Online Now 2923

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1503
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3105
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

The Attack on Religious Freedom

  • theFightingtide said...

    Correct opinion. I will still fight it till i am dead though. I may not win any over to my point of view, but i'll go down swinging lol.

    Respectable

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • TheT12 said...

    1. Appropriately named. But McLovin would have been better.

    2. This is the hardest thing for Christians to wrap their brain around. Being a Christian, I do NOT think that homosexuality is right. I'm not perfect, so I'll throw no stones. But I think the thing that Christians need to realize is that the Bible wasn't written to be forcibly enacted upon other people, but rather as a set of rules for the Christian to follow. If we're being honest with ourselves, Christians are charged with sharing testimony with those who have not heard it and allowing faith and free will to suffice for the potential convert while you provide a friendly sounding board and place of worship if they want it. I grew up in the Church of Christ, and my wife as a Baptist. When we first got married, we took turns at each Church. She repeatedly got lambasted by old ladies telling her that she'd been wrong her whole life and that she'd better switch quick. I'm no Dale Carnegie, but I'm pretty sure that's not how you win friends and influence people.

    Why do you not think homosexuality is right?

    You're answer is almost assuredly going to be "because the Bible says so".

    The Bible also says that eating shellfish is wrong. The Bible also instructs people who rape daughters out of wedlock to pay their fathers 50 pieces of silver and marry them.

    Why are we taking what that book says about morality seriously?

    ramssuperbowl99

  • There is not attack on religious freedom. Religious people don't seem to comprehend that they do not have a right to oppress people - and that's where this supposed "attack" is coming from.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Respectable

    Was a good discussion IMO. Respect by both sides for the most part.

    signature image

    Lebron James will never be as good as Michael Jordan, thus we should get rid of his nickname, "The King".

    amrollZ71

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    There is not attack on religious freedom. Religious people don't seem to comprehend that they do not have a right to oppress people - and that's where this supposed "attack" is coming from.

    That's what I don't understand. Why does having something be legal you don't agree with affect your religious freedom? Are you not able to worship if gay marriage is legalized? The contraception is a LITTLE more understanding,but I'm sorry a woman's right to normal, reasonable contraception of does not stop any worship or favor any religion. While you may not agree, I don't see how you can force that belief on a worker who disagrees.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    That's what I don't understand. Why does having something be legal you don't agree with affect your religious freedom? Are you not able to worship if gay marriage is legalized? The contraception is a LITTLE more understanding,but I'm sorry a woman's right to normal, reasonable contraception of does not stop any worship or favor any religion. While you may not agree, I don't see how you can force that belief on a worker who disagrees.

    I don't really think requiring Catholic companies to provide contraception as part of their insurance packages necessarily violates the workers' ability to get proper medicine since they can use other sources to obtain birth control. And, since these are private companies, I think they should have the right to decide what they offer (including whether they offer health benefits at all). But that's just the libertarian in me.

    That said, marriage is a public institution. If someone has a problem with gay marriage, they should marry someone of the opposite sex. To oppress any more is immoral, and soon to be both illegal and unconstitutional.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    I don't really think requiring Catholic companies to provide contraception as part of their insurance packages necessarily violates the workers' ability to get proper medicine since they can use other sources to obtain birth control. And, since these are private companies, I think they should have the right to decide what they offer (including whether they offer health benefits at all). But that's just the libertarian in...

    The mandate is a question, no doubt. Still awaiting constitutionality on it and/or HCA. Still the law though and what irks me most is the institutions still fall under the rules and regs of the federal gvenment(note being actual churches etc.)and they are hiding behind the 1st Amendment as their defense. That's garbage. Employment Division v. Smirh(1990) clearly states you can't be above the generally accepted statutes of law based on religious belief. Scalia(conservative,Catholc AJ) wrote the majority opinion and pretty much said that to hide behind your beliefs would make any citizen the law unto themselves and that would not be acceptable.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    The mandate is a question, no doubt. Still awaiting constitutionality on it and/or HCA. Still the law though and what irks me most is the institutions still fall under the rules and regs of the federal gvenment(note being actual churches etc.)and they are hiding behind the 1st Amendment as their defense. That's garbage. Employment Division v. Smirh(1990) clearly states you can't be above the generally accepted statutes of law based on religious belief. Scalia(conservative,Catholc AJ) wrote the majority opinion and pretty much said that to hide behind your beliefs would make any citizen the law unto themselves and that would not be acceptable.

    Oh indeed - I'm just not overly passionate about the argument 1 way or another.

    What I am passionate about, however, is taxing churches. Needs to happen. Soon.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    What I am passionate about, however, is taxing churches. Needs to happen. Soon.

    Wait? Didn't you say you were a libertarian?

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Wait? Didn't you say you were a libertarian?

