• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

So much for religious freedom

myDeaconmyhand said:
I see your point. The secular part is debatable, but this situation certainly isn't helping the cause of Christians abroad.
Click to expand...

Could you explain Shorty's point to me?
 
PhDeac said:
Could you explain Shorty's point to me?
Click to expand...

The repercussions or loss of rights for Christians that you were speaking of are more accurately attributed to the Muslim parts of the world (rather than Secular), and already occur. The situation in Murfreesboro seems to be a regressive movement against secularization.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The repercussions or loss of rights for Christians that you were speaking of are more accurately attributed to the Muslim parts of the world (rather than Secular), and already occur. The situation in Murfreesboro seems to be a regressive movement against secularization.
Click to expand...

How do you call denying a faith a place to practice their faith "secularism"?

You can't be serious.
 
I know that. To be a "regressive movement against secularism" Islam would have to be part of "secularism" for this project to be targeted.
 
RJKarl said:
I know that. To be a "regressive movement against secularism" Islam would have to be part of "secularism" for this project to be targeted.
Click to expand...

I believe his point is that is "secularism" is the government allowing all religions a free place to worship. a movement AGAINST secularism would be the government favoring certain religions over others.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The repercussions or loss of rights for Christians that you were speaking of are more accurately attributed to the Muslim parts of the world (rather than Secular), and already occur. The situation in Murfreesboro seems to be a regressive movement against secularization.
Click to expand...

Which meant he misunderstood my point completely.
 
Right. If conservative Christians want to maintain the right to discriminate against homosexuals and women, then they should let other religions do what they want.
 
That wasn't really my point either.

My point was if Christians put the legal mechanisms in place to restrict the freedom of religion, those mechanisms could eventually be used against Christians.

If a community of Christians work to block a mosque in their neighborhood, who's to say a community of atheists can't use that a precedent to block a church from their neighborhood?
 
PhDeac said:
That wasn't really my point either.

My point was if Christians put the legal mechanisms in place to restrict the freedom of religion, those mechanisms could eventually be used against Christians.

If a community of Christians work to block a mosque in their neighborhood, who's to say a community of atheists can't use that a precedent to block a church from their neighborhood?
Click to expand...

I like it. I'm about sick of those durn Baptists down the road anyways.
 
Many conservatives have narrowed their definition of religious liberty to only include Christianity.

I am glad that the judge stepped in and ruled in their favor.
 
Just when you think we are moving the right direction of equality. Preach the constitution but turn a blind eye when it does not turn in your favor....typical white trash.
 
Listen, we all know that our forebears came to America to make sure Muslims had no rights. Nothing to see here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top