What Does Religious Liberty Mean ?

[annabenedetti]

You've been on an egocentric road for a few years now. There was a time you were better than writing off people when you became an embittered person. That road ends on bad terms. TRY to be Savvy. -Lon

You know nothing about me or about my life that would allow you the leeway to make that determination, Lon, and anyone who actually knows me would laugh at the idea.

You simply didn't have a cogent or coherent answer and there's no harm in that, and some grace to be found in being willing to consider the possibility - but instead you chose character assassination, both quip's and mine.

I'm putting you on ignore after this, so don't expect a response to anything else you might have to say to me. Not interested in any other flavor of condescension you have lined up on the menu.

 

[quip]

Ah, 'suffered.' Think about this, Quip: it is the word I'd have thought you'd have used. You are a fringe kinda guy. You have little empathy for 70% of the population 'against' you. You've made it an 'us/them' disagreement. Me? I recognize all citizens and see a need to capitulation, in this political section but NOT out of balance. You cannot overtly tax your base (whatever the majority happen to be in any particular country, in this one, families/Christians) in deference to some minority elite. Society doesn't ignore minority interests purposefully. Those individuals, on a sociological level, need to realize by the numbers, that it is dispassionate by those numbers. Sociological concern tries to truly make an equitable balance, not any particular overt ones. I'm sorry you had to 'suffer' raising children. Psalm 127:3

I just did. Sociological concern tries to balance ALL needs. Majority often looks like 'favoritism' but that is not the case. It is SIMPLY the expression and existence of the majority living. Of COURSE a minority would feel out of the loop if they don't fit. That is their choice, even if they were born somewhat under those circumstance. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity and I have seen ALL groups prosper. Not even our poorest are as poor off as 3rd world nations. What does that mean? NO country has eliminated their poor. Think about that. I would love to do it, but from history begun, we cannot make a homeless man work. My church, for example, welcomes everybody, including people of all colors and we've had homosexuals as well. They were cared for. We didn't allow sexual misconduct, however. Church isn't for that.

I have been. It is you, who have not been paying attention. Sociological concern looks past one's own nose and perspective. "IF" you are incapable of that, no amount of words are going to enlighten either of you. It isn't just concern for your pet groups and interests. ANYBODY stuck there is actually more prejudice, just prejudice against the majority. Town summed it up:

You're going to have to flesh your argument out better than mere declaration, sociological or otherwise. Exactly how are you employing sociology as an exclusion from the majority held "loop"?Homosexuals can't choose to remain out of this value loop if they're continually denied an invitation. You can't hold that against them whilst concurrently condemning them by that very means of exclusion. It's simply irrational Lon.

So, once again, flesh out your Sociological justification for excluding homosexuals from family values. Else, you just appear the intransigent bigot.
You don't want that....or do you?

 

[Lon]

You know nothing about me or about my life that would allow you the leeway to make that determination, Lon, and anyone who actually knows me would laugh at the idea.

You simply didn't have a cogent or coherent answer and there's no harm in that, and some grace to be found in being willing to consider the possibility - but instead you chose character assassination, both quip's and mine.

I'm putting you on ignore after this, so don't expect a response to anything else you might have to say to me. Not interested in any other flavor of condescension you have lined up on the menu.

Goodbye. You have that chip on your shoulder and it has nothing to do with me. I'm just telling you the truth. This is how you are. It is emoting when the discussion is hot, Anna. You are running away. Some fights are worth it. We both would be better for it and instead, you are marginalizing again. It is why the country is ripping apart. Nobody can or wants to discuss what is important, even if it makes one feel uncomfortable. While I disagree very much with Quip, I truly appreciate he hangs with it. He listens. It took me awhile to appreciate him, and I'm also glad I didn't put him on ignore. See you some other time perhaps, Anna.

 

[Lon]

You're going to have to flesh your argument out better than mere declaration, sociological or otherwise. Exactly how are you employing sociology as an exclusion from the majority held "loop"?Homosexuals can't choose to remain out of this value loop if they're continually denied an invitation. You can't hold that against them whilst concurrently condemning them by that very means of exclusion. It's simply irrational Lon.

Incorrect. Sexuality is a choice. Always has been. It is NOT an identity. You can go ahead and try to make basal instincts an identity crisis, but it isn't. I've met and know a LOT of homosexuals. Other than the ones making inappropriate passes because they act like animals than people, I care for them. I'm rational. Anybody lowering themselves to the basal level of argument and identity? Not being 'rational.' That is a higher mental capacity over and above. I think first, emote later if appropriate or not at all.

