|
Replies: 23
| visibility 427
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [42023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Interesting thoughts here.
Jul 30, 2018, 9:37 PM
|
|
-Mike Pence is quoted as saying, "No one follows a hypocrite."
True words, VP Pence. What say you, Mr. President?
-Jeff Sessions said, "Freedom of religion has been a core American principle from the very beginning of our country — indeed, it is our ‘first freedom.’"
Also very true. There are a few other first freedoms in that language as well. Why doesn't this administration support those?
-Why does this whole thing smell like fancy language for Sessions and his crew to force Christianity into every nook and cranny of Americans' lives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93612]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95387
Joined: 12/25/09
|
The constitution.
Jul 30, 2018, 11:42 PM
|
|
The entire Freedom of Religion is a constitutional issue and establishing a state run religion is forbidden by the first amendment to the constitution.
Did I answer good?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Oh, yeah, sure.
Jul 31, 2018, 12:34 AM
|
|
Because that's really how Jeff Sessions sees things.
"The Constitution says we shall not establish a religion — Congress shall not establish a religion. It doesn’t say states couldn’t establish a religion."
So as he sees it, states can ignore the First Amendment and set up their own theocracies.
Want more examples of how Sessions has tried to push religion into our government? Or should we just save each other time and stop here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9174]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 14648
Joined: 2/5/02
|
You really are psychotic, aren't you?
Jul 31, 2018, 7:12 AM
|
|
You read, then interpret how you want. We can always count on your unbiasness like your brother-in-law paying rent, living in your house.
-Doc
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
And, of course, he's right
Jul 31, 2018, 12:50 PM
[ in reply to Oh, yeah, sure. ] |
|
Unlike liberals, when a conservative notes a point of constitutional law, he isn't necessarily advocating that point of law as policy.
By the way, the quote which you picked up out of context is from a Senate floor speech on the death of Justice Scalia. Sessions went on to note that many states actually had established religions for some time, and suggests that the Establishment Clause has been over-interpreted. Nowhere does he say he thinks Christianity should be an established religion in a state, and in fact just before the quote you picked he says this:
"In this case, a Muslim
individual who wore a head scarf as part of her religious observation
applied for a job at a clothing retailer, but was not hired due to the
company's policy, which prohibited employees from wearing ``caps.'' In
reversing the court of appeals in favor of the applicant, Justice
Scalia wrote that:
Congress defined ``religion'' for Title VII purposes as
``including all aspects of religious observance and practice,
as well as belief.'' Thus, religious practice is one of the
protected characteristics that cannot be accorded disparate
treatment and must be accommodated.
As we see, these opinions by Justice Scalia involve parties of varied
faiths--Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Regardless of the identity of
the party, Justice Scalia's opinions on religion in public life
consistently evidence a deep respect for the unique history of
religious pluralism in this country and a heartfelt appreciation for
its positive impact across the landscape of the nation. While some may
say his opinions are not consistent, I disagree. Religion in American
life is an important and complex subject. Judges must think carefully
but not abandon common sense as so many opinions have. Justice Scalia
saw limits on free exercise of religion when it came to the contention,
for example, that one's religion required the use of drugs that a State
had declared illegal."
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Interesting thoughts here.
Jul 31, 2018, 12:42 PM
[ in reply to Interesting thoughts here. ] |
|
"Also very true. There are a few other first freedoms in that language as well. Why doesn't this administration support those?"
Actually, no. Freedom of religion is specifically referred to as the "first freedom" not only because it's mentioned first in the First Amendment, but because, as James Madison said, it "[takes] precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society." I also don't know why you think taking religious liberty seriously means not supporting other First Amendment rights, but your last question probably provides some sort of explanation: you think religious liberty is, so far from our "first freedom," superseded by every other thing you regard as a right. Apparently simply having one's religious freedom protected is tantamount to forcing Christianity on everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Interesting thoughts here.
