Religious freedom is code word for intolerance, says civil rights chairman.

Islam is not a religion. It's a violent cult.

 

Americans recognize no authority (law) beyond our Constitution, no matter how well intended or crafted.

 

In the future the UN will consolidate, and eventually simply invade all nations which disobey its resolutions or try to secede.

Sort of like a mutual offense pact.

 

Ofcourse; literal interpretation of *any* scripture can result in catastrophe, eg, Rabin's murder by an assassin citing OT passages, and the inestimable consequences of that act.

The Prophet died in 632; the Koran is unclear re the succession of caliphs (or caliphates), as shown in this Wikipedia article:

The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that, as a head of state, a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives.[4] Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God from the Ahl al-Bayt (the "Family of the House", Muhammad's direct descendants).

As for interpretation of scripture and its realisation: just as Jesus would not want to be associated, nor held responsible for everthing that has followed in His name, so for the Prophet [but the Prophet was a warrior - he had to be, to overcome the pagan Arabian resistance - and his experience in war colours the Koran].

Thanks for that elucidation..

 

Well, in the United States, the Constitution does prohibit codifying religious views into a law that applies to people of all faiths. So when the GOP tries to impose an anachronistic political practice of the Catholic Church on all Americans, that is unconstitutional. Same thing for laws that attempt to give alleged "Christians" special privileges, and deny rights and privileges to others because of their faiths. And when they say that they're "defending" their religion when they do these unconstitutional things, they're also being dishonest, as they are doing the exact opposite in fact.

 

Christians have the new testament.

Where in the Bible does it say that he abolished the sabbath and eating kosher?.
Ephesians 2
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Hebrews 8
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 10
4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.(*)

Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

Galatians 3 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

A literal interpretation would include a literal interpretation of the entire bible.

A dispute as to who would lead the Caliphate. No dispute as to its necessity. Not sure of the relevance to the topic of discussion

 

Yeah, usually right after you insist that a Christian cant refuse to bake a gay wedding cake.

 

Jehova Witnesses routinely receive conscientious objector status, relieving them of any duty to fight.

 

As long as people claiming religious affiliation have special protections and force of law to make business serve them, I hope they shut down every single business that refuses to serve a minority group, including homosexuals. You either want equality or you don't.

Your ducking and weaving around 90+ percent of my posts show how frail and pathetic your argument is. If your arguments cannot even go toe to toe with an anonymous internet poster I don't think they will fare well in a legal setting.

 

Some would say the same about the Christian religion.
The religious laws being pushed apply to all religions, not just the ones you deem relevant.

 

Reminds me of the conspiracy fantasy that obama had taken over the us government and would never leave office... or the fantasy that the army training exercise in Texas was a take over.... or that there is some plan to confiscate all guns... etc etc etc

 

Im right here in your face, not ducking and weaving

 

And editing almost every post you respond to.

 

For the left, religious freedom means the ability to impose your beliefs on the religious.

 

I select the portion of your posts I choose to respond to. And cant help but notice you haven't denied my assertion. You instead ducked and weaved to whining that I'm not responding to your entire post.

 

I knew a couple of adherents who got this status only after they went to court to fight the government. Others were not so lucky. Ditto for Catholic Workers and other CO's.

- - - Updated - - -

Bob Jones and Liberty College are right wing.

 

Nor does the freedom to be as perverted as you like give you the right to force anyone of normal inclination to join you in whatever perverted act you have the freedom to engage in.

Why not get your XXXX rated wedding cake and your nude pictures done by another pervert?? According to the liberal horde 40+% of the population is twisted so there are a lot of places to find the service that you want.

Kind of like Hillary and her liberal horde crying and stomping their feet that the TRUTH about them being exposed cost her the election.

 

Yes. We need to keep the newspeak agenda going.. let's call mandated conformity, 'tolerance', & freedom of religion, 'intolerance'. Perfect orwellian newthink.

Don't these people know they are just living & promoting a stereotype? A fictional account of a totalitarian world order?

 

For the same reason religious persons cannot be terminated from their position or black people cannot be refused housing. Your exact same argument has been used in the past the only difference was the party christians wanted to discriminate against - it failed to live up to legal scrutiny.

 

You select the portions of my posts that you can respond to that doesn't dismantle your argument. I guess it's easier to convince yourself you narrative is correct if you just ignore the parts you don't like.
What assertion am I ignoring? You make so many off the wall statements I may have missed one.

 

Being that anyone involved in civil rights is as intolerant as they come, they should know all there is to know about it.

 

Which beliefs? The belief that a baker that makes wedding cakes to sale to the public should make wedding cakes? Y'all tried to impose your religious beliefs by denying same sex couples from marriage, removing people from military service, refusing hospital visitation and in having gay men arrested - that any of you can sit there with a straight face and pretend like baking a cake is the ultimate injustice, it's pathetic and worthy of ridicule.

 

First of all, we aren't talking about work place issues and second if we were you can be fired for disruptively promoting christianity. Forcing other workers to pray with you could get you fired,, couldn't it??????? Crosses have been banned from work places and torn down on public property so the type of in your face actions the perverts want us to accept is not allowed by christians.

 

They can not be fired for being Christian, unlike homosexuals. They cannot be fired for demanding "reasonable accommodation" in the workplace - increasing the workload of coworkers, unlike homosexuals.

You cannot refuse to provide service to a Christian - and many people believe they are insane, yet they are required by law to accommodate them. Baking a cake for a gay person should be no different.

 

You're still missing the point. Whether you wish to serve a certain type of customer a certain type of product is still a property rights issue.

The religous expression angle is a bad one. It never works.