jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (160 posts)

Religious Freedom?

  1. American View profile image60
    American Viewposted 3 years ago

    Ernest Istook once said

    “While even pornography is protected as free speech, the courts have consciously undermined religious speech and freedom of religion for years. ”

    Is he right, and thoughts?

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Religion as much as anything has done its best to stifle freedom of religion and religious speech!

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        HOW?

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The only "undermining" the courts have done has been to slowly remove more and more religious speech and activity from public, taxpayer funded locations.  Schools, for instance.

      The religious are, in other words, losing the "rights" they never should have had in the first place; "rights" that were allowed only because the the enormous majority and political power they once wielded.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The enormous power of which religion...the catholic church before the 1400's? You people really need to come to this century!

        1. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          90% of the major elected officials in this country are Christian. The vast majority of the population is too.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Luck of the draw, I guess!

            1. Josak profile image62
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Nope it correlates to the massive Christian voter block.

    3. Josak profile image62
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Quite the contrary it has always been the religious attempting to quash the free speech of others (not to mention their basic freedoms like who they marry) and they continue to do so while whining about being oppressed.
      Legally the religious have identical rights to anyone else yet due to the religious same sex couples have fewer rights under the law, while the religious continue to be the oppressors the claim and the quote will remain laughable.

      1. Drhu profile image61
        Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But I am never supposed to speak of my faith right Josak?????????????

        1. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nothing wrong with practicing, having or speaking of a faith. The problem is when people who do attempt to force their tenets on others.

      2. teamrn profile image80
        teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What Josak. It has always been those who are religious who attempt to push their ideas on others? I don't know where you come from, but that was in the days of the Crusades and other Holy Wars.

        Our Constitution guarantees us freedom os religion. Our Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech. I am guaranteed freedom to SPEAK of my religion and to exercise my religion. If that means putting up a nativity scene or if that means laying down a prayer mat to Mecca three times a day, WE ARE GUARANTEED THAT RIGHT.

      3. teamrn profile image80
        teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Josak, what is a modern day example of that? If anything, th more religious groups (Catholic or Protestant of Muslim) have been the more tolerant and the more oppressed, because their Constitutionally guaranteed rights have been trample on.

        1. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We have to this day as I mentioned several percent of the American population denied equal rights UNDER THE LAW by the religious there is no greater and unforgivable piece of tyranny than to reach into the lives of others with the instrument of the state and tell them who they can and can't marry.
          We also had of course all the Christian driven anti pornography movement concluding in the Larry Flint trials.
          Just two examples of serious attempts to enforce religious views on non believers.
          On the other hand Christians won't stop whining that governments will no longer pay for nativity scenes which as Wilderness (a conservative) already noted is actually unconstitutional. It's hypocrisy at it's highest level and if it wasn't so tragic for the millions oppressed and denied their rights it would be funny that the oppressors are attempting to portray themselves as victims because people are getting sick of their tyranny.

          1. Drhu profile image61
            Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think I can afford a nativity scene. i don't need tax dollars and not sure where tax dollars come in there.

          2. innersmiff profile image80
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm generally agreeing with you but - there is no greater tyranny than the government dictating who you can marry? I can think of a few things worse . . .

          3. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            On the other hand Christians won't stop whining that governments will no longer pay for nativity scenes which as Wilderness (a conservative) already noted is actually unconstitutional.

            Interesting point, you do realize most cities do not pay for nativity scenes, they are paid and maintained for by private donations. The real issue is not money, it is placement. Those of no faith do not want to see these display's on public property. I disagree with you about whether or not it is constitutional.

          4. teamrn profile image80
            teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Christians won't stop whining that governments will no longer pay for nativity sc to penes "

            What is an instance in which government is asked by Christians to PAY for nativity scenes? Christian want nativity scenes, but I wasn't aware that they wanted government to pay for them. OXYMORON.

            1. Josak profile image62
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Many nativity scenes are still publicly funded by city governments (there was a trial about it recently) those that are not are fine with me so long as all faiths and creeds can use public land for their ceremonies just like nativity scenes often do.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And what is so terrible about depicting an event bringing forth a child who would become a man with a message of love
                for the whole world,
                                                                       i n c l u d i n g, 
                                                               people of every religion?

                1. Josak profile image62
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't mind nativity scenes but A) many people do and they should not have their taxes used on it B) it's unconstitutional as it means the government is participating in religious matters.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Many people mind nativity scenes. SO WHAT?

                    The government is participating in religious matters GASP!  That is really terrible...
                    why, again?

                  2. teamrn profile image80
                    teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Josak, why are self-funded nativity scenes unConstitutional? Other religious groups are just as free to put up their symbolic 'ornaments.'

                    People of the Jewish faith display Menorrahs (spelling), and Buddist diplay statues of Buddha. These are rights guaranteed by the Constitution. As long as the 'ornaments/symbols' don't interfere with someone else's practice of his/her faith/NON-FAITH (atheist), there can be no case made that these are UnConstittional. Rather, the Constitution declares it our RIGHT to practice our religion.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Would it not be better to erect display celebrating the life of Odin, the living, one true God of the universe?  Certainly more appropriate than just another man who, however good and noble, was but one of many with the same attributes.

