Religous Freedom is so dead

[emilynghiem]

You asked does this take away a right of religious freedom.
NO!

Hi boilermaker55:

A. You are replying to the wrong post. I am assuring koshergrl here that there ARE progressives like me who believe in free speech and equal protection of religion, even for those whose beliefs I don't even agree with. Yes, I do exist as a Constitutionalist on the side of prochoice and inclusion of minorities that Democras and liberals are SUPPOSED to embrace. I exist and fight on the side of beliefs of both left and right, DESPITE
the "politicized left" who don't recognize when they are going TOO FAR so that the religious freedom and liberties of others ARE being abridged and denied equal protection, which is in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

I ACKNOWLEDGE that although these abridgements are happening, I am one progressive who does not
"hate free speech" but uses it to correct the wrongs abridging the equal protection of both or either side.

You are RIGHT that my response to koshergrl is not about abridging free speech but defending it.

Your reply doesn't even apply here.

B. As for the reply that DOES apply to you,
boilermaker55 I pointed out SEVERAL areas where the beliefs of the left
ARE being imposed TOO FAR and start to discriminate, penalize and deny equal protections of
The "beliefs" of opponents on the right:

1. when gay marriage is pushed beyond making it legal for churches and people to do in private
but starts to impose on public institutions, that is not written neutrally enough and is beginning to infringe on other beliefs.
when govt has imposed and enforced FINES on businesses and individuals for wanting to refrain from
participation in gay marriages, that is going TOO FAR.

I am prochoice, I am progressive, I support gays to marry but not to IMPOSE that on people by law.
This is a private spiritual matter, the issue of homosexuality and marriage, and should not be decide by govt
to IMPOSE on people -- it should be the people resolving their own conflicts and then using the solutions
they find to watch how they write laws so these are neutral and don't impose either way.

in the meantime, yes, I AGREE that there is imposition going on, even if I don't agree with things like banning
gay marriage. People have the right to participate, support or not. So govt has to remain neutral. and the fines
are going beyond neutrality but becoming punitive.

2. same with the health care mess.

Instead of giving people equal choice and requiring them to pay for their health care "in the manner they choose"
some people are being fined and discriminated against by taxes REGULATED on the BASIS of CREED.

If you don't fit into the religious exemptions as approved by govt as proper proof that you will pay for your health care,
then you are forced to do it the way that the supporters of ACA believe which is insurance or govt mandates on taxes
paid into THAT system.

You don't have equal choice to invest the same amount of money, or more if you want, or less if it costs less,
to pay for health care through your OWN system.

None of these systems has been PROVEN to work so they are FAITH-BASED choices.

But the passers and supporters of this bill ENDORSED the given plans to the point of
PENALIZING people who don't believe in that way, and believe in a different way to pay for health care that
respects their BELIEFS in liberty and free choice.

And worst of all, the Democrats who passed this bill with the mandates CLAIM to be PROCHOICE.

So not only does the bill contradict Constitutional principles and beliefs,
which are either enforceable per se by the Constitution or are still protected as a BELIEF under the 1st and 14th Amendments even if they are deemed "optional" and not mandatory for the govt to follow by law,
but the mandates CONTRACT the Democrats own political platform of prochoice in concept.

On what level is that NOT a contradiction?
A. contradicting Democrats own stance, so it shows discrimination
that Democrats enforce prochoice for their beliefs about abortion not being regulated by govt, much less penalized,
but violate prochoice when it comes to beliefs of others about health care choices not PENALIZED by govt, which is worse than just being regulated

B. contradicting the First and Fourteenth Amendments by discriminating, penalizing and regulating religious beliefs
by govt

or
C. denying the free exercise without penalty by govt
of those who BELIEVE that the mandates violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights

So as for you boilermaker55
If koshergrl or me, or others who protest the ACA mandates, speak all day and all night
and never get heard, never get our grievances redressed, but are still considered as NOT COUNTED
as protected because our beliefs are "disagreed with" so they DON'T COUNT.

how is that free exercise of religion.

What good is free speech or right to petition if nobody is required to resolve the problem.

This is like a rape victim having the right to protest while still being raped.

So is that fair. Is that the meaning of freedom and free speech. That you have the right to protest
even though you are still going to be bulldozed right over politically by a bigger group that uses its numbers to overrule you.

I don't think so, boilermaker55

That is why I defend the right to petition and the beliefs of others equally as I would want MY beliefs to be respected.

If we don't violate people's rights and beliefs to begin with, we have a chance of being equal.

Once someone has their rights violated, it takes extra work to restore it, so that isn't equal.

The person who is already raped is not going to have equal freedom as the person whose rape was avoided.
It takes TIME to recover from having your will and security violated, so in the meantime those people don't
experience equal protection of the laws.

Acting like it isn't happening is letting the problem happen.
So no, I'm sorry, but I learned the hard way this isn't acceptable to keep letting the bullying and bulldozing go on.

The only way to have consistent law enforcement is to stand up against bullying no matter who it is.

My point to koshergrl and point to you are totally separate
1. I was trying to tell koshergrl that as a progressive I do believe in enforcing free speech and free choice equally
for all people, including and especially those I disagree with, so we stop this mutual competition to censor each other.

