ThreePointTakedown

How is there freedom with government supporting religion?

I'm sorry that you can't/don't link opinions to actions. But regardless of whether you believe it, it happens. People take their unfounded 'beliefs' and turn them into actions. Be those; supporting of an organization that calls for bans on abortion without exception, that one group of people is superior to another(morally or otherwise). These beliefs are not innocuous, as much as you might want to believe. They can lead to good, but also can be manipulated, by lack of critical thinking, to be harmful. There are no situations where these things can just be allowed to go unchallenged. That's how we got here in the first place. The SCOTUS is now allowing tax money to go to religious groups and properties for no other reason then, 'its been around for awhile and therefore has lost its religious iconography' which is BS plain and simple. And don't ever say that I 'hate' something. You do not know me. If you want a reason to hand wave me away and not engage, then just slink away. You are dishonest by saying something like that and makes it seem like you are losing a discussion and want a way to save face in your own mind. No one here cares about how you feel about yourself. But you chose to engage. You don't seem like a troll so you have thought through your opinions. That's more than can be said for some people.

How did you make this about you being a victim? Was it on purpose or just reflex? Impose is to do something by force. Convince is what I'm trying to do. Show you your implicit bias and hopefully you can see the error in your judgement. By feigning your victimized position your are allowing yourself to remain lazy in your thinking. In that, you don't have to think critically about your ideas or how came about them. If they would leave me alone to have my beliefs then I would leave them alone to have their beliefs. But their made up BS effects me and everyone else directly. By having 'sincerely held' made up beliefs that they can't prove, they lobby the government for tax breaks and tax money to fund their operations. Operations that have previous(and currently) revolve around; shaming women, punishing LGBTQ+ people, fighting against trans rights, and taking food out of the hands of people who need it through gov't assistance. If they left all that money alone and just used their donations, I'd be fine. But they don't. They have to pay off settlements from abuse cases.

You offer up examples and no follow up to how they fit your point(some of them don't, btw). Then ignore the rest of the post, not answering any of the other questions. Makes you seem dishonest.

Is that what you think this is? Trying to impose? Impose would imply force. Do you feel this is forcing you to adopt different ideas? If there are inconsistencies in your ideas, its good to figure them out. Makes them better, strong, faster. And they are also tools, to help do the same thing with other ideas you have. Work them out and make them better. Better things are better. Why put in effort to hold on to a thing if there is a better thing out there and it costs you nothing to get it? That's all. If yours is better. Then it shouldn't be hard to determine(wishful thinking I know, but works in theory). No one is being attacked. Except those that are. Don't call people names. Be nice to everyone. I'm sure I heard that somewhere

What is the nature of the disagreement? Did someone work to create a new term, that means the same thing as an already existing term, but is specifically for a marginalized group and for the sole reason of keeping the groups separate in the eyes of the government? Yes. That's called being a bigot. You can rationalize it away but that's what it is. You disagreeing doesn't change that.

Insults. The death rattle of a losing argument. Tip of the cap sir.

What are religious beliefs? For real what are they? Are they pretty arbitrary? Yes. Are some of them absolutely atrocious? Yes. Can and have they been used to justify horrible actions in the past and present? Yes. Can they prove to be accurate? Well, that's open to interpretation(which right there should be your indication that its crap). Can they be proven to be true? Nope. Community feels good. People who feel the same way about things as you. Religion can and does manipulate those parts of our brain to need it. We don't. Every single thing a religion can bring to your life something else can do just as well and you don't have to worry about demons or hell or eating shell fish or wearing fibers or planting crops(how many more examples do you want?) Religion do a great job of making us tribal against the other religions and other groups.

