Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1 of 228 (101491)
04-21-2004 5:08 AM


Willowtree had this to say to me in a now-closed topic:
Inability to grasp the principle of government intrusion and removal of anyones rights - erodes everyones rights - is unbelievable for a person of your intelligence.
in addition to some general comments about what he presumes is my religious hatred. I'll get to those later, if he wants.
Right now I'd just like to state that I very much agree that rights erosion to anyone affects us all, ultimately.
What WT won't clarify to me and Dan Carroll is exactly what rights he feels are threatened, specifically by gay rights groups, which he seems to associate with the phenomenon.
As far as I can tell, religious excercise is freer than it's ever been - what isn't free is the "right" of one religion to monopolize the public stage or circumvent the law.
What erosion of rights do you percieve, WT?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-21-2004 10:24 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 4 by coffee_addict, posted 04-21-2004 2:14 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-22-2004 8:53 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-25-2004 6:59 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 54 by Lindum, posted 04-26-2004 8:26 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 228 (101494)
04-21-2004 5:14 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
It was something like a "flip a coin" - Did this belong in "The Coffee House" or did it belong in "Faith and Belief".
Adminnemooseus
ps:
quote:
What erosion of rights do you percieve, WT?
"i" before "e", except after "c".
Please, no responce to this ps.
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-21-2004]

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 228 (101535)
04-21-2004 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
04-21-2004 5:08 AM


For some context, here's the original thread, starting from WT's assertion on religious rights.
I've gotta back Crash's question here. As far as I can tell, we're living in the most religion-friendly government we've had in over a decade. So what are all these hastily dissolving rights?

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2004 5:08 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 4 of 228 (101577)
04-21-2004 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
04-21-2004 5:08 AM


I also have to back the Frog on this one. The states is one of the most religious tolerant country in the world. You can follow any religion you want without having worry about those Christians wanting to hang your for heresy. This, I believe, includes my right from religion. I do not want anyone's religion to be shoved down my throat. I do not want my children to have to deal with religion in school.
You can believe whatever you want to believe in your house. Just don't force the rest of us to having to deal with your beliefs in public places.
Here is a question I have. Would any Christian be willing to have to say "under Allah" in school?

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2004 5:08 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by :æ:, posted 04-21-2004 2:57 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 5 of 228 (101582)
04-21-2004 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by coffee_addict
04-21-2004 2:14 PM


Lam writes:
The states is one of the most religious tolerant country in the world.
I mostly agree with you here, however you should consider that when you say this:
You can follow any religion you want without having worry about those Christians wanting to hang your for heresy.
...it seems you are unfamiliar with the growing Christian Reconstructionist movement here in the US.
Pay special attention to where the article says:
quote:
The use of the death penalty would be greatly expanded, when the Hebrew Scriptures' laws are reapplied. People will be executed for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, evil sorcery (some translations say Witchcraft), etc. The Bible requires those found guilty of these "crimes" to be either stoned to death or burned alive. Reconstructionists are divided on the execution method to be used.
...and...
quote:
A church or congregation which does not accept the Mosaic Law has another god before them, and is thus guilty of idolatry. That would be punishable by death. That would include all non-Christian religious organizations. At the present time, non-Christians total two-thirds of the human race.
I agree with all of the principles you outlined in your post, but I thought you'd like to be aware that there are indeed a growing number of Christians that would be perfectly willing to hang you for heresey, and they have nothing short of world domination as their goal -- nay, their expectation.
[This message has been edited by ::, 04-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by coffee_addict, posted 04-21-2004 2:14 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 2885 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 6 of 228 (101882)
04-22-2004 3:46 PM


This should be interesting...
I agree with all of the principles you outlined in your post, but I thought you'd like to be aware that there are indeed a growing number of Christians that would be perfectly willing to hang you for heresey, and they have nothing short of world domination as their goal -- nay, their expectation.
According to the NRA, there are 87 million gun owners in the U.S.of A. And not all of them favor the Reconstruction movement.
(:raig

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 7 of 228 (101988)
04-22-2004 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
04-21-2004 5:08 AM


Crashfrog:
Please remove my name from the topic title so I can participate absent a veiled and perceived threat of blackmail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2004 5:08 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2004 12:40 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 228 (102070)
04-23-2004 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object
04-22-2004 8:53 PM


Please remove my name from the topic title so I can participate absent a veiled and perceived threat of blackmail.
I can't imagine what you're talking about. Your name is in the thread to get your attention and because the thread originated based on statements you made.
I can't change the thread title. An admin can but I find it disingenuous to the extreme that you think the thread title is an honest reason for you to refuse to clarify statements you have made.
If you believe that explaining your views might subject you to blackmail, that might be a good indicator that your views are wrong. Other than that I can't imagine what "threat of blackmail" you think your name in the title represents. I've participated in a number of threads with my name in the title and experienced no such threat whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-22-2004 8:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by wj, posted 04-23-2004 3:01 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 228 (102106)
04-23-2004 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
04-23-2004 12:40 AM