2. And I am trying to explain to you and CCJones and others
that YES the left HAS gone too far and has become PUNITIVE
and DISCRIMINATORY against Christian and Constitutional beliefs
they fear will be pushed on them. They have OVERcompensated and gone past neutral
into the area of punishing people for their beliefs.

I am on the left and I am saying this.

I am NOT saying it to promote the political agenda on the right, but to defend EQUALITY -- equal protection and inclusion.
I believe that is more consistent with what Democrats, liberals and progressives are SUPPOSED to be enforcing anyway.

Let the beliefs of each person or group be their own, and don't impose or punish either side by law.
Get the issues completely out of gov if needed, resolve them individually, and only support laws based on
agreed points and policies that everyone consents to,
so NOBODY's religious freedom is imposed on by other views.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is certainly a large difference between you practicing your faith/religion to taking your faith/religion to a public square/building and putting up a symbol.
Perhaps one day you will recognize the difference.
Not once did you make a statement that someone keeps you from praying or practicing your faith.
All you seem to care about is putting a religious symbol out in a public arena.
These are two(2) totally different situations.

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

In which institution they are giving a speech in, yes, if that institution has a religious. If it is a public one. NO.
If one has the right to preach their religion then all others must have the right to preach theirs. It has to be stopped at some point.
Stop it at the beginning.
No one is ever going to have them not practice their religion at their place of worship or in their homes.

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech.

Progressives hate it.

Nonsense.

Not only do progressives embrace and promote free speech and expression, but they have been its greatest defenders – often defending free speech and expression from many conservatives who seek to restrict both.

 

[emilynghiem]

Talk and posting a symbol of a religious belief are two entirely different entities.
Nice try.

OK boilermaker55

A. And how about the passing of the ACA mandates
that allows exemptions for those who "believe" in paying for health care through insurance
and govt regulated exchanges,
while fining those who DON'T believe govt has authority to deprive liberties and force such mandates by law.

Isn't that more than just posting a religious symbol.
It is taking a political BELIEF, the concept that health care is a right through govt,
and MANDATING it by FEDERAL LAW, where you MUST comply with this belief
or else be fined.

B. Also instead of neutrality on gay marriage, where you can choose whether or not to participate,
what about where govt and courts IMPOSED and ENFORCED FINES
where business people didn't have the choice of what weddings to serve,
and were penalized for turning down clients if they had religious differences.

If you didn't believe in serving meat, but were vegetarian,
would you want your business to be sued for not serving meat at a banquet for people
who wanted that, but claimed you were religiously discriminating against them?

Now boilermaker55
you may THINK this has nothing to do with free speech.
That people still have the right to protest, even if they are bullied and harassed for it,
targeted and demonized for defending their beliefs, they still have it.

But that is NOT equal free speech compared with the people who
can speak out and say they are in support of these laws which are on their side.

The people whose beliefs are already made unlawful by these govt policies
carry a greater burden now to defend their beliefs that are currently being abridged.

Instead of being able to exercise freely, they are under penalty of law with case histories AGAINST them.

So that is not equal free speech or equal free exercise of beliefs as the other people
whose side the govt is taking and ENDORSING over the other. That is not equal, sorry.

This is why I have compassion for koshergrl and others like her.
I may not agree with half their beliefs, but the principle and process should be fair, equal and inclusive.
And it isn't. Both sides take turns demonizing and destroying the other, so that isn't respecting equal freedom.

No wonder she does not believe progressives can get the point.

Between you and CCJones, I don't think you get this at all.
And the people like me who do get it, you jump all over or you won't answer.

So of course people keep thinking liberals and progessives only want to dominate politically,
and don't really want to include people and free choice; they only want to DICTATE those choices they believe in,
while complaining it's the fundamental right doing that. You don't even see when you are doing similar.

Whatever this is, it isn't perfectly "free" speech, it is "conditioned" on trying to prove the other wrong
and not trying to correct the problem openly and "freely." So it is imposing biases and not completely free.

If koshergrl and I can hear what each other is saying, we might be able to exercise our free speech without interference.

I can't say the same for others here who seem to be yelling through a wall and still not getting our points across.
What good is free speech if you can't ever connect and communicate?
May all these barriers come down so we can hear each other's points. I would like us to understand each other
so we can better solve the problems we are all complaining about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

In which institution they are giving a speech in, yes, if that institution has a religious. If it is a public one. NO.
If one has the right to preach their religion then all others must have the right to preach theirs. It has to be stopped at some point.
Stop it at the beginning.
No one is ever going to have them not practice their religion at their place of worship or in their homes.

Everyone in this country, the United States, has religious freedom. They can think and worship any deity they wish. It really isn't that complicated.
Those who are trying to grind the axe of their rights of religious freedom are making up situations that do not apply to their freedoms being diminished.

Then you are okay with the valedictorians speaking about God and faith during graduation exercises? If a judge wants to hang a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, not a problem? What about, upon hearing of the death of a student a teacher says, "Let's say a prayer..." and several students get on their knees and bow towards Mecca?

Does freedom extend this far in our country?

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Ignorant, ridiculous nonsense.

