What will win the god wars? Faith, Fantasy, Facts, or God?

Yeh some people dont believe in murdering the unborn, likewise some states made laws to protect the unborn, if not religion then what wil? Commerce?

 

He does not know what religion is, you will never get a reasonable answer to that question from anyone bent on statism.

 

Oh so this is now become an assault on religion not a moral we call murder?

 

The reason for those laws does not depend on religion in any way.

Polygamy is allowed by some small religious sects, but I don't know of a case where it is central to the religion.

NOBODY has to get an abortion. What's desired here is for specific religious groups to have a say in the lives of those who DO NOT SUBSCRIBE to their religion. That's NOT your issue. In fact, your issue is for that kind of force to be eliminated.

"Gay cakes" is just one example of a whole range of cases where governmentally licensed operators would like to deny services. This involves employment, public accommodation, housing and medicinie, at least.

This is another whole range of cases where people want their religion to be an excuse for discrimination. But, those are ALL cases where these services are only available through government licensed businesses - the method of distributing goods and services in a capitalist economy.

Restricting minority groups from access to goods and services is not something that can possibly be considered consistent with our constitutional direction of equal treatment.

We're not going to give up on our opposition to discrimination. That's just fundamentally opposed to everything America has ever stood for, even though it has beenn a constant challenge to progress on that goal.

This desire for the right to discriminate is shocking to me. Christians (the only actual complainants on this discrimination issue) subscribe to Jesus as a prime authority. And, Jesus was majorly AGAINST discrimination. Read Matthew 25 from verse 30 to the end of the chapter. Read other passages on Jesus tending to the needs of sinners and dispised foreigners.

 

Yes they are expected to be enforced as long as it serves the gov, otherwise there is no reason to enforce it.

 

Got a nice case of cognitive dissonance, which if you dont know is hypocrisy by doublethink, top shelf orwellian!

The first amendment does not say "central to the religion",, as your disinfo movement which has now risen to the level of a lie, since you continue to pontificate it after being shown no such provision exists and you have failed to provide any references what so ever.

Unless of course you want to fiegn ignorance and are incapable of properly distinguishing between "central to the religion" and religion?

 

Not everybody believes there is no moral justification for abortion.

I'd point out that religious opinion on abortion has changed over time, too. For example, one of the big issues in relgion has been the point in time when a fetus/child receives a "soul". That affected religious views on when abortion woudl be OK - since the objective was was focusing on saving the "soul". Some believed that the time of reciving a "soul" came after birth. Popes have adjusted that date.

Do you believe that the Pope's view on the date of ensoulment should be imposed on every American?

 

By central to religion I mean that it is a religious requirement. For example, what religion REQUIRES that men have multiple wives?

I know there are cases where polygamy is allowed by certain small religious communities.

 

Glad you agree with me wil, why do you persist?

 

There is no "religious requirement" for any religion to be considered a religion wil, where did you dig that loonacy up?

Seriously you trying to dig your hole all the way to china?

 

So, you would be satisfied with Canada's laws on abortion?

 

No, think about it.

I'm saying that laws against polygamy don't prevent an action that a religion REQUIRES adherents to perform.

There are laws that exist in this world that do infringe on acts that specific religions require. For example, some religions have dress requirements that include head coverings that some would like to be illegal.

 

They are FORCED BY THE GOV to be licensed under commercial law, and it is FORCED BY THE GOV in areas of employment, public accommodation, housing and medicinie.

People have the right AND DUTY to deny aiding and abetting a sin under their religion to serve another. caveat, the exception of life or emminent danger, baking a gay cake is neither.

 

Since 1988, Canada has had no national abortion law to regulate this medical service at a federal level. Abortion is covered by federal criminal jurisdiction as well as by provincial health care laws, making it both politically and constitutionally sensitive.

as you can see little trouble when they stayed out of the religion business, now that they are in the religion business its a **** mess.

If you are looking for a solution its simple, but that does not increase gov power or reduce the rights of the people so it cant be used in law..

 

What mess?

Canada has fewer abortions per capita than does the USA.

I don't know of anyone in the USA who would be upset with a reduction in our own abortion rate.

 

Allowing discrimination in all cases but those deemed to be life threatening is very obviously not even slightly acceptable.

And, remember that this loophole would allow anyone to discriminate on the basis of anything. After all, our courts have significantly limited ability to judge religion. If someone says their religion requires them to discriminate, courts have limited ability to examine the religion to see if the religion actually does require that.

It would be a massive setback to our foundational belief in equality.

 

The mess your statists made by getting into the religion business, and FORCING THEIR RELIGION ON US.

strawman diversion

strawman diversion

 

To you and your fellow unconstitutional statist pals.

Its perfectly acceptable 'constitutionally', something statists **** on every day.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Nope nothing about discrimination,

sorry wil, it should be crystal clear to you that commercial discrimination law prohibits the free exercise [of religion] thereof !

.

 

You need to be more speciric. I stil don't see what mess you claim exists with what I stated in the last few posts.

The ramifications of allowing religions to demand exceptions to our laws is absolutely NOT a strawman.

The Arizona legislature pass that as a LAW for Arizona - covering pretty much all behavior, land use, etc.

Their governor vetoed the bill. So, it didn't actually make it to being a law.

But, it stands as an example of what YOU want nearly making it to being a state law.

 

the ramifications would prevent your unconstitutional pals from creating laws that violate peoples religion in the first place therefore eliminating any demand for exceptions, but your pals wont do that because it protects the rights of the people.

Still a strawman, nice try wil.

 

You want to consider laws against discrimination to be an illegal establishment of religion??

Or, are you saying that anyone who claims to have a religion should be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of "free exercise thereof"?

It doesn't really matter - neither of those is even slightly acceptable.

 

To you, a totalitarian unconstitutional statist!

anyone where discrimination laws violate their religious beliefs ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED to discriminate on the grounds of "free exercise thereof" ....and obligated by a duty to their religion to ignore any imposed statist religion. with the aforementioned caveat.
yes

 

I'm not sure I need to understand if there is a God or not because the complexity would be beyond one persons intelligence. Could we not be but the toys of a group of spiritual Gods children? The "Garden of Eden" must have been a scary place with all those dinosaurs walking around or were they just play things for the Gods? If God made Eve from Adams rib wouldn't all DNA, traced back in time, be the same? I'm still trying to find out where the land of Nod was when Cain was banished from the Garden. It is all fascinating reading and much wisdom on how to live our lives is written in there. Even back then we had people who questioned others "by what authority do you have". I guess it all comes down to power.

If one has Faith that the Bible and Koran and others are the word of God then they are giving away a lot of their freedom and independence but have the solace to believe no matter what happens in their life it is the will of God and in the end they will be rewarded for enduring. Others wish to live there life as they see fit, and and wish not to be judged by others, for their destination is their own.

The world is big enough to satisfy everyones needs, but will always be too small to satisfy everyones greed

Mahatma Gandhi

 

Name me one country that is run by tyrants that has not made itself prisoners in it's own castles.

 

China.