BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 10 - 12:22 PM

Willie, as I've posted before, "The difference between GENIUS and STUPIDITY, is that GENIUS has its limits!"....Albert Einstein

Now sit down!...and let nothing circulate in that vacuum!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 10 - 12:16 PM

Willie, as I've posted before, "The difference between GENIUS and STUPIDITY, is that GENIUS and its limits!"....Albert Einstein

Now sit down!...and let nothing circulate in that vacuum!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 12:04 PM

A photon without obvious contradiction could be called a light particle.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 07 May 10 - 12:01 PM

Why do I get the feeling I am having to deal with the oxymoron "light particles" before finally dealing with the moron.....

Yep, my brain is a vacuum, or at least 99.9998% of the space does not hold any matter (or wave...) so amazingly, you are inadvertently accurate, well done!

Pity your more metaphysical contributions didn't get a lucky break. The bit of my brain that is not empty space doesn't understand you. No matter, your view doesn't count in Willie's world.

Or, luckily, any sane world.

You know, when you have to make a list of contributors who you take issue with, and they just happen to be everybody who has posted since your last one, I would give up if I were you. If this was comedy rather than a serious debate, people would be laughing at you rather than with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 May 10 - 09:41 AM

Willie: 'Guest from sanity asked me to do some homework. I just did. I'm right, your'e wrong. Move on"

What?..about all matter being made of light, and/or light particles???
Shit, I forgot, your brain....a vacuum???

Paul Burke: "..Other Christians might not believe that Jesus was God, or that his death was as significant as his teachings, or that his teachings were infallible and/ or complete. But no doubt you wouldn't call them Christians at all."

...or that you do!

Froggers: "You say you aren't a fundamentalist, but that is a fundamentalist statement through and through. Realistically, it can only mean that any true Christian has to believe every word of the Bible."

Actually, I'm not at all a fundamentalist...however, just because someone is well-read on the subject, and is familiar with the gig, don't go assuming that I'm a fundamentalist, or on the 'religious right'..I am not...to return the favor, just because you can spell, I'll pretend you aren't in the third grade!
As far as the second part of your statement, I don't think I've met a Christian who knows 'every word of the Bible'.

The BIG question, and the topic of the thread, would be....IF your Religious beliefs contradict civil law, or possibly a medical service, being provided, can you object to performing that procedure, based on your religious beliefs?

Methinks, you'd rather find some nuance to smear someone for their religious beliefs, even if they don't have any, than understand what they are, or why.......then attack someone ELSE for being a bigot!......just love you guys!
Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 May 10 - 06:12 AM

""And even allowing your statement for argument's sake, it's not A way of life, it's MANY ways of life, often mutually contradictory.""

My point, which you are carefully ignoring, is that being a Christian doesn't, or shouldn't, stop when step out of the church on Sunday, and head for the pub.

So yes, it is a way of life, one of many, in that you are correct.

But in answer to your misinterpretation of what I said, I think if you check back through my posts on the subject, you will find that I said "For me, it is a way of life".

Don't agree?......Fine! I don't care too much what others do, I just choose for me.

That's what separates me from fundamentalists, the operative two syllables of which, are "mental".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 May 10 - 01:39 PM

Christianity is a way of life, not a place you go to once or twice a week

That's YOUR interpretation of Christianity. Other Christians might not believe that Jesus was God, or that his death was as significant as his teachings, or that his teachings were infallible and/ or complete. But no doubt you wouldn't call them Christians at all.

And even allowing your statement for argument's sake, it's not A way of life, it's MANY ways of life, often mutually contradictory.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: frogprince
Date: 06 May 10 - 12:27 PM

""If you say you are a Christian, than believe it..all of it. Picking and choosing, what selections you agree with,   is more ignorant, than anything you'd like to heap on those who do!!!""
You say you aren't a fundamentalist, but that is a fundamentalist statement through and through. Realistically, it can only mean that any true Christian has to believe every word of the Bible.