What people on an internet message board might say has nothing whatsoever to do with restricting religious expression. No one is being 'discriminated against' for openly embracing his religion; nor are theists forced to discuss their religion 'behind closed doors,' and theists are certainly not subject to 'reprisals' – the notion is unfounded, delusional, and paranoid.

No one is seeking to enact any kind of 'law' to disallow theists from embracing their religion because it might make others 'uncomfortable,' and school children are now and have always been at liberty to read a bible or practice their faith while attending school – provided such actions are not disruptive; and should religious expression be disallowed because it is disruptive, such a prohibition in no way constitutes 'religious oppression.'

As with the other poster, your ignorance of the law is no excuse – Establishment Clause jurisprudence does not in any way infringe on religious liberty, as the First Amendment applies solely to government, limiting its unwarranted and un-Constitutional entanglement with religion, not private persons or organizations.

 

[koshergrl]

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

In which institution they are giving a speech in, yes, if that institution has a religious. If it is a public one. NO.
If one has the right to preach their religion then all others must have the right to preach theirs. It has to be stopped at some point.
Stop it at the beginning.
No one is ever going to have them not practice their religion at their place of worship or in their homes.

Then you are okay with the valedictorians speaking about God and faith during graduation exercises? If a judge wants to hang a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, not a problem? What about, upon hearing of the death of a student a teacher says, "Let's say a prayer..." and several students get on their knees and bow towards Mecca?

Does freedom extend this far in our country?

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Ignorant, ridiculous nonsense.

What people on an internet message board might say has nothing whatsoever to do with restricting religious expression. No one is being 'discriminated against' for openly embracing his religion; nor are theists forced to discuss their religion 'behind closed doors,' and theists are certainly not subject to 'reprisals' – the notion is unfounded, delusional, and paranoid.

No one is seeking to enact any kind of 'law' to disallow theists from embracing their religion because it might make others 'uncomfortable,' and school children are now and have always been at liberty to read a bible or practice their faith while attending school – provided such actions are not disruptive; and should religious expression be disallowed because it is disruptive, such a prohibition in no way constitutes 'religious oppression.'

As with the other poster, your ignorance of the law is no excuse – Establishment Clause jurisprudence does not in any way infringe on religious liberty, as the First Amendment applies solely to government, limiting its unwarranted and un-Constitutional entanglement with religion, not private persons or organizations.

If only you made sense.

But you don't.

 

[boilermaker55]

US? You seem to be the ignorant one.

You have no concept of freedom of speech.

You people can't be taught.

 

[boilermaker55]

Most of the statements you make do not apply at all to fact of being religiously persecuted.

You asked does this take away a right of religious freedom.
NO!

Hi boilermaker55:

A. You are replying to the wrong post. I am assuring koshergrl here that there ARE progressives like me who believe in free speech and equal protection of religion, even for those whose beliefs I don't even agree with. Yes, I do exist as a Constitutionalist on the side of prochoice and inclusion of minorities that Democras and liberals are SUPPOSED to embrace. I exist and fight on the side of beliefs of both left and right, DESPITE
the "politicized left" who don't recognize when they are going TOO FAR so that the religious freedom and liberties of others ARE being abridged and denied equal protection, which is in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

I ACKNOWLEDGE that although these abridgements are happening, I am one progressive who does not
"hate free speech" but uses it to correct the wrongs abridging the equal protection of both or either side.

You are RIGHT that my response to koshergrl is not about abridging free speech but defending it.

Your reply doesn't even apply here.

B. As for the reply that DOES apply to you,
boilermaker55 I pointed out SEVERAL areas where the beliefs of the left
ARE being imposed TOO FAR and start to discriminate, penalize and deny equal protections of
The "beliefs" of opponents on the right:

1. when gay marriage is pushed beyond making it legal for churches and people to do in private
but starts to impose on public institutions, that is not written neutrally enough and is beginning to infringe on other beliefs.
when govt has imposed and enforced FINES on businesses and individuals for wanting to refrain from
participation in gay marriages, that is going TOO FAR.

I am prochoice, I am progressive, I support gays to marry but not to IMPOSE that on people by law.
This is a private spiritual matter, the issue of homosexuality and marriage, and should not be decide by govt
to IMPOSE on people -- it should be the people resolving their own conflicts and then using the solutions
they find to watch how they write laws so these are neutral and don't impose either way.

in the meantime, yes, I AGREE that there is imposition going on, even if I don't agree with things like banning
gay marriage. People have the right to participate, support or not. So govt has to remain neutral. and the fines
are going beyond neutrality but becoming punitive.

2. same with the health care mess.

Instead of giving people equal choice and requiring them to pay for their health care "in the manner they choose"
some people are being fined and discriminated against by taxes REGULATED on the BASIS of CREED.

If you don't fit into the religious exemptions as approved by govt as proper proof that you will pay for your health care,
then you are forced to do it the way that the supporters of ACA believe which is insurance or govt mandates on taxes
paid into THAT system.

You don't have equal choice to invest the same amount of money, or more if you want, or less if it costs less,
to pay for health care through your OWN system.

None of these systems has been PROVEN to work so they are FAITH-BASED choices.

But the passers and supporters of this bill ENDORSED the given plans to the point of
PENALIZING people who don't believe in that way, and believe in a different way to pay for health care that
respects their BELIEFS in liberty and free choice.

