What's new

Bull Ring Govt cannot punish people for BELIEFS only actions that violate laws

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
21,967
Reaction score
3,070
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Can Pogo C_Clayton_Jones OldLady Coyote or someone more adept with Progressive language
please help me explain to TheProgressivePatriot
what I mean by GOVERNMENT being neutral and treating beliefs/creeds equally while
(1) this doesn't require beliefs to be proven right, true, good or better
(2) INDIVIDUALS retain the right to discriminate and treat beliefs differently by free choice of beliefs
(3) Abusive, Discriminatory, Oppressive, Unlawful ACTIONS can be policed by Government but not BELIEFS

TheProgressivePatriot complained on another thread
Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?
that it appears I treat all beliefs as equal even if some are harmful, negative, wrong or lead to unlawful actions while others do not. I was trying to explain the GOVERNMENT cannot penalize people for their beliefs, but people have rights to due process to prove they have caused unlawful abuse or violation before being deprived of liberty.

Can someone please help me explain better what I mean.
I tried twice to explain on that previous thread, and don't think this is the right terminology to use.

If you can read what I was TRYING to say, can you please interpret or translate into
plain secular terms more for Progressive liberal audiences who may not think or believe in Constitutional terms.

Thank you very much!

Attempt #1 is posted here:
Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?

========

Attempt #2 is posted and copied below:
Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?


1. TheProgressivePatriot
A. Beliefs do not have to be proven right to be protected by law.
B. What matters is if people commit ABUSES that violate rights of others.
Just having beliefs in one's heads isn't a violation that GOVT can police.
C. In private, PEOPLE have the right to choose and discriminate, such
as people believing in secular humanism or atheism/nontheism and NOT believing in
or joining Christian or theists groups. People can use political parties like religious organizations
and "vote in" their own policies to pay for, while these policies would "exclude" members of other groups or beliefs.
That's fine IN PRIVATE.
E. What I'm saying is GOVERNMENT does not have AUTHORITY to punish people or exclude them for their BELIEFS.

THIS IS A HUGE POINT:
SEE Amendment 5
AMENDMENT V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

@TheProgressivePatriot You ALSO have the right NOT to be deprived of liberty including YOUR freedom of beliefs WITHOUT FIRST BEING CONVICTED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

This is why it is wrongful to DENY anyone the right to exercise beliefs in same sex marriage when they have done nothing to violate laws. By this law, it also is WRONGFUL to deny CHRISTIANS the right NOT to believe in same sex marriage because that is not against the law but part of religious freedom as well.

BELIEFS CANNOT BE REGULATED BY GOVERNMENT.

That's the DIFFERENCE between individual free choice where people like you and me have the right to discriminate and
to choose whether to change our minds or beliefs FREELY, and NOT be forced by Government to "change or violate our beliefs."

1. By the First Amendment it's Govt not being authorized either to Establish nor Prohibit free exercise of religion
2. By the Fifth Amendment, Govt cannot deprive people of liberty (including freedom of thought, belief, creed) without
DUE PROCESS OF LAW
3. By the Fourteenth Amendment on Equal Protections of the laws and by the Civil Rights statutes against Discrimination by Creed,
people cannot be denied equal rights, freedoms and protections of their BELIEFS by either govt or PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

NOTE: TheProgressivePatriot
this is SEPARATE from people ACTING on their beliefs so as to cause unlawful actions
(examples: abuse, threatening harassment, SLANDER OR LIBEL, Defamation or Misrepresentation, Fraud, UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION (not by BELIEFS alone but by actions against people if this discrimination is based solely on their creeds, race, birth gender, etc. but does not apply to discriminating against behavior or actions that are against someone's BELIEFS)

(a) You have to commit a crime, abuse or violation of law first before being punished by law, penalized or deprived of rights or liberties
(b) With discrimination, people have the right to refuse to ENGAGE in faith-based behaviors or actions, and this is NOT the same
as "discrimination against people for their creeds"
(c) So YES I AGREE that businesses cannot discriminate against people SOLELY for their CREEDS or BELIEFS including LGBT orientation/identity
(d) But also, you have equal rights to BELIEVE in "progay or pro same sex marriage beliefs"
as Christians have to believe in "anti-gay" or "anti same sex marriage beliefs"
because those BELIEFS are FAITH BASED and are NOT government jurisdiction to regulate, penalize, establish or prohibit.

Whether you are right or wrong TheProgressivePatriot
you have the RIGHT to your beliefs, even to discriminate against Christians.
Only if your behavior causes ACTIONS that are unlawful, then those ACTIONS can be policed by Government for violating laws. But NOT your speech, NOT your thoughts, beliefs or creeds!

These LAWS PROTECT YOU as well from Govt abuses infringing on YOUR right to YOUR beliefs. These laws goes both ways, the same laws that protect YOU protect Other People with their beliefs as well as yours!
 
