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?
Religion as much as anything has done its best to stifle freedom of religion and religious speech!
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.
The enormous power of which religion...the catholic church before the 1400's? You people really need to come to this century!
90% of the major elected officials in this country are Christian. The vast majority of the population is too.
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.
But I am never supposed to speak of my faith right Josak?????????????
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.
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.
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.
I think I can afford a nativity scene. i don't need tax dollars and not sure where tax dollars come in there.
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 . . .
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
Many people mind nativity scenes. SO WHAT?
The government is participating in religious matters GASP! That is really terrible...
why, again?
It's this funny little thing called "The Separation of Church and State," which clearly says that the government shall neither sponsor nor favor one religion over another. It also kinda forbids religious doctrine from influencing any aspect of the legislative process.
It's this funny little thing called "The Separation of Church and State,
Would you be so kind as to point out where in the Constitution it uses the words "Separation of Church and State?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation … ted_States
Straight outta the mouth of the man himself. I mean, what would Thomas Jefferson know? It's not like he wrote the sodding document or anything, right?
Per your posted article
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.
The Constitution clearly states the government cannot create a religion, hence the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It also clearly states government cannot interfere with the practicing of religion hence the phrase " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ".
Nowhere does that statement say the words "separation of church and state." As you energetically pointed out, in fact it does not make that claim anywhere in the Constitution but in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson himself also refereed to as the Danbury Letter. This letter was written more than 20 years after the Constitution was ratified and in the early days of Jefferson's Presidency. If he truly believed that is how it should have been written, as President he was in position to change it by Constitutional amendment. Yet he did not.
Just because someone writes something in a letter does not make it law of the land.
Nope, Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution made it the law of the land. That's how it's supposed to work, though, so all is good.
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]
However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate".
While Reynolds in 1879 was the first time the Supreme court used the Danbury letters in making their decision, there were many cases before that failed, and there have been many cases since that have failed. There was a case last year before the Supreme court where a city i Illinois was being sued fro displaying religious holiday displays. The Supreme court ruled in favor of Illinois they had the right to display even though the argument by the atheists was separation of church and state. So even today the Supreme court wavers both ways on the issue.
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.
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?
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!
I dunno, Kathryn - somehow I can't see you signing a petition or working to replace all the nativity scenes with a statue of Odin and his family.
If you, wilderness, want to worship Odin, then I would respect that.
So, put up a statue of Odin in front of Mr. Erketts cafe, after he gives you permission, of course. Surround it with beautiful flowers, little candles, and clear bowls of colorful water. Then sit there and play a flute. Put up a sign that says, "In the name of religious freedom, please bring along a musical instrument and join along in making music to Odin, the living (?) one true God of the Universe
Believe me some people would love it and bring along guitars, banjos and harmonicas and have a great old time with you. Others would say, Oh I do not agree with this idiot at all!
Would any one call the police? Maybe. But, there is nothing they could do as long as Mr. Erkett gave you permission to sit in front of his cafe and use his tables and chairs for your little worship service!
Right?
'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?
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."
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!
The government will not marry gay people due to the Christian lobby, by far the most powerful special interest group in this country.
They don't have to be legally married. Why should they be?
Why????
Tell me why?
Please!!!!
Because a just legal system requires equal rights under the law for everyone. It's very simple.
Where does it state that????Pray tell????
W h a t
is very simple???
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.
"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?
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.
We are talking about the reason for gays to be legally married. It is actually a question as to why anyone is required to be legally married. It just gives the government more control over people. Oh, but you are for that... why, I have no idea.
You should understand that less government is better, since you live here. The Constitution protects us from the abuses of Government. We must have a Government to make laws (since, men are not angels) to provide justice. "Equality" is greatly misunderstood today.
The one who wants more government would be the person who wants to use the instrument of the state to prevent people from marrying who they choose.
You may think marriage is a bad idea but people should be able to decide that for themselves.
I am talking about LEGAL marriage. it should be a personal matter between you and your partner and loved ones (family) and church. It used to be only that, but I guess with modern requirements such as increased taxes and stuff they decided it was important. why?? do you know?
Marriage is important in legal terms also (testaments, family only access in the hospital etc. etc.) as I already mentioned people should have the right to choose whether they want a legal marriage or not and if they do should have the same access under the law to that marriage as anyone else.
They will get it.
Is religion really standing in the way? I mean, really... why make religion the villain here? were you raised catholic? My father was raised catholic, but gave it up as soon as he got away from Mom. He spared me any tortures of organized religion. I look at the words of Jesus and see them in a good light.
