What Does Religious Liberty Mean ?

[quip]

Agreed. It is the tenant of my faith to love even 'an enemy.' Some don't do so well, but it is very important. I've two commands that all other's hang on, and so I want to do it justice.

Your brand of "love" is wrought from proviso, a mere self-serving platitude. A sincere love would accept and honor a fellow human's need for intimate connection. But be honest Lon you can't stomach the thought...can't bring yourself to love a homosexual in the throes of same-sex passion.. At least be honest.

It is still interesting to me, that they are your poster children and litmus test. They are only 1% of the population. I'm not saying that to marginalize, but like my 'carpenter/roofer' analogy, it just doesn't come up. I'm sure somebody somewhere doesn't like car salesmen either. Right?

What's also interesting is your populus take on the issue...as if mere percentages implies import or concludes the debate (ask MLK if percentages matter.). Praytell what percentage could the homosexual community aspire to in an effort to gain your sincere love and compassion for them?

The problem Lon is that the issue has "come up" and it's to be dealt with. While, carpenters are not being restricted from a "family value" liberty based upon their carpentry skills. A striking dis-analogy, don't you say?

Furthermore and sans impassioned bigotry, the 70 percentile traditionalists have yet to give a compelling argument against. You're no exception.

Not exactly true. In the same way I don't have to tell anyone I'm a carpenter at a bricklayer convention. Choices are what we make of them. There is absolutely no need or reason to tell you if I am heterosexual, asexual, or any kind of sexual. There is no prejudice that I wouldn't suffer by my own doing when it is as easy as just keeping my choices over the matter to myself.

Marriage - as a liberty and as a rite - is a public/social affair...anonymity is not an option...nor should it be.

 

[Lon]

Your brand of "love" is wrought from proviso, a mere self-serving platitude. A sincere love would accept and honor a fellow human's need for intimate connection. But be honest Lon you can't stomach the thought...can't bring yourself to love a homosexual in the throes of same-sex passion.. At least be honest.

Er, that's not love. That's indulgence. YOU try and see the difference. "No" is also a loving word. Don't spurn it. It might be why you had to 'endure' 5 children? 1 Corinthians 13:7 I can love a murderer without loving him in the throes of murdering, no? Think a little more before tossing the accusation, please. Other than that, off topic isn't it?

What's also interesting is your populus take on the issue...as if mere percentages implies import or concludes the debate (ask MLK if percentages matter.). Praytell what percentage could the homosexual community aspire to in an effort to gain your sincere love and compassion for them?

Well, again, I have NO idea how this has anything to do with the OP. Please explain it or open another thread?

The problem Lon is that the issue has "come up" and it's to be dealt with. While, carpenters are not being restricted from a "family value" liberty based upon their carpentry skills. A striking dis-analogy, don't you say?

Depending on how agile your mind is to entertain, no? There ARE a few comparisons worthy of the contemplation. Try "choice" for starters AND AGAIN, WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF TEA IN CHINA???

Furthermore and sans ignorant bigotry, the 70 percentile traditionalists have yet to give a compelling argument against. You're no exception.

Though a HUGE rabbit-trail having naught to do, it does present discussion, at least, for understanding sociological concerns which IS part of this OP. Sociological concerns tend to throw out "me only" isms. It is rather what is good for all, and in this case, the example was Affirmative Action that WOULD guarantee 60% of whites are employed at lets say BET. It doesn't and hasn't happened. Interesting no? One group demands 'equity' but only as it relates to them because what is good for the goose isn't lifted up for the gander. All of the sudden, selfishness or overlooking become the norm. This is why there is polarization. IF there is going to be religious equity, it is only going to come from less navel gazing. So here is possibly where I think we differ: You are a voice ONLY for a small group. I'm rather trying to see both sides AND ensure both sides have equity. It means some of the wants and whims of a few are going to have to necessarily be frustrated, if we are TRULY going to look at equity. 70% of the populace still claim Christianity. Their free expression may somewhat interfere but my whole point is that is what concessions are about: being fair and indeed, equitable. In addition, deference is no poor choice. It is can be an act of love especially if the expression isn't hedonistic, but genuine care and concern for the rest. THAT is what is on the table and those who don't do it are rightfully problematic toward the religious and practical liberties of all others, mostly families with children.

