Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Christians don't get bashed for being Christians, they get bashed when they drag their religious agenda into the political arena and try to impose it on the rest of us.Many people bash Christians, it's the only group not given special protections in speech. However, you don't get to be God and declare who is or who isn't a Christian. You need to read up on it if you are going to discuss it.yeah and where his birth certificate? did trump ever hear from those investigators he sent to Hawaii or did hillary have them taken out with her secret ninja army?You mean like Obama's phony baloney jobs numbers and shit?
If you want to talk of that start a thread on it.....or resume your bashing of Christians. It seems you're obsessed with that topic
No one bashes Christians. But we will call out those who preach hate, misogyny, and anti-semitism while claiming to follow the Jesus. How you can justify racism, bigotry and intolerance and claim to love Jesus who said "Love one another, as I have loved you". Notice there are no qualifications or restrictions on who is to be loved, or in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".
Anything less isn't Christianity
OK that does not make sense. It is a fact that Trump is president elect, it is opinion that Clinton should contest the election. I know the difference, why don't you?It's only opinion to you because it's YOUR preferred media sources mantra.The first is fact, the second is opinion. We would all be better off if the right knew the difference in their preferred media.Real news.....Trump is President Elect
Fake news....Hillary Clinton should fight it because [insert bullshit story here]
Were the results flipped this election you would be calling it fake.
OK that does not make sense. It is a fact that Trump is president elect, it is opinion that Clinton should contest the election. I know the difference, why don't you?It's only opinion to you because it's YOUR preferred media sources mantra.The first is fact, the second is opinion. We would all be better off if the right knew the difference in their preferred media.Real news.....Trump is President Elect
Fake news....Hillary Clinton should fight it because [insert bullshit story here]
Were the results flipped this election you would be calling it fake.
The last time I looked, the Electoral College hadn't voted so Trump is not yet President. Until they do, he hasn't won, and given the probable recounts, and Russian propaganda hacking the media, he just might not get there.
And it wasn't a meek Jesus that over turned the money changer tables and whipped them out.Many people bash Christians, it's the only group not given special protections in speech. However, you don't get to be God and declare who is or who isn't a Christian. You need to read up on it if you are going to discuss it.yeah and where his birth certificate? did trump ever hear from those investigators he sent to Hawaii or did hillary have them taken out with her secret ninja army?You mean like Obama's phony baloney jobs numbers and shit?
If you want to talk of that start a thread on it.....or resume your bashing of Christians. It seems you're obsessed with that topic
No one bashes Christians. But we will call out those who preach hate, misogyny, and anti-semitism while claiming to follow the Jesus. How you can justify racism, bigotry and intolerance and claim to love Jesus who said "Love one another, as I have loved you". Notice there are no qualifications or restrictions on who is to be loved, or in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".
Anything less isn't Christianity
The problem with these anti Christian loons is they expect Christians to meek and humble (they cherry pick Bible verses to "prove" their point".)...and are stunned when a Christian tells them to pound sand. What's hilarious is they demand Christians turn the other cheek....while them themselves refuse to do so.
And it wasn't a meek Jesus that over turned the money changer tables and whipped them out.Many people bash Christians, it's the only group not given special protections in speech. However, you don't get to be God and declare who is or who isn't a Christian. You need to read up on it if you are going to discuss it.yeah and where his birth certificate? did trump ever hear from those investigators he sent to Hawaii or did hillary have them taken out with her secret ninja army?
If you want to talk of that start a thread on it.....or resume your bashing of Christians. It seems you're obsessed with that topic
No one bashes Christians. But we will call out those who preach hate, misogyny, and anti-semitism while claiming to follow the Jesus. How you can justify racism, bigotry and intolerance and claim to love Jesus who said "Love one another, as I have loved you". Notice there are no qualifications or restrictions on who is to be loved, or in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".
Anything less isn't Christianity
The problem with these anti Christian loons is they expect Christians to meek and humble (they cherry pick Bible verses to "prove" their point".)...and are stunned when a Christian tells them to pound sand. What's hilarious is they demand Christians turn the other cheek....while them themselves refuse to do so.
Bull fucking shit. They get ridiculed all the time for their beliefs if they are traditional. However a leftist like obama can warm a pew for twenty years if it's anti-American and the libs can't be bothered.Christians don't get bashed for being Christians, they get bashed when they drag their religious agenda into the political arena and try to impose it on the rest of us.Many people bash Christians, it's the only group not given special protections in speech. However, you don't get to be God and declare who is or who isn't a Christian. You need to read up on it if you are going to discuss it.yeah and where his birth certificate? did trump ever hear from those investigators he sent to Hawaii or did hillary have them taken out with her secret ninja army?You mean like Obama's phony baloney jobs numbers and shit?
