1 - 10 Next
Exactly. France is perhaps the most secular \ atheist country is Europe (not counting the muslim population there). There is a difference between 'nominal' Christianity and those who truly practice it. The leader of France is a committed leftist socialist (Francois Hollande). It is clear from the newswires that the people doing the harassing of the jews in France are from the muslim community.
Good points. David Berlinski has written alot about what you discuss. Something is "true" based on consensus, until it's not.
In response to:

Marriage Is a Religious Liberty Issue

Marcos464 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 11:56 PM
What is really scary is that you know there are (sadly) many people in this country who don't really believe in true tolerance and who would love to criminalize any expression of disagreement with same sex marriage or homosexual activity. They would, in a moment if they had the power to do so, make any expression of disagreement with homosexual activity "hate speech." That to me is what is really scary. People are still (thankfully) allowed to express disagreement with abortion in this country, even though abortion is legal in all states and essentially made so by the Roe v Wade decision. Why is homosexuality given such a vaunted and elevated level of protection that a person should not even be allowed to express disagreement with homosexual practice? That is truly a frightening idea, and one that freedom loving people should resist being imposed on them. In Canada and Sweden, speaking in a negative way about homosexuality I believe is considered "hate speech" even if done in a church. That is NOT what this country should ever come to. Where you can't express your belief about something. We will no longer truly be the land of the free if that happens in my opinion.
What do you suppose France believes it has gained by allowing this massive influx of muslim immigrants? I wish I understood. Rather than assimilating, it really seems like many of these people go the European countries and simply seek to impose their culture there, versus the other way around.
In response to:

Marriage Is a Religious Liberty Issue

Marcos464 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 7:33 PM
Of Interest: The words “husband” and “wife” have been removed from marriage laws in California to accommodate same-sex 'marriage'. The term “spouse” will now be used under a Bill signed into law this week by Gov. Jerry Brown. Mark Leno, the US politician who wrote the Bill, suggested that the new legislation was necessary to remove "outdated and biased language from state codes.” The new law, SB1306, comes after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of permitting same-sex 'marriages' in California last year. The decision came shortly after a ruling by the Supreme Court which held that the state's prohibition on same-sex 'marriage' was unconstitutional and violated “equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.” In 2008, 52 per cent of California's citizens voted to protect the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. The SB1306 law, which will come into force in January 2015, defines marriage in California as “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons.” The National Organization for Marriage, a US-based pro-traditional marriage group, said the new law was "further proof that redefining marriage is not simply about ‘equality’", but rather, "it is about fundamentally altering the meaning of the institution itself”. In the UK, earlier this year, MPs approved proposals to remove the terms "husband", "wife" and "widow" from legislation dating back hundreds of years following the passage of the Marrage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 in the UK. MPs voted in favor of proposals to prevent a man who ‘marries’ a King of Britain from being referred to as Queen, and to stop the same-sex partner of a future Prince of Wales from be entitled Princess of Wales. Amendments were even approved to the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, which allows cab licenses of deceased husbands to be transferred to their widows by way of a London cab order. As noted above, the redefinition of marriage was never really about 'equality.'
Dobermite - I am coming to the same conclusion. I think his true fame of mind slipped out when Obama was secretly recorded making a remark during the 2008 presidential campaign about people in PA clinging to their "guns and religions" when feeling economic uncertainty. Obama is a post modernist who dismisses the idea of absolutes and who I think truthfully has little regard for biblical teaching. Anyone can profess to be a Christian. But you have to look at what he does, and not just espouses, and what he does seems so incongruent with the idea of someone who respects and values biblical precepts.
No, its not as untenable as you suggest. I am not dismissing what you are saying as wholly unreasonable, but in reality those 'progressive' factions of 'Christianity' that do not have an issue with homosexual behavior (and it is the behavior not the orientation) need not seek an exemption. Those that maintain the tenants of the faith as they have been understood since the inception of the faith should be allowed the exemption. I think the questions you ask at the end are not intended sarcastically and it would take reams to answer but I would say to you that there are, as much as many don't want to believe this, sound and genuine reasons for requesting personal integrity of all employees in certain circumstances, that again, have absolutely nothing to do with animus or a value judgment about a person's worth as a human being.
Its this simple Herald, if you are a practicing, not just professed Christian, then you make an acknowledgement that God, not you (you meaning the individual) has the final say over the kind of life one should live. You just don't mentally agree with some tenants, genuine integrity means I will live them out. I may fail in that endeavor, but I will seek to live out my life according to the Principles I claim to be dedicated to. If I have an organization that is Christian, and I want those who work there to be practicing followers of the faith, then I ask that they be able to demonstrate that with how they live their lives. Do their lives show evidence of being dedicated to the principles that I and the organization are dedicated to? If the answer is no, its not personal, its not an indictment of that person's "worth" or an expression of "hatred." Its desiring to employ those who commit to live their lives with integrity, in accordance with the principles that guide the organization.
What you are saying is sensible in that no, the government should not pick winners and losers in religion, a good reason why we don't have a state church, although it can be argued that aggressive secularism posturing as being "values neutral' is in fact form of state religion. But I digress. Again, the "business is business" argument is one I have an issue with when it comes to religious beliefs that are rooted in a coherent, established framework of belief. Americans do not (or should not) lose their religious liberty when they start a family business, or establish a educational institution or not-for-profit that is explicitly dedicated to the tenants of a religious worldview. And the government cannot pick and choose which religious beliefs are deserving of protection. The government must prove that its actions are compelling, and that it has chosen the least restrictive means of achieving its goal, in order to win out over religious beliefs. I can't help but feel like providing adults with the apparatus of the state to try and coerce organizations to "change their ways." It is punitive, no matter how much this is denied, to not offer an exemption to religious institutions. Craven bigotry with no foundation but someone's unique personal animus should not be subsidized. But making this rule as blanket as it is really does interfere, and at a minimum, seeks to discourage the free exercise of freedom of religion in segments of society.
"As the context is REALLY hard to bring in to the regulation without writing 50 books about the topic (admittedly a great jobs scheme for lawyers), a blanked ban on discrimination seems the most sensible." Actually, no it isn't sensible because it takes a one size fits all approach to what should be treated with the utmost care. Some discrimination is driven by nothing but craven bigotry, some "discrimination" is actually more akin to freedom of association and has nothing to do with "animus" or making a value judgment about another's worth. And as to your statement, " Your rights, religious, personal or otherwise, end where other people's rights begin." That really cuts both ways doesn't it, or at least it should. But why is it that "rights" having to do with sexuality seem to trump those related to religious freedom? That is something to think about.
1 - 10 Next