                  Or, if you must recognize a mere man, how about a statue of Buddha?  As far as I know he never inspired a religion of violence and murder as Jesus did.  Wouldn't that be more appropriate in the season of love and giving?

                  It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I have absolutely no problem with Odin!
                    I would love seeing statues of Buddha everywhere!
                    Bring the statue of Vishnu Meditating with Ten Avatars out of Norton Simon Art museum and place it on Colorado Blvd.
                                                                               PLEASE 
                    (*disclaimer: I am not really advocating doing this. I am merely making a point.)
                                                                     

                    It's why we have
                                                              FREEDOM OF RELIGION!

                  2. Josak profile image62
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    +1

                  3. teamrn profile image80
                    teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    'Oddists' are free to erect thier statute to Odda, Buddhist are free to have their statues of Buddha. But where I disagree with you is in your assumption that Odin, is the one true...

                    In your mind and in the minds of others, yes. But not in my mind, Am I not entitled to my beliefs and to practice them?

          5. teamrn profile image80
            teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Here's the statement, "We have to this day as I mentioned several percent of the American population denied equal rights UNDER THE LAW by the religious there is no greater and unforgivable piece of tyranny than to reach into the lives of others with the instrument of the state and tell them who they can and can't marry."

      4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The catholic church will not marry gays...  Sorry about that... Old traditions die hard. Go to another church! There are lots of other ministers who will marry same sex couples!
        - since we actually do have have freedom of religion, thank goodness!

        1. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The government will not marry gay people due to the Christian lobby, by far the most powerful special interest group in this country.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            They don't have to be legally married. Why should they be?
            Why????
            Tell me why?
            Please!!!!

            1. Josak profile image62
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Because a just legal system requires equal rights under the law for everyone. It's very simple.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Where does it state that????Pray tell????


                                                                 W  h  a  t     
                                                             is very simple???

                1. Josak profile image62
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What is simple is the principle of equality under the law, when people are not equal under the law it creates legal discrimination such as the holocaust, apartheid etc.

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "equality under the law"...example please. I have no idea what you are referring to as far as THIS COUNTRY!  I am becoming weary of this   nonsense. Where DO you live?

                  1. Josak profile image62
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It means that you and I should have the same rights under the law, you should not for example be denied freedom of speech because of your faith and I should not be unable to vote because I am black.

                  2. Josak profile image62
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    In the US.

          2. teamrn profile image80
            teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Josak, should the government be in the MARRYING business AT ALL? Food for thought. I know when I was married, we petitioned the government for a license, and as far as I'm concerned, even that much involvement is too much.

            The business of the government is to GOVERN and not to be handing out marriage licenses.

            1. psycheskinner profile image79
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The fact is that they are.  This pretty much has to be the case so long as marriage is privileged under the law.

              1. 62
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Anybody can marry!

                1. psycheskinner profile image79
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If you mean a marriage that allows you to share health insurance, get tax breaks, make end of life decisions, be the parent of your spouses child, co-adopt children, be protected in court by spousal privilege etc etc etc etc.

                  No, they can't.

                2. Josak profile image62
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Nope.

    4. Drhu profile image61
      Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It depends on which courts.
      I find it amazing the number of folk here who are all for our rights as long as you aren't a Christian or a Jew...............

      1. teamrn profile image80
        teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What are OUR rights> And how are Christians and Jews infringe upon those right?

        1. Drhu profile image61
          Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No...now I am on your side of this.
          What I was trying to say was you have lot's of folks here all for the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution who will act like they have no idea what you are talkinga bout when it comes to actual Christianity or Judaism.
          That they don't want in there.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "What I was trying to say was you have lot's of folks here all for the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution who will act like they have no idea what you are talkinga bout when it comes to actual Christianity or Judaism.
            That they don't want in there."

            What we want doesn't enter into it. There is no Christianity or Judaism in the Constitution.

            There's a clause that prohibits the government from establishing a church, and there's another that guarantees the free exercise of religion. There's another one that prohibits a religious test from ever being used to determine if someone is fit for office. And that's about it.

            There's not mention of God (or YWH, YHWH, or Jehovah, whatever you want to call Him) or of Jesus, or of the Holy Spirit: no recognition of their authority, not even an acknowledgement of their existence. (the phrase "so help me God" is not part of any oath of office as specified in the Constitution, and the practice of swearing over a Holy Book of any kind is not specified in the Constitution either.

            Most Americans happen to be Christians, and there's nothing in the Constitution that says "you can't say 'so help me God'" or "you can't swear on a Bible," so nobody should have a problem with those practices.

            But I have a pretty big problem with anyone who insists that they're required, 'cos they're not.

    5. teamrn profile image80
      teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is it because groups protest having the nativity scene displayed that they end up asking the courts to make decisions on things the courts have no business intervening.in..

      Freedom of religion is established in the Constitution and allowing the Courts to make a decision that prevents display of the nativity scene or prevents the use of prayer rugs, is mixing church and state and discriminating against someone who wants to EXERCISE his Constitution-given right.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We so need these things to be explained! Thank You, teamrn!

