Are your religious liberties being threatened?

[Outis]

Now that would be an interesting debate.

If you feel up to it at some point, start a thread (perhaos in Naturalism) and tag me in. I would be interested in hearing your views.

Sure it does. "Free exercise" means they can offer services they never deliver. That's a privilege.

Hmmm ... Seems to me you're conflating the social aspects with the spiritual aspects. While I, too, doubt the veracity of the "spiritual" aspects, the social aspects do have benefit.

You can't use analogies with racism, no matter how apt, and expect folks to listen after it's been personalized. Besides, the analogy wasn't necessary. It reads the same with the analogy excluded.

Not a problem. I thoroughly expect to change as many minds here on TheologyWeb as I would if I went to StormFront and attempted to argue for the benefits of the Civil Rights act. While I post seriously on other topics, on this particular one I'm primarily here to enjoy the weeping and wailing when the anti-gay-marriage laws are struck down.

And you can gloat about the courts taking a more balanced view at the next coffee shop while you're paying your bill with currency proclaiming your trust in God.

Which offends me not one bit. However, I brew my own coffee. Coffee-shop coffee is far too ... yuppified.

[Juvenal]

How will society provide the community-based emotional and social support that religion provides? Even secular psychologists would usually call this "spiritual" support, even if they deny any reality to the "spiritual" aspect of it.

Dear Outis,

The same way we provide it now would do nicely. Most of us receive "community" support when we need it from friends and family, and from government services when that's not enough. Religious support at its best may not require a religious test, but best is rarely an option.

Last year, I was asked not to attend my neighbor's kid's Christmas play.

It was a religious service.

As ever, Jesse

[FlimFlamboyant]

I don't know about religious liberties, but my intelligence is threatened every time someone tries to refer me to the Huffington Post.

[KingsGambit]

I don't know about religious liberties, but my intelligence is threatened every time someone tries to refer me to the Huffington Post.

You do know Craig Keener has written for them, right?

[FlimFlamboyant]

You do know Craig Keener has written for them, right?

I'm actually not familiar with him, but I do know that they occasionally do let someone with half a brain or more slip through the cracks at times. :)

But this sure wasn't one of them.

[Outis]

The same way we provide it now would do nicely. Most of us receive "community" support when we need it from friends and family, and from government services when that's not enough. Religious support at its best may not require a religious test, but best is rarely an option.

Last year, I was asked not to attend my neighbor's kid's Christmas play.

It was a religious service.

Hmmm ... your experiences do not match mine, but that certainly does not mean they are invalid. I will have to consider your words.

[Paprika]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-em...b_1845413.html

A lot of you won't be able to answer the questions with the options offered. After all, it's not actually a "quiz," it's a lesson on telling when threats to your religious liberty are actually happening.

Are you planning to embark on a career of trolling now?

[Outis]

Are you planning to embark on a career of trolling now?

Depends on the pay and the benefits.

[lilpixieofterror]

Got it in one, LP. I do not think Outis had a sense of humor or I would think this was a joke,

Oh, I really doubt it is a joke and it does show that Huff Post rots the brain if they post crap like that.

[firstfloor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-em...b_1845413.html

A lot of you won't be able to answer the questions with the options offered. After all, it's not actually a "quiz," it's a lesson on telling when threats to your religious liberty are actually happening.

[Psychic Missile]

LOL, the Constitution grants privileges for religious liberties. Sorry you hate that so much.

Is this addressed to me? I ask because I have no idea where this comes from.

Free market and persecution are not mutually exclusive. And if that is the case then not hiring or firing someone for being black isn't persecution either.

The persecution comes in when you have a group of people with an attribute they cannot control. Religion is added to this, and I don't think people can control what they think is true.

I don't think anything should warrant a protected class, choice or no choice.

So you ARE for the free market. Why get upset then when it works and people from a large segment of the population refuse to buy goods and services from people with wildly different opinions?

[Darth Executor]

The persecution comes in when you have a group of people with an attribute they cannot control.

Well, under a materialist worldview control is an illusion, so this doesn't really answer anything, which is just as well because your definition of persecution is highly subjective and should not really be used as a basis for lawmaking.

Religion is added to this, and I don't think people can control what they think is true.

But not neo-nazis. Or people who think they shouldn't be discriminated based on tattoos.

So you ARE for the free market. Why get upset then when it works and people from a large segment of the population refuse to buy goods and services from people with wildly different opinions?

I already told you why I'm upset: because the government protects some people from the effects of the free market but not others, based entirely on what progressives think constitutes a victim, which is absurd because progressives are the only tyrants around. Remove all anti-discrimination laws and regulations from the books (including government criteria for for funding or employment) and then you can talk about a free market.

[Psychic Missile]

Well, under a materialist worldview control is an illusion, so this doesn't really answer anything, which is just as well because your definition of persecution is highly subjective and should not really be used as a basis for lawmaking.

How are you defining it? BTW, a materialist worldview still allows for a distinction between a deeply held belief and a whim.

But not neo-nazis. Or people who think they shouldn't be discriminated based on tattoos.

Religion occupies a specific place in our culture that is not shared by neo-nazism or whether or not someone wanted a tattoo. Tattoo discrimination is another issue anyway, since content and ability to do one's job butts heads with classism and cultural taboos.

I already told you why I'm upset: because the government protects some people from the effects of the free market but not others, based entirely on what progressives think constitutes a victim, which is absurd because progressives are the only tyrants around. Remove all anti-discrimination laws and regulations from the books (including government criteria for for funding or employment) and then you can talk about a free market.

You said "Too bad what we actually live in is a society in which liberals can drive "racists" and "misogynists" out of work, business and home." This would be just as much an issue in a free market.

[Darth Executor]

How are you defining it?

The dictionary definition works for me.

BTW, a materialist worldview still allows for a distinction between a deeply held belief and a whim.

A distinction that's not relevant here.

Religion occupies a specific place in our culture that is not shared by neo-nazism or whether or not someone wanted a tattoo. Tattoo discrimination is another issue anyway, since content and ability to do one's job butts heads with classism and cultural taboos.

Actually political freedom and freedom of speech occupy just about the same place as religion.

You said "Too bad what we actually live in is a society in which liberals can drive "racists" and "misogynists" out of work, business and home." This would be just as much an issue in a free market.

I can't tell if you're being dumb or dishonest. You cut out the part of the current situation where it's not a free market: "Too bad what we actually live in is a society in which liberals can drive "racists" and "misogynists" out of work, business and home whereas refusing to sell one a cake results in the full might of the state coming after you." This is not a free market. If everybody could drive everybody else out of work, business and home via social pressure and everybody could refuse to sell a cake to whoever they wanted without the full might of the state coming after you then you'd have a free market. I have a problem with what you quoted in this particular context. It doesn't mean I'd have an issue if the same could be done to currently protected groups.

[Psychic Missile]

I can't tell if you're being dumb or dishonest. You cut out the part of the current situation where it's not a free market: "Too bad what we actually live in is a society in which liberals can drive "racists" and "misogynists" out of work, business and home whereas refusing to sell one a cake results in the full might of the state coming after you." This is not a free market. If everybody could drive everybody else out of work, business and home via social pressure and everybody could refuse to sell a cake to whoever they wanted without the full might of the state coming after you then you'd have a free market. I have a problem with what you quoted in this particular context. It doesn't mean I'd have an issue if the same could be done to currently protected groups.

I see. I didn't realize you weren't separating those ideas.