(In response to these posts.)
It only looks like religious persecution because that one group hates so many.
My favorite response to the “letting gays marry = religious persecution” nonsense is to point out all that while no church will ever be forced to conduct a wedding against its will, right now all the pro-LGBT churches and denominations in states without marriage equality are being restricted in their religious freedom. Or does the “traditional values” crowd want to reverse course and argue that the state should protect the definition of marriage from the religious?
Religious rights explained (from POV of the religious):
God’s law trumps secular law. Except when it’s not your God. Then secular law should trump. Let me draw a picture: Your Gods Laws > Secular Law > Somebody elses God’s LawsAlso it’s only persecution when you don’t religious to be bigots. When you allow them to be bigots, they aren’t really persecuting anyone else because God said so.
I like that! Nice response!
When same-sex marriage becomes mandatory for everyone, then they can claim about persecution
What the religious are calling religious persecution is actually loss of religious privilege.
The REAL religious persecution going on in this country is all the religious people persecuting the non-religious and the ones who have religions different than theirs.
I like to point out the difference between a legal marriage and a wedding ceremony performed by a wedding venue. It’s a distinction the bigot institutions want everyone to forget.
As a libertarian atheist, I’m kind of half and half on these issues. Passing a federal law that forces a company to provide specific benefits, whether they’re religious or not, is entirely against our constitution and just bad government overall. There are plenty of good reasons why a company may not want to pay the extra $$ for birth control coverage for all employees.
But then when it comes to gay marriage, I’m completely opposed to religious institutions and politicians like Rick Santorum that want to force their dogma on everyone (for the same reason i’m against the pill mandate). Government isn’t there to be a moral police, it’s there to protect rights. I still can’t believe no one is talking about segregating the religious and political aspects of marriage. Extend the same marriage privileges to any type of civil union and leave the word “marriage” to the private institutions like churches. They can define it however they want.
But then you get to abortion and I’m back on the religious side. Not because I believe unborn children have souls or what-not, but because there’s no easy way to draw a line between what qualifies as a human being and what doesn’t apart from the moment of conception. Unless someone can convince me of the exact moment an unborn child goes from just a group of cells to being an actual human being, then I have to go back on ending a human life being murder.
Yep, but when an atheist’s child is instructed to say the Pledge of Allegiance, then it actually is persecution, right? Or when a valedictorian mentions her faith in God in her graduation speech. Or when a child in school invites her friends to say the “God is great, God is good” grace before their snack. Or when kids gather around the flagpole before school to pray together. Or when a child does a book report on a book based on a Bible story. Or when a Christian student reads the Bible during free time at school. Or when there’s a prayer mural on a school wall. Yes, such horrible, horrible persecution.
Indeed! First amendment be damned or something.
>> “Government isn’t there to be a moral police, it’s there to protect rights.”
Like the right to not have children?
Yep, but when an atheist’s child is instructed to say the Pledge of Allegiance, then it actually is persecution, right? YesOr when a valedictorian mentions her faith in God in her graduation speech. No.Or when a child in school invites her friends to say the “God is great, God is good” grace before their snack. No.Or when kids gather around the flagpole before school to pray together. No,Or when a child does a book report on a book based on a Bible story. No.Or when a Christian student reads the Bible during free time at school. No.Or when there’s a prayer mural on a school wall. Yes.Now see if you can spot what makes some a yes and some a no. (Though I wouldn’t use the word persecution for these examples.)
The solution is to start a religion that practices abortion as a sacred sacrament.
“At least we’re winning against abortion access”
I don’t think they’ll ever admit to winning that until it’s made federally illegal and have strict control over every woman’s reproductive rights. Including outlawing birth control. Until then they are being persecuted by murderers lead astray by Satan.
Nobody is calling for outlawing birth control. If you want it it is on every corner. But, I don’t need to be forced to help you pay for it, either directly or indirectly.
“Nobody is calling for outlawing birth control. ”
All the “personhood” bills that have been tried to pass into law would have banned some very popular forms of birth control. And have you been watching the GOP debates? Santorum absolutely wants to ban birth control. So yes, there is in fact a lot of people trying to outlaw birth contol.
Jarppu covered the response nicely. It seems you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Actually I do watch the republican debates and tell me where Santorum has said that. Also, point to a personhood bill that would outlaw birth control.
Here is the Virginia bill that was recently introduced. See where it outlaws birth control:
Hint: It doesn’t.
9 likes to this response? This worries me as I have no idea what the first sentence in the last paragraph is trying to say. But 9 people like it?!?!?
And considering Abram isn’t religious, therefore he can’t state or argue from that perspective. He can state what his understanding is of another’s perspective, but unless you hold to that perspective and see the topic through a religious lens, then you really don’t have a clue. Really.
I guess free-thinking doesn’t always = logical thinking after all does it?
That’s disgustingly sad.
A great many Atheists are ex-religious, myself included. Having dedicated half my life to religion, I can honestly say I have ‘a clue’. That said, if one needs to walk in another’s shoes to have perspective, then what do you hope to get out of coming here? By you own statement, you will never have a clue about Atheism or Free thought.
The reason why his statement is liked is because his opening remarks ring true. In the eye of the Religious, their God’s Laws appears to trump Secular Laws, Secular laws only win when an outsider’s god is being asserted (like Allah).
(I have no clue what his last sentence means)
If any of you are professionals then please reply and list your profession