Would They Die for a Lie?

[Drich]

Of course it scares you. which is why Clinton as apart of her campaign was/is so willing to repeal the 1 amendment,and is bent on "changing deeply held religious views and ideas." What both of you are intentionally over looking is to what end we are charged/what our mission statement is as a member of the church. We are tasked to two ends. One love God with all of our being. and 2 to love our neighbor as our selves. If we follow these commands how then can we be a threat even if we are not bound to your morals? The only thing we seek is to have the freedom to not live the life you choose to live. why does that bother you so much?

What I think you fail to understand is that your "religious freedom" is a protection (basically a blasphemy law) that is afforded no other type of speech. "Economic" speech, "scientific" speech, "art" speech "engineering" speech, ad nauseum... they do not require special protection because they rise and fall on their own merit, in fact that is the way they grow and learn, and change, and add to our benefit as a society. 

And if it must be said, religions need more protection from each other then from secular society, they're like those bubble fight games...






 where religions seem to mutually agree not to poke any real holes at each other, lest they deflate all of their arguments at once.

EDIT: Also your comment about Clinton wanting to repeal the 1st amendment sounds like total BS on the face of it.

which is why I added the youtube video of Clinton demanding such change.

That said, you are completely wrong about protection of speech in a general sense as it is also apart of the first amendment. in that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the freeexercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

the fact of the matter speech in general is it is protected Because not everyone was inclined to hear what 'different people' have to say.whether it be about religion politics or science history or anything else you think is not protected speech. So your whole first paragraph is wrong. 

"Economic" speech, "scientific" speech, "art" speech "engineering" speech, ad nauseum... they do not require special protection because they rise and fall on their own merit, in fact that is the way they grow and learn, and change, and add to our benefit as a society. 

all of the above is also protected under the first amendment..

 However, it is not only speech that is protected but we are also free to believe as we damn well please without fear of people who demand we all think and believe the same things! It is because people are inherently evil that the law extends protection from the fascist conformity modern "morality" demands of it's people.

(meaning you with your 'moral demand of conformity' is the monster within society that the bill of rights is to protect "good" people from.

---

 So here's the thing sport..  the command is to treat people how I want them to treat me. 

Nobody is obligated to do anything of the sort.

keep reading there smokie..