And worst of all, the Democrats who passed this bill with the mandates CLAIM to be PROCHOICE.

So not only does the bill contradict Constitutional principles and beliefs,
which are either enforceable per se by the Constitution or are still protected as a BELIEF under the 1st and 14th Amendments even if they are deemed "optional" and not mandatory for the govt to follow by law,
but the mandates CONTRACT the Democrats own political platform of prochoice in concept.

On what level is that NOT a contradiction?
A. contradicting Democrats own stance, so it shows discrimination
that Democrats enforce prochoice for their beliefs about abortion not being regulated by govt, much less penalized,
but violate prochoice when it comes to beliefs of others about health care choices not PENALIZED by govt, which is worse than just being regulated

B. contradicting the First and Fourteenth Amendments by discriminating, penalizing and regulating religious beliefs
by govt

or
C. denying the free exercise without penalty by govt
of those who BELIEVE that the mandates violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights

So as for you boilermaker55
If koshergrl or me, or others who protest the ACA mandates, speak all day and all night
and never get heard, never get our grievances redressed, but are still considered as NOT COUNTED
as protected because our beliefs are "disagreed with" so they DON'T COUNT.

how is that free exercise of religion.

What good is free speech or right to petition if nobody is required to resolve the problem.

This is like a rape victim having the right to protest while still being raped.

So is that fair. Is that the meaning of freedom and free speech. That you have the right to protest
even though you are still going to be bulldozed right over politically by a bigger group that uses its numbers to overrule you.

I don't think so, boilermaker55

That is why I defend the right to petition and the beliefs of others equally as I would want MY beliefs to be respected.

If we don't violate people's rights and beliefs to begin with, we have a chance of being equal.

Once someone has their rights violated, it takes extra work to restore it, so that isn't equal.

The person who is already raped is not going to have equal freedom as the person whose rape was avoided.
It takes TIME to recover from having your will and security violated, so in the meantime those people don't
experience equal protection of the laws.

Acting like it isn't happening is letting the problem happen.
So no, I'm sorry, but I learned the hard way this isn't acceptable to keep letting the bullying and bulldozing go on.

The only way to have consistent law enforcement is to stand up against bullying no matter who it is.

My point to koshergrl and point to you are totally separate
1. I was trying to tell koshergrl that as a progressive I do believe in enforcing free speech and free choice equally
for all people, including and especially those I disagree with, so we stop this mutual competition to censor each other.

2. And I am trying to explain to you and CCJones and others
that YES the left HAS gone too far and has become PUNITIVE
and DISCRIMINATORY against Christian and Constitutional beliefs
they fear will be pushed on them. They have OVERcompensated and gone past neutral
into the area of punishing people for their beliefs.

I am on the left and I am saying this.

I am NOT saying it to promote the political agenda on the right, but to defend EQUALITY -- equal protection and inclusion.
I believe that is more consistent with what Democrats, liberals and progressives are SUPPOSED to be enforcing anyway.

Let the beliefs of each person or group be their own, and don't impose or punish either side by law.
Get the issues completely out of gov if needed, resolve them individually, and only support laws based on
agreed points and policies that everyone consents to,
so NOBODY's religious freedom is imposed on by other views.

 

[boilermaker55]

When you really have something to complain about,make a real statement.
Until then, your religious crybaby attitude does nothing to making a point about the subject matter.

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

In which institution they are giving a speech in, yes, if that institution has a religious. If it is a public one. NO.
If one has the right to preach their religion then all others must have the right to preach theirs. It has to be stopped at some point.
Stop it at the beginning.
No one is ever going to have them not practice their religion at their place of worship or in their homes.

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Ignorant, ridiculous nonsense.

What people on an internet message board might say has nothing whatsoever to do with restricting religious expression. No one is being 'discriminated against' for openly embracing his religion; nor are theists forced to discuss their religion 'behind closed doors,' and theists are certainly not subject to 'reprisals' – the notion is unfounded, delusional, and paranoid.

No one is seeking to enact any kind of 'law' to disallow theists from embracing their religion because it might make others 'uncomfortable,' and school children are now and have always been at liberty to read a bible or practice their faith while attending school – provided such actions are not disruptive; and should religious expression be disallowed because it is disruptive, such a prohibition in no way constitutes 'religious oppression.'

As with the other poster, your ignorance of the law is no excuse – Establishment Clause jurisprudence does not in any way infringe on religious liberty, as the First Amendment applies solely to government, limiting its unwarranted and un-Constitutional entanglement with religion, not private persons or organizations.

If only you made sense.

But you don't.

 

[koshergrl]

When you really have something to complain about,make a real statement.
Until then, your religious crybaby attitude does nothing to making a point about the subject matter.

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Ignorant, ridiculous nonsense.

What people on an internet message board might say has nothing whatsoever to do with restricting religious expression. No one is being 'discriminated against' for openly embracing his religion; nor are theists forced to discuss their religion 'behind closed doors,' and theists are certainly not subject to 'reprisals' – the notion is unfounded, delusional, and paranoid.

