HOME | DD
PurplePhoneixStar β Keep your religion off my rights stamp
Published: 2012-01-18 18:38:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 1836; Favourites: 89; Downloads: 11
Redirect to original
Description
I have nothing against someone's religion but if you try to impose it on me, then we have an issue. The USA was founded on individual freedom as long as it didn't phsyically hurt anyone. I cannot stand people saying Jesus hates this so ban it. There are other religions in the US getting pissed at you for saying that and thinking only of yourself. US is a democracy (technically republic) and we are not a theocracy. Stop trying to make it that way. Oh and this is what Jesus says about theocracy
Related content
Comments: 70
Jesus actually said to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto the Lord what is the Lord's. He also said to pray for our leaders because God wants them there, and to obey our government's laws. In our case, that is the Constitution.
The Constitution applies to us just as much as any other religion, and we do not get a "Get Out of the Constitution Free" card just because we are we and they are they. The loudmouths in my religion need to stop obsessing about forcing complete strangers to live by Christian standards and just worry about themselves for a change!
Every person, no matter their beliefs (or lack thereof) thinks their beliefs are The Truthβ’ and you know what? That's okay! It's actually pretty damn cool that we live in a country founded on the principle of that being okay, and I wish more Christians would step outside of their personal religious bubble to realize that.
Edited because my tablet magically hit "Submit" without my finger being anywhere near it. >:\
π: 1 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 0
If only more thought like you. I have another stamp, freedom of religion covers all religion because it never said a specific one in the constitution.
π: 0 β©: 1
There are more of us. We just don't get the kind of media coverage that blatantly unconstitutional legislation and "GOD HATES FAGS" neon poster board picket signs do.
π: 0 β©: 1
And that hurts all religious people.
π: 0 β©: 0
My mom and my oldiest big sister are Christians but they don't try to proselytize me, like I'm not proselytizig them to atheists. They love me and I love them.
π: 1 β©: 1
And I think that is how it should be. No one should be forced to another's beliefs. Sure we can disagree but in the end, does it matter?
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
I Totally agree, but it must, in turn, e completely legal for someone to disagree on someones other beliefs.
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree but leave it civil don't make laws siting religion. While I hate when people call Muslims inhuman, they can say it all they want as long as they accept the consequences of the action. Now harmful assult like blowing up abortion clinics in the name of religion crosses the line.
π: 0 β©: 0
Β Agreed, Jesus was against organized religion and authoritarianism as a whole.
π: 0 β©: 1
But there's no money to be made in that!
π: 0 β©: 1
Which is why Judas sold Jesus out to the Romans.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well he had to. Jesus needed to die so we could be forgiven and he wasn't gonna be killed on his own.
π: 1 β©: 0
The constitution did with seperation of church and state
π: 0 β©: 1
Don't change the subject.
π: 0 β©: 0
Keep your misguided ideas of "rights" off my religion! xD
π: 0 β©: 1
"rights". Why the quotation marks, exactly? Also, not everyone will share your beliefs. Deal with it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Because the idea of rights is subjective unless grounded in religion or something else that might as well be religion. If not, then it is just a matter of human opinion, ever-changing and impermanent as the shifting sands.
π: 0 β©: 1
Religion. So, it's your right as a member of you religion to take away others rights that they are entitled to as HUMAN BEINGS?
π: 0 β©: 1
Before you get on your high horse, you need to examine where these rights as human beings come from. It's not enough to say "I'm human." You need a more through explanation than that. And freedom to and of religion is one of those rights.
π: 0 β©: 2
Does freedom of religion mean using your beliefs as an excuse to be mean to someone?
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't consider myself mean, but there is no right not to be offended. We have freedom of speech and religion. If anything, I would be well within my rights to consider curves on freedom of religion to be a mean thing. And yes, if someone considers a religion mean, they can simply refuse to be a part of it. No one is trying to force you to convert.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not infringing on your rights, ok? You guys force your religion on us when you use it to justify not allowing gay marriage or abortion! Hey, I'm christian. Maybe I don't go to church, I'm not SUPER religious. But even I know not to use "but that's against god!!!" as an argument. Not everyone shares your beliefs, don't make them live by your rules.