Marriage - as a liberty and as a rite - is a public/social affair...anonymity is not an option...nor should it be.

It can be. Besides that, aspects are certainly private and not at all social nor public, nor should they be. Prior to my marriage, it was all private and not only nobody's business, but intrusive if I'd have made it so. We don't allow a LOT of such things in public and have, for the time being, 'public decency' laws. AGAIN, what does this have to do with religious liberty?

 

[quip]

Well, again, I have NO idea how this has anything to do with the OP. Please explain it or open another thread?
Depending on how agile your mind is to entertain, no? There ARE a few comparisons worthy of the contemplation. Try "choice" for starters AND AGAIN, WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF TEA IN CHINA???


Though a HUGE rabbit-trail having naught to do, it does present discussion, at least, for understanding sociological concerns which IS part of this OP. Sociological concerns tend to throw out "me only" isms. It is rather what is good for all, and in this case, the example was Affirmative Action that WOULD guarantee 60% of whites are employed at lets say BET. It doesn't and hasn't happened. Interesting no? One group demands 'equity' but only as it relates to them because what is good for the goose isn't lifted up for the gander. All of the sudden, selfishness or overlooking become the norm. This is why there is polarization. IF there is going to be religious equity, it is only going to come from less navel gazing. So here is possibly where I think we differ: You are a voice ONLY for a small group. I'm rather trying to see both sides AND ensure both sides have equity. It means some of the wants and whims of a few are going to have to necessarily be frustrated, if we are TRULY going to look at equity. 70% of the populace still claim Christianity. Their free expression may somewhat interfere but my whole point is that is what concessions are about: being fair and indeed, equitable. In addition, deference is no poor choice. It is can be an act of love especially if the expression isn't hedonistic, but genuine care and concern for the rest. THAT is what is on the table and those who don't do it are rightfully problematic toward the religious and practical liberties of all others, mostly families with children.


It can be. Besides that, aspects are certainly private and not at all social nor public, nor should they be. Prior to my marriage, it was all private and not only nobody's business, but intrusive if I'd have made it so. We don't allow a LOT of such things in public and have, for the time being, 'public decency' laws. AGAIN, what does this have to do with religious liberty?

No Lon, marriage ceremonies may be private though the marital union is publicly recorded and licensed. :doh:

You seem a touch slow and/or confused Lon as you can't even keep track of the intricacies of your own self-absorbed argument.

Do you retain the capacity to empathize with another, in the abstract, who's life may never affect or reflect yours on any practical level?

If not, then we're all wasting our time with you.

 

[quip]

Er, that's not love. That's indulgence. YOU try and see the difference. "No" is also a loving word. Don't spurn it. It might be why you had to 'endure' 5 children? 1 Corinthians 13:7 I can love a murderer without loving him in the throes of murdering, no? Think a little more before tossing the accusation, please. Other than that, off topic isn't it?

In what loving context are you offering this highly vaulted, non-indulgent "no"....allow us a peek into the loving mind of Lon.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, but because I was so careful, some thought I was homosexual, perhaps, because I was always G rated. We aren't all like that, it is just where I have come from. I largely find 'sexual' conversation and innuendo time for me to leave a place. That said, I still don't see what in the wide world this has to do with religious liberty. As I've asked Quip, I'd need this spelled out. It seems COMPLETELY removed from discussion direction to me.

Well, what other people think has no bearing and it's just a tangent that I picked up on. We can leave it after this.

For me, 'a-sexual.' You'd have had a hard time because I treated all people like I genuinely cared for them without wanting anything in return and certainly not sexual. Again, however, I have NO idea how this plays on the OP. It seems very odd and off topic to me.

Well, asexual means not having sexual attractions or desires so that wouldn't be an accurate term.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I've gotten this before. I have simply said, and with no malice, that I don't find folks often think sociologically as is needed with such a topic as this. It has specifically to do with politics and liberty regarding religious expression. The whole point was to try to get several to think beyond narrow walls. Psychology is egocentric. Sociology is less so because it is socially conscious. That is it. I IMMEDIATELY received 'you are all over the place and not being cogent.' Whatever response one gets to that is appropriate to the accusation. No, as a matter of fact, I'm not lacking in cogent expression and all one of polite persuasion has to ask, is what I mean. That never happened.