    6. Josak profile image62
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As I have stated until the religious stop denying equal rights under the law to others on the basis of who they can marry it will be ridiculous when they complain about being "oppressed".

      It is astounding the level of delusion shown when a group that makes up over 70% of the population and 90% of major elected officials still believes it is somehow this victimized group while still denying others their fundamental rights to choice.

    7. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      He's wrong--completely and utterly wrong.

      What the courts have ruled is that religious people may not co-opt governmental authority and/or resources for use in proselytizing their own particular faith. This is altogether fitting and proper in a nation that prohibits the establishment of a state religion.

      There's a pretty big difference between "You can't co-opt government resources and/or authority when proselytizing for your faith" and "You can't proselytize for your faith."

      Further, the folks who do get persecuted for their faith are folks whose faiths are tiny minorities in the US, like the various pagan groups (druidic circles, etc), Sikhs, Buddhists, and Muslims. But strangely, the people who yelp the loudest about freedom of religion seem to be the ones most eager to force others to follow the rules of their own faith, especially regarding gay marriage, birth control, etc. (I'm looking at you, Conservative Christians!)

      Really, it's almost a certainty that whenever someone complains about religious persecution, he's actually either complaining that other religions are being treated with the same respect as his own religion, or else he's complaining that his religion is no longer being given as much preferential treatment as it used to get.

      "No fair! You're treating my religion just like everyone else's religion!"

      Some folks are going to be really shocked when Christianity really does get treated equally to other faiths in the US. Imagine having to ask your boss for a day off to celebrate Christmas or Easter with your family. Members of other faiths have to do exactly that: ask for the day off to celebrate their religion's most important holidays with their families. Sometimes, they don't get the day off. But Christmas and Easter get special treatment: everyone gets those days off whether they want them or not.

      Stop whining.

      1. teamrn profile image80
        teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Having the 'religious' holidays off is not a guarantee in many professions. Healthcare workers, firemen, all the essential services, know that only too well.

        In Chicago, not having Casimir Pulaski Day off is agin the law.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Having the 'religious' holidays off is not a guarantee in many professions."
          True, first responders and hospital workers all know that they are expected to work even on their religion's holidays. Lemme ask you this: what do they get paid to work on Christmas Day? I'm betting it's something close to double-time, right? Especially for unionized workers (e.g. police, firefighters, nurses).

          But ask a Reformed Druid who had to work last Beltane if he even got time and a half and see what he says.

          1. teamrn profile image80
            teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I was a nurse and when I worked Christmas or another nationally recognized holiday, I got regular pay. Hospitals aren't flush. I'd imagine the only people who received time and a half or double time were the union workers or agency or per diem employees..

            In return for working the holiday I received another day off-IF (and that was a big IF) they could spare me. If their need was too great to staff the unit, all bets were off and I gave my time to them. Slave labor it was, but I wanted and needed a job.

            The union worker wouldn't get treated this way, but I chose not to give a good portion of my earned income to pay union dues to Jimmy Hoffa and watch them grow rich.

            People have an over glorified and unrealistic idea that healthcare workers  and other first responders are WONDERFULLY compensated for having a commitment.  Au contraire.. Unless they're unionized, they get trampled on.

            Anytime you have people as a commodity or attention is needed 24/7, this will be the case. This happens to a lesser degree in some venues, but is what I experienced in 20 years.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I was a nurse and when I worked Christmas or another nationally recognized holiday, I got regular pay. Hospitals aren't flush. I'd imagine the only people who received time and a half or double time were the union workers or agency or per diem employees.

              In return for working the holiday I received another day off-IF (and that was a big IF) they could spare me. If their need was too great to staff the unit, all bets were off and I gave my time to them. Slave labor it was, but I wanted and needed a job....

              People have an over glorified and unrealistic idea that healthcare workers  and other first responders are WONDERFULLY compensated for having a commitment.  Au contraire.. Unless they're unionized, they get trampled on.


              That's quite an eloquent argument in favor of joining a union. Given the above, it seems like not joining the union was a pretty bad decision.

              The union worker wouldn't get treated this way, but I chose not to give a good portion of my earned income to pay union dues to Jimmy Hoffa and watch them grow rich.

              I find it very interesting that you seem to take a certain pride in being "trampled on," paid less for your work, and treated as "slave labor" because you decided not to join the union. Why is that? Looking at it from outside,

              1. teamrn profile image80
                teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Think about it, just think about it. We're both human, so I assume that our behaviors would be similar. Motives maybe different. But think. You say I take pride in being "trampled on." Would you take pride in the same think, would you put "II like being trampled on" on your resume? Heck no!

                I made a conscious choice NOT to join a union. Nursing unions at that time were NOTORIOUSLY weak and about all they did then was to make sure my contract was renegotiated.

                I have other reasons, like I didn't need an organization to make sure I was treated professionally . There was a time and place for unions; when true abuse of workers was taking place in the industrial revolution.

                Now, I question their need for existence. People can think and act for themselves, telling their employer that they WILL NOT WORK FOR FREE. My employer soon learned that from me and WHAT DO YOU KNOW, the days without a break ended, the days working 12 hours and being paid for 8 ended. WITHOUT PAYNG JIMMY HOFFA AND HIS ILK A PENNY.