Last edited:

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
14,992
Reaction score
1,957
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Can Pogo C_Clayton_Jones OldLady Coyote or someone more adept with Progressive language
please help me explain to TheProgressivePatriot
what I mean by GOVERNMENT being neutral and treating beliefs/creeds equally while
(1) this doesn't require beliefs to be proven right, true, good or better
(2) INDIVIDUALS retain the right to discriminate and treat beliefs differently by free choice of beliefs
(3) Abusive, Discriminatory, Oppressive, Unlawful ACTIONS can be policed by Government but not BELIEFS

TheProgressivePatriot complained on another thread
Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?
that it appears I treat all beliefs as equal even if some are harmful, negative, wrong or lead to unlawful actions while others do not. I was trying to explain the GOVERNMENT cannot penalize people for their beliefs, but people have rights to due process to prove they have caused unlawful abuse or violation before being deprived of liberty.

Can someone please help me explain better what I mean.
I tried twice to explain on that previous thread, and don't think this is the right terminology to use.

If you can read what I was TRYING to say, can you please interpret or translate into
plain secular terms more for Progressive liberal audiences who may not think or believe in Constitutional terms.

Thank you very much!

Attempt #1 is posted here:
Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?

========

Attempt #2 is posted and copied below:
Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?


1. TheProgressivePatriot
A. Beliefs do not have to be proven right to be protected by law.
B. What matters is if people commit ABUSES that violate rights of others.
Just having beliefs in one's heads isn't a violation that GOVT can police.
C. In private, PEOPLE have the right to choose and discriminate, such
as people believing in secular humanism or atheism/nontheism and NOT believing in
or joining Christian or theists groups. People can use political parties like religious organizations
and "vote in" their own policies to pay for, while these policies would "exclude" members of other groups or beliefs.
That's fine IN PRIVATE.
E. What I'm saying is GOVERNMENT does not have AUTHORITY to punish people or exclude them for their BELIEFS
You have one hell of a nerve using my name in your OP and in a way that grossly misrepresents me. When/where did I have suggest that the government can or should punish beliefs? I said that all beliefs are not equal, which is entirely different. I actually agree with AB above and always have. What I don't believe in is your inane blathering about how all groups can somehow be accommodated and every can be happy. I will not accommodate bigots and they are not equal in their thoughts words or deeds.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
21,967
Reaction score
3,070
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Can Pogo C_Clayton_Jones OldLady Coyote or someone more adept with Progressive language
please help me explain to TheProgressivePatriot
what I mean by GOVERNMENT being neutral and treating beliefs/creeds equally while
(1) this doesn't require beliefs to be proven right, true, good or better
(2) INDIVIDUALS retain the right to discriminate and treat beliefs differently by free choice of beliefs
(3) Abusive, Discriminatory, Oppressive, Unlawful ACTIONS can be policed by Government but not BELIEFS

TheProgressivePatriot complained on another thread
Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?
that it appears I treat all beliefs as equal even if some are harmful, negative, wrong or lead to unlawful actions while others do not. I was trying to explain the GOVERNMENT cannot penalize people for their beliefs, but people have rights to due process to prove they have caused unlawful abuse or violation before being deprived of liberty.

Can someone please help me explain better what I mean.
I tried twice to explain on that previous thread, and don't think this is the right terminology to use.

If you can read what I was TRYING to say, can you please interpret or translate into
plain secular terms more for Progressive liberal audiences who may not think or believe in Constitutional terms.

Thank you very much!

Attempt #1 is posted here:
Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?

========

Attempt #2 is posted and copied below:
Do you consider LGBTQ lifestyles/choices a mental disorder?


1. TheProgressivePatriot
A. Beliefs do not have to be proven right to be protected by law.
B. What matters is if people commit ABUSES that violate rights of others.
Just having beliefs in one's heads isn't a violation that GOVT can police.
C. In private, PEOPLE have the right to choose and discriminate, such
as people believing in secular humanism or atheism/nontheism and NOT believing in
or joining Christian or theists groups. People can use political parties like religious organizations
and "vote in" their own policies to pay for, while these policies would "exclude" members of other groups or beliefs.
That's fine IN PRIVATE.
E. What I'm saying is GOVERNMENT does not have AUTHORITY to punish people or exclude them for their BELIEFS
You have one hell of a nerve using my name in your OP and in a way that grossly misrepresents me. When/where did I have suggest that the government can or should punish beliefs? I said that all beliefs are not equal, which is entirely different. I actually agree with AB above and always have. What I don't believe in is your inane blathering about how all groups can somehow be accommodated and every can be happy. I will not accommodate bigots and they are not equal in their thoughts words or deeds.
Then we AGREE TheProgressivePatriot
We are both talking about the LIMIT on GOVERNMENT
where GOVERNMENT cannot discriminate against people because of their beliefs.

