The War on Faith in America

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, and then said:

He is taking his stand on what he believes.  He has every right and even a duty to stand for what he believes is right for himself and to point out what he sees as responsible for the horrible level of discourse in our nation.  No one is required to agree with him but his right to speak is guaranteed just as much as anyone else.  Don't you agree?

I already responded to this, someone else brought it up. See post # 27.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

War against imaginary friend *cough* I mean god.

So, if a person rejects the beliefs of others then he is justified in suppressing their right to freely associate with like-minded people?  I mean, it really is that basic an issue.  I wouldn't dream of spending time arguing with or protesting over the beliefs of others who have a different faith or no faith at all.  The trend today seems to be the wholesale demonizing of dissenters whether due to their faith or politics.  Even if you feel it is justified, do you really believe it is good for the country?  

[BrooklynGuy]

19 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

The country and the world will be a much better place when all religion is cast aside and referenced only a joke about what fools people of the past were.

Robotic Jew that's blasphemous how dare you say such a thing. Word just came down from Peter at the Pearly Gates and you have been sent to the end of the line.  Only 69 days until CHRISTmas 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

Right...nothing to do with Government intervention (gay wedding cake,)

That's exactly what I was referring to; some religious people want to be able to discriminate, that's the freedom they want.

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

removal of prayers in School

...happened almost 60 years ago now.  Most religious people have moved on and/or grown up enough since then, and no one ever prevented any religious people from saying prayers in their schools.

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

head scarf laws, hate crimes

Which ones?

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

Only racist people are religious 

I guess if that's what you believe.  Doesn't look too sensible to me, but it's a free country.

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, and then said:

So, if a person rejects the beliefs of others then he is justified in suppressing their right to freely associate with like-minded people?  I mean, it really is that basic an issue.  I wouldn't dream of spending time arguing with or protesting over the beliefs of others who have a different faith or no faith at all.  The trend today seems to be the wholesale demonizing of dissenters whether due to their faith or politics.  Even if you feel it is justified, do you really believe it is good for the country?  

If a belief creates bloodshed and suffering, be it mental, physical, and emotions. Would you fight against it? If a faith undermined the existence of anyone, even called for their deaths, would that be a faith that deserves to exist? If a faith does nothing but feed upon the bank accounts of believers and does little in return, does that faith deserve to exist? All religions no matter the form are lies. Not a single on of them is true. Each one of them is a cult. Created by people, to control other people. Under fear of death, exile, hell. You are a follower of a death cult and on more than one occasion has show that you desire the end of the world. To me that is true nihilism. 

[+and-then]

32 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

The country and the world will be a much better place when all religion is cast aside

Do you believe that our government should be in that business?  I'm thinking of China just now.  Their government doesn't like any religion getting in the way of their total domination and they actively work to remove it.  Do you think this is justified or beneficial?

[+Liquid Gardens]

55 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

LG seems to be implying all religious people are racist as in his/her mind

No, that 'implication' is only in your mind, not mine.

[BrooklynGuy]

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's exactly what I was referring to; some religious people want to be able to discriminate, that's the freedom they want.

...happened almost 60 years ago now.  Most religious people have moved on and/or grown up enough since then, and no one ever prevented any religious people from saying prayers in their schools.

Which ones?

I guess if that's what you believe.  Doesn't look too sensible to me, but it's a free country.

Just to be clear, your saying there is no effort by anyone to infringe on the rights of folks practicing their religion? And the only discrimination taking place if by folks who practice religion who exercise their rights as citizens? 

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

If a belief creates bloodshed and suffering, be it mental, physical, and emotions. Would you fight against it? If a faith undermined the existence of anyone, even called for their deaths, would that be a faith that deserves to exist? If a faith does nothing but feed upon the bank accounts of believers and does little in return, does that faith deserve to exist? All religions no matter the form are lies. Not a single on of them is true. Each one of them is a cult. Created by people, to control other people. Under fear of death, exile, hell. You are a follower of a death cult and on more than one occasion has show that you desire the end of the world. To me that is true nihilism. 

I accept your right to your opinions, I don't have to agree with them nor are you compelled to see things my way.  This is the tipping point we face now.  It isn't just religion, the same thing is happening on nearly every level of our culture.  We are divided into camps and one side is becoming militantly aggressive about rooting out the beliefs and traditions of others as though they have a duty to do so.  For my part, I refuse to continue to lose my temper or patience over the anger or frustration that others feel due to my dissent from their worldview.  I am not responsible for their expectations or beliefs nor are they for mine.  

The fact that you seem to believe that it is your right or obligation to make the world a better place by suppressing people who have done you no harm other than to reject what you believe, is something you should consider.  The test I use on those quandaries is simple.  Would I think it was right if someone did that to me?   

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

you mean  war on people who discriminate against others religious beliefs?  like in gay cake case?

The gay cake case doesn't involve discrimination against others religious beliefs, it involves whether the 'religious belief' that someone's god wants them to discriminate others based on their sexual orientation is protected.

1 hour ago, aztek said:

should your imaginary gender be above my religious beliefs? 

Dunno, should your imaginary intelligence keep me from bothering to reply to you?  Probably. 

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

how does someone infringe on your beliefs

If I may?  What would be your answer if you were in a classroom where prayer was allowed?  Does that infringe on your beliefs?

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, and then said:

The fact that you seem to believe that it is your right or obligation to make the world a better place by suppressing people who have done you no harm other than to reject what you believe, is something you should consider.  The test I use on those quandaries is simple.  Would I think it was right if someone did that to me?   

It difficult to challenge a person belief when they have none and hold nothing to be 'the truth'. That's where we differ. I put your god to the test as I did many other god, no results, no revelations, nothing. 

People with their cults of ego, only want people to fall in line with their beliefs. Because according to them they are the only ones right. 

Edited October 17, 2019 by XenoFish

[aztek]

3 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The gay cake case doesn't involve discrimination against others religious beliefs,

 

it absolutely does, if you can't see it, you highly overrate your own intelligence, and it is a good idea to ignore you from now on

Edited October 17, 2019 by aztek

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, and then said:

If I may?  What would be your answer if you were in a classroom where prayer was allowed?  Does that infringe on your beliefs?

The question was in response to "gay cake" response.  Why are you bothering?  Do you feel threatened?

My answer would be no, unless I was forced to pray.  And since that is illegal and unconstitutional in public schools in the U.S.  I would not be in a school where I would be forced to pray.  It is not illegal to allow someone to pray in public school, it is illegal to insist someone pray in public school.  (Public).

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

It difficult to challenge a person belief when they have none and hold nothing to be 'the truth'. That's where we differ. I put your god to the test and I did many other god, no results, no revelations, nothing. 

People with their cults of ego, only want people to fall in line with their beliefs. Because according to them they are the only ones right. 

Okay... I accept that you believe you are correct.  Why won't you answer my questions?  

 Why do you believe that it is your right or obligation to make the world a better place by suppressing people who have done you no harm other than to reject what you believe?  I would never deny you the right to believe differently and to gather publicly on the net or in the physical world with like-minded people.  I think that if you and the others here could stop that right for me, you'd cheerfully do so.  Can you see why that would be a problem for all of us?

[XenoFish]

7 minutes ago, and then said:

Okay... I accept that you believe you are correct.  Why won't you answer my questions?  

 Why do you believe that it is your right or obligation to make the world a better place by suppressing people who have done you no harm other than to reject what you believe?  I would never deny you the right to believe differently and to gather publicly on the net or in the physical world with like-minded people.  I think that if you and the others here could stop that right for me, you'd cheerfully do so.  Can you see why that would be a problem for all of us?

My answer. I hate religion. I think it is the worst idea humanity has ever created. It causes more problems than it fixes. All it takes is just one fanatic to ruin everything and every believer is a potential fanatic. Personally I'd remove religion from everything. If I could suppress it or destroy it, that would bring a smile to my face. Maybe then people would be honest about their wretchedness, instead of hiding behind their religions. 

[+and-then]

8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

The question was in response to "gay cake" response.  Why are you bothering?  Do you feel threatened?

My answer would be no, unless I was forced to pray.  And since that is illegal and unconstitutional in public schools in the U.S.  I would not be in a school where I would be forced to pray.  It is not illegal to allow someone to pray in public school, it is illegal to insist someone pray in public school.  (Public).

"I asked you how does someone infringe on your beliefs "  post # 39

I'm "bothering" because I'm interested in the discussion and want to be a part of it.  No, I don't feel threatened.  Why would I?  The point I wanted to explore was how individuals can look at the same situation yet see it so differently.  

I'm thinking of school prayer as an example.  Even in districts where it is optional there is always one parent/child that feel their rights have been infringed and almost always they are able to silence the will of the many.

I may not be clearly explaining my point so bear with me please.  You were asking, in so many words, what would constitute "infringement" on his beliefs.  If he believes that his children have a right to pray in the classroom and there is a single child who disagrees and says his perceived right to prayer in school infringes on THEIR right not to be coerced into it - even though no proof of sanction against the dissenter existed- then who decides which person's rights are more important?

[+Liquid Gardens]

50 minutes ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Just to be clear, your saying there is no effort by anyone to infringe on the rights of folks practicing their religion?

No, I'm saying that if one is semi-knowledgeable about the long history of the intersection of religion and state and power then saying this is a 'war' is way overblown.  We do realize how fringe the gay cake is, right?  Seemingly few people, thankfully, have an issue in understanding why it is not okay for our non-gay cake maker to similarly turn away black or women customers based on religious beliefs, and there are some people who believe based on their religion that they shouldn't associate with blacks and that women shouldn't be... well, doing much of anything.  I guess that's technically infringing the 'rights' of folks practicing their religion, a good infringement, right?  Whether or not they are actually 'practicing their religion', the relevant part is that they are also undeniably practicing their business, that's where the laws have a say.

Just to get our bearings, what do you believe to be the greatest and most egregious 'infringement' of religious rights in the US right now?  Using your answer, as a follow-up if I may, so we can get our bearings on just how bad this infringement really is, is there any other developed country in the world whose government has less infringement of that particular religious right?  If you want to use the gay cake case as an example that's cool, seems pretty minor, and the discriminating cake maker won that one anyway I think.

50 minutes ago, BrooklynGuy said:

And the only discrimination taking place if by folks who practice religion who exercise their rights as citizens? 

Do you know what a straw man is?  What did I type that would make you rationally think this, where did I use or even imply the word 'only'?  

Edited October 17, 2019 by Liquid Gardens

[+and-then]

9 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

My answer. I hate religion. I think it is the worst idea humanity has ever created. It causes more problems than it fixes. All it takes is just one fanatic to ruin everything and every believer is a potential fanatic. Personally I'd remove religion from everything. If I could suppress it or destroy it, that would bring a smile to my face. Maybe then people would be honest about their wretchedness, instead of hiding behind their religions. 

Fair enough.  How would you react if the shoe was on the other foot?  The point I'm attempting to make here should be clear by now.  Human beings tend to think they know best and every one of us wants to be the director in our lives and the lives of everyone else we intersect with.  That obviously leads to a lot of anger and distress for everyone involved.  Unless confrontation, anger and chaos is your life goal it's easier just to let people be as ignorant as they choose to be unless they are trying to force something on you.  We all have the same rights and when one group attempts to quash the freedom of others it leads to bad places for all of us.

[Agent0range]

6 minutes ago, and then said:

If he believes that his children have a right to pray in the classroom and there is a single child who disagrees and says his perceived right to prayer in school infringes on THEIR right not to be coerced into it - even though no proof of sanction against the dissenter existed- then who decides which person's rights are more important?

Prayer is allowed in public school.  Personal prayer.  This goes back to separation of church and state.  I don't pay taxes for my children to be praying in school.  I pay for them to go and learn, and I feel that time should be used to the best of the school's ability.  

[XenoFish]

Just now, and then said:

How would you react if the shoe was on the other foot? 

No one would know my beliefs. I would not put them on display nor bother to inconvenience anyone with them. Basically no one would know. Because my beliefs wouldn't be my identity. The thing is, I wouldn't impose my beliefs on anyone. I would not tell them they are going to hell, I would not force anyone to conform to them, I would not demand things be changed in order to show my special I am. New rules, new laws, all because I believe something. I am nothing. Not even a shadow. 

