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

It's against federal law to fire sometime for being a member of a religion. But someone promoting something to the point it is disruptive should be an acceptable reason to fire someone.

But I don't know what these in your face actions are. I keep hearing the phrase "in your face" along with "shoving it down our throats" but nobody has really been able to explain what that means outside of gays and lesbians not keeping their sexuality a secret.

 

It seems like they are almost out for revenge sometimes. However, there are certain areas where some people don't have equal civil rights to others.

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with any view you have about what you think business owners "should" do and only has a problem when it becomes what they shall do or face penalties in the 100s of $1000 if they don't, that becomes an imposition of beliefs on others.

 

Unlike Homosexual, heterosexuals, pansexuals or any variety of sexuals. Fat people, skinny people, short people or tall. People with large noses, funny haircuts or buck teeth. A nearly infinite list of varieties of people, not just homosexuals.

 

If your beliefs prevent you from doing business without facing fines, sucks to be you. You have the right to religous expression. You do not have the right to operate a business without obeying federal state and local laws.

This is why the religous angle is a failing argument. And I can make y the argument that is my religious belief that I must be homosexual. Therefore if you ate sucks against my sexuality you are discriminating against my religion. The 14th amendment forbids discrimination against religion.

 

So your reasoning why Christians should retain their special protections and accommodations and gay people should be able to be fired, kicked from their homes and refused service by those same "Christians" is that other groups exist, that people most likely aren't going to discriminate against?

Really? That's your argument?
Ok

 

As long as certain groups retain special protections I hope it becomes 10,000 of $1000's.
The business that want to be able to choose their customers while maintaining public accommodations for themselves can, how do you and your ilk so eloquently put it, move to where they are wanted.

 

If i pull the tiniest thread the whole tapestry unravels.

One could simply say it's against their religion to be heterosexual. Than refusing to serve them because they are gay is religious discrimination.

Also a Christian bakery couldn't refuse service to a satanic devil worshipper because that is a religious belief. And discriminating against that violates the civil rights act.

 

and belief that this NT is literally the inerrant 'Word of God', also leads to all sorts of problems (especially emanating from the religious Right), some of which are being debated in this thread.

If indeed the Koran precludes separation of church and state, that's a significantly more devilish problem in a globalising world; so the question becomes, how can the world accomodate literal belief in inerrant scripture?

 

Nope. Especially since I'm not religious, I think anyone should be able to discriminate in a private business with minor exceptions.

 

Such as? Belief that the koran is literally the inerrant 'Word of God' leads to this worldwide campaign of Islamic terrorism by Muslims who believe they must "fight", "kill", "slay" and "smite the necks" of the unbelievers "until..... religion is only for allah"

How about the Muslim brotherhood? Their motto,
"God is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of God is our highest hope. God is greater!"

The largest political organization in the Muslim world, formed shortly after the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate in the 1920s, to re establish the Caliphate that was as old as Islam itself.

I'll ask you again, do you really think the Islamic caliphates as they existed from 632 until the 1920s, applying Islamic doctrine as law, the joining of church and state as one, was some kind of departure from Islamic doctrine as opposed to an implementation of that doctrine?

"Their fascination was arisen after the defenders of democracy and the
defenders of other such false ideologies (who have no religion) defended democracy simply for the sake of it, and they mixed the falsehood with the Truth.
..... They distort the Truth with Falsehood, and mix the Light with the Darkness, and the Polytheism of democracy with the Monotheism of Islam. But we, with the help of Allah, replied to all of these fallacies, and showed that democracy is a religion. But it is not Allah’s religion. It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. All of these must be avoided to achieve monotheism, which is Allah’s right upon His servants. We must destroy those who follow democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies - hate them and wage a great Jihad against them."
Maqdisi
http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/DemocracyReligion.pdf

"Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it. Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. ...
This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute. Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the sources of all authority are human, deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men.
This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out-those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth. ...
After annihilating the tyrannical force, whether it be in a political or a racial form, or in the form of class distinctions within the same race, Islam establishes a new social, economic and political system, in which the concept of the freedom of man is applied in practice."
Qutb

 

I'm perfectly able to concede the fact (if indeed it is a fact) the Koran does not allow for separation of church and state. OK. Lets also agree that belief in the Koran as the inerrant, literal Word of God is unsustainable. Done.

Now you asked for examples of problems arising from a similar belief that the NT is the literal, inerrant Word of God (forget the OT!). Really?