See her post here. To me, it had a lot of indictments pointed my way, especially at the end and was the starting point of some expression of frustration. I did not and have not responded in anyways angered, just assessing her angst toward me is all. I still am not at all mad or emotional over this.

I've seen the entire exchange and whilst you might prefer people to think along your lines it certainly read as a bit garbled and cobbled together to me from your side Lon. Your tone can also sometimes come across as angry and condescending even if that's not your intent. Anna doesn't have any angst towards you, nor is she 'embittered' but after you made that remark you can hardly be surprised that she no longer had any interest in talking with you.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

So new guy on the block and I haven't had time to follow all this thread yet but I call myself a civil libertarian so civil rights is an important thing to me including religious liberty.

It particularly becomes of interest when we have civil rights in a conflict which is what is happening with religious liberty and gay marriage. That being played out right now in the national discussion it is pretty much impossible to have a discussion currently about religious liberty without homosexuality coming up. It is literally the front line right now in finding the balance between religious liberty and other civil rights.

We should keep in mind when you say 1% of the population, in the US that is over 3 million people.

 

[Town Heretic]

So new guy on the block and I haven't had time to follow all this thread yet but I call myself a civil libertarian so civil rights is an important thing to me including religious liberty.

Do you believe that a baker's religious liberty is threatened when he is forced to provide to the public that which he holds out to the public for sale? Because it has always struck me that any law permitting me to deny a customer service for a non-business reason is a de facto segregation law waiting for popular enforcement.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Do you believe that a baker's religious liberty is threatened when he is forced to provide to the public that which he holds out to the public for sale? Because it has always struck me that any law permitting me to deny a customer service for a non-business reason is a de facto segregation law waiting for popular enforcement.

Yes, but I also agree with the observation about segregation. In the cake baker issue, we have three very important civil rights issues coming into direct conflict free speech, religious freedom, and public accommodations (anti-discrimination laws).

We need to remember that a right can be restricted if it widely abused. The famous signs "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a right that has been lost thanks to widespread abuse in the civil rights era resulting in the public accommodation laws that require you not to discriminate against specific customers.

So it is important to find the right balance between these issues.

If they asked me, my solution to the baker issue would be, the baker has a right to not make a cake if it violates his religious beliefs. But, if his business qualifies as a public accommodation, the business HAS to provide a cake of equal quality as one they would provide to any other customer using their services. This approach best satisfies both requirements.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, but I also agree with the observation about segregation. In the cake baker issue, we have three very important civil rights issues coming into direct conflict free speech, religious freedom, and public accommodations (anti-discrimination laws). If they asked me, my solution to the baker issue would be, the baker has a right to not make a cake if it violates his religious beliefs. But, if his business qualifies as a public accommodation, the business HAS to provide a cake of equal quality as one they would provide to any other customer using their services. This approach best satisfies both requirements.

As I see it, anti-discriminatory laws are lines drawn to distinguish between legitimate business purposes and the actual attempt by some to abrogate the rights of others under the guise of an exercise of their individual liberty. The Court's answer to that sub rosa argument for segregation was both emphatic and correct. I think your response is in line with that decision. No baker must hold his services out to the general public, but if he chooses to then his services should be available for anyone within the sphere of legitimate business.

Appreciate the response. :cheers:

 

[Ktoyou]

Religious liberty means to be free in religion, of religion and from religion.

Free to be any denomination, or free to be a Hindu, or Muslim, even a Pagan, or atheist!

What is does not mean, and this is how some persons running for government office use it, is to allow specific Christian values, forced into law.

There are many things I find wrong, but they come from personal values, such as I dislike homosexuality more than I do object to it on religious grounds. I think this is common in my generation, we dislike homosexuality more than we find it sinful; however, use it as a sinful act to make it seen bad and keep it away.

There are other examples, such as the right to die without being seen as a mental defect or a sinner. I came across this knowing someone who is old and has no family ties; he would rather avoid certain life prolonging treatments. There are some who wish to die, but I can see laws protecting physicians commitment to avoid harm.

One thing, I cannot abide by abortion; however, my granddaughter believes it is a woman's right to demand it for any reason, and her mother seems half way on my side, but not completely.

These issues have changed my thoughts on I am conservative, but more a fiscal conservative than a social conservative, although I have chosen to associate more with social conservatives most of my life.

