https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/04/project-blitz-the-legislative-assault-by-christian-nationalists-to-reshape-america


"A playbook known as Project Blitz, developed by a collection of Christian groups, has provided state politicians with a set of off-the-shelf pro-Christian “model bills”.

Some legislation uses verbatim language from the “model bills” created by a group called the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation (CPCF), set up by a former Republican congressman which has a stated aim to “protect religious freedom, preserve America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and promote prayer”.

At least 75 bills have been brought forward in more than 20 states during 2017 and 2018 which appear to be modelled on or have similar objectives to the playbook, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a campaign group which tracks legislation that undermines the principle of separation of church and state.

Opponents warn that the CPCF (which claims more than 600 politicians as members across state legislatures ) is using the banner of “religious freedom” to impose Christianity on American public, political and cultural life.

In Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and Tennessee, so-called “In God We Trust” bills have become law since 2017, which will see the phrase emblazoned on public buildings, hung in schools and displayed on the side of public vehicles including police cars.

But the Project Blitz playbook sees those largely symbolic bills as just the first stage on the way to more hardline laws. They are presented as measures to preserve religious liberty, but are intended to give businesses, pastors and childcare providers the right to discriminate against LGBT people in line with their “sincerely held religious beliefs”.

This sounds like a page out of the old John Birch Society handbook. The ghost of Ezra still haunts us.

It felt so incredibly liberating, to realize that I no longer HAD to be a Mormon, or for that matter, anything else.

My first decade or so, I wasn't anything. We didn't go to church, pray, or talk about God. Then my mother got it into her head that I needed to go to church. My best friends at the time were a family of three girls (one my age, one older, and one younger) who were Catholics. They were always bitching about how much they hated Catechism.

So, when my mother tried to make me go to Sunday school, I adamantly refused. Regular church service, OK. Sunday school, nuh-uh.

When I was married to husband the first, we were Presbyterians. We were pretty chummy with the minister at the church, and his wife, and hung out with them socially sometimes. However, this minister was pretty liberal, and my now-ex was becoming more and more conservative. And our marriage was crumbling.

Just after our divorce, (literally, only a day or two into my new home) the mishies appeared on my porch. I was not in a good place, emotionally, and I think the new "friends" and activities in the church probably saved me from despair and possibly suicide. They were wonderful people. (This was my first ward, in the Deep South. A lot of it was Southern warmth, and the fact that most of the members were converts.)

When I moved closer to Utah, in a job transfer, I landed in a ward that was much stricter, and by-the-book. It didn't have the warm, family-like feeling to it. The people seemed cold, uncaring about the newly arrived member from the South. They had their established cliques and didn't really care about newbies.

I found my wonderful TBM husband there, and I wouldn't part with him voluntarily. Happily married for going on 27 years now.

But religion just isn't there for me, anymore. The Mormon church drained the last of my ability to believe. Now, I'm more or less indifferent. I don't even worry about religious issues any more.

In America, we are free to choose - and I have chosen to not participate. I don't want these religious wonks trying to nag me into any form of religious participation. I'm doing just fine without it, thank you.

Secular people gonna be secular.

Let's welcome the diversity of ideas and open debate. Surely you wouldn't seek to silence other points of view simply because you disagree with them? You think religious people are wrong and immoral, many of them will think the same about you. Let's see who can be persuaded, and keep an open dialog.

It's kinda funny that a big part of this push is to simply emphasize some of the historical documents that were of great relevance for the founding of our country. Of course the problem there is that many of these documents are laced with references to deity. But they're history, so we should let kids understand the path that led to where we are today.

Religious person: I don't believe people should wear blue.

Secular person: OK, don't wear blue.

Religious person: God does not want anyone wearing blue. You are wearing blue. We must make a law to forbid blue and please God.

Secular person: I'm all for making sure you don't have to wear blue, but it needs to stop there.

Religious person: A "historical person" who was important agrees with me.

Secular person: Be ready to accept it when some other person believes God hates green. Do you want law based on something you don't believe in?

Religious person: There is one God and He agrees with me. We must obey God and impose His laws.

Secular person:...walks to a store and buys 4 blue shirts...

^This!^

Some religious people believe that way, but certainly not all. You are grossly stereotyping. BTW, there are a few atheists,some on this board, who are pretty rigid too and want everyone to agree with them.BTW, I am no fan of the religious right and neither are many religious people



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2018 01:17AM by bona dea.

You are quick to defend religions, especially the Catholic religion, which is one of the most repressive organizations toward women in existence.

Birth control access for everyone is more important than cake to many people. Your support and defense of Catholics empower and enable religions to continue to repress, discriminate, and push their religious views on others.

Your lectures about how tolerant you are must be weighed with your efforts to keep enabling religions to impose their views on others. I'm not convinced that a lot of religious people are tolerant as you say. Their actions throughout the world demonstrate otherwise as they continue to blur religious tolerance for religious power.

BS. I have never defended the Catholic position on birth control. I do not agree with it. What I said is that most Catholics ignore the church on that issue and.polls back me up. Also, that one issue while wrong doesnt define the Catholic church or religion in general . Unlike you, I try to be fair and see both the good and bad instead of engaging black and white thinking ie, 'they are wrong about birth control so they are evil.'The Catholic church does a lot of good and you would know that if you bothered to educated yourself. So do many other churches



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2018 03:22PM by bona dea.

https://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

Also when you start condemning misogyny among atheists and Dawkins in particular, I will take your views on misogyny in religion a lot more seriously. Arent you enabling their anti women views? Maybe it is just a matter of no one or no organization getting everything right.Younaccept the good and condemn the bad.

Secular person: I'm in favor of gay marriage

Religious person: I'm not, but to each their own.

Secular person: I need you to create a special cake for my gay wedding.

Religious person: Didn't you just drive past a dozen other bakeries that will gladly do this?

Secular person: Yes, but that's not the point. YOU are required to make a special cake to be used in my ceremony. Those other bakeries already agree with me.

Religious person: But that's the point. I disagree with your ceremony, and prefer not to. And you have dozens of other bakers who will. If you'd really like one of my cakes, please help yourself to one of these other ready-made ones I have. I choose not to use my talents to create a personalized one for your ceremony.

Secular person: No, you must be forced to comply with my wishes, and you cannot dissent. Your labors must be provided or I'll shut you down.

Supreme Court: Nope.

Or is that just for some people?

What about a neutral, secular non religious government that favours no religion?

Religious person decides to run a private business catering to select clients.

Problem solved.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/hey-christian-business-owners-the-government-isn-t-forcing-you-to-do-anything



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2018 09:53PM by anybody.

Secular person: I'm in favor of gay marriage.

Religious person: I'm not, but to each their own unless they want to buy something.

Secular person: OK, don't marry someone of your same sex but it stops there.

Religious person: That's not enough! It bothers me so much that I can't even make a cake for you because you are not following my rules.

Secular person: Would it bother you if people discriminated against Christians if people don't agree with Christian views?

Religious person: But that's not the point. I'm right because God agrees with me about gays. I'm not farsighted enough see how this would be if businesses turned against MY views.

Secular person: Be careful what you wish for, friend.

Supreme Court: Christian views offend you? We must be fair. You can refuse to serve them.

Plenty of religious people disagree with that baker.

The supreme court did not say "nope." It explicitly said it was not ruling on the substance of the issue.

Whether the baker acted legally or not is a question that the court will address in the future. To characterize its present position as either positive or negative is premature and hence incorrect.

Discrimination is not viable economically today and would lead to legal segregation.


You say you want debate, discussion, etc.


All I've heard from you amounts to using religion as an excuse to discriminate and isn't really based on faith.


If you want to run a *public* business in a *secular* society you are obligated to serve the *public*.


Previous subtle discrimination examples:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I._Bill


BTW, the last time I looked the colour of money was green and it didn't have a sexual preference.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2018 10:29PM by anybody.

Yes.

The supreme court will not decide whether the bakery is "shut down." The market will do that.

And the market is, legitimately, the summation of individuals and their political and social views.

Is the morg involved with this!???