If you want to talk of that start a thread on it.....or resume your bashing of Christians. It seems you're obsessed with that topic
No one bashes Christians. But we will call out those who preach hate, misogyny, and anti-semitism while claiming to follow the Jesus. How you can justify racism, bigotry and intolerance and claim to love Jesus who said "Love one another, as I have loved you". Notice there are no qualifications or restrictions on who is to be loved, or in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".
Anything less isn't Christianity
Zionist is to JewishWhat's a zionist?im apart of the zionist conspiracy, youve discovered too much of the trooof and were here to put a stop to ityeah and where his birth certificate? did trump ever hear from those investigators he sent to Hawaii or did hillary have them taken out with her secret ninja army?You mean like Obama's phony baloney jobs numbers and shit?
If you want to talk of that start a thread on it.....or resume your bashing of Christians. It seems you're obsessed with that topic
You're ignorant
^ but when it's the LEFT imposing beliefs in LGBT or health care through federal mandates or global warming ^Christians don't get bashed for being Christians, they get bashed when they drag their religious agenda into the political arena and try to impose it on the rest of us.Many people bash Christians, it's the only group not given special protections in speech. However, you don't get to be God and declare who is or who isn't a Christian. You need to read up on it if you are going to discuss it.yeah and where his birth certificate? did trump ever hear from those investigators he sent to Hawaii or did hillary have them taken out with her secret ninja army?You mean like Obama's phony baloney jobs numbers and shit?
If you want to talk of that start a thread on it.....or resume your bashing of Christians. It seems you're obsessed with that topic
No one bashes Christians. But we will call out those who preach hate, misogyny, and anti-semitism while claiming to follow the Jesus. How you can justify racism, bigotry and intolerance and claim to love Jesus who said "Love one another, as I have loved you". Notice there are no qualifications or restrictions on who is to be loved, or in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".
Anything less isn't Christianity
Every one of those poor oppressed Christians can get up, go to church and practice their faith as they see fit. We still have freedom of speech in this country and something resembling democracy. If the majority wanted this country to have a religious veto on secular policy we would have found a way to be more like Iran already. That's what RW Christians do not have have, institutionalized secular power, and it pisses them off. They even try to say that church-state separation means we have no legal defense against their entirely legal political activities.Bull fucking shit. They get ridiculed all the time for their beliefs if they are traditional. However a leftist like obama can warm a pew for twenty years if it's anti-American and the libs can't be bothered.Christians don't get bashed for being Christians, they get bashed when they drag their religious agenda into the political arena and try to impose it on the rest of us.Many people bash Christians, it's the only group not given special protections in speech. However, you don't get to be God and declare who is or who isn't a Christian. You need to read up on it if you are going to discuss it.yeah and where his birth certificate? did trump ever hear from those investigators he sent to Hawaii or did hillary have them taken out with her secret ninja army?
If you want to talk of that start a thread on it.....or resume your bashing of Christians. It seems you're obsessed with that topic
No one bashes Christians. But we will call out those who preach hate, misogyny, and anti-semitism while claiming to follow the Jesus. How you can justify racism, bigotry and intolerance and claim to love Jesus who said "Love one another, as I have loved you". Notice there are no qualifications or restrictions on who is to be loved, or in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".
Anything less isn't Christianity
Dear occupiedEvery one of those poor oppressed Christians can get up, go to church and practice their faith as they see fit. We still have freedom of speech in this country and something resembling democracy. If the majority wanted this country to have a religious veto on secular policy we would have found a way to be more like Iran already. That's what RW Christians do not have have, institutionalized secular power, and it pisses them off. They even try to say that church-state separation means we have no legal defense against their entirely legal political activities.Bull fucking shit. They get ridiculed all the time for their beliefs if they are traditional. However a leftist like obama can warm a pew for twenty years if it's anti-American and the libs can't be bothered.Christians don't get bashed for being Christians, they get bashed when they drag their religious agenda into the political arena and try to impose it on the rest of us.Many people bash Christians, it's the only group not given special protections in speech. However, you don't get to be God and declare who is or who isn't a Christian. You need to read up on it if you are going to discuss it.If you want to talk of that start a thread on it.....or resume your bashing of Christians. It seems you're obsessed with that topic
No one bashes Christians. But we will call out those who preach hate, misogyny, and anti-semitism while claiming to follow the Jesus. How you can justify racism, bigotry and intolerance and claim to love Jesus who said "Love one another, as I have loved you". Notice there are no qualifications or restrictions on who is to be loved, or in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".
