Does America Need Be Saved From Theocracy?

[Seawytch]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

a. So you object to enforcing the commandment against murder?

b. You view is that forcing conscientious objectors to bake a cake is more important than liberty?

c. One must admit the consistency you folks stick to going back to your revolution in 1905.
I knew you wouldn't understand that, RealDumb....you're a government school grad.

A. Restrictions on murder are found in all religions and predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake for sinful interracial couples?

"B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake"...a cake


I sure hope you're right.....of course, unlike you, I don't believe in slavery.



Any normal person must laugh at the claims of the gay couple who were deprived of their cake:
"The lesbian couple had filed a claim with the state, stating that the Kleins’ refusal to bake them a cake had caused them to suffer from 88 symptoms of mental anguish including “doubt,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “worry” and a “dislike of going to work.”


....their case wasn’t even tried by a judge from the Oregon judiciary; it was tried by a bureaucrat from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, who ruled that the Kleins owed the lesbian couple, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, $135,000 in damages.



Although Rachel Cryer could have easily found another cake supplier, the Oregon government deemed it important to make an example of the Kleins.


According to the official catechism of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, a Christian couple’s right to religious freedom takes a backseat to a lesbian couple’s right to a cake."
What Will Happen to Religious Freedom?




Shall we review what 'rights' are in a free country?

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.

Why did you selectively edit the question? Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not require the Klein's bake a cake for gay people, local law does. You know, states rights stuff. Title II of the CRA "forces" people to make cakes for sinful interracial couples. Are you getting that repealed or not?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

a. So you object to enforcing the commandment against murder?

b. You view is that forcing conscientious objectors to bake a cake is more important than liberty?

c. One must admit the consistency you folks stick to going back to your revolution in 1905.
I knew you wouldn't understand that, RealDumb....you're a government school grad.

A. Restrictions on murder are found in all religions and predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake for sinful interracial couples?

"B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake"...a cake


I sure hope you're right.....of course, unlike you, I don't believe in slavery.



Any normal person must laugh at the claims of the gay couple who were deprived of their cake:
"The lesbian couple had filed a claim with the state, stating that the Kleins’ refusal to bake them a cake had caused them to suffer from 88 symptoms of mental anguish including “doubt,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “worry” and a “dislike of going to work.”


....their case wasn’t even tried by a judge from the Oregon judiciary; it was tried by a bureaucrat from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, who ruled that the Kleins owed the lesbian couple, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, $135,000 in damages.



Although Rachel Cryer could have easily found another cake supplier, the Oregon government deemed it important to make an example of the Kleins.


According to the official catechism of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, a Christian couple’s right to religious freedom takes a backseat to a lesbian couple’s right to a cake."
What Will Happen to Religious Freedom?




Shall we review what 'rights' are in a free country?

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.

Why did you selectively edit the question? Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not require the Klein's bake a cake for gay people, local law does. You know, states rights stuff. Title II of the CRA "forces" people to make cakes for sinful interracial couples. Are you getting that repealed or not?

The discussion has nothing to do with interracial couples....it was a gay couple..

You simply lied.



You asked I I would repeal any statute that restricts individual freedom.

Yup....I sure would.

And Trump is installing conservative judges who, I believe, would do the same.


Sweatin,' huh?

 

[JoeB131]

Pretty good, huh?

I just re-read my post...and it's brilliant......isn't it.

You're a legend in your own mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

a. So you object to enforcing the commandment against murder?

b. You view is that forcing conscientious objectors to bake a cake is more important than liberty?

c. One must admit the consistency you folks stick to going back to your revolution in 1905.
I knew you wouldn't understand that, RealDumb....you're a government school grad.

A. Restrictions on murder are found in all religions and predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake for sinful interracial couples?

"B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake"...a cake


I sure hope you're right.....of course, unlike you, I don't believe in slavery.



Any normal person must laugh at the claims of the gay couple who were deprived of their cake:
"The lesbian couple had filed a claim with the state, stating that the Kleins’ refusal to bake them a cake had caused them to suffer from 88 symptoms of mental anguish including “doubt,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “worry” and a “dislike of going to work.”


