Evangelicals explain their support for Trump. It's the racism that stands out.

[Pogo]

Judgment Days

In a small Alabama town, an evangelical congregation reckons with God, President Trump and the meaning of morality

A few leaders have publicly dissented from such views, aware of the Southern Baptist history of whiffing on the big moral questions of the day — such as during the civil rights era, when most pastors either defended segregation or remained silent. The president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics commission, Russell Moore, asked whether Christians were “really ready to trade unity with our black and brown brothers and sisters for this angry politician?” One prominent black pastor, Lawrence Ware, left the denomination altogether, writing that the widespread reluctance to criticize Trump on racial issues revealed a “deep commitment to white supremacy.” The new president of the Southern Baptist Convention, J.D. Greear, said church culture had “grown too comfortable with power and the dangers that power brings.”

But all those discussions were taking place far from the rank-and-file. The Southern Baptists who filled the pews every Sunday were making their own moral calculations about Trump in the privacy of a thousand church sanctuaries in cities and towns such as Luverne, population 2,700, an hour south of the state capital of Montgomery.

It was a place where it was hard to drive a mile in any direction without passing some church or sign about the wages of sin, where conversations about politics happened in nodding circles before Sunday school, or at the Chicken Shack after, and few people paid attention to some national Southern Baptist leader.

This is a really good read for all those of us who absolutely cannot grasp how people who call themselves people of faith have embraced an obviously unchristian man.

Most of it seems to be a reaction to Obama, and the lies they chose to believe about him. Which - I mean, that's not really any surprise.

What is going to be a surprise is when they get turned away at the pearly gates.

I couldn't get past the first paragraph. Absolutely could not.

These same heckling mob that chastises us for voting for Trump would absolutely rake us over the coals if we refused to vote for the First Gay Republican President---say, Guy Benson. You bet they would. And yes, I would vote for Guy Benson **if he did not force the issue of gay marriage**, for example.

If Donald Trump were fronting that adultery should be endorsed for every marriage, or accepted in the church--nope, wouldn't get my vote. He is a terrible husband, no doubt about it. If my daughter showed up at the door with a man like Donald Trump as potential husband I would NOT be happy. But I did not vote for a husband or a pastor, but a president. And he is a great president.

I just love that the Left has become every purse-lipped, wagging finger, tongue-clucking Church Lady we grew up with. Makes me laugh every blessed day.

Merely pointing out the hypocrisy of evangelicals

Given their outrage over Clinton, their excusing of Trumps many, many flaws is laughable

Their beliefs seem situational

Donald Trump does have many, many flaws as a husband. Absolutely. I would not have wanted to marry him and would be appalled if my daughter did. No doubt about it.

However, he is not messing around with an intern in the Oval Office that we know about--and I hope he would not be that foolish. That we know, he has messed around with ALL his wives, which is a deep sin, and which I do not endorse. However, this was before he was president, and not while on the job "for the American people". Hattip Bill Clinton. If I recall correctly, while that was happening, liberals told us it was no big deal--it was just sex, after all. Right?

Indeed it was. So we hear anyway.
However manipulating the news and/or one's recent pelvic affiliates for the purpose of influencing a national election, that's a whole 'nother ball game.

 

[rightwinger]

Judgment Days

In a small Alabama town, an evangelical congregation reckons with God, President Trump and the meaning of morality

A few leaders have publicly dissented from such views, aware of the Southern Baptist history of whiffing on the big moral questions of the day — such as during the civil rights era, when most pastors either defended segregation or remained silent. The president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics commission, Russell Moore, asked whether Christians were “really ready to trade unity with our black and brown brothers and sisters for this angry politician?” One prominent black pastor, Lawrence Ware, left the denomination altogether, writing that the widespread reluctance to criticize Trump on racial issues revealed a “deep commitment to white supremacy.” The new president of the Southern Baptist Convention, J.D. Greear, said church culture had “grown too comfortable with power and the dangers that power brings.”

