Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 09:53AM

Is it faith or hate?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: CrispingPin ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 10:22AM

The same way I’d define any other freedom: do or say whatever you want, but don’t use your “freedom” to limit mine.

A couple of examples: you can believe that any day of the week, month, or year is a holy day or the sabbath, but your “freedom” doesn’t give to the right to enact laws that prevent people from doing what they choose to do that day (like preventing liquor sales on Sunday).

You are free to think whatever you like about certain groups of people: you are free to believe that black skin is a curse, or that gays are going to hell, you are free to exclude them from your social group, but you aren’t free to discriminate in public matters and policy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: summer ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 10:53AM

>>The same way I’d define any other freedom: do or say whatever you want, but don’t use your “freedom” to limit mine.

I feel the same way. Where religion meets public policy becomes the sticking point. I feel that certain Christians in this country are often too used to getting their way when it comes to public policy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: thedesertrat1 ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 10:37PM

religiously: you may do anything you want SO LONG AS You do not attempt to "FORCEABLY" interfere with the rights of another human being.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2021 10:39PM by thedesertrat1.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 11:01AM

Discriminating against gays, by refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: oxymormon ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 11:23AM

The way the term is currently used, it means:

"I want to openly hate without any consequences"

I don't now how marginalized groups attaining the right to be without persecution threatens or hurts religious people at all, but one can not expect rational thought from a group of people that believe a jewish zombie will reward them with everlasting glory IF they acknowledge he is their god by symbolically eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 12:39PM

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it faith or hate?
Hate disguised as “Faith”.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 12:47PM

I think it means freedom to pick a tribe for cultural belonging and answers to the unknown. Also, it means they have the ability to pull the faith card for protection no matter what nonsense they want to justify.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Done & Done ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 02:07PM

The old definition: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Mormons want to be able to legally slug you in the nose as hard as they want and have you be held responsible for having your nose in the way, and, be ashamed of even having a nose, as well as paying for any damage done to their fist.

Religious Freedom to Mormons means EXEMPT FROM DECENCY.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 02:43PM

It is all power struggle. School prayer was outlawed in schools by various state courts in 1960 or 61. SCOTUS made it national a few years later. We still, 60 years later, have groups doing their best to insert Christian prayers into sporting events and graduations and city council meetings etc etc.

The purpose of all this is to symbolically say "we (Christians) are in charge here, and don't you forget it. We get to pray and government functions and you don't, and further, you can't stop us."

That's what it really boils down to. It is the same reason Utah has weird liquor laws. It is Mormons' way of saying that "we don't like people who drink, but we will allow you to drink, while making it clear we don't approve, and that it is in fact we who allow you unwashed heathens your taste of demon rum."


It's all about who gets to have the top layer of pee on the fire hydrant.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Done & Done ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 02:47PM

Yup.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Shinehah ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 04:15PM

If I disagree with your faith, I am persecuting you because of your religion. On the other hand, your religion gives you the right to hate my beliefs or lifestyle.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogbloggernli ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 04:29PM

Freedom from Religion.

Keep your religion personal and its fine. Keep it out of public life of others.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: macaRomney ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 06:30PM

I would define it the way it was defined 400 years ago... Soule libertie which is that every Man can believe what he wants without fear of punishment, freedom of thought. Before the glorious revolution there was Laudianism at court. These were the appointed intellectuals and bureaucrats, the intelligentsia, chosen to control England, folks were going to the stocks for the simplest of crimes like having a different opinion from the inteligensia. The ministers were mainly taking ques from the continent so the fashionable idea of the day was the absolute rule of Kings (think Louis XIV). The Laudians expected one religion, one faith, one catechism, patterned closely to the Romish religion. With highly symbolic worship and pomp and pageantry.

But the Whigs/puratists weren't having any of this Popery. They smashed the statues, through rocks through the stain glassed windows, they killed the King and his minister, Laud.

It's the same fight today. People are getting banned from Youtube for saying the wrong thing. Peoples careers are getting destroyed for wearing the wrong Halloween costumes 15 years ago. The Laudians today demand total submission and seek to silence anyone who disagrees. Their goal is social justice.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 09:04PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Shinehah ( )
Date: April 03, 2021 11:26PM

Those who screech 'cancel culture' the loudest always seem to have a list of people they just wish would shut up.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: April 04, 2021 01:13AM

So you don't think people should be held accountable for their hatred ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bradley ( )
Date: April 04, 2021 05:24AM

Only by an angry mob.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: April 04, 2021 03:39AM

For anyone who cares, this history is absolute bunk. Note how magaRomney implicitly discounts Europe and focuses only on England, which fits his belief that the Anglo-Saxons were the only civilized people in the world. But let's go along with that caprice for the time being.


-----------------
> I would define it the way it was defined 400 years
> ago... Soule libertie which is that every Man can
> believe what he wants without fear of punishment,
> freedom of thought.

Recall that magaRomney recently said that the Anglo-Saxons became great through physical violence against other peoples and that they should continue doing that today. It follows that he cannot possibly mean that "every Man [sic]" should be free to "believe what he want[s] without fear of punishment."

Factually, what he says about Soule libertie in the early 17th century is simply wrong. From the middle 16th century onward a refusal to swear that the King/Queen of England was the head of the one true church was defined as treason, punishable by death. Another law in the 1580s stipulated that any loyalty to "Romish religion" was particularly treasonous and subject to capital punishment. You could also be fined substantially more than a year's income for failing to go to CoE services. In fact, England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries was famous for executing more Catholics than any other European country. So no, there was not "religious freedom," nor "freedom of belief," nor "freedom of thought" in England 400 years ago.


------------------
> Before the glorious revolution
> there was Laudianism at court. These were the
> appointed intellectuals and bureaucrats, the
> intelligentsia, chosen to control England, folks
> were going to the stocks for the simplest of
> crimes like having a different opinion from the
> inteligensia.

Again, this is nonsense. The literacy rate in England in the 17th century was not high, and the government punished anyone who printed things it didn't like. The truly educated people were all churchmen and government bureaucrats, so the Laudians and their opponents were equally "inteligensia [sic]." magaRomney's intimation that this was some sort of class struggle between commoners and the elite is the product of a fevered mind and his desire to make everything a struggle between the brave and libertarian Anglo-Saxon people and the dictatorial nobility.


---------------
> The ministers were mainly taking
> ques from the continent so the fashionable idea of
> the day was the absolute rule of Kings (think
> Louis XIV).

You see? Here he says the ministers were oppressing the true English commoners. But the Laudians and their opponents were all from the elite; at various times they were all ministers. And "absolute rule" was not an idea that originated on the continent, or at least solely on the continent: it inhered in the very nature of the English monarchy--which is why you could be executed for not recognizing the king/queen as God's agent on earth.

There were no advocates of freedom of religion in any of the powerful factions in the 17th century.


------------
> But the Whigs/puratists weren't having any of this
> Popery. They smashed the statues, through rocks
> through the stain glassed windows, they killed the
> King and his minister, Laud.

Again, garbled nonsense. Note first that magaRomney started above by praising religious freedom and freedom of thought. But here he applauds the smashing of Catholic churches and violence against Catholic leaders and their followers.

How do you reconcile the contradiction? The only way is to assume that whatever puts magaRomney's heros in power is good and merits the use of violence and whatever contradicts that imperative is evil. He only wants freedom of religion and freedom of speech for people like himself.

Note also how he here puts the execution of Laud AFTER the Glorious Revolution when in fact it had happened occurred over forty years earlier. He is also wrong to insinuate that Laud was in some sense Catholic. He was a protestant reformer.

Having botched the history so thoroughly, watch what maga does below, where he reveals his motives in presenting such fallacies.


------------
> It's the same fight today. People are getting
> banned from Youtube for saying the wrong thing.
> Peoples careers are getting destroyed for wearing
> the wrong Halloween costumes 15 years ago.

What this is really about is not English history but magaRomney's belief that Trump and his supporters represent the one true political faith. He ignores the fact that a private company like Youtube bears no constitutional responsibility to tolerate any sort of speech. He additionally says that those who oppose Trumpism are like Laudians who killed those with whom they disagreed when, in fact, Laud and his main allies were themselves killed by the government.


---------------
> The
> Laudians today demand total submission and seek to
> silence anyone who disagrees.

There's the victimhood again. The thing about magaRomney and his fellow travelers is that they hate being criticized. They also think they deserve power even when they lose elections. And for him criticism by the press, private businesses, or private citizens is illegitimate and should be against the US constitution.

Which he would bury in a flurry of snowflakes.



------------
> Their goal is social
> justice.

Because justice is bad.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2021 05:34AM by Lot's Wife.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: April 04, 2021 01:12AM

There is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: moremany ( )
Date: April 04, 2021 01:50AM

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it faith or hate?

What are these things doing in a conversation about personal freedom?

What does faith have to do with freedom? You either have it or you don't. And hate? What are you taking about?

You can hate you own - or others' - freedoms but still, they exist (technically).

Religious Freedom means you [supposedly] can worship Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime.

If Life is your religion you've got to Love it, or at least live it (like it or not)!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lethbridge Reprobate ( )
Date: April 06, 2021 01:24AM

Not having any religious belief.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **    **  **    **  **     **  **    **  **     ** 
  **  **   ***   **  ***   ***  **   **   **     ** 
   ****    ****  **  **** ****  **  **    **     ** 
    **     ** ** **  ** *** **  *****     **     ** 
    **     **  ****  **     **  **  **     **   **  
    **     **   ***  **     **  **   **     ** **   
    **     **    **  **     **  **    **     ***