 

[Lon]

No Lon, marriage ceremonies may be private though the marital union is publicly recorded and licensed. :doh:

It didn't matter either way. It is a rabbit trail off a rabbit trail.

You seem a touch slow and/or confused Lon as you can't even keep track of the intricacies of your own self-absorbed argument.

Not at all. I've repeatedly asked what it has to do with 'Religious Freedom" (you know, the OP topic?). I at least know what that is and whether we are on topic or not. How about you? :think:

Do you retain the capacity to empathize with another, in the abstract, who's life may never affect or reflect yours on any practical level?

No. Do you really think it was someone's desire to adversely affect illegal immigrants' children? :idunno: That's what adjustment is for....well, unless one wants to marginalize and posture, that is.

If not, then we're all wasting our time with you.

Just speak for yourself and let others decide if their time is wasted. You are starting to sound a bit like Anna with such all-or-none lack-of-patience-or-courtesy statements. Imho, there is no point to those.

Accusation often blanket statements, aren't meant to convey dialogue but stop it. If there is no point, there is no point. My whole entrance into this thread was to suggest that things are often out of balance as far as give and take. The majority, regardless of race or color, by religion, should have a lot of leeway, sociologically. If not, they STOP being the majority and all become the minority. That is just a cultural war, not any kind of equity. It destroys the very freedom it'd purportedly wish to sustain. Again, step in another's shoes. If you can't even walk a mile, I'm wasting my time too, but I know what I'm trying to get across and am dispassionately sure about it. It is simply a weight balance of equity.

No Lon, marriage ceremonies may be private though the marital union is publicly recorded and licensed. :doh:

It didn't matter either way. It is a rabbit trail off a rabbit trail.

You seem a touch slow and/or confused Lon as you can't even keep track of the intricacies of your own self-absorbed argument.

Not at all. I've repeatedly asked what it has to do with 'Religious Freedom" (you know, the OP topic?). I at least know what that is and whether we are on topic or not. How about you? :think:

Do you retain the capacity to empathize with another, in the abstract, who's life may never affect or reflect yours on any practical level?

No. Do you really think it was someone's desire to adversely affect illegal immigrants' children? :idunno: That's what adjustment is for....well, unless one wants to marginalize and posture, that is.

If not, then we're all wasting our time with you.

Just speak for yourself and let others decide if their time is wasted. You are starting to sound a bit like Anna with such all-or-none lack-of-patience-or-courtesy statements. Imho, there is no point to those.

Accusation often blanket statements, aren't meant to convey dialogue but stop it. If there is no point, there is no point. My whole entrance into this thread was to suggest that things are often out of balance as far as give and take. The majority, regardless of race or color, by religion, should have a lot of leeway, sociologically. If not, they STOP being the majority and all become the minority. That is just a cultural war, not any kind of equity. It destroys the very freedom it'd purportedly wish to sustain. Again, step in another's shoes. If you can't even walk a mile, I'm wasting my time too, but I know what I'm trying to get across and am dispassionately sure about it. It is simply a weight balance of equity.

In what loving context are you offering this highly vaulted, non-indulgent "no"....allow us a peek into the loving mind of Lon.

You actually mean you share NONE of my values of morality??? It may enlighten us more to see if anything is moral in your mind than mine. You can read a bible and know mine fairly well and quickly. I have no such book on Quip.

 

[Lon]

I've seen the entire exchange and whilst you might prefer people to think along your lines it certainly read as a bit garbled and cobbled together to me from your side Lon.

Usually lazy people say this. I admitted already I could partly be blamed in the next post. I really don't think you are playing mediator here, just advocate:

Your tone can also sometimes come across as angry and condescending even if that's not your intent. Anna doesn't have any angst towards you, nor is she 'embittered' but after you made that remark you can hardly be surprised that she no longer had any interest in talking with you.

As I said, it started there, at that post and it was not as you assess.

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.



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.