                So don't presume to know a gd thing about someone else's motives or rationale for behavior-unless they've told you, Knowing behavior is one thing, but the motive behind it might be quite different.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I have other reasons, like I didn't need an organization to make sure I was treated professionally . There was a time and place for unions; when true abuse of workers was taking place in the industrial revolution.

                  Now, I question their need for existence. People can think and act for themselves, telling their employer that they WILL NOT WORK FOR FREE. My employer soon learned that from me and WHAT DO YOU KNOW, the days without a break ended, the days working 12 hours and being paid for 8 ended. WITHOUT PAYNG JIMMY HOFFA AND HIS ILK A PENNY.


                  Waitwait...first you say "Unless they're unionized, they get trampled on," and "The union worker wouldn't get treated this way," and then you say "I didn't join a union and I did't get trampled on."

                  Your story seems to be changing....Do you want to clarify?

                  1. teamrn profile image80
                    teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Good God Jeff . Twist, Twist, Twist. I did not join a union,. PERIOD. The nursing administration didn't want ours to be union shop. PERIOD. When I was trampled on, I used my head, not the 'dollar bill and bully pulpit' to obtain my rights.

  2. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    If it wasn't for religion, being free to talk about sex wouldn't seem like an odd thing.  It's just sex, after all.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Go ahead and advocate anarchy through Godlessness, abuse of freedom of speech, and the tearing up of the "out-of-date" Constitution of the United States of America.  Go ahead and advocate dependency on the government, expanding the power of state public schools, shutting down the US post office and getting rid of cash in favor of electronic currency. Go ahead and make sure art is ugly, crass and dull, movies are meaningless, unrealistic and boring. Go ahead and make sure to addict the population to legal drugs: Pharmaceuticals for children, pharmaceuticals for teens, pharmaceuticals and "medical" marijuana for adults, and make sure to overload the population with unnecessary and dangerous vaccines. And while you're at it, make sure all women have the right to as much sexual freedom as they see fit. Oh, and make sure they produce governmentally dependent children, (and make sure the rich pay for them... until they have no more money left ... But who WILL pay for all those government babies???) Turn all parks into athletic complexes, and turn all natural areas into reserves where no one is allowed to set foot unless they pay the entrance fee.   
    Whats next... burning books, shutting down the NASA's space program,
    Q. Why leave water in swimming pools? WHY?
    A: Good question. What a waste of water!
       
    Go ahead and get rid of EVERYTHING our mothers, fathers, grandparents and great grand parents revered.
    Whatever is left is what you will deserve. Luckily the preceding generations won't be around. But, I might and my children will...
                                                 Thanks for Nothing.

    1. teamrn profile image80
      teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well said Kathryn and we're on that path. As we merge increasingly towards a ssocialist state, if people now think the 'rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer,' JJST WHAT until we get to that socialist state. There IS no middle class, You either have-until you run out of other people's money, and then you have NOTHING and are taken over by an 'in the right place at the right time' Johnny on the Spot  kind-of Hitler.

      But, America spoke in 2008 and 2012 and said that for some reason, Greece is what they want and so that socialist paradigm  appealed to them. I'm serious, guys. Thank God, i won't be around to see the day, but our grandchildren will. Thanks a pant load liberal America for not seeing the end game, just the short one; and thank you, Herr Obama for your scare tactics. To echo Charles Krauthamer, the POTUS used every scare tactic short of "pestilence, earthquake, brimstone and plague" to scare us into believing why we didn't ant sequestration. Well, why not do something CONSTRUCTIVE about it and get to work and ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES and not campaign. I'm with you, Kathryn.

    2. Josak profile image62
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is a perfect example of the out of touch pensioner complaining about "back in my day" which every generation has seen as old expired ideas are replaced by better ones. God forbid people choose who they want to have sex with, oh the horror.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You'll see soon enough who is out of touch.

        1. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We have already seen, all around the world, religion fades as people get more educated and everything stays the same or gets better, it is far more advanced in many nations (take Australia for example) and these countries continue to flourish and grow.
          The doomsday prophesies never happen and Christianity will disappear like the thousands of faiths before it replaced by people with their own morality which according to crime statistics, is superior since atheists form a miniscule portion of the prison population compared to their total population numbers.

      2. teamrn profile image80
        teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Josak, show me ONCE where I alluded to any sex. I spoke of the current president's actions or inactions to avoid sequestrations and NOTHING to to with a pension(er).

        The Constitution allows for replacing laws: that is in the amendment process and only in the amendment process. The idea that we have to replace what was good for the goose in 1996, just for the sake of replacing it, because WE WANT IT, makes us no better than the child in a candy store who WANTS.

        The child in the candy story who truly needs the candy, has a means to get the candy and that is by amending the Constitution. There is no other legal way.

        1. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That was not a response to you, it is a response to Kathryn.

      3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I was going to say "What an incoherent rant!" but your response is pretty good too.

      4. teamrn profile image80
        teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunaely, Josak, that was written only a few days ago and is more likely to come true than when I wrote it. Annie

  4. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    America was a religious country even before the Europeans settled this land for it was Native Americans whose diverse religious views permeated the land.

    To think those who suffered in an effort to settle this land being of religious virtue went forth to provide morality as they practice their faith.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … ted_States

    Like in the Judeo-Christian Bible where as Jesus the Christ was hated and rejected so shall then be his followers.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      not to mention that freedom requires morality.
      REQUIRES IT!

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Morality, while it's obviously a necessary thing, is still a constraint on freedom. You're free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't adversely affect the people around you. It's a limited freedom.

        Absolute freedom, in D&D terms, is Chaotic Neutral. You don't hold law and order in any regard, you don't revere all that is good, you don't desire all that is evil, and you certainly don't fear either. You just do whatever you want, whenever you want. You might save a guy's life, or you might steal his car.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Freedom requires morality. Morality, however, does not require religion.

        1. teamrn profile image80
          teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          WHY  does freedom require morality? I feel freedom REQUIRES COMMON SENSE. Common sense often accompanies morality, but not always.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            -morality follows common sense, as well.  It is a probability that morality is exclusively based on common sense and may actually define it.

  5. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    One can hardly profess to follow a set of religious beliefs which are directly tied to the Bible by picking and choosing what is offered in the Bible...it is an all or nothing proposition...not pick and choose.  If marriage is looked upon in the eyes of the law as strictly a "civil union", then the courts may well have the power to rule that any two people can be united in civil union but that does mean that the church or religious entity must recognize it as a marriage in terms of the Bible.  Given that premise, we have separation of church and state within the boundaries of the law.  Historically there has been some religious connotation incorporated into government symbols and structures due in great part to the importance the Founding Fathers attached to the principles of religion in a civil society and to the fact that we were a nation founded in the Protestant or Christian faith.  Freedom of speech, as referenced in the Bill of Rights, is about the "government" not making any laws which infringe upon the right of the people to have a voice.  To stretch that intent into something that deals with who can marry who is beyond the scope of sensibility as it applies to the First Amendment.  Basically we are talking about government not enacted any laws that infringe upon the practice of religion and the freedom of speech...those boundaries appear rather clear to me.  The emphasis is on "the government" not the individual and not the religious entity.  That seems rather clear to me.  ~WB

    1. Josak profile image62
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Totally irrelevant to equality under the law.

  6. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    I need more context to understand this.  Historically, the church has disproportionately influenced public policy.  If there is a reversal in that trend, I support it.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The Constitution protects religious freedom for the sake of those who are religious. How does Freedom of Religion negatively affect anyone? Is it a threat to the government? Is it a threat to those who are immoral?

      I mean, Religion is "oppressive?" to whom?
      To atheists? to radical muslims? to peaceful hindus? to elementary school children? to satanists? to animals? to aliens? to illegal aliens? to presidents? to socialists? to other religious factions? to scientists? to politicians? to God? to the people of the US? to college students? to the unborn? to the elderly? to  preschoolers? to posterity? to homosexuals? Please explain!

      "There should be no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Amendment 1 adopted in 1791.
       
      The separation of church and state, (as established by precedents set forth by laws made throughout the history of the US,) was for the purpose of preventing the possibility of a government-sponsored religion which would remove freedom of religious choice.

      1. teamrn profile image80
        teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good question, "What is the threat of religion to anyone?" I don't see religion and religious freedom as a threat to anyone, but the government may feel threatened by anything that it can't control..

        I'm trying to think of a religion, the very practice of which is a threat to all humans. I can't. But, in a lll relies groups, there are the extreme groups which can pose a danger, a threat to individual religous freedom..

        1. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The threat of religion? You mean like the people who kill abortion doctors? Or the Muslims who blow themselves up? About half of the terrorist organizations in this country are religious, the majority Christian.

          Not to mention the millions slaughtered by the word of holy texts that command the murder of gay people, women are who not virgins on their wedding nights and a whole host of others.

          Or the suffering of millions that could be helped by stem cell research obstructed by religious institutions.

          Religion is a threat to plenty of people.

          1. teamrn profile image80
            teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think you mean religious fanatics. The religion itself is no threat as long as it is practiced in peace. It is fanatics that are the threat, the danger

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Josak: Those are not examples of religions. Those are examples of whacked out individuals. There are laws in place for heavens sake... at least in this country!
          Where are these millions of gays and non-virgins being slaughtered???? Iran? Yes!!!!!

          (There are only millions of unborn being slaughtered in the US. and stem cell research is profiting from their deaths. Gross.)

          Right Josak. sad
          This is not a very well thought-out argument.  We are talking about THIS COUNTRY.
          (Get with the program!)
          Better luck next time.

          1. Josak profile image62
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It would be individual nutjobs except they are simply following the creeds of their holy texts.

              "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

            "Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.  (Exodus 21:15 NAB)"

            But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

            But most importantly:
            Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

            One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men.  During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name.  So the man was brought to Moses for judgment.  His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan.  They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear.  Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head.  Then let the entire community stone him to death.  Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished.  Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel.  Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die.  (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

            This is the faith you follow?

            Because it clearly states that it does not have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.

