Why do the people who voted for Hillary want to pay more taxes?

[Flash]

[Q

Feel free to invite those people to raid your refrigerator.

She doesn't want the welfare queens to raid her refrigerator. She wants them to have the right to raid other people's refrigerator.

Liberals are stingy with their own money but like to give away other people's moeny.

 

[Flash]

[QU


Don't drive on our roads, send your kids to our schools or use anything that the tax payers paid for. Seriously, how can you be against all taxes? It is nearly impossible not to benefit in some way from them.

You are confused Moon Bat.

There are a few necessary government expenditures like defense, police, courts etc.

The problem comes with you commie assholes wanting to use the government to take other people's money to pay your bills.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Except for the fact that liberals hate Christianity.

That is the RWNJ party line. Of course, it's just another lie, but that hasn't mattered so far.

Actually, the left has seemed to do everything in its power to remove God from any and every public venue, from government buildings to schools, so, id say his statement is pretty spot on.

Why in the world would you think that references to God are appropriate in public and government buildings?

Many people - including religious people - think that references to God are absolutely inappropriate in public and government buildings. Refusing to allow it does not mean Christians are hated nor is it a rebuke of religious beliefs.

The days of theocracy are over. Religion and government should be absolutely separated. That does not constitute persecution of Religion or religious people.

How would you like it if the government pushed someone else's religion on you? Would you like it if symbols of Islam or Satanism were displayed in government buildings?

Would you feel comfortable if a judge displayed Sharia law in his court room while you were on trial?

Not allowing Christian or other religious symbols in government buildings doesn't mean Christians are persecuted, it means that we are free from persecution by Christians.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Even Jesus believed in separation of church and state!

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

 

[francoHFW]

We need to go back to Pre-Reagan taxes on the goddamn Rich and the corporations...We need to use that money to rebuild our infrastructure and invest into the education of our children.

If we don't then China will be eating our lunch by mid-century.

That's the last thing we need. Obama was given $900 billion to spend on infrastructure. So where is it? The "infrastructure" scam is just a way for Dims to get more money for parasites. It's bait and switch.

Of the stimulus 200 billion was for infrastructure, super dupe. Everything you know is wrong, super dupe. Reagan cut infrastructure spending in half and we still are screwing that up--all to save your precious Mega rich. How the hell do parasites get the money?

 

[BULLDOG]

That is the RWNJ party line. Of course, it's just another lie, but that hasn't mattered so far.

Actually, the left has seemed to do everything in its power to remove God from any and every public venue, from government buildings to schools, so, id say his statement is pretty spot on.

Why in the world would you think that references to God are appropriate in public and government buildings?

Many people - including religious people - think that references to God are absolutely inappropriate in public and government buildings. Refusing to allow it does not mean Christians are hated nor is it a rebuke of religious beliefs.

The days of theocracy are over. Religion and government should be absolutely separated. That does not constitute persecution of Religion or religious people.

How would you like it if the government pushed someone else's religion on you? Would you like it if symbols of Islam or Satanism were displayed in government buildings?

Would you feel comfortable if a judge displayed Sharia law in his court room while you were on trial?

Not allowing Christian or other religious symbols in government buildings doesn't mean Christians are persecuted, it means that we are free from persecution by Christians.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Even Jesus believed in separation of church and state!

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

So you do want our government to bend to a specific religious dogma. Sorry that isn't allowed by the constitution. What if my religion believes in human sacrifice? Should that be allowed too?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Christian charity maybe?
You know...wanting to take care of their fellow citizens like Jesus commanded?

Can you point to the bible verse where Jesus commanded that we pay taxes to the government?

I recall him overturning the taxmans tables in the temple...……….

I guess you missed the part when Jesus said:

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Clearly, Jesus believed in limited government. Liberals hate that part about giving to God what is God’s (....they don’t believe anything belongs to God).

 

[Jessica123]

Actually, the left has seemed to do everything in its power to remove God from any and every public venue, from government buildings to schools, so, id say his statement is pretty spot on.

Why in the world would you think that references to God are appropriate in public and government buildings?

