Gen Con Threatens to move if Indiana Gov signs religious freedom bill


Gamer Life General Discussion

501 to 550 of 662 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Aranna wrote:
Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful.

Christian Identity


thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful.
Christian Identity

And the mark of Cain


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful.
Christian Identity
And the mark of Cain

steals candy from baby


thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful.
Christian Identity

Then I pity the legal teams for this looming court battle (if it ever does and wouldn't it have by now since these laws have been around for a while). And having read the wiki... doesn't this logic also exclude a rather large portion of the white population that has no Jewish ancestry or include blacks with a mixed heritage that does have Jewish ancestry? Their logic seems terribly flawed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful.
Christian Identity

Then I pity the legal teams for this looming court battle (if it ever does and wouldn't it have by now since these laws have been around for a while). And having read the wiki... doesn't this logic also exclude a rather large portion of the white population that has no Jewish ancestry or include blacks with a mixed heritage that does have Jewish ancestry? Their logic seems terribly flawed.

what fascinates me about this, and I mean truly, is that so much of this stuff is so recent, when one takes a long view of things.

With respect to your post, this could be the origin of the "one drop" rule.


Race is protected from discrimination on the federal level. Sexual orientation is not.


Aranna wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
That honestly wasn't even my point. I was saying just because Christianity didn't consider being black as sinful, what if other religions did? Should they be able to discriminate against black people under the guise of freedom of religion? Are you only allowed to discriminate against gays or are Christians the only ones allowed freedom of religion?
Of course you seem confused, Freedom of Religion means freedom of ALL religions. Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful. If an Islamic shop turned away a Christian customer for violating some Muslim tradition I would equally support them in doing so.

And once again I ask... Why should this particular rule be allowed to go against the law? There are many examples of acts condoned by the bible that would not only be ilegal, but also considered hedious by any sane person in thos age...

Why should bigotry be treated any differently?

We can't cater to every religion when creating laws, nor ahould we have to do so. Instead, in order to keep everyone able to live peacefully, we apply universal rules and everyone, no matter their religion, has to obey. If your religion is in conflict with the law, then law should always win. There are too many different religions for things to be otherwise.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want my fellow Paizoians to know that if you come to Indiana I will gladly serve you at my business, gay or straight.

I may be just a simple man born in the deep woods of Appalachia, who married his cousin, and sells his product out of a trailer that leaks strange fumes but I am not a backwards bigot with no sense of sociopolitical justice or respect for human rights.

In my opinion all people are created equal and if you can't handle treating people fairly you should take a long, deep, look at yourself and your priorities.

We don't take kindly to your kind around here: The LGBTQ intolerant.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the Bible's word on homosexuality and the need to keep historical context in mind:

Born "eunuchs"

Other arguments, particularly on the viewpoint Paul was operating from and the matter of language drift.

I didn't arrive at my conclusions and convictions I hold through the same methods as the folks those links go to, but arriving in roughly the same area probably saved my life while growing up surrounded by King James Version Only literalism in the same place that gave the world Phil Robertson.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Race is protected from discrimination on the federal level. Sexual orientation is not.

I know. Isn't it horrible how the Federal Government oppresses people for their religious beliefs?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I just find it sad that people are so ignorant of their own history that they can't see how strikingly similar all these arguments are to the ones used in Loving vs Virginia (I mean, I'm from the Uk and I know this s+!!. How can you not know what happened in your own country within your parents' lifetimes if not yours?) Then, people were arguing that the Bible outlawed mix race marriages (so, Aranna, apprently 50 years ago, Christianity was a religion that discriminated on racial lines, at least in some versions) and because of that, they shouldn't be forced to acknowledge such marriages. Same arguments, same bigoted attitudes, hopefully, same end result.


Lemmy wrote:
And once again I ask... Why should this particular rule be allowed to go against the law? There are many examples of acts condoned by the bible that would not only be ilegal, but also considered hedious by any sane person in thos age...

Are you picking and choosing your Laws? This IS now the law in many areas. I suppose if one law is in conflict with another law it is up to the high courts to decide the issue. Although I can't imagine any judge taking racism seriously.

And yes there are many questionable rules from the now out of date part of the Bible that refers to ancient Jewish law. I don't seriously expect anyone to live by ancient Jewish customs... not even the Jews.