But all those discussions were taking place far from the rank-and-file. The Southern Baptists who filled the pews every Sunday were making their own moral calculations about Trump in the privacy of a thousand church sanctuaries in cities and towns such as Luverne, population 2,700, an hour south of the state capital of Montgomery.

It was a place where it was hard to drive a mile in any direction without passing some church or sign about the wages of sin, where conversations about politics happened in nodding circles before Sunday school, or at the Chicken Shack after, and few people paid attention to some national Southern Baptist leader.

This is a really good read for all those of us who absolutely cannot grasp how people who call themselves people of faith have embraced an obviously unchristian man.

Most of it seems to be a reaction to Obama, and the lies they chose to believe about him. Which - I mean, that's not really any surprise.

What is going to be a surprise is when they get turned away at the pearly gates.

I couldn't get past the first paragraph. Absolutely could not.

These same heckling mob that chastises us for voting for Trump would absolutely rake us over the coals if we refused to vote for the First Gay Republican President---say, Guy Benson. You bet they would. And yes, I would vote for Guy Benson **if he did not force the issue of gay marriage**, for example.

If Donald Trump were fronting that adultery should be endorsed for every marriage, or accepted in the church--nope, wouldn't get my vote. He is a terrible husband, no doubt about it. If my daughter showed up at the door with a man like Donald Trump as potential husband I would NOT be happy. But I did not vote for a husband or a pastor, but a president. And he is a great president.

I just love that the Left has become every purse-lipped, wagging finger, tongue-clucking Church Lady we grew up with. Makes me laugh every blessed day.

All his ex wives seem to like him.

He pays them off like he does his hookers

 

[Lysistrata]

Our constitution is based upon liberty as defined biblically.

When did we start having *real problems*? I maintain that when we got hysterical about separating out faith from politics is when the problems began.

fortunately our founding fathers were wiser than you & your fundie ilk.


U.S. Constitution - Article 6
[...]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Jefferson’s inconsequential ramblings about religion is not the “founders”, idiot.

That is like taking a clip from an Obama’s democratic fundraiser in 2006 where he said he would like to see a single payer healthcare and insisting that America has had a single payer health care system since 2006.

the first part is from the CONSTITUTION... you know who wrote that?

the founding fathers. you dope. & jefferson is inconsequential? he was the author of the establishment clause which is what he was writing about to the Danburt Baptists.

That letter is considered to be very important.

Your letter has nothing to do with what is written in the Constitution. All it says is that Catholics and Protestants cannot pillary each other legitimately for running as a person practicing their faith. The founders never would have dreamed that Muslims or Buddhists etc would be using this clause, much less some idiot trying to interpret religion out of the public square.

Jefferson’s personal feelings about religion were overruled by the other founding fathers. He was not the only one who had a say.

U.S. Constitution - Article 6
[...]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This only covers the application of a religious test to hold office; i.e. the idea that a person who is an Episcopalian, a Jew, a Sunni Muslim, a Hindu, a Wiccan, cannot be rejected based on this fact alone. However, it still is within the rights of Americans to ascertain that this person's personal likes and dislikes will not affect or interfere with his or her carrying out of the public duties of the office in question. If there is any indication that this is not the case, we the People have the right to know.

The people who operate these businesses and then back off due to their "beliefs" are involving other people in the general public in their personal shit.

 

[Lysistrata]

Of course it is for me to judge

I am a world renowned message board poster....it’s what I do

Judging implies a binding verdict, you can critique, you can opine, but you can't judge.

A binding verdict means the decision of a tribunal that has legitimate authority and meets its obligation to rule in a neutral manner. All else is critique and opinion. USMB posters are up to our ears in it. Every day. You don't accept all of the beliefs of all of the world's religions, do you? Don't you find some of them silly or offensive or dangerous to others?

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

 

[playtime]

Judging implies a binding verdict, you can critique, you can opine, but you can't judge.

A binding verdict means the decision of a tribunal that has legitimate authority and meets its obligation to rule in a neutral manner. All else is critique and opinion. USMB posters are up to our ears in it. Every day. You don't accept all of the beliefs of all of the world's religions, do you? Don't you find some of them silly or offensive or dangerous to others?

