I know the thread got locked, but i'm sorry, i was talking about this with my new co-workers, and one of the old guys(christian, white) was mad about the law.
I asked him why. his response?
"They just paved the way for Sharia Law", and he walked off.
good job, christians.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I know the thread got locked, but i'm sorry, i was talking about this with my new co-workers, and one of the old guys(christian, white) was mad about the law.
I asked him why. his response?
"They just paved the way for Sharia Law", and he walked off.
good job, christians.
I'll admit, I don't know all the details of Indiana's law (which, it appears, will be changing), but I do believe I've read it is similar to a law Clinton signed way back when, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 20, 25? states have similar laws.
So...........it's Christians that are the problem? Maybe I don't understand your point.
I know the thread got locked, but i'm sorry, i was talking about this with my new co-workers, and one of the old guys(christian, white) was mad about the law.
I asked him why. his response?
"They just paved the way for Sharia Law", and he walked off.
good job, christians.
I'll admit, I don't know all the details of Indiana's law (which, it appears, will be changing), but I do believe I've read it is similar to a law Clinton signed way back when, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 20, 25? states have similar laws.
So...........it's Christians that are the problem? Maybe I don't understand your point.
religion is the problem.
see, Christians hate gays so much, they passed a law that just opened the flood gates for the one group of people they might hate just as equally: Muslims.
see, when nonsense like this seems to be the priority over say...the drought in california and education, you get opportunist like these guys:
So basically, federal and state laws are being trumped by religious laws, thats a fact that can't even be debated at this point, especially with the two examples i provided.
so what keeps Sharia Law from being practiced?
So yes, christians are a problem, as well as muslims, jews, hindu's, whatever.
See, what you don't realize Arch, is that Christians, at least the ones you allow to represent you in the government, are no different than the religion, or country(Iran) y'all claim to be enemies off.
both want religious laws to rule the country. both want "sins" like porn and such banned. both want Gays persecuted.
countless others.
there's a REASON the founding fathers(lol, I love throwing around those terms like conservatives do) developed the separation of church and state.
See, and i know 40 and millcreek's head are going to explode, you can't pick and choose what religion the law applies to.
So if Christians can be open bigot's now, and make religious type policies for their business and other things, than so can muslims, and satanist, and scientologists, etc.
You thought Islamophobia was bad......lol, y'all aint seen nothing yet.
Religion is the problem. you guys just can't keep it to yourself, in your household and church. nah, it's gotta flood the streets. I gotta be told and preached to on this board that if i don't convert, imma burn in a lake of fire(Thanks for the awesome visuals while high, Razor), or be told that, and LMAO YTown, that even though there are 5000 + gods that humanity worships all over the world, that christianity is the one true religion.
all those religions, but don't worry, your's is the right one.
but hey....I'm just a guy with an opinion. That's why i don't do religions. It's not my place to tell somebody who's right or wrong. I only defend myself when i feel i'm being attacked or preached too.
Last edited by Swish; 04/02/1506:07 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So...........it's Christians that are the problem?
The problem is law being based on an ancient book of fairy tales written by unenlightened men in a time before modernity.
Christians can and should be able to hold any belief they choose, and express them freely. However, laws are meant to be rooted in logic and reason, which (should) prevent their views from being taken into consideration when establishing said laws.
Religion is the problem. you guys just can't keep it to yourself
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Religion belongs in caves not in modern public life.
Anyone else find these statements ironic? I'm pretty sure if anyone told homosexuals to "Go back to the closet" they would be called a bigot. What makes these statements any different?
Then you have guys like PDR saying it's ok to practice your religion as long as you just lie about your reasons. Maybe homosexuals should just lie about being gay?
Hypocrites!
Yet some of you still don't see that religion is under attack in this country.
You guys have to have some weird obsession about Christians not selling hamburgers to blacks and gays. I don't think anyone had advocated for the ability to do that on this thread. And good luck proving your religious beliefs are being "substantially burdened" by selling said hamburger. If I owned a shop, I wouldn't have any problems serving homosexuals on a daily basis, just like I think most people wouldn't.