....their case wasn’t even tried by a judge from the Oregon judiciary; it was tried by a bureaucrat from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, who ruled that the Kleins owed the lesbian couple, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, $135,000 in damages.



Although Rachel Cryer could have easily found another cake supplier, the Oregon government deemed it important to make an example of the Kleins.


According to the official catechism of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, a Christian couple’s right to religious freedom takes a backseat to a lesbian couple’s right to a cake."
What Will Happen to Religious Freedom?




Shall we review what 'rights' are in a free country?

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.

Why did you selectively edit the question? Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not require the Klein's bake a cake for gay people, local law does. You know, states rights stuff. Title II of the CRA "forces" people to make cakes for sinful interracial couples. Are you getting that repealed or not?

You ignored the key part of the post.....

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.




Any problem with the above?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pretty good, huh?

I just re-read my post...and it's brilliant......isn't it.

You're a legend in your own mind.

Guilty as charged.

 

[JoeB131]

The discussion has nothing to do with interracial couples....it was a gay couple..

You simply lied.



You asked I I would repeal any statute that restricts individual freedom.

Yup....I sure would.

And Trump is installing conservative judges who, I believe, would do the same.


Sweatin,' huh?

So if someone believes an inter-racial couple is against God's will, do they have the "right" to refuse them service?

If you say, "No", then how can you say they should be able to deny gay couples service.

 

[Seawytch]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

a. So you object to enforcing the commandment against murder?

b. You view is that forcing conscientious objectors to bake a cake is more important than liberty?

c. One must admit the consistency you folks stick to going back to your revolution in 1905.
I knew you wouldn't understand that, RealDumb....you're a government school grad.

A. Restrictions on murder are found in all religions and predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake for sinful interracial couples?

"B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake"...a cake


I sure hope you're right.....of course, unlike you, I don't believe in slavery.



Any normal person must laugh at the claims of the gay couple who were deprived of their cake:
"The lesbian couple had filed a claim with the state, stating that the Kleins’ refusal to bake them a cake had caused them to suffer from 88 symptoms of mental anguish including “doubt,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “worry” and a “dislike of going to work.”


....their case wasn’t even tried by a judge from the Oregon judiciary; it was tried by a bureaucrat from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, who ruled that the Kleins owed the lesbian couple, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, $135,000 in damages.



Although Rachel Cryer could have easily found another cake supplier, the Oregon government deemed it important to make an example of the Kleins.


According to the official catechism of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, a Christian couple’s right to religious freedom takes a backseat to a lesbian couple’s right to a cake."
What Will Happen to Religious Freedom?




Shall we review what 'rights' are in a free country?

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.

Why did you selectively edit the question? Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not require the Klein's bake a cake for gay people, local law does. You know, states rights stuff. Title II of the CRA "forces" people to make cakes for sinful interracial couples. Are you getting that repealed or not?

The discussion has nothing to do with interracial couples....it was a gay couple..

You simply lied.



You asked I I would repeal any statute that restricts individual freedom.

Yup....I sure would.

And Trump is installing conservative judges who, I believe, would do the same.


Sweatin,' huh?

And I expanded your narrow focus. Get over it. Why can't you answer the question? You want to overturn local law (some states rights advocate you are), but say nothing about Federal law that requires bakers to make cakes for interracial couples they find sinful. That same law requires a gay baker to make for a Christian. You have no opinion on that breach of liberty and religious freedom?

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. So you object to enforcing the commandment against murder?

b. You view is that forcing conscientious objectors to bake a cake is more important than liberty?

c. One must admit the consistency you folks stick to going back to your revolution in 1905.
I knew you wouldn't understand that, RealDumb....you're a government school grad.

A. Restrictions on murder are found in all religions and predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake for sinful interracial couples?

"B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake"...a cake


I sure hope you're right.....of course, unlike you, I don't believe in slavery.



Any normal person must laugh at the claims of the gay couple who were deprived of their cake:
"The lesbian couple had filed a claim with the state, stating that the Kleins’ refusal to bake them a cake had caused them to suffer from 88 symptoms of mental anguish including “doubt,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “worry” and a “dislike of going to work.”


....their case wasn’t even tried by a judge from the Oregon judiciary; it was tried by a bureaucrat from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, who ruled that the Kleins owed the lesbian couple, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, $135,000 in damages.



Although Rachel Cryer could have easily found another cake supplier, the Oregon government deemed it important to make an example of the Kleins.


According to the official catechism of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, a Christian couple’s right to religious freedom takes a backseat to a lesbian couple’s right to a cake."
What Will Happen to Religious Freedom?




Shall we review what 'rights' are in a free country?

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.

Why did you selectively edit the question? Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not require the Klein's bake a cake for gay people, local law does. You know, states rights stuff. Title II of the CRA "forces" people to make cakes for sinful interracial couples. Are you getting that repealed or not?

The discussion has nothing to do with interracial couples....it was a gay couple..

You simply lied.



You asked I I would repeal any statute that restricts individual freedom.

Yup....I sure would.

And Trump is installing conservative judges who, I believe, would do the same.


Sweatin,' huh?

And I expanded your narrow focus. Get over it. Why can't you answer the question? You want to overturn local law (some states rights advocate you are), but say nothing about Federal law that requires bakers to make cakes for interracial couples they find sinful. That same law requires a gay baker to make for a Christian. You have no opinion on that breach of liberty and religious freedom?

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.




Any problem with the above?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

The discussion has nothing to do with interracial couples....it was a gay couple..

You simply lied.



You asked I I would repeal any statute that restricts individual freedom.

Yup....I sure would.

And Trump is installing conservative judges who, I believe, would do the same.


Sweatin,' huh?

So if someone believes an inter-racial couple is against God's will, do they have the "right" to refuse them service?

View attachment 285387

If you say, "No", then how can you say they should be able to deny gay couples service.

View attachment 285388

No one says "an inter-racial couple is against God's will" except you.

Moses' wife was black.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. While being religious is mocked and ridiculed by the secular government schools, there is a view they instill..

“POLL: Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism
A new poll released by Gallup shows that for the first time in over a decade, Democrats are more passionate about socialism, viewing it more positively than capitalism."

Notably, only 47% of Democrats view capitalism positively, a drop of 9 points (from 56%) in only two years.
POLL: Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism





7. Yet the glaring contradiction goes unnoticed:

The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.”
David Mamet.


Seems only a theocracy of Leftism is honored.

 

[RealDave]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

You go to a government school. You really don't know anything about the constitution.

While your and my ancestors were excluded from citizenship, the story is told that the people who came here from England did so to get away from being oppressed by the church of England. So the first amendment was create to state that America will have no national religion. No theocracy allowed.

Good to see you've returned for an education.

Let's begin here.....as you blame white folks and racism for all of your inadequacies, can you answer this query?

With respect to the education gap, how is it that 'racism' is responsible for these areas in which black students fall short when compared to white and Asian students:

The number of days absent from school

The number of hours spent watching TV

The number of pages read for homework

Quantity and quality of reading material in the home

The presence of two parents in the home.




How does 'racism' explain these ...deficiencies????

How are white folks responsible???

So, your ilk holds back a race for centuries, pass a bill in 1964 (you ilk kicking & screaming about it) & voila, everything is cured?

Only an uneducated fool would ignore the history of racism in America.

"....your ilk holds back a race for centuries,..."

I realize that you are a government school grad, meaning that you have no education, and that you've never read a book not assigned therein.....so I will magnanimously provide a quick review of your 'ilk,' the Democrat Party.


1. The Democrats are, and have always been, the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship, the party that stood in schoolhouse doors to block black school children….until Republicans sent in the 101st airborne

2. It is the party of Jefferson Davis, the KKK, Planned Parenthood, concentration camps for American citizens, and restrictions on free speech.

3. It is the party of Mao ornaments on the White House Christmas tree, and of James Hodgkinson, and of Communist Bernie Sanders, of pretend genders.

4. The Democrat Party is the oldest racist organization in America, the trail of tears, the author of Jim Crow and the bigotry of low expectations, filibustered against women getting the vote and killed every anti-lynching bill to get to Congress


5. The Democrat Party is the number one funder of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran….to the tune of $100 billion to the Ayatollahs….and gave Hezbollah the go-ahead to sell cocaine in America.

