Obama's Defense of Religion

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by catzmeow, Feb 24, 2012.

  1. catzmeow
    Offline

    catzmeow BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    24,064
    Thanks Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gunshine State
    Ratings:
    +2,974
    Obama's Defense of Religion - Reason Magazine

    Food for thought. I generally find the truth to be far more complex and nuanced than the average partisan soundbyte.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,338
    Support religion on a minor issue and oppose it on major issues.
     
  3. catzmeow
    Offline

    catzmeow BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    24,064
    Thanks Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gunshine State
    Ratings:
    +2,974
    I think you meant: Oppose religion on a minor issue and support it on major issues.

    After all, Obama's support of religious organizations being forced to pay for contraception, in the scheme of things, is a relatively minor issue...

    IN what major ways do you believe Obama has opposed religious freedom in the U.S.?
     
  4. nitroz
    Offline

    nitroz INDEPENDENTly ruthless

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,421
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Merritt Island, FL
    Ratings:
    +457
    No. It's oppose religion on large issues.
    Religion should NOT be involved with politics nor should it influence laws.

    It's not infringing on religious rights. You have the right to practice your religion, but you don't have the right to change the laws in accordance to your religion, bring religion into politics for any influence or to gain religious supporters for religious motives, or to make any governmental decisions to be in accordance with your religion or use religious motives with governmental decisions.




    By doing that, you will end up infringing on the rights of other religions and then that would become unconstitutional and may be punished bu the court of law or through a lawsuit. For example: Prop. 8 was ruled unconstitutional because religion influenced the law to be in accordance with their religion/motives, which infringed on the rights of those who are rightfully protected under the constitution.


    Another Example:
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBBiKkYqljw&list=LLt-GlQHg97QwZoz7T3FIiWQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video]Americans Are Pro-Birth Control: Poll - YouTube[/ame]


    Religious folks have kicked, screamed, and cried over this and said it "violates their religious rights". Over 60% (and in other cases, over 75%, which is considered an absolute ass-kicking) disagreed because religion should NOT influence laws!
    Their "Religious rights" tried to push for laws in Iowa/Virginia to require ultrasound procedures be done for abortions since their "religious rights" also pushed for the contraception to be ended. How barbaric can you get!? Why would you make someone suffer for their choices if they can NOT care for the child!? And lets not forget how their "religious rights" also pushed for a transvaginal ultrasound procedure to be done for abortions! The procedure would be unconsentual (basically rape), to cause even more pain.

    NOW FUCK OFF BECAUSE YOUR RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN GOVERNMENT!
     
  5. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syV2LkGpQB0]lighten up, Francis - YouTube[/ame]
     
  6. nitroz
    Offline

    nitroz INDEPENDENTly ruthless

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,421
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Merritt Island, FL
    Ratings:
    +457
    ok....

    but it felt good to get that out.
     
  7. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    seek help
     
  8. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    As is often the case, it’s state and local jurisdictions exhibiting a propensity to violate citizens’ rights, in this situation the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

    The DOJ is simply following Constitutional case law on the issue as established by the Supreme Court. Where a given issue falls between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause can usually be determined by applying this case law. In some cases, depending on the circumstances, the government will support religious expression stifled by government excess; in other cases it will uphold the Constitutional mandate that church and State remain separate.

    As the OP and cited article correctly note, the notion that the current administration is ‘anti-religion’ is idiocy.
     
  9. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,919
    Thanks Received:
    2,074
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,807
    How about you "fuck off" because your government has no place in religion.

    You liberals are such hypocrits, you claim to believe in "separation of church and state" yet don't hesitate to pass laws that force religious instutions to do things that are against their beliefs.
     
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Only idiots think religion does not influence laws, and only morons actually object to it. What intelligent people object to is idiots who want to make the laws about religion instead of about living together. In order for that to work the law can neither establish a religion, nor can it prevent a people from freely exercising religion. Either of those turns the law from what it is supposed to be into the first step on the road to theocracy.

    If you really want to keep religion out of government you should work extra hard to keep government out of religion.
     

Share This Page