What chance is there that any single person here has not, on more than one occasion, found comfort and guidance in some published material outside the Bible. That could be anything from a "self help" book to a work of fiction that inspired you to see things in a more positive way. But no one tells you to either accept every word of that material or discard it all completely.

There are countless liberal Christians who find the Bible to be a rich source of strengh, guidance, and inspiration, but who realize that it is an accumulation of writings by fallible people, sometimes steeped in cultural values we could no longer dream of accepting, trying to sort out their relationship to God. There is nothing authoritative about the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 06 May 10 - 11:56 AM

I think it's really very simple and has nothing to do with religion at all. If you can't, in good conscience, perform all of the duties of the job, don't take the fucking job. Stands to reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Stu
Date: 06 May 10 - 10:55 AM

Has there ever been a better argument for keeping religion out of the public services? If people (like the chap in the OP) are incapable of doing that, then they shouldn't work for us out of respect for their fellow citizens.

That applies to all religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 10 - 10:13 AM

"It is not easy having a right versus wrong argument with people who allow irrational concepts to form part of their stance,..."

I think I will steal that line.... it kinda summarizes a number of ideas in a nicely compact way.

thanks, Willie.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 06 May 10 - 05:58 AM

Point taken, Willie. When I said it was a dead end I meant that we'll only know who's right and who's wrong when we're dead - or not, as the case may be!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 May 10 - 04:33 AM

Good on yer, theleveller! Whilst agreeing that the thread is supposed to be about somebody thinking his superstition allows him to not do what he is paid to do.... we must expect the "my view has infallibility on its side" to creep in somewhere, so dead end or not, the thread will boil down to it until everybody gets bored.

Guest from sanity asked me to do some homework. I just did. I'm right, your'e wrong. Move on.

It is not easy having a right versus wrong argument with people who allow irrational concepts to form part of their stance, so for the time being it is best if superstitious people get on with being superstitious, and the vast majority of people remain vigilant to ensure god botherers don't let their hobby interfere with people who don't have such a hobby.

This judge has sent a message that helps people not feel threatened by strange people who smile too much and too often.....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 06 May 10 - 03:43 AM

This thread wasn't intended to be an argument about who's belief is right or wrong – that will always be a dead end. What is was intended to be about was the ethics of belief – the rights and responsibilities of belief, especially where the actions they generate impinge on those who hold contradictory beliefs.

Had McFarlane said to the gay couple' "I CAN'T advise you because I haven't the knowledge or experience to do so" that would have been a responsible stance for someone in his position, putting the onus back on his employer. However, by saying, in effect, "I WON'T advise you because your actions go against my beliefs, even though those actions are lawful and do no harm to anyone else", he was fairly and squarely in the wrong because he was demonstrating an unreasonable prejudice.

Whatever beliefs we hold, we have to be responsible for the actions that come from them and cannot expect these actions to be upheld in law when they impinge on the rights of others.


theleveller - member fron sanity

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 10 - 02:57 AM

Easy there, chief. I'm not at all into the guys with the frocks. ..and you're right, Christian was a name given to the early believers. It meant Christ-like.

Comes from the Greek, 'Kristos' a unifying force. Christians believe that it came from an anointing from the Holy Spirit, which they believe lives inside the actual person..as in God's love, and his own spirit.

Hey, I got something for ya'......(first calm down).......

When you come to the edge of all the light you know, and are about to step off into the darkness of the unknown, faith, is knowing one of two things will happen. There will be either something solid to stand on, or you will be taught how to fly.

Peace,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 May 10 - 09:46 PM

""If you say you are a Christian, than believe it..all of it. Picking and choosing, what selections you agree with, and then attacking those who point that out to you, is more ignorant, than anything you'd like to heap on those who do!!!""

The secret is in the name, you prat.

"Christian".   Follower of the teachings of Christ. GET IT?