Mikaze wrote:

Regarding the Bible's word on homosexuality and the need to keep historical context in mind:

Born "eunuchs"

Other arguments, particularly on the viewpoint Paul was operating from and the matter of language drift.

I didn't arrive at my conclusions and convictions I hold through the same methods as the folks those links go to, but arriving in roughly the same area probably saved my life while growing up surrounded by King James Version Only literalism in the same place that gave the world Phil Robertson.

Thanks I will read this over. I had always assumed "born eunuchs" were asexual people... I hadn't considered they might be gays.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
And once again I ask... Why should this particular rule be allowed to go against the law? There are many examples of acts condoned by the bible that would not only be ilegal, but also considered hedious by any sane person in thos age...
Are you picking and choosing your Laws? This IS now the law in many areas. I suppose if one law is in conflict with another law it is up to the high courts to decide the issue. Although I can't imagine any judge taking racism seriously.

But it's easy to image a judge taking homophobia seriously. Because that's how he interprets the Bible.

And that's the basic problem with this approach to religious freedom laws. Originally the federal version and other state versions were used to keep the government from banning religious practices - keeping people from practicing their religion.

Now they're being abused to permit people to use religion to discriminate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
And once again I ask... Why should this particular rule be allowed to go against the law? There are many examples of acts condoned by the bible that would not only be ilegal, but also considered hedious by any sane person in thos age...

Are you picking and choosing your Laws? This IS now the law in many areas. I suppose if one law is in conflict with another law it is up to the high courts to decide the issue. Although I can't imagine any judge taking racism seriously.

And yes there are many questionable rules from the now out of date part of the Bible that refers to ancient Jewish law. I don't seriously expect anyone to live by ancient Jewish customs... not even the Jews.

Please, don't be willfully obtuse... You know what I meant. Try actually answering my question instead.

In any case, let me rephrase it...

There are many hideous acts condoned by the bible that are deservedly considered criminal and/or abhorrent by modern society. Why should this one (bigotry) be protected by law in the name of "religious freedom" instead of condemned, as we do with all others? What is so special about hating LGBT people that justifies discriminating against them being legally allowed?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful.
Christian Identity
And the mark of Cain

Please, skin color as a the mark of cain?

Now vampirism on the other hand... ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:


And yes there are many questionable rules from the now out of date part of the Bible that refers to ancient Jewish law. I don't seriously expect anyone to live by ancient Jewish customs... not even the Jews.

That part of the bible is no more nor less outdated than the rest. What part of the bible is important and what is going to be conveniently ignored is a personal choice. How are you suppose to tell what intolerance/fundamentalism/discrimination is fine and which is not?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just amazed in the number of non-US citizens posting here. I mean the law compliments a 20+ year old federal law, so to be consistent, I'd guess all the people who oppose the law can't be in the US, right?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Voltron64 wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful.
Christian Identity
And the mark of Cain

Please, skin color as a the mark of cain?

Now vampirism on the other hand... ;)

voltron, you've said too much.

nods subtly to the obfuscated gentlemen standing behind voltron


Matthew Morris wrote:
I'm just amazed in the number of non-US citizens posting here. I mean the law compliments a 20+ year old federal law, so to be consistent, I'd guess all the people who oppose the law can't be in the US, right?

Compliments, but isn't exactly the same. And that law recently got a new interpretation in a Supreme Court ruling, which also took a lot of flak here.

It's disingenuous to pretend it's nothing new.

On the other side, some of people in favor of it are in favor of it on grounds that would invalidate 60 years of civil rights law (businesses should always be allowed to discriminate, as long as the actual law doesn't). I suppose they can't possibly be in the US either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.

The fact that bigotry already exists and is sadly protected by law in some places is no justification for protecting it even more.

I still see no answer to my question. Only attempts to deflect it. Why is homophobia okay when so many other acts described in the bible are not?

If you really think Christians, of all people, are persecuted in the US and that criticism against obviously biggoted laws is an attempt to have "religion torn down", then, holy s@+&, you need a serious reality check!

And it'd be nice if your argument werr consistent with itself... Even assuming that Chriatians are an oppressed minority... How exactly does that justify discrimination against LGBT folk? That's like a gay man saying it's okay to be racist just because homophobia exists.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.

Christianity isn't under attack in the US. Other than not being allowed to set the rules as much as they used to.

I know it's fashionable for Christians to think they're persecuted, but it's also nonsense. Christians are still easily the dominant religion in the country. If anything, they're on the advance.

