Why should atheists give a shit about theists?

[koshergrl]

Let me give you a clue. So do atheists.

Really? Name a single law that demands that theists behave as if they are atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

the law that was used to force a Christian bakery out of business and threatened the owners with prison for declining to create a cake slated to be used to mock the Christian sacrament of marriage.

On sorry. Could you reference that case for me. I know of no Baker who was threatened with prison for not baking a cake. As for the lawsuit, it is your contention that bigotry is a religious ideal? Really?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're a liar, you know exactly what I'm talking about...and you are pushing a false narrative, trying to force me to argue to points never made, and which do not follow.

For that you get the ignore button.

Court Rules Baker Can’t Refuse to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple

The only liar here is you. The case you referred to with your link was a civil case, not a criminal one. No prison sentence was ever threatened. Thanks for putting me on ignore. That means I wont have to muddle through any more of your irrational, untrue rants. I always appreciate it when fuckwits remove themselves from my discussions, and save me the trouble.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Liar, and the only person ranting is..

you. Anti-Christian, pro-fag, incoherent raving.

Be off before somebody drops a house on you.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? Name a single law that demands that theists behave as if they are atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

the law that was used to force a Christian bakery out of business and threatened the owners with prison for declining to create a cake slated to be used to mock the Christian sacrament of marriage.

On sorry. Could you reference that case for me. I know of no Baker who was threatened with prison for not baking a cake. As for the lawsuit, it is your contention that bigotry is a religious ideal? Really?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're a liar, you know exactly what I'm talking about...and you are pushing a false narrative, trying to force me to argue to points never made, and which do not follow.

For that you get the ignore button.

Court Rules Baker Can’t Refuse to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple

The only liar here is you. The case you referred to with your link was a civil case, not a criminal one. No prison sentence was ever threatened. Thanks for putting me on ignore. That means I wont have to muddle through any more of your irrational, untrue rants. I always appreciate it when fuckwits remove themselves from my discussions, and save me the trouble.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Liar, and the only person ranting is..

you. Anti-Christian, pro-fag, incoherent raving.

Be off before somebody drops a house on you.

LOL! My do pray to your God with that mouth? As someone got their feelings hurt when their lies were exposed.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Brynmr]

It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position

The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.

Why do atheists think their viewpoint is the only one that matters? I'm an agnostic but I have to say the only time I get into an argument with a religious nutter is with a militant atheist. You guys are truly obnoxious. Why don't we try this. You respect the religious viewpoint of others. Acknowledge that it is every bit as valid as your own viewpoint, and leave it at that? Why must you impose your world view on others?

I don't know if this is an answer but I'll put it out here anyway.

Before I became a Buddhist, I saw Christianity as an annoyance or even a threat. It always appeared to be forcing itself on me through my relationship with Christian family members, Christian friends and things like crosses placed on public lands. Now that I have my own ideas/faith, unhampered by doubts, nothing Christians do or say bothers me. In fact I have gained a new found respect for Christianity and other faiths (except Islam of course).

It could be these militant Atheists suffer from a similar insecurity. Why else protest over-much.

 

[Spare_change]

It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position

The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.

Why do atheists think their viewpoint is the only one that matters? I'm an agnostic but I have to say the only time I get into an argument with a religious nutter is with a militant atheist. You guys are truly obnoxious. Why don't we try this. You respect the religious viewpoint of others. Acknowledge that it is every bit as valid as your own viewpoint, and leave it at that? Why must you impose your world view on others?

I don't know if this is an answer but I'll put it out here anyway.

Before I became a Buddhist, I saw Christianity as an annoyance or even a threat. It always appeared to be forcing itself on me through my relationship with Christian family members, Christian friends and things like crosses placed on public lands. Now that I have my own ideas/faith, unhampered by doubts, nothing Christians do or say bothers me. In fact I have gained a new found respect for Christianity and other faiths (except Islam of course).

It could be these militant Atheists suffer from a similar insecurity. Why else protest over-much.

Then, I'm sure you recognize the serenity and peace that true Christian believers have, as well. You understand why the rantings of the atheistic nonentities fails to leave a mark.

Bless you.

 

[Brynmr]

Then, I'm sure you recognize the serenity and peace that true Christian believers have, as well. You understand why the rantings of the atheistic nonentities fails to leave a mark.

Bless you.

Absolutely!

 

[Czernobog]

And how do you think those behaviours are dictated? I said it right in the OP: "...through enforced laws...".

