Where do we draw the line?

[TemplarKormac]

There are Christians being slaughtered for their faith in the Middle East and Africa, there are Christians being forced to act against their conscience here in America, forced into obscurity because their views don't meld with that of society's. The mob will always have its way.

Where do we draw the line? When do we defend the right for someone to be Christian without being bullied or killed? Where in this giant religious freedom debate do we draw the line between tolerance and intolerance?

To me, this debate in America is purely one sided. Gay progressive liberals accuse Christians of being intolerant, they demand tolerance while being intolerant to the religious convictions of others, well, except for Muslims that is. Why should one demand equality for his own only to use it to instill inequality? Christians have no distinct leaders to stand up for the faith against the opposition, simply because the opposition is too great.

In the Middle East, when do we come to the aid of innocent Christians being killed for their faith? When do we draw the line in the sand and say "this far, no further?" Here, the biggest Christian nation in the world under the watch of a liberal president will not rise to defend those of the Christian belief. In the world, Christians also have no true leaders who will stand up to the forces which oppress them elsewhere in the world.

So, where do we draw the line?

 

[Mr. H.]

With a Muslim as President, there is no line.

 

[emilynghiem]

There are Christians being slaughtered for their faith in the Middle East and Africa, there are Christians being forced to act against their conscience here in America, forced into obscurity because their views don't meld with that of society's. The mob will always have its way.

Where do we draw the line? When do we defend the right for someone to be Christian without being bullied or killed? Where in this giant religious freedom debate do we draw the line between tolerance and intolerance?

To me, this debate in America is purely one sided. Gay progressive liberals accuse Christians of being intolerant, they demand tolerance while being intolerant to the religious convictions of others, well, except for Muslims that is. Why should one demand equality for his own only to use it to instill inequality? Christians have no distinct leaders to stand up for the faith against the opposition, simply because the opposition is too great.

In the Middle East, when do we come to the aid of innocent Christians being killed for their faith? When do we draw the line in the sand and say "this far, no further?" Here, the biggest Christian nation in the world under the watch of a liberal president will not rise to defend those of the Christian belief. In the world, Christians also have no true leaders who will stand up to the forces which oppress them.

So, where do we draw the line?

We draw the line when we enforce the Constitution, the concept of equal protection of the laws, including all beliefs BOTH RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL and/or SECULAR BELIEFS
which are to be treated equally under law, without discrimination by creed.

We enforce consistent standards by EXAMPLE.

The same way Christians supported the side of defending LGBT rights,
there need to be as many secular humanists and ETHICISTS who equally support the side of Christian beliefs.

I can't be the only liberal progressive prochoice Democrat
who seeks Constitutional inclusion and equal protection of ALL views, even ones I don't agree with that go too far and need to be separated out from public policy.

I can't be that special. Only Christ Jesus was special, and I'm not that perfectly unbiased and universal.
So there must others like me who stand up for Constitutional equality even if it means defending
views we don't agree with.

Where I draw the line is CONSENT.
If people do not CONSENT because of different beliefs,
then govt cannot be abused to force someone to change their beliefs.

People have the right to negotiate and work out agreements where neither side's beliefs are imposed
or infringed upon.

What we have is lazy politics, where people want to pay money to lobby for one side, like black and white,
and smash the other. These ways are not going to work for BELIEFS that govt cannot be abused to mandate.

We will have a national wakeup call, but it will start locally,
when people on both sides of issues figure it out that we all lose this way, forced to compromise our beliefs.

It's a matter of time before people figure it out.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Maybe Christians could draw the line at using their religion as a guise to justify discriminating against other human beings.

 

[Wildman]

there is no line.

i remember when he drew lines then backed away because he knew it would hurt the muslime cause.

 

[Gracie]

And maybe human beings and their religions can see where their hypocrisy is so blatant in the "Do as I say, not as I do" situations now being shoved in faces.

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe Christians could draw the line at using their religion as a guise to justify discriminating against other human beings.

Dont Taz Me Bro
and likewise, not have gay couples target Christian businesses to invoke lawsuits
when they could have supported gay bakeries and photographers that would love to have that business!

 

[Wildman]

I can't be the only liberal progressive prochoice Democrat
who seeks Constitutional inclusion and equal protection of ALL views, even ones I don't agree with that go too far and need to be separated out from public policy.