Anything less isn't Christianity
It's not an opinion. Take the so called hacking story. There is ZERO EVIDENCE. As in NONE. Just butthurt leftists spreading complete fabricated bullshit. And as seen on this very site there are Dumbfucks falling for it lolAgain, that is an opinion that is not even a majority opinion among liberals.I'm talking about the reports of Hillary should contest because of...xOK that does not make sense. It is a fact that Trump is president elect, it is opinion that Clinton should contest the election. I know the difference, why don't you?It's only opinion to you because it's YOUR preferred media sources mantra.The first is fact, the second is opinion. We would all be better off if the right knew the difference in their preferred media.
Were the results flipped this election you would be calling it fake.
OK that does not make sense. It is a fact that Trump is president elect, it is opinion that Clinton should contest the election. I know the difference, why don't you?It's only opinion to you because it's YOUR preferred media sources mantra.The first is fact, the second is opinion. We would all be better off if the right knew the difference in their preferred media.Real news.....Trump is President Elect
Fake news....Hillary Clinton should fight it because [insert bullshit story here]
Were the results flipped this election you would be calling it fake.
The last time I looked, the Electoral College hadn't voted so Trump is not yet President. Until they do, he hasn't won, and given the probable recounts, and Russian propaganda hacking the media, he just might not get there.
Dear occupiedDear occupiedEvery one of those poor oppressed Christians can get up, go to church and practice their faith as they see fit. We still have freedom of speech in this country and something resembling democracy. If the majority wanted this country to have a religious veto on secular policy we would have found a way to be more like Iran already. That's what RW Christians do not have have, institutionalized secular power, and it pisses them off. They even try to say that church-state separation means we have no legal defense against their entirely legal political activities.Bull fucking shit. They get ridiculed all the time for their beliefs if they are traditional. However a leftist like obama can warm a pew for twenty years if it's anti-American and the libs can't be bothered.Christians don't get bashed for being Christians, they get bashed when they drag their religious agenda into the political arena and try to impose it on the rest of us.Many people bash Christians, it's the only group not given special protections in speech. However, you don't get to be God and declare who is or who isn't a Christian. You need to read up on it if you are going to discuss it.
Are you saying it's okay to violate people's beliefs by mandating contrary laws through govt as long as these people can practice their beliefs in churches?
Yes
Then why not hold liberals to those same standards and hold the Clinton Foundation and Democrat fundraising in the billions responsible for their own health care?
What?
Why just punish people you "perceive" as having ability that you don't think liberals have without depending on govt.
Liberalism is not a religious faith.
Where in the First Amendment does it say only to bar beliefs from govt if the group is of this status you "perceive" as not suffering for it. But if groups depend on pushing their beliefs through govt it's justified for them and not others? Really?
Give up your tax exempt status on churches, and join the fray.
Shouldn't all beliefs be treated the same?
Not if they want to be tax exempt.
When does the size or resources of a group determine if the individuals have equal religious freedom not to have beliefs imposed through govt. Really?
If Christians would rather be a political party than a religious faith there are tax forms to be filled out, simple.
So you discriminate by creed because of your perception of Christians?
I think all faiths run wild with secular power if they are given it.
They don't have equal rights under law because of what Denomination they belong to? Since when?
What does that even mean? All faiths are equally barred from political activity in return for not being taxed.
What does the First and Fourteenth Amendment say? Does it Really have conditions attached based on affiliation?
Still not singling Christians out other than to note they are by far the most politically active faith in America.
Shouldn't all groups including liberals and political parties be barred equally from establishing biased faith based beliefs through govt regardless of Denomination? Otherwise How is what you're saying NOT a form of discriminating by creed or affiliation!
Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.
What's missing is the understanding that those who oppose christian theocracy are not themselves practicing a faith by simply opposing it or making entirely constitutional laws Christians do not like. You apparently do not make a distinction between the religious and the secular but by long settled law the government is compelled to do so.Dear occupiedDear occupiedEvery one of those poor oppressed Christians can get up, go to church and practice their faith as they see fit. We still have freedom of speech in this country and something resembling democracy. If the majority wanted this country to have a religious veto on secular policy we would have found a way to be more like Iran already. That's what RW Christians do not have have, institutionalized secular power, and it pisses them off. They even try to say that church-state separation means we have no legal defense against their entirely legal political activities.Bull fucking shit. They get ridiculed all the time for their beliefs if they are traditional. However a leftist like obama can warm a pew for twenty years if it's anti-American and the libs can't be bothered.Christians don't get bashed for being Christians, they get bashed when they drag their religious agenda into the political arena and try to impose it on the rest of us.
Are you saying it's okay to violate people's beliefs by mandating contrary laws through govt as long as these people can practice their beliefs in churches?
Yes
Then why not hold liberals to those same standards and hold the Clinton Foundation and Democrat fundraising in the billions responsible for their own health care?
What?
Why just punish people you "perceive" as having ability that you don't think liberals have without depending on govt.
Liberalism is not a religious faith.
Where in the First Amendment does it say only to bar beliefs from govt if the group is of this status you "perceive" as not suffering for it. But if groups depend on pushing their beliefs through govt it's justified for them and not others? Really?
Give up your tax exempt status on churches, and join the fray.
Shouldn't all beliefs be treated the same?
Not if they want to be tax exempt.
When does the size or resources of a group determine if the individuals have equal religious freedom not to have beliefs imposed through govt. Really?
If Christians would rather be a political party than a religious faith there are tax forms to be filled out, simple.
So you discriminate by creed because of your perception of Christians?
I think all faiths run wild with secular power if they are given it.
They don't have equal rights under law because of what Denomination they belong to? Since when?
What does that even mean? All faiths are equally barred from political activity in return for not being taxed.
What does the First and Fourteenth Amendment say? Does it Really have conditions attached based on affiliation?
Still not singling Christians out other than to note they are by far the most politically active faith in America.
Shouldn't all groups including liberals and political parties be barred equally from establishing biased faith based beliefs through govt regardless of Denomination? Otherwise How is what you're saying NOT a form of discriminating by creed or affiliation!
Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.
Do you acknowledge that liberal beliefs in the following Constitute political beliefs that not all people should be required by law to endorse:
* right to health care as a political belief
* right to marriage equally for same sex couples as a political belief
* right to oppose the death penalty based on beliefs
* right to choose abortion without penalty as a political belief
I understand that Religious Freedom has traditionally been used to refer to religious beliefs.
Do you think it would be more fair to treat all religious and political beliefs equally as Optional free choice; and bar Any group, whether conservative or liberal, from imposing Their Beliefs through govt on everyone else?
If not, why do you think it is NOT discriminatory to treat liberal beliefs with special rights to impose that agenda through govt while denying the same to other groups?
What factor or criteria are you using that makes it lawful for one set of beliefs but not another?
Is it because you don't see liberal political beliefs as beliefs? Why not?
Thank you! I'd like to know why you see these as Not beliefs. I understand when Christians believe right to life is Not a belief but a natural right.
Are you saying similar that because you see it as a "right" then it can't be a "belief"? So what criteria are you using to distinguish from Christian and the Belief that right to life is a right.
Is it just because of Denomination?
So you would need a literal law that spells out what constitutes a political belief before you would recognize liberal and conservative beliefs equally?
Does a law need to be passed first, is that s what missing here?
Dear occupiedWhat's missing is the understanding that those who oppose christian theocracy are not themselves practicing a faith by simply opposing it or making entirely constitutional laws Christians do not like. You apparently do not make a distinction between the religious and the secular but by long settled law the government is compelled to do so.Dear occupiedDear occupiedEvery one of those poor oppressed Christians can get up, go to church and practice their faith as they see fit. We still have freedom of speech in this country and something resembling democracy. If the majority wanted this country to have a religious veto on secular policy we would have found a way to be more like Iran already. That's what RW Christians do not have have, institutionalized secular power, and it pisses them off. They even try to say that church-state separation means we have no legal defense against their entirely legal political activities.Bull fucking shit. They get ridiculed all the time for their beliefs if they are traditional. However a leftist like obama can warm a pew for twenty years if it's anti-American and the libs can't be bothered.
Are you saying it's okay to violate people's beliefs by mandating contrary laws through govt as long as these people can practice their beliefs in churches?
Yes
Then why not hold liberals to those same standards and hold the Clinton Foundation and Democrat fundraising in the billions responsible for their own health care?
What?
Why just punish people you "perceive" as having ability that you don't think liberals have without depending on govt.
Liberalism is not a religious faith.
Where in the First Amendment does it say only to bar beliefs from govt if the group is of this status you "perceive" as not suffering for it. But if groups depend on pushing their beliefs through govt it's justified for them and not others? Really?
Give up your tax exempt status on churches, and join the fray.
Shouldn't all beliefs be treated the same?
Not if they want to be tax exempt.
When does the size or resources of a group determine if the individuals have equal religious freedom not to have beliefs imposed through govt. Really?
If Christians would rather be a political party than a religious faith there are tax forms to be filled out, simple.
So you discriminate by creed because of your perception of Christians?
I think all faiths run wild with secular power if they are given it.
They don't have equal rights under law because of what Denomination they belong to? Since when?
What does that even mean? All faiths are equally barred from political activity in return for not being taxed.