π: 0 β©: 1
I am not forcing religion on anyone. When a small group of people forcibly change the legal definition of marriage, THAT is forcing something.
π: 0 β©: 1
Dude, you have it all wrong. How will this effect you? They aren't making you marry someone of your own gender. You know what defines marriage? Love. And when you use your religion as leverage against letting people love who they want to love, even though they may not share your beliefs, that IS forcing your religion on someone. How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't eat meat ever again just because they were a vegetarian?
π: 0 β©: 1
It isn't about me. It is about society. Suppose that we gave everyone who played a sport a trophy, claiming that it wasn't about winning, but sportsmanship. The value of a trophy would plummet. Things which society holds to be valueable have an element of rareness in them. Extending the definition not only waters it diwn, but transforms marriage from an exclusive bond reinforced by nature to one designed for emotional fulfillment.
It also puts the contractual nature of marriage ahead of its benefits for society. Simply put, marriage came forth as an institution to help build families, not just to make two peopke happy. Plus, in contracts, there is nothing limiting the parties of the deal to just two. Think about what Pandora's box you may open.
And love alone does not justify marriage. We prohibit incest, even where love is present, for one thing.
π: 0 β©: 1
That is quite a concept. You sir or madam, have some very strong opinions. But if marriage would lose it's value in this, then why may I ask, has it not been affected in changes before? The original concept of marriage: an arranged marriage between a 13 year old girl and a 30 year old man for 5 cows and a chicken, or so. It's changed a lot, and I dare say it's gotten a lot better! Besides, if you were in these people's positions, what would you do?
π: 0 β©: 1
First, these aren't remotely as strong as the opinions of many on either side. I am quite moderate by most standards.
Second, those did nothing to disrupt the underlying fundamentals of what marriage was. It was still between a man and a woman. The definition of what constituted a man and a woman differed back in the ancient and medieval worlds, based on age and the need to have children to continue society when people typically did not live as long. As for your naive statement about people marrying for monetary gain, that was a corruption of marriage then, as it still is now. We still refer to people who marry for money or similar things (prestige, fame, or in your bad example, livestock) as gold diggers.
And who are "these people?" It's a vague statement.
π: 0 β©: 1
I assumed you were interested enough in this topic to remember. I meant, how would you react if you were homosexual? I for one would do anything to marry who I love. I'm not homosexual, but that's what I would do.
π: 0 β©: 1
Honestly, this conversation is just a piece of background noise. I have better things to do than to fight over a point when you aren't going to listen to me or change your mind. No matter how well-articulated my arguments or how on-point my facts are, you aren't going to listen.
But if you insist on continuing, I will say that I would first check to see whether or not my desires match with what is right and wrong. One can love something, but it can still be wrong, you know. To think otherwise is pride. Self-righteousness. Even hubris. It means that one thinks one's desires trump morality. To which you will say "there's nothing wrong" with homosexuality. To which I will reply with Kant's categorical imperative (Can everyone do it without society collapsing? If not, it isn't a right.) To which you will ignore it or tell me I'm being the extreme one.
π: 0 β©: 1
You make a fair point, but as this has boiled down to being about morality, a subject widely based on opinions and culture, I must insist that we halt this conversation. Your first statement however, is true on both sides. Have a nice day!
p.s. if you should call me a coward, please know that I do this out of experience in this sort of thing. I can't convince those who anchor themselves in the concept of morality.
p.p.s in theory, a woman COULD get pregnant using the bone marrow of another woman, so everyone could do it without society collapsing.
π: 0 β©: 1
The only things I will say on this point, since you are keen to stop it otherwise, is that the bone marrow thing is bs.
Plus, I actually did seem to be getting through, a bit.