Jul 31, 2018, 4:07 PM
|
|
1. The Trump admin doesn't support the rest of the First Amendment, so they need to stop pretending they're champions of it.
2. I support religious freedom. But when people like Jeff Sessions talk about religious freedom, what they really mean is forcing Christianity into government since it's the majority. People who have the upper hand and privilege feign oppression when someone wants to equal the playing field by keeping all religion out of government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
This is nothing but rank partisanship
Jul 31, 2018, 5:34 PM
|
|
You're not even trying to make arguments, just asserting opinions. You might as well just say that you don't like Trump or Sessions, therefore nothing they can do is valid. Then again, you do seem to want the mob to determine who has rights to freedom of religion, since apparently people you count as "privileged" don't deserve protections.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I think you are grossly misinterpreting what I'm saying.
Jul 31, 2018, 9:34 PM
|
|
Let's take Trump out of this whole equation for a bit and just look at Sessions and folks like him.
Their idea of "religious freedom" is the infiltration of Christianity into the workings of our government, and they want to blur the lines of separation of church and state.
Sessions isn't interested in religious freedom. He's interested in meshing Christianity with government.
And when a group that has enjoyed the benefits of the majority to push their beliefs on the masses, when the law suddenly reminds them that all religions must be recognized and that the government cannot favor one over the other, they suddenly cry out that they are being oppressed.
Sessions' does not believe in separation of church and state. Period.
Finally, calm down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93612]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95387
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You could tell us why you think all that.
Jul 31, 2018, 9:38 PM
|
|
Elsewise, it's unsupported opinion. It's ok if the paper you read is liberal but even the NYT provides evidence to support their beliefs. Heck, C&P something so we'll know you're not just spitting up what you saw last year on CNN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You could tell us why you think all that.
Jul 31, 2018, 10:55 PM
|
|
Simply look at his past statements and actions. Hell, he even cited the Bible for justification for separating parents from kids at the border. He's got ties to the Alliance Defense Fund, which believes America was founded as a Christian nation and that the Christian way of life needs to be planted in American government. He even called separation of church and state a "recent thing" that is "unconstitutional" in the 90s as a Congressman.
Look, the man doesn't believe in separating church and state. His quotes and actions show it. And Christians aren't being oppressed. They never have been oppressed in America. They dominate almost every facet of this nation. So why do we need a task force... unless it's got some other intention other than "religious freedom."
Now, my turn. I invite all of you who disagree to show me how Sessions is a defender of separation of church and state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93612]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95387
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: You could tell us why you think all that.
Aug 1, 2018, 7:31 AM
|
|
The Bible gets on atheist nerves. We've all figured that out. I agree with the Bible. That's how it is. The Bible instructs us to obey the law of the land. Session inherited the separation of children from parents at the border from previous administrations and he swore an oath to uphold the law. At present our law is that the gov will not establish a religion.
The original intent of the law separating children from adults was to keep the children safe and secure while parents waited on permission to remain here. It wasn't just ordered to separate the mama and daddy from the kids but from other adults. Obama did it right, I presume the reason no one complained is because most American know he was doing it right and following the law.
Anyone who believes that Christians aren't compassionate toward the children and parents who are separated at our border is sorely mistaken. My heart breaks when I see little a child separated from parents when parents are arrested. The fact remains. The parents know that separation at the border is going to happen if they cross without papers. Anyone who thinks that Obama was correct for his border policy of separating children from parents for the sake of the child's safety will surely agree.
Your statement that Christians aren't oppressed is wrong. While imo most Christians who refuse to serve homosexuals in their businesses is wrong it is my belief that they are mistaken and misguided. But the law is the law. Christians have been dragged into court unjustly and force to do things they don't believe is right for them to do.
"Hysteria over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act has drowned out one critical question: Who are the florist and baker that ABC's George Stephanopoulos hounded Gov. Mike Pence about?
When Americans learn what that florist and baker are threatened with, we face an emerging trend that will destroy companies and jobs, and the chilling specter of what sort of a nation we are becoming.
