What about freedom FROM religion?

Frank Apisa said:
Interesting op ed piece about freedom FROM religion in the Washington Post this morning. I recommend it, although it may be behind a paywall.

It is by Kate Cohen and is titled, “Why are we so tolerant of churchy bigotry?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/06/religious-bigotry-lgbtq-homophobia/

Here’s a taste of it:

Are we just so accustomed to the anti-LGBTQ stances of conservative religious institutions that they don’t even register? Are we so used to church-sponsored homophobia that we ignore the vast, forbidding landscape of prejudice while celebrating the tiniest signs of change?

It made the news, for example, when Pope Francis told the Associated Press recently that homosexuality should not be criminalized, as it is in 67 countries, and urged bishops around the world to recognize everyone’s dignity. Amen.

He noted, however, that homosexuality is still a sin. The Catholic Church will keep calling it a sin, and urging sinners to repent, and it will keep refusing to recognize same-sex marriage or to condone adoption by same-sex parents, but in a way that also totally recognizes their dignity!

(Not for nothing: Where does the pope think those countries first got the idea that homosexuality should be a crime?)

(snip)

The Episcopal Church, for example, now officially sanctions same-sex marriage. And the Albany diocese — well, it’s working on it. A statement on the Episcopal Church website notes: “As with all spiritual journeys, everyone walks at their own pace. Some Episcopal congregations are actively involved in LGBTQ ministry and their arms are open wide; others are more reserved, but their doors are still open to all; some are still wrestling with their beliefs and feelings.”


(snip)

Now, let’s pretend that instead of talking about LGBTQ people, the church was talking about congregations “wrestling with their beliefs and feelings” about Black people. Would our spirit of patient forbearance extend to that?

Not too long ago, many American Christian institutions defended slavery, pointing to Bible verses such as Ephesians 6:5: “Slaves, obey your masters.” They then battled integration and interracial marriage, arguing that God meant for the races to be separated. Bob Jones University, from which the founders of Pensacola Christian College graduated, prohibited interracial dating until 2000.

Homophobic policies are no different — except in that, apparently, people are still more accepting of them.

One day, maybe, the Catholic Church and the Church of England will treat its LGBTQ congregants as equals. Maybe even Pensacola Christian College will evolve. In the meantime, let’s not be fooled by the “religious belief” talk: It’s just old-fashioned bigotry.
Click to expand...

DERP

7hnvwn.jpg
 
Flash said:
The many people who are quite religious do not want to be free from religion. The government cannot prohibit people from being religious because they have the constitutional right to practice their religion.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself. Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
 
Guille said:
I'm all for freedom from religion. But, let's define religion. Is climate cultism a religion? What about lgbtqeieio? Is that a religion?
Click to expand...

They are both religions. Both are based on some initial circular argument, and both have arguments extending from that circular argument; a good definition of 'religion'. The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith.

Both of these are not only religions, they are fundamentalist in nature. In other words, believers try to 'prove' their religion is True, which is not possible.

Respectively, I refer to these two religions as the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Perversion.
 
Flash said:
Why does it matter if something is a religion or not? If it is not a religion can we force people to be involved in it?
Click to expand...

Since you intend on hijacking the thread to this subject and ignoring his question, and since I have already answered both of these questions, you are just being mindless. RQAA.
 
Into the Night said:
Every religion naturally disparages anyone that is not a believer of that particular religion. Some believers get violent about it, particularly fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

That is what causes the evil in the world. The rest of us can still be tolerant of differences.
 
Flash said:
A person's freedom of religion need not be based on some definition of religion. If a student has a religious objection to saying the pledge in school, he does not have to belong to any defined religion to be exempted (although it makes it easier).
Click to expand...
You need not hide behind religion for that! it really is very simple. If one does not wish to speak they don't have to.
I will say this though, those that do not want to pledge their allegiance to the flag and to the nation it represents tend to be Democrats, and tend to belong to the Church of No God.
The same Democrats that hate America and her greatness, the Constitution, and all State constitutions.
Flash said:
When it comes to various tax breaks the definition of religion becomes more important, but there is no constitutional right to be exempted from taxes for religious reasons.
Click to expand...
Religion isn't money or income, though some religions do have an income and money. Such is normally considered a charity by the IRS since much of the money collected by a religion is used to help the poor. As with any IRS rule, there are exceptions.

