Hillary Clinton wrote an op-ed to Utah newspapers about defending religious freedom

[irosie91]

are you new here azar? what are you calling "mythology" on this thread?

1) Yes, as indicated by the profile data to the left of my post.

2) The collection of stories fundamental to a particular religion.

oh---I did not look left-------are you referring to any particular
mythology? or the mythology or any particular religion? By
your comment I got the impression that you think Harley
tried to impose HIS religion (???)

No particular mythology. And I don't know that Harley subscribes to a religion, let alone would I be able to identify it.

oh gee----now you are getting even more non-specific.
You did mention a "MYTHOLOGY"-----I like all sorts of
mythologies-------by that I mean---old scriptural writings.
Some times people refer to some political ideologies or
cultural ideologies as "mythology"

The primary dictionary definition of the word suits me. That's what I'm referring to.

ok-----that means----RELIGION. I live in the USA----it is not
a theocracy. I am of the opinion that no specific religion is
imposed in the USA as far as can be expected in a majority
Christian land. That is--Christianity is not imposed as a religion (in any of its many interpretations) but its symbols and practices are expressed in the common "culture"

 

[irosie91]

Shes an atheist that rolls out croc tears to pretend shes christian. She hates christianity and religious freedom although she loves islam.

how do you know she is an atheist?------Hillary claims to be
a METHODIST----(like Trump--no less)

Thats what she claims. Yeah, they both claim that but neither are.

I wouldn't know-----in the town of my childhood----Methodists were people who attended the Methodist church ---but otherwise did what everyone else did. -------I had the impression that lots of them were of Scottish background

 

[Al Azar]

1) Yes, as indicated by the profile data to the left of my post.

2) The collection of stories fundamental to a particular religion.

oh---I did not look left-------are you referring to any particular
mythology? or the mythology or any particular religion? By
your comment I got the impression that you think Harley
tried to impose HIS religion (???)

No particular mythology. And I don't know that Harley subscribes to a religion, let alone would I be able to identify it.

oh gee----now you are getting even more non-specific.
You did mention a "MYTHOLOGY"-----I like all sorts of
mythologies-------by that I mean---old scriptural writings.
Some times people refer to some political ideologies or
cultural ideologies as "mythology"

The primary dictionary definition of the word suits me. That's what I'm referring to.

ok-----that means----RELIGION. I live in the USA----it is not
a theocracy. I am of the opinion that no specific religion is
imposed in the USA as far as can be expected in a majority
Christian land. That is--Christianity is not imposed as a religion (in any of its many interpretations) but its symbols and practices are expressed in the common "culture"

No specific religion is imposed by the state on anyone in the US, but there are factions in our society that attempt, with some success, to use the state to impose their own religious tenets upon the general population.

 

[irosie91]

oh---I did not look left-------are you referring to any particular
mythology? or the mythology or any particular religion? By
your comment I got the impression that you think Harley
tried to impose HIS religion (???)

No particular mythology. And I don't know that Harley subscribes to a religion, let alone would I be able to identify it.

oh gee----now you are getting even more non-specific.
You did mention a "MYTHOLOGY"-----I like all sorts of
mythologies-------by that I mean---old scriptural writings.
Some times people refer to some political ideologies or
cultural ideologies as "mythology"

The primary dictionary definition of the word suits me. That's what I'm referring to.

ok-----that means----RELIGION. I live in the USA----it is not
a theocracy. I am of the opinion that no specific religion is
imposed in the USA as far as can be expected in a majority
Christian land. That is--Christianity is not imposed as a religion (in any of its many interpretations) but its symbols and practices are expressed in the common "culture"

No specific religion is imposed by the state on anyone in the US, but there are factions in our society that attempt, with some success, to use the state to impose their own religious tenets upon the general population.

I do not perceive that SUCCESS ..... the USA culture is ---at origin something I would describe as "Christian enlightened"
as per the "ruling" persons And mainline Christian in the broadbase. That culture is BOUND to be the most significant
influence

 

[Al Azar]

No particular mythology. And I don't know that Harley subscribes to a religion, let alone would I be able to identify it.

oh gee----now you are getting even more non-specific.
You did mention a "MYTHOLOGY"-----I like all sorts of
mythologies-------by that I mean---old scriptural writings.
Some times people refer to some political ideologies or
cultural ideologies as "mythology"

The primary dictionary definition of the word suits me. That's what I'm referring to.

ok-----that means----RELIGION. I live in the USA----it is not
a theocracy. I am of the opinion that no specific religion is
imposed in the USA as far as can be expected in a majority
Christian land. That is--Christianity is not imposed as a religion (in any of its many interpretations) but its symbols and practices are expressed in the common "culture"

No specific religion is imposed by the state on anyone in the US, but there are factions in our society that attempt, with some success, to use the state to impose their own religious tenets upon the general population.

