We're Not As Free As We Think: Perhap...

We're Not As Free As We Think: Perhaps Religion Has Something To Do With It

There are 115 comments on the www.opednews.com story from Jan 14, 2013, titled We're Not As Free As We Think: Perhaps Religion Has Something To Do With It. In it, www.opednews.com reports that:

The Fraser Institute and Glen Beck's The Blaze nail it: America is not # 1 in freedom and religion may have a lot to do with it.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.opednews.com.

Chance

Grove City, PA

#21 Jan 14, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, what I understand is that you are whining that your individual freedom to punish people you have chosen to hate is being diminished in favor of their collective freedom to participate in our civil society free from your desire to punish them because you choose to believe God is cool with it. What am I not understanding here? You are insisting on the freedom to be a selfish, mean-spirited prick as a business owner in our shared society. You might think that God gives you that special right, but the Constitution doesn't.
Whatever you wish to call it. I believe the Constitution does give me that freedom. No matter what you or other gays think of it, freedom is freedom. YOU don't get what you want without taking away the freedom of many more people...as long as gays stay on their present path of getting what they want and forcing others to go along with it. Why can't you admit that? Though the more you say, the more I realize you DO understand it and just don't give a damn.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#22 Jan 14, 2013
Hmmmm, you want to impose your religious standards on our nation? Lets think about that for a moment. What other group wants to do the same? Ah, I remember now, the Taliban! So that's what you want our nation to become. really?

What you going to call it, the Christiban?

Whatanidiot!
Chance wrote:
If gays really want freedom in America, you can start by halting the use of words like "homophobe" and "bigot."
censoredagain

Fayetteville, NC

#23 Jan 14, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
To answer your last question, its selling points are rebellion against established religions, license to throw out moral precepts that used to govern sexuality, sticking it to religious people of all persuasions, and the titillation that comes with knowing you are doing something forbidden. I suspect that when gays achieve their goal of "normalizing" gay, that fewer people will be attracted to gay and more will have moved on to sexual activity that is still forbidden and frowned upon - if there is anything left. The pedophiles are hard on your heels to normalize pedophilia - just another sexual orientation.


Not seeing your point at all!! There are other ways do achieve you stated goals above without engaging in same gender sexual activity. I truly believe your are complete wrong on this one point. Almost all the science points to genetic and gestational environment that defines sexuality.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#24 Jan 14, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
When has anyone every been forced to participate in a relationship? You may be forced to not discriminate on who you sell goods to, but that is not participating in the relationship. The only ones who participate in a same sex marriage, for instance, is the couple. The official who performs the ceremony may participate in that limited fashion, but he or she does not participate in the actual relationship, and neither does anyone else.
OK, nit picker, force others to participate in formalizing the relationship.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#25 Jan 14, 2013
david traversa wrote:
<quoted text>Pedophilia could never be a sexual orientation eligible for legalization because it wouldn't involve two consenting adults; don't you know that? Or are you the type that will blabber away in search of "effects" without giving your tiresome verbosity a minute's thought?
Tell that to the fool psychologists who are pushing for it to be called such. http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/587...

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#26 Jan 14, 2013
Chance wrote:
If gays really want freedom in America, you can start by halting the use of words like "homophobe" and "bigot."
I guess you and those like you could stop using words like Queer, Fa@@ot, Fudgepacker, Homo, Limp Wrist and many others as well, right?