I can't be that special. Only Christ Jesus was special, and I'm not that perfectly unbiased and universal.
So there must others like me who stand up for Constitutional equality even if it means defending
views we don't agree with.

ooooh, come now.., no liber ever talks like that on these forums, you will be chastised by those true lefties who truly HATE us "RW Cons", i'll bet deep down you are more CONSERVATIVE than liber, if the truth of your lifestyle were known !

GOD bless you

 

[Gracie]

Maybe Christians could draw the line at using their religion as a guise to justify discriminating against other human beings.

Dont Taz Me Bro
and likewise, not have gay couples target Christian businesses to invoke lawsuits
when they could have supported gay bakeries and photographers that would love to have that business!

DING DING DING. Winner winner chicken dinner.

 

[occupied]

There already is a line, it's called the separation clause, keep your faith in your homes and churches and out of the lives of those who don't want pious hypocrites making secular law.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There are Christians being slaughtered for their faith in the Middle East and Africa, there are Christians being forced to act against their conscience here in America, forced into obscurity because their views don't meld with that of society's. The mob will always have its way.

Where do we draw the line? When do we defend the right for someone to be Christian without being bullied or killed? Where in this giant religious freedom debate do we draw the line between tolerance and intolerance?

To me, this debate in America is purely one sided. Gay progressive liberals accuse Christians of being intolerant, they demand tolerance while being intolerant to the religious convictions of others, well, except for Muslims that is. Why should one demand equality for his own only to use it to instill inequality? Christians have no distinct leaders to stand up for the faith against the opposition, simply because the opposition is too great.

In the Middle East, when do we come to the aid of innocent Christians being killed for their faith? When do we draw the line in the sand and say "this far, no further?" Here, the biggest Christian nation in the world under the watch of a liberal president will not rise to defend those of the Christian belief. In the world, Christians also have no true leaders who will stand up to the forces which oppress them.

So, where do we draw the line?

When it comes to the Middle East, "we" don't draw the line. "We" have no business in the Middle East in the first place, and anybody who looks at the U.S. government's record in the Middle East and concludes that what's needed is more interventions is deluding themselves. Ousting Saddam is the reason Christians have been targeted in that country. The U.S. has only made things worse, and further interventions will have the same result. It is not the business of the U.S. government to save the world, even if it is for a number of people with similar values.

As far as here in the U.S., why do Christians deserve special treatment? Nobody should be forced to associate with anybody when it comes to their own property for any reason if they choose not to. Furthermore, I seriously doubt the people arguing for "religious freedom" are willing to take their idea to its logical conclusion. You want to save Christians in the Middle East, but I object to my tax dollars being spent on such a policy because it goes against my religion. Will I be allowed to opt out? Will Mike Pence right op-eds defending me and my religious beliefs from this oppressive taxation that so offends my beliefs? Of course not.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe Christians could draw the line at using their religion as a guise to justify discriminating against other human beings.

So why do the all tolerant liberals use equality as a vehicle of intolerance?

Perhaps you shouldn't use equality as a means to justify attacking Christians for standing up for their faith.

Just what were the O'Connora doing to discriminate?

 

[TemplarKormac]

As far as here in the U.S., why do Christians deserve special treatment?

Why does anyone deserve special treatment?

Nobody should be forced to associate with anybody when it comes to their own property for any reason if they choose not to.

I agree to a point. If the service you provide won't cause a conflict with your faith, you have no grounds to discriminate.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt the people arguing for "religious freedom" are willing to take their idea to its logical conclusion. You want to save Christians in the Middle East, but I object to my tax dollars being spent on such a policy because it goes against my religion.

Then those who believe in being one body in Christ are truly alone. And what religion tells you to leave the helpless to their fate?

Ousting Saddam is the reason Christians have been targeted in that country.

You have no proof to back that claim.

 

[Wildman]

Maybe Christians...

Maybe Christians, blah, blah, blah.., maybe if you qweers and pussy boys would stop shoving your dicks in our face all the time demanding special rights, we could get along just fine, if you kept your perversion private and to yourself no one would know what you are, but NO! you had to tell the world you are a qweer, then claim discrimination, if there was any it was because long held beliefs that qweers were unholy.

why do muslimes kill qweers ?

 

[Siete]

With a Muslim as President, there is no line.

gee, that's mighty Christian of you.

 

[emilynghiem]

There already is a line, it's called the separation clause, keep your faith in your homes and churches and out of the lives of those who don't want pious hypocrites making secular law.