Or, from another angle, So that's why the Disciples of Christ are protesting the law, they want to tear down religion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is all the argument I need against allowing businesses to discriminate. I'm perfectly happy letting people's ability to know they can shop as they desire regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or nationality override the freedom of businesses to decide not to sell to certain groups.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

Regarding the Bible's word on homosexuality and the need to keep historical context in mind:

Born "eunuchs"

Other arguments, particularly on the viewpoint Paul was operating from and the matter of language drift.

I didn't arrive at my conclusions and convictions I hold through the same methods as the folks those links go to, but arriving in roughly the same area probably saved my life while growing up surrounded by King James Version Only literalism in the same place that gave the world Phil Robertson.

Thanks I will read this over. I had always assumed "born eunuchs" were asexual people... I hadn't considered they might be gays.

Y'know...I figure it covers both to be honest. They very well may have been lumped together or conflated at that time and place. Bouncing back and forth between modern and ancient viewpoints gets complicated fast.

IANAH though.


Aranna wrote:

This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.

Religion is and long has been a protected category alongside race and gender. Every single jurisdiction, including those that forbid LGBT discrimination, also forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. So, just what protections does religion not have compared to everybody else?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You cannot favor a religiously motivated action over a non religiously motivated one. If it is legal to discriminate against someone because their religion says so then its just as legal to discriminate because of ... reasons.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Laws like this wouldn't be an issue if the things people are using religion to justify weren't completely abhorrent.

Can any one think of even one example of a "religious exemption" to a law or social policy that is actually a good thing?

What supporters of these laws want to do has nothing to so with the right to worship the religion of their choice. Instead, they want to use their chosen religion as a way to leverage against laws they do not agree with.

Nothing else but religion gets to do that.

In every case I can think of, religious exemptions are really just thinly veiled excuses for terrible behavior.

So let's call it how it is.

Your religion does not give you the right to discriminate.

Your religion does not give you the right to withhold life-saving medical treatment from your children.

Religious hospitals do not have the right to enforce their values on patients.

Religion does not give business owners the right not to include birth control in company insurance plans.

Religion is not a crowbar.

It is, and should be, personal. If you don't want people telling you that what you believe is wrong then stop thrusting your religion in people's faces and trying to claim the right to be a jerk to other people because of what you believe.

This isn't about liberty and this isn't about government oppression or regulation or creating protected classes of people.

It is about basic human kindness and decency.

If your religion, or your social politics, have you in the situation where you support laws that make it easier for people to discriminate against each other, then you are part of the problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Religion is and long has been a protected category alongside race and gender. Every single jurisdiction, including those that forbid LGBT discrimination, also forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. So, just what protections does religion not have compared to everybody else?

The NAACP, GLAAD, and the ACLU all pay taxes.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
This is all the argument I need against allowing businesses to discriminate. I'm perfectly happy letting people's ability to know they can shop as they desire regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or nationality override the freedom of businesses to decide not to sell to certain groups.

But that was 50 years ago. We're now a post racial country. There's no housing discrimination today.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As a US citizen I'll put in my three cents,

1.While it is true that Christianity is the most popular religion, many of the founding fathers were Atheists or Agnostics using the term God in a neutral non-faith specific manner. The 2nd president John Adams even held Congress in session on Christmas day to demonstrate that Church and State would be kept separate.

2.The Freedom of Religion comes from the Beginning of the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This means that Congress cannot give special privileges towards a single faith and must treat all faiths equally. at the same time Congress cannot create laws that persecute or discriminate towards any religion either. So I tend to raise an eyebrow at people who try to use the Bible in Politics or fear the Establishment of Shria law, since both cases would be unconstitutional.

3.In my own personal opinion, the Hobby Lobby decision which started this whole thing was a great mistake on the part of the supreme court as it doesn't recognize the fact that employees of a business can be persons of a different religious belief than the owner, and prohibiting their employees from services based on their own faith and not their employees to me seems ludicrous and backwards.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I've never been precisely clear on what a Deist is, but apparently a few of them were that.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
I've never been precisely clear on what a Deist is, but apparently a few of them were that.

deism. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ). belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Can any one think of even one example of a "religious exemption" to a law or social policy that is actually a good thing?

Conscientious objector to many of our foreign acts of conquest?


Aranna wrote:
This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.