I do not perceive that SUCCESS ..... the USA culture is ---at origin something I would describe as "Christian enlightened"
as per the "ruling" persons And mainline Christian in the broadbase. That culture is BOUND to be the most significant
influence

Of course, all widely followed religions in a society will influence that society. But religious oppression isn't an influence, it's a collection of individual acts.

 

[irosie91]

oh gee----now you are getting even more non-specific.
You did mention a "MYTHOLOGY"-----I like all sorts of
mythologies-------by that I mean---old scriptural writings.
Some times people refer to some political ideologies or
cultural ideologies as "mythology"

The primary dictionary definition of the word suits me. That's what I'm referring to.

ok-----that means----RELIGION. I live in the USA----it is not
a theocracy. I am of the opinion that no specific religion is
imposed in the USA as far as can be expected in a majority
Christian land. That is--Christianity is not imposed as a religion (in any of its many interpretations) but its symbols and practices are expressed in the common "culture"

No specific religion is imposed by the state on anyone in the US, but there are factions in our society that attempt, with some success, to use the state to impose their own religious tenets upon the general population.

I do not perceive that SUCCESS ..... the USA culture is ---at origin something I would describe as "Christian enlightened"
as per the "ruling" persons And mainline Christian in the broadbase. That culture is BOUND to be the most significant
influence

Of course, all widely followed religions in a society will influence that society. But religious oppression isn't an influence, it's a collection of individual acts.

ok-----moving along-----I still find your statements very vague---
Can you cite some examples of some of those collections of
individual acts------here in the USA?

 

[Al Azar]

The primary dictionary definition of the word suits me. That's what I'm referring to.

ok-----that means----RELIGION. I live in the USA----it is not
a theocracy. I am of the opinion that no specific religion is
imposed in the USA as far as can be expected in a majority
Christian land. That is--Christianity is not imposed as a religion (in any of its many interpretations) but its symbols and practices are expressed in the common "culture"

No specific religion is imposed by the state on anyone in the US, but there are factions in our society that attempt, with some success, to use the state to impose their own religious tenets upon the general population.

I do not perceive that SUCCESS ..... the USA culture is ---at origin something I would describe as "Christian enlightened"
as per the "ruling" persons And mainline Christian in the broadbase. That culture is BOUND to be the most significant
influence

Of course, all widely followed religions in a society will influence that society. But religious oppression isn't an influence, it's a collection of individual acts.

ok-----moving along-----I still find your statements very vague---
Can you cite some examples of some of those collections of
individual acts------here in the USA?

I'm not being vague, I'm being general. Religious oppression is a general topic.

If you want examples of individual acts, how about the state supporting business owners who refuse to perform the full range of their professional services to specific individuals because of the owner's religious bent? Limiting these customers to utilizing only other resources is no different than segregation on racial grounds.

 

[irosie91]

ok-----that means----RELIGION. I live in the USA----it is not
a theocracy. I am of the opinion that no specific religion is
imposed in the USA as far as can be expected in a majority
Christian land. That is--Christianity is not imposed as a religion (in any of its many interpretations) but its symbols and practices are expressed in the common "culture"

No specific religion is imposed by the state on anyone in the US, but there are factions in our society that attempt, with some success, to use the state to impose their own religious tenets upon the general population.

I do not perceive that SUCCESS ..... the USA culture is ---at origin something I would describe as "Christian enlightened"
as per the "ruling" persons And mainline Christian in the broadbase. That culture is BOUND to be the most significant
influence

Of course, all widely followed religions in a society will influence that society. But religious oppression isn't an influence, it's a collection of individual acts.

ok-----moving along-----I still find your statements very vague---
Can you cite some examples of some of those collections of
individual acts------here in the USA?

I'm not being vague, I'm being general. Religious oppression is a general topic.

If you want examples of individual acts, how about the state supporting business owners who refuse to perform the full range of their professional services to specific individuals because of the owner's religious bent? Limiting these customers to utilizing only other resources is no different than segregation on racial grounds.