Look at the disputes caused by conservative forces within and outside the various Christian churches, with their fundamentalist readings of NT texts around such issues re the status of women within and without the church, homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion rights and voluntary assisted dying.

]

Notice the desire to achieve a perfect world, similar in this respect to the kingdom to be set up on earth, on Christ's second coming. So perhaps religions in part represent the dreams of men for a better world.

I'm sympathetic to the vision, if not the means...

So to my question, how can the world accomodate belief in literal inerrant scripture?

 

Interesting how our biases colour our understanding.

I would see it as a mutual defense pact, believing that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is naturally attractive to all humankind and worth defending.

The bigoted and ignorant, or those with an unreasoning and unreasonable self-interestedness, or fear of the 'other' , or those comitted to cultural imperialism, refusing or unable to see the strengths in other cultures - and not comprehending that in any case all cultures must change - will of course seek to hinder progress toward this worthy goal.

The SC veto will be abolished when we finally realize the advantages of enabling the effective administration of well-ordered relations between nations in a modern, technologically advanced, inclusive, productive, sustainable *global* economy, which admittedly we have not yet achieved, and which therefore some cannot conceive, or worse maybe they are not interested in shared prosperity at all, eg, see Trump's appointment of 'Death by China' author Peter Navarro, as America's trade rep.
His argument is amazing for its lack of vision c.70 years after Keynes' presented his ideas for a new global economy at the Bretton Woods conference (1944).

In the meantime we will remain enslaved by the delusion that war ensures freedom.

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe".

 

Prophecy for the future. As opposed to Islams commandments in the present to "fight", "kill", "slay" and "smite the necks" of the unbelievers "until.... religion is only for Allah".

 

I agree completely.
Most holding the view of religious freedom want to only apply it to one group, for this reason alone it will never survive a court challenge and we will be right back at square one.
No one is arguing involuntary servitude, no one is arguing property rights, no one is arguing freedom of association.

 

Unless of course its a homosexual being discriminated against then you get your panties all bunched up in a knot

 

There can be no exceptions. It's either a right or it isn't.

 

I don't. It's clearly the right wing religious whackadoodles who have made intolerance and exclusion an institution. When called on their BS, the defer to a set of bronze age fairy tales. I hold nothing but contempt for that, and have no empathy for that kind of stupidity.

 

I see the difference; however our own *biblical* literalists are not above working to 'hurry the prophecy along' so to speak.

Look at the fundamentalist streak in the Christian right that permeates conservative US policy on Israel, with a view to fostering the building of the third temple in Jerusalem, which some literalists view as a prerequisite for Christ's return, etc.

That policy, in part responsible for the US veto (often ALONE) of all UN attempts to implement Resolution 242, over the last 4 decades, is a direct cause of *some* of the turmoil in the Islamic world.

(Interestingly Obama is making a last ditch effort in the UN to improve his record in this regard, but he's left it too late, Trump intends to maintain US policy as before).

Meanwhile people of goodwill in the three Abrahamic religions, and others, are attempting to effect a meeting of minds on behalf of the common worship of One True God - unfortunately still very much a fringe activity re its actual influence in world affairs.

.

 

Bravo! Very few people seem to understand this. The Bible has been driving right-wing and even left-wing policies for decades. We have been running foreign policy based on a fairy tale.

 

Equal is equal. Sorry you disagree.

 

Islam isn't seen as a threat in this context given that they are a small minority of our population. And it is unfortunately true that "religious freedom" is more often used to promote bigotry by Christians rather than oppose bigotry against them.

 

My problem with religious freedom in the USA its usually only applied evenly to Christian and to a lesser extent Jewish people and Native American religious practices meaning a Catholic would defend on principle the Native American Medicine Man (or Woman) has a right to smoke Peyote as part of rituals with his or her peers. But what about other religions say the same Catholic had to defend a Satanist wanting to do a Black Mass as a public right or a Pagan who wanted to renew a sex cult of some old faith and hold sex orgies you think either would get fair legal protections in many places in the USA? For me its fine but all religions then need equal unquestioning acceptance as long as they obey other common law so the sex orgy cult could have only adult members orgy-ing away but should be zoned like any church and be allowed to promote their beliefs the same way Christians can or its not fair now is it?

 

Just for the record, Jesus never said a word about GLBT's one way or the other, not a single word..

 

`
`
When it comes to so-called patriotic, American christians, this quote always comes to mind; "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."