Biden Projected Winner, Rollbacks on Pro-Life and Religious Liberty Protections Expected

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zake said:
I did not want to use such harsh words. But it might be interesting to explore, why is there a need for a special protection for religious ideas?
Click to expand...
And this is why your side is losing religious voters.
 
StudentMI said:
And this is why your side is losing religious voters.
Click to expand...
Only some percentage of them. But most people are quite happy with the limitations imposed by society. They realize that the limitations protect them, too. Many Catholic women use contraception and some even have abortions.
 
Zake said:
That in a pluralistic and secular society there are different ideas.
Click to expand...
And the secular part of society has the right to impose value judgements on people who disagree because of religious beliefs?
 
StudentMI said:
And the secular part of society has the right to impose value judgements on people who disagree because of religious beliefs?
Click to expand...
Our society IS secular. Not just some “parts” of it. And every society is based upon FORCE, and imposes limitations. The higher number of people agree agree with these limitations, the more stable the society is.
 
Zake said:
why is there a need for a special protection for religious ideas?
Click to expand...
For the same reason as free speech, right to arms, property rights, due process, etc.
The protection prevents government interference in the inherent rights.
 
Zake said:
Our society IS secular. Not just some “parts” of it. And every society is based upon FORCE, and imposes limitations. The higher number of people agree agree with these limitations, the more stable the society is.
Click to expand...
The first right in our Constitution is freedom of religion. That’s how important it was considered.
 
Zake said:
40.png
mercyalways:
The first right in our Constitution is freedom of religion. That’s how important it was considered.
Click to expand...
The question is WHY?)
Click to expand...
No, the questions is why do you appear to disagree with the first right in our Constitution.
[/quote]
 
mercyalways said:
No, the questions is why do you appear to disagree with the first right in our Constitution.
Click to expand...
I did not disagree, nor did I “appear” to disagree. I am interested, why the special consideration for ONE kind of speech?
 
mercyalways said:
It is the basis for all other free speech.
Click to expand...
Why would it be?
YADA said:
Too bad the life of the innocent babies in the womb are not factored into that premise
Click to expand...
You are welcome to do it. And if you would differentiate between the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and child, we could have a mutually polite conversation about it. And we might even find some common ground, too.
 
For myself personally, I differentiate between all those stages of development. I also differentiate between newborn, infant, toddler, tween, teenager, young adult, middle-aged, and elderly. They are all developmental stages of any individual human being.
 
JimG said:
For myself personally, I differentiate between all those stages of development. I also differentiate between newborn, infant, toddler, tween, teenager, young adult, middle-aged, and elderly. They are all developmental stages of any individual human being.
Click to expand...
That is not questioned. What is important is to acknowledge the QUALITATIVE differences between between the stages.
 
Conception to natural death …100% a human person …

If you would stop differentiating between protections afforded in law between species - as in unhatched Condor and Eagle chicks and unborn Killer Whales have more protection in US law than an unborn child - we could have a meaningful conversation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top