However, if you want to force me to participate in any spiritual/religious observance or ceremony that I don't agree with or that makes me uncomfortable, I should not be forced to be under the threat of fines and losing my business.
Would any of you guys want to be forced to sing Christian hymns? Get baptized? Go to confession? I don't think so.
What constitutes participation? I don't know...
Baking a cake for the reception? Maybe Supplying flowers or decorating the church? Maybe Singing or performing music? I would say yes. Providing a reception hall? Probably no.
That's really up to the courts to decide, and it might vary from person to person. But no one should be forced to participate in a religious/spiritual observance that makes them uncomfortable.
You tell them anti Christian Bigots, Orange, you tell them!
In just about any definition of the word bigotry, you'll find words like 'irrationally' or 'unfairly'.
It is not irrational, nor is unfair, to say that religion is not based in logic or reason, and therefore has no merit when it comes to considerations of laws.
It is, however, irrational and unfair to deny someone equal rights due solely to sentiments contained in an ancient book of fairy tales where snakes talk, virgins get pregnant, seas are parted, etc.
If someone were to say 'I don't want Christians to have a say in law', and their reason was 'because I don't like them'...that would be a form of bigotry.
But there's a valid and logical basis in keeping religion out of law.
Then you have guys like PDR saying it's ok to practice your religion as long as you just lie about your reasons.
That's not what I said at all.
What I said was, if your bigotry compels you to violate someone's civil rights, and you don't want to get involved with a lawsuit, you should probably try to cover the fact that you're violating someone's civil rights due to your bigotry.
You tell them anti Christian Bigots, Orange, you tell them!
In just about any definition of the word bigotry, you'll find words like 'irrationally' or 'unfairly'.
It is not irrational, nor is unfair, to say that religion is not based in logic or reason, and therefore has no merit when it comes to considerations of laws.
It is, however, irrational and unfair to deny someone equal rights due solely to sentiments contained in an ancient book of fairy tales where snakes talk, virgins get pregnant, seas are parted, etc.
If someone were to say 'I don't want Christians to have a say in law', and their reason was 'because I don't like them'...that would be a form of bigotry.
But there's a valid and logical basis in keeping religion out of law.
the fact that you don't see the reasoning why other posters brought up the black issue with regards to religion is exactly why you and other religious people need to be quiet.
religion, specifically christianity since we are talking about THIS country, has been used as a justification for the absolute WORST events in this country.
ever. period. that can't even be debated.
I've already schooled y'all over. and over. and over again why, with facts. Yet y'all dodge the issue like you're playing with AP in Madden.
once again, you clearly haven't been posting long in EE. i've said, and 40 can even back me up, that gays need to keep it to themselves too.
there no need for these "look at me look at me!" stuff that's going on.
but as much as gays do it, christians in this country do the same crap. how is it that they can account for 80% of the population, yet have the audacity to say "religion is under attack"?
what? religion isn't being under attack. we just want you guys to keep your religion to yourselves.
stop making religious based laws since everybody isn't religious. That's all we're asking. You're religion, once AGAIN, is YOUR personal relationship with god. Not mine. not the guy across the street.
you want to get with like minded people? go to church.
you want to tell people how to live their lives? pay their bills. if not, shut up.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You tell them anti Christian Bigots, Orange, you tell them!
stop it. i've notice you like to run into the shadows when guys like PDR start drilling you, and then you come out the woodwork when others bail you out.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
the long answer is, depends. You asked a loaded question like i wasn't gonna see through that nonsense.
good try though.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The phrase 'just about any' does not convey the meaning of 'every' or 'all'. It means 'the majority of'.
Also, you'll note that the definition you provided uses the word 'intolerance', which means 'an inability to tolerate'.
Christians are very much tolerated in this country. But there is a difference between 'intolerance' and 'not being taken seriously'.
You are confusing the latter with the former.
