Religious Right hypocrites cheer Trump at summit

[Hindsight was 2020]

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

[Hindsight was 2020]

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.

Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others

[Hindsight was 2020]

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.

Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others

I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.

Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"

[Hindsight was 2020]

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.

Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others

I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.

Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"

If what I am "taught on Sunday" shows me a Biblical basis that human life begins at conception, and I am a public official, should I advocate for partial birth abortion in the name of "separation of Church and State"?

Do religious motivations mean that my ideas are automatically disqualified from being incorporated into law or public policy?  Are only folks with secular motivations allowed to experience their ideas being incorporated into law or policy initiatives?  That's what you're actually saying, whether you realize it or not.

Yes that is what I am saying your religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis for policy that effets everyone of whom many wouldn't share those beliefs

[Hindsight was 2020]

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.

Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others

I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.

Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"

If what I am "taught on Sunday" shows me a Biblical basis that human life begins at conception, and I am a public official, should I advocate for partial birth abortion in the name of "separation of Church and State"?

Do religious motivations mean that my ideas are automatically disqualified from being incorporated into law or public policy?  Are only folks with secular motivations allowed to experience their ideas being incorporated into law or policy initiatives?  That's what you're actually saying, whether you realize it or not.

Yes that is what I am saying your religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis for policy that effets everyone of whom many wouldn't share those beliefs

Your belief (A) is not what the First Amendment calls for, (B) not what the Framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind, and (C) is an attempt to rob millions of religious Americans of effective political representation sub silentio. 

Not really your religious convictions can play a role in your policies but it can't be the whole point and since defunding PP and SSM outlawing is solely based on the bible them we have an issue. Also you clearly are ignoraing my whole point: in a pro-choice country you are not forced to have an abortion but in an pro-life country you are being forced to not have one

[Hindsight was 2020]

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.

Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others

I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.

Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"

If what I am "taught on Sunday" shows me a Biblical basis that human life begins at conception, and I am a public official, should I advocate for partial birth abortion in the name of "separation of Church and State"?

Do religious motivations mean that my ideas are automatically disqualified from being incorporated into law or public policy?  Are only folks with secular motivations allowed to experience their ideas being incorporated into law or policy initiatives?  That's what you're actually saying, whether you realize it or not.

Yes that is what I am saying your religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis for policy that effets everyone of whom many wouldn't share those beliefs

Your belief (A) is not what the First Amendment calls for, (B) not what the Framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind, and (C) is an attempt to rob millions of religious Americans of effective political representation sub silentio. 

Not really your religious convictions can play a role in your policies but it can't be the whole point and since defunding PP and SSM outlawing is solely based on the bible them we have an issue. Also you clearly are ignoraing my whole point: in a pro-choice country you are not forced to have an abortion but in an pro-life country you are being forced to not have one

But if life is the most fundamental of rights, and if human life begins at conception (as I believe it does, logically and Biblically), a pro-choice country submits my fundamental rights to popular vote and the whims of others, does it not?

No one is "forced to not have an abortion". 

And there are secular arguments for being pro-life and defunding PP. 

Then don't di it in your own personal life! God why does this point keep not getting through to you that society shouldnt be forced to conform to your views on such a hot button issue?!

[Hindsight was 2020]

I have to take Fuzzy Bear's side in this argument. Not because I support making America a more Christian country or changing our laws to be more reflective of Christian values because I just don't. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional Christian position on the role of government, the way in which Christianity can or should be used to shape policy, and the way Christians are obliged to interact with their body politic.

Secular folks often can't see the forest for the trees. They focus on particular policies piece by piece, treating them as separate entities rather than as part of a whole. Secularists believe that their approach to government, which results in either a libertarian "hands-off" approach or a progressive social reform approach, means that individuals are free to do X or Y. A Christian, if they object to abortion, for example, is free not to have an abortion. So, what's the problem? The traditional Christian perspective, however, doesn't accept the worldview that the laws of society should be free of morality - or that they ever can be. Secularism is a unique worldview that shapes policy in its image just like Christianity. If secularism dominates policy, then it's at the expense of Christianity. For them, separation of church and states means that the state cannot establish a church, mandate attendance, require faith in any particular creed, or anything like that. However, Christianity is a worldview that can and should (in their eyes) shape the government since Christians should strive to propagate their faith and cultivate a more Christian, pious, and holy society whereby Christians may more easily live by their faith.

Telling a traditional Christian to restrict their faith to their homes, churches, and personal lives is expecting them to violate their faith by not spreading the gospel and to submit to an alternative worldview in the societal realm. Just as a secular person would say, "you're free to not use birth control or watch pornography," they'd say, "you're free to not attend church or believe in Jesus." The point is: both are complex worldviews that seek to apply their values to society and shape policies in accordance with their beliefs. They are, also, largely incompatible and have proven to ignite cultural conflict.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying this is how the religious right feels but then FB, Trump, and this summit turns around and freaks out over "sharia law"?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Religious people have a right to have their political views informed by their religion, but their right to do that ends when other people's rights begin.  This is true with anybody's political views.

Ding ding ding