Mike Huckabee: U.S. moving toward 'criminalization of Christianity'

[CarolNoel]

Satan, a.k.a. Lucifer.

Yes, he walks amongst us even now.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, he walks amongst us even now.

And he is NY Yankees fan

 

[SuperLuigi]

Regrettably this is modus operandi for Mike Huckabee. Sensationalism, victimization, and being just plain wrong.

:yawn:

That sounds a lot more like liberal candidates.

 

[St_Francis]

From St Francis:

It is a diverse group but what they all have in common is the desire to legislate their ideas on everyone else in a country where there is freedom of religion, and freedom of religion also means freedom *from *religion.

What are the religious right trying to legislate that is imposing religion on others? To say two people of the same sex can’t get married? That’s just a simple statement of fact, but it is true that if the state of marriage had not already deteriorated so much, no one would even think of such a thing.

Mainly, the RR sees that it’s *been *a slippery slope. A few states legalized abortion in a limited way, ok, not good, but tolerable (in the correct sense of the word). Next thing you know, Roe v Wade happens and it’s no linger a small problem; it’s a huge problem!

People killing people is the same whether it’s war, homicide, execution or abortion.

That is simply not true.

I’m not saying that the military involvements in Afghanistan and/or Iraq were right, but war is a totallly diffferent thing from abortion, as is executing people who have committed heinous crimes.

It;’ usually the next reply in these discussions.

The US doesn’t currently have a problem with a lack of population, altho we will have a problem with too many retirees with too few workers to support them. But any way you look at it, babies and children are the future of society and we need to consider them. Having a situation in which they are inadequately protected, a situation in which the best environment is at best not encouraged, is really a bad mark on our society.

I think a lot of children are better off being raised by someone who loves them and has a reasonable amount of common sense. which means a lot of children would be better off never having met their real parents.

Yeah, that’s the argument: compare the worst of parents with the best of people who want to adopt but who were previously not allowed to do so. It’s not as if we have anlack of married heterosexual couples who want to adopt in those cases where parents can’t care for the children.

Just because someone’s paranoid also doesn’t mean that people aren’t out to get them. It just means they have a state of paranoia overlaying any aspect of their existence. Most people could care less about the religious right (except for a good laugh every now and then) as long as they don’t try to foist their ideas on everyone else’s way of life.

Who’s doing the foisting? Small businesses along with the families which own them forced into bankruptcy because they refused to bake a wedding cake for something they didn’t believe in?

Well then, the religious right should breath a real sigh of relief, because by that definition, there are only heterosexual marriages anyway. So what is the complaint, other than shoving ones beliefs on everyone else?

The legal recognition of something which doesn’t exist for the purpose of what? Getting religious people to accept homosexual activity as something other than a sin.

All the best,
Gary

 

[ishii]

Good Afternoon RGCheek" This is typical political rhetoric. Because people are allowed to practice one way of life doesn’t mean that way of life is being forced on people who choose another way of life, for instance Christians. A lot of right wing conservative Christians seem to think that they’re being persecuted simply because they can’t tell everyone else how to live. Christians are allowed to shun any type of lifestyle they like. What we can’t do is tell everyone else what to believe or how to live, and insofar as the sanctity of marriage is concerned, I think most people should worry about how they conduct their own affairs with regard to their marriages and stop worrying about other people’s marriages. Your own house is always a good place to get in order.

All the best,
Gary

The above post is a good example of the type of religious views that the secular left can tolerate. If the mentality above ruled the day in the 19th century then the abolition of slavery would have been delayed a long time. If the mentality above ruled the day in the 1950’s & 60’s then civil rights would have been delayed - for both of those movements were animated and given a moral righteousness - (the inherent dignity of man, e.g.) that came from religious people wanting to tell others how to live. I am glad they succeeded.

Now, its the other way around: the secular left is telling people how to live and what to believe. If you don’t embrace the “marriage” between Dave and Steve then you’ll face a lawsuit and monetary penalties. If you don’t bake a cake that says, “I love gay marriage” (essentially) then you face the penalty of the law.

