Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

If I'm not free to blaspheme then I'm not free.

Spoken like a true child of postmodern times. Some speech corrupts the public consciousness, but we're so used to all kinds of such corrupting speech over the last half century we consider it "freedom." Blasphemy used to be penalized in America, and in the UK too I believe.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's a simple matter of equal treatment under the law. Would you ok with laws preventing you from blaspheming against Odin the Allfather? of course not, so why should I be subject to laws that would prevent me from blaspheming against your god?

We're talking about a Christian country here. That's the context the quotes jar put up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So a christian country is not obligated to treat it's citizens equally under the law? Some citizens are more equal than others?

Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing - with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for the second and third place.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Well, apparently if a (Protestant) Christian nation wants to stay Christian it has to limit the freedoms of the antiChristians or you'll eventually have the situation where Christians can lose their businesses and be fined for obeying God, or perhaps forced to adhere to Sharia law, wear burgas or be killed, or told to recant their beliefs and become Catholics or be killed and so on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The only benign player in the game -- not perfect, not without fault, but still basically benigh -- is under attack while the wolves are defended against the sheep. Unbelievable.

---

The only benign force in the game is the secular state which guarantees freedom of religion - and recognises that there is a need to restrict actions, even if they are religiously motivated. And you're attacking it.

Here's Samuel Adams , one of the American founders and a strong Protestant, on why Catholic freedoms had to be limited, which of course should also apply to any intolerant belief system (and by intolerant is NOT meant requiring people to obey reasonable laws for the peace of society, but actively forcing others to believe something on pain of death, which is what the Inquisition did and what Islam does wherever it has the power): JToleration is to be given to all "whose doctrines are not subversive of society." Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So you want to remove people's freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Tell me how is that different from what you claim is being done to christians?

Fortunately, Faith, your side is losing.By almost every measure, our society is rapidly becoming more secular, and progressive social positions now poll as a majority stance in the U.S. The steepest drop in self-declared religious affiliation is among evangelicals, especially among the young, whose newer ears know hatefulness when they hear it.I'm surprised you think your God is so feeble that He requires you to do what He'd do if He were in possession of all the facts: a god that can only thrive in a repressive theocracy is a pretty puny god.As to Mr. Adams' quote, let's make one small change. As with the paeans to liberty sung by founders who whipped and raped slaves, one sometimes has to abstract the contemporary hates and horrors to get the larger point. What you want is that imperium in imperio (that sovereignty within a sovereignty) to be your sect, a Grand Evangelical Imperium--for all your disdain for the Inquisition, you want your own. Mr. Adams warned against claims of religious authority that exceeds civil authority--he'd be no happier with your claim that every evangelical has the same imperium in imperio he detested in the Pope.Sam was right about the threat posed to liberty and order by religious claims of sovereignty. Should your evangelical mania bring you into conflict with the law, I'm increasingly comfortable with the notion of you in jail.

Thank you Faith for supporting my point and demonstrating you are no different than the fanatics in Chiapas and Hidalgo. I knew I could count on you for a clear example of why the members of your Chapter of Club Christian are the greatest threat the US has ever faced and why the 1^st. Amendment was included in our Constitution to protect us from folk like you.Edited by jar, : what ---> why

We're talking of a country largely comprised of Christians,not a country with an official church or theocracy. David Barton and the other nuts notwithstanding, the Founding Fathers were very careful to explicitly deny that we are a Christian country.

So under your benign freedom when I point out that the Bible says mankind has the same knowledge of right and wrong as God does and that when God is acting immorally it is man's duty to correct God and that the God found in Genesis 2&3 is not very bright and learning on the job and thinks men should have sex with their clones would that be acceptable to teach?Would I be allowed to hold office?

No, their freedom of religion is not removed, just their political power to impose it on the rest of the country, which isn't taken away from anyone except those whose religion preaches the subjugation of everyone else, such as Islam and Roman Catholicism.We aren't taking away their businesses, but that's what's what's being done to us,