Many people - including religious people - think that references to God are absolutely inappropriate in public and government buildings. Refusing to allow it does not mean Christians are hated nor is it a rebuke of religious beliefs.

The days of theocracy are over. Religion and government should be absolutely separated. That does not constitute persecution of Religion or religious people.

How would you like it if the government pushed someone else's religion on you? Would you like it if symbols of Islam or Satanism were displayed in government buildings?

Would you feel comfortable if a judge displayed Sharia law in his court room while you were on trial?

Not allowing Christian or other religious symbols in government buildings doesn't mean Christians are persecuted, it means that we are free from persecution by Christians.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Even Jesus believed in separation of church and state!

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

So you do want our government to bend to a specific religious dogma. Sorry that isn't allowed by the constitution. What if my religion believes in human sacrifice? Should that be allowed too?

They're against investing in our infrastructure but are perfectly ok with forcing an religion on everyone. Weird people.

 

[francoHFW]

[Q

Feel free to invite those people to raid your refrigerator.

She doesn't want the welfare queens to raid her refrigerator. She wants them to have the right to raid other people's refrigerator.

Liberals are stingy with their own money but like to give away other people's moeny.

Your blind brainwashed hatred of the unfortunate is noted. Enjoy hell. Plenty of Republicans down there...

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually, the left has seemed to do everything in its power to remove God from any and every public venue, from government buildings to schools, so, id say his statement is pretty spot on.

Why in the world would you think that references to God are appropriate in public and government buildings?

Many people - including religious people - think that references to God are absolutely inappropriate in public and government buildings. Refusing to allow it does not mean Christians are hated nor is it a rebuke of religious beliefs.

The days of theocracy are over. Religion and government should be absolutely separated. That does not constitute persecution of Religion or religious people.

How would you like it if the government pushed someone else's religion on you? Would you like it if symbols of Islam or Satanism were displayed in government buildings?

Would you feel comfortable if a judge displayed Sharia law in his court room while you were on trial?

Not allowing Christian or other religious symbols in government buildings doesn't mean Christians are persecuted, it means that we are free from persecution by Christians.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Even Jesus believed in separation of church and state!

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

Tit-for-tat huh? Seems childish.

Should government stay out of cases of human sacrifice?

Religions must obey the law of the land. Governments do not obey the law of Religion.

If they did which Religion would they obey?

You seem to imply that governments enforcing Sharia law is acceptable.

Quite the opposite, I don't want government enforcing any religion. Just because you see religious symbolism on public buildings doesn't mean it's being shoved down your throat, government isn't forcing you to do anything. It's just how things were built by people who believed in Christianity. But, it's been made very clear that, those images offend people, so, they are being removed.

That is fine, I get.it, non believers are offended by those things, so they advocated, and they won. So, because they don't want those kinds of things displayed, because they feel that it is being shoved down their throat, then believers should have just as much right to not be burdened by the wishes of non believers.

In other words, the next time one of those gay wedding cake scenarios pops up, the courts should throw it out, citing that government cannot meddle in the affairs of believers, as doing so would trample on their religious liberties. Also, our constitution already says that government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, so all of those cases should have been thrown out anyway.

What some call gate "speech", others would call not being forced to do something that goes against their beliefs.

So, at the end of the day, you want to keep religion out if government, then, except for cases where a felony would be committed, then government needs to stay out of religion.

Not how it works. Why should a business be allowed to ignore public access laws just because of their religion? The laws are for all of us. Quit thinking you are more equal than others.

Why should an individual be allowed to infringe on the beliefs of a private business? What you're saying is, the rights of some do not matter or the rights of others can supercede those rights.

If that is the case, I should be able to bring 20 hogs to an Islamic butcher, and he should be forced to process them, correct?

Or, if businesses must adhere to the law of the land, then if a state has an open carry law, then a business should not be allowed to put up "no guns" signs.

 

[francoHFW]

That is the RWNJ party line. Of course, it's just another lie, but that hasn't mattered so far.

Actually, the left has seemed to do everything in its power to remove God from any and every public venue, from government buildings to schools, so, id say his statement is pretty spot on.