^ BINGO occupied ^
Don't forget this includes keeping your SECULAR beliefs and biases out of public policy.
Just because your beliefs are secular does NOT give you "special rights" to IMPOSE your beliefs while others with religious beliefs are not protected from that. That's discrimination by creed to make YOUR beliefs "establishable by govt" but not so with other beliefs.

Why are YOUR beliefs sanctioned by govt over the beliefs of others?
Especially if you oppose Christians doing that with THEIR beliefs. ???

The issue of whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice or not a choice is FAITH BASED. So laws cannot be forced either way.

Where people's beliefs are involved, we have the right to consent.
And if we don't agree, we need to separate and keep it private.

When Catholics and Baptists don't agree on marriage, they split into congregations with two different policies;
They don't sue each other and force GOVT to impose ONE WAY on both churches!

Marriage is a personal and spiritual decision.
Since when does GOVT make decisions for people about what their spiritual beliefs are?
Sorry, but this was bound to blow up someday; marriage was always crossing the line between church and state.
And it took the gay issue to expose that marriage was only endorsed by the state because people agreed on policy.
And the minute they don't agree, then it has to be removed from the state to prevent imposing one belief or another.

As for businesses and discrimination,
just have clients sign forms agreeing to mediate and resolve disputes by consensus.
Or don't do business at all, if people's values are not reconcilable.
That's not passing judgment to say both sides are not compatible with each other.
So that would save legal actions and costs to both sides equally, without discrimination.
It is just identifying whether there would be conflicts that can be resolved or not.
And save both people the trouble, and loss of time, income and money on lawsuits.

So signing mediation waivers would protect the interests of BOTH sides equally from infringement.

 

[Mr. H.]

With a Muslim as President, there is no line.

gee, that's mighty Christian of you.

It is? What's Christianity have to do with with my statement? Or Obama for that matter?

Here, let me jog your memory...

 

[TemplarKormac]

I also noticed something else just now.

Gays and Liberals are too concerned over how Christians "use their faith to discriminate" but do nothing about Muslim nations who have laws which do more than discriminate, they imprison homosexuals, or in some cases allow for them to be executed. So fervent is their defense that they also forget that Christians are being killed and persecuted just the same. Homosexuals and Christians all have rights in America, they have none in the Middle East.

So why does one group deserve more reverence than the other?

To the liberals and gays:

Instead of getting angry at a Christian for stating his beliefs, get angry at people who would rather kill you than tolerate you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As far as here in the U.S., why do Christians deserve special treatment?

Why does anyone deserve special treatment?

Nobody should be forced to associate with anybody when it comes to their own property for any reason if they choose not to.

I agree to a point. If the service you provide won't cause a conflict with your faith, you have no grounds to discriminate.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt the people arguing for "religious freedom" are willing to take their idea to its logical conclusion. You want to save Christians in the Middle East, but I object to my tax dollars being spent on such a policy because it goes against my religion.

Then those who believe in being one body in Christ are truly alone. And what religion tells you to leave the helpless to their fate?

Ousting Saddam is the reason Christians have been targeted in that country.

You have no proof to back that claim.

Who says you have no grounds to discriminate if the service you provide won't cause a conflict with your faith? Who are you or I to say what others should or shouldn't do with their property? We're free to disagree with their decisions, and condemn, mock, and refuse to do business with them, but not to force them to use their property in a way we see fit.

Tolstoy, for example, was a Christian pacifist, meaning that any violence, even defensive violence, which the policy you're calling for would not be since it would be offensive, would be against his religion. Would you permit him to opt out of paying taxes for your expensive boondoggle?

No proof? Look at every U.S. intervention in the Middle East and tell me if they're better or worse after. Iraq and Libya are probably the two best examples. You remove admittedly terrible dictators, but in the vacuum you get genocide and civil war. Tell me, were Christians better off under Saddam, or ISIS?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“...there are Christians being forced to act against their conscience here in America...”

This is a lie and wrong, and fails as a false comparison fallacy.

It's utter demagoguery to compare what is happening to Christians in the Middle East and Africa to just, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws in the United States that in no way 'force' Christians to “to act against their conscience.”

This is the sort of ignorance of the Constitution, propensity to lie, and contempt for the truth common to most conservative Christians.

Christians in the United States need to end this 'victimhood' nonsense, as their religious liberty is in no way being 'violated' or 'threatened.'