Why are there religious people?

[Colter]

Thank you. Most people who want more "reigious freedom" seem to be operating under the delusion that the government will hold their beliefs above all others and implement the law exactly the way that they personally want, when that is impossible.

They speak as if everyone who will take advantage of this "freedom" will do it in the exact same way that they would, and no further. They don't think of all the things that such a law would allow. Now, I'm sure there are a minority who realize this and support equal "freedoms" for all religious people, but I doubt that most of these types would want to see a Muslim display outside a courthouse or would cheer for freedom while being turned away at a local restaurant because of the religious beliefs of the owners. They never think of themselves as the potential victims. They assume that they'll always be the ones discriminating and benefiting from such a law, because they think that their beliefs and life choices are objectively right. It's one of the best examples of privilege that I can think of, actually. They don't realize that current laws and precedent protect them, as well.

Fortunately, we're about 50 years past this nonsense. The problem that we're seeing right now is the result of the fact that sexual orientation wasn't on the public's radar in 1964 to such a degree that it was included explicitly in anti-discrimination legislation. Now we have to hammer it out all over again.

Then there is the equally delusional idea that secularist don't have "beliefs". The notion that governments that have managed to widly suppress religions in their respective nations cant have their own fascist sort of views is naive.

 

[Cearbhall]

Belief is belief, you seem unwilling to own your current belief/philosophy of life.

Perhaps, but I've never been told that I need to accept that my lack of belief in leprechauns is part of my life philosophy. What's the point, exactly? Just because other people believe in something, it has to become part of my belief system, one way or another?

Then there is the equally delusional idea that secularist don't have "beliefs". The notion that governments that have managed to widly suppress religions in their respective nations cant have their own fascist sort of views is naive.

Sorry, just so we're clear, is fascism the separation of church and state, or is it the anti-discrimination laws?

 

[Colter]

Perhaps, but I've never been told that I need to accept that my lack of belief in leprechauns is part of my life philosophy. What's the point, exactly? Just because other people believe in something, it has to become part of my belief system, one way or another?

Sorry, just so we're clear, is fascism the separation of church and state, or is it the anti-discrimination laws?

It would be ridiculous to say that your lack of belief in leprechauns is part of a positive living philosophy. It's not what we don't believe, it's what we do believe. What we do believe is the basis of our value system.

Fascism as a term is more or less in the eye of the beholder. Separation of church and state is a positive value, but statist often go further and try to separate the religious from any influence on social discourse, they mock, impugn and marginalize them with the assumption that the statist hold the superior values. In a secular totalitarian state, the presumably well intentioned leaders enjoy a certain immunity from scrutiny of their own beliefs and behavior.

In communist countries the Leftist leadership speaks of equality for all while enriching themselves and living in a completely segregated lifestyle from the common people who actually continue to buy into the rhetoric an basic bs perpetuated by their political hero's.

In the fascist state those who started out speaking of tolerance become intolerant themselves, but naturally they see their intolerance as the right kind.

 

[Colter]

dup

 

[KCfromNC]

Doubtful on the question of God, atheist seem to have decided God doesn't exist.

I see no reason to think that beliefs are due to conscious decisions.

Odin is a false God like the FSM.

So this decision you've made about gods not existing is your religion, just as you insist it is the religion of atheists.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's fair, I get that, although the perception that the Christian religion has any monopoly on public policy in the Western world is vastly overstated. It's very difficult to find any traces of Christian morality in American political life.

Can you identify 10 openly non-Christian politicians holding national office?

 

[KCfromNC]

The FSM is a creation of man intended to mock faith in the true God.

This is false. The FSM was intended to show the problem with teaching intelligent design and other forms of Christian creation science in schools. It wasn't designed to mock faith in any way, just to show that mythology is different than scientific fact.

 

[KCfromNC]

Justice Alito asked "why can't four lawyers get married?"

Was that a setup for a lawyer joke or a legitimate question about the legal issues behind SSM? Seems more like the first, but then again most anti-SSM arguments are kind of a joke to begin with.

 

[bhsmte]

Can you identify 10 openly non-Christian politicians holding national office?

Good luck with that.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Actually, sometimes we can thank God that people have died and out of their pain...which could also be seen as God's favour toward them.

Um. That's messed up.

 

[Colter]

I see no reason to think that beliefs are due to conscious decisions.