Having probably given up on trying to change the society, the so-called religious right is now merely trying to live according to their beliefs, such as not having to provide contraception, not having to pay for abortions, embrace faux marriages.

The left likes Christians who pick on traditionalists and call them names. It is much easier to destroy a Church when it is divided.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Good Afternoon St Francis: Well, I have also paid for a couple of wars in my lifetime that I disagreed with, and lots of executions in my lifetime that I have disagreed with but I don’t see the religious right (which is neither religious or right actually) complaining about any of that. With regard to the future of society, I am also familiar with the rather curious idea that we are facing something a declining population crisis. If half the population turned gay (which they won’t) and if there was no such thing as artificial insemination, there would still be 6 billion people on this planet right now, and 91 billion in 45 years.

It all boils down to another general election being on the way. Lacking any cogent plan of attack for the real and practical issues that we all face, the conservatives stir up their base with the three G’s again.

Back to your main point about abortions and the initial subject of gay marriage. I think I can say with confidence that gay marriages produce far fewer abortions than heterosexual marriages.

All the best
Gary

So have you tried to support and elect candidates who are against war and executions? Change the laws? If so, then you are “telling us how to live.” There is a difference between those issues, (which are not always wrong morally) and gay marriage, abortion, etc. which are always wrong. I don’t suspect you’ll agree with me.

Who do you consider to be included in the group, “religious right” ? If you think that includes Catholics on this forum who are inclined to agree with Huckabee, then do understand that you have called some of your fellow Catholics, “not religious.”

Ishii

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The above post is a good example of the type of religious views that the secular left can tolerate. If the mentality above ruled the day in the 19th century then the abolition of slavery would have been delayed a long time. If the mentality above ruled the day in the 1950’s & 60’s then civil rights would have been delayed - for both of those movements were animated and given a moral righteousness - (the inherent dignity of man, e.g.) that came from religious people wanting to tell others how to live. I am glad they succeeded.

Now, its the other way around: the secular left is telling people how to live and what to believe. If you don’t embrace the “marriage” between Dave and Steve then you’ll face a lawsuit and monetary penalties. If you don’t bake a cake that says, “I love gay marriage” (essentially) then you face the penalty of the law.

Having probably given up on trying to change the society, the so-called religious right is now merely trying to live according to their beliefs, such as not having to provide contraception, not having to pay for abortions, embrace faux marriages.

The left likes Christians who pick on traditionalists and call them names. It is much easier to destroy a Church when it is divided.

Ishii

You are using examples where laws that restricted the freedoms of human beings based on their color to laws that push beliefs and lifestyles on other people. Fundamentalists used the Old Testament to justify slavery in the south back in the mid 19th century. Let me be clear. Two gay people getting married doesn’t bar heterosexual people from getting married or from practicing their beliefs. It doesn’t stop churches from declining to perform or recognize same sex marriages. The agenda of the religious fundamentalist right is to tell other people that they should live by their moral standards rather than carry on their lives in their own way. There is a huge difference. And because you call a same sex marriages faux marriages, doesn’t make it any less legitimate or make yours more legitimate. It’s just your opinion, and the rest of society has the right to theirs and the right to live in what way they will. If you think what they’re doing is wrong, then you have every right not do to what they are doing, but you have no right to tell them to act like you. Simple concept.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Good Evening Ishii, St, Francis and Unstoppable II: I read all of your responses and haven’t found any of the arguments compelling. Neither is the rest of society, as more and countries and more and more states within the US recognize same sex unions. Birth control is freely practiced in any state and in many religions and it always will be henceforth. It seems that your logic isn’t holding in the larger public discourse. Now, my argument is that thankfully, the laws in free democracies allow those of us to disagree to decline to marry someone of the same sex and to decline the use of birth control. That means we can still be Catholics. And thankfully it also stops us from making everyone else act like they’re us. Because they’re not us. That’s the whole point. And you can argue about it all you want, but you’ve already lost the battle on birth control and you’re quickly losing the battle on same sex unions. And if you want to convince people to be like us, then you had better start better coming up with some good arguments, because I am a Catholic and subscribe to all the same moral codes you subscribe to, and not even I find these posts very compelling or even very interesting. You simply have to do better.