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

mohamed ali stood by his convictions & went to jail. he was a bigger man than most 'stand behind the cross' warriors..

 

[Lysistrata]

A binding verdict means the decision of a tribunal that has legitimate authority and meets its obligation to rule in a neutral manner. All else is critique and opinion. USMB posters are up to our ears in it. Every day. You don't accept all of the beliefs of all of the world's religions, do you? Don't you find some of them silly or offensive or dangerous to others?

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

mohamed ali stood by his convictions & went to jail. he was a bigger man than most 'stand behind the cross' warriors..

Thank you! These people who style themselves as "Christians" are not willing to step forward and endure anything for their "faith." I remember touring the Roman Colosseum and the Catacombs. I don't think that any of these "Christian" boys and girls now are willing to endure any form of discrimination or mistreatment for their "beliefs," much less real peril. They can't even endure a legal judgment and some fine, much less being burned to death or cast into gas chambers and ovens, or shot in front of graves that they were forced to dig for themselves.

 

[sparky]

 

[bodecea]

Judgment Days

In a small Alabama town, an evangelical congregation reckons with God, President Trump and the meaning of morality

A few leaders have publicly dissented from such views, aware of the Southern Baptist history of whiffing on the big moral questions of the day — such as during the civil rights era, when most pastors either defended segregation or remained silent. The president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics commission, Russell Moore, asked whether Christians were “really ready to trade unity with our black and brown brothers and sisters for this angry politician?” One prominent black pastor, Lawrence Ware, left the denomination altogether, writing that the widespread reluctance to criticize Trump on racial issues revealed a “deep commitment to white supremacy.” The new president of the Southern Baptist Convention, J.D. Greear, said church culture had “grown too comfortable with power and the dangers that power brings.”

But all those discussions were taking place far from the rank-and-file. The Southern Baptists who filled the pews every Sunday were making their own moral calculations about Trump in the privacy of a thousand church sanctuaries in cities and towns such as Luverne, population 2,700, an hour south of the state capital of Montgomery.

It was a place where it was hard to drive a mile in any direction without passing some church or sign about the wages of sin, where conversations about politics happened in nodding circles before Sunday school, or at the Chicken Shack after, and few people paid attention to some national Southern Baptist leader.

This is a really good read for all those of us who absolutely cannot grasp how people who call themselves people of faith have embraced an obviously unchristian man.

Most of it seems to be a reaction to Obama, and the lies they chose to believe about him. Which - I mean, that's not really any surprise.

What is going to be a surprise is when they get turned away at the pearly gates.

I couldn't get past the first paragraph. Absolutely could not.

These same heckling mob that chastises us for voting for Trump would absolutely rake us over the coals if we refused to vote for the First Gay Republican President---say, Guy Benson. You bet they would. And yes, I would vote for Guy Benson **if he did not force the issue of gay marriage**, for example.

If Donald Trump were fronting that adultery should be endorsed for every marriage, or accepted in the church--nope, wouldn't get my vote. He is a terrible husband, no doubt about it. If my daughter showed up at the door with a man like Donald Trump as potential husband I would NOT be happy. But I did not vote for a husband or a pastor, but a president. And he is a great president.

I just love that the Left has become every purse-lipped, wagging finger, tongue-clucking Church Lady we grew up with. Makes me laugh every blessed day.

All his ex wives seem to like him.

He pays them off like he does his hookers

Oh...you mean his ex-wives...I was thinking his fundie pastors.....

 

[AZGAL]

What a crap article. Completely BORED half way through and had to stop before it almost had me fall asleep.

 

[Correll]

Liberals, such as Hillary are actively hostile to Christians, as we can see in this thread.

Trump, despite his personal moral failings, is not actively hostile to them, and willing to represent them and their interests in policy.



Only a liberal could find it odd that the Evangelicals did not vote for Hillary.

 

[rightwinger]

Judging implies a binding verdict, you can critique, you can opine, but you can't judge.

