Religious Conscience Must Be Protected
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Independence Day is more than fireworks and barbecues. It is a wonderful time for Americans to reflect on the true foundations of our great country. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has reminded us of one of the most fundamental of those ideas: Americans should not be forced to participate in activities that violate their religious beliefs against their conscience.
As attorney general, it is my duty to prioritize and defend the rule of law, including our constitutional rights. Over the past few years I have been closely engaged in several legal cases that touch at the heart of Americans' fundamental right of freedom of speech.
Last week the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) by striking down a California law that required crisis pregnancy centers to provide information on abortions, a position that was contrary to their religious beliefs. The Court found that California lacked justification to force pro-life entities and counselors to speak a message with which they disagreed. The Court, therefore, invalidated California's attempt to force pregnancy centers--entities specifically set up to provide an alternative to abortion clinics--to post large advertisements providing information on the existence of free and low-cost abortions.
Likewise, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court criticized and ruled against a state agency that appeared to be penalizing the thoughts and speech of religious persons. It found that Colorado's Civil Rights Commission failed to give consideration to the religious-based reasons that prompted a baker to refuse to design and bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Since the baker designs cakes for LGBT clients for occasions other than marriage, the Court found the Civil Rights Commission to be unnecessarily hostile to and dismissive of the baker's religious objections.
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion was particularly concerned that the baker's religious reason for refusing to design a cake for a same-sex wedding was treated more harshly than the Commission treated non-religious reasons for not designing cakes given by other bakers in other cases. The Court found that the differing standard of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission disfavored religion and persons of religious conviction.
The lessons that emerge from these cases are the same lessons about our Constitutional rights taught in civics classes around the country. Each of these cases is about liberty of conscience--the inability of the government to dictate how citizens think and feel without punishment for believing something different than others believe.
Retiring Justice Kennedy, in one of his final concurrences, scolded the California Legislature for its self-proclaimed "forward thinking" by forcing individual speech and beliefs. He suggested the state gain historical perspective on the Founders' foresight for the First Amendment created during a time of suffocating "authoritarian regimes." Ultimately, a liberal state's policies should never insult the beliefs of religious persons and require such persons to act contrary to those beliefs in a misguided attempt to purify society of such beliefs.
Based on its decision in Masterpiece, the Supreme Court has already sent another religious liberty case, in which I led a multi-state supporting effort, back to the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider. Arlene's Flowers is facing massive state fines for refusing to design unique and artistic floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding despite the owner's history of serving LGBT customers for other occasions.
The state Supreme Court's decision to punish the owner for refusing to use her artistic talents to celebrate a message that violates her religious beliefs should meet with the same fate as the state of Colorado's position in Masterpiece. I similarly led another multi-state effort to support a small business owner of faith in Kentucky. In that case, Hands-On Originals, a small family-owned T-shirt company, is being punished by the state for refusing to design shirts supporting a gay pride parade. Thus far, the owner has prevailed, and it is my hope that after Masterpiece, the Kentucky Supreme Court will rule that the state may not force a person to write something that conflicts with his or her core beliefs.
Each of these cases is about conscience, the ability for a person to refrain from doing or speaking against deeply held beliefs. These cases are not about same-sex marriage or LGBT rights. No one thinks it would be acceptable for a state to force someone to make a proclamation of faith. Why should anyone be forced by a state to make a proclamation that is in opposition of their faith?
I am proud of these recent victories as they underscore our founding principles to ensure liberty for all Americans. Protecting opposite viewpoints — even when we disagree with them — is as important now as it was on that first Independence Day.
Editor's note: This column first published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Leslie Rutledge is the attorney general of Arkansas.
Tags
Who is online
99 visitors
“The lessons that emerge from these cases are the same lessons about our Constitutional rights taught in civics classes around the country. Each of these cases is about liberty of conscience--the inability of the government to dictate how citizens think and feel without punishment for believing something different than others believe.
Retiring Justice Kennedy, in one of his final concurrences, scolded the California Legislature for its self-proclaimed "forward thinking" by forcing individual speech and beliefs. He suggested the state gain historical perspective on the Founders' foresight for the First Amendment created during a time of suffocating "authoritarian regimes." Ultimately, a liberal state's policies should never insult the beliefs of religious persons and require such persons to act contrary to those beliefs in a misguided attempt to purify society of such beliefs.”
Jack Phillps should either stop making wedding cakes or sell the business to someone who isn't as bigoted as he is if he cannot treat others equally. Your religious beliefs are an not a legally permissible reason to discriminate against others when you operate a business that is open to the public.
Former Justice Kennedy did not in any way suggest that Phillps religious beliefs were a permissible reason to deny equal service in a public business. In fact, he said exactly the opposite.
No, he needs a conscience clause that allows him and those like him to be free to fully engage in the free excercise there of of the right to religious liberty, even if some don’t like it.
Where did Jesus tell his followers to act in this way, if you are going to claim that this action is based in sincere religious belief?
Jack Phillps has the very same religious liberty as everyone else does. There has never been permissible to cite a person's religious liberty to discriminate in public business. Do you also support racist refusing to serve black and interracial people of their religious liberty? The argument is the very same that racists used in the 1950s-60s so you need to publically own your racism! Bigots should not operate a business that requires them to serve all people equally.
If Phillps can refuse to serve people because of his bigotry then maybe progressive Drs should refuse to treat Republicans because of their relgious libery?
Congress shall make no law...
The type of religious freedom suggested already ends at the property lines of the churches and homes of the religiously challenged. Outside of those property lines, that freedom is subordinate to the US Constitution. Xtian sharia laws only apply to the most gullible and ignorant of xtians.
So-called 'conservative' doctors have refused to treat children of gay couples. That is one instance I can think of off of the top of my head.
Ultimately, a liberal state's policies should never insult the beliefs of religious persons and require such persons to act contrary to those beliefs in a misguided attempt to purify society of such beliefs.”
This recent ruling affirmed that the state cannot require persons to act contrary to their beliefs. If a person or persons knowingly patronize such people in an attempt to force them to go against against those beliefs, the courts cannot support those actions. That's the gist of it. The respect for others rights and beliefs has to go both ways.
so you wish for the religious to have a "special right" of legal discrimination ? why do you feel you are entitled to special rights above others who don't believe the same way you do ?
Just as we need to be protected from religions
People have the right to patronize whoever they chose. If the target someone like these plaintiffs did, then they have evil intent. You keep forgetting that Jack Phillips was set up.
So you are okay with Pedophilia?
Murder?
Slavery?
Rape?
But, but but that is Old Testament, Christians only honor the New Testament.......
people do have the right to patronize whoever they choose - regardless of intent. Public business owners have voluntarily opened up a public business and agreed to public accommodation laws as well since they have voluntarily chosen to serve..... the public. Right ?
btw, Jack Phillips wasn't set up - conspiracy theories are a great indicator of fringe political partisans.
Yes he was, they drove 50 miles from the airport to his little bake shop at the rear of a strip mall. He had previously turned down two lesbians with a similar request. This was not a random walk in by the happy couple, but a planned confrontation.
they drove 50 miles from the airport to that bakery because it was close to where they were holding their reception :
from:
again - conspiracy theories are a great indicator of fringe political partisans .
That's a great reason. /s
Were they that GOOD at making cakes you couldn't, wouldn't take NO for an answer ?
so convenience and advice from someone helping you plan is a "bad" reason ?
why should they have to be forced to go somewhere else just because a public business owner doesn't like who they chose to build a life with ? why do you think it's okay to place an undue burden upon a portion of the population just because of who they choose to enter the secular legal contract of Marriage with ?
MOST ….not SOME..... are better Planners.
Get it ?
please explain exactly what you are trying to say and communicate more effectively - your vague ambiguous responses grow tiring.
get it ?
The "Many" always DO better than the "Few".
Better ?
again: please explain exactly what you are trying to say and communicate more effectively - your vague ambiguous responses grow tiring.
better ?
My statement was VERY direct. Do you need definitions of each word I typed ?
absolutely as it pertains to the original post :
please also define exactly how your statement is related to the post you are responding to - who the "many" are and who the "few" are, who the "most" planners are and who are the "some" planners are . When you have completed that, please also read the rest of the original post and answer the questions you seem to have " overlooked " :
Thanks in advance , i look forward to your well thought out, logical and exactly defined responses .
That's what you asked, and it was answered, as you so eloquently noted.
Now you have this NEED for more ?
it was not answered definitively - you pulled your usual vague ambiguous response which leaves questions:
who are the "many" ? who are the "few" ? are you discussing couples planning to get married or couples already married or customers in a public business ? who are the "most" better planners ? who are the "some" better planners ?
again: please explain exactly what you are trying to say and communicate more effectively - your vague ambiguous responses grow tiring. When you have completed that, please also read the rest of the original post and answer the questions you seem to have "overlooked":
Thanks in advance, i look forward to your well thought out, logical and exactly defined responses.
"it was not answered definitively"
So you lied ?
wait.. here's what i stated:
which was an answer to your question:
do you not comprehend what you read ?
In other words you want Christian extremists to be able to cite their superstitions as an excuse to violate the law by denying service to blacks, gays, Muslims, Jews, or anyone else their loony sect teaches them to despise.
Too bad SCOTUS has repeatedly struck down your argument, eh?
Wait....
I answered what you originally asked.
You agreed !
again: here's what i stated:
which was an answer to your question:
do you not comprehend what you read ? are you unaware that you still didn't definitively answer the question and i have not agreed that you answered it definitively ? i would suggest asking an adult to help you comprehend what has been written and what is being asked of you - good luck on your journey of learning reading comprehension.
Interesting since I did nothing but provide exact quotes from the Bible, I did not interpret or change the wording. So you are claiming that the Bible is a lie and Christians do not have to follow it?