My stance is that I live my life the way I see fit, and being a Catholic, you know what my views are on these matters. However, I also recognize that a lot of people don’t share my views or your views, but we are free to practice what we believe, and the laws that protect our guarantee live as our faith dictates also protect the views of those who have other religious views and disagree with us. My view on the subject of this thread is that it’s simply paranoia.

All the best,
Gary

 

[ishii]

You are using examples where laws that restricted the freedoms of human beings based on their color to laws that push beliefs and lifestyles on other people. Fundamentalists used the Old Testament to justify slavery in the south back in the mid 19th century. Let me be clear. Two gay people getting married doesn’t bar heterosexual people from getting married or from practicing their beliefs. It doesn’t stop churches from declining to perform or recognize same sex marriages. The agenda of the religious fundamentalist right is to tell other people that they should live by their moral standards rather than carry on their lives in their own way. There is a huge difference. And because you call a same sex marriages faux marriages, doesn’t make it any less legitimate or make yours more legitimate. It’s just your opinion, and the rest of society has the right to theirs and the right to live in what way they will. If you think what they’re doing is wrong, then you have every right not do to what they are doing, but you have no right to tell them to act like you. Simple concept.

All the best,
Gary

Your arguments are unconvincing and wrong - the government is now telling religious people they have act a certain way, which goes against their religious beliefs and if they don’t, they are penalized. This isn’t a bakery or florist trying to prevent two people from having a faux marriage. They are still free to do that in some states (in most cases where the judges overturned the will of the people). *It is about forcing people to go against their religion. * “embrace my faux marriage or I will sue you.” Provide contraceptives as part of your insurance or face the wrath of the state.

What’s happening now is more like if the government had forced people to own slaves. Or forced people to discriminate based on race - against their religious beliefs. Forcing or otherwise coercing an individual to embrace something that is against their religion is to prevent someone from practicing their beliefs.

The secular left has been, and will continue to attack truly religious people. If you don’t believe me, then check out the speech Hillary gave recently in which she said that religious beliefs that don’t conform to the secular left agenda - such as abortion on demand, faux marriages, etc. will have to be changed by “political will.” Such talk is very creepy and Orwellian IMO.

Oddly enough, your arguments actually make sense when applied to gays who demand that the florist provide flowers for their wedding or baker bake the gay wedding cake. They can get their cake or flowers from another baker or florist. Their rights are not being violated. So from that perspective maybe your post has some redeeming value after all, LOL. Probably not.

Again, I’m not responding because I think I can change your views, instead I’m trying to help prevent anyone from being influenced by incorrect, false views.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Good Evening Ishii, St, Francis and Unstoppable II: I read all of your responses and haven’t found any of the arguments compelling. Neither is the rest of society, as more and countries and more and more states within the US recognize same sex unions. Birth control is freely practiced in any state and in many religions and it always will be henceforth. It seems that your logic isn’t holding in the larger public discourse. Now, my argument is that thankfully, the laws in free democracies allow those of us to disagree to decline to marry someone of the same sex and to decline the use of birth control. That means we can still be Catholics. And thankfully it also stops us from making everyone else act like they’re us. Because they’re not us. That’s the whole point. And you can argue about it all you want, but you’ve already lost the battle on birth control and you’re quickly losing the battle on same sex unions. And if you want to convince people to be like us, then you had better start better coming up with some good arguments, because I am a Catholic and subscribe to all the same moral codes you subscribe to, and not even I find these posts very compelling or even very interesting. You simply have to do better.