6. It is the party of anti-Semitism and Louis Farrakhan, and of the first Cabinet member ever to be held in contempt of Congress.

7. It is the party that admits its future depends on flooding the country with illegal aliens, and telling them to vote.

8. It is the party that couldn't suck up to the Castro Brothers enough, and treats the Bill of Rights like a Chinese menu..

9. The Democrats got us into the Civil War…Jefferson Davis .... Woodrow Wilson, WWI….FDR, WWII……Truman, Korean War….VietNam, JFK and LBJ…..yet they want to weaken our military.

10. The Democrats are the party that looks at the mayhem their gun laws have produced in Chicago, ……and this is their model for the nation.

11. I should mention that the Democrat Party was used as a model by Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party….another ‘feather’ in the party’s cap?

12. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism.

13. It's the party of felons over law-abiding actual citizens


This is your past, and your future.


A note....it was Republicans who pried your slaves away, and who gave women the vote.



Take notes.

You are either lying or dumber than shit.

My government school education taught me to think. I think you are a total ass. Blaming Democrats for racism in the South is an indicator of just how uneducated you are. Both Republicans & Democrats in the South were typically racists while both Republicans & Democrats outside the South typically are not. As shown in the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Perhaps if you ever read a book, you would know this.

The KKK started as a Democrat organization against Republicans. The KKK is now right wing & a member of the Trump tent.

Planned Parenthood was never racist like you claim.

Iran got what was theirs. A pittance compared to the oil revenues they generated when Cheney's Halliburton went into Iran to help them produce more oil.

Di you have anything outside of this debunked bullshit.

 

[Theowl32]

Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.

Just as many were slaughtered by God-fearing Christians... The Nazis didn't wear belt buckles that said, "Atheism is nifty", they wore ones that said this.

View attachment 285374

For those who don't speak German, it translates to "God With Us"

Yet you losers don't know about stories like this.

 

[RealDave]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

a. So you object to enforcing the commandment against murder?

b. You view is that forcing conscientious objectors to bake a cake is more important than liberty?

c. One must admit the consistency you folks stick to going back to your revolution in 1905.
I knew you wouldn't understand that, RealDumb....you're a government school grad.

A. Restrictions on murder are found in all religions and predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake for sinful interracial couples?

"A. Restrictions on murder are found in all religions and predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands, of years."


Of course that's false.


The religion of state, your religion, requires murder to those who don't conform.
As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).


The totalitarian history of mass murder in the last century alone.

Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......111,850,000

#14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium




And, of course, the Democrat Party stands for the same aims as the communist party did.

You're on the spectrum aren't you.....

What you just screeded about has nothing to do with religion. Restrictions on murder are universal and have nothing to do with religion.

You didn't answer the question about bakers baking for interracial couples.

"You didn't answer the question about bakers baking for interracial couples."

It was a gay couple.



How'd you like the answer in post #39?


Pretty good, huh?

I just re-read my post...and it's brilliant......isn't it.

What is the difference. The idea you think there is makes you a bigot. You hate homosexuals. Just admit it.

 

[JoeB131]

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.

Any problem with the above?????

Here's the thing.

There are no "rights". Any fool who thinks he has "Rights" needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942". That's how fast rights can be taken away, the cheering of a crowd.

What we have are privileges, that society agrees on the whole we should have.

Once upon a time, we all had the "Right" to smoke in our offices... Then someone decided that was a bad thing on faulty science... but the reality was, the rest of us didn't want to breathe in your smoke.

So now smokers have to stand out in the cold 15 feet away from the door. Because that's what society has decided.

 

[RealDave]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

a. So you object to enforcing the commandment against murder?

b. You view is that forcing conscientious objectors to bake a cake is more important than liberty?

c. One must admit the consistency you folks stick to going back to your revolution in 1905.
I knew you wouldn't understand that, RealDumb....you're a government school grad.

A. Restrictions on murder are found in all religions and predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake for sinful interracial couples?

"B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake"...a cake


I sure hope you're right.....of course, unlike you, I don't believe in slavery.