My thinking is RATHER that you have empathy for a side. This wasn't nice, kind, or polite, just a few accusations that precluded dialogue (from the very beginning). It was us/them mentality that is so current in our country at the moment. She is in it hook, line, and sinker. Me? I wasn't angry, I was saying that such a response comes from a certain kind of mindset. Her ignoring me rather confirms such rather than denies it. I'm not convinced you've paid that close of attention because you seem to think I'm the only one. I can read well, Arthur. I'd suggest you read better if you intend to either be a one-sided advocate or better yet, a mediator concerned with both people. I'm not really finding you being but one-sided and unfair yourself over this matter. Sorry if you were trying to do better. I'm not seeing it. Sincerely. -Lon

 

[Arthur Brain]

As I said, it started there, at that post and it was not as you assess. My thinking is RATHER that you have empathy for a side. I wasn't angry, I was saying that such a response comes from a certain kind of mindset. Her ignoring me rather confirms such rather than denies it. I'm not convinced you've paid that close of attention because you seem to think I'm the only one. I can read well, Arthur.

You were the one who accused anna of being on an "embittered road" and you kinda need to own that Lon. I thought it was condescending and ignorant before even reading anna's response to you about it as I happen to know anna a lot better than you do. Why the need to say something personal like that? You deserved the response you got frankly.

 

[Lon]

You were the one who accused anna of being on an "embittered road" and you kinda need to own that Lon. I thought it was condescending and ignorant before even reading anna's response to you about it as I happen to know anna a lot better than you do. Why the need to say something personal like that? You deserved the response you got frankly.

Er, No! MINE was the response. You kind of need to read better, Arthur. I think you need to admit your own mistakes over this. As I said, you are advocating, not mediating. This isn't the first time you've misread me. MY previous post was to Quip. Anna butted in with the post I qutoed NOT to her. She was rude and snarky then has the audacity to put me on ignore. You just aren't doing a good mediating job and aren't doing a good advocacy job either, even if you cared nothing about me. You need to better be paying attention, sir.

 

[quip]

It didn't matter either way. It is a rabbit trail off a rabbit trail.

Well, yes is does Lon. Same-sex marriages desire the identical public/legal status enjoyed by traditional marriages.The legal basis for marriage, in general, must be free from religious pretention and prejudice. (not in ceremony just in legal recognition.)

Not at all. I've repeatedly asked what it has to do with 'Religious Freedom" (you know, the OP topic?). I at least know what that is and whether we are on topic or not. How about you? :think:

You introduced "family values" or rather the threats against -- into a thread concerning religious freedom. At least have the wherewithal to see it through. Don't feign ignorance from your own prior rhetoric, it makes you appear disingenuous.

No. Do you really think it was someone's desire to adversely affect illegal immigrants' children? :idunno: That's what adjustment is for....well, unless one wants to marginalize and posture, that is.

So, you lack the capacity for empathy. That explains MUCH.

My whole entrance into this thread was to suggest that things are often out of balance as far as give and take.

I tend to agree...religion refuses to give in this regard.

The majority, regardless of race or color, by religion, should have a lot of leeway, sociologically. If not, they STOP being the majority and all become the minority.

Well no Lon, equality levels an unjust playing field. It ends the false us/them, majority/minority dichotomy .....you so rally for and revel within. You've no justification for any leeway, religious pretensions notwithstanding.

Again, step in another's shoes. If you can't even walk a mile, I'm wasting my time too, but I know what I'm trying to get across and am dispassionately sure about it.

We both know what you're "trying to get across" yet it's only me who sees the contradiction and fallicies you're using to get there.

And yes I'm putting myself in the shoes of others...including yours. I've nothing personal at stake here concerning our current discussion..save a general disdain for religiously justified hate and bigotry.

You actually mean you share NONE of my values of morality??? It may enlighten us more to see if anything is moral in your mind than mine. You can read a bible and know mine fairly well and quickly. I have no such book on Quip.

I am in no need of a pretentious crutch to reach moral clarity. The Bible which leads you by the nose, skews your moraliy. One can't follow both Matthew 7:2 and Leviticus 20:13 without some form dissonance and/or irrational appeal.

 

[Lon]

Well, yes is does Lon. Same-sex marriages desire the public/status enjoyed by traditional marriages...the legal basis for marriage, in general, must be free from religious pretention. (not in ceremony just in legal recognition.)