So, once again, flesh out your Sociological justification for excluding homosexuals from family values. Else, you just appear the intransigent bigot.
You don't want that....or do you?

How did this become a homosexual discussion? MY point was that liberty is a political and sociological concern. Again, instead of 'emoting' my way through such a discussion, it is incredibly important to think rather than emote.

Homosexuals come from families. What is our value may not be theirs, and they do hurt their parents, most of them for the diversion. Sexuality is a choice. I realize most Americans cannot seem to control themselves when it comes to it, but I still have a brain and it does indeed rule over my passions. That is more pertinent than orientation of a basal instinctual discussion. It simply lowers you and I to that of the unthinking animals. My whole drive on this is to 'think' through liberty and it cannot be emoting and instinctual that will have anywise a fair and unbiased answer. Religious liberty MUST be equitable and it must favor the majority as well as everybody else. Think about this for an example comparison: would it be appropriate, in your mind, for 'Affirmative Action' to require that 60% of employees be white? Nobody ever thinks about that because we've become focused on minority needs so much that it has created entitlement mentality.

For this discussion, I think a minority doesn't even have a right to be offended by simple living. Burning a cross on a lawn? That's not a religious expression. It is a hate expression that is against Biblical standards (again, another example simply to flesh out religious liberty from a Sociological and family perspective). Burning crosses on lawns is not a good family or religious value.

I went for a walk a few months back and a Muslim celebration and Mosque service was taking place at the park where I exercise. I had to walk through them. I could have been disgruntled that a different faith was impeding my progress and I had to slow down and put up more people than I liked, but that isn't religious liberty. Liberty means they have the same access to the property I use, and in this case, better because they were allowed a service and privileged access for their celebration. Did it bother me? :nono: It is liberty and sometimes liberties do cost at least some of the rest of us. As long as it is equitable, that's fine. If, however, it was a naked group and I had children with me, I'd complain because such is against societal expectation and norms. If it were homosexuals who display a lot of PDA, I'd also walk away, but without complaint. I'd do the same with any gross PDA expression.

The difference? One of them was religious liberty. The other was not. We need to think through our response to other's liberties and whether we are being appropriate with our complaints. Often times, the majority get unjust complaints against just living faith/religion.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Goodbye. You have that chip on your shoulder and it has nothing to do with me. I'm just telling you the truth. This is how you are. It is emoting when the discussion is hot, Anna. You are running away. Some fights are worth it. We both would be better for it and instead, you are marginalizing again. It is why the country is ripping apart. Nobody can or wants to discuss what is important, even if it makes one feel uncomfortable. While I disagree very much with Quip, I truly appreciate he hangs with it. He listens. It took me awhile to appreciate him, and I'm also glad I didn't put him on ignore. See you some other time perhaps, Anna.

Lon, calling anna "embittered" was not only condescending but inaccurate. For those that know her (and I'm glad to part of that group) you couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Incorrect. Sexuality is a choice. Always has been. It is NOT an identity. You can go ahead and try to make basal instincts an identity crisis, but it isn't. I've met and know a LOT of homosexuals. Other than the ones making inappropriate passes because they act like animals than people, I care for them. I'm rational. Anybody lowering themselves to the basal level of argument and identity? Not being 'rational.' That is a higher mental capacity over and above. I think first, emote later if appropriate or not at all.

How did this become a homosexual discussion? MY point was that liberty is a political and sociological concern. Again, instead of 'emoting' my way through such a discussion, it is incredibly important to think rather than emote.

Homosexuals come from families. What is our value may not be theirs, and they do hurt their parents, most of them for the diversion. Sexuality is a choice. I realize most Americans cannot seem to control themselves when it comes to it, but I still have a brain and it does indeed rule over my passions. That is more pertinent than orientation of a basal instinctual discussion. It simply lowers you and I to that of the unthinking animals. My whole drive on this is to 'think' through liberty and it cannot be emoting and instinctual that will have anywise a fair and unbiased answer. Religious liberty MUST be equitable and it must favor the majority as well as everybody else. Think about this for an example comparison: would it be appropriate, in your mind, for 'Affirmative Action' to require that 60% of employees be white? Nobody ever thinks about that because we've become focused on minority needs so much that it has created entitlement mentality.

For this discussion, I think a minority doesn't even have a right to be offended by simple living. Burning a cross on a lawn? That's not a religious expression. It is a hate expression that is against Biblical standards (again, another example simply to flesh out religious liberty from a Sociological and family perspective). Burning crosses on lawns is not a good family or religious value.

