The debate "Isn't it discriminating to not allow religions in government" was started by
June 7, 2017, 6:18 am.
5 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
neveralone posted 19 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 1 argument, neveralone posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
neveralone, ceedotrock and 3 visitors agree.
PsychDave, Grizzi and 8 visitors disagree.
but other such organizations can?
There are no "groups" inside government. all special interest groups are private groups that have nothing to do with the government, including many Christian groups.
there is no law banning private Christians from forming groups. the law bans the church itself from interfering as an organization with authority and loyalty that in the view of many of their constituents can overrule the nation itself.
here is an example of one
on government level we are. we are not allowed to have groups in big government. unlike any group that doesn't have a direct link to any faith.
yeah. that's the position Jeff Sessions currently holds.
You keep saying that conclusion but not examples of how you came to that conclusion? who is being treated differently? and in what way?
we have had that instituted in the government? we are probably unhappy because we're not being treated the same as everyone else. by that I mean all religions.
well we've had that for a long time. I'm really baffled by Christian claims of discrimination in this nation.
how about a minister of individual rights? including the rights to practice your faith without fear.
a public advocate?
like the attorney general?
besides in a church.
I would say yes. I believe it to be sin but I also do not get to judge. it's not my place. in other words it's not my choice for such a matter. idk besides to the couple that that choice should go to.
even something like a religious advisor that the president could ask for their opinion based on his preferred religion or if he doesn't have one he doesn't need to fill that position would be nice. it's just there is no one that primary job is to religions rights.no matter which religion.
Why shouldn't 2 men be allowed to marry?
"because *god said* marriage is between a man and a woman"
or some vague mention of tradition but no sign of actual harm.
that should be an invalid argument in the eyes of the state.
is that what you consider discrimination?
well the commandments are for us. we can't force others into it. though we will keep the door open.
more like there is no group or position for any religion.
if you can defend your the position with more than god said so, your more than welcome to. I'm confused as to the problem. no body disagrees with thou shalt not steal or kill. it's usually the first 3 commandments some people have issue with.
what is the problem? are you saying there are no Christian in our nation's leadership?
not without being in check for certain but it would set anyone's minds at ease to see that there is a group there.
which is what I want to avoid. I do not wish it to even become a big part of government. just as long as it is a part. even if that's just an advisor role.
we are not talking about ideal morality, we are talking about government in reality today. individual disapproval means nothing. And that is why despite your views of how a Christian should act, religion should stay out of law making. it should receive equal protected under the law, but it should not dictate the law.
religious people can make the law, but they cannot do it based only on their religion. otherwise it becomes a theocracy.
I'll gather up some examples for u when I can
I would disprove of such behavior.
the gay marriage is very easy.
if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry gay.
I don't see the issue besides a group of people forcing their views on others with the only reason for that restriction being that their god said so.
I asked you to give me an example of official discrimination against Christians in this country. I don't want to hear about Christians owning for profit businesses complaining that their religious freedom allows them to discriminate. any personal or not for profit example of a Christian facing systematic discrimination.
I know you said before that people give you funny looks when you try to pray before a meal, but that's an anecdotal example that is protected by their free speech. if you head down to the bible belt atheists will be given the same looks or worse for not praying. does that mean the US is discriminating against atheists too?
wasn't meaning it like that. if laws were thrown around today for black people not to be allowed to vote it wouldn't get passed. why? because they have there own groups of people watching out for it and we as a nation arnt racist. but we can't say the same for religious organizations besides Muslims and that's because of a world wide debate.
not sure what ur asking here sorry.
I disagree. we can't do anything that can satisfy both sides of any arguement like gay marriage because half the side doesn't exist. that's why they go full force.
everyone tries to push what they think is right. personally I don't think it's the governments business but I have yet to decide who's it is.
that is a cheap shot by France.
so why don't we put it in more clear terms.
There is no right to be heard. You have a right to talk, you have no right to force someone to listen.
can you please give me an example of Christian rights being dismissed aside from expecting their for profit businesses to follow the same rules as everyone else.
this notion that Christians are under attack in the US is, as I said, either a paranoid delusion, or attempts give Christians special treatment.
Christians in America force their views on gay marriage in government.
France with similar laws are trying to ban head covering which are required by another religion.
We can pass laws that don't directly target a religion but target their clothes, their country of origin, or a practice they do without mentioning religion existing in a gray area, like the travel ban.
that's thinking outside government. in a government environment no one is trying to force people to follow them just that there rights and idea are being heard. they wouldn't be the only group of course. we still have the two main and secondary groups so any situation of forcing agaisnt their wills is doubtful at best.
most of our laws are the same and we would never be able to enforce laws against other peoples religions here since we have the freedom of religion.
There can be compromise in theory, but in the minds of many believers the other side is just wrong and needs to be brought into the light. religions Do not promote compromise. they promote an absolute version of what is and what isnt... And most of them can't agree on those absolutes, and it's not like Jews would be ok with having just a little pork or something.
end result, 99% of the time, compromise doesn't happen.
men having problem with women and white having problem with black is not the same because these sides don't have contradictory almighty decrees from above that requires no logic only devotion.
When your view point is from an external, almighty source that you are told not to question, just obey, there is no middle ground to find agreement. You either follow your laws, or your going to hell. There can be no compromise.
if inner fighting is the concern then black people can't because they have problems with whites and women cant because they have problems with men. u see what I mean? just because we have diff. opinions doesn't mean we can't cooperate. I include atheist btw. idk if u would make a group though since a disbelief in something doesn't mean u will agree on anything.
if u had an argument with someone and u get ur parents to deal with it. ur dad sides agaisnt the person u are arguing with everytime and ur mom instead wishes to manipulate ur decisions(the sheep). this is how almost every arguement goes for Christians. demecrats side with the other no matter what and Republicans are using us as pawns. I would rather at least our own group. someone who will actually help us. as a side note do u think one group could really overide all of them?
the only way in which they are restricted is in imposing their views on others. There it is nothing restricting their practice of whatever in their personal lives.
I don't care how righteous the person is, if they try to restrict my rights I will fight them. I see no legitamete reason why Christians should feel cornered in this nation except for a belief based on paranoid delusions or a desire to create a freedom for them only theocracy. And f*** that.
what if whole people who have no weight in gov. because they believe there is something more to life than death. who lash out because like any other have nothing else to turn to. one of the reasons they act like that is because to the world and to their nation is basically saying their opinion doesn't matter? let me ask u this. when someone feels that there cornered what do they do? fight back. though I disagree that we should do this I do understand why in part
the current Muslim situation aside, look up or history of discriminating against Catholics... And those are Christians! same religion. You don't even have to be a different faith to be discriminated against, you just have to be different in any way.
look at gays. 2 men, well aware of how their relationship is assumed to be viewed by god just want to be with each other. what do Christians do? be understanding? comoassionate? or an absolute rejection of there views and desires because the bible said no, and no means no. the end.
with how it's set up in gov.? I doubt it also we aren't at each other's throats.
lol. religious people are the ones most likely to disregard others "wrong" beliefs.
I understand where your assumption of benevolence comes from, but we live in reality. look around you. they should respect others, but the never actually do.
would religious people not hold other peoples religious freedoms high? to make it where such a big part of society can't be a part as a group doesn't seem fair.
If you said people of this religion cannot be in the government, then yes, it absolutely would be. That is not the case though. You can be religious and be in the governments, you just can't make laws based on religion.
It is the difference between saying "I can't do that because it is against my religion", which is acceptable and "You can't do that because I it is against my religion."
if u simply replace religion with black or woman and it becomes discriminating yet when it comes to religion it's suddenly different? we have seen such reasoning in the past and have called it racism and sexism and tried to fix it. what about now?