Well, I appreciate you blurring the lines because it means you are empathetic to religious freedom but the state is only interested in the legality of a two-party agreement over taxes and property. Many people simply live together these days and the state isn't concerned much at all. The whole point, however, of this being in the political section means it takes a different tone of discussion. That may be what is causing confusion, but when we are talking about freedoms of/for religion, we have to think about it by the numbers and majority/minority expressions and needs. Like I'd intimated with my example: Affirmative Action, in order to be impartial and fair, SHOULD require percentages of whites, Asians, Natives, blacks, etc. again, if it was going to be fair and equitable. Same with religious freedoms: we need to ensure whatever freedoms are there, that we not curtail them without carefully balancing the needs of ALL citizens, not just those who feel they are oppressed or not.

You introduced "family values" or rather the threats against -- into a thread concerning religious freedom. At least have the wherewithal to see it through. Don't feign ignorance from your own prior rhetoric, it makes you appear disingenuous.

I'm not feigning anything. A family value is, I think the same. It is VERY important to the last paragraph. You've said you have morals and somehow intimated that my morals aren't up to par. How do you determine such? Isn't it egocentric at that point? Look:

I am in need of no book for moral clarity. The Bible which leads you by the nose, skews your moraliy. One can't follow both Matthew 7:2 and Leviticus 20:13 without some form dissonance and/or emotional appeal.

1) I didn't say you were in need of moral clarity, I said you need to 'clarify' your moral position BECAUSE there is no book of Quip. You HAVE to clarify. How can I talk about family values with a guy that says he had to 'endure' 5 children. I man, love endures all things, but it isn't the first thing that comes out of my mouth regarding my children. It is an odd expression and so, yes, I have to ask what you find moral. There is no dissonance between Leviticus 20:13 and Matthew 7:2. Why? Because there were two different governments. One that was tolerant and one that was not. I'm not nor are you, a Jew, therefore no dissonance. The Lord Jesus didn't say the adulteress should be stoned to death either. He said "Go and sin no more." I say the same.
Explain, for the umpteenth time, why or what this has to do with the OP. It seems like a lot of time wasted to me. Sexuality has been discussed beyond the pale on TOL. I can't see that every topic needs to traverse those halls yet again. Can we use some other more closely related example or topic for this OP?

So, you lack the capacity for empathy. That explains MUCH.

Here is the REAL irony, Quip. This whole line of questioning was SET to marginalize! THAT IS NOT an empathetic ploy. Do you see why I say you don't empathize well with the majority? You have a LOT more egocentrism on your plate than you 'may' realize.

I tend to agree...religion refuses to give in this regard.

Including yours. Again, the majority has 'less' they need to give on. It is part and parcel to catering to majority interests OR you make a nation in your own image instead of the one that exists. If 'good' changes, fine. If damaging, then it isn't and isn't taking any sort of high-road. That's what I've been trying to say: We cannot capitulate so much that we cease being the very beings we value. If you hate Christians so much, there are plenty of places one can go instead of demanding the world cater and change to your remote ideas and views. I honestly don't think you'd be happy with a million Quips.

Well no Lon, equality levels an unjust playing field. It ends the false us/them, majority/minority dichotomy you revel within. You've no justification for any leeway, religeous pretensions notwithstanding.

Yes I do, and you just gave it to me with your marginalizing/polarizing set up. YOU did that. YOU did. It was indeed an 'us/them' set up and YOU did it on purpose, 1) to win and argument and 2) to be able to marginalize based on my supposedly substandard moral fortitude. Worse, for binning me even though I've often repeated to you, that I'm not typical for you to bin. I have reasons, valid reasons, for everything I stand for.

We both know what you're "trying to get across" yet it's only me who sees the contradiction and fallicies you're using to get their.

No fallacy. Religion needs freedom of expression and that includes expression in front of you at times. As I said, any family values, and in this, I really just meant 'values in common' are appropriate expressions. These include love, nurturing, deference, citizenship, kindness, patience, etc. etc.; are appropriate expressions across board for all people and all faiths or lack thereof. Example: My church until last year, had a 4th of July celebration. Though it certainly was held by Christians with Christian expression, it was for the entire community. Atheists, gays, Muslims, and Buddhists were invited and attended. It was an expression of freedom, care, and community concern.

And yes I'm putting myself in the shoes of others...including yours. I've nothing personal at stake here concerning our current discussion..save a general disdain for religiously justified hate and bigotry.