I am trying to marginalise those who have a different belief system than me in their use of the political process, if their use of that process is to use the government to enact laws based on their belief system. I do not deny that. In fact, in order to protect the First Amendment, the Constitution demands that I do that.

Th law against theft dictates peoples behavior.


Some people support that law based on their religious beliefs.

Some people support that law based on other reasons, such as a personal belief in fairness.


Your belief that you are required to oppose those who have a different belief system than you, is just you rationalizing your discrimination.

A sophomoric argument. Laws protecting us from each other are not faith-based. Simply because a law happens to coincide with a religious belief, does not make it "faith-based" There are excellent arguments that can be made, regarding the protection of ourselves from each other for nearly all secular laws that happen to coincide with religious beliefs: theft, murder, assault, etc.

Tell me, how are you protecting "Bob", by demanding that I not be allowed to visit my favourite whore? How are you protecting "John" by demanding that I not be allowed to buy a bottle of bourbon on Sunday? How are you protecting "Mark" by dictating that I not be allowed to go to a local casino, and play Blackjack tonight?

See? That is the difference between secular laws that protect you from me that just happen to align with religious morality, and laws that are just designed to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with some faith-based moral code.

It's very simple:

If you think that abortion is "wrong", don't have one.
If you think that gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex.
If you think prostitution is immoral, don't pay for one.
If you think that gambling is a sin, don't go to one.

However, if you think you have the self-righteous right to use the government to dictate that I am not allowed to participate in any of these activities, just because you think they are "wrong", then please do feel free to fuck off!

Perhaps you can give us a US law that you think is theologically based. You know, just one ...

I listed several.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, actually you didn't ... you listed several that, with your altered atheistic distortion, you PERCEIVE to be theologically based. In reality, each of those you listed are societal driven, not theologically based.

Your confusion is understandable, but seriously misguided. Most laws were written when the church was the dominant social organism, and, as such, the law was perceived to be theologically based, and were, in fact, mandated thru the church. However, those laws dictated societal convention. Based on your skewed viewpoint, I can understand how you might make such an elementary mistake.

So, let me ask again - can you give us a US law that is theologically based?

(PS. I've been waiting for this opportunity. I've got 2 hours )

You are just playing semantics. "These were laws that were enacted by society. Please ignore the fact that the primary driving force of the society was the Christian Church, and that, in fact, the Christian Church dictated that society pass those laws."

That makes them religiously motivated laws. The fact is that if we were a nation run, as the Constitution attempted to encourage, by a secular, non-religious influence, none of those laws would have existed, because one who is not religious gives a shit what people do with their own money, in their own personal lives.

 

[BreezeWood]

Really? Name a single law that demands that theists behave as if they are atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

the law that was used to force a Christian bakery out of business and threatened the owners with prison for declining to create a cake slated to be used to mock the Christian sacrament of marriage.

On sorry. Could you reference that case for me. I know of no Baker who was threatened with prison for not baking a cake. As for the lawsuit, it is your contention that bigotry is a religious ideal? Really?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're a liar, you know exactly what I'm talking about...and you are pushing a false narrative, trying to force me to argue to points never made, and which do not follow.

For that you get the ignore button.

Court Rules Baker Can’t Refuse to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple

The only liar here is you. The case you referred to with your link was a civil case, not a criminal one. No prison sentence was ever threatened. Thanks for putting me on ignore. That means I wont have to muddle through any more of your irrational, untrue rants. I always appreciate it when fuckwits remove themselves from my discussions, and save me the trouble.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Liar, and the only person ranting is..

you. Anti-Christian, pro-fag, incoherent raving.

Be off before somebody drops a house on you.

.

Be off before somebody drops a house on you.

how quaint for a religious fanatic ...

.

 

[koshergrl]

the law that was used to force a Christian bakery out of business and threatened the owners with prison for declining to create a cake slated to be used to mock the Christian sacrament of marriage.

On sorry. Could you reference that case for me. I know of no Baker who was threatened with prison for not baking a cake. As for the lawsuit, it is your contention that bigotry is a religious ideal? Really?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're a liar, you know exactly what I'm talking about...and you are pushing a false narrative, trying to force me to argue to points never made, and which do not follow.

For that you get the ignore button.

Court Rules Baker Can’t Refuse to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple

The only liar here is you. The case you referred to with your link was a civil case, not a criminal one. No prison sentence was ever threatened. Thanks for putting me on ignore. That means I wont have to muddle through any more of your irrational, untrue rants. I always appreciate it when fuckwits remove themselves from my discussions, and save me the trouble.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Liar, and the only person ranting is..

you. Anti-Christian, pro-fag, incoherent raving.