What does the First and Fourteenth Amendment say? Does it Really have conditions attached based on affiliation?
Still not singling Christians out other than to note they are by far the most politically active faith in America.
Shouldn't all groups including liberals and political parties be barred equally from establishing biased faith based beliefs through govt regardless of Denomination? Otherwise How is what you're saying NOT a form of discriminating by creed or affiliation!
Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.
Do you acknowledge that liberal beliefs in the following Constitute political beliefs that not all people should be required by law to endorse:
* right to health care as a political belief
* right to marriage equally for same sex couples as a political belief
* right to oppose the death penalty based on beliefs
* right to choose abortion without penalty as a political belief
I understand that Religious Freedom has traditionally been used to refer to religious beliefs.
Do you think it would be more fair to treat all religious and political beliefs equally as Optional free choice; and bar Any group, whether conservative or liberal, from imposing Their Beliefs through govt on everyone else?
If not, why do you think it is NOT discriminatory to treat liberal beliefs with special rights to impose that agenda through govt while denying the same to other groups?
What factor or criteria are you using that makes it lawful for one set of beliefs but not another?
Is it because you don't see liberal political beliefs as beliefs? Why not?
Thank you! I'd like to know why you see these as Not beliefs. I understand when Christians believe right to life is Not a belief but a natural right.
Are you saying similar that because you see it as a "right" then it can't be a "belief"? So what criteria are you using to distinguish from Christian and the Belief that right to life is a right.
Is it just because of Denomination?
So you would need a literal law that spells out what constitutes a political belief before you would recognize liberal and conservative beliefs equally?
Does a law need to be passed first, is that s what missing here?
Doesn't matter at all. Religious organizations are not barred from political activity as long as they are funded and taxed as a political organization. It's not like Christians do not have a voice in government, they just are not given the last word like they want. Our founders knew the dangers of having the clergy sit in on policy discussions because they lived under the church of England.Dear occupiedWhat's missing is the understanding that those who oppose christian theocracy are not themselves practicing a faith by simply opposing it or making entirely constitutional laws Christians do not like. You apparently do not make a distinction between the religious and the secular but by long settled law the government is compelled to do so.Dear occupiedDear occupiedEvery one of those poor oppressed Christians can get up, go to church and practice their faith as they see fit. We still have freedom of speech in this country and something resembling democracy. If the majority wanted this country to have a religious veto on secular policy we would have found a way to be more like Iran already. That's what RW Christians do not have have, institutionalized secular power, and it pisses them off. They even try to say that church-state separation means we have no legal defense against their entirely legal political activities.
Are you saying it's okay to violate people's beliefs by mandating contrary laws through govt as long as these people can practice their beliefs in churches?
Yes
Then why not hold liberals to those same standards and hold the Clinton Foundation and Democrat fundraising in the billions responsible for their own health care?
What?
Why just punish people you "perceive" as having ability that you don't think liberals have without depending on govt.
Liberalism is not a religious faith.
Where in the First Amendment does it say only to bar beliefs from govt if the group is of this status you "perceive" as not suffering for it. But if groups depend on pushing their beliefs through govt it's justified for them and not others? Really?
Give up your tax exempt status on churches, and join the fray.
Shouldn't all beliefs be treated the same?
Not if they want to be tax exempt.
When does the size or resources of a group determine if the individuals have equal religious freedom not to have beliefs imposed through govt. Really?
If Christians would rather be a political party than a religious faith there are tax forms to be filled out, simple.
So you discriminate by creed because of your perception of Christians?
I think all faiths run wild with secular power if they are given it.
They don't have equal rights under law because of what Denomination they belong to? Since when?
What does that even mean? All faiths are equally barred from political activity in return for not being taxed.
What does the First and Fourteenth Amendment say? Does it Really have conditions attached based on affiliation?
Still not singling Christians out other than to note they are by far the most politically active faith in America.
Shouldn't all groups including liberals and political parties be barred equally from establishing biased faith based beliefs through govt regardless of Denomination? Otherwise How is what you're saying NOT a form of discriminating by creed or affiliation!
Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.
Do you acknowledge that liberal beliefs in the following Constitute political beliefs that not all people should be required by law to endorse:
* right to health care as a political belief
* right to marriage equally for same sex couples as a political belief
* right to oppose the death penalty based on beliefs
* right to choose abortion without penalty as a political belief
I understand that Religious Freedom has traditionally been used to refer to religious beliefs.
Do you think it would be more fair to treat all religious and political beliefs equally as Optional free choice; and bar Any group, whether conservative or liberal, from imposing Their Beliefs through govt on everyone else?
