You may not have blasphemy laws; what you do have however are the religious freedom restoration acts and the like, wherein discrimination in the name of religious advancement (or whatever they claim, frankly it seems like utter trash to me) is perfectly acceptable by law. My comment was not on blasphemy laws being repealed, but more on the fact that any law outwardly benefitting religious entities being repealed *and the church itself agreeing to this* seems remarkably unlikely. I'm sorry for not making a post purely in exposition and believing you would have the intelligence to actually infer what is meant, my apologies for greatly overestimating your intelligence. In future I will use as many pictures as I can, in case the words are too difficult for you.
Quite why you thought the Euro trash and American hicks comment was necessary was beyond me.An interesting headline in itself, but by far and away the best part of this article, for me, is the following quote:
While I applaud the Icelanders for making the first small steps out of the Dark Ages, has it escaped your notice the nowhere in the United States do we have, nor have we ever had "blasphemy laws" in the first place. and our founders considered "freedom of expression" so important it was number one in our Bill of Rights.
Your precious Euro trash are 250 years behind us backward American hicks it appears.
Are you really as dumb as some of your posts make you look? Sheesh
You may not have blasphemy laws; what you do have however are the religious freedom restoration acts and the like, wherein discrimination in the name of religious advancement (or whatever they claim, frankly it seems like utter trash to me) is perfectly acceptable by law. My comment was not on blasphemy laws being repealed, but more on the fact that any law outwardly benefitting religious entities being repealed *and the church itself agreeing to this* seems remarkably unlikely. I'm sorry for not making a post purely in exposition and believing you would have the intelligence to actually infer what is meant, my apologies for greatly overestimating your intelligence. In future I will use as many pictures as I can, in case the words are too difficult for you.
Quite why you thought the Euro trash and American hicks comment was necessary was beyond me.
and we don't need a church to "agree" to anything, for the record we don't even have a concept like "the church" in this country. We don't have "a" church in this country we have thousands of different churches, (much to my dismay), but none of them are consulted before passing any laws in this country. Please get back to me when your precious Euros catch up to us backwards and religiously oppressive Americans.
as for why my Euro trash and American hicks comment was necessary, it has become obvious that you see Europe as being superior in almost all regards. I guess a lot of comments are beyond your ability to grasp.
For the record when Indiana tried to allow religious based discrimination, based on those "religious freedom restoration acts" there was an immediate uproar and the Governor quickly backpedaled rather that face financial ruin for his state. So much for that type of law being "perfectly acceptable"
Once again, you miss on all accounts. don't you ever tire of being wrong?
As you and I have already discussed here previously, I am not like many here who have already picked a side, as it were. I don't form arguments based on predisposed notions. I'm certainly left leaning, but I'm not a liberal. Being European doesn't make me automatically approve of all things European, nor does it have me automatically dismiss all things American. Genuinely, I thought you of all people here would be the last to use such generalisations.
Once again, you miss on all accounts. don't you ever tire of being wrong?
It was Obama who said for years he was against equal rights for gays to marry "due to his religion." As has Hillary.
Many liberals are finding themselves in a serious case of man love with the pope re: GW. Many have cited their faith and their religion as to why they believe we should tax carbon.
What about the poor, and having an already massive government, awashed in a sea of debt, spend more on entitlement programs for they think it is the moral thing to do, based on their faith?
They cite Jesus when they speak against the death penalty and how he persuaded the people to drop their rocks when they wanted to stone a hooker.
If you believe it is one political party that does this, you are not well versed on American politics.
Many liberals are finding themselves in a serious case of man love with the pope re: GW. Many have cited their faith and their religion as to why they believe we should tax carbon.
What about the poor, and having an already massive government, awashed in a sea of debt, spend more on entitlement programs for they think it is the moral thing to do, based on their faith?
They cite Jesus when they speak against the death penalty and how he persuaded the people to drop their rocks when they wanted to stone a hooker.
If you believe it is one political party that does this, you are not well versed on American politics.
"It's hard to act as though religion is not a pervasive part of US politics when you have one political party out of two whose goals seem to be at the very least religiously motivated."
Those aren't your words verbatim?
Your only example, to further my point, was taking a shot at Bush. Now, I have taken a shot at Bush myself so I am not knocking you for that, but you did certainly say it was only one party.
But it now seems like you are saying both indeed do it, but Republicans are "worse."