No one is saying that Christians can't be Christian, or hold Christian beliefs, or express them. They're not being told they can't pray or worship.
They're merely being told that society isn't going to cater to a belief system that centers on an omnipotent wizard. Perhaps the fact that society has catered to this for so long, but moves away from it as we become more intelligent or civilized, can lead to it being mistaken for persecution or intolerance.
But Christians have and are being tolerated. No one is persecuting them. They're merely being stopped from trying to impose their irrational and illogical beliefs onto others or the society as a whole.
You tell them anti Christian Bigots, Orange, you tell them!
stop it. i've notice you like to run into the shadows when guys like PDR start drilling you, and then you come out the woodwork when others bail you out.
Is that like a Gay reference or perhaps just a Freudian slip?
'Drilling' is a slang term used to describe someone taking a literal or figurative hit or beating, i.e. 'He got drilled by a fastball' or 'he got drilled in cross examination'.
In this instance, he's referring to the mockery you incur for your atrocious debate skills.
You tell them anti Christian Bigots, Orange, you tell them!
stop it. i've notice you like to run into the shadows when guys like PDR start drilling you, and then you come out the woodwork when others bail you out.
Is that like a Gay reference or perhaps just a Freudian slip?
just a term, describing the way posters has been quieting you lately.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
No, they should not be. Read my first post in this thread.
sure they should.
if you're a devout christian, or call yourself one, or ANY religion for that matter, then why shouldn't you be required to?
If you call yourself a devout <insert religion>, at whatever age you decide to claim that title, then part of that is doing things you don't want to do.
for instance, if i decide to call myself a devout christian, and i'm like 15 and haven't had sex yet, then guess what? no sex until marriage.
See, unlike you, i GET that.
devout muslims CAN'T eat bacon. devout christians MUST accept jesus as their savior. hindu's CAN'T eat beef. Not sure what Jews do, but yea whatever it is they do.
part of being devout means going to ceremonies, even if you don't feel like it. YTown, for example, if it wasn't for his health, as well as Razor and 40, would do everything required of them as christians. i get and respect that.
however, If IM not religious, then I'm not required to do that.
see, if you call yourself a christian, then BE christian. the problem in this country is we got too many part-timers. people only claim a set when it's convenient for them. when it benefits them. when it's the popular thing to do. and that isn't right.
Stop picking and choosing which sin you're gonna be against, and which one you're gonna be like "eh, whatever".
if you're against sin, then be against ALL of them. don't pick and choose.
thats my issue.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Uh, yeah...that's a great response. Too bad it has nothing to do with the question I asked.
Next time try to come up with a logical response.
Then answer the question: should anyone be forced to participate in a religious/spiritual ceremony that makes them uncomfortable? Yes or no
^^^ i'd say i answered that.
what a different answer? ask a different question.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Oh ok, Phew, glad you spoke up for Swish since he is apparently unwilling to answer that one himself.
Someone not replying to you within 9 minutes doesn't really qualify as an apparent unwillingness to respond.
But he did reply, through you.
huh? i answered you directly.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You compared not having sex and not eating pork to going to a religious/spiritual ceremony. That is an illogical comparison.
It's kind of like the person in the last thread who tried to make the argument about a Jewish not serving ham, even when it's not on their menu. That was an illogical argument; so is yours.
Washington (CNN) Indiana's social conservatives wanted a law that insulated them from the gay rights movement. Instead, the state has now enacted protections based on sexual orientation for the first time in its history.
Top Indiana Republican lawmakers overhauled their week-old religious freedom law Thursday with a follow-up measure intended to ease concerns driven by businesses that it could lead to discrimination. Gov. Mike Pence then signed it into law.
The changes appear to have tamped down some of the criticism -- but in doing so Pence and lawmakers infuriated social conservative activists and set the stage for a bigger fight next year over expanding Indiana's anti-discrimination law to cover gays and lesbians.