A binding verdict means the decision of a tribunal that has legitimate authority and meets its obligation to rule in a neutral manner. All else is critique and opinion. USMB posters are up to our ears in it. Every day. You don't accept all of the beliefs of all of the world's religions, do you? Don't you find some of them silly or offensive or dangerous to others?

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

Muhammad Ali gave up his title and a million in purses

No Vietcong ever called me n*gger

 

[AZGAL]

Merely pointing out the hypocrisy of evangelicals

Given their outrage over Clinton, their excusing of Trumps many, many flaws is laughable

Their beliefs seem situational

geez if my memory serves me...it seems the DIFFERENCE is that CLINTON Mr. Sexual Assault did it all over the government properties and got caught red handed many times regarding his sexual perversions. Our current President is leading a clean monogamous life and his romance for his stunning wife is requited whilst they are President and first Lady.

 

[Correll]

A binding verdict means the decision of a tribunal that has legitimate authority and meets its obligation to rule in a neutral manner. All else is critique and opinion. USMB posters are up to our ears in it. Every day. You don't accept all of the beliefs of all of the world's religions, do you? Don't you find some of them silly or offensive or dangerous to others?

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

Muhammad Ali gave up his title and a million in purses

No Vietcong ever called me n*gger

What was his justification for not serving?

 

[rightwinger]

Merely pointing out the hypocrisy of evangelicals

Given their outrage over Clinton, their excusing of Trumps many, many flaws is laughable

Their beliefs seem situational

geez if my memory serves me...it seems the DIFFERENCE is that CLINTON Mr. Sexual Assault did it all over the government properties and got caught red handed many times regarding his sexual perversions. Our current President is leading a clean monogamous life and his romance for his stunning wife is requited whilst they are President and first Lady.

Why would an evangelical care if it was done on government properties?

Our current President was banging a porn star weeks after his current wife gave birth to his son. He even paid her $130,000 to keep quiet

 

[rightwinger]

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

Muhammad Ali gave up his title and a million in purses

No Vietcong ever called me n*gger

What was his justification for not serving?

Religious objection

 

[dblack]

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

Muhammad Ali gave up his title and a million in purses

No Vietcong ever called me n*gger

What was his justification for not serving?

Seems pretty clear from the quote. He felt less threatened by the Vietcong than by racists in his own country. He was right.

 

[AZGAL]

This is exactly why Evangelicals have NO CRITICISM OF THE current President. He has NOT DEFILED the office of PRESIDENT like BILL CLINTON DID. GET IT LIBTARDS or is this just too complicated for you idiots to understand? CLINTON also defiled the Governors mansion too. Stupid speculation about what happened with a tramp porn star PRIOR to the presidency is all you hallucinating desperate HATERS HAVE. Maybe Melania had an open agreement? It is her business NOT YOURS and anything MAY have occurred a long time ago....A LONG TIME AGO and IRRELEVANT to this PRESIDENCY!

Why would an evangelical care if it was done on government properties?

 

[rightwinger]

This is exactly why Evangelicals have NO CRITICISM OF THE current President. He has NOT DEFILED the office of PRESIDENT like BILL CLINTON DID. GET IT LIBTARDS or is this just too complicated for you idiots to understand? CLINTON also defiled the Governors mansion too. Stupid speculation about what happened with a tramp porn star PRIOR to the presidency is all you hallucinating desperate HATERS HAVE. Maybe Melania had an open agreement? It is her business NOT YOURS and anything MAY have occurred a long time ago....A LONG TIME AGO and IRRELEVANT to this PRESIDENCY!

Why would an evangelical care if it was done on government properties?

Not that long ago

And given his propensity for lying, we have no idea about his current fidelity
We do know the Third Lady does not share a bed with him

 

[Correll]

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

Muhammad Ali gave up his title and a million in purses

No Vietcong ever called me n*gger

What was his justification for not serving?

Religious objection

He claimed Islam is against killing of enemy soldiers? LOL!!!!!!

 

[AZGAL]

We do know the Third Lady does not share a bed with him

And how do you know? Keep hallucinating!