The florist is 70-year-old grandmother Baronelle Stutzman of Washington state. A longtime gay customer—with whom she had a warm relationship—wanted her to do flower arrangements for his gay wedding.
Mrs. Stutzman, a Southern Baptist, explained her Christian belief that marriage is between a man and woman, and thus could not participate in a gay wedding. Washington's attorney general prosecuted her, pursuing not only her business but also Mrs. Stutzman personally. A state judge has ruled against her, and she faces the loss of her life's savings and even her home.
The baker is Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. When he declined two gay men's order to bake a cake celebrating gay marriage (though the men were welcome to buy any of the premade cakes off the shelf), they officially complained that Mr. Phillips violated Colorado's civil-rights law.
A court ruled against him, ordering him and his employees to undergo government-approved "tolerance training," and also ordering him to bake cakes celebrating gay marriage for anyone who asks. If he refuses, he can go to jail—put behind bars—for contempt of court.
There are others. First was a New Mexico photographer who did not want to do the wedding shoot for a gay-commitment ceremony—not a wedding—because New Mexico had neither gay marriage nor civil unions at the time.
A Kentucky T-shirt maker is being sued for not making shirts celebrating a gay-rights event. An Idaho pastor couple was pursued for not actually performing a gay wedding. The list goes on, and grows monthly.
Secularists on the left have vehemently opposed all religious freedom acts (RFRAs) since at least the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby case in 2014. The justices held that Hobby Lobby—a corporation owned by a devout Christian family—could assert religious-liberty rights as an extension of its Christian owners.
It found ObamaCare's regulation requiring Hobby Lobby to provide abortion-related health care violated the federal RFRA, because the rule substantially burdened the family's religious beliefs and wasn't the least-restrictive means to achieve a compelling public interest.
In 1993, the federal RFRA unanimously passed the U.S. House, passed the Senate 97-3, and was signed by President Bill Clinton, a vocal supporter of both abortion and the gay-rights agenda.
Millions of Americans are employed by businesses owned by people of faith—Christian or otherwise. Without RFRA protections, employees of Hobby Lobby, Arlene Flowers, Masterpiece Cakeshop and religious non-church entities, such as the University of Notre Dame, would lose their jobs. Therefore, protecting religious liberty also protects jobs. Republicans must reject the false choice that this issue is business vs. the Christian Right; those framing the issue as such seek to drive a wedge in the GOP to defeat Republicans in 2016.
These recent lawsuits are why Indiana's RFRA specified that businesses like Hobby Lobby can assert the RFRA in court. And lawsuits initiated by the plaintiffs in Washington and Colorado are why the law specified that the RFRA can apply between private parties.
It's baffling why Indiana legislators were unprepared to explain these things to the nation. Nor can we understand why they chose to sign a "fix" creating unprecedented ways for opponents to sue people of faith in Indiana for declining to participate in gay marriages and abortions. Christians in Indiana might have been better off if legislators repealed the RFRA, reverting Indiana's laws to their previous condition.
If anything, Republican leaders could have demanded a replacement bill identical to the federal RFRA. They should have said: "If it was good enough for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to sponsor and for Bill Clinton to sign, then it's good enough for Hoosiers today."
Opponents would have condemned it, but in doing so confirmed that the modern secular left condemns all religious freedoms that impede their agenda, and that the RFRA truly has nothing to do with hate or discrimination.
It is astounding that a nation settled by people who crossed an ocean to live in a wilderness according to their religious beliefs and conscience is now poised to oppress millions who desire simply to live by those same beliefs. Everyone has the right to run a business consistent with their beliefs, employing other Americans in the process. Republicans must take up that theme as a pro-business stance."
https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/49156-you-won-t-believe-how-many-christian-business-owners-are-under-lgbt-fire
I also believe that anyone who isn't saved by The Blood of Christ will spend eternity separated from God. If you conclude that means all Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu I won't argue. That doesn't mean that I or all other Christians would impede their constitutional right to worship as they believe.