π: 0 β©: 1
Does freedom of religion mean using your beliefs as an excuse to be mean to someone?
π: 0 β©: 0
Well then... Tell that to Obama. Him trying to force Christian orginazations to cover birth control in their insurance. He tried to do the same thing with the jobs emplyed by the Catholic Church. People like him only bring up separation of Church and State when it suits them.
π: 0 β©: 1
I am all for the choice of religion as to what to cover and all that, but it gets into mucky legal debate on religious employers. Are they to be treated as a church or business in the eyes of the law. I don't agree with forcing Catholic and any other orginazation to cover what they don't feel is right, but it gets tricky when a CEO's personal beliefs are what they try and use for an entire diverse company. A Bible store, yes I can understand, but not a Craft store.
π: 0 β©: 0
You are absolutely right. I hate it when people go around shoving their religion in my face, and condemning certain practices. I LOATHE the term "sin". Many "sins" are perfectly normal things to do. I wish people would just keep their religion to themselves.
On an unrelated note, try putting some spotlight emoticons around the "read before you comment" thing. It puts emphasis on it.
π: 0 β©: 0
while I agree, why do americans think "republic" and "democracy" are different political systems? while in fact :
-Republic refers to the leader(s) : a republic is simply a state where the leader is elected by a group, and this leadership isn't transmitted by heredity. So a republic can be a democracy (France, USA, Germany, Russia etc...), but can as well be dictatorial or non-democratic (USSR, Netherlands in the past, some Italian cities before unification, etc...). There's as well the exemple of Roman Republic, where there were two Consuls, instead of one "president". So, a republic simply means that the leader is a PRESIDENT chosen by votes.
- Democracy refers to the political system, who has the power of decision. A democracy is a system where theorically this is the majority, the "people" that decides. There're many forms of democracies, such as representative, participative or direct democracy. A democracy can have various forms : France is a democracy, whose leader is a president, so the system of leader is called "republic", but it doesn't mean that this is another system that Belgium, whose leader is a powerless king. in that case, Belgium is a constitutionnal monarchy, but this term simply describe who's the leader, but the political system remains a democracy, for both France and Belgium.
So, republic and democracy aren't two different political system, and the ignorants saying "USA isn't a democracy but a republic" should try to go to a descent school. A republic can be a dictatorship, a democracy, can be based on privileges, can be constitutionnal as Italy and Germany, where the president hasn't any power. A democracy can be a republic, a constitutionnal monarchy or republic (where the power is in the end of ministers, legislative chambers, and prime minister as real leader).
To compare both is a idiot as compare the same hot chocolate put in a mug or put in a bowl : this is exactly the same drink, but the form is a bit different.
π: 0 β©: 0
I despise those who say that America was founded to protect "religious freedom".
It was founded to protect people from RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION, whether they're religious or NOT.
π: 0 β©: 1
I always thought religious freedom was for all relgions not just Christians.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't know what 'relgions' means, but according to history, the "puritans" were fleeing religious persecution.
Many of the founders made statements to support my comment, that religion was to remain SEPARATE from governance.
There's a reason for that.... to prevent persecution of those who choose to believe something different than the government's church.
Atheists, for instance....or muslims for that matter, if we are going by the mood of the moment.
π: 0 β©: 1
Agreed whole heartedly. It may seem like a small difference on the surface, especially for those part of a religious majority, but it's a big deal. Freedom of religion gives leeway for religious people to do whatever the fuck they want, which should not at all be the way it should be. Religions must follow the same basic human rights as the law, which history will show they definitely do not therefore they must have accountability from a secular government or authority. A religion doesn't have freedom to enslave people or murder people or harm people, it does not have absolute freedom as much some think it should. And it's to prevent a government church from existing at all (which it does but still seems to be constantly threatened by Christian influence in america). I'm sure even many Christians would not welcome the idea of a religious government if they actually thought about it, it would so easily and quickly be flipped against them and any possible dissenters.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>