Be off before somebody drops a house on you.

.

Be off before somebody drops a house on you.

how quaint for a religious fanatic ...

.

How am I religious fanatic?

Please cite where I exhorted my faith upon you?

 

[koshergrl]

See, that's what the hysterical lunatic anti-Christian bigots do. They took this page from the Nazis and the commies.
They start with: "fanatic! In the past this religious group did xxxx to people! Identify and ostracize them! Evict them! Do not allow them to hold positions of power or to own businesses!"

When the Nazis did it, they told everybody that Jews were cultists, who engaged in weird rituals, who were responsible for the death of Christ and thus scary and untrustworthy. They changed laws to make it illegal for them to engage in politics, to teach, to own property or conduct business.

Then they rounded them up and killed them.

Commies did the same thing, only to Christians and Buddhists.

 

[Spare_change]

Th law against theft dictates peoples behavior.


Some people support that law based on their religious beliefs.

Some people support that law based on other reasons, such as a personal belief in fairness.


Your belief that you are required to oppose those who have a different belief system than you, is just you rationalizing your discrimination.

A sophomoric argument. Laws protecting us from each other are not faith-based. Simply because a law happens to coincide with a religious belief, does not make it "faith-based" There are excellent arguments that can be made, regarding the protection of ourselves from each other for nearly all secular laws that happen to coincide with religious beliefs: theft, murder, assault, etc.

Tell me, how are you protecting "Bob", by demanding that I not be allowed to visit my favourite whore? How are you protecting "John" by demanding that I not be allowed to buy a bottle of bourbon on Sunday? How are you protecting "Mark" by dictating that I not be allowed to go to a local casino, and play Blackjack tonight?

See? That is the difference between secular laws that protect you from me that just happen to align with religious morality, and laws that are just designed to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with some faith-based moral code.

It's very simple:

If you think that abortion is "wrong", don't have one.
If you think that gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex.
If you think prostitution is immoral, don't pay for one.
If you think that gambling is a sin, don't go to one.

However, if you think you have the self-righteous right to use the government to dictate that I am not allowed to participate in any of these activities, just because you think they are "wrong", then please do feel free to fuck off!

Perhaps you can give us a US law that you think is theologically based. You know, just one ...

I listed several.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, actually you didn't ... you listed several that, with your altered atheistic distortion, you PERCEIVE to be theologically based. In reality, each of those you listed are societal driven, not theologically based.

Your confusion is understandable, but seriously misguided. Most laws were written when the church was the dominant social organism, and, as such, the law was perceived to be theologically based, and were, in fact, mandated thru the church. However, those laws dictated societal convention. Based on your skewed viewpoint, I can understand how you might make such an elementary mistake.

So, let me ask again - can you give us a US law that is theologically based?

(PS. I've been waiting for this opportunity. I've got 2 hours )

You are just playing semantics. "These were laws that were enacted by society. Please ignore the fact that the primary driving force of the society was the Christian Church, and that, in fact, the Christian Church dictated that society pass those laws."

That makes them religiously motivated laws. The fact is that if we were a nation run, as the Constitution attempted to encourage, by a secular, non-religious influence, none of those laws would have existed, because one who is not religious gives a shit what people do with their own money, in their own personal lives.

No, it is you who chooses to twist the words.

I'll give you your own example. You spoke of gambling as a sin. You claimed that laws against were theologically driven.

Funny thing ... the bible says nothing about gambling. It does talk about an overriding love for money, but it never mentions gambling.

In early society, gambling was an issue. People would gamble away all their money, and then starve, kids would suffer, bills wouldn't be paid, etc. etc. Obviously, today, we have all kinds of social nets to protect people from the consequences of their actions, but not back then.

So, the church, being the only social conscience available (kings and queens didn't give a damn about people dying of starvation), passed a rule against gambling. They are, of course, allowed to do that. It only applies to the members of the church, so all the atheists were unaffected.

When the laws of this country were written, the dangers of gambling were noted, and the authors passed laws against gambling. You cannot assign that law to the church, since they didn't write the laws. You can only assign it to the good sense of the legislators who acknowledged the deleterious effect on society, and legislated against it.

But, you know, if you are afraid of squirrels, you will see a squirrel behind every tree.

 

[Czernobog]

A sophomoric argument. Laws protecting us from each other are not faith-based. Simply because a law happens to coincide with a religious belief, does not make it "faith-based" There are excellent arguments that can be made, regarding the protection of ourselves from each other for nearly all secular laws that happen to coincide with religious beliefs: theft, murder, assault, etc.