Not follower of the men in black frocks who have caused some of the greatest misery in the history of this planet.

I repeat.....Christianity is a way of life, not a place you go to once or twice a week to ask God for favours you don't deserve.

And I don't give a shit whether you believe that or not.

That's the thing about freedom of thought, and of faith, it allows those of us with more than half a dozen brain cells to make decisions based on morals and ethics, rather than dogma and liturgy force fed since childhood.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 10 - 06:13 PM

Yep... I suspect Don T. can sort thru 'truths' just fine...without any need to 'believe it all' from ANY source.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:59 PM

Bill: "Believe WHOSE version of "it"? "

I'm not offering a version, and your analogy is off, too. I suppose, that if he is spiritually inclined, then he should seek the spirit to lead him into all truths.....at least that's what his Bible tells him to do....so-o-o-o-o, let him do it. No brainer!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:48 PM

"If you say you are a Christian, than believe it..all of it"

Oh my... where have I heard THAT sort of reasoning before..

"My country, right or wrong"
"You're either for us or against us."

Believe WHOSE version of "it"?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Gervase
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:47 PM

'Kinell; agnostics just as mad and intolerant as theists - shock!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:37 PM

Willie: "no, I can't accept that all things are made from light. So your argument falls at the first hurdle."

Do your homework!


Don T., I'm not sure what bug crawled up your rear-end, but you sound ready to piss and moan about EVERYTHING! If you say you are a Christian, than believe it..all of it. Picking and choosing, what selections you agree with, and then attacking those who point that out to you, is more ignorant, than anything you'd like to heap on those who do!!!

Get real!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:29 PM

Oh goody! It's pile on religious believers hour! Bile by the bucket! Let me go get a flask.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 May 10 - 01:36 PM

""Don, as usual you make little or no sense. Let me try to simplify, the difference.

In the beginning, God (light, love, life, consciousness) created man, in His own image,... and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor.(Religion)""

And you base that twaddle on a collection of books, written, refined, altered, and corrupted, over a period of two thousand years, by generations of men with widely differing agendas, but all with the desire to control the behaviour of populations, and governments, sometimes with good intentions, but very often not.

The old testament was a chronicle of what Hebrews believed to be their history. It was largely composed of stories which had been handed down orally for thousands of generations. Anyone who has played Chinese Whispers will know how reliable that is.

The New Testament, as I said, much corrupted, and even the basics were not laid down until about one hundred years after the death of Jesus.

I don't deny the existence of God, but I do have serious doubts about the ultimate Purity and Saintliness of many who profess to serve or represent Him.

If you dispute that, tell me which part of the bible covers Jesus suggesting anything remotely like the Spanish Inquisition?

I am a Christian because I believe in the basic tenets of the gospels, but Christianity, for me, is nothing to do with a place to which I go, once or twice a week, to ask God for favours I do not deserve.

It is how I live my whole life, every single day of it, and it is about how I treat my neighbour, not how I want to be treated by God.

So, GfS, being regarded as a limited thinker by one who is congenitally incapable of sustaining a consistent point of view for even five sentences is something of a compliment.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Stu
Date: 05 May 10 - 01:07 PM

"Correct, nobody makes 'light'. ..and yet, all things are made of light."

What a heap of steaming shite - this is the sort of bilge that might wash with the airy-fairy angel brigade but anyone with a mildly enquiring mind understands this is totally and utterly wrong. Can a statement be more wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:31 PM

mmmm... interesting.

At the risk of going off on tangents, (laws of physics rather than UK laws and their interpretation by courts,) no, I can't accept that all things are made from light. So your argument falls at the first hurdle.