Why in the world would you think that references to God are appropriate in public and government buildings?

Many people - including religious people - think that references to God are absolutely inappropriate in public and government buildings. Refusing to allow it does not mean Christians are hated nor is it a rebuke of religious beliefs.

The days of theocracy are over. Religion and government should be absolutely separated. That does not constitute persecution of Religion or religious people.

How would you like it if the government pushed someone else's religion on you? Would you like it if symbols of Islam or Satanism were displayed in government buildings?

Would you feel comfortable if a judge displayed Sharia law in his court room while you were on trial?

Not allowing Christian or other religious symbols in government buildings doesn't mean Christians are persecuted, it means that we are free from persecution by Christians.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Even Jesus believed in separation of church and state!

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

You are a great example of the brilliance of the separation of church and state

 

[Markle]

NYTimes: Profitable Companies, No Taxes: Here’s How They Did It
Profitable Companies, No Taxes: Here’s How They Did It Profitable Companies, No Taxes: Here’s How They Did It

This is one reason I don't like corporations. No matter how great their profit, they pay $0 in taxes.

That's just malarkey. You've been chugging way too much of George Soros' and The Nation cool aid.

At one time I owned five corporations. None paid any taxes, nor were they ever intended to show a profit. It was all fed through the corporations and I paid taxes on my personal taxes.

In the past several decades, the New York Times has been losing subscribers and shrinking their office size and staff down to a mere shadow of its former self.

 

[francoHFW]

I get screwed by the Democrat voting welfare queens every year when I pay taxes on money that I earned but yet those assholes get it.

Disgusting isn't it?

Welfare is a gigantic pain in the ass, nobody wants to be on it. Most of the things you dupes want welfare to do it already is. Screening and testing for drugs, work 4 benefits, applying for work, Etc. The GOP giveaway to the rich is the problem, dumbass Dupes...

Nobody wants to be on welfare?

Bullshit statement of the year.

Single mothers are a cancer in this country. And despite what you believe, they want all that welfare and want to be on it, as they spread their dumber than stupid genes.

They probably believe GOP propaganda that welfare is fun LOL. There are tons of white girls doing the same thing by the way duh...

98% of welfare is for people that need it and most of those are already working hard to get by. What the republicans want to do is to take it away and force people to ******* take food out of the trash can. Republicans are heartless fuckers.

Feel free to invite those people to raid your refrigerator.

My goodness you are brain-dead LOL. Charity doesn't work and Democrats like a civilized Society. And the rich will pay for it. The rest already pay too much duh.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually, the left has seemed to do everything in its power to remove God from any and every public venue, from government buildings to schools, so, id say his statement is pretty spot on.

Why in the world would you think that references to God are appropriate in public and government buildings?

Many people - including religious people - think that references to God are absolutely inappropriate in public and government buildings. Refusing to allow it does not mean Christians are hated nor is it a rebuke of religious beliefs.

The days of theocracy are over. Religion and government should be absolutely separated. That does not constitute persecution of Religion or religious people.

How would you like it if the government pushed someone else's religion on you? Would you like it if symbols of Islam or Satanism were displayed in government buildings?

Would you feel comfortable if a judge displayed Sharia law in his court room while you were on trial?

Not allowing Christian or other religious symbols in government buildings doesn't mean Christians are persecuted, it means that we are free from persecution by Christians.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Even Jesus believed in separation of church and state!

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

So you do want our government to bend to a specific religious dogma. Sorry that isn't allowed by the constitution. What if my religion believes in human sacrifice? Should that be allowed too?

And there lies the conundrum, for me at least. Obviously, the answer is no, because it breaks the law of murder, however, if you make an exception for that, then how far will it go.

My only response is, if the practice doesn't result in loss of life, or a serious felony, then it should be off the table for government. And yes, I'll admit, I don't have a good answer for that, however, what I'm trying to get at is, in the battle for religious liberty, it seems the non believer is winning, and I'm wondering how that makes things equal for the believer? Seems like the non believer has more rights.