See, if I happened to be a cake decorator and you wanted me to make a cake in the design of a Nazi Cross, I should be allowed to refuse you, right? However, you scream that we should be allowed to discriminate against those who violate our person beliefs, but if I did deny you this cake, how fast would you sue me? Be honest now......or any other design that you wanted that I found offensive.....maybe your a Yankee fan and I hate the Yankees or some other stupid reason........a business can't decide who it will do business with.....sorry, but sometimes that's the way it goes!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#27 Jan 14, 2013
censoredagain wrote:
The paradigm of your argument is wrong in regards to freedom.
Really? Enlighten me.
censoredagain wrote:
The question you are posing is why is this discrimination allowed yet other forms of discrimination not, bolstering your position that discrimination based on sexuality should not be allowed.
I point out those other limitations on the individual freedom to discriminate in favor of the greater freedom of those who would be discriminated against to participate in our now much more free society, in order to ask if those other God blessed bigotries were allowed to be quashed without so much a whimper, what makes this one special?
censoredagain wrote:
However if one truly supports individual freedom then one would support the individuals right TO DISCRIMINATE not matter the reason!
If one truly supports individual freedom then one would support the individual freedom to walk into an elementary school and slaughter the first grade classes and anyone else who got in the way. We live in a society dear and for it to be civil, its participants have to act civilly and random acts of punishment and discrimination by bigots wanting the freedom to be bigots does not a civil society make. We limit the individual to do harm unto others for good reason.
censoredagain wrote:
The underpinning of freedom is TOLERANCE and with out tolerance there is no freedom.
Honey, we love you sinners, we just hate your sins. You have the freedom to choose to believe that God hates me so much that you should never be in public with me, let alone do business with me, but I have the right to conduct my business free from being molested by you and your God's choices. That is how a civil society works. Sorry, but we don't have to tolerate those who deliberately do harm to others.
censoredagain wrote:
Tolerance is putting up with those things we dislike or disdain and private discrimination even if something is open to the public is apart of freedom.
I don't see why I should be any more tolerant of a business owner who discriminates against some folk just because God says they can, than I am tolerant of a business owner that rips customers off or commits any other act detrimental to civil society. You are free to believe that God hates me and that He thinks you should have the right to make me as miserable as possible for it, however, I have the right to participate in society too and so, in order to make that society more civil and more free, the collective freedom must take precedent over that of the individual.
censoredagain wrote:
One cannot support freedom by curtailing it.
Nice, neat, fits on a bumper sticker and displays almost as much depth of thought. We curtail the individual freedom to do harm to others in our society so that we have the freedom to have that society. Your notion works only if we're peering from behind the camouflage of heavily fortified caves, free to do whatever in the f*ck comes to mind to one another.
censoredagain wrote:
Either you support individual freedom or you don't!
I insist on the individual freedom to go around randomly mugging people for their fashionable footwear. Either you support individual freedom or you don't is a pretty darn absurd dichotomy, ain't it?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#28 Jan 14, 2013
Chance wrote:
Whatever you wish to call it. I believe the Constitution does give me that freedom. No matter what you or other gays think of it, freedom is freedom. YOU don't get what you want without taking away the freedom of many more people...as long as gays stay on their present path of getting what they want and forcing others to go along with it. Why can't you admit that? Though the more you say, the more I realize you DO understand it and just don't give a damn.
Oh honey, I've known all along that you and your hateful ilk weren't about to go silently into that good night, but screeching, squawking and b*tching the entire way. You're still free to do whatever stupid thing you put your mind to and to run the f*****s out of your business screaming Bible verses at them, or include badly spelled notes invoking hell fire in their take out orders, but we're just making sure there are consequences to such badly chosen exercises of your freedom to be a selfish, self-righteous prick wanting to molest others. Your freedom to be dumb might be limited, but for the rest of us sweetie, that makes us a hell of a lot more free.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#29 Jan 14, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
Go right ahead. If you will carefully reread what I said, perhaps you will then not that I didn't say gays couldn't do whatever they want, the above scenario included. I just said that the USA will rate lower, much lower, on the freedom scale once gays achieve their objectives.
And just WHAT are these scary objectives that have you quaking in your boots?

Spending one's life with his or her love in legal contract?
Not being treated as second class citizens?
Being served a meal or enjoy a party at a restaurant or hotel?
Being able to attend church, if one wants to?
Getting marital tax breaks, that you enjoy, and spousal support and being allowed in your loved one's hospital room?

My, no WONDER you are scared!

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#30 Jan 14, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever you wish to call it. I believe the Constitution does give me that freedom. No matter what you or other gays think of it, freedom is freedom. YOU don't get what you want without taking away the freedom of many more people...as long as gays stay on their present path of getting what they want and forcing others to go along with it. Why can't you admit that? Though the more you say, the more I realize you DO understand it and just don't give a damn.
Just so long as YOUR precious agenda and freedoms are kept, damn anyone else who gets in your way and wishes to have the same freedoms. Got it...selfish to the end.

"I got mine! The rest of you can suck it!" As you pull the ladder up behind you...
Samatha

Dallas, TX

#31 Jan 14, 2013
LGBT intimidation lawsuits threaten free speech

``
July 20, 2012 – Few things in nature are as terrifying as a prolonged drought. Rain is life-giving, a sign of God’s grace, but drought puts life to the test with a slow, consuming fire.
Hence the blazing sun and a deserted town at high noon symbolize a time of trial, a final crisis when an honest man stands alone against the heat.

``
The heat is increasing for those opposed to the normalization of homosexuality. Fewer and fewer people are willing to speak out against a movement which has the power to silence its opponents.
Many leaders of the pro-family movement carefully avoid any discussion of the morality of homosexuality. Instead they prefer subtle sociological, psychological and legal arguments in support of traditional marriage. They do so not because these arguments are effective, but because they fear being called haters.
Their unwillingness to confront the homosexual rights movement gives the final measure of credibility to the canard that “opposition to sodomy is bigotry.”
``
These leaders err greatly by hiding God’s message on homosexuality. Not only do they bring discredit on those who are faithful to God’s word, they also put themselves in jeopardy.
One new tactic used by the homosexual community is to silence free speech. One pro-family leader, Brian Camenker of MassResistance, is being sued for defamation of character for publishing a letter revealing the alleged activities of a homosexual youth organization in Maine. The plaintiff is a registered sex offender in Maine. Camenker, a man with limited means, is faced with losing his website and his livelihood, as well.
``
Another pro-family website, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, has been warned that if it continues to publish the same material, it too will be sued for defamation of character and its web hosting service will be forced to take the website off the internet.
``
Similarly, Dr. Scott Lively, another leading figure in the pro-family movement, is being sued in Federal District Court by an organization called “The Sexual Minorities of Uganda” in what can only be characterized as a frivolous lawsuit and an assault on the First Amendment.
``
These three examples prove that the power of the homosexual rights movement is now so vast and so reckless as to pose a threat to free speech.
``
Although the proposed referendum question exempts the clergy from performing same-sex marriages, this will quickly change. If and when the homosexual rights movement triumphs, any opposition to homosexuality will quickly become a criminal offense as it is now a criminal offense in Canada and England and other countries in Europe. This includes any statement from the pulpit that homosexual acts are sinful. Reading Leviticus aloud in public will then constitute a crime.
``
A movement powerful enough to support a foreign organization in their attempt to suppress the free speech of an American minister can easily silence any pastor, teacher, public official or ordinary citizen who dares say that homosexuality is wrong.
For the leaders of the pro-family movement to use the same message as their opponents — that marriage is good — and that the morality of same-sex marriage is not an issue, is more than a plan for failure. It is active collaboration with those who claim that truth-telling is bigotry and the Bible is hate speech.
When free speech is forbidden, that is precisely the time when one is most obligated to speak out. If neighbors cower in silence, that obligation grows heavier. Kneeling in the dirt and begging for forgiveness will not work, because as every confrontation with evil teaches, appeasement is no solution.

``
After the town has fled, leaving the doors barred and the street deserted, a few will remain to confront an absurdity which can only yield barrenness and sterility.
Homosexual marriage is after all, the final swing of the scythe which cuts an already blighted society to the ground.
Legal Horndog

Alpharetta, GA

#32 Jan 14, 2013
Chance wrote:
The pedophiles are hard on your heels to normalize pedophilia - just another sexual orientation.
Pedophilia; a subset of paraphilia; is the legal title for child abuse; and is not connected to any specific sex orientation
http://www.medicinenet.com/paraphilia/page2.h...

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#33 Jan 14, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, nit picker, force others to participate in formalizing the relationship.
Who is forced to formalize it? Aside from agents of the state that are paid with our tax dollars and must do so for all other groups, i.e. atheists, agnostics, mixed-race, any and all religions? Certainly not any religious denomination.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#34 Jan 14, 2013
HOLY SHINOLA

Read your own damned link. On that page is not one single attributable comment on this issue.

You're not dealing with a bunch of idiots here. You have, once again, proven that you're a fool.
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to the fool psychologists who are pushing for it to be called such. http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/587...
Chance

Grove City, PA

#35 Jan 14, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you and those like you could stop using words like Queer, Fa@@ot, Fudgepacker, Homo, Limp Wrist and many others as well, right?
See, if I happened to be a cake decorator and you wanted me to make a cake in the design of a Nazi Cross, I should be allowed to refuse you, right? However, you scream that we should be allowed to discriminate against those who violate our person beliefs, but if I did deny you this cake, how fast would you sue me? Be honest now......or any other design that you wanted that I found offensive.....maybe your a Yankee fan and I hate the Yankees or some other stupid reason........a business can't decide who it will do business with.....sorry, but sometimes that's the way it goes!!!
I honestly don't use those words except to refer to Home Depot as Homo Depot. The only place I ever see or hear the word queer is when gays refer to themselves and other gays. Nobody I know uses any of the words you listed.

I emphatically disagree that businesses can't decide who to do business with. For your information, they often do and that is perfectly fine. If somebody didn't want to do business with me if I wanted something Christian done (I would never want Nazi), then I would simply be grateful that they prevented me from supporting someone that I don't admire or respect. It is ridiculous to have lawsuits about such matters. All that does is make lawyers richer.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#36 Jan 14, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>And just WHAT are these scary objectives that have you quaking in your boots?
Spending one's life with his or her love in legal contract?
Not being treated as second class citizens?
Being served a meal or enjoy a party at a restaurant or hotel?
Being able to attend church, if one wants to?
Getting marital tax breaks, that you enjoy, and spousal support and being allowed in your loved one's hospital room?
My, no WONDER you are scared!
The loss of the protection of free speech.
The loss of the option to worship as one pleases.
The loss of being able to have one's own opinions.
The loss of the right to free association.
The loss of the right to raise children according to one's own convictions.
The loss of the right to run one's business according to one's beliefs.

Know this: You may end up accomplishing all of the above scary things for people like me, but you will never, EVER change my thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and convictions. Only God can do that, and so far He is loud and clear - homosexual behavior is an abomination and a sin against God and self. To desecrate one of God's own institutions, marriage, by changing its purpose and meaning to apply to same-gender couples is an even greater insult. Yeah, I know. None of you care, and you don't even care about the loss of the rights I listed above. You have to understand, though, that once you have taken away those rights for people like me, you have also jeopardized them for yourself. You are asking Man to give you something that God did not provide. That is hubris. What Man giveth, Man can take away. I believe that when it becomes apparent this country is going down, the populace will turn on the gays and things will be much worse for you then than they are now. You should have quit while you were ahead. There's a reason why homosexuals have had to hide throughout history. One day you will find out in person why that is.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#37 Jan 14, 2013
TomInElPaso wrote:
HOLY SHINOLA
Read your own damned link. On that page is not one single attributable comment on this issue.
You're not dealing with a bunch of idiots here. You have, once again, proven that you're a fool.
<quoted text>
You are a liar.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#38 Jan 14, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is forced to formalize it? Aside from agents of the state that are paid with our tax dollars and must do so for all other groups, i.e. atheists, agnostics, mixed-race, any and all religions? Certainly not any religious denomination.
Oh? And you're not one of those gays who think that tax-exempt status should be taken away from churches that refuse to marry gays?
Chance

Grove City, PA

#39 Jan 14, 2013
Samatha wrote:
LGBT intimidation lawsuits threaten free speech
``
July 20, 2012 – Few things in nature are as terrifying as a prolonged drought. Rain is life-giving, a sign of God’s grace, but drought puts life to the test with a slow, consuming fire.
Hence the blazing sun and a deserted town at high noon symbolize a time of trial, a final crisis when an honest man stands alone against the heat.
``
.......
Although the proposed referendum question exempts the clergy from performing same-sex marriages, this will quickly change. If and when the homosexual rights movement triumphs, any opposition to homosexuality will quickly become a criminal offense as it is now a criminal offense in Canada and England and other countries in Europe. This includes any statement from the pulpit that homosexual acts are sinful. Reading Leviticus aloud in public will then constitute a crime.
``
A movement powerful enough to support a foreign organization in their attempt to suppress the free speech of an American minister can easily silence any pastor, teacher, public official or ordinary citizen who dares say that homosexuality is wrong.
For the leaders of the pro-family movement to use the same message as their opponents — that marriage is good — and that the morality of same-sex marriage is not an issue, is more than a plan for failure. It is active collaboration with those who claim that truth-telling is bigotry and the Bible is hate speech.
When free speech is forbidden, that is precisely the time when one is most obligated to speak out. If neighbors cower in silence, that obligation grows heavier. Kneeling in the dirt and begging for forgiveness will not work, because as every confrontation with evil teaches, appeasement is no solution.
``
After the town has fled, leaving the doors barred and the street deserted, a few will remain to confront an absurdity which can only yield barrenness and sterility.
Homosexual marriage is after all, the final swing of the scythe which cuts an already blighted society to the ground.
Shortened for space
There you go! Thanks for posting that.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#40 Jan 14, 2013
Nope, you don't have any proof of what your saying. I'd say we all know who the liar is here.
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 13 min Wondering 7,988
News Boy Scouts expected to end ban on gay leaders 16 min Wondering 27
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 23 min Wondering 590
Was Topix Not Working Earlier this Evening For ... 2 hr Fa-Foxy 3
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 3 hr tongangodz 6,455
News Boy Scouts of America ends ban on gay adults 4 hr Fa-Foxy 2
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 hr RevKen 34,543
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 7 hr nhjeff 1,566
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 10 hr Bob 23,937
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 13 hr WasteWater 1,119
More from around the web