WT made a similar complaint when I started a thread to discuss his supposed scientific evidence against evolution.
There is no obligation on WT to participate in the thread if he doesn't want to, despite his aspertions of blackmail. It only raises the question of why he would not if he has expressed an opinion on the issue previously. But I'm sure sensible contributions can be made by others without WT. Sometimes WT can be a little precious.
It might be interesting to differentiate between societies such as the US which has constitutional freedom of religion but in practice has pervasive religiosity and other societies such as UK which does not necessarily have the same constitutional freedom but in practice is a more secular society. Which scenarios would you prefer to live in?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2004 12:40 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-23-2004 5:33 PM wj has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 228 (102160)
04-23-2004 10:48 AM


I can see signs in the US of Religious Rights Erosions, and I can see a very strong desire and drive to erode those rights. It is still small and not yet effective, but when Criminals like Judge Moore can garner support, particularly the level of support we saw, it is certainly a threat.
Other clear signs of the growing support of those who would like to erode Religious Rights is the Defense of Marriage Act and the push for a Constitutional Amedment Defining Marriage. The push to add Creationism is yet another troubling sign of our Religious Rights being eroded.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by DBlevins, posted 04-26-2004 4:20 AM jar has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 11 of 228 (102244)
04-23-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by wj
04-23-2004 3:01 AM


Wj quote:
______________________________________________________________________
It only raises the question of why he would not if he has expressed an opinion on the issue previously.
______________________________________________________________________
Therein is the blackmail.
Crashfrog would have everyone believe that creating this topic/title to be innocent, as if I am stupid/naieve to believe this.
Everyone knows why he has done this.
He got bested in a previous exchange and he cannot tolerate that fact.
This is the third/fourth time my name was used in a title and each time the topic creator hid behind the same reasoning; trying to convince me of the favor being done. Crashfrog got rung up by Admin/Percy recently and then had the shameless response of making light of it in another arena. He is on a rant binge and I am in his crosshairs. Whatvever position he represents me to have should not be trusted unless it is an exact quote - cut and pasted.
I could of just as easily responded by creating my own topic with his name in it - a title communicating the real reason for this present dispute. But, I decided not to.
Crashfrog : If you want a piece of me then approach like a man and stop the intelligence-insulting excuses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by wj, posted 04-23-2004 3:01 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2004 5:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 13 by Asgara, posted 04-23-2004 5:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-23-2004 5:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2004 6:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 27 by nator, posted 04-24-2004 9:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 228 (102245)
04-23-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object
04-23-2004 5:33 PM


He got bested in a previous exchange and he cannot tolerate that fact.
Bested? For that to have occured you would have actually had to present an argument, not just an assertion.
I didn't start this thread to accuse you of cowardice (which I have not at any point done), but rather, to continue a discussion from a thread that was closed before you had had a chance to present the evidence to support your argument. Because I was curious, I gave you that chance.
Whatvever position he represents me to have should not be trusted unless it is an exact quote - cut and pasted.
I have no idea what your position is, other than you believe religious rights are being eroded.
I disagree; so I thought I'd give you a chance to give examples, etc.
Is there any reason you persist in ad hominem attacks rather than support your position? I mean, I can think of a few reasons, but I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-23-2004 5:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 13 of 228 (102246)
04-23-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object
04-23-2004 5:33 PM


You know WT, one of the times that your name was used in a title was by me.
At the time I had not gotten "bested" at an exchange with you, I was not hiding anything behind any reasoning. It was pretty straight forward. I asked the exact same question of you that I had in the original thread that didn't get answered.
Most of the time that members' names have been used is simply to start a new thread from an off topic discussion in a prior thread. Using a participant's name is simply a way of letting them know that the discussion is meant for them.
If you elect to ignore it then so be it. But quit crying foul everytime it is done. We are not all waiting around with baited breath to hear your opinion. And no one is attempting subterfuge to trick you into an exchange with us. If you don't want to participate then don't post.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-23-2004 5:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 228 (102247)
04-23-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object
04-23-2004 5:33 PM


Willowtree writes:
Wj writes:
It only raises the question of why he would not if he has expressed an opinion on the issue previously.
Therein is the blackmail.
Willowtree, that question was already raised on the previous thread, when you not only refused repeated requests to support your statement, but refused to even clarify what you were talking about.
Since it was off topic, a new thread was opened to repeat the request. It has your name on it because the request is still being made to you.

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-23-2004 5:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-23-2004 5:50 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 15 of 228 (102253)
04-23-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dan Carroll
04-23-2004 5:41 PM


Dan Carroll quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Willowtree, that question was already raised on the previous thread, when you not only refused repeated requests to support your statement, but refused to even clarify what you were talking about.
______________________________________________________________________
This statement is completely untrue.
I did respond - the problem was that you did not like my answers, so like now you just lie and claim I did not respond.
I supported my statement which was an analysis of why you said what you said. This infuriated you and the only thing you could do was violate forum guidelines and repeat your points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-23-2004 5:41 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-23-2004 6:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024