No one is seeking to enact any kind of 'law' to disallow theists from embracing their religion because it might make others 'uncomfortable,' and school children are now and have always been at liberty to read a bible or practice their faith while attending school – provided such actions are not disruptive; and should religious expression be disallowed because it is disruptive, such a prohibition in no way constitutes 'religious oppression.'

As with the other poster, your ignorance of the law is no excuse – Establishment Clause jurisprudence does not in any way infringe on religious liberty, as the First Amendment applies solely to government, limiting its unwarranted and un-Constitutional entanglement with religion, not private persons or organizations.

If only you made sense.

But you don't.

As I tell Schlep on a regular basis..just because you don't understand doesn't mean I didn't make my point.

I did, and always do, make my point. In spades.

 

[emilynghiem]

What people on an internet message board might say has nothing whatsoever to do with restricting religious expression. No one is being 'discriminated against' for openly embracing his religion; nor are theists forced to discuss their religion 'behind closed doors,' and theists are certainly not subject to 'reprisals' – the notion is unfounded, delusional, and paranoid.

No one is seeking to enact any kind of 'law' to disallow theists from embracing their religion because it might make others 'uncomfortable,' and school children are now and have always been at liberty to read a bible or practice their faith while attending school – provided such actions are not disruptive; and should religious expression be disallowed because it is disruptive, such a prohibition in no way constitutes 'religious oppression.'

As with the other poster, your ignorance of the law is no excuse – Establishment Clause jurisprudence does not in any way infringe on religious liberty, as the First Amendment applies solely to government, limiting its unwarranted and un-Constitutional entanglement with religion, not private persons or organizations.

Yes, C_Clayton_Jones
The ACA mandates WERE enacted AND passed through Courts
AND people like Obama are using their free speech to declare ACA the "law of the land"
over the Constitution that would limit and check govt from passing such a tax without representing the people taxed.

And yes, this IS causing inability of people like my friend D2 and me
from speaking freely anymore. Because Obama declared it the law of the land,
instead of all the Democrats and Republicans equally putting the Constitution first,
my friend D2 believes it is okay to enforce and call this the law of the land.

So this is causing a religious imposition by establishing a belief through govt by law.
and people ARE USING MEDIA to try to TEACH this is Constitutional to pass and enforce such a law.

And it IS causing breaches and imposing on people's ability to speak and petition freely.

It cost Hobby Lobby and their legal team how much in resources to try to fight even
ONE argument to correct even ONE point in that bill. And those like me without ability to sue or to petition directly to the parties in charge, are left without any protections until this is corrected. We don't even have enough resources to defend our freedom and beliefs that by the current laws would involve penalizing us and forcing us to pay into a system that goes against our beliefs; while others who happen to share these beliefs are forcing nonbelievers to pay for their system, and fining them them through federal govt where they can't put that money into the systems they believe in by free market.

This law is already passed, and people like you are using your free speech to teach that it is constitutional to do this, while others now have the BURDEN put on us to prove our side because the law is passed and penalties imposed in favor of the other beliefs.

That is not equal but penalizing and discriminating unfairly on the basis of belief and creed.

It is setting a BAD precedent that the govt IS allowed to abridge deny discriminate and regulate on the basis of religion and creed "until people petition and establish otherwise."

Sorry you don't see that as an unequal imposition.

So the more people like you, CCJones who teach it is lawful,
you are like the people that let slavery go on as a legal institution
because the laws enforced and courts it at the time.

If everyone had risen up in unity with the abolitionists who fought
for freedom and equality, slavery could have ended sooner without the violence.

Until everyone understands the freedom and beliefs infringed upon by laws
like the ACA mandates, then the people like you ENFORCING that as law
are using your "free speech" to spread this interpretation and oppress the people
trying to teach that such abuses of Govt are NOT Constitutional and the
parties pushing this owe restitution for the damages and debts caused in the meantime.

 

[emilynghiem]

Most of the statements you make do not apply at all to fact of being religiously persecuted.

Why, because you don't agree or understand my beliefs?
So you think they don't count as being violated?

1. I believe in consensus on laws to prevent religious imposition by govt on such issues of beliefs as: (a) marriage, in particular gay marriage (b) health care now that the "right to health care through govt" has been imposed by federal law as a belief that all people must comply with or face penalties (c) the death penalty (d) abortion (e) immigration and earned amnesty (f) spiritual healing and solutions to mental health and marijuana policies, along with criminal justice reform

2. so as long as legislatures and courts are used to impose one side over another,
my beliefs in equality, in isonomy and Constitutional equal protection of the laws
are abridged and denied. I am forced to pay taxes spent on lawsuits and more political infighting and deadlocking
because the govt did not require a consensus on these issues. Meanwhile, causes such as saving environmental
and historic landmarks, and creating jobs and campuses for Veterans to reform the VA and health care
GO UNFUNDED while resources are wasted on conflicts that I have argued and believe should be resolved by consensus.

So it is wasting taxpayer money, and depriving this from being invested in solutions I believe in funding that everyone agrees on, such as helping veterans. it violated the Code of Ethics for Govt Service which calls for federal employees
to find and employ the most efficient means of getting tasks accomplished. I believe in enforcing those principles.
So these are violated by wasting resources on conflicts that are better resolved by consensus to protect beliefs on all sides.

3. I believe in solving the issue over health care by giving taxpayers the choice of what systems to fund.
Those who believe in free market solutions should have equal choice to invest tax dollars there.
Those who believe in lending into medical education and hospital/campus development should be able to invest there.
Those who believe in insurance coops and the ACA system of exchanges should pay for that if that's their beliefs.

So until the ACA is reformed to allow equal choice to opt in and fund or finance whichever means people believe in,
then my beliefs in "equal protection of the laws" are violated. The fines and regulations only exempt those people are groups that the govt approves; and this does not include the choice of free market methods of providing and paying for health care;
it doesn't involve the choice of spiritual healing to reduce costs of crime and disease so state funds can go into health care that are currently wasted on ineffective prisons and mental wards in the billions of dollars.

So the choices and solutions I believe in as more effective -- in covering more people with the same resources instead of charging taxpayers more and losing our liberties -- are discriminated against and fined by this bill that doesn't recognize that as an option.

4. And I could also add that any voters or govt officials, whether legislators or judges in court,
who do not recognize my beliefs as equally protected by law, but continue to endorse and abuse govt to
enforce the current mandates that violate my beliefs in inequality
are part of the oppression, you are basically participating in "violating my civil rights" by enforcing unconstitutional laws.

I can protest all I want, but if that doesn't change the unlawful enforcement of onesided laws that establish a hostile belief,
while penalizing me for believing in other options that are not criminal but actually more cost effective,
then something is wrong with the system, and koshergrl and others are right.

If all these means are used to attack and punish Constitutionalist and Christians who believe in free choice,
this is a violation of our equal civil rights, our right to petition for redress of grievances, and for equal
protection and representation instead of discrimination by creed by abusing govt and laws to impose hostile beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear boilermaker55 C_Clayton_Jones
also Dante if you can please help because I think you are more articulate when you explain the liberal mindset about this.

below is my attempt to explain to someone on another site how are the ACA mandates unconstitutional and imposing on beliefs

HI Dennis_Langley Not sure where I left off here. I was saying the penalties are discriminating by creed, by allowing exemptions for those who believe in being forced by govt to buy insurance but penalizing people who believe in funding other ways to pay health care which isn't a crime. We are basically losing liberty without due process to show we committed a crime first. now we are facing penalties, masked as an added tax, if we don't comply with regulations we don't believe in but which violate our beliefs that health care is a free choice the govt was not specifically authorized to regulate by the Constitution. This requires an amendment first, and/or a vote by the people or the states, but we didn't get to vote on it; it was imposed against our Constitutional beliefs. And to have to go to court to defend and restore beliefs that should not have been violated to begin with is an additional wrongful act. it is forcing just those people with different beliefs to do more to defend and exercise our beliefs, so it is discriminating against us as Constitutionalists.

Can you please help me by pointing out what is not clear, what needs to be clarified, or how do I say this to make sense
to someone who DOESN'T share this view. Even if you don't agree, there should be a way to explain it.

I don't have to agree that life begins at conception to understand that's how my prolife friends see it.
I don't have to agree with that belief, to understand the law should equally protect that belief and not be biased against it.

Why can't people who disagree on the ACA at least agree to let people fund their own separate policies by their own beliefs.
Why is it so hard to understand (A) the beliefs are different (B) people have the right to fund their own beliefs (C) people don't have the right to force others to fund beliefs they don't agree with, especially if the people who BELIEVE in it aren't funding it.
So if you aren't funding your own belief in paying for your own health care through insurance and govt mandated exchanges,
but you are relying on OTHER people to fund it, isn't that two or three times as messed up?
(1) you aren't respecting or even recognizing the other side has valid beliefs
(2) you are penalizing and forcing them to pay into your system and aren't giving them equal exemptions if they invest in their own systems of paying for health care, they are only exempted from taxes if they fund the regulated choices YOU believe in are constitutional by this law.
(3) you aren't even willing to fund your own beliefs, but are relying on OPPONENTS to fund it who DON'T believe in your ways

How FU is that?

There, is that more liberalese "projected-blame" language for what is wrong with this picture?

Do I need to word it like a "poor whiny victim" before you can hear what I'm saying?

Does this help at all?

How about this, is this a better translation in whiny-victim-speak for liberals to understand:


Dear ReallyBadAtSpelling: Obama and others HAVE declared ACA to be the law of the land. So they ARE pushing and abusing govt office to impose the BELIEF that this bill supercedes the Constitution. That is a BELIEF whether or not this bill and its mandates are Constitutional. I believe they are not, and the gov is being abused to enforce it. So anyone teaching that it is constitutional for the govt to enforce it as is, is indirectly imposing the BELIEF that it is constitutional to deny and discriminate on the basis of creed just because a law was passed by Congress and approved through courts as a tax. I disagree. Slavery was also written into law and defended in courts as valid property laws, but it violated natural laws on equal rights and freedom of human beings and was not constitutionally inclusive. People would have to CONSENT to be enslaved as indentured servants, trading labor for certain terms in exchange for it to be a consensual arrangement. And here with ACA if people opted into and CHOSE the public option and given regulations, that would be consensual and not taxation without representation. But when you are regulating the manner in which people pay for their health care, to the point of forcing them to pay taxes into a system that violates their beliefs, where they are not allowed to pay the equal amount into system of health care in keeping with their beliefs, that is either (a) taxation without representation (b) discrimination by creed or (c) involuntary servitude by forcing them to give up their labor without having committed a crime and undergoing due process before being deprived of liberty by govt authority

Ooops, sorry, I may have thrown in Constitutional Conservative terms at the end.
I don't think most liberals get that part.

Last time I went to a Democrat meeting at the county level, I had to explain to fellow Democrats why conservatives were so opposed to gun regulations if they were aimed at criminals.
I had to explain that these same regulations are affecting law abiding citizens, treated equally as criminals until proven otherwise. That is backwards. These citizens already had rights to own guns and freedom to buy them without these regulations; so when you add them, you are taking away liberties from people without proving they are the criminals you are trying to regulate.

With health care, paying for health care other ways besides insurance is not a crime.

Yet in order to try to address people who are costing taxpayers by not having insurance,
you are taking away the liberties of law abiding citizens who didn't do such acts or crimes.

For some reason I have to explain this to liberals and Democrats who don't think any freedom, liberties or choices are being lost. Why? Before you had freedom to buy insurance when you needed it, and now it is being forced under penalty of law if you don't buy it under given restrictions.

How is that not losing liberty and discriminating against Constitutionalists whose beliefs are violated by this imposed through federal govt?

Since when do you have to AGREE with a belief in order to acknowledge that it deserves protection under the law?

I can only guess it must be similar to how some conservatives don't agree with or believe abortion is a choice, so banning it is not taking away freedom or liberty, or don't believe cross dressing or homosexuality is natural, so that shouldn't be a protected "choice" either.

What do you call this, that is causing people not to believe that other people have a right to their beliefs. They don't even think they are a real choice, so of course they see no problem in bulldozing right over that which they don't feel is protected as someone's belief or creed.

They think each other is "making it up" or isn't really being violated by imposing this law or that.

????

What IS the first step to recognizing that we have different beliefs that are equal under law?

How do we stop this mutual habit of discounting other beliefs we don't agree with or understand? Why can't we recognize and respect even opposing views? We don't have to enforce or support them, but why can't we distinguish them instead of denying they exist?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

start here: the taxes/fines are NOT criminal penalties

 

[emilynghiem]

start here: the taxes/fines are NOT criminal penalties

Yes, I agree it is NOT and should NOT be treated as criminal to choose other means of health care besides insurance. So why is that taxed while insurance is exempted. Why aren't other ways of paying exempted.

Because it is NOT a crime to pay for health care other ways besides insurance,
why are citizens losing our liberty to do so? Only if a crime is committed and we go through due process can the govt deprive of us liberty, especially of labor in requiring us to pay for something against our will.

Do you agree it is *discriminatory* to exempt people who believe in govt mandated insurance to pay for health care.
And to tax people who believe in other choices that are NOT criminal but can cover health care.

If you believed in teaching conflict resolution and democratic principles using Muslims laws to achieve the same end.
And others mandated that this is required teaching and can only be taught through Christian laws.

So that everyone who signs up for the Christian system gets exempted,
but if you want to teach democratic principles and conflict resolution through the Muslim system
you are fined 1% of your salary which goes into the Christian system.

Isn't that discriminatory? On the basis of creed?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

start here: the taxes/fines are NOT criminal penalties

Yes, I agree it is NOT and should NOT be treated as criminal to choose other means of health care besides insurance. So why is that taxed while insurance is exempted. Why aren't other ways of paying exempted.

Because it is NOT a crime to pay for health care other ways besides insurance,
why are citizens losing our liberty to do so? Only if a crime is committed and we go through due process can the govt deprive of us liberty, especially of labor in requiring us to pay for something against our will.

Do you agree it is *discriminatory* to exempt people who believe in govt mandated insurance to pay for health care.
And to tax people who believe in other choices that are NOT criminal but can cover health care.

If you believed in teaching conflict resolution and democratic principles using Muslims laws to achieve the same end.
And others mandated that this is required teaching and can only be taught through Christian laws.

So that everyone who signs up for the Christian system gets exempted,
but if you want to teach democratic principles and conflict resolution through the Muslim system
you are fined 1% of your salary which goes into the Christian system.

Isn't that discriminatory? On the basis of creed?

you are confused about the difference between civil law and criminal law

 

[emilynghiem]

start here: the taxes/fines are NOT criminal penalties

Yes, I agree it is NOT and should NOT be treated as criminal to choose other means of health care besides insurance. So why is that taxed while insurance is exempted. Why aren't other ways of paying exempted.

Because it is NOT a crime to pay for health care other ways besides insurance,
why are citizens losing our liberty to do so? Only if a crime is committed and we go through due process can the govt deprive of us liberty, especially of labor in requiring us to pay for something against our will.

Do you agree it is *discriminatory* to exempt people who believe in govt mandated insurance to pay for health care.
And to tax people who believe in other choices that are NOT criminal but can cover health care.

If you believed in teaching conflict resolution and democratic principles using Muslims laws to achieve the same end.
And others mandated that this is required teaching and can only be taught through Christian laws.

So that everyone who signs up for the Christian system gets exempted,
but if you want to teach democratic principles and conflict resolution through the Muslim system
you are fined 1% of your salary which goes into the Christian system.