If not, why do you think it is NOT discriminatory to treat liberal beliefs with special rights to impose that agenda through govt while denying the same to other groups?
What factor or criteria are you using that makes it lawful for one set of beliefs but not another?
Is it because you don't see liberal political beliefs as beliefs? Why not?
Thank you! I'd like to know why you see these as Not beliefs. I understand when Christians believe right to life is Not a belief but a natural right.
Are you saying similar that because you see it as a "right" then it can't be a "belief"? So what criteria are you using to distinguish from Christian and the Belief that right to life is a right.
Is it just because of Denomination?
So you would need a literal law that spells out what constitutes a political belief before you would recognize liberal and conservative beliefs equally?
Does a law need to be passed first, is that s what missing here?
I'm taking it further.
I'm saying even the political beliefs are faith based and not neutrally secular!
For example "civil unions" for everyone would be secular. But legislating on "marriage" involves faith based beliefs, even with "secular exoressions" of liberal beliefs.
So I argue those are NOT passing the secular neutral test, but are in essence introducing faith based bias into law.
Just because this is masked by secular language doesn't exclude the content which I argue IS faith based and biased against people of other faiths.
Dear occupied even if a groupDoesn't matter at all. Religious organizations are not barred from political activity as long as they are funded and taxed as a political organization. It's not like Christians do not have a voice in government, they just are not given the last word like they want. Our founders knew the dangers of having the clergy sit in on policy discussions because they lived under the church of England.Dear occupiedWhat's missing is the understanding that those who oppose christian theocracy are not themselves practicing a faith by simply opposing it or making entirely constitutional laws Christians do not like. You apparently do not make a distinction between the religious and the secular but by long settled law the government is compelled to do so.Dear occupiedDear occupied
Are you saying it's okay to violate people's beliefs by mandating contrary laws through govt as long as these people can practice their beliefs in churches?
Yes
Then why not hold liberals to those same standards and hold the Clinton Foundation and Democrat fundraising in the billions responsible for their own health care?
What?
Why just punish people you "perceive" as having ability that you don't think liberals have without depending on govt.
Liberalism is not a religious faith.
Where in the First Amendment does it say only to bar beliefs from govt if the group is of this status you "perceive" as not suffering for it. But if groups depend on pushing their beliefs through govt it's justified for them and not others? Really?
Give up your tax exempt status on churches, and join the fray.
Shouldn't all beliefs be treated the same?
Not if they want to be tax exempt.
When does the size or resources of a group determine if the individuals have equal religious freedom not to have beliefs imposed through govt. Really?
If Christians would rather be a political party than a religious faith there are tax forms to be filled out, simple.
So you discriminate by creed because of your perception of Christians?
I think all faiths run wild with secular power if they are given it.
They don't have equal rights under law because of what Denomination they belong to? Since when?
What does that even mean? All faiths are equally barred from political activity in return for not being taxed.
What does the First and Fourteenth Amendment say? Does it Really have conditions attached based on affiliation?
Still not singling Christians out other than to note they are by far the most politically active faith in America.
Shouldn't all groups including liberals and political parties be barred equally from establishing biased faith based beliefs through govt regardless of Denomination? Otherwise How is what you're saying NOT a form of discriminating by creed or affiliation!
Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.
Do you acknowledge that liberal beliefs in the following Constitute political beliefs that not all people should be required by law to endorse:
* right to health care as a political belief
* right to marriage equally for same sex couples as a political belief
* right to oppose the death penalty based on beliefs
* right to choose abortion without penalty as a political belief
I understand that Religious Freedom has traditionally been used to refer to religious beliefs.
Do you think it would be more fair to treat all religious and political beliefs equally as Optional free choice; and bar Any group, whether conservative or liberal, from imposing Their Beliefs through govt on everyone else?
If not, why do you think it is NOT discriminatory to treat liberal beliefs with special rights to impose that agenda through govt while denying the same to other groups?
What factor or criteria are you using that makes it lawful for one set of beliefs but not another?
Is it because you don't see liberal political beliefs as beliefs? Why not?
Thank you! I'd like to know why you see these as Not beliefs. I understand when Christians believe right to life is Not a belief but a natural right.
Are you saying similar that because you see it as a "right" then it can't be a "belief"? So what criteria are you using to distinguish from Christian and the Belief that right to life is a right.
Is it just because of Denomination?
So you would need a literal law that spells out what constitutes a political belief before you would recognize liberal and conservative beliefs equally?
Does a law need to be passed first, is that s what missing here?
I'm taking it further.
I'm saying even the political beliefs are faith based and not neutrally secular!
For example "civil unions" for everyone would be secular. But legislating on "marriage" involves faith based beliefs, even with "secular exoressions" of liberal beliefs.