 

[sealybobo]

Seriously, this is illogical and ignorant. So why do you want to keep less of your money and give more away to the government?

Be specific please

So I and everyone else gets their social security and Medicare.

 

[francoHFW]

NYTimes: Profitable Companies, No Taxes: Here’s How They Did It
Profitable Companies, No Taxes: Here’s How They Did It Profitable Companies, No Taxes: Here’s How They Did It

This is one reason I don't like corporations. No matter how great their profit, they pay $0 in taxes.

That's just malarkey. You've been chugging way too much of George Soros' and The Nation cool aid.

At one time I owned five corporations. None paid any taxes, nor were they ever intended to show a profit. It was all fed through the corporations and I paid taxes on my personal taxes.

In the past several decades, the New York Times has been losing subscribers and shrinking their office size and staff down to a mere shadow of its former self.

Like all other newspapers...

 

[francoHFW]

Anyone here disagrees with this meme?

All the Democrats and anyone with brain d u h. Too bad your accounting degree doesn't help you think...

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually, the left has seemed to do everything in its power to remove God from any and every public venue, from government buildings to schools, so, id say his statement is pretty spot on.

Why in the world would you think that references to God are appropriate in public and government buildings?

Many people - including religious people - think that references to God are absolutely inappropriate in public and government buildings. Refusing to allow it does not mean Christians are hated nor is it a rebuke of religious beliefs.

The days of theocracy are over. Religion and government should be absolutely separated. That does not constitute persecution of Religion or religious people.

How would you like it if the government pushed someone else's religion on you? Would you like it if symbols of Islam or Satanism were displayed in government buildings?

Would you feel comfortable if a judge displayed Sharia law in his court room while you were on trial?

Not allowing Christian or other religious symbols in government buildings doesn't mean Christians are persecuted, it means that we are free from persecution by Christians.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Even Jesus believed in separation of church and state!

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

You are a great example of the brilliance of the separation of church and state

I never said I had all the answers, I'm not ashamed to admit, my argument may be flawed, but, one thing is for certain, there is an inequality happening between the rights of believers and the rights of non believers.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why in the world would you think that references to God are appropriate in public and government buildings?

Many people - including religious people - think that references to God are absolutely inappropriate in public and government buildings. Refusing to allow it does not mean Christians are hated nor is it a rebuke of religious beliefs.

The days of theocracy are over. Religion and government should be absolutely separated. That does not constitute persecution of Religion or religious people.

How would you like it if the government pushed someone else's religion on you? Would you like it if symbols of Islam or Satanism were displayed in government buildings?

Would you feel comfortable if a judge displayed Sharia law in his court room while you were on trial?

Not allowing Christian or other religious symbols in government buildings doesn't mean Christians are persecuted, it means that we are free from persecution by Christians.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Even Jesus believed in separation of church and state!

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

Tit-for-tat huh? Seems childish.

Should government stay out of cases of human sacrifice?

Religions must obey the law of the land. Governments do not obey the law of Religion.

If they did which Religion would they obey?

You seem to imply that governments enforcing Sharia law is acceptable.

Quite the opposite, I don't want government enforcing any religion. Just because you see religious symbolism on public buildings doesn't mean it's being shoved down your throat, government isn't forcing you to do anything. It's just how things were built by people who believed in Christianity. But, it's been made very clear that, those images offend people, so, they are being removed.

That is fine, I get.it, non believers are offended by those things, so they advocated, and they won. So, because they don't want those kinds of things displayed, because they feel that it is being shoved down their throat, then believers should have just as much right to not be burdened by the wishes of non believers.

In other words, the next time one of those gay wedding cake scenarios pops up, the courts should throw it out, citing that government cannot meddle in the affairs of believers, as doing so would trample on their religious liberties. Also, our constitution already says that government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, so all of those cases should have been thrown out anyway.

What some call gate "speech", others would call not being forced to do something that goes against their beliefs.

So, at the end of the day, you want to keep religion out if government, then, except for cases where a felony would be committed, then government needs to stay out of religion.