Again….I answered.
That is not what the SCOTUS ruling said.
Colorado has an LGBT equal service protection law and Jack Phillip's hypocritical religious beliefs are not a legally valid reason to ignore that law and deny service to people. The state cannot call him names when they cite him for violating the law but he most certainly does not have the right to refuse equal service to others in a public business. If he is open to the public then he must serve all of the public equally.
Where did Jesus tell his followers to act in this way toward others?
Your religious beliefs do not entitle you an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card on earth. American prisons being full of Christians is proof of that fact. How do you know that you have grace and the other person does not?
What happened to your previous claim that the Old Testament was not part of the new covenant with god for Christians?
When the Old and New Testaments disagree on a religious tenant, what teaching are Christians supposed to follow?
looks like you need to contact that adult - good luck on your journey
They just like to play word games and argue in circles. It's just trolling, nothing more.
Yes he was, they drove 50 miles from the airport to his little bake shop at the rear of a strip mall.
The couple lived (and still live) in Denver. The bakery was in Lakewood, which is about 6 miles from their home.
it's rather pathetic that they have nothing more than word games and arguing in circles - i guess they expect everyone else to be babysitters (and they are supposedly adults ?) ?
Naw, there's a better way to express a opinion. I'd have him bake me a two-layer cake with the top extra-frosted with chocolate and syrup and sprinkles and the whole nine yards. I'd tell him it was for my church's' bake sale and he'd jump on it for enough money. (in the new god's chosen way.)
Then somewhere while I'd be picking up the cake he ends up wearing it on his head, pure accident, (if I could pull it off.) It'd be funny if I had him put "asshat" upside down on one side, so when it's on his head it'd be upright, snap a bunch of pictures and beat feet.
I'd pay for the cake first of course, but if all else failed, my criminal FBI/NSA/Interpol/Prison records would only have one entry:
"Assault with a sloppy cake."
I better make that vanilla frosting, so it couldn't somehow be taken as racist. If all else fails, I'd either say "god wanted me to do it" or the newer "I didn't mean it" or drop the big one, "I prayed to god (be specific, or they think you're praying to a bag of money or case of booze or bag of potato chips or something) for forgiveness."
Case closed, get out of jail free.
Just free-speech-ing my religious beliefs, and no, I wouldn't actually commit such a act (usually.)
The only response you will get from OSM is that your lack of faith prevents you from understanding the Bible (in less polite terms). That is all he has.
My penchant for logical thought is what keeps me from believing the stack of lies and other nonsense in that book of mythology. Someone can sincerely believe that 3+3=8 but it doesn't mean that it is true.
The Bible cannot be the literal word of god because that book didn't fall out of the sky to be discovered by a goat herder on Mt. Sinai. Believers can attempt to invoke the divine by making that claim but rational thinking people see it for what it is. That is to attempt to convince gullible people to stop thinking critically because their supposed deity demands blind obedience.
Unfortunately these people have been brainwashed (indoctrinated) their entire lives by their parents and others involved with the church to the point that if they admit it doesn't make sense, they would basically be admitting that they have been absolute fools for 10, 20, 30 years or more. The only way they can maintain their own self respect is to deny the facts.
I "woke up" when I was 12 the day after the Jonah and the whale story in Sunday school. I literally woke up the next morning with it on my mind, thinking, well that was really stupid. Then started thinking back to the other Bible stories I been told, and all of them just struck me as ridiculous and impossible.
I never believed a word of it, even from a young age. I went though the motions at mass and CCD but it was obvious that I didn't believe because I asked too many questions the nuns couldn't answer except for "god works in mysterious ways". It was just a parable of morality to me and even that fell apart because of the Catholic church pedophile scandal. How can the RCC claim to be a moral authority when they protect and defend pedophiles and rapists?
They are to any rational and logical minded individual.
That's the standard fall back answer, which is more of a cop-out than anything. It's right up there with the "god did it" explanation for anything. Notice how both answers require no thought whatsoever?
Simple: god works in mysterious ways. oh wait... Lol
What's even funnier (or scarier) than that are those who state morality comes from god or that they cannot be moral without god.
Religious belief is a test of critical thinking that most people fail.
That's because religious belief does not require critical thinking. If anything, religious belief discourages critical (and rational) thinking.
You didn't interpret them? Interesting. I recall you using words such as "pedophilia," "rape," "murder," and "slavery." How did you come up with those terms if you did not interpret anything? That is, how were you able to label those versus thusly if you did not interpret any of it? The truth is, you did interpret them, didn't you?
Old School Marine was quite correct in claiming you understand nothing of what you criticized though. This is evident in your labeling of the verses you present as supporting your points, which they do not. While you are free to interpret them any way you wish, you might consider the logic of expecting someone who actually understands those verses to argue based on your assumptions rather than upon their knowledge of what they actually say.
Worse, you beg the question, a logical fallacy, when you ask your questions.
Take your pedophilia interpretation. You ask: "So are you okay with pedophilia?" and then post verses you think support your interpretation. The problem is, it's just assumed that these verses support your interpretation. In reading those verses, there's absolutely nothing in them, not one single thing, that actually suggests anything about pedophilia, let alone support it. You simply make assumptions and go from there.
In short, your whole post of 1.1.10 is pointless and inarguable because it's completely unsupportable. Just one long begging of the question. That is, how can someone answer your question when they are based on faulty assumptions?
Most notably, you demonstrate that you have no understanding at all concerning the following verses you quote.
Presumably, you quoted these verses thinking that they mean Christians are not free from following the law. That Jesus was saying that they apply to his followers as well. If that was your intent, you have no understanding of why Jesus said these things. Yet you apparently feel you can use them to make your point. I would suggest you try doing some research on this and then get back to us.
Really, show me in this story in the Bible.....
The Jonah story is as amusing (and illogical) as any of the other bible stories, like Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark, ect.. How some people can seriously think such events actually occurred is beyond me and defies all rationality.
Truett is going to argue that this story is not in the Christian Bible (it is in the Hebrew Bible - the Nevi'im, in particular) and will thus claim that it is not really part of Christianity.
Of course that ignores the fact that this story is part of both Christian and Islamic religious teachings. So simply noting this is not in the Christian Bible is a bit lame IMO.
So if a person's beliefs dictate that they rape children, the state cannot prevent them from doing so?
Isn't it funny how quickly Christians are to dismiss some absurd bullshit (still in their holy book) as being just "a Jewish thing" even though their entire religion is based off of those "Jewish things"? Ken Ham, a person I absolutely detest, was right about one thing when he said (in essence) that once you dismiss one part of the bible as being total bullshit, don't you have to dismiss the rest as being total bullshit? I mean, everything in the bible relies on the same "evidence" and the same "authority", so if that authority should be dismissed in the case of Jonah, then what about Noah, or Adam and Eve, or Jesus?
I often note that this is one of the very few positions held by Ham on which we agree. His position is basically that as soon as one starts interpreting the Bible (take this literally but take this as a metaphor, oh this really means this ..., well no that is old covenant, etc.) the result cannot possibly be divine instruction. I disagree that the Bible is divine in the first place, but at least Ham is true to logic (in the large). The man takes this to the point of absurdity though leading to claims of dinosaurs coexisting with human beings (and Noah transporting baby dinosaurs on the ark).
To your greater point, I struggle with how it is possible for people to not realize what they are doing in support of their beliefs. Many literally set aside concepts that conflict with their faith. They do not even acknowledge the contradiction. It is immediately dismissed as ' that simply must be wrong ' or ' God could explain but we are too stupid to understand' . It is truly one of the master strokes of religion to convince people that belief based on faith is actually a good thing. That faith is something to strive for ... something to strengthen ... a gift from God.
Believing something because you were told rather than coming to a conclusion based on logical analysis of good evidence is a good thing?? No, it is not.
Yeah, I have to..... give him some respect... (sorry, just threw up a little) in that regard. At least he is willing to go all in on stupid, unlike most religious folks. They enjoy taking and using what is convenient for them personally as some sort of divine directive, but if it doesn't suit their purposes, well it was just a metaphor that actually means "this" and isn't really important.
Again though, even though he has to know how fucking stupid that makes him look, he sticks with it. More than I can say for 99% of Christians.
Absolutely blows my mind. It would be like showing someone a color video of their spouse cheating on them, having that person say their name, birth date, and social security number before they got started, watching the entire thing, and then having the cheated upon spouse say, "nah, they are totally faithful to me" because afterall, they said "I do" 15 years ago.
It is in the Christian Bible, but not the way portrayed by the poster...... So you see you don't know what I was going to say at all, but your personal bias got in your way.... How about you show the story of the Whale
Not going to let this level of intellectual dishonesty pass. Let's trace the history of the comments.
Here is how Ozzwald ' portrayed ' the Jonah story (the green is what you quoted in your response):
Here is your challenge in response:
Why are you asking Ozzwald to show where the story is in the Bible if not to claim that the story is NOT told in the Bible?
Point of fact, the Jonah and the Whale story is NOT told in the Christian Bible . It is simply referenced in the Christian Bible in Matthew and Luke. The actual story, as I noted, is in the Hebrew Bible .
So what was your point in challenging Ozzwald to show the story? Ozzwald did not portray the story in any way. He simply noted that it struck him as "stupid" and, secondarily, "ridiculous and impossible". So let's say Ozzwald had taken you up on the challenge and cited the references to the story in Matthew and Luke.
What wisdom were you going to impart?
He portrayed it as Johna and the Whale....SHOW ME THAT IN THE BIBLE. No where does it mention a whale.
It couldn't do so anyway because according to these Bronze-age goat herders they're just big fish.
Look it up and see what it really says.......