I know of no state supported businesses that are owned by people who refuse to do business with, or provide professional
services to people based on their religion. Can you cite an
example?

 

[Obiwan]

Smart speech by Clinton. She understands her audience, which in this case was Mormons, and Mormons are sensitive about religious oppression of any type, being they've experienced it in the past.

Like Romney did, when the Democrats attacked HIM for being Mormon???

 

[irosie91]

ok-----that means----RELIGION. I live in the USA----it is not
a theocracy. I am of the opinion that no specific religion is
imposed in the USA as far as can be expected in a majority
Christian land. That is--Christianity is not imposed as a religion (in any of its many interpretations) but its symbols and practices are expressed in the common "culture"

No specific religion is imposed by the state on anyone in the US, but there are factions in our society that attempt, with some success, to use the state to impose their own religious tenets upon the general population.

I do not perceive that SUCCESS ..... the USA culture is ---at origin something I would describe as "Christian enlightened"
as per the "ruling" persons And mainline Christian in the broadbase. That culture is BOUND to be the most significant
influence

Of course, all widely followed religions in a society will influence that society. But religious oppression isn't an influence, it's a collection of individual acts.

ok-----moving along-----I still find your statements very vague---
Can you cite some examples of some of those collections of
individual acts------here in the USA?

I'm not being vague, I'm being general. Religious oppression is a general topic.

"religious oppression is a general topic"-------
ATTENTION WORLD-----I (rosie) AM BEING RELIGIOUSLY OPPRESSED

" in what way, rosie" (sayeth world)

****** IN GENERAL ***** (retorteth rosie)

 

[mamooth]

Like Romney did, when the Democrats attacked HIM for being Mormon???

So in what alternate reality did that happen?

 

[Al Azar]

No specific religion is imposed by the state on anyone in the US, but there are factions in our society that attempt, with some success, to use the state to impose their own religious tenets upon the general population.

I do not perceive that SUCCESS ..... the USA culture is ---at origin something I would describe as "Christian enlightened"
as per the "ruling" persons And mainline Christian in the broadbase. That culture is BOUND to be the most significant
influence

Of course, all widely followed religions in a society will influence that society. But religious oppression isn't an influence, it's a collection of individual acts.

ok-----moving along-----I still find your statements very vague---
Can you cite some examples of some of those collections of
individual acts------here in the USA?

I'm not being vague, I'm being general. Religious oppression is a general topic.

If you want examples of individual acts, how about the state supporting business owners who refuse to perform the full range of their professional services to specific individuals because of the owner's religious bent? Limiting these customers to utilizing only other resources is no different than segregation on racial grounds.

I know of no state supported businesses that are owned by people who refuse to do business with, or provide professional
services to people based on their religion. Can you cite an
example?

I didn't say "state-supported", I said "the state supporting..." And I'm not referring to the religion of the customer, but of the provider.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was the law of the land for several years until the SCOTUS struck it down. It codified protection of discrimination against gays by business owners. It was a success of religious oppression until that was rectified.

 

[irosie91]

I do not perceive that SUCCESS ..... the USA culture is ---at origin something I would describe as "Christian enlightened"
as per the "ruling" persons And mainline Christian in the broadbase. That culture is BOUND to be the most significant
influence

Of course, all widely followed religions in a society will influence that society. But religious oppression isn't an influence, it's a collection of individual acts.

ok-----moving along-----I still find your statements very vague---
Can you cite some examples of some of those collections of
individual acts------here in the USA?

I'm not being vague, I'm being general. Religious oppression is a general topic.

If you want examples of individual acts, how about the state supporting business owners who refuse to perform the full range of their professional services to specific individuals because of the owner's religious bent? Limiting these customers to utilizing only other resources is no different than segregation on racial grounds.

I know of no state supported businesses that are owned by people who refuse to do business with, or provide professional
services to people based on their religion. Can you cite an
example?

I didn't say "state-supported", I said "the state supporting..." And I'm not referring to the religion of the customer, but of the provider.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was the law of the land for several years until the SCOTUS struck it down. It codified protection of discrimination against gays by business owners. It was a success of religious oppression until that was rectified.