            It's not an argument it's what the bible says and there is no luck involved, better luck finding a moral faith. The fact that you follow this creed while demanding those rights (while using that creed as an excuse to deny others their rights is just a hilarious chain and that is a truth most of the world and rapidly this country is realizing which is why the church and it's power is fading and will soon disappear.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The precepts of religious principals found in this country are for the most part based on the words of Jesus who preached love. My goodness get with the times!
              Ever heard of law and justice?
              I guess you don't live where there are laws or justice!
              That's too bad for you. sad

              1. Josak profile image62
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yeesh you should really study your bible, how is that I have been an atheist for decades and have to give you quotes.

                "Don't ever think that I came to set aside Moses' Teachings or the Prophets. I didn't come to set them aside but to make them come true."

                In Jesus' own words he does not invalidate the old testament nor replace it and it's rules and laws remain valid, as written above.

                Of course we have laws and justice, unfortunately many faithful believe that the bible laws supersede our law maybe because Peter in the bible says:
                "We must obey God rather than men!’”

                So according to the bible you should be out murdering people all over the place and you should not respect US law if it contradicts god's law

                Either you don't know your bible or you are lying.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Read the New testament, don't tell me BS about the New Testament or interpret it to suit your hatred of the Bible, God, His begotten Son, Jesus, and religion and anything that is GOOD for the happiness of mankind. I write to refute the skewed views that you are putting forth, (possibly to the youth who are reading. Hopefully, there are not too many. I counter your views, just in case there are some impressionable minds following these threads.)
                  BTW What do YOU get out of this? Stop making me work so hard!

                2. teamrn profile image80
                  teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Josak, " I have been an atheist for decades and have to give you quotes."

                  I don't know about Kathryn, but not all Christians feel that knowing their Bible chapter and vets makes them a better Christian. I feel that it makes me a Christian who has exercised her freedom of religion and speech right, NOT to study and learn the Bible. Rather, I have learned the LESSONS taught by the Bible.

                  Each Christian has his/her own approach to the study of the Bible.

      2. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What a disingenuous reply.  What threat is religious freedom?

        I am in favor of freedom of speech, which means I am in favor of freedom of religion.  But religion itself is a destructive force.  Blasphemy laws, sexist laws, homophobic laws, and drug laws are all rooted in the theocratic desire to control the behavior of those in the broader society.

        Religion also teaches this world is temporary, and that there is an eternal slavery, oops, I mean bliss, awaiting us all.  There aren't many beliefs that are more dangerous to the future of humanity.

        And right below me, you are saying pornography is an abuse of freedom of speech.  Are you against pornography for adults?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Can you keyboard those laws? Good writing requires examples. Where are yours?
          Pornography is certainly not good for adults, of course. Anyone would agree.
          It takes away the specialness and the love that sex can inspire.
          Why allow sex to be shown in a  p e r v e r t e d light when it is the most amazing and powerful force between two people? This expression of love brings forth a human being, the most beautiful (potentially) of all creations!

          1. Josak profile image62
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Scientifically speaking pornography is good for adults (in moderation as with all things) it relieves sexual urges in a non harmful way, reduces stress and corrects hormonal imbalances which may be why some of the oldest art found in human history is pornography.
            So no you are wrong.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It has been devastating as far as child molestation. This has gone up with access to it on the internet. In a democratic republic we need high values and respect of women is one of them. (If they respected themselves they would not participate. For some reason they don't respect themselves enough.
              Also, If men respected women they wouldn't use them/pay for sexual gratification outside of marriage. But, we are in the lower end of the higher ages, so we won't go there. (plus the youth might be reading along...)

              1. Josak profile image62
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Child molestation has not been affected by pornography.But you are claiming it has to please prove it.

                Women can choose to do what they will with their bodies just as men can, both men and women work in pornography and usually they have plenty of respect for themselves, many have gone on to have successful careers in other fields. Do you understand the concept of freedom and liberty? It means not telling people what they can and can't do to themselves.

                there is nothing disrespectful about sex outside of marriage or pornography it's simply the act of consenting adults it's so sad that you think men u"use" women for sex it demonstrates a woeful lack of knowledge.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  -woeful lack of spirituality on your part. Whatever floats your boat.

                2. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  there is nothing disrespectful about sex outside of marriage

                  Not disrespectful? How is cheating on one's spouse showing respect for that spouse?

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                    Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You're assuming that the people having sex outside of marriage are in fact married to other people. It's possible for unmarried adults to have informed, consensual, mutually fulfilling sex without being married, and still respect each other in the morning.

                    And one person's pornography is another person's erotica.

                    For example,  Kathryn (just for example, remember) said that sex " is the most amazing and powerful force between two people."

                    Okay. Consider how you'd respond to the following (rhetorical) question:
                    What's your favorite sexual practice, Kathryn?
                    Does this question make you uncomfortable? Would you feel uncomfortable answering it? Why, if sex is so amazing and powerful?

                    Maybe it's that your sexual behavior (your favorite kinds of foreplay, the positions you take, any clothes you might wear/toys you might use, what you like to do in the afterglow) is none of our stinking business, and you know what? It is none of our stinking business!