My stance is that I live my life the way I see fit, and being a Catholic, you know what my views are on these matters. However, I also recognize that a lot of people don’t share my views or your views, but we are free to practice what we believe, and the laws that protect our guarantee live as our faith dictates also protect the views of those who have other religious views and disagree with us. My view on the subject of this thread is that it’s simply paranoia.

All the best,
Gary

What do you mean, “us” ?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Your arguments are unconvincing and wrong - the government is now telling religious people they have act a certain way, which goes against their religious beliefs and if they don’t, they are penalized. This isn’t a bakery or florist trying to prevent two people from having a faux marriage. They are still free to do that in some states (in most cases where the judges overturned the will of the people). *It is about forcing people to go against their religion. * “embrace my faux marriage or I will sue you.” Provide contraceptives as part of your insurance or face the wrath of the state.

What’s happening now is more like if the government had forced people to own slaves. Or forced people to discriminate based on race - against their religious beliefs. Forcing or otherwise coercing an individual to embrace something that is against their religion is to prevent someone from practicing their beliefs.

The secular left has been, and will continue to attack truly religious people. If you don’t believe me, then check out the speech Hillary gave recently in which she said that religious beliefs that don’t conform to the secular left agenda - such as abortion on demand, faux marriages, etc. will have to be changed by “political will.” Such talk is very creepy and Orwellian IMO.

Oddly enough, your arguments actually make sense when applied to gays who demand that the florist provide flowers for their wedding or baker bake the gay wedding cake. They can get their cake or flowers from another baker or florist. Their rights are not being violated. So from that perspective maybe your post has some redeeming value after all, LOL. Probably not.

Again, I’m not responding because I think I can change your views, instead I’m trying to help prevent anyone from being influenced by incorrect, false views.

Ishii

Tell me exactly what the government is making you do that is on conflict with Christian ideals. What are they making you personally do? What Christian morals are you personally in direct violation of Ishii? And if you are in violation of something, who is making you do it?

All the best
Gary

 

[estesbob]

Tell me exactly what the government is making you do that is on conflict with Christian ideals. What are they making you personally do? What Christian morals are you personally in direct violation of Ishii? And if you are in violation of something, who is making you do it?

All the best
Gary

They are requiring me to provide contraception for my employees.

 

[St_Francis]

Good Evening Ishii, St, Francis and Unstoppable II: I read all of your responses and haven’t found any of the arguments compelling. Neither is the rest of society, as more and countries and more and more states within the US recognize same sex unions. Birth control is freely practiced in any state and in many religions and it always will be henceforth. It seems that your logic isn’t holding in the larger public discourse. Now, my argument is that thankfully, the laws in free democracies allow those of us to disagree to decline to marry someone of the same sex and to decline the use of birth control. That means we can still be Catholics. And thankfully it also stops us from making everyone else act like they’re us. Because they’re not us. That’s the whole point. And you can argue about it all you want, but you’ve already lost the battle on birth control and you’re quickly losing the battle on same sex unions. And if you want to convince people to be like us, then you had better start better coming up with some good arguments, because I am a Catholic and subscribe to all the same moral codes you subscribe to, and not even I find these posts very compelling or even very interesting. You simply have to do better.

My stance is that I live my life the way I see fit, and being a Catholic, you know what my views are on these matters. However, I also recognize that a lot of people don’t share my views or your views, but we are free to practice what we believe, and the laws that protect our guarantee live as our faith dictates also protect the views of those who have other religious views and disagree with us. My view on the subject of this thread is that it’s simply paranoia.

All the best,
Gary

You want to play; you want to have you cake and eat it too.

What is the reality you are avoiding? The reality that has been coming down the pike for 50 years or more?

Agree or lose your job9

Agree or lose your business

Teach your children to agree or we will do it for you

Agree or we will change your religious beliefs

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

They are requiring me to provide contraception for my employees.