So I argue those are NOT passing the secular neutral test, but are in essence introducing faith based bias into law.
Just because this is masked by secular language doesn't exclude the content which I argue IS faith based and biased against people of other faiths.
Look at it this way: You keep framing this question as Christians VS Liberals but that is not how it is. There are some religions/christian denominations out there that do not like RW Evangelical beliefs/methods, why do you think conservative Christians should be held above all those others? The only fair and constitutional solution is to not let any of them to be the sole moral compass of the nation. They all have the right to join in the national discussion with the understanding that secular law will cover secular matters and that religious objections cannot be considered if they are unconstitutional.Dear occupied even if a groupDoesn't matter at all. Religious organizations are not barred from political activity as long as they are funded and taxed as a political organization. It's not like Christians do not have a voice in government, they just are not given the last word like they want. Our founders knew the dangers of having the clergy sit in on policy discussions because they lived under the church of England.Dear occupiedWhat's missing is the understanding that those who oppose christian theocracy are not themselves practicing a faith by simply opposing it or making entirely constitutional laws Christians do not like. You apparently do not make a distinction between the religious and the secular but by long settled law the government is compelled to do so.Dear occupied
Do you acknowledge that liberal beliefs in the following Constitute political beliefs that not all people should be required by law to endorse:
* right to health care as a political belief
* right to marriage equally for same sex couples as a political belief
* right to oppose the death penalty based on beliefs
* right to choose abortion without penalty as a political belief
I understand that Religious Freedom has traditionally been used to refer to religious beliefs.
Do you think it would be more fair to treat all religious and political beliefs equally as Optional free choice; and bar Any group, whether conservative or liberal, from imposing Their Beliefs through govt on everyone else?
If not, why do you think it is NOT discriminatory to treat liberal beliefs with special rights to impose that agenda through govt while denying the same to other groups?
What factor or criteria are you using that makes it lawful for one set of beliefs but not another?
Is it because you don't see liberal political beliefs as beliefs? Why not?
Thank you! I'd like to know why you see these as Not beliefs. I understand when Christians believe right to life is Not a belief but a natural right.
Are you saying similar that because you see it as a "right" then it can't be a "belief"? So what criteria are you using to distinguish from Christian and the Belief that right to life is a right.
Is it just because of Denomination?
So you would need a literal law that spells out what constitutes a political belief before you would recognize liberal and conservative beliefs equally?
Does a law need to be passed first, is that s what missing here?
I'm taking it further.
I'm saying even the political beliefs are faith based and not neutrally secular!
For example "civil unions" for everyone would be secular. But legislating on "marriage" involves faith based beliefs, even with "secular exoressions" of liberal beliefs.
So I argue those are NOT passing the secular neutral test, but are in essence introducing faith based bias into law.
Just because this is masked by secular language doesn't exclude the content which I argue IS faith based and biased against people of other faiths.
Is a registered political group,
I don't see how that gives license to
Violate beliefs of others by abusing govt to pass biased faith based laws.
I've run into others here who don't believe political beliefs are barred from govt, but I see it causes the same damage or worse as religious beliefs pushed through govt against the beliefs of others.
So I find these matters should be resolved by consensus before passing laws to avoid imposing one sides beliefs or another.
Just because political beliefs were imposed by majority rule in the past, doesn't mean this isn't as damaging as religious beliefs imposed by govt.
So I disagree with imposing political beliefs which I argue violates equal Constitutional protections, it's favoring one creed and discriminating against another.
I'm not saying to let Christians impose.Look at it this way: You keep framing this question as Christians VS Liberals but that is not how it is. There are some religions/christian denominations out there that do not like RW Evangelical beliefs/methods, why do you think conservative Christians should be held above all those others? The only fair and constitutional solution is to not let any of them to be the sole moral compass of the nation. They all have the right to join in the national discussion with the understanding that secular law will cover secular matters and that religious objections cannot be considered if they are unconstitutional.Dear occupied even if a groupDoesn't matter at all. Religious organizations are not barred from political activity as long as they are funded and taxed as a political organization. It's not like Christians do not have a voice in government, they just are not given the last word like they want. Our founders knew the dangers of having the clergy sit in on policy discussions because they lived under the church of England.Dear occupiedWhat's missing is the understanding that those who oppose christian theocracy are not themselves practicing a faith by simply opposing it or making entirely constitutional laws Christians do not like. You apparently do not make a distinction between the religious and the secular but by long settled law the government is compelled to do so.Dear occupied
Do you acknowledge that liberal beliefs in the following Constitute political beliefs that not all people should be required by law to endorse:
* right to health care as a political belief
* right to marriage equally for same sex couples as a political belief
* right to oppose the death penalty based on beliefs
* right to choose abortion without penalty as a political belief
I understand that Religious Freedom has traditionally been used to refer to religious beliefs.
