What Does Religious Liberty Mean ?

[Ktoyou]

As Ktoyou summarized, it's pretty simple. Don't impose on anyone else.

Someone doing something that annoys you, does not amount to imposing on you, so long as they leave you alone.

Yes, it is that simple, Thanks

 

[annabenedetti]

A little too far removed. The essential statement was that sociological norms tend to be the same as family values.

What's a little too far removed from what?

I'm asking you whose family values make the norm? Yours?

Trump is your strong evidence. Christians were concerned that families were ignored while individuals nor really representing family values but their own desires were getting lawsuits passed for cakes. It was a fiasco for 8 years. On top of that? Obama said clearly "if you don't like it, beat us." That's plenty of support and documentation. TOL has a ton more. I don't really feel I need to substantiate what is already common discussion items about Obama's presidency.

Honestly, it appears to me that your first post to me was more of a stepping stone to offer ideas unrelated to either my quote you pulled initially or my followup questions asking you to clarify how your ideas were related to my comment - or to support your odd assertions about Obama, which was not at all what I'd been talking about prior. You just lazed your way through this, offering vague thoughts, platitudes, and baseless observations about Obama's "sociological education," to the point that I wonder why you responded to me at all.

 

[quip]

Christians were concerned that families were ignored while individuals nor really representing family values but their own desires were getting lawsuits passed for cakes.

:idunno:
Is there some Lon-inspired correlation hidden in this ....or are you just blindly throwing darts?

 

[Lon]

What's a little too far removed from what?

I'm asking you whose family values make the norm? Yours?





Honestly, it appears to me that your first post to me was more of a stepping stone to offer ideas unrelated to either my quote you pulled initially or my followup questions asking you to clarify how your ideas were related to my comment - or to support your odd assertions about Obama, which was not at all what I'd been talking about prior. You just lazed your way through this, offering vague thoughts, platitudes, and baseless observations about Obama's "sociological education," to the point that I wonder why you responded to me at all.

Again, baseless is in the eye of the beholder. It became a point of view preference by those tokens. Those who didn't like Obama, didn't like him for exactly the reasons I gave. Those who did, like you, didn't see those same things as a problem. It is an eye of the beholder kind of thing.

As far as the points, you seem to be getting lost in examples instead of following what I'd initially said. I said that you seem to think more psychologically ( in essence) than sociologically when it comes to this OP. It IS a problem of the youngest generation. If there was anything for you specifically, it was that I think you get caught up in the interests of the kids and these political newscasters and liberals, who think the kids are right. They are not. This is more of that polarization happening. Someone who is socially conscious doesn't look, just to their own interests. 70% of the nation is Christian. 30% do not like it, but those are the very ones who are NOT socially appreciative or conscious. It looks every bit egocentric and entitled to me. It isn't that I don't want to look out for each and every minority interest group after that, it is more that Sociologically, they have to have smaller capitulations than they would like. Bowing to the lowest common denominator often is harmful to the larger group. It is DEFINITELY true theses days. We were a Nation of about 95% Christians prior. What changed? Minority egocentrism. THAT is why this nation is polarized.

:idunno:
Is there some Lon-inspired correlation hidden in this ....or are you just blindly throwing darts?

Again, I 'can' substantiate this, but does it even 'need' it? Does it really, genuinely, catch you unaware?

 

[annabenedetti]

Again, baseless is in the eye of the beholder. It became a point of view preference by those tokens. Those who didn't like Obama, didn't like him for exactly the reasons I gave. Those who did, like you, didn't see those same things as a problem. It is an eye of the beholder kind of thing.

You began by quoting this:

No, it allows all freedoms that don't impinge on the rights of others, and that don't break established law.

Not going to continue the Obama discussion you embarked on since it had nothing to do with the original quote you pulled.

I'll ask this once more though:

Whose family values are the norm? Yours?

I'm guessing it comes down to your expectation that society's norms are best if matching your norms - and being aware they often don't - which is exactly why we have freedom of religion and the establishment clause.

 

[quip]

Christians were concerned that families were ignored while individuals nor really representing family values but their own desires were getting lawsuits passed for cakes.