Because that is probably how it was taught to him in Sunday school. But, as I noted, the story is not in the Christian Bible. Only references.
And those references of course interpret things differently - including using the term 'whale'. For examples see below from BibleHub .
Given I keep showing you what you ask for, what point do you wish to make? You were not trying to nit-pick on the word 'huge fish', 'great fish', etc. were you?
New International Version
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
New Living Translation
For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.
English Standard Version
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Berean Study Bible
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Berean Literal Bible
For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
New American Standard Bible
for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
King James Bible
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Christian Standard Bible
For as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
Contemporary English Version
He was in the stomach of a big fish for three days and nights, just as the Son of Man will be deep in the earth for three days and nights.
Good News Translation
In the same way that Jonah spent three days and nights in the big fish, so will the Son of Man spend three days and nights in the depths of the earth.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
For as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
International Standard Version
because just as Jonah was in the stomach of the sea creature for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.
NET Bible
For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.
New Heart English Bible
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, thus The Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Just as Jonah was in the belly of a huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.
New American Standard 1977
for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jubilee Bible 2000
for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
King James 2000 Bible
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
American King James Version
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
American Standard Version
for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Douay-Rheims Bible
For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
Darby Bible Translation
For even as Jonas was in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, thus shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
English Revised Version
for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Webster's Bible Translation
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Weymouth New Testament
For just as Jonah was three days in the sea-monster's belly, so will the Son of Man be three days in the heart of the earth.
World English Bible
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale , so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Young's Literal Translation
for, as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
all those bibles, no wonder there are arguments and confusion
Not to mention not one of them (or their adherents) can prove there's a god or validate their particular mythical stories.
I hate when that happens.
Nor can you disprove God or invalidate those stories.
Out of curiosity, do you hold that all human beings are the progeny of Adam & Eve? Similarly, do you reject the findings of evolution that shows our species is an extant branch in an extremely long evolutionary path starting with single cell organisms? Not asking if you 'believe in evolution' but rather if you reject the findings and, if so, on what grounds?
I just spent 10+ minutes typing out more than 200 words (3 paragraphs) as a response to Drakk but when I hit enter the software deleted it. Drakk', please be outraged at my Humanist reply and claim that you reported it so I can feel like my effort wasn't in complete vain and I can tell myself that you read it.
I can fake my side of the argument if you can.
epistte, I know how annoying that can be. Please laugh because I typed something funny to you on a thread that the boss closed just before I hit post. (you, miss goody two shoes???, charger said laughingly and squealed tires as he drove off)
I had another reply to that thread but I deleted it instead of posting it because I knew that my satirical biography of a certain person would certainly get inked.
I'm sorry to say that I don't believe you are asking this out of curiosity. I think you have something in mind in the asking. Even so, I find it no less plausible that all humanity descended from two people than all life descended from a single, original cell.
I reject evolution as a process that is unguided and merely a result of chance happening resulting from favorable conditions. That is, God created the universe and what life is in it. The primary basis for believing this is because God tells us He created it. Secondary basis's are that, statistically, chance occurrence of life is impossible and a system not based on information will not spontaneously generate information.
My argument is fake? Does this imply that you can indeed prove that God doesn't exist?
Why do I even try any more?
I know what you mean. I seldom reply to things you say because I find it not worth the effort. It is similar to trying to have a discussion with a recorded message.
Because you're good!
Is that because I am an atheist, a woman or because I am a progressive?
((Hugs))
Of course I have something in mind. But that depends on your answer. I said 'out of curiosity' because I am indeed curious - I do not recall your position on this (not sure we ever discussed evolution).
But there is quite substantial evidence for the latter and no evidence for the former. In fact science contradicts the notion that homo sapiens are the result of a unique evolutionary tree started by two homo sapiens. Do you not even consider the possibility that one of the most highly evidenced theories of modern science might have merit? As time goes on, the evidence continues to support evolution - not the other way around.
But to hold that " God tells us He created it " means you accept the words of the Bible over science because you believe the Bible divine . That is of course the part that boggles the mind given the Bible has no evidence supporting its claims of divinity. We know that it was written by ancient men, but not a shred of evidence (in all this time) supporting its divinity.
The origin of life is a very different question. It is possible that life was created by what we might call 'God'. But the notion that species homo sapiens started its own evolutionary tree is soundly refuted by science.
Calbab likes to quote Dr. Francis Collins because he is an extremely well known Christian who happen to be one of the most elite scientists in the area of genetic research. Dr. Collins is someone I have quoted for quite a few years - and have referred people to the website he founded - biologos.org . So this is not quoting the average scientist. Here is his summary perspective (I offer this because it is a summary of the scientific conclusions of a leading scientist in evolutionary sciences):
I am not arguing from authority, I simply provide this one example to encourage you and others to consider the possibility that the ancient men might be telling stories and that modern men and women might have learned a few things that better explain how we came to be. The ancient men must simply be taken on their word. The modern men and women have deep, cross-disciplinary evidence backing their conclusions. One must categorically dismiss the foundation of modern biology to hold that all human beings descended from a single, original human couple. (Note that the term 'common ancestor' when used scientifically is referring to all of life.)
Neither can I (or anyone else) disprove Zeus, Odin, Thor, or the legend of Hercules or the Iliad. Does that mean I should automatically accept such deities and stories to be valid or true? Besides, the burden of proof is on those espousing any deity or story as true.
None of these, although I admit "progressive" seems to come closest. I seldom respond to you because I find your arguments shallow. They are more a repetition of ideology than actual thoughtful discussion.
Actually, I grew up believing that evolution was a fact. I believed this because that is what public schools taught me. To suggest that I need to consider evolution as true puts it the other way round for me. I actually had to consider that it wasn't true. That is, that it wasn't an unguided, natural process.
No, actually. To be guilty of what you say here one has to assume that science says God did not create the universe and us. Are you suggesting that science states such?
I disagree. It is "soundly refuted" by scientists who have interpreted data to suggest their view. There are numerous scientists who disagree. I am an intelligent design advocate, meaning life and the universe were created by God intentionally. It was not a chance happening. The manner in which He did so is debatable as far as I am concerned at this point. That is, did He literally create Adam and Eve on the spot or did he do so in a method you would think of as evolution? I honestly don't know. But either way, He caused it to happen.
Which is why I am undecided on the question as to whether God created Adam and Eve on the spot or through a long process you think of as "evolution."
Sorry, but this seems a non sequitur to me. These ancient men weren't concerned with evolution. They were concerned with what God wanted from them.
I wish there were some way I could make you understand by my words, but I guess it doesn't work that way. I have monitored the conversation in this tread. I know what you and others have said. I know you think faith and belief are the result of unreasoned, unthinking belief. Indoctrination, brainwashing, etc.
What amazes me, watching what you and others write about such things, is that none of you consider the possibility that someone can read what these "ancient men" have said and conclude that what they have said is true based on reasoned, considered thought.
To be honest, what amazes me even more, on an order of magnitude, is that all of you seem so confident in your own intellect that you feel confident in denigrating those who believe in God. Denigrating those whom you dismiss as "ancient men", as if they could not possibly be as intelligent as you.
Which leads me to wonder. Do you believe that because you were born in this day and age that your I.Q. is therefore naturally higher than those men?
Do you hear what you are saying? You aren't promoting science, you're promoting an ideology. I'm sure you are well aware of what happens to a scientist who goes against "scientific orthodoxy." If not, I can provide you with examples.
So, then, you can't actually prove God doesn't exist?
Why should I take this as valid?
That sucks!
So you can't actually prove Zeus, Odin, or Thor doesn't exist then? Can you prove god actually exists? As it stands, there is no evidence or proof of any god/s. As for the burden of proof, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concept of a logical fallacy.
No, I am not at all stating that science says God did not create us. So please reread what I wrote with that in mind. TiG : " But to hold that "God tells us He created it" means you accept the words of the Bible over science. " The Adam & Eve story contradicts evolutionary science. If one holds that everyone is a descendant of those two human beings then one is accepting the Bible in spite of highly corroborated science.
It is soundly refuted by the science. The fact that a minority of scientists disagree is exactly what one would expect. There are always those who will disagree - especially given the religious significance of not disagreeing. Bottom line: the scientific evidence is flat out overwhelming in support of evolution. The evidence for biblical divinity is nothing.
Drak. ID is long since discredited. Show me where the scientific community (as evidenced by quality scientific publications) accept and publish ID papers. ID is a great spin for those who seek evidence of God but it is not science. It is an argument from incredulity.
Dr. Collins would suggest that God did indeed create human beings but did so via evolution. That, however, is simply trying to preserve the faith without denying the scientific findings. One cannot really say 'either way, He caused it to happen'. One can only say 'either way, I believe without evidence that He caused it to happen'. And that is fine. It is God of the Gaps, but if someone is comfortable with that then no problem from my perspective.
I was referring to the ancient story of Adam & Eve vs. the modern known consequence of that. We know quite a bit more than the ancient writers and we can now state with great confidence that there is no way that the human race are the progeny of a single pair of human beings. They could not have possibly known that their story was actually nonsense because, as you note, they had zero knowledge of genetics, evolution and, ultimately, the collective findings of evolutionary science.
How? Of course 'we' consider the possibility. 'We' see people all the time truly believe that the Bible is divine. What 'we' would like is for someone to make a case that goes beyond 'it speaks to me' or equivalent. Facts, logic, evidence. You do not think that is fair of 'us' to ask for that and wonder why 'we' do not simply believe that 'you' experience God and know God through inexplicable means. I hope my wording gave sufficient explanation.
You have now fully moved the discussion from thoughtful into personal. Just pointing this out to you Drak. This is how discussions fail. One side goes personal. Note that I have never claimed that the ancient men were less intelligent (less informed, yes) nor have I ever claimed that believers are less intelligent than non-believers. Indeed I tend to counter claims such as that. And I believe I have just put forth a believer in the Bible as one of the foremost scientists in evolutionary biology and genetics. Clearly I think highly of Dr. Collins as a scientist and consider him to be quite intelligent. So why do you go here? Why poison the well?
This is truly a non-sequitur. But no, the difference between the ancient writers of the Bible and modern man is mostly information. We might be smarter (I personally do not know) but I have never claimed that they were stupid - just ignorant (relative to modern knowledge).
You are simply making an allegation. Science (and I write this all the time Drak) is based on evidence and logic. One does not simply believe science, one accepts as valid or not based upon the evidence. So unlike the Bible, one can research any finding in science to whatever level one needs to formulate a position.
Note here you are poisoning the discussion again by throwing out allegations from nowhere. Why do this? Why not just respond thoughtfully? I certainly am trying to do so.
So you have nothing to say regarding Dr. Collins summary? See what is remarkable about his conclusion is that he is in an extraordinary position of study. He has studied evolution from the modern dimension of genetics (DNA) and has come to a conclusion that goes against his religious beliefs. This is the highest level of objectivity - intellectual honesty - accepting evidence that goes against one's interests.
Not a word? This is the conclusion of the scientific community. In other words, you will be hard pressed to find credible scientific work that denies the findings of evolutionary science. You will be hard pressed to find credible sources (even those that are not-scientific) that do not recognize the profound understanding and corroboration of biochemical evolution. For example (non-scientific but providing a decent broad scope perspective illustrating the importance and deep evidence supporting evolution):
It is, in a word, easy to find substantial levels of information to incredible detail all of which support evolution. So how one can dismiss this and hold up the Bible is hard to fathom.
I hope that is not what is going on.
Discussing ID is difficult for the same reasons as discussion Young Earth Creation: one party bases its argument on faith, the other on science. It's hard to get to different modes of thinking to coincide.
I personally believe there is a God, although whenever I try to think too much about the exact meaning of "God"... my head hurts. Still... I am intimately, viscerally certain that there is a God. That is my faith.
I am very dubious about God's intervention in the world, though.
My problem with ID is that it implies that God is really crappy engineer:
In order to create heavy elements, He went to all the trouble of creating a first generation hydrogen/helium stars that had to go supernova to create all elements heavier than iron. What a stupendous waste of time and energy!
So many useless worlds! Most planets are not in the narrow band of "life-bearing" distance from their star. They're pointless!
So many false starts. All those extinct animals. Why create them, if only to then eliminate them? Or were they just mistakes by a crappy engineer?
The current king of the hill species - us - is a very, very crappy design. We have two kidneys but only one heart. WTF?? Our circulatory system has no shut-off valves - any rupture of the system may lead to catastrophic leakage. We have a coccyx and an appendix, both of which serve no purpose, and can cause serious trouble. And on and on and on...
If God has been guiding the evolution of the universe, He has been doing a piss-poor job of it!
Frankly, any argument using the Bible to support it is a repetition of ideology.
"The Bible demonstrates the patriarchal nature of Hebrew society."
That's an argument using the Bible...
But it's not using it to support patriarchy. It's a recognition that the Biblical worldview is patriarchal.
"The Bible says women are to submit to their husbands" is an argument using the Bible that is merely a repetition of ideology.
And "God made the world, and I know this because he told us so in the Bible" is merely a repetition of ideology. It's an argument that lacks depth, rationality, and is every bit as repetitious as epistte is accused of being (except that epistte's arguments do not lack depth or rationality).
I have a somewhat different view. Assuming the commonly understood evolution of the universe, it was no trouble at all for God to do it this way. In fact, I'm not sure it required any effort on God's part as we think of effort. How could it for a being with infinite power?
With all due respect there are some obvious problems with your view. First, it's only your view of it. I'm not faulting you for having it, but it seems somewhat, um, shortsighted, maybe? Second, it doesn't allow for God's perspective. That is, He may have had a perfectly good reason for doing it the way He did, even if that reason was simply that it pleased Him to do it that way. Further, how can a being who is not limited by time actually waste any of it? It isn't as if He will ever run out of time. The same with power, as I already pointed out.
Well, I certainly don't think they were "mistakes by a crappy engineer." I've heard this reasoning before and to be honest, it amazes me. To me, this argument is similar to criticizing da Vinci for painting the Mona Lisa the way he did rather than how you think he should have. Or taking Mozart to task for composing Serenade No. 13 the way he did.
The Bible doesn't tell us why God did the things He did the way He did them (except that it pleased Him to do so) that you consider useless wastes of time, effort and energy but like anyone, I wonder about these things as well. I've come up with some things I think are probably close to the truth.
First, it pleased Him to do these things, as already mentioned and isn't really speculation.
Second, I think He did so to tell us some things about himself.
I'm sure you get the idea.
Lastly, I think God did it for our amazement and enjoyment. I think He wants us to be delighted by the works of His hand. Even what others call "mistakes" in the fossil record. How delighted we all are when we discover a new "mistake!" I believe He is delighted by our enjoyment of His creation. It pleased Him to make all of this for us.
I agree, which is why I seldom ever argue from the Bible in here. At most, I may argue about meaning of particular verses in the Bible, as I did in 1.1.47, but I don't use it as a basis for discussion.
That is a fallacious argument from ignorance.
First, you must prove that god actually exists, and you cannot use either the Bible or your own belief to do it.
Here's the deal, TiG. We both know that just because you believe the science corroborates the view that we aren't all descendent from one man and one woman doesn't mean it's correct. It only means it is the currently accepted view. At one time 98% of our genome was considered junk. They even named it thus. Now we are learning that this isn't the case. The point isn't that something like this is going to happen that points to only two progenitors but that just because we think a thing is true now doesn't mean it will be true ten years from now. Science is a way to be wrong with confidence, sometimes.
I'm sorry if you find that somewhat dismissive. Can't be helped. My faith will always be in God before science. That doesn't mean I reject science out of hand, but if I think it conflicts with what God has told us, it's going to be God every time. And, when I die and meet God and he explains everything and I got some things wrong, it won't matter. He isn't interested on whether I got evolution right or not, He's interested in whether I got Him right or not.
And this is why I usually don't bother with speaking to you. You style yourself a paragon of reason and logic but think such a demand is actually a valid one. Let me explain what is wrong with your demand.
Personally, I believe God could satisfy your requirements in the manner you desire but doesn't because it wouldn't make any difference as far as what He desires from you. I don't think you would give it to Him. So, why should He demean Himself that way? Come to you, hat in hand, so that you, the mighty epistte, can validate Him? I don't think so.
This would be true if I were making an argument. I wasn't. I said it was my view.
Your view is a claim that you are arguing to be true.
In essence (it seems to me) you note that science is often wrong and changes its conclusions based on new evidence. That is spot on. But then you segue from that into the conclusion that because science does not achieve truth (100% certainty) whatever you wish to believe from the Bible is just as valid as scientific findings. In particular, since science cannot deliver with 100% certainty the fact that we are not descended from two human beings who started our evolutionary tree, you hold the biblical claim of Adam & Eve to be equally valid.
This is not equally valid by a long shot.
Some people believe in a flat Earth. I choose this example because most people know it is ridiculous to think the Earth is flat. But science cannot state with 100% certainty that the Earth is not flat because there is always the possibility of new evidence that causes us to rethink what we think we know. (Not bloody likely here, but you get the point.) Scientific confidence that life on Earth has a common ancestor is extremely high. The amount and quality of the evidence is, as Dr. Collins (et. al.) notes, leads to one conclusion.
So on one hand we have highly corroborated scientific findings compared to belief (sans any evidence) that the words of ancient men actually came from God and that the meaning of those words is literally that all human beings are the progeny of two original human beings who began the human tree of life.
Trouble is (trouble = how I see things) you are equating God's Word with the Bible. I totally get trusting God over contemporary empirical knowledge if one actually had a way to get information from God. But what you are saying (unless I am totally misunderstanding) is that you have faith that the ancient writers of the Bible actually (and clearly) wrote the Word of God. You believe that God is telling everyone that we are all descendants of two original human beings simply because it is in the Bible. Yet the Bible has no evidence of divinity. Ergo, I find such a position to be illogical.
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.
Why is it that in every version you refer to you ignore the part leading up to your reference?
This isn't actually true. At least, to my mind this isn't how I think of it. I don't compare science and the Bible. I don't think in terms of which is more valid. Take the Creation story, for instance. I believe God created the universe, but I don't necessarily believe that it was created in a literal six days. I don't actually disbelieve it, either. Instead, after years of thinking about it, I've decided that it doesn't really matter to me. Whether God took the long road or the short, the result was something amazing. I content myself in knowing someday I will know which for sure.
This isn't quite right, either. I don't believe Adam and Eve existed because science can't be 100% accurate, I believe they existed because the Bible records them. What science has to say on it might be interesting, but not really relevant to my decision in believing they existed. I was mainly pointing out that trying to get me to accept your view based on science that is demonstrably changing all the time would not be convincing to me. The junk DNA example wasn't given to find fault with science. As you state, science is adding and changing based on new evidence all the time. I don't see a reason to change my view based on science when in the future it is possible, once we have more knowledge, science may actually support my view.
Yes, that about sums it up, except the no evidence of what you call "divinity." I know you probably mean empirical proof or evidence but I have found there is evidence and proof. When you do what it tells you to do in the Bible and you end up meeting God, it's a little hard not to believe.
I have no problem with that. I hardly expect you think otherwise, given your own beliefs.
Okay, then. Have a nice argument
I do not do that. Your allegation does not even make sense.