Any normal person must laugh at the claims of the gay couple who were deprived of their cake:
"The lesbian couple had filed a claim with the state, stating that the Kleins’ refusal to bake them a cake had caused them to suffer from 88 symptoms of mental anguish including “doubt,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “worry” and a “dislike of going to work.”


....their case wasn’t even tried by a judge from the Oregon judiciary; it was tried by a bureaucrat from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, who ruled that the Kleins owed the lesbian couple, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, $135,000 in damages.



Although Rachel Cryer could have easily found another cake supplier, the Oregon government deemed it important to make an example of the Kleins.


According to the official catechism of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, a Christian couple’s right to religious freedom takes a backseat to a lesbian couple’s right to a cake."
What Will Happen to Religious Freedom?




Shall we review what 'rights' are in a free country?

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.

Why did you selectively edit the question? Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not require the Klein's bake a cake for gay people, local law does. You know, states rights stuff. Title II of the CRA "forces" people to make cakes for sinful interracial couples. Are you getting that repealed or not?

You ignored the key part of the post.....

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.




Any problem with the above?????

We have laws.

Your rights do not over rule the law.

You may have the right to bear arms but I have the right to ban them on my property.

There is a law that says you can't discriminate as a business, your right to hate gay people does not give you a pass.

 

[JoeB131]

Yet you losers don't know about stories like this.

More like it wasn't relevent to the point I was making. I have a cousin who was a Catholic Priest who said something the Nazis didn't like and found himself in Nordhausen...

But here's what didn't happen. Pope Pius XII didn't denounce what the Nazis were doing, not once. He didn't call on Good Catholics to put down their arms and stop fighting for the Axis. Nor did the leaders of the various Protestant Denominations in Germany. They all put on their "Gott Mit Uns" belt buckles and fought for the Fuhrer...

 

[RodISHI]

a. So you object to enforcing the commandment against murder?

b. You view is that forcing conscientious objectors to bake a cake is more important than liberty?

c. One must admit the consistency you folks stick to going back to your revolution in 1905.
I knew you wouldn't understand that, RealDumb....you're a government school grad.

A. Restrictions on murder are found in all religions and predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake for sinful interracial couples?

"B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake"...a cake


I sure hope you're right.....of course, unlike you, I don't believe in slavery.



Any normal person must laugh at the claims of the gay couple who were deprived of their cake:
"The lesbian couple had filed a claim with the state, stating that the Kleins’ refusal to bake them a cake had caused them to suffer from 88 symptoms of mental anguish including “doubt,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “worry” and a “dislike of going to work.”


....their case wasn’t even tried by a judge from the Oregon judiciary; it was tried by a bureaucrat from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, who ruled that the Kleins owed the lesbian couple, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, $135,000 in damages.



Although Rachel Cryer could have easily found another cake supplier, the Oregon government deemed it important to make an example of the Kleins.


According to the official catechism of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, a Christian couple’s right to religious freedom takes a backseat to a lesbian couple’s right to a cake."
What Will Happen to Religious Freedom?




Shall we review what 'rights' are in a free country?

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.

Why did you selectively edit the question? Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not require the Klein's bake a cake for gay people, local law does. You know, states rights stuff. Title II of the CRA "forces" people to make cakes for sinful interracial couples. Are you getting that repealed or not?

You ignored the key part of the post.....

Here is what ‘rights’ are.

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.




Any problem with the above?????

We have laws.

Your rights do not over rule the law.

You may have the right to bear arms but I have the right to ban them on my property.

There is a law that says you can't discriminate as a business, your right to hate gay people does not give you a pass.

"Your property" dummy doesn't include other peoples property or thoughts and desires either.

She doesn't have to embrace your gayness either. Fact is no one does. Anyone can simply say, "No I do not desire to have you in my business or do any business with you" no matter who you are or what you represent.

 

[IM2]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

You go to a government school. You really don't know anything about the constitution.

While your and my ancestors were excluded from citizenship, the story is told that the people who came here from England did so to get away from being oppressed by the church of England. So the first amendment was create to state that America will have no national religion. No theocracy allowed.