If they have a marriage certificate with witnesses from a church wouldn't that be proof enough for hospital visitation? I just do not know why it has to be sanctioned by the state or government... I guess its like registering our cars. It is not fair, but we have to do it. (And gays are raising their hands to volunteer! Are there really that many advantages compared to disadvantages to legal marriage??)
Apparently so:
Tax Benefits.
Estate Planning Benefits
Government Benefits
Employment Benefits
Medical Benefits
Death Benefits
Family Benefits
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ … 30190.html
Anyway, it is a matter of time... they will get all the rights they want. And religion is not standing in the way...
- at all.
Churches do not have a centralized method of validation, forgery would be easy so no it is not.
Yes there are several advantages to marriage and same sex couples deserve them just as much as opposite sex couples.
1138 rights and benefits are denied to same-sex couples that are taken for granted by straight couples.
Without marriage, same sex couples - if one was to be hit by a car and end up in a a coma on life support - their family who may have disowned them for being gay are the only people allowed to make the decisions for them - people who HARDLY know this person anymore. Yet, the person they shared their life with, told everything to, who knows EXACTLY what they want....cannot do a thing.
IF they were to die - their family can decide where they are buried, or cremated, etc etc etc - to the extent of taking them out of state, AGAINST their wishes expressed to their loved one.
Now think about it in relation to you and yours - what if it were you?
I want to marry my wife - a civil union is currently all I am allowed in New Zealand (Marriage being debated as we speak)...and would not be recognised in the USA, or anywhere else....unless we are married. Thankfully I have the same rights as others, except for adoption and access to funding for IVF treatments. I am the same as you, except that I am and always have been attracted to women.
Thanks, Jpark. and Josak. I agree they should have their rights. It is just a matter of time. Then they can start throwing pots and pans at each other like the rest of us.
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.
The fact is that they are. This pretty much has to be the case so long as marriage is privileged under the law.
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.
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...............
What are OUR rights> And how are Christians and Jews infringe upon those right?
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.
"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.
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.
We so need these things to be explained! Thank You, teamrn!
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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,
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.
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?
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.
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.
I'm not twisting anything. Just pointing out inconsistencies in your arguments.
Originally you told us that non-unionized first responders and health care workers get trampled on, including having to work on major holidays without extra pay, and you said that unionized workers don't get treated that way.You further said that you, a non-union worker, were treated as--your words--"slave labor."
Then you say that you, a non-union worker, didn't have your rights trampled on.
So which is it?
Do the unionized healthcare workers get better treatment, or do they not?
Did you get treated as slave labor, or did you not?
Your story is inconsistent. The only part that hasn't changed is the bit where you aren't in a union.
" Unless they're unionized, they get trampled on."
"Then you say that you, a non-union worker, didn't have your rights trampled on."
NOTHING in those two sentences says that I WAS TRAMPLED ON. I felt some slave labor was happening b/c I received a day off of my choosing IF admin could spare me, but I knew better than to hang my hat on that. The only way I COULD 'hang my hat on that' would have been to join a union and I saw that choice as an untenable choice.
As far as your questions: Do the unionized healthcare workers get better treatment, or do they not?
Did you get treated as slave labor, or did you not?
Unionized healthcare workers need to make up their own minds if being guaranteed something is worth the $$, (kind of like cradle to grave health coverage, only this time, the union is going to guarantee it) versus fighting your own battles. I chose the latter.
NOTHING in those two sentences says that I WAS TRAMPLED ON.
No, the bit about the slave labor kind of implies it, though.
Unionized healthcare workers need to make up their own minds if being guaranteed something is worth the $$, (kind of like cradle to grave health coverage, only this time, the union is going to guarantee it) versus fighting your own battles. I chose the latter.
It sounds like you're good at negotiating with your employer for fair treatment.
That's great! I mean that sincerely. This is a useful skill, and not a lot of people have a talent for it. You should take pride in that.
But at the same time, I don't think it's all that nice to look down on someone who doesn't have that skill, and who chooses to hire someone else (like a union negotiator) to negotiate with their employer for fair treatment. Isn't that kind of like a person who's clever with figures looking down on someone for hiring an accountant at tax time, or someone who's clever with words looking down on someone for hiring a copy editor?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You'll see soon enough who is out of touch.
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.
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.
I was going to say "What an incoherent rant!" but your response is pretty good too.
Unfortunaely, Josak, that was written only a few days ago and is more likely to come true than when I wrote it. Annie
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.
not to mention that freedom requires morality.
REQUIRES IT!
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.
Freedom requires morality. Morality, however, does not require religion.
WHY does freedom require morality? I feel freedom REQUIRES COMMON SENSE. Common sense often accompanies morality, but not always.
-morality follows common sense, as well. It is a probability that morality is exclusively based on common sense and may actually define it.