Are you seriously trying to suggest to readers that you do not actually see passages that use the word 'whale'?
Did I offer too much information by including so many variations of the Bible (i.e. being complete and intellectually honest)? Easily addressed, I will exclude the ones that say great fish, etc. and just show you the ones that say ' whale '. Very easy to see - I highlighted 'whale' in blue.
King James Bible
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jubilee Bible 2000
for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
American King James Version
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
American Standard Version
for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Douay-Rheims Bible
For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
English Revised Version
for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Webster's Bible Translation
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
World English Bible
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale , so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
You did not think the Bible used the term whale in reference to the Jonah story. Well clearly you were incorrect. It is up to you to now read this and be intellectually honest about that fact that these references do indeed exist.
You stated that you believe the Adam & Eve story and that it preempts (in your mind) the validity of the scientific findings that (almost certainly) show that all life has a common ancestor. If one claims that his reason for rejecting common ancestry is the Bible then phrase it however you wish - that puts the Bible against science any way you slice it.
Yes, I know. I am pretty sure I noted that:
Going to spend less time correcting misinterpretations that are extremely easy for you to resolve without me. So if you see me ignoring aspects of your post, that is the reason.
Yup, that is how you wish to operate. You will go with the Bible even if it is contradicted by highly corroborated findings of science. You take words in an ancient book that has no evidence that it is divine as more valid than the worldwide findings in evolutionary science. And your logic is that science could be wrong. But the Bible could not be wrong??
You met God?
If you are claiming god created the universe, mankind, ect., then the expectation of proof for such claims is a reasonable one.
What's wrong with an expectation of proof to a claim?
Since god is the basis for your claims, it behooves you to provide proof of a god to support those claims.
You can believe whatever you want. But belief does not equal fact. And if you're going to claim there's a god and is responsible for the universe and everything as matter of fact, then you do have a requirement to prove it, lest you lack all credibility.
Then belief should be irrelevant to proving a god exists.
Then there is also no logical reason to assume or believe any god exists without proof, or accept any claims as such. Therefore, any claim for a god or on behalf of a god is equally probable and valid as any claim for any other god/s, Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, ect..
Then it is not logical to even assume a god exists, especially if there is no empirical proof.
So you're making excuses for god now?
Key word there is "believe." See fourth statement.
So? What makes the bible accurate or valid as a source for such things? That's like saying Lord Voldemort existed because the Harry Potter books says so.
Such as? if there was such "evidence," I'm sure the scientific community would be interested.
That's going on an assumption that god did it to begin with, when there is no such evidence.
Pure conjecture.
I noticed you haven't answered my other questions either.
You ignore they are VERSIONS not TRANSLATIONS, since the original language did not name ta fish but said it was a great fish PREPARED BY THE LORD.
I am pretty sure you wrote this, right?:
Well, Truett, I showed you where 'whale' appeared in the Bible. You did not specify which variant of the Bible you had in mind (and Ozzwald did not even mention the Bible). Your excuses are ... not impressive.
So what was the enlightened point you were going to make to Ozzwald?
Clearly there was nothing unusual about Ozzwald learning about Jonah and a whale in his religious upbringing. Clearly it appears in versions of the Bible. So what did you intend to teach him when you challenged him to give you a biblical reference?
And since I apparently need to make things extremely obvious:
Demonstrably wrong.
Not exactly. I said that I believe we all came from Adam and Eve. If you recall, I said previously:
That doesn't sound to me like what you are claiming about me.
Except it's you who is convinced that it is contradicted by science, not I or many others. Nor is my logic based on "science could be wrong." Apparently I'm not explaining it well enough or you're ignoring what I say. Thinking science could be wrong, which it often is, isn't what allows me to hold the beliefs I do. There isn't this "science barrier" that I feel I must overcome in order to believe. Science as you think of it has nothing to do with it.
Of course. In fact, His Holy Spirit lives in me and I in Him. We are never apart. This is so for all who've been born again.
All of this seems to really bother you. Why?
Noticed that, did you?
First, I am ignoring the opening parts since you are back to the 'distinction without a difference' semantics game. Not going to waste my time on that anymore.
It does bother me. The root of the 'bother' is the incredible power religion has over the human mind.
My best explanation for why religious views continue even today (other than childhood indoctrination which is incredibly powerful) is that religions typically give pleasant, comforting answers. Especially when it comes to mortality. The fear of death. The pain of losing a loved one forever. Religions offer wonderful scenarios to address these very emotional concerns. I do indeed understand the comfort. I would love to see my departed loved ones again. I would like to have something cool happen other than to simply die and be gone forever. I think most skeptics would agree.
Religion is quite a powerful force for mind control. It is actually amazing in this regard. What intrigues me still is why some can step outside of its influence (and see the contradictions and logical nonsense) while others cannot.
And we never will. We believe by faith and there’s enough out there as described already to make that faith a rational choice. We will never satisfy you and we get it. You won’t believe until the 2nd coming happens or if it’s after our lifetime ranges, the resurrection. There will be no hard proof prior to that happening. People will believe by faith and accept saving grace or they won’t. It’s a free will choice for all. It’s time to simply ignore the hardened committed deniers and concentrate on reaching the undecided and the ones who know relatively nothing at all about belief and faith. It also will help keep the place less heated and more civil. Once a mind is closed, there is no point in arguing.
Okay, but what about other things that have equally powerful effects over the mind? Ideas and such? Ideas about Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Equal Rights and the rest? What about natural inclinations such as greed, spite, envy, power and other such things? Do you think the elimination of religion would be a good thing? I can show you studies which show that religion might be the only thing keeping us in check.
To me, the problem is that most people don't know how to use the mind they have, not religion. Do you think those people who send all that money into prosperity gospel preachers would suddenly just wise up? Isn't it likely that they'd just find some other substitute to spend their money on? Seems likely to me. They'd go out and give money to whomever told them most convincingly that their program would make them rich. There are those who already do.
Being a Christian is often as unpleasant as it is pleasant. We are asked to deny ourselves and the things we think we want and instead, ask God to help us want what He wants. To love even when it hurts. To give even when it hurts. To bear the burdens of others. The struggle to overcome desires and behaviors we know God doesn't want us to have. To spend our time with Him rather than on ourselves. To make Him the center and not ourselves. To endure situations God puts us in and praise Him for doing it.
Yes, it can be. I think it is because for most people, they instinctively know God exists. They have a desire to know Him. So it's relatively easy to get something like Jonestown. I think the people who fall under the influence of such people as Jim Jones, who was an atheist by the way, are looking for a feeling. That is, they aren't really interested in God as much as they are in feeling something religious.
LOL. Possibly because the contradictions and logical nonsense doesn't exist as you see them. That is, they understand that they are not so there is nothing to step out of.
Ideologies are almost as seductive as religion. As you might surmise I favor critical thinking in every aspect of life. I see no value in simply accepting as true that which other human beings merely claim as such. Indeed I see great harm in the ability of a few to control many through beliefs. So count me in for healthy skepticism in every dimension. Be open to new ideas but only as far as the ideas offer merit beyond the claims of the proponents.
I see value in religions. Take Buddhism and Jainism as prime examples. Many more conventional religions indeed provide a good moral foundation and set good examples for how human beings can peacefully coexist. We know the bad aspects too (e.g. bigotry, murder, exploitation, ...). But the bad part that I focus on typically is the mind control. For example, the promotion of faith (belief sans evidence) as a good thing - as something to strengthen - is one of the prime master strokes of religions. The ability to get people to go into truly absurd rationalization of the nonsense is both impressive and depressing.
A great way to improve religions, IMO, is to drop the holy books, the stories, the rules, etc. and simply teach and practice that which is good for all life and the environment that sustains us. Belief that there is a creator entity (God) is not in itself harmful. What is harmful is belief that some human beings actually know the specific wishes of God because that alone enables control of the faithful. So if everyone simply admitted that nobody has clue one about what the most supreme possible entity (if it exists) wants of us or plans for us I am convinced the world would be a better place.
They would still be naive and the desperate would still be desperate. But it is quite a bit easier to give money to God than it is to a holistic healer. The awesome power (and thus potential benefits) of the God character is rather persuasive compared to some other human being. If nobody accepted claims that some human beings know what God wants I think that would be a profound improvement.
It varies. But I have to wonder if Christianity would exist today if it did not offer a happy ending to mortal life and the promise of being able to again see loved ones.
To me the fact that people actually believe that is (has been) disappointing.
How is religious faith a rational choice when there is no empirical evidence of a god or even the biblical Jesus?
Religious people have been making outrageous claims about a second coming for 2000 years.
Believe it or not, I understand why you feel as you do. But as you yourself do, I can't accept your view of things as valid just because you are convinced your view is correct. I have to make my own decisions based on my own experience and reasoning. I move through life and God is right there with me. That's a little hard to ignore, wouldn't you think? I know you think it's just all in the mind. That's fine. I'm not going to give you grief for what you believe. But I will tell you that I wish you could see what I see for just one day. You might begin to understand that it isn't about fear of death or seeing loved ones again, although that will be nice. It's about being with God. It isn't about believing things without evidence, it's understanding how God sees things. I can't describe what it's like to read a verse for the thousandth time and suddenly God shows you what it means. How it all fits together. It's like waking up and suddenly not being blind anymore. And it keeps happening over and over. And the personal, one on one relationship with Him. These things I consider evidence. And so I believe. Don't you think it would be silly of me to not believe because you don't think it's real?
