left home). It was a loving family. I would work out in the garage with my dad working on cars. I was taught by them and the church that we went to, that being gay was a sin. That being gay meant one was going to hell. LIke I said, I didn't even know what being gay meant at the time, except that it was supposedly wrong. Once I was old enough and realized that being gay meant, that I was attracted to other males, I prayed to god. I didn't want to be gay. I didn't want to go to hell. Luckily I had some friends that showed God loved me for who I was. I eventually loved me for who I was. So tell me how did I "chose to be gay?"