Well that is what Anna had in mind too, but that isn't really a part of 'freedom' of/for religion but a restriction thereof. I don't like bigotry either. You do have a palpable disdain for what you 'deem' hate and bigotry. Let me be frank (I'm several degrees or more on your side), I've seen and dislike that same hatred and bigotry and have confronted it, but I do, I think, better, by asking questions of those bigots and haters and trying to get them to think. Imho, our greatest gift is communication when we differ so radically. It is one reason I'm sorry to see Anna place me on ignore. Shutting the door is a fail of anything that could unify us as we strive. There is often a reason those bigots are that way, and some of it is because of harm done to them. Those people need healing, correction, not our unrestrained contempt. That's not easy to say concerning racists, but confronting those problems with care is better than our disdain. You may say I'm a bigot against homosexuals (again a different topic than this one) but I'm not. I have the same or similar view toward them that I'd have with teens having inappropriate contact on my couch. I don't hate those kids. Not at all.

 

[quip]

That may be what is causing confusion, but when we are talking about freedoms of/for religion, we have to think about it by the numbers and majority/minority expressions and needs.

Agreed. Yet, we approach it from diametrically opposed sides. You, as an advocate for the majority/status quo...insist upon playing the victim card. This is no more than arrogant entitlement as the majority is the one bound - in the service of justness - to concession....not asking of it from the oppressed. You've two choices Lon, you either fight to maintain equilibrium for all OR you maintain your own advantages at the cost of another human beings' happiness and well-being. Your current position amounts to no more than a 'separate but equal' rationalization...of which its time has passed.

Your choice Lon.

Like I'd intimated with my example: Affirmative Action, in order to be impartial and fair, SHOULD require percentages of whites, Asians, Natives, blacks, etc. again, if it was going to be fair and equitable. Same with religious freedoms: we need to ensure whatever freedoms are there, that we not curtail them without carefully balancing the needs of ALL citizens, not just those who feel they are oppressed or not.

Yes, it's a balancing act though for years the pendulum has swung wildly in favor of the majority, now, it is changing direction...but it's still swinging wildly, while the more you battle it the more momentum it pushes back. Let it settle.

You've said you have morals and somehow intimated that my morals aren't up to par. How do you determine such? Isn't it egocentric at that point? Look:

No Lon, I simply feel for the people you desire to marginalize. I say your morals are skewed because they lack subtlety and compassion for those not of your sphere of acceptance or understanding.

How can I talk about family values with a guy that says he had to 'endure' 5 children. I man, love endures all things, but it isn't the first thing that comes out of my mouth regarding my children. It is an odd expression and so, yes, I have to ask what you find moral.

This is a prime example Lon. This was a simile...in otherwords: I've suffered through the attitudes displayed by my children over the years (that's not to imply a lack of love for what their gifts have given me.) of which I was comparing against my current "suffering"...namely, your posts.

You seem to lack a certain talent for nuance Lon....you're a blunt object. I believe that's key to our subject disagreement here.

There is no dissonance between Leviticus 20:13 and Matthew 7:2. Why? Because there were two different governments. One that was tolerant and one that was not.

Well, you simply can't adhere to one without forsaking the other. I won't comment upon the religious implication here...

Here is the REAL irony, Quip. This whole line of questioning was SET to marginalize! THAT IS NOT an empathetic ploy. Do you see why I say you don't empathize well with the majority? You have a LOT more egocentrism on your plate than you 'may' realize.

Ohh I empathize with the majority, that is I understand your fear in maintaining the power structure...seeing the majority's version of the staus quo slowly ebb. You feel a valiant need to fight this fear, this inevitably of change but in doing so...you only bring suffering upon yourself. As such, My empathy does not feel sorry for you and your ilk but rather encourages your growth ...not your (and society's) continued stagnation.

I'd suggest Matt 7:2 Lon.

Again, the majority has 'less' they need to give on. It is part and parcel to catering to majority interests OR you make a nation in your own image instead of the one that exists. If 'good' changes, fine. If damaging, then it isn't and isn't taking any sort of high-road.

You can't seem to detail this so-called 'damage' for anyone here....beyond your personal interest and ideology that is.

Yes I do, and you just gave it to me with your marginalizing/polarizing set up. YOU did that. YOU did. It was indeed an 'us/them' set up and YOU did it on purpose, 1) to win and argument and 2) to be able to marginalize based on my supposedly substandard moral fortitude. Worse, for binning me even though I've often repeated to you, that I'm not typical for you to bin. I have reasons, valid reasons, for everything I stand for.