Tell me, how are you protecting "Bob", by demanding that I not be allowed to visit my favourite whore? How are you protecting "John" by demanding that I not be allowed to buy a bottle of bourbon on Sunday? How are you protecting "Mark" by dictating that I not be allowed to go to a local casino, and play Blackjack tonight?

See? That is the difference between secular laws that protect you from me that just happen to align with religious morality, and laws that are just designed to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with some faith-based moral code.

It's very simple:

If you think that abortion is "wrong", don't have one.
If you think that gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex.
If you think prostitution is immoral, don't pay for one.
If you think that gambling is a sin, don't go to one.

However, if you think you have the self-righteous right to use the government to dictate that I am not allowed to participate in any of these activities, just because you think they are "wrong", then please do feel free to fuck off!

Perhaps you can give us a US law that you think is theologically based. You know, just one ...

I listed several.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, actually you didn't ... you listed several that, with your altered atheistic distortion, you PERCEIVE to be theologically based. In reality, each of those you listed are societal driven, not theologically based.

Your confusion is understandable, but seriously misguided. Most laws were written when the church was the dominant social organism, and, as such, the law was perceived to be theologically based, and were, in fact, mandated thru the church. However, those laws dictated societal convention. Based on your skewed viewpoint, I can understand how you might make such an elementary mistake.

So, let me ask again - can you give us a US law that is theologically based?

(PS. I've been waiting for this opportunity. I've got 2 hours )

You are just playing semantics. "These were laws that were enacted by society. Please ignore the fact that the primary driving force of the society was the Christian Church, and that, in fact, the Christian Church dictated that society pass those laws."

That makes them religiously motivated laws. The fact is that if we were a nation run, as the Constitution attempted to encourage, by a secular, non-religious influence, none of those laws would have existed, because one who is not religious gives a shit what people do with their own money, in their own personal lives.

No, it is you who chooses to twist the words.

I'll give you your own example. You spoke of gambling as a sin. You claimed that laws against were theologically driven.

Funny thing ... the bible says nothing about gambling. It does talk about an overriding love for money, but it never mentions gambling.

In early society, gambling was an issue. People would gamble away all their money, and then starve, kids would suffer, bills wouldn't be paid, etc. etc. Obviously, today, we have all kinds of social nets to protect people from the consequences of their actions, but not back then.

So, the church, being the only social conscience available (kings and queens didn't give a damn about people dying of starvation), passed a rule against gambling. They are, of course, allowed to do that. It only applies to the members of the church, so all the atheists were unaffected.

When the laws of this country were written, the dangers of gambling were noted, and the authors passed laws against gambling. You cannot assign that law to the church, since they didn't write the laws. You can only assign it to the good sense of the legislators who acknowledged the deleterious effect on society, and legislated against it.

But, you know, if you are afraid of squirrels, you will see a squirrel behind every tree.

You're kidding, right?!?! If the church did not directly write the laws, then religion is not responsible?!?! That's really your argument? That's an adorably strict interpretation of legal, and governmental influence that allows you zealots to attempt to impose as much influence as you can on legislation, while, simultaneously maintaining to any secular opponents, "Hey! The church didn't write the law, so you can't call it religiously influenced legislation!!!"

Except you're full of shit, and we both know it.

But, that's okay. Demographics continue to indicate that theism is on the decline, so, soon enough you religious fanatics won't have any political influence left. Then we really will start seeing laws that are not designed with a religious agenda in mind. I personally can't wait, and hope I'm still around to see it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position

The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.

It doesn't look like this is turning out as you expected.

 

[Correll]

You are attempting to marginalize their moral and ethical beliefs, because they are religious based, while maintaining the right to interject YOURS into law.

You are engaging in discrimination.

Care to offer any examples of atheists attempting to dictate individual behaviour?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your complaint about was not limited to laws or policies "dictating individual behavior".

You can discuss it as a generality or use specific examples.

YOU are the one who is looking to marginalize those who are different than you, and to cast aspersions on their involvement in the political process because their belief system is different than yours.


If someone supports laws against theft based on religious grounds, is that less valid than the godless heathen standing next to him that is opposed to theft on the grounds of fairness?

And how do you think those behaviours are dictated? I said it right in the OP: "...through enforced laws...".

I am trying to marginalise those who have a different belief system than me in their use of the political process, if their use of that process is to use the government to enact laws based on their belief system. I do not deny that. In fact, in order to protect the First Amendment, the Constitution demands that I do that.

Th law against theft dictates peoples behavior.