Going back a few steps... will you only consider your ideas wrong if you admit to them being wrong? and now for something completely diff... eh its the same ol stuff 'I answered that it does not impact one's rights, but that there can be an impact on people with religious beliefs' What does this mean? What is the impact? Give examples, say something of substance. Seems like your purposefully evading the question so you don't have to answer "Nothing" Because that's the only viable answer. They(religious people) become convinced of something(they/themselves cannot prove) and work to tie themselves into linguistic knots in order to keep equality from a group they find morally(you brought up the bible) repugnant. Also, before the bible is brought up at all. Prove its worth reading at all. Then you can use the bible. Because there are older, newer, and better books that convey better moral lessons than that book and you don't need to 'but its a parable or metaphor' your way around the bad parts. Advocating for separate but equal is saying that you are against someone's rights. Because the group not in power will receive less, without exception. The question is how does same-sex marriage effect a non-same-sex marriage? If you're a bigot its not a stretch that feel attacked. Other then that, a contract with the state and someone's contract with the state have no effect on each other. That someone makes hay out of it is on them for proving which they can't without an imaginary sky daddy to point to. Percentages are dropping which scares religious people and makes them chip away at their beliefs either to be more inclusive or more fundamental. Either way the 'beliefs' are fluid and aren't really that important any way. Making this whole issue a moot point. Just change your beliefs(wouldn't be the first time) and be quiet. 70% church marriage... Don't care. Its a rigid and discriminatory way of thinking. That does nothing but otherize a group(pick a group, christians are equal opportunity oppressors, ironically enough that's one of the few things they hand out evenly). Like I said before, that your religion has changed or been fractured into denominations means the word is not concrete and carries no actual weight and should be let go entirely for a 'Just be nice to people and not just OUR people' message. Which is funny, because that message is in that book and conveniently ignored when someone feels attacked for whatever reason(ie, the definition of marriage) I don't feel as though I'm projecting. And you won't get me to stop typing. I am for equality. Seems like some of your ideas would indicate that you aren't. I think those ideas are wrong and for those reasons. If you want to wave me away. Fine, can't stop you. Other people read this and know where you stand and that people disagree with you. If you care to respond without rhetorical questions that don't really say anything, go right ahead.

Examples? And because it has happened, doesn't mean it was ever constitutional, just that it was never stopped for that reason. 45 took emoluments for his entire term but was never brought up because its an amorphous rule that no one had been as slimy as to be in violation of in such a blatant way. 'Rarely found that it was in violation'. You aren't wrong. But you're not right either. That they keep chipping away at it doesn't mean its correct. Just that this is a far as they want to push the line while trying to maintain relevance. Case in point. The 6-3 court now, can do all the things they and conservatives want without any repercussions, for the most part. Why haven't they? Illegitimacy. Making huge swings away from precedent while lead to the court losing the heft that it has in being a neutral arbiter of the rule of law. They have no way of enforcing their decisions except for the perceived legitimacy of how they came about the decisions. That SCOTUS makes a decision doesn't mean that is correct or fair. Brings me to my next question which was a question before: are you ok with churches taking and sometimes suing for tax money that they did not contribute to? Why should churches be able to operate in secret? Is that a good thing? Hiding criminals? Hiding investments? And still beg for tax money? That you can't see the hypocrisy of wanting it both/all the ways, is an example of your bias and 'ends justify the means' attitude that is dangerous for all sides.

When you advocated for marriage for heteros(your word) and civil unions for same sex couples. If they are the same thing, for the most part, why draw the distinction if not to make yourself feel better/superior? Regardless of whether you feel that way, that's how it comes off. Its petty and separatist and leads to the otherizing of an already marginalized/stigmatized group. Why add to it, because your(old) religion use to preach, blah blah, peace, blah blah, love thy whoever? You/they abandon those teachings as soon a group tries to get the smallest(and it is ever so tiny) amount of equality. Blows my mind how quickly those principles are abandoned in hopes of keeping your piece of the pie from getting smaller. That's tribalism tho. Bummer.

Fair point. I will try harder to ask for clarification when I am unclear of the point of a statement. Keep having good convos. Makes the world go 'round.

My stance on what? Pick your poison.

How do you interpret the first amendment with regards to religion? Are you a judeo-christian-values person?

And there is no chance the SCOTUS is wrong? How is my logic faulty? If we give aid to one religion or religious group and not others. How is that not favoritism or 'Respecting' a religion or government discrimination to those that are left out? I'm sorry you can't see past your bias. Some of the justices, during their confirmations outright lied to the senate about respecting precedent. That doesn't seem to bother you because it landed in your favor(I would argue that even now, it isn't in your favor). I am of the idea that winning dishonestly isn't worth it. If you'd rather do it that way, that says a lot about you. If they start paying taxes and open their books for public scrutiny, I would consider allowing them to take tax money. Since that subject came up, how do you feel that churches are given money from taxes they did not contribute to? Do you feel that's fair to other secular organizations that do/try similar things? Or is it government picking winners and losers?