And for the record, I have zero problem with either party using religion to further their agenda, if it is a deeply held belief. My issue with the Left is that many of these things aren't deeply held beliefs and they use religion anyway. That is a charlatan and a deceiver.
-- Modified on 7/3/2015 4:48:57 PM
Those aren't your words verbatim?
Your only example, to further my point, was taking a shot at Bush. Now, I have taken a shot at Bush myself so I am not knocking you for that, but you did certainly say it was only one party.
Just own your own words, is all I am asking.
I own my words - not the words others would so readily put in my mouth.
Quoting you back your own words is not putting words in your mouth. LOL
Please keep posting here.
I look for your next denial or absurd PC comment with great eagerness!
You quoted back my words to me, and then assigned meaning to those words that was never stated nor implied, nor could be reasonably inferred. I think you should look in the mirror before claiming intellectual dishonesty.
You spoke in absolutes. You said one party out of two, clearly stating you were ruling out the other one. Any fair minded reader would have come to the exact same conclusion.
Than you are completely full of it, Jack read it the way any English speaking person would have read it.
So which is it, are you not fluent in English, or do you simply have a problem telling the truth?
-- Modified on 7/4/2015 7:11:02 AM
There is a reason why what you call n“discrimination in the name of religious advancement (or whatever they claim, frankly it seems like utter trash to me)” is “perfectly acceptable by law.”
It is called the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. What the religious freedom restoration acts do is prevent laws of general applicability from overriding this constitutional guaranty, except where there is a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means are used
Should Hobby lobby be required to provide contraceptive products to employees per Obamacare, even though the founders’ religion says life starts at conception? Should the Amish be required to keep their children in school, even though their religion requires them to focus on Amish values during their teen years? Should the law deny employment benefits to someone fired for refusing to work on the Sabbath?
Our Constitution says “no,” and when activist judges started saying “maybe” the legislatures – not the president - stepped in and attempted to bolster the Free Exercise Clause.
You may disagree with this as a matter of policy but to call these laws “utter trash” seems a bit harsh.
Finally, as to Iceland making blasphemy “legal,” my guess is that applies only as to limited criminal laws. In our country, you can still be kicked out of your church for blasphemy, and you can be sentenced to enhanced punishments for “hate crimes.” So the notion that we have complete “freedom of expression” for negative religious utterances is quite misunderstood
-- Modified on 7/3/2015 9:57:23 AM
... and spread all manner of vile reprehensible bullshit... whether it be the cretins of Westboro, or Pat Robertson, or David fucktard Duke, Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.
Where do we draw the line? And ftr, I am using Religious leaders merely as a representative sampling. They're all equally toxic to humanity.
...Two days before the 2004 election, Rev. George F. Regas of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena gave a sermon from the pulpit criticizing "...the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, 'Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster.'"
Rev. Regas had previously criticized the Vietnam War and the Gulf War.
The IRS warned All Saints Episcopal that it was in danger of losing its tax-exempt status because of Regas's sermon.
Doc: do you think Rev. Regas was spreading "vile reprehensible bullshit" that was "toxic to humanity?
Taking comments out of context is a neat trick you masterfully employ to rile up the locals, Papasan.
After 14 years, you should already know I don't play the Game of Trolls.
Let religious leaders criticize foreign policy all they want... but not under the guise of speaking for or invoking the names of god, jesus, allah, Elvis or Xenu the Thetan from Planet Elron Hubbub. That's my issue.
Happy Firecracker!
No "maybe" about it at all. You just stated your obvious problem.
No "maybe" about it at all. You just stated your obvious problem.
It's almost as though the religious views of the US don't make the news anywhere other than the US or something...
And there are a substantial number of sources, from superb to shitty. You should read the contempt with which the outside world views American hubris when it comes to American interpretations of the Bible and Christianity. Or do you really think the world has any respect for the "Speaking-in-Tongues While Charming Snakes and Healing in the Name of the Lord... and dont forget your donation on the way out" crowd.
But if all you do is reference TER's P&R board, then you're the one with the problem
That being the case, you need to expand your search parameters. I get my news by surfing the Internet on a daily basis.
But if all you do is reference TER's P&R board, then you're the one with the problem.
TER P&R is nowhere near a microcosm of American life. Many of the views here are fringe views, some are not even very healthy views and almost all are one sided views.
-- Modified on 7/4/2015 9:44:01 PM