I went for a walk a few months back and a Muslim celebration and Mosque service was taking place at the park where I exercise. I had to walk through them. I could have been disgruntled that a different faith was impeding my progress and I had to slow down and put up more people than I liked, but that isn't religious liberty. Liberty means they have the same access to the property I use, and in this case, better because they were allowed a service and privileged access for their celebration. Did it bother me? :nono: It is liberty and sometimes liberties do cost at least some of the rest of us. As long as it is equitable, that's fine. If, however, it was a naked group and I had children with me, I'd complain because such is against societal expectation and norms. If it were homosexuals who display a lot of PDA, I'd also walk away, but without complaint. I'd do the same with any gross PDA expression.

The difference? One of them was religious liberty. The other was not. We need to think through our response to other's liberties and whether we are being appropriate with our complaints. Often times, the majority get unjust complaints against just living faith/religion.

Sexuality is not a "choice", at least it isn't for most people. You don't need to have actual sex to know which way you're wired by way of. Sexuality doesn't define a person but orientation isn't chosen.

 

[Lon]

Lon, calling anna "embittered" was not only condescending but inaccurate. For those that know her (and I'm glad to part of that group) you couldn't be further from the truth.

I've seen it. I think you came after her conversion. For the most part, listen to the points rather than getting lost. She accused me several times prior to this and tried to make this particular discussion 'my problem.'

I appreciate your love for her, but Anna needs to own her own dialogue today. If she cannot, she is 'free' to bow out. She has become fragile since her move and 'thinks' TOL is responsible for it. :nono: We can be egocentric, including myself. This particular issue is political and sociological and needs to be broad and inclusive in scope. It doesn't cater well to private overt concerns. No one voice is better than 10 voices when we are talking about liberty and some kind of equity. It SHOULD be a service issue rather than a polarizing one. I'm not sure what is going on in your country, but we are polarized.

Thank you for jumping in with your love and concern for Anna. Never a bad thing. I see care and concern for me in it as well and again, a loving word is always appreciated. :e4e:

 

[Lon]

Sexuality is not a "choice", at least it isn't for most people. You don't need to have actual sex to know which way you're wired by way of. Sexuality doesn't define a person but orientation isn't chosen.

Not true. Before I was 'sexual' I was not. While you may call me a 'roofer' or a 'carpenter' such isn't really an identity because it is a choice of what I do. It, however, isn't really an identity and it doesn't require that I have special concessions wherever I go. If someone doesn't do 'construction' cakes. I'm okay with it. I'm not sure, if I were a baker, I'd want sand and grit all over my bakery floor. It isn't always about attacking a person, but about other things that are important. A baker doesn't want to be sued for grit in his cake. Maybe he and I can work something else out for that cake or maybe I can just go to Safeway or Costco instead of having a hissy fit. Why again, is this section about religious liberty, somehow going toward homosexuality? Is homosexuality a religion? :idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I've seen it. I think you came after her conversion. For the most part, listen to the points rather than getting lost. She accused me several times prior to this and tried to make this particular discussion 'my problem.'

I appreciate your love for her, but Anna needs to own her own dialogue today. If she cannot, she is 'free' to bow out. She has become fragile since her move and 'thinks' TOL is responsible for it. :nono: We can be egocentric, including myself. This particular issue is political and sociological and needs to be broad and inclusive in scope. It doesn't cater well to private overt concerns. No one voice is better than 10 voices when we are talking about liberty and some kind of equity. It SHOULD be a service issue rather than a polarizing one. I'm not sure what is going on in your country, but we are polarized.

Thank you for jumping in with your love and concern for Anna. Never a bad thing. I see care and concern for me in it as well and again, a loving word is always appreciated. :e4e:

Lon, look at how you reacted to her and then your subsequent reaction after she had no further interest in conversing with you. You're presuming things about her that those of us who know her know not to be true. She doesn't have a "chip on her shoulder" for a start. Read back through your own posts and see how angry you're coming across.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not true. Before I was 'sexual' I was not. While you may call me a 'roofer' or a 'carpenter' such isn't really an identity because it is a choice of what I do. It, however, isn't really an identity and it doesn't require that I have special concessions wherever I go. If someone doesn't do 'construction' cakes. I'm okay with it. I'm not sure, if I were a baker, I'd want sand and grit all over my bakery floor. It isn't always about attacking a person, but about other things that are important. A baker doesn't want to be sued for grit in his cake. Maybe he and I can work something else out for that cake or maybe I can just go to Safeway or Costco instead of having a hissy fit. Why again, is this section about religious liberty, somehow going toward homosexuality? Is homosexuality a religion? :idunno:

It is true Lon, you're making the mistake of conflating attraction/orientation with the actual act of sex. See if this helps. Say a man decides for personal, religious or moral reasons to abstain from any sexual activity with another until he's married. He remains true to his convictions and marries at 35. In the meantime his romantic inclinations, attractions and arousals have soley been towards the opposite sex.

Up until the age of 35, that man has been a virgin, but on an orientation level he's been straight.

 

[quip]

Incorrect. Sexuality is a choice.

Likewise, understanding, acceptance and compassion; conversely, hate and bigotry as well. :idea:

How did this become a homosexual discussion?

You broached the subject of "family values" ..which, by your implication, entertains the exclusion of homosexuality.
So, you tell us.

Homosexuals come from families. What is our value may not be theirs, and they do hurt their parents, most of them for the diversion. Sexuality is a choice. I realize most Americans cannot seem to control themselves when it comes to it, but I still have a brain and it does indeed rule over my passions. That is more pertinent than orientation of a basal instinctual discussion. It simply lowers you and I to that of the unthinking animals. My whole drive on this is to 'think' through liberty and it cannot be emoting and instinctual that will have anywise a fair and unbiased answer. Religious liberty MUST be equitable and it must favor the majority as well as everybody else. Think about this for an example comparison: would it be appropriate, in your mind, for 'Affirmative Action' to require that 60% of employees be white? Nobody ever thinks about that because we've become focused on minority needs so much that it has created entitlement mentality.

As AB pointed out, your conflating the love and attraction for the same sex to the carnal acts of a promiscuous few. This is a common, albeit misguided, emotional reaction. Examine this response within yourself...be bigger than the close-minded propaganda you're being served. Homosexuals are human-beings just like yourself...replete with both all the inherent foibles and natural gifts.

For this discussion, I think a minority doesn't even have a right to be offended by simple living. Burning a cross on a lawn? That's not a religious expression. It is a hate expression that is against Biblical standards (again, another example simply to flesh out religious liberty from a Sociological and family perspective). Burning crosses on lawns is not a good family or religious value.

Supra

I went for a walk a few months back and a Muslim celebration and Mosque service was taking place at the park where I exercise. I had to walk through them. I could have been disgruntled that a different faith was impeding my progress and I had to slow down and put up more people than I liked, but that isn't religious liberty. Liberty means they have the same access to the property I use, and in this case, better because they were allowed a service and privileged access for their celebration. Did it bother me? :nono: It is liberty and sometimes liberties do cost at least some of the rest of us. As long as it is equitable, that's fine. If, however, it was a naked group and I had children with me, I'd complain because such is against societal expectation and norms. If it were homosexuals who display a lot of PDA, I'd also walk away, but without complaint. I'd do the same with any gross PDA expression.

The difference? One of them was religious liberty. The other was not. We need to think through our response to other's liberties and whether we are being appropriate with our complaints. Often times, the majority get unjust complaints against just living faith/religion.

That's comendable!
Now, wherefore your visceral disdain for the homosexual assimilation of family values? :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

You broached the subject of "family values" ..which, by your implication, entertains the exclusion of homosexuality.

betcha it also entertains the exclusion of pedophilia

and adultery and bestiality.....

 

[Rusha]

Lon, calling anna "embittered" was not only condescending but inaccurate. For those that know her (and I'm glad to part of that group) you couldn't be further from the truth.

Anna is one of kindest and most courageous individuals on the forum ... and just as genuine and trustworthy outside of TOL.

 

[glorydaz]

Anna is one of kindest and most courageous individuals on the forum ... and just as genuine and trustworthy outside of TOL.

Well, she puts on quite an act then. :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

Likewise, understanding, acceptance and compassion; conversely, hate and bigotry as well. :idea:

Agreed. It is the tenant of my faith to love even 'an enemy.' Some don't do so well, but it is very important. I've two commands that all other's hang on, and so I want to do it justice.

You broached the subject of "family values" ..which, by your implication, entertains the exclusion of homosexuality.
So, you tell us.

It is still interesting to me, that they are your poster children and litmus test. They are only 1% of the population. I'm not saying that to marginalize, but like my 'carpenter/roofer' analogy, it just doesn't come up. I'm sure somebody somewhere doesn't like car salesmen either. Right?

As AB pointed out, your conflating the love and attraction for the same sex to the carnal acts of a promiscuous few. This is a common, albeit misguided, emotional reaction. Examine this response within yourself...be bigger than the close-minded propaganda you're being served. Homosexuals are human-beings just like yourself...replete with both all the inherent foibles and natural gifts.

Not exactly true. In the same way I don't have to tell anyone I'm a carpenter at a bricklayer convention. Choices are what we make of them. There is absolutely no need or reason to tell you if I am heterosexual, asexual, or any kind of sexual. There is no prejudice that I wouldn't suffer by my own doing when it is as easy as just keeping my choices over the matter to myself. This isn't a sexuality thread, however. It is about religious freedom. Family values are part of religious freedom. I really can't see sexuality fitting in with such a conversation. You'll have to spell that out very clearly. I just don't see that it has much of a place on this topic. Why does it?

Supra

I don't believe so. I haven't seen it addressed. Please be clearer for me (see how to do this without being offensive, Anna?).

That's comendable!
Now, wherefore your visceral disdain for the homosexual assimilation of family values? :idunno:

Thank you. I've learned to appreciate you when we aren't talking about an issue or two where we strongly and polarized, disagree. As for a visceral disdain? It isn't so much that as certain expressions that AREN'T family friendly. Sturgis is off my list too. It is more aversion from things I find inappropriate for children and myself. In that, you may find some family value or not. Orange trees do not grow well here. Beets do, but I really cannot palate them. I don't want them shoved in my face. Perhaps cigarettes are more akin to our actual discussion than beets?

 

[Lon]

It is true Lon, you're making the mistake of conflating attraction/orientation with the actual act of sex. See if this helps. Say a man decides for personal, religious or moral reasons to abstain from any sexual activity with another until he's married. He remains true to his convictions and marries at 35. In the meantime his romantic inclinations, attractions and arousals have soley been towards the opposite sex.

Yes, but because I was so careful, some thought I was homosexual, perhaps, because I was always G rated. We aren't all like that, it is just where I have come from. I largely find 'sexual' conversation and innuendo time for me to leave a place. That said, I still don't see what in the wide world this has to do with religious liberty. As I've asked Quip, I'd need this spelled out. It seems COMPLETELY removed from discussion direction to me.

Up until the age of 35, that man has been a virgin, but on an orientation level he's been straight.

For me, 'a-sexual.' You'd have had a hard time because I treated all people like I genuinely cared for them without wanting anything in return and certainly not sexual. Again, however, I have NO idea how this plays on the OP. It seems very odd and off topic to me.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes, but because I was so careful, some thought I was homosexual, perhaps, because I was always G rated. We aren't all like that, it is just where I have come from. I largely find 'sexual' conversation and innuendo time for me to leave a place. That said, I still don't see what in the wide world this has to do with religious liberty. As I've asked Quip, I'd need this spelled out. It seems COMPLETELY removed from discussion direction to me.


For me, 'a-sexual.' You'd have had a hard time because I treated all people like I genuinely cared for them without wanting anything in return and certainly not sexual. Again, however, I have NO idea how this plays on the OP. It seems very odd and off topic to me.

Stand firm, Lon. If they can't drag people down into their mud pit, they feel ignored.

 

[Lon]

Lon, look at how you reacted to her and then your subsequent reaction after she had no further interest in conversing with you. You're presuming things about her that those of us who know her know not to be true. She doesn't have a "chip on her shoulder" for a start. Read back through your own posts and see how angry you're coming across.

I've gotten this before. I have simply said, and with no malice, that I don't find folks often think sociologically as is needed with such a topic as this. It has specifically to do with politics and liberty regarding religious expression. The whole point was to try to get several to think beyond narrow walls. Psychology is egocentric. Sociology is less so because it is socially conscious. That is it. I IMMEDIATELY received 'you are all over the place and not being cogent.' Whatever response one gets to that is appropriate to the accusation. No, as a matter of fact, I'm not lacking in cogent expression and all one of polite persuasion has to ask, is what I mean. That never happened.

See her post here. To me, it had a lot of indictments pointed my way, especially at the end and was the starting point of some expression of frustration. I did not and have not responded in anyways angered, just assessing her angst toward me is all. I still am not at all mad or emotional over this.

 

[The Barbarian]

This started so simply; "what is religious freedom?"

Lon has a point. We don't need another homo thread.

Just stirs up the wrong people.

 

[Rusha]

This started so simply; "what is religious freedom?"

Lon has a point. We don't need another homo thread.

Just stirs up the wrong people.

Religious liberty is simple. Being allowed to practice one's religion without infringing on the rights of others to practice their own beliefs as well.