So this decision you've made about gods not existing is your religion, just as you insist it is the religion of atheists.

A belief is belief, lawyerly quibbling aside.

No, you don't get it. Not believing something is not a belief, its what you do believe that is your belief.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

No, you don't get it. Not believing something is not a belief, its what you do believe that is your belief.

And Not Golfing is a sport

 

[Colter]

Can you identify 10 openly non-Christian politicians holding national office?

I will concede to you your general point, politicians who call themselves Christian dominate national office in the US. I will note vast differences between those who call themselves Christian. Jesus wasn't political in a worldly sense, Christianity evolved most all of it's own diverse political views.

As far as naming specific members you can follow the link for the 113th Congress as an example and see who is what. 33 Jews, 3 Buddhist, 2 Muslims, 1 Hindu, 1 Unitarian Universalist and 10 who didn't respond.

Faith on the Hill: The Religious Composition of the 113th Congress | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

 

[Cearbhall]

A belief is belief, lawyerly quibbling aside.

No, you don't get it. Not believing something is not a belief, its what you do believe that is your belief.

So the point you're trying to get at is that religious arguments should be considered just as valid in US law as non-religious arguments because it's all subjective anyway?

So you're using "belief" as a substitute for "opinion." I'm not against opinions being used to legislate, as long as they're backed up with evidence and logic. Theism is not.

 

[Colter]

So the point you're trying to get at is that religious arguments should be considered just as valid in US law as non-religious arguments because it's all subjective anyway?

So you're using "belief" as a substitute for "opinion." I'm not against opinions being used to legislate, as long as they're backed up with evidence and logic. Theism is not.

A persons beliefs generally informs their political opinions.

 

[bhsmte]

A persons beliefs generally informs their political opinions.

So what?

 

[TheBarrd]

There's always hope. You said you were a Flower Child, no? Perhaps it's time to truly flower.

Love who you want to love. Marry who you want to marry. You should have that right. I agree with that much.
Straight folks have been told that public displays of affection are inappropriate. We have been asked to leave public places when such displays have become overly passionate. Unless you are a voyeur, no one wants to watch a straight couple pawing each other in public. How much less do you suppose do we want to watch a couple of men or a couple of women do it.

Ahhhh....well, I suppose there are a lot of straight guys who might enjoy watching a couple of women doing it...as long as their wives or girlfriends aren't sitting beside them

It's not childish for someone to expect to be treated like every other customer who enters that place of business. It's not childish to expect a business operating to members of the public to serve members of the public. It's not childish to expect businesses to operate within the law, including anti-discrimination law.

You know that the bakery is a Christian establishment. You know that Christians have a problem with gay.
Do you really want THAT particular bakery, and no other will do?
Or are you just after the publicity that you know their refusal will generate?
UH....I think you want what is behind door number two. You could care less about the cake. You just want to make your wedding one more opportunity to shove Christian's faces into your....uh...stuff...
Perhaps the bakery should have done the cake...and then, when it came time to deliver it, ooops!!!!! Didn't mean to drop it all over your lovely wedding gowns. Accidents happen...don't worry, we won't charge you for the cake. Please accept our apologies...

You seem to be missing the point. Is it outrageous to expect to be treated like every other customer? Are you, a member of the public, forcing the business-owner to operate to members of the public?

I, a member of the public, have too much dang pride to go where I am clearly not wanted.

 

[Cearbhall]

A persons beliefs generally informs their political opinions.

Yes...what I care about is how those beliefs were formed.

 

[bhsmte]

I, a member of the public, have too much dang pride to go where I am clearly not wanted.

Then the business owner should not be a hypocrite and open their doors to the public.

Make their business private, if they desire to not serve a portion of the public.

 

[TheBarrd]

Then the business owner should not be a hypocrite and open their doors to the public.

Make their business private, if they desire to not serve a portion of the public.

And come heck or high water, you're gonna by golly force em even though there are tons of places where you could go and get the service and the respect that you deserve.
But it does get you those headlines, eh?

This isn't really about a wedding cake.
This is about making people accept "gay is okay" whether they like it or not.
I can understand why you guys want that acceptance, but force is not the way to go about it.
Do you truly want Christians to accept you? Then show us that you can also respect our beliefs.

And never forget....the "public" can be very fickle. Yes, you've got it all your way right now...but that could change. It wasn't that long ago that Christians were the "good guys". Take some good advice...don't overplay your hand....