Again, I 'can' substantiate this, but does it even 'need' it? Does it really, genuinely, catch you unaware?

Well, I suppose Lon that depends on your selective take on family. If you'd bother to substitute 'cakes' with 'sitting at the front of the bus'....the only thing you may biasly substantiate is your status as a self-serving crank.

 

[Lon]

You began by quoting this:



Not going to continue the Obama discussion you embarked on since it had nothing to do with the original quote you pulled.

Exactly. You got lost in details. Can I take some of the credit? Sure, but they were 'examples' off. We all can get lost in details.

I'll ask this once more though:

Whose family values are the norm? Yours?

It is exactly the wrong kind of question, Anna. You have developed an 'us/them' mentality. To ask 'yours (singular) is not then a 'family or societal' representation. When I mean 'family' values, I mean those values generally espoused by all of society. Even a dead-beat father knows he was suppose to love his wife and take care of his kids. He may not be living according to those values, but he knows them and yes, they are indeed of value to him as well, if only in sentiment. He knows the 'good he ought to do.' If you want to make such an issue of polarization, then no, you aren't doing the right kind of asking. Sociological interests are interested in the values in common with most, if not all, of the rest of society. Even a serial killer knows he is not supposed to be doing that. He knows what are true societal values, even if he doesn't live by them. So no, Anna, not 'my' family values alone.

I'm guessing it comes down to your expectation that society's norms are best if matching your norms - and being aware they often don't - which is exactly why we have freedom of religion and the establishment clause.

Again, this is the difference between the self-interested younger generation and myself. It chagrins me that someone your age falls to victim-hood and self-interest. Sociologically conscious, responsible adult citizens aren't just looking to themselves. Philippians 2:4

 

[annabenedetti]

Exactly. You got lost in details. Can I take some of the credit? Sure, but they were 'examples' off. We all can get lost in details.

It is exactly the wrong kind of question, Anna. You have developed an 'us/them' mentality. To ask 'yours (singular) is not then a 'family or societal' representation. When I mean 'family' values, I mean those values generally espoused by all of society. Even a dead-beat father knows he was suppose to love his wife and take care of his kids. He may not be living according to those values, but he knows them and yes, they are indeed of value to him as well, if only in sentiment. He knows the 'good he ought to do.' If you want to make such an issue of polarization, then no, you aren't doing the right kind of asking. Sociological interests are interested in the values in common with most, if not all, of the rest of society. Even a serial killer knows he is not supposed to be doing that. He knows what are true societal values, even if he doesn't live by them. So no, Anna, not 'my' family values alone.


Again, this is the difference between the self-interested younger generation and myself. It chagrins me that someone your age falls to victim-hood and self-interest. Sociologically conscious, responsible adult citizens aren't just looking to themselves. Philippians 2:4

Never mind.

I'm gonna go wrap myself in a brick wall. It sounds so comfy right about now. :cloud9:

 

[quip]

It is exactly the wrong kind of question, Anna. You have developed an 'us/them' mentality. To ask 'yours (singular) is not then a 'family or societal' representation. When I mean 'family' values, I mean those values generally espoused by all of society. Even a dead-beat father knows he was suppose to love his wife and take care of his kids. He may not be living according to those values, but he knows them and yes, they are indeed of value to him as well, if only in sentiment. He knows the 'good he ought to do.' If you want to make such an issue of polarization, then no, you aren't doing the right kind of asking. Sociological interests are interested in the values in common with most, if not all, of the rest of society. Even a serial killer knows he is not supposed to be doing that. He knows what are true societal values, even if he doesn't live by them. So no, Anna, not 'my' family values alone.


Again, this is the difference between the self-interested younger generation and myself. It chagrins me that someone your age falls to victim-hood and self-interest. Sociologically conscious, responsible adult citizens aren't just looking to themselves. Philippians 2:4

Lon, you're a wonderful study in pure irony. What Anna (myself included) stands against is inequality. You have it backwards, It's you who is propogating partisanship. It's painfully obvious that your preconceived notion of "family values" excludes homosexuals, pitting homosexuality against what you consider as the norm (Embolden, no less, by your 70 percentile majority view.)

You stand for exclusion; we, for inclusion.
By a wide margin it's you who, by virtue of your position, must cater to the us/them distinction.

