In response to:

Religious Freedom? Yeah, Right!

Jeff2422 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 11:02 PM
So in the market place of ideas, faith-based ideas that put forth a framework for moral behavior are to be kept in the church. Otherwise, in the public it is considered incitement to riot. So under your view, faith-based speech is not protected speech when it offends some secular viewpoint. Your thinking makes Kathryn's point.
du2 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 11:08 AM
con't: And some religious beliefs are not always reasonable or rational and the gov't knows this. That's why religious belief is not required nor enforced. And again, people of faith are required to understand when THEY are crossing the line where they don't belong and are themselves behaving inappropriately.
And there are times when they are wrong and have been. There is plenty of historical proof and legal precedent about that too.
du2 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 11:03 AM
con't: ANY speech that incites threats to anyone, or causes harm and invokes the gov't to, isn't protected speech anyway. Whether religious expression or not. Christian Scientists cannot any longer, refuse medical intervention for their children, because they are infringing on their child's rights. Even though CS have tried in court to plead their religious freedom as a 1st amendment cause.
But they cannot, for another person. Only for themselves as individuals.
When you can make people in your church agree with you AS individuals for their own behavior, yes, then go about your choice to behave according to your beliefs. You have that right. And your gov't protects it.
But REASONABLE and rational basis has to prevail in other areas.
du2 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 10:58 AM
No that's not MY view. Don't twist what I said into what I didn't say. I was quite clear. Incitement to threat, for example. Is a pastor who was videotaped telling congregants to hit a child who exhibited traits that might indicate that child was gay. Or to intimidate gynecologists and their clinics. Gay children are in fact, physically assaulted and murdered. So are ob/gyns. It's only an infringement on a religious person's beliefs, if say, a Jehovah's Witness is forced to take a blood transfusion when they refuse them. But when a Jehovah's Witness wants transfusions banned for others, it is THEY who are infringing on the rights of others to have that choice.

A former British airlines worker was just told by a European human-rights court that she does, in fact, have the right to wear a crucifix on her neck. That such a thing would even have to go to court seems quite the sign of the times.

It comes as Brits are faced with same-sex-marriage legislation that, if passed, would likely leave churches facing lawsuits when some clerics inevitably refuse to carry out such weddings.

The decision came down on "Religious Freedom Day" here in America.

"Foremost among the rights Americans hold sacred is the freedom to worship as we choose," proclaimed the White House....