Sure this might make me seem like a hypocrite, probably does, but I don't care. No one's opinion matters anyway. None of these 'debates' amount to anything. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

30 minutes ago, aztek said:

it absolutely does, if you can't see it, you highly overrate your own intelligence, and it is a good idea to ignore you from now on

Then name who is discriminating and what specific religious belief is being discriminated against.  The only religious belief I see in play here is the belief, to be general, that one shouldn't have to craft something that celebrates a same-sex wedding.  The only discrimination is the person who has that religious belief against people who want a cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding. 

You referenced, ' war on people who discriminate against others religious beliefs'; maybe what you are trying to say is 'war on people who want to discriminate based on their religious beliefs'.  The govt I don't think is 'discriminating' against religious beliefs here; according to the Supreme Court they are violating the free exercise rights of the cake-maker, that's not discrimination.

[aztek]

if there was a law that required muslims or jews eat pork, would that be infringing on their religious beliefs?

[+Desertrat56]

15 minutes ago, and then said:

"I asked you how does someone infringe on your beliefs "  post # 39

I'm "bothering" because I'm interested in the discussion and want to be a part of it.  No, I don't feel threatened.  Why would I?  The point I wanted to explore was how individuals can look at the same situation yet see it so differently.  

I'm thinking of school prayer as an example.  Even in districts where it is optional there is always one parent/child that feel their rights have been infringed and almost always they are able to silence the will of the many.

I may not be clearly explaining my point so bear with me please.  You were asking, in so many words, what would constitute "infringement" on his beliefs.  If he believes that his children have a right to pray in the classroom and there is a single child who disagrees and says his perceived right to prayer in school infringes on THEIR right not to be coerced into it - even though no proof of sanction against the dissenter existed- then who decides which person's rights are more important?

I apologise, someone else did not want to discuss, just troll and I need to get over it. 

So what do you expect people to feel who would not pray in school when everyone else is told they can pray or told "let us pray"?  I don't understand your question, I guess.  I have been in schools or at school activities (public school) where someone says a prayer before a game or in an assembly.  I don't feel my rights were ever infringed on because I was not told I had to pray and if someone wants to I don't have a problem with it.  The problem I have is people complaining that prayer is not allowed in school.  I have never seen that, and yes it is illegal to force prayer in a public school which is different from praying in school.  I know that in North Carolina this is an issue, but in most states it is not.  (well, maybe some counties in some other southern and midwestern states, I am not sure about that). 

I did live in Midland, TX in the 80's when Phyllis Schafley's group tried to test their unconstitutional idea that religious groups should be allowed to meet on public school grounds and even in Midland the law suit failed because even the very religious saw it as a threat.  There are people with an agenda to change things in this country and this is not something new.  I found it interesting that they chose Midland and some town in the midwest and were surprised that they did not get the legal precedent they were looking for.  And in Midland it was a Big Deal.  For one thing, they were aliens (not from Texas).  The community as a whole banded together and sent them packing.  (the significance of Midland, Texas is that it is a very religous town as whole, church on every corner, dry county etc.) 

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Prayer is allowed in public school.  Personal prayer.  This goes back to separation of church and state.  I don't pay taxes for my children to be praying in school.  I pay for them to go and learn, and I feel that time should be used to the best of the school's ability.  

So your answer is that the single child/parent have the right to suppress the ability for others to pray together if they choose to do so.  Let me ask it this way: Should students who want to voluntarily embrace their religion on school grounds by meeting for Bible study after classes be allowed to do so or does that also infringe on the so called "separation" clause?  I use the disclaimer because I feel that interpretation is in error.  Liberal court members took: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

and interpreted it to countenance not only the creation of no state religion but also to drive any religion from the public space at all.  This is clearly not the intent of the Establishment Clause.  Allowing citizens to practice their faith in public is not forbidden by our Constitution.  It is forbidden by those who disagree with our beliefs.  Since they would in no wise accept such treatment against them and their beliefs I find them to be hypocritical.  No child should be forced to pray to a God they don't believe in and no child should be prevented from doing so.  More and more these days, even having a Bible in school can get a kid sent home as though he was intentionally being provocative.

We disagree but I understand your belief and apparently the government agrees with you.  I think you might have to agree that most school systems take the whole issue WAY over the top just to avoid legal bills though.  Should students who want to gather after class in a class or meeting room for a Bible study be allowed to do so?