Way to punch down with that joke. Really makes me want to take you serious. Your 'sincerely held beliefs' crap is just that. We talked about fragility before. THIS IS THAT! Forcing a smaller, less politically powerful group into a box because you want to protect a thing that you cannot demonstrate and only lives in your head could be the Webster's definition of Fear and Frail. So again, give me an actual reason? Not an imagined one. It was a minority opinion. Like most new things are until the population is convinced that keeping a group from enjoying a government service because some(now a vast minority) people think their icky is not a good enough reason. You just advocated for 'separate but equal', you know that right? How'd that work out? (shaking head disappointedly)

Seems like the 'all knowing' comment was a way for you to get out of having the conversation. At no time did I ever imply or infer that. I know what I've seen in the news and other places. Those are the examples that I bring up. Are they indicative of the whole? Probably not. But they happen. If you are ill prepared then that's fine. I'll be here when you're ready. List of logical fallacies if you or anyone is interested. Its good read. Find the ones that you use and better your positions. I did, it helped. Still do.

Everyone wants to believe their way of thinking is the best most correct. Which makes it hard to change minds in a group. Because the group, just being a group, reinforces the community aspect of belonging. Be that an idea or an activity. Leaving a group(any group) is difficult because we crave community for safety and security. If you continue to think like that instead of understanding that people can come together for one reason and yet disagree about many other things to various degrees, you'll become/became cynical and paranoid of peoples' intentions. I hope the lifestyle comes together. -SB

So, you're assuming a lot in order to maintain your bias. You have not mentioned anything about grooming. You have offered no examples but seem to imply that THAT is an obvious reason. It isn't. No constitutional restriction? Really? Are you that dense? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By giving money to one religion or religious entity they give preference to that religion or religious entity. That is a no no. There is no end to the amount of religions or religious entities they must support equally so as to not respect or prohibit a religion. So the easiest way to do that is to give them nothing. Also the tax exempt status. This reasoning is tired and you are dishonest and AND ignorant that you are positing it. To have freedom OF religion the government must be free FROM religion. Not religious people but of religious motivations and support. All the data you can attribute to charter schools is possible to achieve at adequately funded public schools. But they have been bled dry for decades. Give more money to education then to DOD.

Seems like your being purposefully dishonest.

When does that breakdown? We're seeing it now. People with jobs(they've chosen) to help people are asking for religious exemptions because they disagree with... something. Granted, government programs can be better. There are plenty of studies and literature out there about how best/better to address hunger and poverty. But those cost money. Other countries have found enough will to enact these programs or things like them with great success. We however have a.... I'll just call it 'YOUR POST' problem. You're so tribal that you would rather keep your resources to help your situation then to offer up a portion to ensure the betterment of society. Where you would reap a benefit as well. It requires the ability to not judge people with differing lifestyles and situations as your own. That we are all human and deserve certain things. When the least among us is raised, we all benefit(I'm sure a bearded fella was quoted as saying something like that once).

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with. This seems like the process of addressing the climate crisis. Sure a dem can volunteer at a soup kitchen, but would also try to pressure the government to streamline programs and change tax code so that people can get enough assistance so the soup kitchen isn't necessary. So, I can see how you might think that one thing is better and you might be right about the numbers. But different actions can effect different outcomes. If you're pressured/guilted/obligated into volunteering/donating/tithing by the church does that really count?

Everyone freaked out. It was not a great situation. 45 put it into motion and 46 followed through with it. Didn't stop anyone from voicing their opinions. We shouldn't've been there in the first place let alone Iraq. Big giant screw up. Agreed.

Some of them are. They cannot all be well informed and have all the data. So some are doing it out of fear and some are following the herd and some have legitimate concerns. So as a whole no. But some most definitely are and that you can't see or admit that is dishonest. Either fear of their kids learning things they don't want them to learn AT ALL(things that go against their faith), or icky things, or fear of condemnation from other parents for not getting in line. Saying things out loud in public is different. Although words aren't magic, so grow up! But reading something in the privacy of your own head should not be banned EVER! What data? Sources please? Pushing towards charter schools is the next step to outright funding religious schools with tax money. Its BS and should not be tolerated. Fight for the schools with the least funding to get way more and the tide will raise all boats. Are you in favor of a theocracy?

Are you liberatrian? Isn't it like communism? works on paper but the human condition can't/won't abide by that kind of system.