Think about it.

 

[ok doser]

What Anna (myself included) stands against is inequality.

GRAB YER CHAINSAWS BOYS!!!

 

[ok doser]

inequality is bad

I demand that the NBA recognize my self-identification as a muscular, coordinated 8 foot tall black man

and all those current NBA players who stand over 5'5" have their legs surgically shortened

 

[quip]

GRAB YER CHAINSAWS BOYS!!!

Good song but I prefer 'Closer to the Heart'. :idea:

Give it a try!

 

[Lon]

Lon, you're a wonderful study in pure irony.

No, that is just your perspective and the bent of your perspective. You do not often express values that are of a norm. That means, necessarily, that you embrace fringe values. Such AREN'T family values, Quip. They are just your own and the are often incredibly egocentric and frankly, at times selfish. That isn't 'irony' Quip. It is just out of touch with a bit of angst.

What Anna (myself included) stands against is inequality.

No, you don't. Equality is about percentages, not overt percentages. It means you get 'some' capitulations that do not overtly tax families about their needs ELSE you start tearing at the very fabric that makes societies. You 'were' a part of a family. Dysfunctional? I've no idea but at least by your words, you seem to have jettisoned a few.

You have it backwards, It's you who is propogating partisanship. It's painfully obvious that your preconceived notion of "family values" excludes homosexuals, pitting homosexuality against what you consider as the norm (Embolden, no less, by your 70 percentile majority view.)

Um, 1% of the population. You are a drone for the media at this point. You aren't a clear thinker. You think minority going against what is a family value, is somehow legitimate. Sorry, nope. You AGAIN are expressing egocentric needs, NOT sociological needs. I doubt you've taken a Sociology class in your life. You have little social conscious.

You stand for exclusion; we, for inclusion.

No, this is against 'family' values. You can color it anyway you like, but you are for overt against large groups and "THINK" that better. It sure does not. Sociologists are concerned with EVERYBODY but NOT against larger groups. Sociology is about compromises.

By a wide margin it's you who, by virtue of your position, must cater to the us/them distinction.

No, you are again, ignorant of sociological concern. It DOES have interest in the smaller groups, but it also ENSURES that nothing damages the main body of a nation, and that is just families, a mother, father and kids. Sorry if you think a family is something different. You CAME from a family, however messed up it may have been.

Think about it.

YOU think about it. Take a sociology class or two while you are at it. The most nature AND pervasive dynamic on EARTH in EVERY country, is family. A sociologist understands this. One championing their own values and desires is NOT socially conscious. You, frankly, seldom espouse them NOR empathize with them. It makes me think you came from a broken home because your family values are seldom seen and rarely expressed as if you don't know or understand them.

Never mind.

I'm gonna go wrap myself in a brick wall. It sounds so comfy right about now. :cloud9:

Similar as I've expressed to Quip. Since your big move, you've become LESS socially conscious than I'd found you before.

 

[annabenedetti]

No, that is just your perspective and the bent of your perspective. You do not often express values that are of a norm. That means, necessarily, that you embrace fringe values. Such AREN'T family values, Quip. They are just your own and the are often incredibly egocentric and frankly, at times selfish. That isn't 'irony' Quip. It is just out of touch with a bit of angst.


No, you don't. Equality is about percentages, not overt percentages. It means you get 'some' capitulations that do not overtly tax families about their needs ELSE you start tearing at the very fabric that makes societies. You 'were' a part of a family. Dysfunctional? I've no idea but at least by your words, you seem to have jettisoned a few.


Um, 1% of the population. You are a drone for the media at this point. You aren't a clear thinker. You think minority going against what is a family value, is somehow legitimate. Sorry, nope. You AGAIN are expressing egocentric needs, NOT sociological needs. I doubt you've taken a Sociology class in your life. You have little social conscious.

No, this is against 'family' values. You can color it anyway you like, but you are for overt against large groups and "THINK" that better. It sure does not. Sociologists are concerned with EVERYBODY but NOT against larger groups. Sociology is about compromises.