                    Of course, neither is the sexual behavior of other people any of your business! As long as everyone involved in the sex is an informed, competent, consenting adult, and they're doing their sex stuff in private, you don't get to say anything about it. If you don't like the way other consenting adults choose to have sex, don't join in and don't watch!

            2. teamrn profile image80
              teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That is your take on pornography-scientifically. Those are scientific facts that it CAN reduce stress, etc. But so can abstinence. Those are not enough facts or ADEQUATE facts on which to base your conclusion that Kathryn is wrong.

              Lots of things fan decrease stress; because something does decrease stress, does that mean it is right? Gee, not having money is real stressful to me. Following that logic, robbing a bank to relieve the stress of not having money, makes it right.

              A long habit of  "not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right." So, pornography, despite years of people saying that it isn incorect influence.

              Annie

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Pornography is wrong only if it hurts people.

                Most times, it doesn't.

                Sometimes it does.

                When it does, it isn't the usually the actual pornography but 1. The response of the individual viewing it or 2. The conditions in which is produced.

                In both cases, it's the morals of the individual that are responsible for the harm not the pornography.

                In short, if I go out and rape someone because I viewed a pornographic movie, that's MY fault.  If I make a porn using a 13 year old girl, then that's also a failing of my morality... not proof that porn itself is immoral.

                The only way that porn itself is immoral is if you access it by a belief system that sees sex as inherently bad unless it is performed for a very specific purpose or in a specific set of circumstances.

              2. Josak profile image62
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Nope abstinence is proven to increase hormonal stress, obviously something that harms others like robing a bank (apart from probably causing you more stress for fear of being caught) is wrong but an activity that breaches no consent and harms no one beyond their own choice fits in a totally different category.

                Scientifically speaking there are massive numbers of studies that have found pornography to be good for mental health and physical health (particularly in avoiding prostate cancer in men) so yes there is more than enough evidence for me to say from a scientific standpoint that pornography is not harmful.

          2. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Uh.  Again, disingenuous reply.  What is the point of even engaging in dialogue?

            That's like asking whether innocent people have been killed in any war ever engaged in.   Do you not know about the Muslim countries that have blasphemy laws and laws that require women to cover their faces in public? 

            Are you living in a bubble asking for an example of a drug law or homophobic law in the United States?   Many states made sodomy illegal, and it wasn't even until 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas- in a case where two gay men were actually arrested for having sex- that the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.  In addition, most states, and the feds, consider weed illegal.  Do you want more examples?

            Here's another: women were not even allowed to vote in the United States until the 1920s when the 19th amendment was passed!  There are also numerous states that prohibit women from controlling their own bodies, though I don't think you'll count that.  But, please don't play coy.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              consciousness is shifting.

            2. teamrn profile image80
              teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "What is the point of even engaging in dialogue?" Dialgue is one thing, but what I see is sometimes verging on venom; and if not finger pointing and innuendo, 'my argument is better than yours...'

              We were supposed to have left that behind in grammar school in favor or debate and discourse, even heated debate, but not mudslinging.

              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Does evidence bother you?  I'm sorry.

                1. teamrn profile image80
                  teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  When you post cryptic responses to questions, I'm not able to tell to what you refer. What evidence and for how much of what..Is there a way you can tell  what your post is about and what resonse to, I'd like to repose

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    BTW I believe pornography is abuse of freedom of speech.

    1. Josak profile image62
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Of course you do. Which really means you don't believe in freedom of speech at all. Probably the root cause of which is your religion thus exquisitely proving the point.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Of course, I believe in freedom of speech.

                                                     It is for the SAKE of 
                                                        some GOOD.

        1. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Which means you don't believe in free speech at all unless it agrees with your definition of good.

          Which means you believe in free speech just as much as Hitler or Stalin, they were fine with free speech as long as it agreed with their definition of good, otherwise not so much.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Good for humanity on a common level.
            You are really funny.

            1. Josak profile image62
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              People disagree a great deal on what is good for humanity. ie. wed disagree on whether religion is good for humanity so you see the issue.

              But I agree it's hilarious that you don't know your bible and can't even debate scripture with actual facts. On economic issues I expect you to be clueless but geeees this is your faith and not mine.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Insults will get you nowhere.

                No, the "good" is a - common to all people type of good - and it is based on                                                   
                                                                Human Nature

                1. Josak profile image62
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What do you know about human nature? Are you behaviorist? Or a biologist?

                  Scripture is anything but human nature.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    (what are you?  besides an antagonist?)

                    I am a HUMAN!  Did you think I was a very well trained ape? Scripture has to do with what ...Dolphins from planet KOI?

              2. teamrn profile image80
                teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Josak, regards to your discussion with Kathryn:

                " it's hilarious that you don't know your bible " Why do you believe it's hilarious and

                What about discussion biblical interpretation is HILARIOUS? What is HILARIOUS about someone's ability to "debate scripture with actual facts?"

                "On economic issues I expect you to be clueless..." Now,, that  is cruel and unnecessary. So, the two of you disagree, Why the need to hurl insults because you disagree with someone? From where I site, that only shows a degree of immaturity or  detracts from your credibility..