I reckon the problem is that you are trying to put physics and metaphysics in the same room and expecting them to have sex. As much as many superstitious people would love that to happen, it is an idea put forward by those who reckon astrology and astronomy are one and the same.

there may be a sense of order to the otherwise chaotic, but there is not a shred of evidence I have seen that it is something to do with an interventionalist being. In fact, as Einstein pointed out, intervening would negate the laws that prove a sense of order. My take on that is that by intervening a god would prove he / she / it doesn't exist. Not as hard a concept as you think really, as quantum physics (we are talking about light, yes?) allows reality based on probability of observation.

So, in the wonderful words of Douglas Adams, "That just about wraps it up for God."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 05 May 10 - 11:33 AM

theleveller: there is a difference between freedom of belief and freedom of action

We don't need the Constitution to protect freedom of belief. It's not observable and it's nothing you can change. I will believe what I believe and nothing the government does will change that. It's freedom of action that needs protecting. Meeting together. Worshipping. Not being made to go to the government-sponsored church(es). These are the things that need protecting. My internal states, not so much so.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 05 May 10 - 10:53 AM

"So I don't want to get pigeon-holed, by those whose limited brained 'anti-God rap' is aimed at, just by the thought of a God"

But you're prepared to pigeon-hole those with a differing opinion from you as 'limited brained', whereas most will have given this a great deal of thought, consideration and probably read far more widely than you before reaching a considered and deeply held opinion - a belief that is just as strongly held as those who are 'believers'.

I think this merits pigeon-holeing you as an ignorant, arrogant twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 10 - 09:53 AM

Don, as usual you make little or no sense. Let me try to simplify, the difference.

In the beginning, God (light, love, life, consciousness) created man, in His own image,... and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor.(Religion)

Steamin' Willie: "Nobody "makes" light, it is a quantum event which we loosely describe as a photon. If you really must use biblical quotes to prove the god concept, I personally prefer God is Love. At least that calls out to human interaction and interventionalism. And is as much bollocks as the light quote...."

Correct, nobody makes 'light'. ..and yet, all things are made of light. Which correlates another verse, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."

I hope that sheds new 'light' on the subject.
Perhaps, what confuses a lot of folks, is they assume the HE, and Him, are exclusive to a singular 'personage',..like themselves...in which case refer to my reply to Don T.

Concept, concept, concept!

That being said, being as I've quoted the New Testament a couple of times, (which quotes happen to be consistent with science, and Einstein's quotes, I wasn't planning on getting into 'proving' that there is, or is not a God'. I'm not exactly a fundamentalist evangelical type....nor have I expressed, subscribing to any 'religion', or 'denomination' on here. So I don't want to get pigeon-holed, by those whose limited brained 'anti-God rap' is aimed at, just by the thought of a God.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:33 AM

""The Bible states, God is light, and all things are made By Him, and all things are in Him. In Him we live, move and have our being....."""

The classic pratfall situation of the guy who misunderstood the question!

You state that God and religion are two entirely different things, and on that we are totally in accord, as I have been saying the same thing for years, both here and elsewhere.

Then you shut your eyes and jump right over the edge with the above piece of nonsense.

It may have escaped your notice, but God didn't write the Bible. Religious men did, and their descendants still claim to have the definitive "word of GOD"!

You have just failed at the first hurdle in trying to separate God and Religion, so what do you really believe?

Or are you, as usual, making it up as you go along?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 05 May 10 - 04:08 AM

WHo would have thought my PhD in quantum mechanics could have been useful to this debate? (It ain't useful to me in any other way, mind...)

Having had to study and interpret a lot of Einstein, perhaps I can help here with a middle ground?

Whilst Einstein never professed a belief in a personal god, he did feel that as you can express physics by mathematical solution, it cannot be just chaos that developed in such a manner.

He said "God doesn't play dice." By this, he expressed his concern over probability and chance at the quantum level, as the laws around classical Newtonian physics were so fixed and worked at every observable level.

Whilst I don't have the quote to hand, (somebody else might?) he did clarify his position regarding the God concept by saying that aethiesm is chaos and under that condition, no laws of physics would work. Therefore, there is an order to the universe as expressed in mathematical terms. If you want to call this god, you are most welcome.

Obviously, he had no time for the concept of supernatural beings that can break the laws of physics or that mankind had some special status other than being special to each other. (I suppose by that, he meant you can go to a human and say E=MC2 and hope to impress them, but you would be disappointed if you tried impressing a goldfish by stating it.)

Oh, guest from sanity... Nobody "makes" light, it is a quantum event which we loosely describe as a photon. If you really must use biblical quotes to prove the god concept, I personally prefer God is Love. At least that calls out to human interaction and interventionalism. And is as much bollocks as the light quote....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 10 - 03:35 AM

Then he wrote, in a letter to Sigmund Freud: "Why do you ask? I feel fortunate. All I what I do, is admire God's handiwork"

There is a difference between God, and 'Religion'. As Far as being 'Religious, that he was not! There is a difference between 'religion's' concept of spiritual, and the unseen, and the force that manifests itself, as all matter, time, space and dimension.

The Bible states, God is light, and all things are made By Him, and all things are in Him. In Him we live, move and have our being....."

Now, is that not true of light? Do you think he MISSED this???

Just not in 'religious terms'!

Perception, perception, perception!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 05 May 10 - 03:30 AM

What the ruling restates, in effect, is that same stance taken over the years by philosophers like Descartes, Holles and Hume, that there is a difference between freedom of belief and freedom of action - where it impinges on the rights and freedoms of others. This is where I get so angry with evangelists of any denomination and people who claim they are fulfilling god's will - not because of their beliefs per se but because they think they have freedom (or indeed a duty) of action (hence my earlier remark about apartheid and the Dutch Reformed Church).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Gervase
Date: 05 May 10 - 03:12 AM

Ah, Einstein. That quote is often cherry-picked. The poor chap would be turning in his grave if he knew how often it was used to bolster a religious argument.

It was the same Einstein who wrote: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

And the same Einstein who wrote: "During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes... In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests."
        
And the same Einstein who wrote: "Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me."

And even the same Einstein who wrote: "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

There is enough of his writing to know conclusively that he did not believe in a personal god, and would certainly not consider himself Jewish or Christian in anything but culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 10 - 02:40 AM

Then there's "Only a fool says there is no God"....Albert Einstein

Ok, smart guys!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Donuel
Date: 04 May 10 - 07:28 PM

TOO BAD that insurance companies still use acts of GOD as an excuse for not paying their customers.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 May 10 - 06:33 PM

Hear hear, Bill D.

Unfortunately, an individual's right to have unreasonable beliefs trumps society's duty to educate its members as to what is reasonable, here in the USA. If only it were the other way around.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 04:19 PM

"I do feel that I should be able to at least MENTION my religion in public without being castigated ...

Of course! I know many of religious persuasion who regularly note various things about their belief, and remind ME of such things as needed to schedule an event to avoid some religious holiday, etc. I see no need to complain and berate and castigate them for having their beliefs. It is just one of the things we learn about each other.

I know Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Quakers, Jews, Baptists...and several brands of others... with whom I co-exist and cooperate on a regular basis.

I am sad if some DO go out of their way to denigrate anyone's religion on some general principle of 'not liking it'.

I am also sad when I have to watch Jews and atheists feel supremely uncomfortable and leave the room when the 'majority' of a group (whose basic purpose has nothing to do with religion) always begins a meeting by a long supplication to Jesus. A number of these members are adamant, rigid Christians, and have NO inclination to respect those who are not.

It ain't easy...............

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: MMario
Date: 04 May 10 - 02:21 PM

I don't particularly want "my way" to be dominant; I don't particlarly feel that churches should be tax exempt. I do feel that I should be able to at least MENTION my religion in public without being castigated and told how it infringes on someone else's right to be free of religion.