No, you are again, ignorant of sociological concern. It DOES have interest in the smaller groups, but it also ENSURES that nothing damages the main body of a nation, and that is just families, a mother, father and kids. Sorry if you think a family is something different. You CAME from a family, however messed up it may have been.

YOU think about it. Take a sociology class or two while you are at it. The most nature AND pervasive dynamic on EARTH in EVERY country, is family. A sociologist understands this. One championing their own values and desires is NOT socially conscious. You, frankly, seldom espouse them NOR empathize with them. It makes me think you came from a broken home because your family values are seldom seen and rarely expressed as if you don't know or understand them.


Similar as I've expressed to Quip. Since your big move, you've become LESS socially conscious than I'd found you before.

Unfortunately, Lon, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're meandering all over the place, waving a flag that says "I've taken sociology courses" and expecting it to make your argument.


I asked you whose family values made society norms.

Whose family values? Yours?

You danced around the answer because you knew what it was: yes, yours. Not Quip's family values (IIRC he has a good-sized family), but yours. So your idea of religious freedom holds potential dangers for the whole of our society. Thankfully, we have the Constitution to keep things in check.

No, that is just your perspective and the bent of your perspective. You do not often express values that are of a norm. That means, necessarily, that you embrace fringe values. Such AREN'T family values, Quip. They are just your own

 

[Rusha]

Thankfully, we have the Constitution to keep things in check.

For *now*.

 

[Idolater]

inequality is bad

I demand that the NBA recognize my self-identification as a muscular, coordinated 8 foot tall black man

and all those current NBA players who stand over 5'5" have their legs surgically shortened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

 

[quip]

No, that is just your perspective and the bent of your perspective. You do not often express values that are of a norm. That means, necessarily, that you embrace fringe values. Such AREN'T family values, Quip. They are just your own and the are often incredibly egocentric and frankly, at times selfish. That isn't 'irony' Quip. It is just out of touch with a bit of angst.


No, you don't. Equality is about percentages, not overt percentages. It means you get 'some' capitulations that do not overtly tax families about their needs ELSE you start tearing at the very fabric that makes societies. You 'were' a part of a family. Dysfunctional? I've no idea but at least by your words, you seem to have jettisoned a few.


Um, 1% of the population. You are a drone for the media at this point. You aren't a clear thinker. You think minority going against what is a family value, is somehow legitimate. Sorry, nope. You AGAIN are expressing egocentric needs, NOT sociological needs. I doubt you've taken a Sociology class in your life. You have little social conscious.

No, this is against 'family' values. You can color it anyway you like, but you are for overt against large groups and "THINK" that better. It sure does not. Sociologists are concerned with EVERYBODY but NOT against larger groups. Sociology is about compromises.

No, you are again, ignorant of sociological concern. It DOES have interest in the smaller groups, but it also ENSURES that nothing damages the main body of a nation, and that is just families, a mother, father and kids. Sorry if you think a family is something different. You CAME from a family, however messed up it may have been.

YOU think about it. Take a sociology class or two while you are at it. The most nature AND pervasive dynamic on EARTH in EVERY country, is family. A sociologist understands this. One championing their own values and desires is NOT socially conscious. You, frankly, seldom espouse them NOR empathize with them. It makes me think you came from a broken home because your family values are seldom seen and rarely expressed as if you don't know or understand them.

Lon, you've done nothing thus far to indicate any deviation from the us/them dynamic...quite the opposite actually. What you're constructing is a bulwark designed to thwart uncomfortable change while masquerading a personal prejudice as a righteous defending of family values writ large.

The progressive movement, in this regard, is not a foe of family values but would rather incorporate itself equally within it. Their goal is not to break it down but augment it.

The only evidence you've put forth thus far is a fearful personal diatribe supported by no more than ad populum (the 70% think like me thus, we must be right!) bluster. Of course you're free to offer objective evidence for your position beyond the mere reliance upon fear-based opinion, personally directed invectives and logical fallacies....but you're bigger than this Lon. Show it!

 

[Lon]

Lon, you've done nothing thus far to indicate any deviation from the us/them dynamic...quite the opposite actually. What you're constructing is a bulwark designed to thwart uncomfortable change while masquerading a personal prejudice as a righteous defending of family values writ large.