                The right to freedom of speech (as we have on the Hub Pages) carries with it responsibility. Responsibility to speak and disagree with civility. You may consider me a 'but-in-sky' but I don't quite care if you do or don't. I just calls 'em as I sees em.'

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  how about..."I will keep it at primary school level".(..well, maybe I asked for that..) Thanks for setting the boundaries regarding the hurling of insults.

        2. jlpark profile image90
          jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yet when it's most complained about that the "freedom of speech" has been taken away is when it is used for EVIL - such as hatred.

          Freedom of speech is just that - SPEECH.  Not freedom of consequences of said speech.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            -it was wanted for some good. not for some bad. gosh, you guys are funny. my fingers are getting tired.

    2. teamrn profile image80
      teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hmmm. Interesting, 'pornography is abuse of freedom of speech.....'  While pornography is not my cut of  tea (it rather disgusts me, personally), it is freedom of expression and within our first amendment rights.

      How do you see it as an abuse of freedom of speech. I kind of find it abhorrent and against Biblical teachings, but, to me, that us a freedom.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        - because freedom of speech is for some good. Sex without love is not good for individuals or for society. It does not contribute toward survival or creativity or intelligence or high thinking, Going to an amusement park is not either, but at least it does not bring the energy down to levels below love. There are actual spiritual principles involved.  It can also turn into another addiction
        (The basis of it is to objectify the human body apart form love.)
        But it is a new idea: Abuse of Freedom of Speech.
        And ahead of its time, so don't even worry about it.
        Pornography is good enough for those people.
        Someday people will realize that it does contribute to child molestation and rape. Until then it is protected under Freedom of Speech.
        Well, not even then... Actually it will probably still be protected / what am I saying?
        Too bad for children and women... until the higher ages.

        1. teamrn profile image80
          teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is what you and I believe; thing is, someone ale may believe differently. They are as free to believe what they want as we are free to believe what we think is right and moral.

          (It's the old adage, i may not agree with what he says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it..." I just substitute 'belief' for ''say.'

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, I know. 
            As long as women enjoy objectifying their bodies for the camera there will be a market for pornography... Just like as long as there are drugs and alcohol there will be a market for these substances. We just can't shut down production in a free market society. One time my son was taken by some older 'friends" to a strip club when he was just 17!  He had a lap dance. I was fit to be tied. I am surprised that I did not barge in the next day and give them a piece of my mind for letting my minor son even enter their stupid joint!  (It's now long closed down.)

        2. teamrn profile image80
          teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Kathryn,

          "Sex without love is not good for individuals or for society. It does not contribute toward survival or creativity or intelligence or high thinking,"

          I see it that way and so do many others, but there are those people who are not of that opinion. I wouldn't have them damned because their opinion differs from mine. People who disagree with us are FREE to do that, as long as they don't infringe upon our right to have OUR opinion..

          Yes, I agree with you; but others are entitled to their opinion. Sex without love, IMHO, brings what can be a beautiful thing, to the lowest common denominator. BUT, NOT EVERYONE SEES IT THAT WAY and they ought to be able to have THEIR OPINION with ought fear or frprisal. But, (personally) I say, pity.

  8. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    People can read the Bible and interpreted it in whatever fashion they so deem but that does not mean their interpretation is the correct one.

    John 13:34

    New International Bible
    "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

    Hosea 6:6

    New International Bible
    For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

    Matthew 7:11

    New International Bible
    If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

    1. teamrn profile image80
      teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I read the most interesting quote in Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" yesterday, "...a long habit of not thinking something WRONG, gives it a SUPERFICIAL appearance of being WRIGHT.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        right...smile

      2. Josak profile image62
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Reading Paine? I recommend "The age of Reason" has plenty to say on the subject of discussion.

        1. teamrn profile image80
          teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thomas Paine's treatise in Common Sense is known to be extraordinary as is  Sartre's "Age of Reason." Either can be recommended, there is no reason to say one is better than the other. Josak, I just brought to attn a statement the Paine had made.which I felt was extraordinary.  Another attempt to 'pick a fight, failed.

  9. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    Being anti-porn, we have to acknowledge that contrary to religion it never led the people to wage wars! Religion did.

  10. 60
    macauleyposted 3 years ago

    Religion is only as good as the human heart that practices it. For a Wilberforce that fights against slavery you can have a thousand "Christian" slaveowners that are as Christian as Anton LaVey.

  11. LauraD093 profile image83
    LauraD093posted 3 years ago

    Another head scratch-er Sooner28 and with over 140+ comments you don't need my two cents(I wish my hubs generated this kind of traffic lol) Suffice to say that although socialism is always brought to bear in these types of discussions I don't think America is in any immediate danger.Whew I'm glad you're back more regularly on the forums I was getting bored there for awhile.

  12. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    Yes, come on teamrn, let's have a straight answer to Jeff's question.

    1. teamrn profile image80
      teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'd answer Jeff's question, but couldn't find it. Can you help?

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You did answer my question, way up thataway^^.

        John's post is old, from before you answered it. (Unless he's talking about a different question that I haven't asked yet...smile)

        1. teamrn profile image80
          teamrnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          LOL, Jeff! . I try to answer all Annie

 
working