Freedom From Atheism

Religious freedom is not limitless. Is the baker still free to go to Church? Yes! Is the baker free to quote the Bible in the bakery and lecture others? Yes! Is the baker free to immerse him or herself in their religion at home? Yes! Is the baker free to listen to a Christian station in their car? Yes! So to make this a black or white, all or nothing argument is just silly.

Nothing to dodge as the claim is baseless. In a Constitutional Representative Republic secular law trumps religious law.

Thus an object demonstration of your ignorance of my actual position. Religion is awesome, but in a secular society religious rights are not without limits.

 

that is 100% false.

Person A cannot discriminate against person B because of person B's religion but they most certainly can reject becoming an accessory to person B's religion when person B demands person A to go against and violate their own [person A's] religion.

In other words you cant force anyone to abide by someone elses religion, period.

 

Baker A cannot routinely refuse to bake cakes that say "Happy Bar-Mitzvah".

that would look like discrimination against Jews.

 

government doesn't allow religious people to discriminate in their businesses that are open to the public.

sorry.

 

another read herring we are not talking about the limits at this point are we.

The baker was not free to practice his religion while the atheist was free to practice theirs.

Hate to enlighten you but the reserved rights expressed in the constitution applies to liberty which is a public matter so your at home argument is another ridiculous red herring.

Oh I understand your position perfectly, just watching you hide under every little leaf you can find but it wont do you any good unless you can come up with bonafide arguments instead of mountains of red herrings as I have seen so far.

 

so a Jewish businessman should have the right to refuse to sell things to Muslims and Christians?

he should have the right to refuse to hire them?

 

So you openly admit gvmnt violates peoples right to exercise their religion. I agree!

 

If in the process of selling it causes the jewish person to run contrary to his own religion. absolutely. Likewise with hiring, if you mix antimatter with matter boom. Why would anyone in their right mind wish to do such a thing. That is why people form communities to be with like politics and religion.

 

oh, so you think Muslim shop keepers should be allowed to keep out Jews???

why do you support discrimination and bigotry?

- - - Updated - - -

Christian principals should be allowed to ban women from teaching???

why do you support such bigotry?

 

No, that is just your errant interpretation which is far removed from what I actually said.

And all religions are subject to secular law in America.

Nor did I claim that you did.

Ignore me or not, matters not either way as I do not base my debate style upon the perceptions of others. From my perspective we are having a civil debate, if you dislike the way I debate then move on to debate another.

Proofs require more than opinion, so if you are arguing proofs then please present your source citation.

Source citation needed for the above claim.

 

no of course not, simply ban them for any reason what so ever is hardly religious is it?

I support freedom of religion of the individual I do not support freedom of state religion which is the origin of your accusation.

 

Source citation needed for above claim.

 

so you think government can force Christians to sell things to Muslims?

 

You need to critically review what you said if you think what I said about it was incorrect.

Once again claiming the state religion takes precedence over the rights of the people to exercise their own religion. you keep repeating yourself over and over.

Source citations? You are the one who is claiming that secular law trumps everyones religion, accommodation laws in the us code are unconstitutional because they violate the ability for people to exercise their religion.

- - - Updated - - -

see my above post.

- - - Updated - - -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

 

Saint Paul the Apostle orders Christians not to let women teach or have any authority over men.


would it be discriminatory against religious freedom, to prevent Christain principals from banning women teachers?

 

How is this anything but an argument for or against limits?

A Christian baker and a atheist baker are both subject to the same secular laws.

Liberty is not without limits.

 

so you think Christian principals should have the right to practise their faith, by banning women from being teachers?

 

in that example the ruling theory would be authority not so much teaching in which there would be a legitimate dispute and a solution that was satisfactory to all parties would need to be created, not a one shoe fits all statute.

 

Baking a cake is a service not a form of speech. The baker is free to quote Bible passages while playing Christian hymns while serving customers but is still against secular law to deny service to a customer because they are gay.

 

what would be an acceptable compromise????

women can only teach non-Christian students at their school?

how about we just reject discrimination.

 

Your view was held by the Arizona legislature that created a far reaching bill to free individuals to break laws they felt restricted their personal religious views.

Of course, there is no argument concerning what is a valid religion, so this really did boil down to each individual being able to define their own religion and claim exemption because of that belief.

Luckily for AZ, their governor was wise enough to veto that bill.

I really can't imagine being so idiotic as to think that personal religious opinion should exempt one from the law.

 

Modern Confucianism fits the bill it removes the spiritual aspects for a philosophical one, however traditionalist branches maintain a respect for an afterlife.

 

Polygamy was not decided by one judge and one case. Congress started passing laws about in the mid 1800s. Honestly, I have yet to meet an atheist who thinks it should be illegal; 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the opposition comes from theists.

I didn't come up with it. The vast majority or mainstream Christians did. I don't know where you came up with the idea that it had popular support among Christians in the U.S. Polygamy lost popularity in Christianity in the early days of the church. I can give you a few articles from mainstream Christian sources if you would like.

But, regardless, atheists had no political power in the U.S. in the mid-1800s. Christians squashed polygamy, not atheists. The only large Christian sect that supported it was the Mormon church, and they abandoned the practice more than a century ago, except for a few remote practitioners.

 

Liberals believe Freedom means a life free from discrimination.

Conservatives believe Freedom means the right to discriminate.

 

Have you thought this out? You can no more free yourself from atheists than atheists free itself from religions. All must coexist.
And in the USA, no religions are forced to conform to an atheist agenda. Just like no one is forced to follow a religious agenda.