The progressive movement, in this regard, is not a foe of family values but would rather incorporate itself equally within it. Their goal is not to break it down but augment it.

The only evidence you've put forth thus far is a fearful personal diatribe supported by no more than ad populum (the 70% think like me thus, we must be right!) bluster. Of course you're free to offer objective evidence for your position beyond the mere reliance upon fear-based opinion, personally directed invectives and logical fallacies....but you're bigger than this Lon. Show it!

No, both you and anna are emoting what you 'think' rather than stating anything meaningful. Sociological concern is different than psychological and egocentric concerns. It is as simple as that, Quip and Anna. It really CANNOT be rebutted. It is about what you decide both for individuals AND groups at large. It SHOULD be expected that majority thoughts, needs, and values are considered. This is posted in the 'political' section. Both of you TRY to be savvy. Anna, no, I'm not all over the map. You just don't get it. You've been on an egocentric road for a few years now. There was a time you were better than writing off people when you became an embittered person. That road ends on bad terms. TRY to be Savvy. -Lon

 

[quip]

No, both you and anna are emoting what you 'think' rather than stating anything meaningful. Sociological concern is different than psychological and egocentric concerns. It is as simple as that, Quip and Anna. It really CANNOT be rebutted. It is about what you decide both for individuals AND groups at large. It SHOULD be expected that majority thoughts, needs, and values are considered. This is posted in the 'political' section. Both of you TRY to be savvy. Anna, no, I'm not all over the map. You just don't get it. You've been on an egocentric road for a few years now. There was a time you were better than writing off people when you became an embittered person. That road ends on bad terms. TRY to be Savvy. -Lon

On the subject of family values....I suffered raising five kids all through the terrible twos, pre-teen shenanigans and defiant teens while none of them were as stubborn as you!

So, I'll make one simple request of you: Would you please flesh out your argument lest Anna and I remain in this savvy-less, ignorant state of existence.

Please enlighten us.

 

[Lon]

On the subject of family values....I suffered raising five kids all through the terrible twos, pre-teen shenanigans and defiant teens while none of them were as stubborn as you!

Ah, 'suffered.' Think about this, Quip: it is the word I'd have thought you'd have used. You are a fringe kinda guy. You have little empathy for 70% of the population 'against' you. You've made it an 'us/them' disagreement. Me? I recognize all citizens and see a need to capitulation, in this political section but NOT out of balance. You cannot overtly tax your base (whatever the majority happen to be in any particular country, in this one, families/Christians) in deference to some minority elite. Society doesn't ignore minority interests purposefully. Those individuals, on a sociological level, need to realize by the numbers, that it is dispassionate by those numbers. Sociological concern tries to truly make an equitable balance, not any particular overt ones. I'm sorry you had to 'suffer' raising children. Psalm 127:3

So, I'll make one simple request of you: Would you please flesh out your argument lest Anna and I remain in this savvy-less, ignorant state of existence.

I just did. Sociological concern tries to balance ALL needs. Majority often looks like 'favoritism' but that is not the case. It is SIMPLY the expression and existence of the majority living. Of COURSE a minority would feel out of the loop if they don't fit. That is their choice, even if they were born somewhat under those circumstance. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity and I have seen ALL groups prosper. Not even our poorest are as poor off as 3rd world nations. What does that mean? NO country has eliminated their poor. Think about that. I would love to do it, but from history begun, we cannot make a homeless man work. My church, for example, welcomes everybody, including people of all colors and we've had homosexuals as well. They were cared for. We didn't allow sexual misconduct, however. Church isn't for that.

Please enlighten us.

I have been. It is you, who have not been paying attention. Sociological concern looks past one's own nose and perspective. "IF" you are incapable of that, no amount of words are going to enlighten either of you. It isn't just concern for your pet groups and interests. ANYBODY stuck there is actually more prejudice, just prejudice against the majority. Town summed it up:

To my mind religious liberty is simply the right to believe and worship as our faith and conscience require, within the necessary limitation that our exercise not deprive another of his/her right.

So while it isn't about the atheist, except in the caveat, it preserves the peace and peace of mind between atheist, deist, theist, and even a few folks around here who appear to be meists. :think: