If something happened that went against what the liberals want, lets say mass genocide of Christians you would defend it.

 

And you'd do the same thing if it happened to Muslims. You two are incredibly similar, just opposite sides of the spectrum.

And you'd do the same thing if it happened to Muslims. You two are incredibly similar, just opposite sides of the spectrum.

 

While I dont certainly believe as the Muslims do, its the United States of America and that is their right. So to say I am on the other end of the spectrum as TTP is correct, but everyone has the same rights.

Oh the irony is strong in this thread. Was not aware some of my Christian friends had ever heard of separation of church and state. Only been about a thousand threads on BGP and this is what it took for some of you to acknowledge the concept.

 

I am not going to comment on this situation because there is no consensus about what happened, was he fired, failed to be hired, etc. etc Well, I won't comment except to say...

 

Let's assume the worst. Let's assume he was fired, from a government job, for his religious beliefs. You all seem to think that is a pretty bad thing. Now, just realize that this is EXACTLY what you all are doing to everyone else more or less all the time.

 

Remember when I posted those links to the law passed in Mississippi? If this guy was fired, from a government job, because his religious beliefs conflicted with the sincere religious belief of his boss, then the firing would be okay.

 

You guys are not the victims of religious oppression, you are the perpetrators of it. That the means by which you oppress others occasionally come back and bite you in the back side is not a tragedy, it is an amusing process to see you all suddenly see the light and the wisdom of separation of church and state.

 

 

Of course he is entitled to his religious beliefs. And of course they should not enter into public life. We should in fact have a world in which there is separation of church and state. I advocate for this separation very consistently.

Oh the irony is strong in this thread. Was not aware some of my Christian friends had ever heard of separation of church and state. Only been about a thousand threads on BGP and this is what it took for some of you to acknowledge the concept.

 

I am not going to comment on this situation because there is no consensus about what happened, was he fired, failed to be hired, etc. etc Well, I won't comment except to say...

 

Let's assume the worst. Let's assume he was fired, from a government job, for his religious beliefs. You all seem to think that is a pretty bad thing. Now, just realize that this is EXACTLY what you all are doing to everyone else more or less all the time.

 

Remember when I posted those links to the law passed in Mississippi? If this guy was fired, from a government job, because his religious beliefs conflicted with the sincere religious belief of his boss, then the firing would be okay.

 

You guys are not the victims of religious oppression, you are the perpetrators of it. That the means by which you oppress others occasionally come back and bite you in the back side is not a tragedy, it is an amusing process to see you all suddenly see the light and the wisdom of separation of church and state.

 

 

Of course he is entitled to his religious beliefs. And of course they should not enter into public life. We should in fact have a world in which there is separation of church and state. I advocate for this separation very consistently.

 

So you say it shouldnt enter into public life, correct? Well then how about praying out loud at a restaurant in a public place. Can people pray at work in a public place?

If he was fired for what he said as a minster by the government it's a direct violation of separation of church and state.

 

Actually, it's a violation of the first amendment times 2.

Oh the irony is strong in this thread. Was not aware some of my Christian friends had ever heard of separation of church and state. Only been about a thousand threads on BGP and this is what it took for some of you to acknowledge the concept.

 

I am not going to comment on this situation because there is no consensus about what happened, was he fired, failed to be hired, etc. etc Well, I won't comment except to say...

 

Let's assume the worst. Let's assume he was fired, from a government job, for his religious beliefs. You all seem to think that is a pretty bad thing. Now, just realize that this is EXACTLY what you all are doing to everyone else more or less all the time.

 

Remember when I posted those links to the law passed in Mississippi? If this guy was fired, from a government job, because his religious beliefs conflicted with the sincere religious belief of his boss, then the firing would be okay.

 

You guys are not the victims of religious oppression, you are the perpetrators of it. That the means by which you oppress others occasionally come back and bite you in the back side is not a tragedy, it is an amusing process to see you all suddenly see the light and the wisdom of separation of church and state.

 

 

Of course he is entitled to his religious beliefs. And of course they should not enter into public life. We should in fact have a world in which there is separation of church and state. I advocate for this separation very consistently.

 

The only problem is you advocate the freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.

 

Myself, if you are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, whatever, that's OK by me. I'm Christian and think everyone should be able to believe as they wish. It doesn't offend me in any way. If anyone believing different than me wants to pray in public, have at it. If there were Muslim kids on a high school football team that wanted to pray before the game, go for it. It doesn't offend me.

 

This is the main difference I see in myself and several atheists. I say worship as you please while several atheists are constantly looking for something to be offended by.

I doubt his belief affected his work at the hospital.

 

Im sure if my doct was gay I would still trust him and not really care.

I doubt his belief affected his work at the hospital.

 

Im sure if my doct was gay I would still trust him and not really care.

The Georgia job likely would have put the doc between a rock and a hard place. In other words, he might well have had to advocate a state position that ran 180 degrees counter to his personal beliefs. Also, it's worth noting, that one can find on youtube speeches by the doc in secular settings. So to argue that he's being discriminated for what he said in church is disingenuous when he's giving similar speeches in front of civic groups.

The Georgia job likely would have put the doc between a rock and a hard place. In other words, he might well have had to advocate a state position that ran 180 degrees counter to his personal beliefs. Also, it's worth noting, that one can find on youtube speeches by the doc in secular settings. So to argue that he's being discriminated for what he said in church is disingenuous when he's giving similar speeches in front of civic groups.

 

TTP that's what you get for bringing facts to a discussion. Did I get this right? I'm not used to using this catchphrase as some other posters.

The Georgia job likely would have put the doc between a rock and a hard place. In other words, he might well have had to advocate a state position that ran 180 degrees counter to his personal beliefs. Also, it's worth noting, that one can find on youtube speeches by the doc in secular settings. So to argue that he's being discriminated for what he said in church is disingenuous when he's giving similar speeches in front of civic groups.

 

What's disingenuous is to act like he's not being discriminated against because of his beliefs. If this were an atheist being treated this way due to his beliefs you would be screaming discrimination from the mountain top.

 

It's discrimination no matter how you want to look at it.

The Georgia job likely would have put the doc between a rock and a hard place. In other words, he might well have had to advocate a state position that ran 180 degrees counter to his personal beliefs. Also, it's worth noting, that one can find on youtube speeches by the doc in secular settings. So to argue that he's being discriminated for what he said in church is disingenuous when he's giving similar speeches in front of civic groups.

 

Relgious beliefs don't stop on the church step. It doesn't matter the setting as long as he wasn't preaching at work. If the context of speech was religious beliefs then it is protected.

Relgious beliefs don't stop on the church step. It doesn't matter the setting as long as he wasn't preaching at work. If the context of speech was religious beliefs then it is protected.

Any bigoted belief can be folded into religion. Just look at the religious denominations in the U.S. in the 1840s and 1850s that were torn asunder over slavery.

 

Sorry, but the First Amendment does not guarantee that your "religious beliefs" are exempt from consequences in a secular setting.

Any bigoted belief can be folded into religion. Just look at the religious denominations in the U.S. in the 1840s and 1850s that were torn asunder over slavery.

 

Sorry, but the First Amendment does not guarantee that your "religious beliefs" are exempt from consequences in a secular setting.

 

Actually when it comes to the relationship of government and religion that's exactly what the constitution says.

Actually when it comes to the relationship of government and religion that's exactly what the constitution says.

The Constitution says no such thing.

The Constitution says no such thing.

 

[h=2]Amendment I[/h]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Seems pretty clear.