Republican legislative leaders unveiled their series of changes Thursday morning to the law that triggered intense backlash from businesses, sports associations, pro-LGBT groups and even fiscally-focused conservatives when Pence signed it last week.
The GOP-dominated House and Senate approved a legislative fix, which was added into an unrelated bill, on Thursday, sending it to Pence's desk almost immediately.
Despite last-minute lobbying from conservative groups like Indiana Right to Life to get Pence to veto the fix, the governor signed it Thursday evening.
"In the midst of this furious debate, I have prayed earnestly for wisdom and compassion, and I have felt the prayers of people across this state and across this nation. For that I will be forever grateful," Pence said in a statement.
"There will be some who think this legislation goes too far and some who think it does not go far enough, but as governor I must always put the interest of our state first and ask myself every day, 'What is best for Indiana?'" he said. "I believe resolving this controversy and making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana."
The changes prohibit businesses from using the law as a defense in court for refusing "to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing" to any customers based on "race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service."
It doesn't accomplish what the law's critics wanted most: Adding sexual orientation to the list of categories protected by Indiana's anti-discrimination law.
But that debate, GOP legislators acknowledged, is coming soon. House Speaker Brian Bosma said the backlash against the religious freedom law has "opened many perspectives" and that the anti-discrimination law "needs to be discussed."
Indiana's rapid rush to change its controversial law comes as Republican governors in states like North Carolina and Georgia back away from similar proposals in their states.
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who just days ago said he was rejecting the first version of a religious freedom bill that landed on his desk, got the changes he wanted, signing into law Thursday afternoon a religious freedom measure that lawmakers there had revamped this week so that it's identical to the federal law.
The religious freedom debate has touched a particularly raw nerve in Indiana, where a GOP push to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions was defeated last year -- exposing tensions within Republican caucuses that already have more than two-thirds super majorities in both the Indiana House and Senate.
Several Indiana cities already have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation, but the legislative fix to the religious freedom law will be the first time protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity are recognized statewide.
Social conservatives lambasted lawmakers for walking away from what they saw as a crucial protection for Christian businesses that did not want to provide services to gays and lesbians -- particularly for same-sex weddings.
Eric Miller, the head of Advance America and a powerful lobbyist who stood behind Pence at last week's private bill signing ceremony, said on his website: "Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government! That's not right!"
Nationally, social conservatives expressed similar objections. Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted: "This Indiana "compromise" is a train wreck. It should be voted down."
Still, lawmakers said they had to do something.
"What was intended as a message of inclusion was interpreted as a message of exclusion, especially for the LGBT community," Bosma said Thursday morning. "Nothing could have been further from the truth, but it was clear the perception had to be addressed."
The Indiana law and a similar bill that Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson has asked lawmakers there to change had drawn criticism from major companies like Apple, Walmart and Salesforce, as well as sports associations like the NCAA, NBA and NFL.
Katie Blair, the head of Freedom Indiana, a group that lobbies against anti-LGBT measures and is funded by several of Indiana's largest businesses, said the changes announced Thursday "represent a step in the right direction."
"Today, the harm has been lessened, but we have not reached the day when LGBT Hoosiers can be assured that they can live their lives with freedom from discrimination," Blair said.
Even as they moved to fix the law they'd passed, though, Indiana Republicans maintained that nothing had really been wrong with it in the first place.
"It was misinterpreted," Bosma said. "But all we can say is we are sorry that misinterpretation hurt so many people."
You compared not having sex and not eating pork to going to a religious/spiritual ceremony. That is an illogical comparison.
It's kind of like the person in the last thread who tried to make the argument about a Jewish not serving ham, even when it's not on their menu. That was an illogical argument; so is yours.
its not illogical, it's still related. going to ceremonies, following what the <insert religious bible> tells you to do, LIKE not having sex before marriage and not eating pork, is all part of the ceremonies and customs involved in religion.
that you can't see how they tie into each other seamlessly has me wondering why you even bothered posting.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Yes, but why would those make me uncomfortable if it's part of my religion? That's why that was a dumb and illogical argument.
you don't see how that would make you uncomfortable?
jesus(lol)...... aight, lets break this down for you. Barney style.