Some people support that law based on their religious beliefs.

Some people support that law based on other reasons, such as a personal belief in fairness.


Your belief that you are required to oppose those who have a different belief system than you, is just you rationalizing your discrimination.

A sophomoric argument. Laws protecting us from each other are not faith-based.

As I pointed out, laws protecting us from others very much DO get support from some people based on their religious based belief system.

Indeed as the vast majority of this nation is religious, and was even more so in the past, most laws presumably get the majority of their support from such people.

Thus should "most laws" thus be struck down as "faith based"?

By your logic, yes. By mine, no.

Simply because a law happens to coincide with a religious belief, does not make it "faith-based" There are excellent arguments that can be made, regarding the protection of ourselves from each other for nearly all secular laws that happen to coincide with religious beliefs: theft, murder, assault, etc.

If the reason for the support from the majority of supporters is their personal religious beliefs, then if that is not "faith based" then nothing short of directly linking laws to religious tracts is.

Tell me, how are you protecting "Bob", by demanding that I not be allowed to visit my favourite whore? How are you protecting "John" by demanding that I not be allowed to buy a bottle of bourbon on Sunday? How are you protecting "Mark" by dictating that I not be allowed to go to a local casino, and play Blackjack tonight?

See? That is the difference between secular laws that protect you from me that just happen to align with religious morality, and laws that are just designed to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with some faith-based moral code.

It's very simple:

If you think that abortion is "wrong", don't have one.
If you think that gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex.
If you think prostitution is immoral, don't pay for one.
If you think that gambling is a sin, don't go to one.

You are using YOUR belief system and projecting it and then judging people based on their actions seen though YOUR lens.

In YOUR belief system, the woman is the only person affected by abortion. And you phrase the question that way. Begging the question logical fallacy, btw.

BUT in another persons's belief system there is an innocent child being killed. What makes your belief system valid and their's not?

However, if you think you have the self-righteous right to use the government to dictate that I am not allowed to participate in any of these activities, just because you think they are "wrong", then please do feel free to fuck off!

Actually, with you sitting there passing judgement on other people's right to engage in the political process, and getting insulting when your right to pass such judgement is challenged,

you are the self righteous one here.


Further more, you lefties are just as likely to push laws to dictate behavior as Christians, based on your secular belief systems, such as your Greenness..

 

[Correll]

You are attempting to marginalize their moral and ethical beliefs, because they are religious based, while maintaining the right to interject YOURS into law.

You are engaging in discrimination.

Care to offer any examples of atheists attempting to dictate individual behaviour?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your complaint about was not limited to laws or policies "dictating individual behavior".

You can discuss it as a generality or use specific examples.

YOU are the one who is looking to marginalize those who are different than you, and to cast aspersions on their involvement in the political process because their belief system is different than yours.


If someone supports laws against theft based on religious grounds, is that less valid than the godless heathen standing next to him that is opposed to theft on the grounds of fairness?

And how do you think those behaviours are dictated? I said it right in the OP: "...through enforced laws...".

I am trying to marginalise those who have a different belief system than me in their use of the political process, if their use of that process is to use the government to enact laws based on their belief system. I do not deny that. In fact, in order to protect the First Amendment, the Constitution demands that I do that.

Th law against theft dictates peoples behavior.

Inaccurate. I did not say that my issue was with dictating behaviour. I said my issue is with dictating behaviour that does no harm to others based on theistic moral preferences. Laws against theft protect me from you.

WHat about laws regarding behavior that does not harm to others based on secular reasons? Are those ok? By your focus, it seems you are fine with that.


There is no rule stating that laws are only valid if they are protecting people.

Some people support that law based on their religious beliefs.

Some people support that law based on other reasons, such as a personal belief in fairness.

Again, you seem to conflate a secular law designed to protect people from harm that happens to align with religious morality and laws that only dictate personal behaviour based on one group's personal religious morality.[/QUOTE]


No, you are drawing artificial lines based on whether you agree with a group's morality.

Those who support laws based on religious inspired morality, have just as much right to have their voices heard as those who base their support for laws on the morality that Hollywood teaches them.

Your belief that you are required to oppose those who have a different belief system than you, is just you rationalizing your discrimination.

That does seem to be the newest argument of the moralists - "Your need to oppose bigotry is bigotry, "

Sorry, I reject your bigoted deflection.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]



I'm not the one claiming that those I disagree with are wrong to even voice their opinions in the public square. That's you.

You are the intolerant one here, not me.

I have no problem with atheists or any American citizens, other than some felons, being allowed to vote according to their moral belief system.