Thinking more about this: There isn't a "new surge of discrimination". What there is, is old discrimination. Long established prejudice and discrimination being challenged by new laws, often in more urban, liberal enclaves, to protect LGBTQ rights. Those protections are now imperiled by this new interpretation of religious freedom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Can any one think of even one example of a "religious exemption" to a law or social policy that is actually a good thing?
Conscientious objector to many of our foreign acts of conquest?

Exemptions to the drug laws for the use of peyote as a sacrament in Native American religions.

More generally though, that's something of a trick question. It depends largely on your opinion of the law in question. If you're opposed to birth control, religious exemptions permitting pharmacists to refuse to sell it may seem like a great idea. Banning its sale entirely may also seem like a great idea. If you think birth control is a basic part of healthcare, allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill a valid prescription seems insane.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Can any one think of even one example of a "religious exemption" to a law or social policy that is actually a good thing?
Conscientious objector to many of our foreign acts of conquest?

I don't think that exemption actually requires religion. I'm not saying it isn't a reason. Im just saying it isn't something religions claim that nobody else does.

In fact, I don't remember a reason being neccessary at all. Conscientious Objector was just a box you could check on the selective service registration form. It doesn't even ask for justification. Just yes or no.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:

This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.

Thinking more about this: There isn't a "new surge of discrimination". What there is, is old discrimination. Long established prejudice and discrimination being challenged by new laws, often in more urban, liberal enclaves, to protect LGBTQ rights. Those protections are now imperiled by this new interpretation of religious freedom.

Exactly. Someone upthread was asking if there had been an upsurge in discrimination in, say, Texas when a similar law was passed there, and I couldn't stop giggling for five minutes. I grew up in Texas -- an upsurge in religious-based discrimination would be difficult to arrange without enacting sharia law.

These laws aren't enabling new discrimination. They are preventing making things safer for those of us already being discriminated against.

We can (and should) talk about the theoretical implications of all this, but everyone should understand, for some of us in this conversation, we are not talking about hypotheticals.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Can any one think of even one example of a "religious exemption" to a law or social policy that is actually a good thing?
Conscientious objector to many of our foreign acts of conquest?

I don't think that exemption actually requires religion. I'm not saying it isn't a reason. Im just saying it isn't something religions claim that nobody else does.

In fact, I don't remember a reason being neccessary at all. Conscientious Objector was just a box you could check on the selective service registration form. It doesn't even ask for justification. Just yes or no.

But to actually get out of military service using Conscientious Objector status is a lot more involved. I believe you have to go through a hearing and prove that you have a long-standing religiously-motivated belief in pacifism, and not a sudden conversion of convenience.

Since we don't currently have a draft, though, no one has to do that at the moment.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

This entire controversy rests on false pretenses. The law doesn't protect business owners that discriminate people. It just says a government entity can't burden a person or organization's right to exercise religious freedom. It explicitly says this law operates to protect rights granted by the First Amendment. Discrimination is not protected under the First Amendment because it infringes on the rights of others--that's absolutely clear. Finally, a violation of this law requires an individual to prove the violation caused a significant loss or stress. Even if a private business got fined for refusing service to a gay couple and tried to weaponize that law, they'd have to conclusively prove the government was unjustified in the court of law and they wouldn't be able to sue the gay couple for the fine since the law explicitly says they'd have to sue the government entity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
This entire controversy rests on false pretenses. The law doesn't protect business owners that discriminate people. It just says a government entity can't burden a person or organization's right to exercise religious freedom. It explicitly says this law operates to protect rights granted by the First Amendment. Discrimination is not protected under the First Amendment because it infringes on the rights of others--that's absolutely clear. Finally, a violation of this law requires an individual to prove the violation caused a significant loss or stress. Even if a private business got fined for refusing service to a gay couple and tried to weaponize that law, they'd have to conclusively prove the government was unjustified in the court of law and they wouldn't be able to sue the gay couple for the fine since the law explicitly says they'd have to sue the government entity.

But when the person being discriminated against sues the business under the existing local non-discrimination law, the business invokes this law to claim the local non-discrimination law isn't valid.

Sure, the gay couple doesn't get sued, but they also get discriminated against with no redress.


Cyrad wrote:
Discrimination is not protected under the First Amendment because it infringes on the rights of others

This would be true if different right never came into conflict with each other, but the fact is that they do. Laws are really nothing more than settling how to deal with competing rights when it comes down to it. Its very possible to use ones freedom of speech or freedom of the press to discriminate against people and infringe on their rights.

Silver Crusade

Personal religious freedom is no excuse to allow public discrimination. Indiana blew it. GEN CON needs to leave Indiana ASAP.

Next the 'good christian' owners of the convention center will take religious offense to people talking about magic on their premises... and no dressing up as anyone but the apostles... welcome to Sharia law, Indiana!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:


The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays.

My Bible includes this provision:

The Book of Samnell, 1:1-6 wrote:
Thou shalt patronize the businesses of bigots unimpeded by their hatred, under the smiling eye of the state, and call forth from the state wrathful castigations should they deny you. Further thou shalt take pleasure in their lamentations. On hearing them thou shalt go unto the internet and learn of their taboos, that thou offendest them most.

Where's my freedom of religion? I want me some American values!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Do you have a personal view?
My view is that while I would like the government to not manage peoples businesses, when we actually tried that it hurt a lot of people. At one point I thought we were past needing it, but a number of events convinced me otherwise.
Given the basic tribal nature of humanity, I doubt it will ever be past needing this kind of regulation.

Certainly true.

And more fodder for my healthy cynicism. :)

zergtitan wrote:
1.While it is true that Christianity is the most popular religion, many of the founding fathers were Atheists or Agnostics using the term God in a neutral non-faith specific manner. The 2nd president John Adams even held Congress in session on Christmas day to demonstrate that Church and State would be kept separate.

Then why did they all swear an oath of office with their hand on a bible?

Or did they? Seems like most did. My Google-Fu is too weak, as I'm getting too many seemingly irrelevant hits in my search attempts.

zergtitan wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I've never been precisely clear on what a Deist is, but apparently a few of them were that.
deism. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ). belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

I think most of them would be more properly classed as Christian Theists. Deism had a peculiar Jesus-flavor to it in those days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voltron64 wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful.
Christian Identity
And the mark of Cain

Please, skin color as a the mark of cain?

Now vampirism on the other hand... ;)

Even among the undead, the patriarchy is active.

Mark of "Cain" indeed. Ahi hay Lilitu.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
zergtitan wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I've never been precisely clear on what a Deist is, but apparently a few of them were that.
deism. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ). belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
I think most of them would be more properly classed as Christian Theists. Deism had a peculiar Jesus-flavor to it in those days.

We claim quite a few of them for the Unitarian tradition, but I've never been clear if that is how they self-identified.

A little googling tells me John Adams and John Quincy Adams probably formally converted, and that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison at the very least incorporated a lot of Unitarian teachings into their writings.

But as you say, at that time the Unitarian church was still implicitly Christian.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
zergtitan wrote:
1.While it is true that Christianity is the most popular religion, many of the founding fathers were Atheists or Agnostics using the term God in a neutral non-faith specific manner. The 2nd president John Adams even held Congress in session on Christmas day to demonstrate that Church and State would be kept separate.

Then why did they all swear an oath of office with their hand on a bible?

Or did they? Seems like most did. My Google-Fu is too weak, as I'm getting too many seemingly irrelevant hits in my search attempts.

Actually it doesn't have to be used at inauguration at all, it just so happens that for all of our history most of our presidents swore on a bible. Theadore Roosevelt didn't use a bible when he was inaugurated. And John Adams used a law book.

But the bible being present is not a requirement.

Evidence


Aranna wrote:

Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is.

This statement is as false as it is repugnant. I don't think there's any point in me continuing to discuss this particular topic with someone that holds this view, no offence intended Aranna.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
zergtitan wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I've never been precisely clear on what a Deist is, but apparently a few of them were that.
deism. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ). belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
I think most of them would be more properly classed as Christian Theists. Deism had a peculiar Jesus-flavor to it in those days.

The word "God" is the English word for a great divine spirit or deity. The word God is also used in other religions, Yaweh is the Hebrew word for God, Allah is the Arabic word for God. If the founding fathers wanted to refer in particular to a Christian God they would have used terms such as "God the Father" "Holy Father" "Father of Christ" "Jesus Christ" and so on. Terms that are not shared by every other monotheistic typically Abrahamic faith.

501 to 550 of 662 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Gen Con Threatens to move if Indiana Gov signs religious freedom bill All Messageboards