    I am. Just like I'd prefer the government marries no one, I'd prefer the government taxes no one.

    That said, in the interim, I want churches to be taxed in line with corporations and homosexuals to be allowed to marry. The lack of equality is really troubling.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    I am. Just like I'd prefer the government marries no one, I'd prefer the government taxes no one.

    That said, in the interim, I want churches to be taxed in line with corporations and homosexuals to be allowed to marry. The lack of equality is really troubling.

    I just don't see how that makes sense from a principle standpoint.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    I just don't see how that makes sense from a principle standpoint.

    Do you see the government wedding no one or taxing no one ever?

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    Do you see the government wedding no one or taxing no one ever?

    No. So?

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • TheT12 said...

    I think we were agreeing and had a communication breakdown. I said that I didn't think homosexuality was right, I didn't say that it wasn't A right. I disagree with it on a moral level, but I also believe that it falls under the right to privacy. The marriage issue is over my head. My point in all that was that because Christians think it's wrong doesn't mean their will should be imposed. The only way, IMO, that a right can be infringed upon by law is when someone is abusing that right to the detriment of others rights. Furthermore, I don't think Christians will win any non-Christians to their way of thinking by beating them over the head with a Bible. I challenge anyone that reads and comprehends the Bible to disagree with me on that point. Since when did Christ lock people up until they believed in him?

    That was my point. Just my humble opinion.

    Understood and agree with most everything u said.

    gwgator05

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    No. So?

    I don't either, so in the interim (that is, until there exists a climate when the government isn't involved in taxation and marriage), I want there to be equality for all citizens.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    I don't either, so in the interim (that is, until there exists a climate when the government isn't involved in taxation and marriage), I want there to be equality for all citizens.

    But would you not agree that if there were taxes on churches, that ability to tax would lead to the first amendment breaking of establishment by favoring one religion easier than if there was no ability to tax at all? I think taxing religious institutions would be a terribly unconstitutional and un-American thing to do...and that's coming from a Deist.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    But would you not agree that if there were taxes on churches, that ability to tax would lead to the first amendment breaking of establishment by favoring one religion easier than if there was no ability to tax at all? I think taxing religious institutions would be a terribly unconstitutional and un-American thing to do...and that's coming from a Deist.

    No no no no, I don't want to tax 1 religion's churches, I want them all taxed.

    Scientologists are taxed, and their beliefs are no less legitimate than any other Church. Really, all I'm looking for is more equality in this department.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    No no no no, I don't want to tax 1 religion's churches, I want them all taxed.

    Scientologists are taxed, and their beliefs are no less legitimate than any other Church. Really, all I'm looking for is more equality in this department.

    But the ability to tax at all could still lead to the possibility that one day one would be favored at all. By not taxing any of them,we can ensure that doesn't happen. As someone who is a libertarian, I'm shocked you'd trust the govt to handle that.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    But the ability to tax at all could still lead to the possibility that one day one would be favored at all. By not taxing any of them,we can ensure that doesn't happen. As someone who is a libertarian, I'm shocked you'd trust the govt to handle that.

    How? How so?

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    How? How so?

    Key example: income tax. The rates change all the time: more progressive taxation
    ;less progressive taxationa ;Tax breaks ;Tax increases. If there is a tax on religious institutions present, that presence alone increases the chances of favorability from 0 to greater than 0. Not just that but the precedent it sets for states. I live in Alabama and if that happened it wouldn't surprise me if they taxed churches at 10% and mosques(the few we have) at 99.99999%. I'd rather not have that happen. First off because I know that those religious institutions can use that money better, but also because with that taxation comes the entitlement the government can tell them what to do.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Key example: income tax. The rates change all the time: more progressive taxation ;less progressive taxationa ;Tax breaks ;Tax increases. If there is a tax on religious institutions present, that presence alone increases the chances of favorability from 0 to greater than 0. Not just that but the precedent it sets for states. I live in Alabama and if that happened it wouldn't surprise me if they taxed churches at 10% and mosques(the few we have) at 99.99999%. I'd rather not have that happen. First off because I know that those religious institutions can use that money better, but also because with that taxation comes the entitlement the government can tell them what to do.

    Which is why, in whatever legislation actually is proposed, I would consider it a prerequisite that all churches are taxed at an equal rate.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    Which is why, in whatever legislation actually is proposed, I would consider it a prerequisite that all churches are taxed at an equal rate.

    I find it rather naive to think that couldn't change. We are talking about politicians here.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    I find it rather naive to think that couldn't change. We are talking about politicians here.

    While it could change, I hardly find that a valid excuse to not support the motion in the first place. If a politician tries to change it, you will simply have to be diligent and respond.

    ramssuperbowl99

  • While I respect your opinion, I'd rather just have church and state seperate.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • Bump for goodnews

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports