You said that we have a freedom of religion not a freedom from religion. If my religion is technically none, then I have the right to not be forced to listen to your religious bullshit or have your bullshit pushed onto me. Much like this bullshit thing about making the bible the state book.
When you signed the business license for that business, you agreed to ALL state AND federal laws. That means you cannot discriminate based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight, etc. And so far the only cake place that got sued wasn't sued because they refused to serve a gay couple, they doxxed them. They released the gay couples' information on their Facebook page. Which then prompted the retarded followers of that bakery to call and harass the gay couple. Which endangered them and their adopted children. If you call that a "principle", then that principle needs to go fucking extinct like the bullshit anti-lgbt religious community. Hell, I want ALL religion to be abolished, but you don't see me lobbying to have it outlawed like religious douches are do you?
- - - Updated - - -
There is literally no way for creationism to have worked. That would require EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE to match the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM. Without using the bible of course.
That's your prerogative, but in a discussion where someone calls stuff left and right sexist, racist, transphobic, etc. a snide, dismissive 'SJW' is at its place, as such people don't deserve any more consideration and dedication than that.
Again, if you want to argue against misuse of such a term, be my guest. But then we can be here all day, complaining about potentially scathing terms being misused.
You can argue this until you're blue in the face, but you know very well that SJW is a term that describes a pretty concrete set of behaviours. Now if you are advocating for people to start posting more constructively any considerably, you're free to. But you only seem to protest the use of the word SJW.
Anyway, most people use SJW in response to "s-sexism!" or "r-racism!" so it's equally valid, nay - even more so, as SJW, at that point, perfectly describes any person that throws such accusations around without a hint of proof. A person calling someone racist for no reason is a SJW, a person being accused of racism by some guy who is trigger-happy isn't necessarily an actual racist.
Last edited by Yarathir; 2016-04-06 at 10:53 AM.
Dragonflight: Grand Marshal Hottage
PC Specs: Ryzen 7 7800X3D | ASUS ROG STRIX B650E-I | 32GB 6000Mhz DDR5 | NZXT Kraken 120
Inno3D RTX 4080 iChill | Samsung 970 EVO Plus 2TB | NZXT H200 | Corsair SF750 | Windows 11 Pro
Razer Basilisk Ultimate | Razer Blackwidow V3 | ViewSonic XG2730 | Steam Deck 1TB OLED
Uh no, we believe it's a holy text because it's the word of God, not because we named it "holy bible".
You are coming to the right conclusion with the wrong thought process. Whether something is holy is absolutely not how it is named, but whether believers of a religion think it came from the deities they worship.
Like I said, if it's all about names, then a book titled "Holy Shit" is a holy text by the same definition.
- - - Updated - - -
No you can't, because then you are just in serious denial.
"My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility
Prediction for the future
Some people not carrying out discussion properly is not a justification for your not carrying out discussion properly.
No, I was talking about labels in general, using SJW just as an example. Words "racist", "sexist", "jerk", "liberal", etc. when used in a discussion to refer to one of the participants are not proper either.
What if I tell you that there is a lot of physicists working on Big Bang Theory - pretty much the theory of the Universe evolution - that are religious and believe in God? Are they also "in denial"? A free thinking person can have more than one perspective on one matter.
Oh boy that's not good.
I thought the US constitution had something in it about this sort of thing called the 'separation of church and state'? Does it somehow not apply here?
Actually, yes. If all someone has to bring to the table is "UR A SEXIST", then why do they deserve to be graced with anything more than a dismissal? They don't. Now, some people ignore those people, some call them what they are. That's at their discration.
Well, I'll just take your word for it that you protest the use of all such labels.
"My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility
Prediction for the future
Having freedom not to have to listen to religious speech would be a violation of someone else's freedom of speech (or expression), so I don't even need to defend freedom of religion to refute that point. Freedom of expression precedes any law or Constitution and exists independent of them, so even if it isn't codified in law it still exists as an ethical and moral principle.
Of course, the idea that a legislature exists that is wasting time and money on such a retarded law is a moral dilemma in itself.
Trying to inflate your post count? Seems like good grounds for discussing the importance of maintaining the separation of church and state,
- - - Updated - - -
We have that freedom now.. Say w.e you want but I dont have to listen to you for your right to freedom of speech to be appeased. What are you trying to say here?
That language was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist association in reference to the first amendment, so ya that's the intent.
More specifically there is the constitutional mandate guaranteeing freedom of religion and barring the congress from establishing laws which limit those freedoms, quoted earlier in this thread. These attempt to protect people from State imposed restrictions on their religious freedoms.
What these idiots in Tenn. need to realize, which I know many won't, is that a refusal to allow the Bible to be the state book is not an attack on religious freedom or Christianity, rather it is maintaining the charge of their beloved Constitution.
This really is a bitch move by a bunch of crybabies that are lashing out against the shift in power -- to those who traditionally haven't had any -- that is happening in this generation.
Last edited by Eviscero; 2016-04-06 at 12:33 PM.
Im not a Christian.
But i do believe Christianity has been historically important for the western civilization's stability.
Humans are theistic creatures, our ancestors used their logic to understand the universe and we use ours.
For me Atheism is as much a religion as any other, a new religion based on our current logic which might be right, or might be wrong.
While you live, shine / Have no grief at all / Life exists only for a short while / And time demands its toll.
There is nothing religious about finding this absurd and rejecting it. There are no dogmas in atheism. When you say "for me, atheism is...", this just shows you don't know what a religion is. Logic isn't a dogma, it is a tool for thinking, that gets measurable results. Applying logic to thinking generally improves the thinking. There is nothing you need to believe on insufficient evidence to see logic for what it is. Logic in itself isn't right or wrong, it is simply a way of thinking. It can be applied wrongly, sure, but in itself it isn't wrong. No one worships it. No one kills others for not accepting the existence of logic (even though logic is everywhere), or denies rights to people because the logic returned false.
For you, none of that might matter. It simply proves however that you don't know what religion is. For me, cats are dogs. I am objectively wrong, just as you are.
So proud of my backwater hell-hole state! Sounds like our state legislature needs to reread the Constitution.