I'm glad we agree. That's my point.

I happen to have Constitutionalist beliefs, where I hold myself to the same standards as I would want Government to follow when it comes to public policy.

For private policy I believe in treating people equally regardless of beliefs or party, because I believe you and me and others ALL have equal right to govern ourselves by our own beliefs, both religious, secular or political beliefs, individual or collective, including natural laws of science.

People's BELIEFS do not threaten me when we take them individually.

When people form GROUPS and start abusing or oppressing others,
that's where I believe in conflict resolution to prevent infringing on each other's rights.
I find if we intervene early enough BEFORE conflicts escalate into violations, we can resolve issues BEFORE crimes or abuses occur; we can solve problems ourselves more effectively than waiting for Govt to step in AFTER violations already occurred. THUS we prevent loss of liberty by preventing wrongs from going too far in the first place; we redress grievances on a verbal level while the conflicts are between thoughts, beliefs and perceptions, not wait for
physical abuses or grievances that require government to step in.

TheProgressivePatriot one difference between you and me is I take the Golden Rule to an extreme in treating others as I would want to be treated.

So if I don't want individual people judging, condemning, punishing or rejecting me because of my beliefs, neither do I judge reject or condemn others.

I believe in equal inclusion so we can RESOLVE CONFLICTS that OTHERWISE lead to abuses. We cannot resolve problems caused by different beliefs if we reject and slam each other and can't communicate for all the fighting and blaming back and forth.

So I take the conflict resolution approach by RESTORATIVE JUSTICE.

I take it you don't have this same faith that people will respond to Restorative Justice efforts to resolve problems, so you find it safer to judge and reject people with "dangerous beliefs".

By that criteria, you would be judged as dangerous and harmful as well. I DON'T agree with treating YOU that way for your beliefs,
so I do not recommend treating OTHER people that way for theirs.

The Golden Rule.


I believe that by enforcing the standard of RESPECT for people like you, even if we diametrically disagree, this does MORE to defend your rights, beliefs and equal protections of the laws
THAN BEING A HYPOCRITE AND REJECTING PEOPLE IF I DON'T BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE REJECTING YOU FOR YOUR BELIEFS.

I believe being consistent is the most compelling effective way
to enforce standards of equal protection of the laws for ALL PEOPLE,
YOU INCLUDED.

If I go around discriminating against people for their beliefs,
I lose leverage and authority to defend YOU against
"discrimination by creed"
if I'M guilty of discriminating, myself.

I believe in practicing what I preach:
which is Constitutional inclusion and equal protection of the laws
regardless of creed or belief, and to resolve any conflicts or abuses
by mediation to restore justice and peace and preserve the equal
rights, beliefs and representation of people affected in each case.


I cannot do my job and practice my beliefs if I am too busy
judging, rejecting and discriminating against people or groups for
their beliefs.

If I want my government to do a better job protecting and including
representation for all people, I should at least enforce by example
these standards I believe would protect people equally, including you!

www.ethics-commission.net
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
21,967
Reaction score
3,070
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
You have one hell of a nerve using my name in your OP and in a way that grossly misrepresents me. When/where did I have suggest that the government can or should punish beliefs? I said that all beliefs are not equal, which is entirely different. I actually agree with AB above and always have. What I don't believe in is your inane blathering about how all groups can somehow be accommodated and every can be happy. I will not accommodate bigots and they are not equal in their thoughts words or deeds.
Thank you TheProgressivePatriot and sorry if we are talking past each other. I did REPORT my OP to ask for your user name to be removed from the Title line. Is it okay to keep the rest?

I am saying that my beliefs are like what the Govt is supposed to be doing.

The Govt is not supposed to discriminate against people for their beliefs,
by the Constitution, so that's what I follow as well.

I try to stick to interpretations and applications of law that can be used to protect people equally.

I thought you were criticizing me for trying to accommodate beliefs equally, the way Govt is supposed to in order not to DISPARAGE people's rights which I am arguing would be punishing them.

I am NOT saying that all the beliefs are the same,
I'm saying there is a WAY to TREAT them equally where no harm is done, even by dangerous or threatening beliefs.

Working with people "one on one" is the best way I know to address the risk of an entire group taking beliefs and abusing collective authority or govt to oppress or violate rights of other people.

That approach can be done while fully respecting the right of individuals to their beliefs.

Can we at least agree that beliefs alone are not enough to cause harm or threaten the rights and equal protection of others?

But threats to rights of others can be caused by
* unlawful threats or actions of such persons ACTING on their beliefs
*COLLECTIVE groups taking an ideology that discriminates
and pushing that through govt or public policy to threaten
or violate the rights of others

Can we agree on those points? Thanks!
 

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top