Me too!! That would be quite interesting. But that is also part of the problem. The evidence, so to speak, is always offered as a vague claim. Often times the evidence are experiences of seeing spirits or angels (and often when waking up) or of circumstances that are dismissed as coincidences (probably because the coincidences were very improbable). Or as 'feelings'. But with all that is at our disposal nowadays to verify extraordinary claims we have remarkably little to go on. Given the number of people who claim to 'know God' through 'experiences' and the dearth of evidence supporting the claims, this does not encourage one to take the claims seriously. And again, for emphasis, the claims are almost always vague. To the point of 'I cannot explain this therefore it is the hand of God' level of stuff.
Note, even though I am sure you hate this too, there are also plenty of charlatans out there claiming power from God. Faith healers, et. al. Ken Copeland actually claims to be able to control the weather. So you are trying to offer credible insight while fellow 'believers' (so to speak) are exploiting the faithful and making a super strong case that religious people are gullible and/or that the human mind is remarkably vulnerable to suggestion if the suggestion is something the individual really wants.
I am sure that is your view. Not so sure you are the average believer.
Believing in a God is belief without evidence. Believing in the biblical God is profoundly worse - it is belief in spite of contrary evidence.
No offense intended but constant repetition trains the mind. If one is predisposed to 'God is good' and reads each verse with that presupposition, eventually one will formulate an interpretation that fits the presupposition. Just the way our minds tend to work. This is one reason why critical thinking takes a lot of effort. Critical thinking is not natural nor is it intuitive. It is a learned discipline.
Taking your word for it. Note that what you have stated are abstract claims. Not much I can do with that other than nod and say okay I understand what you have written.
It would be wrong for you to not believe just because of what some other human being has written. I advocate critical thinking and that would be the opposite. You do know that I never have the expectation (or objective) of changing the mind of one who is debating pro-belief. My objective is to uncover truth through debate (to whatever degree we can achieve).
I noticed that you replied to my post first and when I answer your questions/challenges and pose my own, you suddenly go silent. I wonder why that is?
Which is completely illogical to anyone with a passing understanding of genetics or evolution.
Feel free to elaborate.
Then it is you who are wrong!
Your "logic" seems more based on the rejection of science in favor of unsubstantiated dogma. You even said as much.
Sounds like a psychological condition.
Let's try it and see. It certainly couldn't be any worse.
If someone needs religion to keep them in check, that's an epic failing on the individual or population in general. It's also a sad commentary.
No. Chances are, they are taught to believe or are deluded into believing god exists, especially as children. Or they have some kind of unmet emotional need. Religious indoctrination is a powerful mind control.
That goes both ways.
I can read something I don't initially understand over and over until I do understand it. It's not some god doing that for me. it's my own mind and cognitive processes. just like with anything else.
Hardly evidence, as it's subjective and anecdotal and provides an appeal to emotion or emotional comfort. Like a drug.
Not at all. What's silly is believing something when there is no real evidence or you can't even prove it's real. But somehow, a "feeling" is good enough?
That says a lot about you then.
There's nothing rational about faith. Faith by definition is irrational.
Sure you can: just provide empirical evidence.
Silly stories like that are not only irrational, there's no reason for anyone to accept such things as valid just because you say so or merely "believe," unless you have evidence to back it up.
As I said, I have no reason to believe or accept it. Why would anyone in their right minds accept some outlandish story without proof? Unless they were supremely gullible.
Belief does not equal fact.
If there was a god, there would be no such thing as free choice.
It seems the "deniers" need to protect the gullible or "undecided" from your brand of nonsense and irrationality.
So I suppose that means you're open minded enough to acknowledge that your beliefs might be wrong then? After all, you're not saying you're close minded, right?
It is the people who are atheists and demand what won’t be given until it’s too late to do anything about it that are closed minded.
Atheists are generally open to evidence. Not empty veiled threats. So, where's your evidence? And you still didn't answer my question. Why is that?
I'm not impressed with your threats of burning in Hell.
You did not specify any limits to your "sweeping generalization", "any argument"...
That's the problem with sweeping generalizations...
Ok, have fun splitting hairs
Religious conscience are anathema and complete oxymorons to many hard core progressive leftist liberals in this country!
If they had their way we’d be second class citizens and they would dictate to us which religious beliefs are acceptable to them for us to have.
Aren't they doing that already?
Here yes. It’s starting to happen at the state level in blue states and it happened in Canada recently where if a school has certain religious beliefs they can be denied a law school accreditation.
Who's dictating which beliefs you should have ???
Answer ? NO ONE !!!!
This is melodramatic even for you.
That's a silly thing to say.
Do you have any basis whatsoever? Or did you find this on some wacko website? Or did you just make it up?
Good for them. Canadians understand that religious beliefs do not supercede the rights of others.
First off, if you are going to slam somebody, at least make sure you have the correct person. That was my my comment above, not Raven's so how about you lighten up on them? My comment was a personal opinion based on personal observation on my part. Therefore, I owe you no explanations or specific sources. Have a good day.
So, when can we expect the first witch burning, in wilder but permissible religious freedom, and then stone some sinners at the city gates?
Religious freedom seems to have a lot of freedom for them at the expense of other people's freedoms. Didn't Christ say something about you shouldn't be upset about the speck in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the splinter in your own eye? Treat others as you want to be treated?
I wonder how many actual Christians there are in the world, and how many use the bible and Christianity as a tool or a excuse to do...anything!? Looks like religion failed at everything except crowd control and a "good" excuse to be mean and rotten.
Makes you wonder about the "human" race, don't it?
Religious conscience? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Religious nutjobs look forward to the day when it is permissible to for any clerk to ask any customer why want to purchase anything. At Home Depot it will be, "why do you need these nails, sir?". If you're using them to build a wedding arch for a same sex wedding, you are going home without nails.
"Religious Conscious Must Be Protected." ? ?
Protected from what? Itself?
Religious conscious? First, it would have to determined that---that conscious existed in the real sense.
Just another way these assholes can discriminate.
So why would a gay or lesbian couple insist on patronizing them, when the baker down the street will decorate the cake any way they want?
Lawsuit shopping perhaps??
Of course, as usual, you have everything wrong. It's tiresome how when some know the truth and pretend not to or prefer to believe the fux 'news' talking points.
"On February 1, 1960, four African American college students sat down at a lunch counter at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, and politely asked for service. Their request was refused. When asked to leave, they remained in their seats. Their passive resistance and peaceful sit-down demand helped ignite a youth-led movement to challenge racial inequality throughout the South."
But they could have gotten lunch elsewhere, why would they do such a thing? Lawsuit shopping? /s
Commerce clause, ever hear of it.....
why should they be forced to go down the street to another baker when this public business owner agreed to serve the public and refused to do his job he voluntarily chose ? do you think that "religious beliefs" should be a valid reason to legally discriminate against the public ?
do you think that "religious beliefs" should be a valid reason to legally discriminate against the public ?
Of course it is valid. The state or consumer can't force you to against your beliefs and moral code. Unless the customer was a trouble maker and itching to file a lawsuit, they would understand and respect that. They have other options, and can go elsewhere.
The recent ruling said he was not bound to violate his religious beliefs, and it was wrong for anyone to ask him to. Go back and read it.
so why did the whole lawsuit with lunch counters happen ? didn't those people also have other options and could have gone elsewhere ? do some research on religious discrimination rulings sometime.
wouldn't it have been pointless to stop segregation since all those people had other options and could have gone elsewhere as well ? or is legal discrimination ok with you if you think those being discriminated against are " icky " ?
i did - and you don't seem to understand what you read ( unless you are looking for confirmation bias then i understand how you came to the erroneous conclusion ) - it stated that the current public accommodation laws in place in the state were sufficient and had the commissioner not treated the religious beliefs aspect poorly - you would have had a different ruling altogether . Try reading it and comprehending the ruling this time.
why aren't you upset that a voluntary public business owner isn't serving the entire public as he voluntarily chose to do for his job ?
You're free to hold those bigoted beliefs, you just can't use them as an excuse to violate the law by illegally denying service.
.
Actually it said the exact opposite. You obviously didn't read the ruling and I seriously doubt you could understand it.
.
You'd have done very well in the Jim Crow south. LOL. Your sort of mentality was rejected by our society, our courts and our Congress over 50 years ago.
Conservatives said the very same thing when Anne Neuman went to Piggie Park BBQ when she could have went somewhere else that served "her kind". Apparently, Rosa Parks should have shut up and moved to the back of the bus where she belonged. In the minds of conservatives "those people should know their place in society and not expect equal treatment from others". Separate but (un)equal is now a platform of the GOP.
I just want to note how that description is technically inaccurate and is a common misconception, I myself hadn't understood the truth until a few years ago.
The facts: Rosa Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake 's order to give up her seat in the "colored section" to a white passenger, after the whites-only section was filled.
She was already sitting in the "colored section", she merely refused to be forced to give her seat up to a white passenger who had just gotten on the bus. She refused to be forced to ride the bus standing while allowing a white passenger to sit in the "colored section". It wasn't even "separate but equal" in this case, it was "whites are more important than you" and "whites are separate and superior".
Sadly, there are still many xenophobes and white supremacists who believe that nonsense today and they all seem to gravitate towards supporting Trump and his anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-American ideology.
It’s a matter of raw power. The ability to enslave and coerce people into doing speech and artistic expression that violates their core religious beliefs and use the power of secular progressive government to compel it. The ultimate act of hate motivated by bigotry.
Maurice Bessinger of Piggie Park BBQ said the very same thing when he was forced to serve black customers as equal to whites. He also claimed that he was a BBQ artist.
The only act of hatred is the desire to treat others as less than equal in a public business. Jack Phillips knew what the law was when he opened the bakery so either sell the bakery to someone who isn't a religious bigot or stop making wedding cakes. He'll have a lot more time to pray if he sells the bakery to someone who isn't recycling discriminatory arguments from 1960s racists.
(gag) you're going to need a case of crackers and a 12' wheel of cheese to go with that much whine...
What possible difference does that make?
How is a business transaction forcing anyone against their beliefs?
How are beliefs automatically worthy of respect?
Why should they have to, especially when the business they are patronizing provides the service they are looking for?
So far scientists have been unable to detect consciousness in any member of the Christian Taliban.
They have "Christian Organization Mental Affliction" or "COMA" and there's no estimated date when they might recover.
"Religious Conscious Must Be Protected."
Social repercussions and secular laws forbidding such bigoted behavior. They appear to want us to ignore the fact that Jesus told his followers to do the except opposite, but Jesus only matters to conservative Christians on Easter and Christmas.
Gorsuch on the court. The winds are changing. Prepare.
Nobody possibly has the right not to be criticized because that would involve gutting the 1st Amendment's free speech protections.
The Constitution is at stake here. Russia didn't do all of 'this' for nothing.
Too bad the Dems just HAD to nominate Hillary.
Just as we need to be protected from religions
The religious people in America need protection from the bigotry of the atheist secular progressive and the vile FFRF.
Sorry HA, but delusional nutcases who cling to the foolish superstitions of our ignorant, prehistoric ancestors, deserve no respect for their childish fantasies.
Where in the Bible does Jesus tell his followers to be a bigot?
Preventing religious believers from weaponizing their beliefs in order to trample the secular rights of everyone else is not bigotry, unless you also believe that guaranteed equal rights for women is trampling the rights of misogynists.
Nobody forced Jack Phillips to open and operate a bakery so he can close it or make it a private business if he doesn't like the requirement to serve all people equally or even associate with them. He has the very same religious rights to believe in god and worship as he sees fit that everyone else does. He never had the right to refuse to serve people of other beliefs in a public business, despite your claims.
Some religious people sure seem to like to play the religious persecution card. Or otherwise fear progress.
Deleted What you are really saying is that we shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you.
They do seem extremely fragile. Sounds like they need special rights and privileged status.
It is a 2 way street
And lots of safe space.
There have been three public accommodation rulings in the lower courts since the Masterpiece ruling (Arizona, Oregon and Hawaii). All three concerned a denial of service because the customers were a same-sex couple, in all three cases the bigoted owners cited their loony superstitions as an excuse to violate the law, all three cited the Masterpiece ruling as precedent, and all three rulings went against the dumb bigots. Too bad so sad for the superstitious, eh?
The best part is that the ADF anti-LGBT hate group lost two of the three cases. They're the same hate group behind the Masterpiece ruling......and they still rather naively think they "won" that. A closely related anti-LGBT hate group (First Liberty Institute) lost the other case. LOL.
from your last link (oregon live)
this is what it boils down to, but for some reason many of the conservative minded feel that a voluntary public business owner (who has voluntarily agreed to abide by public accommodation laws) should be able to legally state "we don't serve your kind here" and throw us back a few decades.
I swear, some of the conservatives here are so dumb that they're literally incapable of comprehending what SCOTUS plainly said. It's only the erroneous Breitbart and Faux News spin which they understand.
Interestingly, SCOTUS did not rule that CO's anti-discrimination law was unconstitutional but that the state agency enforcing it acted without adequate due process (or words to that effect). So, it really wasn't a victory for the forces of bigotry and evil as they're wishing to call it.
What the ruling amounted to is an instruction to the courts not to laugh when the dumb bigot makes their superstitious and legally irrelevant argument.
The forces of bigotry and evil were and are those who would compel a person to act against their religious beliefs.
are you stating that the forces of bigotry and evil are people who expect voluntary public business owners to do their job and serve... the public ? why do you advocate that people don't do their jobs ?
Bigotry and evil also disguise themselves as religious beliefs too.
Particularly the form of religion known as atheism....
Atheism is the rejection of religious belief. A(anti)-theism.
As in not-acceptance. That is, not being convinced.
Be complete TiG! You copyrighted this, didn't you?
Four possibilities:
1) Gnostic theist: Certain that God exists
2) Agnostic theist: Believes that God exists, but recognizes the possibility of error
3) Agnostic atheist: Believes that God does not exist, but recognizes the possibility of error
4) Gnostic atheist: Certain that God does not exist
Both the first and last are faith-based, and therefore unarguable. The second and third allow discussion.
The "A" prefix actually just means "away from" or "without", not exactly anti. It's a variant of the Latin "ab". So atheism is just being without theistic beliefs. But that's where you get into positive (stronger) vs negative (weaker) assertions of atheism, or even apathetic-atheism.
Yes.
That's why two words are needed.
I don't look at it that way. Either you have a particular belief in a particular god or you are an atheist-not a theist. Atheism is nothing; it shouldn't even be a word. It's like calling someone who doesn't drive a car, an 'adriver.' You don't describe a person by what they are not. Atheism is merely the default position of all humans. We are all born atheists, god belief has to be taught and learned.
That would be logical. But some atheism - gnostic atheism in TiG's classification - is not logical, since it is a form of "proving a negative". I've met quite a few online. They are just as insensible to reason as religious fundamentalists.
Except atheism isn't a religion. hence the term, A-theism. it's rather funny (and willfully ignorant) how some people to equate atheism as a religion. It's a contradiction in terms.
It is nothing more than a mindless talking point. Just something to repeat instead of formulating a thoughtful, original comment.
That's why two words are needed.
If theists weren’t so concerned about the fact that not everyone is like them, then there would be no need for the word atheist. You would either be theistic, or you wouldn’t be. We have a special name because theists have a need to label us as an inferior class.
Semantics, Hal.
It depends on what degree of precision you want. Personally, I think it's significant that there are people who do not recognize any possibility of being wrong... on both sides of the question. That distinction requires a second word.
You can’t be ‘wrong’ when to be right requires proof of a negative. It is the burden of those making the claim to provide evidence to back it up. Atheism is just a natural reaction to theism. If someone confidently said to you that there is intelligent life on the moon, it is not your duty to prove them wrong, it is their burden to prove themselves right. In the meantime, it makes no sense to come up with a special name for those who don’t believe the claim.
Key word there being "mindless," which leads directly to the second part of your statement.
Chances are, it's the theist who will not admit or even consider the possibility that their beliefs may be wrong. They're convinced they're right because they read (or were fed) the "truth' from some "holy" book. If any evidence or argument contradicts or challenges that "truth," it's the opposing evidence/argument that must be dismissed and not the "holy" book or associated "truth." It's the perfect balance of intellectual dishonesty and laziness.
I don't think I'm getting across to you.
There's an essential difference between "I very much doubt there's a God" and "I am certain that there's no God". The first is a rational reaction to a lack of evidence. The second is an act of faith... exactly like the act of faith of a gnostic theist.
We often hear theists say that atheism is a religion. That's obviously not true for agnostic atheists... but it's a defensible proposition for gnostic atheists.
You always find a way to make me think even less of you. In what way is atheism a religion? I really want you to list them because I can use a good laugh.
I have yet to meet or see an actual gnostic atheist. Even guys like Richard Dawkins or the late great Christopher Hitchens allow(ed) for the possibility that they are wrong. I heard Dawkins once say that on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being absolute certainty, that he is a 9.5. Pretty far, but still allowing for error on his part. I do agree, a gnostic atheist would be just as insufferable as HA.
I've met several online.
I have, fortunately, never had the displeasure.
I think Mocowgirl claims to be one but I'm not sure how anyone can honestly make that claim. I'm with Dawkins on this one.
I’m with Dawkins too, except 9.999. I promise that I will believe it when I see it.
There's an essential difference between "I very much doubt there's a God" and "I am certain that there's no God".
This is where FSM comes in handy. Replace ‘God’ with ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’, and see if you still feel the same way. There is exactly as much evidence for one as the other.
Yeah, we can be pretty fucking sure... but never positive.
Those four categories are functionally complete. They cover 100% of the cases.
To illustrate, let's take just atheism and theism.
One is either a theist or an atheist. A true dichotomy.
The agnostic dimension simply distinguishes between certainty and uncertainty. Applied to belief in a god, one is either uncertain that their belief/lack is true or certain that their belief/lack is true. A true dichotomy.
We all fall in one of the categories whether one wishes to acknowledge that or not is a different matter. And if one wishes to generalize to 'agnostic' that is a vague reference which includes the agnostic theist and the agnostic atheist (as a continuum with varied degrees of certainty). It is vague because one either believes in a god or one does not believe in a god. (If one 'does not know' if one believes then one does not currently believe, by definition.)
I do not believe you are trying to understand this framework so I am moving on.
Okay, will respond to this.
Correct. It depends upon degree and only you know the degree.
Most theists (I strongly suspect - especially for Christians) believe in a god but also acknowledge that the belief is not proven - they could be wrong. Agnostic theists.
The majority of atheists do not believe in a God but also acknowledge that they might be wrong. Agnostic atheists.
The question, really, is whether one has crossed the threshold. Does one honestly say I do not know but I think there is something out there or does one say I do not know but have not seen sufficient evidence to think there is a god. There is more than 'I do not know' when one introspects. If one privately concludes to oneself that 'I do not know' is the end of it then that is lack of belief in a god. That truly is by definition.
Like all extremists, this one loves to pervert the language. The euphemism of "protecting religious conscience" really means imposing religious bigotry and fanaticism on everyone and putting the entire country under the yoke of a fundamentalist nightmare.
Yep. For ( deleted ) ,religious freedom, religious conscience or any other way they want to phrase it simply means they want the right to impose their beliefs on everyone, by force preferably (we all know Christianity's history), and murder those who don't go along.
I guess I'll be dead then.
(Deleted)
(Deleted)
The only “fundy” I see here is the sweeping generalization of Christians being made here. Lots of crazy talk from internet badasses I suppose .... but if they really are serious, I suggest packing a lunch, as it will not end well for you.
