[BartSimpson]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Two rights often make a wrong....or should that be rites?

The Scottish Rite is reportedly a source of wrong.

[PluggyRug]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Two rights often make a wrong....or should that be rites?

The Scottish Rite is reportedly a source of wrong.

I took the York rite which is alright.

[MeganC]

I want the right to eight hours of sleep!!!!!!!

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Freedom FROM Religion.

Freedom from your LACK of it.

Really? You need freedom from someone else's lack of religion? What exactly, about a lack of religion would you need to be free from?

[ShepherdsDog]

Yeah, that's a bit of a moment.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Bart, you might want to check out Articles 16 and 18.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

The UN is obviously composed of homophobes.

I know you are being sarcastic, but look how they dovetail to your own first post on this thread.

$1:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

$1:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Freedom of Belief

Freedom from oppression or the malicious acts of others.

The right to live and the right to defend your life, the right to defend the lives of those you love, and the right to defend your property.

The right to choose who governs you and how they conduct that governance.

The right to act as desired and to the extent that such action only affects yourself.

The unlimited right NOT to act. If you don't want to do something then no one has a right to force you to do it.

So, freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, the right to not be told what to do by someone else because of their, and not your, religious beliefs. Like, the right to love someone, and marry them, and build a family with them as in Article 16.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The right to associate with whom you desire be it in your home, your business, your workplace, your place of worship, your school, or etc. No one has the right to force you to associate with people you do not wish to be associated with.

The right to freely enter into contracts or agreements to the extent that such contracts or agreements do not abrogate any other rights.

Equality before the law and before government with all other citizens or subjects of that same law and government.

Ahh, equality before the law! So, say, if someone's spouse is injured, the right to see them in hospital; or the right to help make decisions as to their care in the event they are unable to, or the right to inherit their estate as a husband and wife already do . . .something the right to be married gives us!

Nothing in Article 16 says it applies to any specific gender. Just saying, that in giving people the right to marry someone of the same sex, we give them the same rights that opposite sex couples have always enjoyed and it doesn't diminish the rights of others in any way. "Equality before the law and before government. . . "

[stratos]

Two wrongs don't make a right but 3 lefts will.

[stratos]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Freedom FROM Religion.

Freedom from your LACK of it.

Really? You need freedom from someone else's lack of religion? What exactly, about a lack of religion would you need to be free from?

By this statement you are actually supporting his argument. NOT you per say but those who wish to have freedom from religion actually are imposing their will by forcing those of religion to remove all articles of faith from public view. This includes even talking about God(s). This is, in many peoples view, infringing on a persons religious freedoms.

you don't want to hear people talk about religion walk away from the convo. you don't want to read about religion, stop reading the article or in this cases like CKA skip the comment or thread. Yet instead of doing this the anti-religious crowed is demanding that the religious NOT do something. Thus attempting to impose their will upon others.

[Tyler_1]

Oh that's right said Fred!

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

By this statement you are actually supporting his argument. NOT you per say but those who wish to have freedom from religion actually are imposing their will by forcing those of religion to remove all articles of faith from public view. This includes even talking about God(s). This is, in many peoples view, infringing on a persons religious freedoms.

you don't want to hear people talk about religion walk away from the convo. you don't want to read about religion, stop reading the article or in this cases like CKA skip the comment or thread. Yet instead of doing this the anti-religious crowed is demanding that the religious NOT do something. Thus attempting to impose their will upon others.

But, 'rights' aren't a religion. 'Rights' are something afforded to those that we deem need such protections; 'religion' is a choice.

And there is a reason that the founders of our governments chose to make our democracies secular, and the reason so many middle eastern countries are barely out of the stone age when they used to be leaders in science and art. It's also the reason our ancestors left the old world for the new, religion and government don't play well together.

[stratos]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

stratos stratos:

By this statement you are actually supporting his argument. NOT you per say but those who wish to have freedom from religion actually are imposing their will by forcing those of religion to remove all articles of faith from public view. This includes even talking about God(s). This is, in many peoples view, infringing on a persons religious freedoms.

you don't want to hear people talk about religion walk away from the convo. you don't want to read about religion, stop reading the article or in this cases like CKA skip the comment or thread. Yet instead of doing this the anti-religious crowed is demanding that the religious NOT do something. Thus attempting to impose their will upon others.

But, 'rights' aren't a religion. 'Rights' are something afforded to those that we deem need such protections; 'religion' is a choice.

And there is a reason that the founders of our governments chose to make our democracies secular, and the reason so many middle eastern countries are barely out of the stone age when they used to be leaders in science and art. It's also the reason our ancestors left the old world for the new, religion and government don't play well together.

Agreed to a point. The Puritans left Europe to escape persecution for their beliefs and thus Freedom of Religion in the constitution and not Freedom FROM Religion like many wish to claim. Yet why then is Gov. forcing religion away from society via the Atheist/anti-religion crowd. There are more and more laws and restraints put on Christianity in the USA every year. Very few of them are truly keeping Gov. and religion separate. What they are doing is removing religion from society thus imposing the will of one group upon another. As I pointed out in my previous post.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

stratos stratos:

By this statement you are actually supporting his argument. NOT you per say but those who wish to have freedom from religion actually are imposing their will by forcing those of religion to remove all articles of faith from public view. This includes even talking about God(s). This is, in many peoples view, infringing on a persons religious freedoms.

you don't want to hear people talk about religion walk away from the convo. you don't want to read about religion, stop reading the article or in this cases like CKA skip the comment or thread. Yet instead of doing this the anti-religious crowed is demanding that the religious NOT do something. Thus attempting to impose their will upon others.

But, 'rights' aren't a religion. 'Rights' are something afforded to those that we deem need such protections; 'religion' is a choice.

And there is a reason that the founders of our governments chose to make our democracies secular, and the reason so many middle eastern countries are barely out of the stone age when they used to be leaders in science and art. It's also the reason our ancestors left the old world for the new, religion and government don't play well together.

Agreed to a point. The Puritans left Europe to escape persecution for their beliefs and thus Freedom of Religion in the constitution and not Freedom FROM Religion like many wish to claim. Yet why then is Gov. forcing religion away from society via the Atheist/anti-religion crowd. There are more and more laws and restraints put on Christianity in the USA every year. Very few of them are truly keeping Gov. and religion separate. What they are doing is removing religion from society thus imposing the will of one group upon another. As I pointed out in my previous post.

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

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Freedom FROM Religion.

Freedom from your LACK of it.

Really? You need freedom from someone else's lack of religion? What exactly, about a lack of religion would you need to be free from?

Case in point: Atheists who sue to remove crosses from public lands - in particular from cemeteries. And in cases where the public lands have been sold off to private owners the fucking atheists still insist on wanting the crosses torn down making the point that they want the cross torn down regardless if it is on public land or not.

If you don't believe in it anyway then why bother to try to force it to be removed?