It's so strange that America didn't awaken to the tragedy at the border until Trump was elected and it's even more strange that Trump was the first POTUS to quicken the reconciliations of parent an child which goes unappreciated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You could tell us why you think all that.
Aug 1, 2018, 10:10 AM
|
|
The Bible gets on atheist nerves. We've all figured that out. I agree with the Bible. That's how it is. The Bible instructs us to obey the law of the land. Session inherited the separation of children from parents at the border from previous administrations and he swore an oath to uphold the law. At present our law is that the gov will not establish a religion.
The original intent of the law separating children from adults was to keep the children safe and secure while parents waited on permission to remain here. It wasn't just ordered to separate the mama and daddy from the kids but from other adults. Obama did it right, I presume the reason no one complained is because most American know he was doing it right and following the law.
Anyone who believes that Christians aren't compassionate toward the children and parents who are separated at our border is sorely mistaken. My heart breaks when I see little a child separated from parents when parents are arrested. The fact remains. The parents know that separation at the border is going to happen if they cross without papers. Anyone who thinks that Obama was correct for his border policy of separating children from parents for the sake of the child's safety will surely agree.
One big fat plate of red herring. That isn't the point of this discussion. I'm not engaging in an immigration debate. The point is that Jeff Sessions pushes religion into an issue where religion shouldn't be present, but even if you are going to push religion here, it should be against separating the kids.
And the majority of Americans opposed this practice. Please stop making up stats and claims like "most Americans know he was doing the right." He was wrong, Trump was wrong, most Americans know they were wrong.
Your statement that Christians aren't oppressed is wrong. While imo most Christians who refuse to serve homosexuals in their businesses is wrong it is my belief that they are mistaken and misguided. But the law is the law. Christians have been dragged into court unjustly and force to do things they don't believe is right for them to do.
Unadulterated BS. Christians are the overwhelming majority of the country and control almost the entire government on every level. Who the hell is oppressing them? And didn't the Supreme Court just rule in their favor on this issue?
Also, if you won't do business with a person who is gay, you weren't a Christian to begin with, anyway.
And I'm not going through the rest of the post because you've missed the thesis and it's pointless to the discussion. The point is that Jeff Sessions doesn't believe in separation of church and state, and this task force is his attempt to blur those lines. You have yet to refute it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: You could tell us why you think all that.
Aug 1, 2018, 11:29 AM
|
|
You should have read the entire post before you responded because he showed multiple examples of how Christians are being forced to do things against their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93612]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95387
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I give.***
Aug 1, 2018, 11:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You could tell us why you think all that.
Aug 1, 2018, 10:48 PM
[ in reply to Re: You could tell us why you think all that. ] |
|
For every one of those, I can give you three examples of Christians forcing non-Christians to comply against their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: You could tell us why you think all that.
Aug 2, 2018, 7:32 AM
|
|
Ok let’s see them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93612]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95387
Joined: 12/25/09
|
It's constitutional according to SCOTUS decision.
Jul 30, 2018, 11:37 PM
|
|
I see complications though. Some people will try to claim they can reject customers because of their religious beliefs. That conflicts with my believe that a Christian can't present himself as a witness to God's love unless we act kindly toward the lost.
It also violates every Frengi Rule of Acquisition which is identical to our capitalistic foundations.
The left will interprets it to be a ploy to defund Planned Parenthood due to their abortion practices being funded by taxes. If Roe falls PP funding won't be far behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Where are you getting that from?***
Jul 31, 2018, 12:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93612]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95387
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11963]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12224
Joined: 11/9/04
|
the cake maker won the suit, but it was a narrow judgement,
Aug 1, 2018, 6:31 AM
|
|
so no broad precedent was set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93612]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95387
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I hope our courts never have cut and dry cases.
Aug 1, 2018, 11:53 AM
|
|
I hope they always deliberate everything before them on the merits alone without adhering to a C&P verdict. That's how they make a living.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 23
| visibility 427
|
|
|
50
