(April 8, 2016 at 8:41 am)Drich Wrote:(April 6, 2016 at 11:52 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: No, they want to stop religious people behaving in a way that is not considered correct for the society now. For example if my religious belief is that I should cut the still beating heart of a human and display the corpse the state be able stop to that. If you agree then you are restricting the religious rights of an Aztec priest, shame on you.
Why did you jump to aztec preists? we are not discussing the azetec preists we are discussing one specific Christian Church. prohibitive or exclusionary practices are apart of ALL Clubs or in this case Churches. One Can't be a mormon and a catholic at the same time. just like in some churches you can not be a unrepentant 'sinner' and a member. To some legalistic 'christians' inter mixing races is a sin. So then the question becomes shall congress pass laws defining what is and is not sin for the church?
Yo, Jackass...listen very closely:
No one cares what you or any church considers a "sin". You're free to wear plants on your heads and walk around singing "Ali Baba" for a minimum of three hours a day, if that's what your cult requires.
What you are NOT free to do is to tell other people that they must live according to your practices, to pressure others to do so via legislation or other powers of government (including the use of my tax dollars), or attempt in any other way to make the lives of others harder because of the practice of your religion.
While the government may not tell the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian (aka the official church of the Ku Klux Klan) that they must conduct interracial wedding ceremonies in that church, they may certainly prohibit members of that church from using their businesses or other public services to harm those who do. What they do in the privacy of their homes or sanctuaries is none of our public business.
This issue was pretty-well settled after they forced the South to stop keeping people of color from being served in restaurants, etc. It appalls me that it's now returning (though generally not over the race issue but over new "sins" Christians have decided to get hot-and-bothered about) to attack those who simply wish to assert the same rights as everyone else already enjoys, under the guise of "Religious Freedom". Horseshit.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