As a matter of fact, let's make this fun, because it happens everyday.
ready? set? go.
You're new to America. From......India. You don't eat beef. you just moved to the States, solo dolo on a student visa. All the friends you are making are americans. They invite you to a restaurant. ends up being a steakhouse, but you don't realize that until you're already there.
now, according to your religion, everybody around you, including your new friends, are more or less committing a huge sin in your religion. That makes your uncomfortable.
but the more you're around Americans, in America, the more you expose yourself to it. Beef is everywhere. fast food restaurants, Cavs, Browns, and Indian games.
you don't see how that would make somebody uncomfortable?
now this is the part where the part timers come in.
there's three paths: just keep it to yourself, Start to waiver from your faith and try beef, or yell Blasphemy and complain and whine until everybody bends to your religious beliefs.
every single one is an uncomfortable situation.
pick A. your parents are going to ask why you don't speak up or find new friends, even though there aren't a lot of other hindu's around, and you want to brace yourself in American culture.
Pick B: lol, once you try beef it's over.
pick C: pretty much what our country is going through right now. Get disgusted that everybody doesn't share some spiritual belief that you do, and thus determine that their all heretics and must convert or burn in a lake of fire.
you don't see how that makes people uncomfortable? you're literally testing your religious belief no matter what.
Here's a personal example. I'm part Turkish, i love me some damn bacon. yet when i go to Turkey, good luck. I pretty much gotta get bacon cheeseburgers on the black market(yes, true story).
I'm not religious and that made me uncomfortable. My family grills me about that, eating pork and such. So imagine what goes on Vise Versa?
come on man. open your damn eyes.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So, you think Hindu people should be forced to eat beef, kill cows, and watch people eat hamburgers if they don't want too? That is what you are arguing?
No one is forcing the Indian to go to that restaurant or have those friends by law or threat of fine.
Besides that, your argument from that post and the post before are entirely different. Too bad neither of them really relate to the argument that was raised.
I know the thread got locked, but i'm sorry, i was talking about this with my new co-workers, and one of the old guys(christian, white) was mad about the law.
I asked him why. his response?
"They just paved the way for Sharia Law", and he walked off.
good job, christians.
You are exactly like the people you claim to hate in this country.
You're making it sound like Christians are being forced to commit acts antithetical to their faith.
They aren't.
Nowhere in the Bible is man prohibited from or admonished for interacting with homosexuals. It doesn't say 'avoid them'. It says 'murder them'.
A church doesn't have to hold a gay wedding. A priest or pastor doesn't have to marry a gay couple. But if you have an ad in the Yellow Pages, or a shop on Main Street, and you get a call for services, you can't deny them for their sexual orientation. It's a violation of civil rights (and one that will soon be protected legally.
If you owned a photography studio, and you were so smallminded that your conscience was threatened by snapping a few pictures of two men in love, then might I suggest making your business very religious themed. Perhaps hang quotes from the Bible that denounce homosexuality. That's completely within your rights, and it would go a long way in avoiding the possibility of the situation.
You also have the right to perform the transaction and say 'you know, my faith tells me that homosexuality is wrong or 'you know, I'm not very fond of black people'.
But you don't have the right to refuse service on the basis of a person being gay or black or Christian.
Complying with civil rights laws is no more 'forcing' you to do something you don't want than racists were 'forced' to serve black people in restaurants when they didn't want to.
All of this was decided in 1964. This isn't some new oppression against Christians.
I know the thread got locked, but i'm sorry, i was talking about this with my new co-workers, and one of the old guys(christian, white) was mad about the law.
I asked him why. his response?
"They just paved the way for Sharia Law", and he walked off.
good job, christians.
You are exactly like the people you claim to hate in this country.
I bolded the part that you will surely not "get".
where did i say christians hate this country?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