Good to see you've returned for an education.

Let's begin here.....as you blame white folks and racism for all of your inadequacies, can you answer this query?

With respect to the education gap, how is it that 'racism' is responsible for these areas in which black students fall short when compared to white and Asian students:

The number of days absent from school

The number of hours spent watching TV

The number of pages read for homework

Quantity and quality of reading material in the home

The presence of two parents in the home.




How does 'racism' explain these ...deficiencies????

How are white folks responsible???

You need to educate yourself.

Asians face white racism. The largest gap between rich and poor belong to asians. Poverty among Asians is just as high as it is among blacks. So then instead of asking me dumb questions, first off, recognize that you aren't white. Second thank us black people for fighting for the civil rights asians weren't getting either. Third, thank blacks for affirmative action that has allowed you to go to a college you never would have been able to attend if not for blacks. Last, go somewhere and look at laws and policies in employment/income, housing and education.

50 years after the Kerner Commission: African Americans are better off in many ways but are still disadvantaged by racial inequality

Following are some of the key findings:

• African Americans today are much better educated than they were in 1968 but still lag behind whites in overall educational attainment. More than 90 percent of younger African Americans (ages 25 to 29) have graduated from high school, compared with just over half in 1968—which means they’ve nearly closed the gap with white high school graduation rates. They are also more than twice as likely to have a college degree as in 1968 but are still half as likely as young whites to have a college degree.
• The substantial progress in educational attainment of African Americans has been accompanied by significant absolute improvements in wages, incomes, wealth, and health since 1968. But black workers still make only 82.5 cents on every dollar earned by white workers, African Americans are 2.5 times as likely to be in poverty as whites, and the median white family has almost 10 times as much wealth as the median black family.
• With respect to homeownership, unemployment, and incarceration, America has failed to deliver any progress for African Americans over the last five decades. In these areas, their situation has either failed to improve relative to whites or has worsened. In 2017 the black unemployment rate was 7.5 percent, up from 6.7 percent in 1968, and is still roughly twice the white unemployment rate. In 2015, the black homeownership rate was just over 40 percent, virtually unchanged since 1968, and trailing a full 30 points behind the white homeownership rate, which saw modest gains over the same period. And the share of African Americans in prison or jail almost tripled between 1968 and 2016 and is currently more than six times the white incarceration rate.

Educational attainment
The most important development since 1968 is that African Americans today are much better educated than they were in 1968. These absolute improvements in educational attainment—including substantial increases in both high school and college completion rates—have opened important doors for black workers compared with their counterparts 50 years ago. In relative terms, African Americans today are almost as likely as whites to have completed high school. But even though the share of younger African Americans with a college degree has more than doubled, African Americans today are still only about half as likely to have a college degree as whites of the same age.

High school graduation rates. Over the last five decades, African Americans have seen substantial gains in high school completion rates. In 1968, just over half (54.4 percent) of 25- to 29-year-old African Americans had a high school diploma. Today, more than nine out of 10 African Americans (92.3 percent) in the same age range had a high school diploma. (See Table 1 for all data presented in this report.)


The large increase in high school completion rates helped to close the gap relative to whites. In 1968, African Americans trailed whites by more than 20 percentage points (75.0 percent of whites had completed high school, compared with 54.4 percent of blacks). In the most recent data, the gap is just 3.3 percentage points (95.6 percent for whites versus 92.3 percent for African Americans).

College graduation rates. College graduation rates have also improved for African Americans. Among 25- to 29-year-olds, less than one in 10 (9.1 percent) had a college degree in 1968, a figure that has climbed to almost one in four (22.8 percent) today.

Over the same period, however, college completion expanded for whites at a similar pace, rising from 16.2 percent in 1968 to 42.1 percent today, leaving the relative situation of African Americans basically unchanged: in 1968 blacks were just over half (56.0 percent) as likely as whites to have a college degree, a situation that is essentially the same today (54.2 percent).2

We would expect that these kinds of increases in the absolute levels of formal education would translate into large improvements in economic and related outcomes for African Americans. The rest of our indicators test the validity of this assumption.