They can ignore me; just as I ignore many people with whom I don't agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 02:12 PM

I know, Don T.... when the basic tenets of your religion say "go, and become fishers of men" and "I am the way, the truth and the light...no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.",* you feel righteous about declaring, in various ways, that your ways is supposed to be dominant.

*(that's from memory...apologies if I got any details wrong)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 May 10 - 02:02 PM

""It is understood that Christianity is practiced by a majority of US citizens, but the full clause in the Constitution reads ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .".""

It's all in the interpretation Bill.

To you or me, free exercise means that we can practise our religion, whatever it may be, without fear of resistance, or reprisal.

To the fundamentalist Christian Right, it means that they can practise, proselytise, and persecute, until they either convert or marginalise others, and override the terms of the Constitution in attempting to coerce government into doing what they require.

It's what they do, and all in the name of Christ, who wouldn't have advocated, or endorsed, any of it.

So what else is new?
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:59 PM

"If you want to marry a virgin, SAVE SOME!"

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:55 PM

Man, Bill, you're so TOUCHY about those virgins, dude. Chill out!!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:54 PM

That was intentional on my part to pre-empt any who would argue for the right to 'practice' a religion that worships the Volcano God and demands virgins be sacrificed to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:46 PM

any genuine religion

Wherein lies the rub.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 11:40 AM

yesterday, MMario said: "Our constitution states that Congress shall make no laws preventing the free excercise of religion."

This is true, and it is a fundamental part of our system....but so is the part that says matters of church & state shall be kept separate. This means that, unlike in the UK House of Lords, the government may not endorse any specific religion. Unfortunately, there IS a de facto endorsement of Christianity in practice.

It is understood that Christianity is practiced by a majority of US citizens, but the full clause in the Constitution reads ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .".
This would seem to mean that any genuine religion may be practiced, but NOT imposed on those who may practice another religion, and **by implication**, does not require anyone to practice any religion.
This seems simple & fair enough, but I hear constantly from those who assert that 'this country was founded by Christians, and as such is a Christian nation and thus Christian principles and beliefs DO have a place in the laws, ceremonies and general fabric of our country.'
I don't know what to say except that this is NOT what the Constitution says! It is not even totally accurate to describe many of the founders as **Christians**. The very concept of "separation of church & state" was a basic principle introduced by Thomas Jefferson.

These days I hear almost daily of some very conservative member of Congress making some pronouncement about policy and defending his attitude by reference to the Bible. I have little doubt that many of our legislators, especially from the South, would happily write laws specifically based on their religious beliefs.

   In my 14 years on Mudcat, I have posted many times the admonition that: "Freedom OF religion must, if it is be consistent, include Freedom FROM religion for those who wish it."
   Sadly, this concept is just lost on many. It is hard to maintain my dedication to defending their rights when they have no interest in even recognizing mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Gervase
Date: 04 May 10 - 10:40 AM

I stand corrected. In future I shall use "Imaginary Friend" rather than "imaginary friend".

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 04 May 10 - 03:22 AM

"Using "god" where "God" is called for is both ungrammatical and passive-aggressive."

Using "god" to refer to an illogical theoretical concept is perfectly acceptable and I will continue to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 May 10 - 05:30 PM

Interesting. So, in principle, everyone who works in England actually works for the State?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 03 May 10 - 05:29 PM

Proper nouns should be capitalized. "God" when referring to one specific God, such as the Christian God, should be capitalized. "God" in the plural, or when referring to a god you haven't already specified, should be in the lower case. Using "god" where "God" is called for is both ungrammatical and passive-aggressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 03 May 10 - 04:07 PM

"Overall, we are in danger of allowing government officers to force their particular stance on certain matters on us all and I cannot accept that that does good for anybody."

But that's what religion can do. As I mentioned earlier, the Dutch Reformed Church was the bastion of the apartheid system in South Africa - they stated that god had given the white man dominion over the black man and that to oppose that was to go against god. This is still the view held by the white supremacists in South Africa. So, should these people be given the freedom to practice what they believe?