Isn't that discriminatory? On the basis of creed?

you are confused about the difference between civil law and criminal law

Can we table that for now. Let's agree this is all civil.

Can we focus on the issue of discrimination by creed.

Is it discriminatory for a law to exempt people who believe in buying govt insurance to pay for health care
but taxing people who believe in investing in free market solutions to cover health care costs.

If ONE group BELIEVES that health care is a right through govt, and the other
group BELIEVES that freedom and health is governed by God and natural laws
so if we work in natural ways then we can cover health care naturally and it is
unconstitutional to impose otherwise through govt WITHOUT an amendment AND a vote by the people.

if those are the two political beliefs at odds here,
why is it OKAY for the govt to exempt people of one belief and tax the other,
and not only that, but force the taxes to go into the onesided system the other doesn't believe in.

How is that not discriminating on the basis of creed.
How is that not "offensive" to the people who don't believe in that but this violates our beliefs.

This is a Constitutional question of CONCEPT and PRINCIPLE of CREED.

Are political beliefs OKAY to favor by law, and it's only religious beliefs named by Christianity or
organized religions that cannot be favored by govt.

Are you saying political beliefs don't count as "creeds" that can be defended against discrimination?

Dante can we discuss this without having to agree or discuss criminal vs. civil anything.

Are the mandates discriminatory on the basis of creed?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

start here: the taxes/fines are NOT criminal penalties

Yes, I agree it is NOT and should NOT be treated as criminal to choose other means of health care besides insurance. So why is that taxed while insurance is exempted. Why aren't other ways of paying exempted.

Because it is NOT a crime to pay for health care other ways besides insurance,
why are citizens losing our liberty to do so? Only if a crime is committed and we go through due process can the govt deprive of us liberty, especially of labor in requiring us to pay for something against our will.

Do you agree it is *discriminatory* to exempt people who believe in govt mandated insurance to pay for health care.
And to tax people who believe in other choices that are NOT criminal but can cover health care.

If you believed in teaching conflict resolution and democratic principles using Muslims laws to achieve the same end.
And others mandated that this is required teaching and can only be taught through Christian laws.

So that everyone who signs up for the Christian system gets exempted,
but if you want to teach democratic principles and conflict resolution through the Muslim system
you are fined 1% of your salary which goes into the Christian system.

Isn't that discriminatory? On the basis of creed?

you are confused about the difference between civil law and criminal law

Can we table that for now. Let's agree this is all civil.

Can we focus on the issue of discrimination by creed.

Is it discriminatory for a law to exempt people who believe in buying govt insurance to pay for health care
but taxing people who believe in investing in free market solutions to cover health care costs.

If ONE group BELIEVES that health care is a right through govt, and the other
group BELIEVES that freedom and health is governed by God and natural laws
so if we work in natural ways then we can cover health care naturally and it is
unconstitutional to impose otherwise through govt WITHOUT an amendment AND a vote by the people.

if those are the two political beliefs at odds here,
why is it OKAY for the govt to exempt people of one belief and tax the other,
and not only that, but force the taxes to go into the onesided system the other doesn't believe in.

How is that not discriminating on the basis of creed.
How is that not "offensive" to the people who don't believe in that but this violates our beliefs.

This is a Constitutional question of CONCEPT and PRINCIPLE of CREED.

Are political beliefs OKAY to favor by law, and it's only religious beliefs named by Christianity or
organized religions that cannot be favored by govt.

Are you saying political beliefs don't count as "creeds" that can be defended against discrimination?

Dante can we discuss this without having to agree or discuss criminal vs. civil anything.

Are the mandates discriminatory on the basis of creed?

there is NO discrimination on the basis of screed. none

 

[Luddly Neddite]

In which institution they are giving a speech in, yes, if that institution has a religious. If it is a public one. NO.
If one has the right to preach their religion then all others must have the right to preach theirs. It has to be stopped at some point.
Stop it at the beginning.
No one is ever going to have them not practice their religion at their place of worship or in their homes.

Everyone in this country, the United States, has religious freedom. They can think and worship any deity they wish. It really isn't that complicated.
Those who are trying to grind the axe of their rights of religious freedom are making up situations that do not apply to their freedoms being diminished.

Then you are okay with the valedictorians speaking about God and faith during graduation exercises? If a judge wants to hang a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, not a problem? What about, upon hearing of the death of a student a teacher says, "Let's say a prayer..." and several students get on their knees and bow towards Mecca?

Does freedom extend this far in our country?

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Your application for martyrdom is denied on the grounds that such shrill, melodramatic whining has all the dogs in my neighborhood barking.

good post

What is OP whining about that he can't pray at the DMV or the Post Office?

But he can.

I don't know of any place or time where a person can't pray.

What's stopping them? Hell, most of us would think he was just talking on his phone!

The OP and other thumpers just get all bent because they can't force others to join them in whatever hocus pocus they choose for themselves.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

start here: the taxes/fines are NOT criminal penalties

Correct.

Indeed, they're not even fines, as the ACA makes no provision for punitive measures whatsoever.

One is at liberty to have no health insurance if he so desires.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Religous Freedom is so dead

..

If only it would take religion with it