Unemployment
The unemployment rate for African Americans in 2017 (the last full year of data) was 7.5 percent, 0.8 percentage points higher than it was in 1968 (6.7 percent). The unemployment rate for whites was 3.8 percent in 2017 and 3.2 percent in 1968.3

The unemployment data for these two years, almost 50 years apart, demonstrate a longstanding and unfortunate economic regularity: the unemployment rate for black workers is consistently about twice as high as it is for white workers.

Wages and income
Hourly wages. The inflation-adjusted hourly wage of the typical black worker rose 30.5 percent between 1968 and 2016, or about 0.6 percent per year. This slow rate of growth is particularly disappointing given the large increase in educational attainment among African Americans over these decades.

Even slower real wage growth (about 0.2 percent per year) for the typical white worker—albeit starting from a higher initial wage—meant that African Americans did modestly close the racial wage gap over the last five decades. But, in 2016, by the hourly wage measure used here, the typical black worker still only made 82.5 cents on every dollar earned by the typical white worker.4


Household income. The inflation-adjusted annual income of the typical African American household increased 42.8 percent between 1968 and 2016, slightly outpacing income growth for the typical white household (36.7 percent). But the typical black household today still receives only 61.6 percent of the annual income received by the typical white household.5

Poverty rates. The share of African Americans living in poverty has declined substantially in the last five decades. Using the official federal poverty measure as a benchmark, over one-third (34.7 percent) of African Americans were in poverty in 1968. Today, the share in poverty is just over one in five (21.4 percent). For whites, the decline in the poverty rate was much smaller, from 10.0 percent in 1968 to 8.8 percent in 2016. In the most recent data, African Americans are about 2.5 times as likely to be in poverty as whites. (In 1968, they were 3.5 times as likely to be in poverty.)

50 years after the Kerner Commission: African Americans are better off in many ways but are still disadvantaged by racial inequality

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. I can say the same thing about Asians.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. So you object to enforcing the commandment against murder?

b. You view is that forcing conscientious objectors to bake a cake is more important than liberty?

c. One must admit the consistency you folks stick to going back to your revolution in 1905.
I knew you wouldn't understand that, RealDumb....you're a government school grad.

A. Restrictions on murder are found in all religions and predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

B. So you're going to get Title II of the Civil Rights act repealed so bakers don't have to bake for sinful interracial couples?

"A. Restrictions on murder are found in all religions and predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands, of years."


Of course that's false.


The religion of state, your religion, requires murder to those who don't conform.
As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).


The totalitarian history of mass murder in the last century alone.

Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......111,850,000

#14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium




And, of course, the Democrat Party stands for the same aims as the communist party did.

You're on the spectrum aren't you.....

What you just screeded about has nothing to do with religion. Restrictions on murder are universal and have nothing to do with religion.

You didn't answer the question about bakers baking for interracial couples.

"You didn't answer the question about bakers baking for interracial couples."

It was a gay couple.



How'd you like the answer in post #39?


Pretty good, huh?

I just re-read my post...and it's brilliant......isn't it.

What is the difference. The idea you think there is makes you a bigot. You hate homosexuals. Just admit it.

One is based on genetics, one is a choice.


You need not trumpet your ignorance on a daily basis.

 

[IM2]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

You go to a government school. You really don't know anything about the constitution.

While your and my ancestors were excluded from citizenship, the story is told that the people who came here from England did so to get away from being oppressed by the church of England. So the first amendment was create to state that America will have no national religion. No theocracy allowed.

Good to see you've returned for an education.

Let's begin here.....as you blame white folks and racism for all of your inadequacies, can you answer this query?

With respect to the education gap, how is it that 'racism' is responsible for these areas in which black students fall short when compared to white and Asian students:

The number of days absent from school

The number of hours spent watching TV

The number of pages read for homework

Quantity and quality of reading material in the home

The presence of two parents in the home.




How does 'racism' explain these ...deficiencies????

How are white folks responsible???

So, your ilk holds back a race for centuries, pass a bill in 1964 (you ilk kicking & screaming about it) & voila, everything is cured?

Only an uneducated fool would ignore the history of racism in America.

She is Asian and faces racism herself. That's what is so pathetic about her ignorance.