Threat noted .......
Creating a conscience clause to protect believers from a secular is not forcing everyone else to go along with it. That’s a sweeping generalization.
The comments to the original article in the "Arkansas Democrat-Gazette" are surprisingly good and worth reading. It seem that most people recognize that the article was written by a dumb bigot who doesn't belong in public office:
Translation: "If a religious person wants to be a bigot, and mask it with, "religious freedom", they should be able to do so."
I wonder if this baker realizes that he has in all likelihood served many gay people over the years. Does that mean he has to repent or.....whip himself or some shit? Is he now condemned to burn in hell?
All of those who stand with The Deceiver will 'burn in hell.'
just think of all the people who have gone against this baker's fragile, sensitive, religious beliefs that he has served !! oddly.. he only singled out a same sex couple
Should members of the Southern Baptist Convention have been allowed to own slaves until the official revocation of that part of the Southern Baptist Religious Conscience?
If one's Religious Conscience conforms with the Puritans of the 1600's, should one be allowed to burn witches at the stake?
What if my Religious Conscience is informed by the Satanic Bible? Am I allowed to do as I wish?
What if my conscience isn't informed by religion at all? Am I allowed to even go out in public? Should I even be allowed the right of existence?
Should we bring back the auto de fey?
This is the type of thinking that says, we want tribalism, and our tribe must be FIRST.
This is the type of thinking that shows exactly why it is so difficult to run a nation-state without authoritarian rule.
This is the type of reasoning that leads to:
Yes, a thousand times YES! Here's an auto da fe with some help from the neighbors:
Always the same old song with these folks. Whine that you don't get to impose your own religious mores onto the rest of society, then play the role of the persecuted when you get pushback.
Conservatives, religious or otherwise, cannot tolerate the fact that other people have equal rights to their own. They will pay lip service to equality, but in the end, they always want just a few more rights than everyone else, so they can keep the traditional social order as it is and feel superior about themselves.
Well, there are many conservatives who claim to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Not to paint all conservatives with a broad brush, but I'll just say these particular folks are bat crap crazy if they think they are going to drag the nation back 50 years or more.
As soon as it bumps up against my rights your religious conscience can go fuck itself.
For a believer, their rights not to be compelled to speak or express themselves contrary to the free excercise there of of said religious belief is an equal right under the constitution not to be subborned to any other right. That is non negotiable and never to be compromised.
This will be fun. Okay, how about child brides? Or rape victims being forced to marry their rapists? Totally cool and constitutional yes? Is it perfectly acceptable for you to kill your neighbor for mowing their lawn on Sunday (or Saturday depending on your sect)?
And I just now thought about it, ISIS was perfectly okay murdering Christians in the ME correct? It was their religious belief, and according to you they should NEVER compromise on those.
Come on HA, come defend your idiocy.
As Justice Kennedy so wisely noted: “It is a general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
Bummer for the dumb and superstitious bigots, eh?
If that is the way that Jack Phillps believes then he needs to sell the business and go live in the backwoods as a monk so he doesn't have to ever come in contract with anyone of another religion. He willingly chose to open and operate that public business that serves people of all religions equally, and with that voluntary act there are legal requirements. His religious beliefs are not an exception to secular law because if they were we would live in a conservative Christian theocracy governed by the beliefs of bigots. Your religious beliefs do not supersede the equal secular or religious rights of other people.
Do you also oppose denying equal service to people of other races and religions because of religious beliefs, or is your religious intolerance limited to just LGBT people? Where did Jesus teach this bigoted idea?
I don't understand how Phillips can serve black folks or mixed-race couples given that he's a Southern Baptist, unless he's one of those newfangled variety who condemns the Truth of the SBC's founding principles of white supremacy and slavery for the subhuman black folks. If so, why not then also reject the SBC's currently bigoted preaching against LGBT folks too? At best it sounds like he has a double standard and is inconsistent about the constancy of Truth. It's almost like he and his fellow superstitious bigots simply invented their entire nutty belief system.
Fuck, it does seem a whole lot like that doesn't it? I mean, it really does seem like if these belief systems were truly of divine origin, the believers would be terrified of deviating from them and would enforce them to the letter for fear of eternal punishment. And yet......
HA, get back here and defend your retarded "religious conscience".
If we would ever allow religious conscience objections as a reason to ignore equal rights protections, we would instantly become a Christian theocracy because they could and world void every secular law that doesn't agree with their abusive mythology. This possibility is exactly the reason why religious conscience laws must be vehemently opposed.
Oh you aren't arguing with me, I am 1000% in your corner on this. "Religious conscience" laws need to be squashed at every single turn. As soon as you allow religion to worn its way into government the government automatically becomes vicious and oppressive.
We will fight to preserve and expand religious conscience clauses at every level of government within the first amendment. It is a simple right we as Americans under our constitution have. All the other about how people in foreign cultures not under our constitution is meaningless to this discussion and will be unanswered as off topic. As to the few in Christian tradition who wrongly used the Bible to justify racial slavery and racism, they are an aberration and there is no biblical rationale for racism as the courts found. There are however verses in the Bible that speak to the evil abomination in the sight of God that homosexuality is while saying that it can be forgiven and the sinner changed. No one should be compelled by individuals or government in participating in what is clearly to them an abomination in the sight of God, even if you don’t think it is or that there is no God.
Deleted
How about any of the specific scenarios I laid out? What are your thoughts there?
Coming from the secular progressive left that is a compliment, a badge of honor proudly worn.
(Deleted)
You have the very same religious rights that everyone else enjoys but you don't have thye right to throw out the secular law and invoke your religious myths as an exception when the rights of others are involved.
Maybe Drs, cops and judges should start invoking their religious conscience objections at the side of the road or when the jury finds religious conservatives innocent.
Why is it that progressives think that anyone who disagrees with them doesn’t have an original thought? It’s as if they believe that theirs are the only ones out there.
Those people used the very same religious conscience claims that you are invoking, so you you need to own up to their racism and support of slavery. The Southern Baptists the broke off and formed their own church to support and defend slavery and to defend racism is the very same church that Maurice Bessinger attended and Jack Phillips and then Klan attend. Your views are no different than those 1920s racists who supported the racist concept of separate but equal and the previous Dred Scott decision. It took 30 years for the SBC to denounce their past support of racism, so will it take another 30 years for the same Southern Baptist Church to denounce their homophobia? Why are gay people your current target?
You should embrace the racism and bigotry of the past because your religious freedom claims that support anti-LGBT laws and the previous racist laws are the very same, despite your revisionist history.
Really? If my religious beliefs don’t agree with abortion I don’t have to participate in one. If my religious beliefs don’t agree with the purpose of certain medications I wouldn’t have to Rx them. If I’m operating a crisis pregnancy center, I can’t be compelled to post info that goes against what I believe. If I’m a conscientious objector, I can waive being drafted for war. If I have religious objections to saying the pledge of allegiance, I don’t have to. If I have a religious objection to being a member of a union I can donate my dues to charity and not join. Our country past and present has always had and always will have conscience clauses to protect a minority from the majority.
You are recycling the same religious beliefs that defended racism for 150 years, so how original are those thoughts?
He isn't participating in a gay marriage. He is baking a very secular cake and being paid well for his efforts. They aren't asking for his approval and he isn't welcome at the wedding or the reception. If the caterer would have ordered the cake for the wedding he would not have never known it was for a wedding of two men because he doesn't have then right to ask to see the marriage license or to interview his potential customers for their political or religious beleifs.
How many times have you been asked to co-sign a marriage license or to support the nuptials of any couple? I've been by the country courthouse innumerable times but I've never seen any couple asking people to sign a petition supporting their marriage license?
Your entire argument is emotional nonsense because conservatives lost the right to deny others equal rights in the courts so you are desperately trying to change the laws or to add religious exemptions to bring back the bigotry of Prop-8 and DOMA laws, just as racists tried to fight the the end of slavery and the 1964 Civil Rights Act any way possible. Bigotry in the US always seems to be wrapped up in claims of "states rights", judicial originalism and sincere religious beliefs exceptions, despite the fact that Jesus taught people to do the very opposite.
I am obviously agreeing with you. I'm sorry that it appeared to be otherwise.
Why is it that you will not state your personal positions on such things? Because it will show you to be completely full of shit and entirely self-serving? Because you will have to admit that someone like me is more worthy of your heaven than you are?
Why is it that you deny that my opinions are mine?
So 13.1.21 is entirely accurate. Does it bother you that I am ahead of you in line when it comes to heaven?
I am not at all worthy of Heaven and can get there like everyone else only by the saving grace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. My righteousness is like filthy rags and there are no works I can do on my own to be worthy of eternal life. I have the assurance of salvation and act to please Him by helping others but on my own, not a chance.
Whatever. I’m done here. I’m closing the seed. Well, I can’t or I’ll be accused of getting the last word or I could not respond over enough hours to get a moderator to do it but I’d get it for that too. So, the seed will close at or around midnight tonight between eastern and pacific daylight time.
Your opinions are so outlandish, HA, that it's hard to know if you are serious sometimes.
Hah, pathetic. Never answered any of my specific scenarios. All I can assume is that HA fully supports the ISIS slaughter of Christians.
I have the very same question more than 50% of the time.
If God was real and cared if we believed in him, then God would show himself again
I think it's hiding because it's afraid. Or because it's a product of the Bronze age it doesn't know how to use Twitter.
I'm not at all sure that logic is... logical...
IMNAAHO, we cannot want "Free Will", and desire an "active" God at the same time. I do not want to imagine that we are puppets, so...
This buggy software is a sick joke because the last 3 replies of mine have been deleted. Two of the replies were multiple paragraphs.
FIX IT!