Not how it works. Why should a business be allowed to ignore public access laws just because of their religion? The laws are for all of us. Quit thinking you are more equal than others.

Why should an individual be allowed to infringe on the beliefs of a private business? What you're saying is, the rights of some do not matter or the rights of others can supercede those rights.

If that is the case, I should be able to bring 20 hogs to an Islamic butcher, and he should be forced to process them, correct?

Or, if businesses must adhere to the law of the land, then if a state has an open carry law, then a business should not be allowed to put up "no guns" signs.

Don't be silly. Laws supercede your particular wants. What you seem to want is anarchy.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why in the world would you think that references to God are appropriate in public and government buildings?

Many people - including religious people - think that references to God are absolutely inappropriate in public and government buildings. Refusing to allow it does not mean Christians are hated nor is it a rebuke of religious beliefs.

The days of theocracy are over. Religion and government should be absolutely separated. That does not constitute persecution of Religion or religious people.

How would you like it if the government pushed someone else's religion on you? Would you like it if symbols of Islam or Satanism were displayed in government buildings?

Would you feel comfortable if a judge displayed Sharia law in his court room while you were on trial?

Not allowing Christian or other religious symbols in government buildings doesn't mean Christians are persecuted, it means that we are free from persecution by Christians.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Even Jesus believed in separation of church and state!

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

So you do want our government to bend to a specific religious dogma. Sorry that isn't allowed by the constitution. What if my religion believes in human sacrifice? Should that be allowed too?

And there lies the conundrum, for me at least. Obviously, the answer is no, because it breaks the law of murder, however, if you make an exception for that, then how far will it go.

My only response is, if the practice doesn't result in loss of life, or a serious felony, then it should be off the table for government. And yes, I'll admit, I don't have a good answer for that, however, what I'm trying to get at is, in the battle for religious liberty, it seems the non believer is winning, and I'm wondering how that makes things equal for the believer? Seems like the non believer has more rights.

That's where you draw the line?-----at death? You're trying to get at some way your religion isn't required to follow the laws required for everyone else. You can't get there from here.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why in the world would you think that references to God are appropriate in public and government buildings?

Many people - including religious people - think that references to God are absolutely inappropriate in public and government buildings. Refusing to allow it does not mean Christians are hated nor is it a rebuke of religious beliefs.

The days of theocracy are over. Religion and government should be absolutely separated. That does not constitute persecution of Religion or religious people.

How would you like it if the government pushed someone else's religion on you? Would you like it if symbols of Islam or Satanism were displayed in government buildings?

Would you feel comfortable if a judge displayed Sharia law in his court room while you were on trial?

Not allowing Christian or other religious symbols in government buildings doesn't mean Christians are persecuted, it means that we are free from persecution by Christians.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Even Jesus believed in separation of church and state!

As I said to bulldog earlier, I will concede that if believers keep their religion out of government, then government should stay out of religion. Does that sound fair?

I must have missed that response. There is no reason to believe religions should be exempt from the rules that govern all of us.

So, you believe that the only freedom of religion is the freedom that is granted by the government? Is that really freedom then?

Obviously, things where loss of life are concern, or other serious felony crimes are concerned, yes, those things should be punished by the law, but things like that whole gay cake thing, that should have never even made it to the courts. A company exercising their right to not participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. In that case, the only people who were granted rights were the gay couple. The baker was denied their rights. And it's not that they refused service. They said they would have sold them any cake that was already made. They just didn't want to participate in the ceremony by making a cake especially for that occasion.

That is what I'm talking about. One group says they don't want religion being shoved down their throats, well, I'm sure the religious crowd doesn't want things non believers do shoved down their throats.

Solution? Non believers don't want believers encroaching on them, then believers don't want non believers trampling on them either.

You are a great example of the brilliance of the separation of church and state

I never said I had all the answers, I'm not ashamed to admit, my argument may be flawed, but, one thing is for certain, there is an inequality happening between the rights of believers and the rights of non believers.

Admitting you don't have the answer is a start, but there is no way you can justify concessions for your religion that aren't offered for others. I know that is disappointing for you.