Do you think it would be more fair to treat all religious and political beliefs equally as Optional free choice; and bar Any group, whether conservative or liberal, from imposing Their Beliefs through govt on everyone else?
If not, why do you think it is NOT discriminatory to treat liberal beliefs with special rights to impose that agenda through govt while denying the same to other groups?
What factor or criteria are you using that makes it lawful for one set of beliefs but not another?
Is it because you don't see liberal political beliefs as beliefs? Why not?
Thank you! I'd like to know why you see these as Not beliefs. I understand when Christians believe right to life is Not a belief but a natural right.
Are you saying similar that because you see it as a "right" then it can't be a "belief"? So what criteria are you using to distinguish from Christian and the Belief that right to life is a right.
Is it just because of Denomination?
So you would need a literal law that spells out what constitutes a political belief before you would recognize liberal and conservative beliefs equally?
Does a law need to be passed first, is that s what missing here?
I'm taking it further.
I'm saying even the political beliefs are faith based and not neutrally secular!
For example "civil unions" for everyone would be secular. But legislating on "marriage" involves faith based beliefs, even with "secular exoressions" of liberal beliefs.
So I argue those are NOT passing the secular neutral test, but are in essence introducing faith based bias into law.
Just because this is masked by secular language doesn't exclude the content which I argue IS faith based and biased against people of other faiths.
Is a registered political group,
I don't see how that gives license to
Violate beliefs of others by abusing govt to pass biased faith based laws.
I've run into others here who don't believe political beliefs are barred from govt, but I see it causes the same damage or worse as religious beliefs pushed through govt against the beliefs of others.
So I find these matters should be resolved by consensus before passing laws to avoid imposing one sides beliefs or another.
Just because political beliefs were imposed by majority rule in the past, doesn't mean this isn't as damaging as religious beliefs imposed by govt.
So I disagree with imposing political beliefs which I argue violates equal Constitutional protections, it's favoring one creed and discriminating against another.
What I'm saying is that Christians have to follow the law same as anyone. The government cannot consider your feelings when questions arise pertaining to equal protection, equal rights or anything not specific to religion. I can understand why you feel like these questions do not get a fair hearing but the government cannot withhold constitutional rights from anyone without a sound legal argument. Religious political groups do not make legal arguments, they make moralistic arguments that all too often have no legal legs to stand on.I'm not saying to let Christians impose.Look at it this way: You keep framing this question as Christians VS Liberals but that is not how it is. There are some religions/christian denominations out there that do not like RW Evangelical beliefs/methods, why do you think conservative Christians should be held above all those others? The only fair and constitutional solution is to not let any of them to be the sole moral compass of the nation. They all have the right to join in the national discussion with the understanding that secular law will cover secular matters and that religious objections cannot be considered if they are unconstitutional.Dear occupied even if a groupDoesn't matter at all. Religious organizations are not barred from political activity as long as they are funded and taxed as a political organization. It's not like Christians do not have a voice in government, they just are not given the last word like they want. Our founders knew the dangers of having the clergy sit in on policy discussions because they lived under the church of England.Dear occupiedWhat's missing is the understanding that those who oppose christian theocracy are not themselves practicing a faith by simply opposing it or making entirely constitutional laws Christians do not like. You apparently do not make a distinction between the religious and the secular but by long settled law the government is compelled to do so.
I'm taking it further.
I'm saying even the political beliefs are faith based and not neutrally secular!
For example "civil unions" for everyone would be secular. But legislating on "marriage" involves faith based beliefs, even with "secular exoressions" of liberal beliefs.
So I argue those are NOT passing the secular neutral test, but are in essence introducing faith based bias into law.
Just because this is masked by secular language doesn't exclude the content which I argue IS faith based and biased against people of other faiths.
Is a registered political group,
I don't see how that gives license to
Violate beliefs of others by abusing govt to pass biased faith based laws.
I've run into others here who don't believe political beliefs are barred from govt, but I see it causes the same damage or worse as religious beliefs pushed through govt against the beliefs of others.
So I find these matters should be resolved by consensus before passing laws to avoid imposing one sides beliefs or another.
Just because political beliefs were imposed by majority rule in the past, doesn't mean this isn't as damaging as religious beliefs imposed by govt.
So I disagree with imposing political beliefs which I argue violates equal Constitutional protections, it's favoring one creed and discriminating against another.
I'm saying don't let political groups impose those beliefs either! occupied