"state supporting business owners"-----your point is that the laws that require business owners NOT TO discriminate are oppressive? OK-----that is a matter of discussion. I do
agree that no one would be forced to DO something that
contradicts his ETHICS----for example----No doctor should
be forced to perform an abortion and no baker should be forced to do a CAKE with writings or decorations that horrify his sense of propriety--------is that your issue? I do
NOT agree that it matters of hiring-----an employer should have
the right to discharge an employee for his religion or
gender preference----so long as the employee continues to do his WHOLE job. I still find you VAGUE

 

[Al Azar]

Laws that protect business owners who discriminate on religious grounds support religious oppression.

A doctor who performs abortions needs to perform them on all eligible patients, not just the types of patients his religion approves of.

Bakers who decorate cakes with common sentiments shouldn't withhold them for certain customers, based on the baker's personal religious views.

IOW, if the provider would perform a service for Citizen A, the law shouldn't protect him for denying that service to Citizen B because of the provider's religious sensitivities.

I can't think of any other ways to describe it.

 

[irosie91]

Laws that protect business owners who discriminate on religious grounds support religious oppression.

A doctor who performs abortions needs to perform them on all eligible patients, not just the types of patients his religion approves of.

Bakers who decorate cakes with common sentiments shouldn't withhold them for certain customers, based on the baker's personal religious views.

IOW, if the provider would perform a service for Citizen A, the law shouldn't protect him for denying that service to Citizen B because of the provider's religious sensitivities.

I can't think of any other ways to describe it.

nope------for abortion. If a doc would who would do abortion
for MEDICAL INDICATION----refuses to do it as a form of
birth control----I would support his right of refusal----despite the
fact that I am entirely pro choice (within reason)

 

[Al Azar]

Sorry. I should have said "doctor who performs abortion on demand". If the state protects such a provider from serving Citizen A but discriminating against Citizen B because of the provider's religious views, the state is engaging in religious oppression.

Any service a business normally provides must be available to every customer.

 

[Silhouette]

Interesting and brave of her. Her base has little but disdain for religion (unless it's coddling the Muslim faith). I actually gained some respect for her over this. Brave of her to let her moderate side show. She did a good thing here. This is probably the most interesting thing she has done this whole election.

I’ve been fighting to defend religious freedom for years. As secretary of state, I made it a cornerstone of our foreign policy to protect the rights of religious minorities around the world — from Coptic Christians in Egypt to Buddhists in Tibet. And along with Jon Huntsman, our then-ambassador in Beijing, I stood in solidarity with Chinese Christians facing persecution from their government.

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton: What I have in common with Utah leaders — religious freedom and the Constitution

She'll fall short when it comes to issues like the Kleins of Oregon or Kim Davis. The cult of LGBT has her by the short hairs. That religion will dominate all of them in the end.

She failed to mention either the Kleins or Kim Davis. So the article was not brave of her. It was weak and stealthy. We know her bread is buttered with rainbow-jelly.

 

[Al Azar]

Interesting and brave of her. Her base has little but disdain for religion (unless it's coddling the Muslim faith). I actually gained some respect for her over this. Brave of her to let her moderate side show. She did a good thing here. This is probably the most interesting thing she has done this whole election.

I’ve been fighting to defend religious freedom for years. As secretary of state, I made it a cornerstone of our foreign policy to protect the rights of religious minorities around the world — from Coptic Christians in Egypt to Buddhists in Tibet. And along with Jon Huntsman, our then-ambassador in Beijing, I stood in solidarity with Chinese Christians facing persecution from their government.

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton: What I have in common with Utah leaders — religious freedom and the Constitution

She'll fall short when it comes to issues like the Kleins of Oregon or Kim Davis. The cult of LGBT has her by the short hairs. That religion will dominate all of them in the end.

She failed to mention either the Kleins or Kim Davis. So the article was not brave of her. It was weak and stealthy. We know her bread is buttered with rainbow-jelly.

"Fall short" how? Those issues have been properly resolved.

 

[WillMunny]

I don't need to even read the article to know that you liberal psychopaths' idea of "religious freedom" is fellating the most praised-by-Hitler, Jew-exterminating, mass-raping, beheading-fetish, human-rights-atrocity bloodbath on the planet, Islam! Liberals' Islam-blowjob-values are an ABOMINATION to me; seriously, if you're attracted to a religion which beheads toddlers, stones rape victims to death and commits mass-murder over cartoons, then I don't consider you liberal animals members of the human race, it shows how fucked-up you characters are to be attracted to such a bloodbath with ZERO quantifiable redeeming qualities whatsoever.