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
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
This is not a very well thought-out argument. We are talking about THIS COUNTRY.
(Get with the program!)
Better luck next time.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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!
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.
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...)
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.
-woeful lack of spirituality on your part. Whatever floats your boat.
there is nothing disrespectful about sex outside of marriage
Not disrespectful? How is cheating on one's spouse showing respect for that spouse?
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!
You are right, of course. I got a little carried away trying to define the term "abuse of freedom of speech". There are probably better examples.
Sorry about that.
Long live pornography! - what happened with the condom ruling?
and Viva Las Vegas!
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
BTW I believe pornography is abuse of freedom of speech.
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.
Of course, I believe in freedom of speech.
It is for the SAKE of
some GOOD.
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.
Good for humanity on a common level.
You are really funny.
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.
Insults will get you nowhere.
No, the "good" is a - common to all people type of good - and it is based on
Human Nature
What do you know about human nature? Are you behaviorist? Or a biologist?
Scripture is anything but human nature.
(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?
Being a human does not make you an expert on human nature, humans vary greatly, I am sure we wildly disagree on what human nature is.
Scripture is an antithesis to human nature, as is any rule bound creed really, human nature is what people do when unbound by creed except for their own morality (atheism) not a bunch of rules written thousands of years ago, for example the instinct to reproduce is scientifically the greatest drive of the human psyche and yet scripture puts great limitations on that (no sex before marriage etc.)
Then what is the study of psychology based on? Yes, human nature is a constant. The only thing that is not a constant is free will, and that is the danger and why laws come into play.
That is a pretty fancy word you used: antithesis. Maybe you are misinterpreting scripture, as I already mentioned.
Psychology is based on the scientific understanding of the brain, that question is irrelevant to this discussion.
Antithesis is not a particularly complex term, I will try to keep it primary school level for you in future (gees English is my second language).
There is nothing to misinterpret the are of scripture discussed, Scripture sets rules that are counter to evolutionary and instinctual drives, that is a matter of scientific fact.
Psychology is the science of the mind and behavior...Originally based on the soul, i.e. sub and un conscious, emotions, even the spirit, if you will. At least that is why and how it got started. What has been done to it as a science in some instances of recent decades is a travesty...human nature is totally misunderstood and we have been becoming very misinformed about it...
Neuroscience is the study of how the brain works.
as far as religious freedoms go that has been getting a bad rep too, but in many instances religions deserve it...but speaking of being spiritual is a whole other issue...one could be religious (about doctrine) and not even be spiritual or one could be religious and spiritual or one could be spiritual and not religious.
Scripture is interpreted individually, at least that is my understanding of it...just you and God. But many do allow others to interpret it for them...that is the problem. Again, I say, God is not the problem, people's interpretations of God are the problem (doctrines)
Scientific facts on evolution and instinctual drives are limited in their scope...humanity is soul and spirit also, and facts can't go there
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.'
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.
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.
-it was wanted for some good. not for some bad. gosh, you guys are funny. my fingers are getting tired.
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.
- 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.
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.'
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.)
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.
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!
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.
Reading Paine? I recommend "The age of Reason" has plenty to say on the subject of discussion.
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.
Being anti-porn, we have to acknowledge that contrary to religion it never led the people to wage wars! Religion did.
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.
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.
Yes, come on teamrn, let's have a straight answer to Jeff's question.
I'd answer Jeff's question, but couldn't find it. Can you help?
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...)
by Daniel J. Neumann 13 years ago
Do you believe in religious freedom?Yes, this does relate to that pesky Mosque built near Ground Zero. Will you abandon the 1st amendment?
by Sooner28 12 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/us/re … odayspaperWhy is this still allowed? If the Catholic Church ever had a doctrine that said African Americans, Asian Americans, or Hispanic Americans could not be priests, they would've been banned from discriminating.However, the United States...
by Credence2 3 years ago
This supposedly responsible member of Trump's cabinet and inner circle makes statements regarding regarding religious freedom in America.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … e-religionRegardless, at a rally staged in San Antonio on Saturday by the Christian “nonprofit news media...
by Amanda Littlejohn 10 years ago
Which is more important, freedom of faith or freedom of speech?Many religious folks are decent, good people. Some of my best friends subscribe to institutionalised superstition - and are good humored enough to let me say that without taking offense. But most religions per se enshrine some deeply...
by niall.tubbs 14 years ago
I don't know anyone in America that doesn't support the freedom of religion. Why do you ask?
by Kathleen Cochran 22 months ago
In America we have freedom of religion, which gives you the right to your beliefs. What are the boundaries when your religious beliefs infringe on the rights of someone else who does not share your beliefs? Doesn't a person's right stop at the point it denies some else their right?
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |