?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

separation of church and state

Yes, if the liberals win you will lose some of your religious freedom and free speech rights.

You will not be allowed to say certain things about a particular group. Homosexual marriage will be approved.


I'm curious as to how we get to these conclusions.

Homosexual marriage being approved-- frankly, I'm for it, but I don't think the Nov.4 election is going to make that big a difference. It's a complex issue, and one that is going to be voted upon, not elected.

But losing "some" religious freedom? Unless we're talking about the freedom to interfere with other's lives and their rights, I don't understand at all what religious freedoms are at stake to be lost if the liberals win.

Free speech rights? Like the rights guaranteed in the first amendment? Those will be lost? How?

You will not be allowed to say things about a particular group. Like the Huguenots. They were a bunch of right bastards they were.

No, really, this is what some people actually believe. It's like a major disconnect happening in the notions of what is actually possible, or what is even real.

Tags:

Comments

( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
madcap23
Sep. 25th, 2008 06:57 pm (UTC)
OK so to play Devil's advocate here... Think of these two things:

1) Political correctness
2) The ability to Physically "Educate" your child

Now for number 1, to paraphrase Carlos Mencia we have gone too far. We have lost the ability to laugh at some things that are FUNNY, we feel the pains of guilt because a certain joke that we laughed at disparaged a protected group. Political correctness is something that, generally speaking, is a movement from the liberal camps.

The ability to Physically "Educate" your own children, this can get you arrested now. I was "Educated" in this way several times as a child... and I deserved EVERY one. I am a fairly well adjusted adult that earns a good living... However if my Dad were to break out the belt today and give me a lick with it cause I was stupid he may be arrested.
lio
Sep. 25th, 2008 08:33 pm (UTC)
Try telling this logic to my Republican bandwagon-Christian brother.
madcap23
Sep. 25th, 2008 08:49 pm (UTC)
To Clarify one thing... I personally do not believe that having a Democrat in the White House will somehow decay the moral fabric of the country (Although I really wish it would make the country much less Puritanical)

I was simply trying to point out the Slippery Slope argument that many "fundies"(as my buddy at work calls them) use to defend the statements made at that website.

Personally I am voting 3rd party this year.
being_isis
Sep. 25th, 2008 09:16 pm (UTC)
so...wait, this person is saying that "some" will lose an amount of their religious freedom because our foundation will no longer be based on judeo-christian morality?

I'm so confused by this, I'm just going to go bang my head on the wall for a while.
saveau
Sep. 25th, 2008 09:33 pm (UTC)
Unless we're talking about the freedom to interfere with other's lives and their rights, I don't understand at all what religious freedoms are at stake to be lost if the liberals win.

That is precisely the thing they most deeply fear. Under the Republican Reich they have enjoyed power and corruption and a sense of being above the law on an unprecedented scale. And they LOVE it. It's a wet dream come true for them. Under an administration that shows at least some respect for the law they'll inevitably be denied at least a portion of the power they been exercising, and that thought terrifies them.
mle292
Sep. 25th, 2008 11:15 pm (UTC)
Letter of the law vs. Past practice
It's a complex issue, and one that is going to be voted upon, not elected.

True, yet unconstitutional in this Representative Republic.

As for the meat of what you're saying, Christians as a group wouldn't have the idea that they have a "right" to oppress non-Christians if they didn't have some precedent.

They're only making noise because that pre-existing right is being openly questioned.

magicmarmot
Sep. 25th, 2008 11:58 pm (UTC)
Homersexual marriage
To me, the very core of the issue is the double definition, with one held by the state and the other by the church. They are separate spheres of influence that should remain separate; with both claiming the territory it becomes muddled.

Let the churchfolk have their one-man-one-woman folderol; give me a term-limited contract of seven years with an option to renew as a civil union, and let the civil union be the legally binding one.
mle292
Sep. 26th, 2008 02:57 am (UTC)
Re: Homersexual marriage
I agree that they should be separate, but I think it would be a significant change.

Allowing theistic officials to oversee legally binding contracts (like marriages) for god-knows how many thousand years is pretty muddled already.

magicmarmot
Sep. 25th, 2008 11:59 pm (UTC)
Re: Letter of the law vs. Past practice
BTW, I'm curious as to the matter of unconstitutionality.
mle292
Sep. 26th, 2008 03:01 am (UTC)
It's the difference between a Republic and pure Democracy. We do not have "will of the majority" for civil rights and that's extremely clearly not the intent of the Constitution.

F'rinstance - would it be Constitutional to put it to a vote whether or not Polish descended people could vote in future elections?
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

April 2012
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow