Sessions Announces Religious Liberty Task Force

[HunterSdVa29]

No... the more I have looked at the old school "pagan" religions the more they "make sense" (at least the Nordic ones as the Greek Gods were fucking dicks that constantly meddled in human affairs)... they existed to protect mankind from other like spiritual/celestial otherworldly threats but largely left mankind to their own devices.

Rather easy to explain IMO
polytheistic religions in general were less aimed at controlling a population, and rather simply explaining things or giving people solace of the uknown

As science progressed, and thus knowledge increased on things like static electricity or the tides (so no, it's not Zeus throwing lightning bolts or Poseidon controlling the seas) the only real ? left unanswered centered on creation....

Monotheistic religions, on the other hand, came around much later were largely centered on Hope (needed some of that in the Dark Ages, or like any time ever in the Middle East), as in surely there's something better than this life to pursue (an after life, earned through good work/deeds). Also it aimed to answer the creation question, thus resulting in the common theme of an all knowing, all powerful, and all present Supreme Being. This does two things: keeps society in check and the workers working and not revolting. With no hope in something better, then people would try less in Serf style lifestyles or not even conform at all. I mean who's religious (class wise) throughout history? almost exclusively the poor, even to today. The wealthy have no reason to need hope.....

 

[curryjunkie]

yeah cool movie, which unfortunately doesn't reflect the reality.

the reality is here.

this is the religion which the left defends...

you liberals are mental, very sad

cool story numbnuts, now show me where i defend burkhas

 

[Gregolian]

Rather easy to explain IMO
polytheistic religions in general were less aimed at controlling a population, and rather simply explaining things or giving people solace of the uknown

As science progressed, and thus knowledge increased on things like static electricity or the tides (so no, it's not Zeus throwing lightning bolts or Poseidon controlling the seas) the only real ? left unanswered centered on creation....

Monotheistic religions, on the other hand, came around much later were largely centered on Hope (needed some of that in the Dark Ages, or like any time ever in the Middle East), as in surely there's something better than this life to pursue (an after life, earned through good work/deeds). Also it aimed to answer the creation question, thus resulting in the common theme of an all knowing, all powerful, and all present Supreme Being. This does two things: keeps society in check and the workers working and not revolting. With no hope in something better, then people would try less in Serf style lifestyles or not even conform at all. I mean who's religious (class wise) throughout history? almost exclusively the poor, even to today. The wealthy have no reason to need hope.....

Oh I get it. You also at least rarely saw polytheistic religions try to conquer others for religious reasons (Rome and Persia being obvious exceptions).

Vikings conquered others but it was never for religion... it was for better farmland as I understand it/their stuff

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Oh I get it. You also at least rarely saw polytheistic religions try to conquer others for religious reasons (Rome and Persia being obvious exceptions).

Vikings conquered others but it was never for religion... it was for better farmland as I understand it/their stuff

plus if you have multiple gods, it's hard to argue a Crusade type venture, as presumably other non war like gods would have differing views or opinions on the matter...or other values being preached that would perhaps result in some temperance or more balanced world view

Whereas if you have one all mighty God, and it's interpreted as 'go kill the heathens'......well that's what is probably going to happen. No wiggle room IOW

 

[Gregolian]

plus if you have multiple gods, it's hard to argue a Crusade type venture, as presumably other non war like gods would have differing views or opinions on the matter...or other values being preached that would perhaps result in some temperance or more balanced world view

Whereas if you have one all mighty God, and it's interpreted as 'go kill the heathens'......well that's what is probably going to happen. No wiggle room IOW

"ARES DEMANDS WAR!"
"Well, his dad and uncle Zeus and Poseidon respectively say he's a dumbshit"

 

[helltoupee]

There is a vast right wing conspiracy to turn America into... what's a real worst case modern scenario? Utah? How awful!

But seriously, this looks a lot like hating on people whose views and ideas you, and a lot of the thread, do not understand.

For a reasonable, and non- hyperbolic response from the right:

For one thing, several prominent commentators slammed religious-liberty protections as existing to shield only Christianity — or even as an effort to sanction the supposed bigotry of conservative Christians. Completely ignored by these malevolent pundits is the fact that religious Americans, no matter what sect or denomination they belong to, can file a complaint with the Justice Department for violations of their religious free exercise.

This new task force — and the Department of Justice behind it — will protect the rights of any and all religious Americans who have been fired, sanctioned, or otherwise punished for exercising their faith, or who have been coerced into violating their conscience. No part of that mission is limited to social conservatives or to Christian Americans, nor is there any evidence that religious-liberty protections have been enforced only in cases of discrimination against Christians.

Full story - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/religious-liberty-task-force-left-reaction-shows-need/

Better read it fast before the fundamentalists outlaw the internet and institute witch trials.

That all sounds well and good on the surface, but the people in Jeff Session's ear don't sound quite as diplomatic as you portray. The ADF doesn't operate as a defense group that supposedly quells religious persecution, they are an advocacy group that believes things like the ACLU are eroding Christian values, promotion of religious iconography on public lands, and they literally wrote the legislation in a few states that banned gay marriage, not to mention their tireless crusade against LGBT rights.

I'll ask you the same question that I asked in the OP. If we are going to discredit LGBT discrimination based on a biological reference to how we were born, then how can we accept religious discrimination laws given that we are not biologically born with a belief in Christianity?

They are not promoting secularism - quite the opposite, and that's the part to be concerned about.

 

[Spoken]

Sessions is such a cunt. Such nationalism should be foreign to Christianity, especially after seeing what nationalism/ethno-nationalism has done to folks in the last 100 years.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Sessions looks like Dr Klopek, the neighbor from the Burbs

 

[InternetHero]

That all sounds well and good on the surface, but the people in Jeff Session's ear don't sound quite as diplomatic as you portray. The ADF doesn't operate as a defense group that supposedly quells religious persecution, they are an advocacy group that believes things like the ACLU are eroding Christian values, promotion of religious iconography on public lands, and they literally wrote the legislation in a few states that banned gay marriage, not to mention their tireless crusade against LGBT rights. (1)

I'll ask you the same question that I asked in the OP. If we are going to discredit LGBT discrimination based on a biological reference to how we were born, then how can we accept religious discrimination laws given that we are not biologically born with a belief in Christianity? (2)

They are not promoting secularism - quite the opposite, and that's the part to be concerned about.

1. That's a laundry list of supposed ills. As well, protection may be a slippery slope to advocacy in some minds, but we are talking about protection here, and you see no problems there?

But I'll take up your hypothetical -

Let's suppose every word is true, it is all the ADF, and the ADF "only" does as you say.

Which is inscribed in the Constitution. The defense of religious liberty or the new category of LGBT rights? Given that, deference to religion in say, being compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple would seem rather onerous.

2. This is not a fair question, no knock on you, but you phrased the question as Christianity when the Constitution says religion.

Yes Christianity is the number one religion to protect, but glibly dismissing it is unfair.

If you want to take this tact against religion, your question also has a another flaw in terms of ideas.

"People are not born religious, but they are born LGBT."

Here is the problem, even from a secular view... people -are- born to find meaning in their lives, and you, fairly, might see religion as a canned and cheap understanding of that meaning, but there is much more to value for 1. The Founding ideals 2. Protecting what we all believe - that should not be an invitation to discriminate, but a clear line must be drawn between the feelings of the LGBT community, and actions against the LGBT community. The feelings and absolutes should not be allowed to legally erode people's beliefs.

 

[ScottE]

The American conservative. Constantly fearful of sharia law being implemented in America while constantly threatening the American institutions that make it impossible because what they really want is Christian law.

 

[helltoupee]

1. That's a laundry list of supposed ills. As well, protection may be a slippery slope to advocacy in some minds, but we are talking about protection here, and you see no problems there?

But I'll take up your hypothetical -

Let's suppose every word is true, it is all the ADF, and the ADF "only" does as you say.

Which is inscribed in the Constitution. The defense of religious liberty or the new category of LGBT rights? Given that, deference to religion in say, being compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple would seem rather onerous.

2. This is not a fair question, no knock on you, but you phrased the question as Christianity when the Constitution says religion.

Yes Christianity is the number one religion to protect, but glibly dismissing it is unfair.

If you want to take this tact against religion, your question also has a another flaw in terms of ideas.

"People are not born religious, but they are born LGBT."

Here is the problem, even from a secular view... people -are- born to find meaning in their lives, and you, fairly, might see religion as a canned and cheap understanding of that meaning, but there is much more to value for 1. The Founding ideals 2. Protecting what we all believe - that should not be an invitation to discriminate, but a clear line must be drawn between the feelings of the LGBT community, and actions against the LGBT community. The feelings and absolutes should not be allowed to legally erode people's beliefs.

The ADF, who are largely the impetus behind this task force, is a proactive group that is promoting the marrying of church and state. While they may also seek to protect people from Christian persecution (nowhere have I ever seen them rush to the defense of any other religion besides Christians), much of their agenda is an affront to the Constitution itself.

As to the LGBT question, I think you may have misunderstood what I said. The ADF aggressively seeks to suppress proposed and current LGBT discriminatory legislation based on the idea that LGBT is simply a figment of someone's imagination, ie., they were born as either male or female. That's fine. I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm stating that if discrimination law is based on this biological fact, then we should be consistent and remove protections for religious discrimination since the biological truth is that we are not born with a belief in religion.

If religious people expect protections for what amounts to "beliefs", then I see no difference in allowing protections for someone else's "beliefs", such as LGBT.

 

[King of Fists]

About time. A necessary and perspicacious move. Christians are the most persecuted group in the world, by far. The intolerance and hostility towards Christians has become even in western countries a problem. The left absolutely do hate Christians, even more than Trump.

It fundamentally goes against Jesus's teachings for Christians to attempt to lessen their persecution.

Did Jesus say "if someone assaults you or says bad things about you, fight back?" No, he said "if someone hits you on one cheek, offer him the other. If someone takes your cloak offer him your shirt too (paraphrased)"

 

[ScottE]

The idea that Christians are persecuted in America is an absolute joke. They control one of the major political parties, they are a sizable portion of the other. To even be elected Donald Trump, while paying off people to keep quiet about adultery, had to start parading around with a bible.

You have a major media outlet losing their minds over the idea that people refer to December as the holiday season as opposed to the Christmas season.

Christians are the Romans nowadays.

 

[InternetHero]

The ADF, who are largely the impetus behind this task force, is a proactive group that is promoting the marrying of church and state. While they may also seek to protect people from Christian persecution (nowhere have I ever seen them rush to the defense of any other religion besides Christians), much of their agenda is an affront to the Constitution itself.

As to the LGBT question, I think you may have misunderstood what I said. The ADF aggressively seeks to suppress proposed and current LGBT discriminatory legislation based on the idea that LGBT is simply a figment of someone's imagination, ie., they were born as either male or female. That's fine. I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm stating that if discrimination law is based on this biological fact, then we should be consistent and remove protections for religious discrimination since the biological truth is that we are not born with a belief in religion.

If religious people expect protections for what amounts to "beliefs", then I see no difference in allowing protections for someone else's "beliefs", such as LGBT.

First off, in all good conscious, what is your basis and source for the ADF both being the source for the move, then I can decide whether to care about the ADF and learn about them or not, and second what is the basis for negating all the varied forms of Mainline Christianity and religious pluralism?

As well, religious protection is written into the Constitution while your feelings on LGBT rights, or in the case of the cake baking tragedy, feelings of the LGBT community are not. They have been recognized as a protected group, and I think that is appropriate.

However, religion has the literal letter of the law in terms of protection (The Bill of Rights, no less), has hundreds of years of precedent to say the least, and has as of now many more adherents asking for their rights to be protected.

You might say "I disagree!," or "religion is wrong!" and that is well and good, the kind of thing we might vote on in the republic, if we keep doing this by fiat or the whims of judges, we are going to lose faith in the institutions and end up with a very split America.

 

[Strychnine]

So, this is how the separation of Church and State dies...

 

[helltoupee]

First off, in all good conscious, what is your basis and source for the ADF both being the source for the move, then I can decide whether to care about the ADF and learn about them or not, and second what is the basis for negating all the varied forms of Mainline Christianity and religious pluralism?

As well, religious protection is written into the Constitution while your feelings on LGBT rights, or in the case of the cake baking tragedy, feelings of the LGBT community are not. They have been recognized as a protected group, and I think that is appropriate.

However, religion has the literal letter of the law in terms of protection (The Bill of Rights, no less), has hundreds of years of precedent to say the least, and has as of now many more adherents asking for their rights to be protected.

You might say "I disagree!," or "religion is wrong!" and that is well and good, the kind of thing we might vote on in the republic, if we keep doing this by fiat or the whims of judges, we are going to lose faith in the institutions and end up with a very split America.

One only needs to search for Jeff Sessions and Alliance Defending Freedom.

And you are correct, religious freedom is codified into the Constitution. My point, however, is that an entire argument is made that LGBT should not be honored the same protections because of an insistence on biological realities, despite the fact that the religious enjoy protections that surround their own belief in something that has no basis in reality.

I don't think religion is wrong per se. I personally don't have any problem with how people want to spend their time. What I do have a problem with is religion attempting to tell me, or others, how to behave based on their personal beliefs.

 

[irish_thug]

It appears that Odin has become bored and wishes for his Valkyries to have something to do again.

 

[ocean size]

Sorry, but you are totally misinformed. There is no such a law which persecutes you just because you are homosexual in Russia. I know you mean the anti gay propaganda law, but this is not even close to a general gay ban. I am not aware of even one case of persecution, just because you were born gay in Russia.

And yes the gay propaganda law is bad, but it is nothing in comparison to the situation in islamic countries. So why you guys always start to mock Christians instead of Muslims when it comes to gays?

Lol at the goalposts moving

 

[Rekt 'em]

About time. A necessary and perspicacious move. Christians are the most persecuted group in the world, by far. The intolerance and hostility towards Christians has become even in western countries a problem. The left absolutely do hate Christians, even more than Trump.

If I had to choose one group that is the least persecuted in this country it would be white evangelicals. Do you not realize how many Democrats are practicing Christians? You are free to practice your religion as guaranteed in the constitution. The only thing this religious liberty bullshit does is pander to bigots with a victim complex. You are detached from fucking reality.

 

[irish_thug]

So, this is how the separation of Church and State dies...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you see yourself as a religious man do you not?