For example, money used for operations and for building and expanding is taxable.
 
saltydancin said:
So it's basically natural for Christiananality Mohammed pedophilia urinations summarily pronate against a Washington, D.C. born retired WW II staff sergeant to Eisenhower as being Islam with premeditated malice aforethought Freudian slip of SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July 9/11 diatribe supreme swastika up Uranus kangaroo court of federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement as thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists as "one nation under God with equal justice under law"....
Click to expand...

Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Learn English.
 
Flash said:
What was the contradiction?
Click to expand...

1) Being free from religion does not mean you can't be around religious people. It means the government cannot require you to engage in any religious activity or prohibit you from doing so.
2) The many people who are quite religious do not want to be free from religion. The government cannot prohibit people from being religious because they have the constitutional right to practice their religion.

Which is it, dude?
 
Flash said:
That is what causes the evil in the world. The rest of us can still be tolerant of differences.
Click to expand...

Who is 'the rest of us'? Are you trying to speak for many people again?
You only get to speak for yourself, dude.

You have also ALREADY disparaged others for religious reasons.
 
Into the Night said:
You need not hide behind religion for that! it really is very simple. If one does not wish to speak they don't have to.
I will say this though, those that do not want to pledge their allegiance to the flag and to the nation it represents tend to be Democrats, and tend to belong to the Church of No God.
The same Democrats that hate America and her greatness, the Constitution, and all State constitutions.
Click to expand...

Most who do not want to pledge their allegiance belong to religions that don't believe in worshipping anything above God. Very few of those people are Democrats. They are Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Amish. Only a Republican president refused to be loyal to his oath to uphold the Constitution.
 
Into the Night said:
1) Being free from religion does not mean you can't be around religious people. It means the government cannot require you to engage in any religious activity or prohibit you from doing so.
2) The many people who are quite religious do not want to be free from religion. The government cannot prohibit people from being religious because they have the constitutional right to practice their religion.

Which is it, dude?
Click to expand...

There is no contradiction. Read it carefully and think. Being around religious people does not mean you do not have freedom from religion. 1st amendment freedom of religion gives us freedom from governmental coercion.
 
Into the Night said:
Who is 'the rest of us'? Are you trying to speak for many people again?
You only get to speak for yourself, dude.

You have also ALREADY disparaged others for religious reasons.
Click to expand...

The rest of us refers to those who choose to be tolerant. I am speaking for nobody--just making a factual statement.
 
Into the Night said:
Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Learn English.
Click to expand...

Still little more than the daily ChristHitler bot sermon of that decades old "man is God" SCOTUS national religion of "one nation under God with equal justice under law" Christiananality Mohammed pedophilia Freudian slip baptize thine eyes by urinations of a Washington, D.C. born retired Pentagon Staff Sergeant to Eisenhower with malice aforethought of those burning "it's only a God damn piece of paper" thieving US Constitution arsonists 9/11 crusade-jihad.....
 
Flash said:
Most who do not want to pledge their allegiance belong to religions that don't believe in worshipping anything above God. Very few of those people are Democrats.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the Pledge of Allegiance places anything above God, liar.
It is the Church of No God that objects, which tends to be Democrats.
Flash said:
They are Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Amish. Only a Republican president refused to be loyal to his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Blatant lie.
 
Flash said:
The rest of us refers to those who choose to be tolerant. I am speaking for nobody--just making a factual statement.
Click to expand...

Paradox. Irrational. You can't speak for nobody and for 'the rest of us' at the same time.
You are now locked in two recent paradoxes.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Interesting op ed piece about freedom FROM religion in the Washington Post this morning. I recommend it, although it may be behind a paywall.
Click to expand...

That was nothing remotely connected to interesting. It was inane and absurd. Who is forcing anyone to pray? NO ONE. Who is demanding that you go to church? NO ONE. There is no "separation clause" in the Constitution. It's the "ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE".

What makes God hating leftists so afraid of someone who has religious beliefs? Is it because the Democratic ideology is built upon lies, fear and dependency?

Frank Apisa said:
It is by Kate Cohen and is titled, “Why are we so tolerant of churchy bigotry?”
Click to expand...

A better question would be "why is the left so intolerant of anything they do not agree with?" Kate Cohen is a moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top