Would They Die for a Lie?

[Angrboda]

 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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds like somebody's a masochist. Wish granted?

[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..

[Amarok]

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

So narcissism and solipsism then

---

as religion is a man made power structure.. yes. no different than any other man made power structure.

Which does not make it any less shit

[Drich]

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

So narcissism and solipsism then

---

as religion is a man made power structure.. yes. no different than any other man made power structure.

Which does not make it any less shit

So bad judge of human social interaction then? poor judge of word selection you say? like to state the obvious because you do not understand the greater point? by Amarok I think I've figured this one out!

[unsapien]

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. 


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.

---

The Clinton video has nothing to do with repealing the first amendment, she is in fact arguing that it, along with other laws should be enforced. The 1st amendment does not allow the government to enforce religious laws on people, it only allows you to follow your religious beliefs without interference from the government. She seems to be saying (it's only 37 seconds so...) that women shouldn't be forced to go without, or to do things against their will, like say not allowing them access to birth control, or abortion, or stuff like that. If you're a woman and you don't want an abortion, or don't want to use birth control nobody's forcing you to.


Secular "morality" isn't being forced on anyone, if you only want to allow men & women to get married in your church fine, don't want to make cakes for gay people, okay baking cakes are not an essential government service. But if your working for the government you follow the secular laws, or go find another job.

Your bit about people being inherently evil is disturbing and bizarre, especially from someone that just a few posts back admitted that following god has nothing to do with being good or evil.

[Pat Mustard]

Yup.  Money.  Power.  Sex.

Four.  You forgot Hate.

Amongst the many things that drive religion are money, power, sex, hate and a total devotion to the pope.

[unfogged]

Four.  You forgot Hate.

Amongst the many things that drive religion are money, power, sex, hate and a total devotion to the pope.

It might even be almost fanatical

[Gwaithmir]

Four.  You forgot Hate.

Amongst the many things that drive religion are money, power, sex, hate and a total devotion to the pope.

......and those nice red costumes.

[Rev. Rye]

Here's one example, albeit a bit more mundane: 



Yes, this famous actor killed himself because he ate the most poisonous part of a poisonous fish and he did this because he was convinced he was badass enough to survive the neurotoxic poison within, despite the fact that he should have known that it would kill him; a single fugu fish contains enough tetrodotoxin to kill 30 people, and, while he didn't eat a whole fugu, he did eat FOUR of the most toxic parts.

(And, for the record, it actually is possible to eat fugu and live to tell the tale, but it requires expert preparation, even in America, where the edible parts are sent frozen and cleansed of the toxin anyway. On the subject of the livers, while, it was illegal in Kyoto, where it happened, and it happened because the chef couldn't refuse a request from someone the Japanese government officially named a "Living National Treasure," astonishingly, THERE WERE NO NATION-WIDE LAWS PROHIBITING THIS SHIT UNTIL 1984.)

This looks like a pretty clear case of dying for a lie to me.