You may be up on sociology but your history is in sorry need. Historically speaking the societal adherents for the "norm" have marginalized, harangued and brought violence against the homosexual community. If their position seems polarizing and at times hostile...please realize that THEY didn't set the rule nor tone...So, don't cry foul from being served by the majority's own playbook.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Er, No! MINE was the response. You kind of need to read better, Arthur. I think you need to admit your own mistakes over this. As I said, you are advocating, not mediating. This isn't the first time you've misread me. MY previous post was to Quip. Anna butted in with the post I qutoed NOT to her. She was rude and snarky then has the audacity to put me on ignore. You just aren't doing a good mediating job and aren't doing a good advocacy job either, even if you cared nothing about me. You need to better be paying attention, sir.

She pointed out what others already seemed to be thinking. She certainly didn't make personal jabs at you and yet you felt inclined to say she was embittered and had a chip on her shoulder and you can't just shoo that off, not if you're honest at any rate. You may not have meant to be personal or condescending but then look at how you misread Quip's comment about "enduring" five children. Not really interested in pursuing this any further.

 

[Lon]

Agreed. Yet, we approach it from diametrically opposed sides. You, as an advocate for the majority/status quo...insist upon playing the victim card. This is no more than arrogant entitlement as the majority is the one bound - in the service of justness - to concession....not asking of it from the oppressed. You've two choices Lon, you either fight to maintain equilibrium for all OR you maintain your own advantages at the cost of another human beings' happiness and well-being. Your current position amounts to no more than a 'separate but equal' rationalization...of which its time has passed.

:doh: When I do it regarding a percentage it is 'arrogant entitlement' and when you do it for fewer people it is 'in the service of justness?' As far as happiness, I'm not concerned. It is an individual's responsibility and it doesn't require another. As far as well-being, I'm all on board.

Your choice Lon.

Again, needs, I'm on board. Whims, wants, desires and I'm thinking we need to cater to needs and let people worry about the rest. I don't mind giving when we can or giving in when we can, but I don't want it a demand.

Yes, it's a balancing act though for years the pendulum has swung wildly in favor of the majority, now, it is changing direction...but it's still swinging wildly, while the more you battle it the more momentum it pushes back. Let it settle.

It isn't going to happen when you bring up issues that have nothing to do with religion or little to do with religion. You are talking about acts of choice that have not a lot to do with religious discussion in this OP.

No Lon, I simply feel for the people you desire to marginalize. I say your morals are skewed because they lack subtlety and compassion for those not of your sphere of acceptance or understanding.

Incorrect. These are part of my extended family. I've seen what it does firsthand. Not only that, you are insisting, STILL, of bringing up issues that aren't religious freedom discussion.

This is a prime example Lon. This was a simile...in otherwords: I've suffered through the attitudes displayed by my children over the years (that's not to imply a lack of love for what their gifts have given me.) of which I was comparing against my current "suffering"...namely, your posts.

Aw, poor :baby: You are offering inane platitudes. If it is such a chore, be done. lain: You are your own worst enemy and have NO desire for dialogue or understanding. It becomes a platform for more polarization. I'm not interested in feeding such an agenda. :wave:

You seem to lack a certain talent for nuance Lon....you're a blunt object. I believe that's key to our subject disagreement here.



Well, you simply can't adhere to one without forsaking the other. I won't comment upon the religious implication here...



Ohh I empathize with the majority, that is I understand your fear in maintaining the power structure...seeing the majority's version of the staus quo slowly ebb. You feel a valiant need to fight this fear, this inevitably of change but in doing so...you only bring suffering upon yourself. As such, My empathy does not feel sorry for you and your ilk but rather encourages your growth ...not your (and society's) continued stagnation.

I'd suggest Matt 7:2 Lon.





You can't seem to detail this so-called 'damage' for anyone here....beyond your personal interest and ideology that is.





You may be up on sociology but your history is in sorry need. Historically speaking the societal adherents for the "norm" have marginalized, harangued and brought violence against the homosexual community. If their position seems polarizing and at times hostile...please realize that THEY didn't set the rule nor tone...So, don't cry foul from being served by the majority's own playbook.

I'm done. You are lacking sincerity or value, on purpose. You can keep your demonstrations and I'll simply ignore you.