You mean through health benefits? That’s a joke Estesbob. If you were a Jehovah’s Witness you would also be forced to provide your employees insurance that offers blood transfusions. If you were Jewish you would have to pay people who would use the money to buy non-Kosher foods.

I bet some of your employees use the money you pay them to buy books you don’t approve of, or maybe even porn. Who knows what else people have done with the money you 've given them. You are paying for people’s services. What people do with the paychecks and the healthcare you provide them is on them. Your job is to pay what you owe. This is a ruse I’ve heard before Estesbob, and you’re making it sound like the government is making you hand out condoms and rent motel rooms for your employees. Please come up with something viable or go to bed or go watch some TV something.

All the best
Gary

 

[estesbob]

You mean through health benefits? That’s a joke Estesbob. If you were a Jehovah’s Witness you would also be forced to provide your employees insurance that offers blood transfusions. If you were Jewish you would have to pay people who would use the money to buy non-Kosher foods.

I bet some of your employees use the money you pay them to buy books you don’t approve of, or maybe even porn. Who knows what else people have done with the money you 've given them. You are paying for people’s services. What people do with the paychecks and the healthcare you provide them is on them. Your job is to pay what you owe. This is a ruse I’ve heard before Estesbob, and you’re making it sound like the government is making you hand out condoms and rent motel rooms for your employees. Please come up with something viable or go to bed or go watch some TV something.

All the best
Gary

Not a joke to me I am forced to violate my religious beliefs to but abortificants for my employees.

 

[ishii]

Tell me exactly what the government is making you do that is on conflict with Christian ideals. What are they making you personally do? What Christian morals are you personally in direct violation of Ishii? And if you are in violation of something, who is making you do it?

All the best
Gary

The govt. is forcing the Christian owned baker to embrace gay marriage by baking a gay wedding cake (against their religious beliefs). If they don’t comply, they face a $135,000 fine, and probably will go out of business.

This business was targeted because it was Christian. Muslim bakeries also do not bake gay wedding cakes, but they are left alone because the left views them as oppressed minorities, and also (correctly) views the Catholic church / traditional Christians as the enemy to their agenda.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

You mean through health benefits? That’s a joke Estesbob. If you were a Jehovah’s Witness you would also be forced to provide your employees insurance that offers blood transfusions. If you were Jewish you would have to pay people who would use the money to buy non-Kosher foods.

I bet some of your employees use the money you pay them to buy books you don’t approve of, or maybe even porn. Who knows what else people have done with the money you 've given them. You are paying for people’s services. What people do with the paychecks and the healthcare you provide them is on them. Your job is to pay what you owe. This is a ruse I’ve heard before Estesbob, and you’re making it sound like the government is making you hand out condoms and rent motel rooms for your employees. Please come up with something viable or go to bed or go watch some TV something.

All the best
Gary

Abortion is different from kosher foods, isn’t it?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Abortion is different from kosher foods, isn’t it?

To some people Ishii. That’s the point.

 

[RGCheek]

And he is NY Yankees fan

I thought Obama was a Cubs fan?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The govt. is forcing the Christian owned baker to embrace gay marriage by baking a gay wedding cake (against their religious beliefs). If they don’t comply, they face a $135,000 fine, and probably will go out of business.

This business was targeted because it was Christian. Muslim bakeries also do not bake gay wedding cakes, but they are left alone because the left views them as oppressed minorities, and also (correctly) views the Catholic church / traditional Christians as the enemy to their agenda.

Ishii

The law also allows the Westboro Baptist Church to show up at the funerals of gay people and torment their families. The law also forces gay florists to make floral arrangements for the weddings of fundamentalist extremists who have done everything they can to subjugate gay people. A gay business can’t refuse to serve a profoundly anti-gay congregation or person based on their beliefs or practices. It works both ways Ishii. What you are saying in effect is that business should be able to discriminate about who they serve. Sort of like Selma in the 1960’s I think. I run a business where I provide services to lots of people I disapprove of. It’s the cost of doing business.

All the best
Gary